Very interesting... my apologies for the coarse tone of my response. I've been told that I can be a little insensitive in discussions. I did not really mean it to be offensive, though I can understand how one would be offended, so again, I apologise.

This really depends on the definition of "informed consent". It was not defined in this document, so I must assume it is defined elsewhere in some pile of legalese of which I am not privy.

The law that is publicly available does not state that testing will be performed on all American citizens. So, I don't understand how the Government, even assuming that everyone is aware of this law, would consider this informed consent.

It says "only if informed consent to the testing was obtained from each human subject in advance of the testing on that subject" which tells me that the subject at least would need to have some idea of what tests were going to be performed on him.

While IANAL, i'm pretty sure acquiescence would only apply if the subject was given legal notice of the type of testing to be performed on him. The law does not specify the type of testing, therefore acquiescence would not apply.

I would like everyone to be aware of how corrupt and downright evil the U.S. government is. And actually, a great number of people have become aware, but I fear this will have little impact.

Fear and impotence...

Change will require something much greater than piling more legalese on top of an already convoluted system.