A reader makes a terrific point about the context of the 1905 Jacobson Supreme Court decision (which upheld Massachusetts's right to force smallpox vaccinations)...
I am an attorney and I have been struggling to come up with a legally feasible way to fight these mandates. When the 7th Circuit denied injunctive relief recently they stated in essence that there is no legally recognizable right not to take a vaccine. The best strategy that I have been able to come up with so far would hinge on recharacterizing these shots as therapies rather than vaccines which is a more scientifically accurate characterization any way. There is a much stronger legal argument to be made for a right to refuse a medical therapy because a therapy only benefits the recipient rather than the community. Since these shots do little (if anything) to prevent contracting or transmitting the virus, they do not function as vaccines. The best analogy I've heard is to using sunscreen to prevent sunburn. Whether I get a sunburn or not has zero correlation to whether somebody else is wearing sunscreen.
Can't go the therapy route. The CDC just changed the definition of "vaccine" to basically include therapies. Someone need to take the CDC to court first to challenge their new definition of "vaccine". Discovery would be incredible. Imagine the arm twisting, threats and coercion that went on behind the scenes to get career workers at the CDC to throw out 100 years of immunology to support this shitshow?
Pretty sure that's why two of the top officials at the FDA just quit.
If they change it back they are still stuck because the shots failed and don't mean the old definition. It was a last ditch effort that I hope backfires.
Not only have the shots “failed” they have KILLED people! Over 13,000 in the US and over 20,000 in the EU!
The ultimate “adverse reaction?” Death.
50 deaths with the Swine Flu vaccine and it was pulled. Thousands of deaths from Walensky’s and Fauci’s Covid jabs and we get a speech from our corrupted “Skeletor in Chief” that HIS “patience is wearing thin”??
Is there something in the water in the US keeping Americans from thinking straight??!
The CDC is a private entity. Their definition might have some persuasive authority, but it is not legally binding. And please understand, I am describing the way our legal system is supposed to work, not the way most of it seems to be currently functioning.
Is taking the CDC or any drug company to court possible while in this stage of the "vaccine" rollouts? I thought that was an impossibility and written in their clauses. This has and never would happen with any other drug trial in history. Like the swine flu drug vaccine, they shut that down after a few deaths.
CDC can't change terms to suit itself and expect it to apply throughout science, but this change still acknowledges their shots are therapies. They undermined their own argument. Will we now mandate multivitamins and outlaw obesity as "vaccines?"
The double negative from the Seventh Circuit doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The Administration's argument is more than a little contradictory. They get away with this per OSHA rules that give the executive agency the authority to adopt rules to protect people in the workplace. The Administration argues unvaccinated people pose an unreasonable danger to other workers. However, they also argue that the vaccines will protect you from contracting the virus. If the latter statement is true, then who are they protecting?
I’m so sorry for you: I have a sister like that. My kid (24) is a “mini-me” (bless him!), but he gets a ration of sh*t from his peers (who are mostly an entire generation older than he is, for reasons.). He manages it well (better then I would), but he’s a little freaked out by the strength of their conviction that they’re right; an inability to see things from another perspective; and an inability to cede ANY common ground.
Jacobson and progeny are a mess especially the court extended the legislative power to protect safety to Congress during the New Deal. Recently, Roberts lazily kicked the can by calling everything, everwhere a pandemic and cited Jacobson.
The better route is challenging executive power to do this (without Congress acting). Chevron can only be extended so far. OSHA has firm criteria on rule-making for safety regulations. Just announcing a new rule without rule-making process, public review, comment etc seems ripe for challenge, especially since it would seem to place safety rule on non-work related (supposed) risks.
There is no legitimate Federal executive *or* legislative authority over public health, except under a twisted 14th Amendment civil rights logic (which would be the immediate end of any limit on Federal power).
The problem is that almost all state constitutions enshrine extensive public health powers - even if implicitly, by not specifically outlining in their bills of rights that the state does not have those powers.
This is why even the treat of court packing is such a danger. With such a threat hanging over them, FDR bullied the supreme court to "find" the federal government had such powers over public health vis-a-vis the commerce clause.
A lot of really good fighters are really bad people. Good people tend to develop other skills, which are more relevant to judicial decisions. Maybe ritual combat would be useful in the legislatures who approve the judges, probably team oriented. Those who make it to high offices don't seem to have many skills except self aggrandizement. Forcing them to cooperate with a team or be captured and converted might improve their perspective.
Not sure "packing" matters. Temporary advantage for the tribe in power when the court is expanded, but it will quickly settle to the even splits we see now with 9. The important thing is all judicial panels disagree internally. Always a majority and minority "opinion" which proves the randomness of judicial processes. Similarly, decisions by a single judge is often overturned by other judges. The objective isn't really justice, just mollifying the majority of the population.
FDR's threat to pack certainly did matter. In response to the threat, 2 justices on the Supreme Court completely reversed course on constitutionality of FDR's proposed New Deal federal regulations
Using OSHA is a huge overstep. Wearing/providing protective equipment in the workplace is great, but this is analogous to forcing workers to "wear a hardhat and carry an eyewash station" 24-hours a day, 7 days a week via these shots, and privatizing the risk/harm.
Worse, requiring these shots under OSHA for remote workers is absurd. Will they be allowed to demand access to private homes of remote workers for spot safety inspections?
Using OSHA is ripe for court challenges and really only serves as a fig leaf for vax-holes to force their policy preferences.
Yep. I have a foundational questions too: where's their evidence for risk significant spread in work place, much less asymptomatic spread? My most educated guess is that there is none. As to remote workers, it's just silly and proves they're not relying on any evidence
The regime's reply is that even if it is a treatment it benefits the community because it keeps you out of the hospital and thus burdening the health care system. This is NOT a valid legal argument but one must recognize that it is the true core of the regime's plan.
No doubt. But at the point they acknowledge that they are not vaccines, their argument gets wobbly. Mandating a therapy to protect the hospitals opens itself up to a lot of truly absurd possibilities. There are arguably a lot of therapies that would reduce hospitalizations. Will they mandate Prozac to decrease suicide attempts? Mandate statins to reduce heart attacks?
The wheels are bobbly, and based Israel data, it's predictable the wheels are about fall off. When the efficacy falls to Israel levels, it'll be hard to argue they're even a therapeutic
Israel data was still supporting strong severe outcome efficacy throughout July, before they rolled out triple-dosing. UK data currently supports it as well. The boosters are unnecessary except assuming malevolent intentions (a desire to speed up vaccine escape selection)
Well, exactly - even after "infection efficacy" plummeted, meaning that the pseudo-vaccinated granted *no* protection from viral challenge, the severe outcome efficacy signal was strong. I did a writeup based on the Israel data mid-July, but it was too conservative in its predictions. However, my rewording of those predictions is still holding up after a month (https://unglossed.substack.com/p/boostermania#footnote-anchor-4).
A comment I left in another forum two days ago is better:
""Negative infection efficacy" achieved after ~4 month post-vaccination mark in England.
A good writeup as far as describing the different ways the report derives "efficacy" and why the real-time efficacy is more important than early or overall figures.
Negative infection efficacy is merely "0 infection efficacy" + per-capita disparity in immunity gains from infection and recovery during the spring and summer. The unvaccinated in England became less potent fuel *per capita* than the pseudo-vaccinated whose protection from symptomatic infection has now evaporated. Temporary protection is always going to be followed by catching up, when will we learn this ("we" meaning the lay citizens being hawked false cures by doctors and experts who just want to destroy our bodies with stress and experimental spike protein bombs).
As before, severe outcome efficacy appears to be holding up, meaning boosters are not necessary (Israel's Ministry of Health likely only rolled them out to avoid the arrival of negative apparent infection efficacy; quite repugnant really)."
Why isn't the fact that OSHA didn't follow its own processes a good argument and/or the ADA and treating nonvax vs vax differently on testing, while data shows vaxed can shed/spread just as much?
These are all good arguments which would/should have come out if OSHA followed the administrative rule-making process. Biden chief of staff admitted this OSHA rule was a "work around" - certainly a work around the Constitution but also a work around of rule-making process.
Klain should be called before Congress to “explain” that tweet especially considering his “boss” (cough!) took an oath to “preserve, protect and DEFEND the Constitution against ALL enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC.”
Those are all valid arguments. My comment was really only focused on finding a legal basis for an immediate injunction. There are multiple factual arguments that the EO is arbitrary or even absurd. The problem, in my experience, is that factual arguments are much more open to "interpretation" by judges without opening them up to a lot of criticism by their peers. The goal, in my opinion anyway, is to find a legal argument that has a good chance. As dysfunctional as most of the legal system is right now, I still believe that if a judge makes a legal interpretation in a written opinion that is unfounded or absurd, they will hear about it. That is not to say that it doesn't happen, but there is at least a higher reputational price to pay.
Yeah, I feel bad for you and anyone who faces this outrageous and probably unconstitutional mandate. They threw in loopholes to evade challenges, e.g. the bi-weekly testing. Until you figure it out, your employer is taking a huge risk if they don't offer you either the bi-weekly testing or an accommodation (WFH).
Arguments like that would always hinge on competing expert witnesses, who would probably show better shedding in the better funded (i.e., vaxed) cases, therefore justified. Seems to me the strongest case would be to demonstrate all cases result from immune deficiencies which are mostly voluntary -- obesity, diabetes, nutrient deficiencies, etc. But the medical industry and their government enablers studiously resist that information, so it would be a tough case.
So far, while the testing detected viral particles, there has been no evidence that any of those swabs were cultured. A recovered person can shed non-infectious particles for a considerable period of time. The nose has immune cells at work too, doesn't it? The claimed spread by the vaccinated is to support the narrative for all to be masked in response to the nervous folk thinking the unvaccinated were not wearing a mask. Tut, tut, can't have that. (IMHO).
The “vaxxed” (cough!) can easily have viral loads in their naso-pharangeal passages. Which is why Walensky said the vaxxed should wear masks: Their “vaccine” is NOT a “vaccine”!
Why does viral load matter if it is inert, incapable of infection? We know what Walensky said, but her stated reason "high viral load" is meaningless without evidence that load could infect. She deduced infectability from totally different situations all based on PCR positive <20. Those recovered from a recent infection can also show up positive (don't know at what PCR cycle count).
Any state that does not include medical freedom/choice in their constitution's bills of rights implicitly has total authority to mandate any medical intervention for "public good," including, say, a lobotomy or whatever you can imagine. "Cruel and unusual punishment" clauses are totally subjective and no judge will ever question whatever the medical establishment says is "safe and effective." The religious freedom argument for natural biological integrity is strong but no rich old man on a court fearing a social media-fueled recall campaign will see it that way.
Illinois enshrines medical choice in the legal code - but expect that to be quickly overturned, since it is not backed by constitutional letter. Every state needs an amendment that actually enshrines medical choice. Has done for over a century. It's just that citizens were more afraid of plagues than their governments and doctors. Ask Mary Mallon how moving to the "land of the free" worked out for her.
The police power of a STATE resides “perpetually and inalienably within [its] legislature;” not as a “policy choice” within the arbitrary “discretion” of an Executive. That was the whole reason for the strict standards: the Judiciary saying "it ain't our job to second guess the legislature."
Legislatures do not issue Executive Orders or mandates; they pass laws.
Yeah. It may not be their job to second guess the legislature as to the separation of power issue, but Jacobsen doesn't answer the question - who protects the individual from unconstitutional use of police power. In later cases, e.g. Brown v. BOE, the Court clearly found that the Judiciary DID have the power second guess state legislatures. So why did Roberts punt on this point?
Roberts' paraphrasing of Jacobson was intellectually dishonest.
Jacobson never implied an equivalence between Governors and State Legislatures by shared property of being “politically accountable officials of the States.”
What i want to see in court challenges is the evidence that there are and have been early, successful treatments all along. This would finally give place for the real story to be told and may be the avenue in which it is done.
Here is a list of the doctors that have pioneered the work and are experts in this. I am sure there are others because it's growing every day.
Pierre Kory, Ryan Cole, Henry Ealy, Dan Stocks, Paul Merrick. Brian Tyson, Richard Urso
There is a case in the Northern District of AL that incorporates this argument into their complaint. America's Frontline Doctors, et al v. Xavier Becerra, et al. The case number is 21-cv-00702-CLM. Unfortunately their motion for Preliminary Injunction was denied, but the case is still ongoing. The relief sought is extensive including declaratory judgment stating that the public health emergency has ceased to exist if it ever existed and therefore the vaccine EUA's are unlawful and terminated. The complaint is very well written in my opinion. I would recommend it to anyone interested in this topic.
I would look at the authorization from the FDA. It appears that they approved the comirnaty and not the Pfizer vaccine which is being challenged by the Childrens Health Defense. The comirnaty is not being offered in the states. Also, as the Nuremberg Code states, no one can mandate a medical procedure unless there is no other option for treatments available. There is mounting evidence and testimony that ivermectin and hydroxy with a combination of vitmain d and zinc cure covid19. Also, if you look at Alberta Canada, they were able to get around all these mandates because scientists and the NIH never isolated covid 19 which means they cannot prove that it exists. If covid did come from a lab which Judicial Watch has evidence of, then that means the vaccine would also be a bioweapon. I have a ton of info should you need it. I hope this helps.
I appreciate that very much. I don't have an actual client in front of me yet because the EO has not gone into effect. There is no standing until someone has actually been impacted by the policy. If, or when a client comes in, I imagine I will be on here and reaching to a lot of you. Most of my practice is in the federal courts, but this is not my normal area of practice. There will be a learning curve for me.
What do you say to the issue of Jacobsen simply finding that the State has the right to fine you, but you still have the right of refusal? That was the actual outcome, was it not?
I believe that is what the case held. But the "fine" imposed under this EO is loss of employment. The fact that Jacobson is the case being cited to support vaccine mandates is absurd to me. But I am certain that there is a judge somewhere that will hold that it is valid and that the "fine" imposed is not unjust. I am not aware of a lot of case law supporting medical therapy mandates other than cases applying to minors where their guardians sought to refuse medical treatment on their behalf.
But you don't catch sunburn from others. And your sunburn is secondary to "everybody else." Another comparison might be if I have a machine gun in my closet to prevent tyranny, it doesn't matter if my neighbor also has one. But the government declares them illegal anyway, and Supremes and "everybody else" happily agree.
The thing about supremes in particular and lawyers in general is they're inherently adversarial, and seldom agree on anything. All the cited cases in this post and others were split, some wide, mostly narrow. It's evidence there is no "truth," and the law and our lives are controlled by random chance. Successful people focus on their own abilities to improve their own odds, and don't wait for government diktats. Those who wait for government salvation are often disappointed.
You're missing the entire point which is that vaccines protect the person who takes them. But now we all know that isn't true, and that they don't work, and more often, they harm the person who gets them. Or kills them.
A successful vaccine not only protects the individual, but stops the spread. The covax sort of do the first, for a little bit, and don’t even contemplate the second. I would agree that they are more akin to a therapeutic than a vax.
Well, the scientific proof for the former is debatable, but for the latter I would point to my local area where the zip codes with the highest vax rates also have the highest case rates. Correlation isn’t causation and all that, but its pretty damn interesting. Then you can look at the data from Mass around the Fourth of July that prompted the CDC to re-recommend masks. 75% of the 400+ cases were vaccinated. So they are transmitting it, and with high viral loads to boot.
What kind of vaccine requires the vaccinated to mask to protect themselves from the unvaccinated? Like, when I get any other vaccine, staying away from infected individuals is not something I am told to do or concerned about.
Vaccines are never perfect. They exercise the natural immune system to improve outcomes. Some immune systems react differently to pathogens, and to vaccines. Never a perfect solution for everyone. The value of every vaccine is measured by the benefit for the many versus the risk for the few -- the greater good. Individuals should try to be among the many, not the few, and to know the difference.
Again: Not the point. The authorities are the ones claiming that vaccines work. So the analogy of sunscreen would be apt. They are not admitting that they don't work.
They do work. Not perfectly, not forever, as the safe space indoctrinated desperately hope for, but relative to the virus, they're a net benefit. That argument would be of the angels on a pin head type. Even sunscreen is more or less beneficial depending on skin type.
A successful case will need to address basic rights, not medical variabilities. Abortion was decided based on the rights of mothers to control herself. Might work for injections too. But it might also overturn Roe. Lots of discussion recently about the dichotomies of "choice."
But the sole benefit to the individual is - if you believe it - that they reduce severity and prevent death. Except that Israel, Singapore and other early Pfizer-jabbed countries, and the UK PHS data, proves that is a lie. Yes, the UK data shows that if you are vaccinated you have a proportionately less chance of getting hospitalised but if you get hospitalised, you have a considerably higher chance of dying.
I don't consider choice a dichotomy. It's a fundamental right, but it must be based on factual real-life information, that like that of the Myths behind the mask - which is actually the jackboot on the face, as Orwell put it...
The other interesting thing is that if you know where to look, it's very clear from articles in the mainstream media (fortunately they don't read each other, so the evidence mounted fast) that the biggest key to the Sydney outbreak that resulted in their current lockdown, was the spread in multiple hospitals by vaccinated staff and that continues to this day, but once the articles started pouring out, the government forbade that discussion.
There are a lot of nurses and doctors with considerable remorse, because they know they spread the virus in the hospitals and they know their transmission resulted in deaths.
And it's my guess that Australia isn't an isolated example because there are now several articles in pubmed describing that situation in USA, Finland and Vietnam...
You might be right about lawyers, but the Court took a precipitous fall from being "apolitical" as it was set up to be, during the Robert Bork confirmation hearings. It only went downhill from there.
Yeah, I agree the sunburn analogy doesn't work, agree lawyers are adversarial (ahem, no offense taken, lol) and also agree people should never count on government for salvation.
Your last statement is the crux of the problem. The issue to me is that the system we have is all that we have to resolve conflicts peacefully. It's currently dysfunctional as hell, but if it fails I don't see any way to avoid violence and chaos.
Oh, it's worse than that. In this country, "experts" are now defined as someone with peer review, who holds an honourable position, pub-med lished research blah blah blah. That ruling came in in about 2017. However, in 2014, I was a witness in a case which came back to court in 2020. In this case it was ruled I could be a witness because the judge had deemed that I was a credible witness.
I was pitted against the country's most esteemed ex-spurt, whose affidavit was total junk with almost zero references... based on, brushing the lapel and quoting WHO qualifications. My affidavid was solid science refuting every single point, and while the cross examination was rough, not once was I tripped.
We left confident that the science was solid and would rule the day, but no. My evidence was ruled OUT, not because the science was bad, but because I didn't fit the new criteria of Expert because of no medical degree, eminent positions, peer acclaim and Bill Gates endorsements via funding etc etc etc.
Right there, you know the judge has bought into the politically RIGHT narrative, which supports the jackboot in the face concept, which to my mind, is very prevalent in everything about this whole deal.
Not one look at the science, or that the expert had everything bassackward.
Ahhh, social justice...if only you were a transwoman, or some other suppressed category. Then all you would need would be to assert your feelings, and they carry the day as facts.
Just wondering if you've considered the following in your legal analysis. They are approaching it under OSHA's emergency power provisions which I guess say if there is grave danger they can put something in the federal register, that can get then litigated while rule making commences. I have not been able to find the OSHA recordable events and under a similar emergency authority OSHA has required employers to record any events (days off, death, hospitalization) if someone catch COVID at work. I would bet if you can get those numbers and compare them to man hours worked, you could easily demonstrate there is no grave danger here...just a thought for you to consider.
If they publish it as ETS without notice and comment, then OSHA will have to cite the data they are relying in finding grave danger of unvaccinated workers (should be an interesting exercise because all workplaces are different and in different locations with different mandates) and that the reg is necessary (no other options). Given the exemptions that have already been announced and the border situation -- how they prove that American workers in some generic work place pose a grave danger and that forced vaccination of said workers is the only option is beyond me.
Cases with conflicts of principle are more likely to get considered by SCOTUS because it is "constitutional." The determination of what how single medication is classified might be decided by a lower court, but so far courts have accepted this as a vaccine so the old idea of vaccine no longer applies. I am not saying Botsford isn't worth pursuing but doubt it could ever go to SCOTUS by itself, and using both might be wise.
The right to bodily sovereignty currently covers treatment but not vaccine. If I were opposing this from Pharma’s side, I would argue that the old notion of vaccine no longer applies, which is why the definition was changed by FDA. If I won my case, it then could be possible to mandate treatments through a slippery slope of changing regulations. IMO all vaccines are treatments, albeit in advance of a condition, and what would be constitutionally correct is bodily sovereignty regardless of the nature or timing of the medical intervention.
I think the 7th circuit erred, but they did not say "there is no legally recognizable right not to take a vaccine." The court said Indiana (the state) did not mandate vaccination and that IU had vax or test/mask policy, along with religious exceptions. 6 of 7 qualified for religious exemption, 7th probably did too but also had test/mask out. The test/mask options could be challenged because it's just not scientifically valid and possibly compelled expression. But still, not the best case to take to the Supreme Court to challenge Jacobson
Yep. Just had an argument (wish it could have been a discussion) about this very topic yesterday. With a true believer. I try to avoid these conflicts but he would not leave me alone re the vaccine. I HAD COVID. I HAVE ANTIBODIES. He accused me of killing him. In fact, he accused me of killing millions of people every day! I yelled, "Are you dead? I've been hiking with you for weeks now! Are you dead???" He then referenced the small pox decision. One cannot have a reasonable discussion with a true believer.
Much easier when asked to say "yes" and change the subject. Arguing it accomplishes nothing, except an emotional outlet for the argumentative. I like to talk about Moderna and phizer stocks. Gives them something constructive to argue about.
The van Damme movie Soldier was fun. He's driving his tank to attack the bad guy. Bad guy says "you're driving toward me, turn left." Good guy says "Roger" and keeps going. Repeats several times until bad guy gets crushed. Our situation is like a bad movie. Lots of wisdom in bad movies.
Next time change the subject, by asking to borrow 20 bucks to go the doctor. Once you get the money. Say you're not getting it, and hopefully they terminate the relationship. Make it even easier by never contacting them again.
It’s important to remember Jacobsen was protesting the $5 fine he had to pay for non compliance, but today people think Jacobsen justifies ANY penalty for the not vaccinated
This. And that is one of the reasons the court upheld the decision. They didn't think the penalty was unreasonable vs the requirement. It would be like if Biden mandated the COVID vaccine, but the penalty was a one time payment of $500 to find some bullshit health initiative. Vs. the current requirement which could cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost employment over the course of your life.
Of course we today live under an Administrative regime (hence the senile mongrel is using OSHA), where the Constitution is a "living and breathing" document, and just a "goddamn piece of paper". So it is quite possible that further unreasonableness rules the day.
LOL at any crayon eater who tries to compare Smallpox to COVID. The infection fatality rate of Smallpox was 30%+. It's even worse than comparing COVID to the Spanish Flu.
Did you know that the Spanish Flu killed 45,000 members of the US military, mostly when they were in camps on US soil (so not horrific battle conditions).
Guess how many members of the US Active /reserve military Covid has killed in 20 months.
34. That's right, 34 total active/reserve military deaths (none under the age of 27) vs 45,000.
The smooth brains will go "but, but, but...we were at war - the military was bigger back then!!! REEEEEEEEE"
Actually it was a bit bigger back then. 2.9 million in 1918 vs 2.1 million in 2020. So let's bump the 34 number up to 45 (which would pretty closely standardize based on a 2.9 million denominator and also keep the math simple).
So 45,000 military deaths from the Spanish flu vs. 45 military deaths (adjusted to 1918 military size) for COVID.
which means the Spanish Flu was 1,000X more deadly than COVID for young and healthy people.
Point is that COVID is dangerous for a specific subset of the population and for other subsets, the risk of serious illness is extremely low.
Let's put it this way. If someone walked up to you right now and said "You have your choice between contracting HIV or COVID (unvaccinated), but you have to choose one." Would you honestly consider taking the HIV option even for a second if you were young and healthy? Of course not. Even the thought is absurd.
Point is that COVID vaccines should be mandated for no one, and should be purely optional.
I just saw a horrifying video of a newborn baby who had clear systemic neurological damage and was experiencing ongoing tremors from head to toe. The mother was forced to take a covid vaccination a month from delivery because she needed a C-section and they wouldn't let her in the hospital without the shot. Now that child is going to suffer for life from that vaccine.
This is why vaccine mandates are evil. Never mind the idiocy of giving a new vaccine to a pregnant woman right before delivery. Never mind the videos of teenagers in the hospital with myocarditis. I'm writing up an article on this but I feel like we need to do more than write articles about it. Organize, somehow.
Was waiting for a blood draw and a number of people in the waiting room had uncontrollable tremors. Maybe a coincidence - but I've done bloodwork for years and I've never seen anything like it.
The VAERS website just released the weekly numbers indicating that there are now 14,701 confirmed deaths from the COVID vaccine in the US. Back on July 24th, the relevant figure was 11,405 and at the beginning of July, 9,125 deaths had been reported from the vaccinations. What all this means is that the number of deaths linked to the CDC promoted vaccines this year are skyrocketing and this is based on their own data. Now why is that and why would we ever consider giving this stuff to children? The number of adverse reactions reported this year is also huge. I guess this is what 'follow the science' is all about.
The VAERS is a passive system and is not complete. There are other data bases that are not public. A whistle-blower claims the CMS (Medicare and Medicaid) data base(s) contained an estimated 45,000 deaths within 72 hours of injection as of mid-to-late July.
I was aware of the limitation of the self reporting nature of the VAERS system but it testifies that there is a serious problem recently with the so-called vaccines. Why the spike in the number of those who have died because of the injections is something that I only wish researchers would figure out.
The CDC has changed it's messaging wrt VAERS on Fakebook recently, which is very telling. A few months back they downplayed the system, even though it's their system. Now, they're trying to "inform" people as to how it works.
My point is that there are other systems behind walls that contain vaxx AE data that is alleged to be devastating.
Consider the CDC V-safe app! Supposedly this easy-to-use phone app allows vaccine recipients to log adverse events and this data is supposed to be added to VAERS. If you believe that.
Exactly. The 3 pillars of government representing "checks and balances" are nothing but an illusion. The Supreme Court is there to rubber stamp the Executive branch's decisions. Period.
The checks and balances were destroyed by the 17th amendment. Prior to the 17th, Senators were appointed by each state to directly represent the respective state. Once popular voting was allowed , senators no longer have to represent each state. They are bought and paid for by lobbyists. The states no longer have true representation before the federal government. The 17th needs repealed to restore the original checks and balances.
They could also be recalled by the state legislature(s). There had to be Rockefeller money behind that Amendment. The regime of wilson gave us that, the Fed and the IRS.
Question: is requiring a series of as yet untested vaccinations without determined end the same as requiring a single fully tested vaccine that is only administered once in a lifetime?
RGT, you are an attorney, correct? Let's assume these did qualify as "vaccines" (Realizing they don't in their current form.) Would an unending series of vaccines to address a single virus really be comparable to a once in a lifetime vaccine?
I'm not an attorney. Requiring is the issue. Nothing should be required.
Are you asking would an unending need to take supplements to address a single virus be comparable or are you asking would an unending series of failed shots be comparable?
Oops, saw your response to Taco Jones above and sounded as though you were an attorney. Not really asking, perhaps leveling an accusation is a better term. An undetermined series of injections with questionable societal and individual benefits on the public is NOT comparable to requiring proven vaccines that require a single administration. Forcing such unproven remedies on the public is reckless endangerment.
I agree. It is also reckless endangerment to not thoroughly investigate and promote treatments that are already available in many forms - nutrition, supplements, off-label use drugs etc. It's an individual's choice.
Agreed, attempts to bury alternative treatments and therapeutics has been silly and childish from the beginning...politically driven and irresponsible. Not sure that sins of omission would classify as reckless endangerment, though. Endangerment presupposes action not inaction, but I am not a lawyer.
Yes, because they're in charge and you're not. You aren't even allowed to ask that question, because you're not qualified, and you're not in charge. Agents will come to your house to explain it to you shortly.
Margaret Sanger, Woodrow Wilson and Bull Conner were huge fans of Jacobson. The Virginia law scotus upheld in the Buck v Bell case (forced sterilization), relying on Jacobson, became part of the Third Reich model law.
Here are the four standards that the 1905 case cited as justification for the ruling. The vaccine had to meet these standards. Do these standards cited in Jacobson v Massachusetts meet the justification for a Covid vaccine?
My arguments follow the standards.
1. Necessity. Vaccines need to be given with purpose, not arbitrarily. What could be more arbitrary than giving a vaccine to a person who has already recovered from the virus? What could be more arbitrary than giving a vaccine to a majority of people who have well over a 99 percent survival rate? What could be more arbitrary than forcing people to take a vaccine when there are inexpensive and effective treatments readily available with medications that have been around for decades?
2. Reasonable Means. It must prevent or get rid of an actual threat to public health. The so-called vaccines do not prevent or get rid of an actual threat to public health according to the CDC, and according to the god and co-originator of Covid.
3. Proportionality. If a vaccine proportionally harms rather than helps an individual, it is unconstitutional. Since the government and the media are colluding to silence people and to prevent people, including medical doctors, from reporting detrimental effects - including deaths - to the public, it’s more difficult to show “proportionality.” The government is not tracking vaxed people who are catching the virus again and spreading it again, because they don’t want people to know the magnitude of the failure of the vax. More importantly, they are not tracking or reporting the data of hundreds of thousands of detrimental effects - including deaths - to the public. There are reasons that half the country opposes this vax. One - It doesn’t work. Two- The government wants to vax people who are already immune due to exposure and recovery. Three - They keep pushing people to take the vax over and over. How many months until “booster” #4, is “recommended.” Four - They have no idea of the long-term effects of this vax. Five - It has harmed or killed many thousands. Six – It isn’t a vaccine. A vaccine prevents a disease. A vaccine works long-term… not a few months. This doesn’t work at all. Seven – After being jerked around for 18 months, no one in their right mind would trust anything that the government or associated public “health” officials say.
4. Harm avoidance. The vaccine should not pose a health risk to those who take it. There are reported and verified cases of people who have been harmed by this vax and the fact that it doesn’t work and it also transmissible after getting the vax, also falls into the category of harm. And the fact that the government is not allowing those cases to be counted, heard and studied is further proof of harm.
Great analysis. A preliminary argument: Has the government proved, not just assumed, that the vaccine mandate is occurring during a pandemic aka "under the pressure of great dangers" as set forth in Jacobson. There's been a lot of hysteria but no proof that the country is "under the pressure of great dangers" NOW from the virus.
You seem to imply that the supremes are somehow more even keel in temperament and decision making now. Can you provide charts and pie graphs for such evidence?
Also, are we to believe they can’t be bought just like any other crooked politician?
They weren’t saviors then, they aren’t saviors now. Don’t hold your breath on them overturning mandates despite it being in more modern and “woke” times.
It's a good point. The judges back then were evil and stupid and came from a population that was largely evil and stupid, but nobody alive back then would have believed that men could give birth like half of our population does.
Anybody who believes that civilization can continue is completely deluded.
Ikr? How is it that Dummy Roberts can look at Jacobson as some sort of super-precedent with all the subsequent horrors it unleashed?! I would think that a good rule thumb is that if the Third Reich and Bull Conner relied on a SCOTUS decision, it deserves NO stare decisis.
I am an attorney and I have been struggling to come up with a legally feasible way to fight these mandates. When the 7th Circuit denied injunctive relief recently they stated in essence that there is no legally recognizable right not to take a vaccine. The best strategy that I have been able to come up with so far would hinge on recharacterizing these shots as therapies rather than vaccines which is a more scientifically accurate characterization any way. There is a much stronger legal argument to be made for a right to refuse a medical therapy because a therapy only benefits the recipient rather than the community. Since these shots do little (if anything) to prevent contracting or transmitting the virus, they do not function as vaccines. The best analogy I've heard is to using sunscreen to prevent sunburn. Whether I get a sunburn or not has zero correlation to whether somebody else is wearing sunscreen.
Can't go the therapy route. The CDC just changed the definition of "vaccine" to basically include therapies. Someone need to take the CDC to court first to challenge their new definition of "vaccine". Discovery would be incredible. Imagine the arm twisting, threats and coercion that went on behind the scenes to get career workers at the CDC to throw out 100 years of immunology to support this shitshow?
Pretty sure that's why two of the top officials at the FDA just quit.
By changing the definition they opened the door to Vitamin D, zinc, quercetin, ivermectin etc. to quality as vaccines.
I directly self-administer Vitamin D via sunlight daily. I'm fully vaxxed!
You are way ahead of 99 percent of people there.
That's a good point.
If they change it back they are still stuck because the shots failed and don't mean the old definition. It was a last ditch effort that I hope backfires.
Not only have the shots “failed” they have KILLED people! Over 13,000 in the US and over 20,000 in the EU!
The ultimate “adverse reaction?” Death.
50 deaths with the Swine Flu vaccine and it was pulled. Thousands of deaths from Walensky’s and Fauci’s Covid jabs and we get a speech from our corrupted “Skeletor in Chief” that HIS “patience is wearing thin”??
Is there something in the water in the US keeping Americans from thinking straight??!
It seems that way. It seems everyone is completely brainwashed. Like straight out of Stalinist Russia.
I mean "meet" . No sleep lately.
qualify i mean
Or to support Pfizer's magical twice-a-day pill coming out soon !
EUAs only apply when there's no viable treatment options, so anything safe and effective with a proven track record must be trashed and ridiculed.
Interesting approach!
The earth is not flat. That is settled science. (Until they change the definition of the word flat.)
(Love it!). Reminds me: "It depends on what IS is"
Earth is not flat. It is bowl -shaped (so the water don't splash out).
Or they change the definition of science, which these days requires the prefix "which" science.
The CDC is a private entity. Their definition might have some persuasive authority, but it is not legally binding. And please understand, I am describing the way our legal system is supposed to work, not the way most of it seems to be currently functioning.
Funny how CDC stands for “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention”.
Yet ZERO recommendations medically for people sent home sick with Covid? Major corrupt, criminal, unethical, unscientific assholes.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
When the authorities go Humpty Dumpty, all authority is lost.
The definition change is to support Pfizer's magical twice-a-day pill coming out soon !
Funny how the FDA would let doctors prescribe Pfizer’s “new” patented anti-viral for hundreds a day but NOT off-patent Ivermectin for 87 cents a day!
Where’s James Otis when we need him?!
Is taking the CDC or any drug company to court possible while in this stage of the "vaccine" rollouts? I thought that was an impossibility and written in their clauses. This has and never would happen with any other drug trial in history. Like the swine flu drug vaccine, they shut that down after a few deaths.
CDC can't change terms to suit itself and expect it to apply throughout science, but this change still acknowledges their shots are therapies. They undermined their own argument. Will we now mandate multivitamins and outlaw obesity as "vaccines?"
The double negative from the Seventh Circuit doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The Administration's argument is more than a little contradictory. They get away with this per OSHA rules that give the executive agency the authority to adopt rules to protect people in the workplace. The Administration argues unvaccinated people pose an unreasonable danger to other workers. However, they also argue that the vaccines will protect you from contracting the virus. If the latter statement is true, then who are they protecting?
Welcome to the brave new world of doublethink.
“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously and accepting both of them.” Orwell's 1984
You got it.
But hey they all got their BA's in Denial, and some went on for a MA in Cognitive dissonance. The others have certification in Hysteria.
And the sad part of this is, you aren't exaggerating...
Oh I know. I spawned one. LOL
I’m so sorry for you: I have a sister like that. My kid (24) is a “mini-me” (bless him!), but he gets a ration of sh*t from his peers (who are mostly an entire generation older than he is, for reasons.). He manages it well (better then I would), but he’s a little freaked out by the strength of their conviction that they’re right; an inability to see things from another perspective; and an inability to cede ANY common ground.
Jacobson and progeny are a mess especially the court extended the legislative power to protect safety to Congress during the New Deal. Recently, Roberts lazily kicked the can by calling everything, everwhere a pandemic and cited Jacobson.
The better route is challenging executive power to do this (without Congress acting). Chevron can only be extended so far. OSHA has firm criteria on rule-making for safety regulations. Just announcing a new rule without rule-making process, public review, comment etc seems ripe for challenge, especially since it would seem to place safety rule on non-work related (supposed) risks.
There is no legitimate Federal executive *or* legislative authority over public health, except under a twisted 14th Amendment civil rights logic (which would be the immediate end of any limit on Federal power).
The problem is that almost all state constitutions enshrine extensive public health powers - even if implicitly, by not specifically outlining in their bills of rights that the state does not have those powers.
This is why even the treat of court packing is such a danger. With such a threat hanging over them, FDR bullied the supreme court to "find" the federal government had such powers over public health vis-a-vis the commerce clause.
This is also why supreme court justices should be selected by ritual combat instead of appointment.
A lot of really good fighters are really bad people. Good people tend to develop other skills, which are more relevant to judicial decisions. Maybe ritual combat would be useful in the legislatures who approve the judges, probably team oriented. Those who make it to high offices don't seem to have many skills except self aggrandizement. Forcing them to cooperate with a team or be captured and converted might improve their perspective.
Not sure "packing" matters. Temporary advantage for the tribe in power when the court is expanded, but it will quickly settle to the even splits we see now with 9. The important thing is all judicial panels disagree internally. Always a majority and minority "opinion" which proves the randomness of judicial processes. Similarly, decisions by a single judge is often overturned by other judges. The objective isn't really justice, just mollifying the majority of the population.
FDR's threat to pack certainly did matter. In response to the threat, 2 justices on the Supreme Court completely reversed course on constitutionality of FDR's proposed New Deal federal regulations
Using OSHA is a huge overstep. Wearing/providing protective equipment in the workplace is great, but this is analogous to forcing workers to "wear a hardhat and carry an eyewash station" 24-hours a day, 7 days a week via these shots, and privatizing the risk/harm.
Worse, requiring these shots under OSHA for remote workers is absurd. Will they be allowed to demand access to private homes of remote workers for spot safety inspections?
Using OSHA is ripe for court challenges and really only serves as a fig leaf for vax-holes to force their policy preferences.
Yep. I have a foundational questions too: where's their evidence for risk significant spread in work place, much less asymptomatic spread? My most educated guess is that there is none. As to remote workers, it's just silly and proves they're not relying on any evidence
The regime's reply is that even if it is a treatment it benefits the community because it keeps you out of the hospital and thus burdening the health care system. This is NOT a valid legal argument but one must recognize that it is the true core of the regime's plan.
No doubt. But at the point they acknowledge that they are not vaccines, their argument gets wobbly. Mandating a therapy to protect the hospitals opens itself up to a lot of truly absurd possibilities. There are arguably a lot of therapies that would reduce hospitalizations. Will they mandate Prozac to decrease suicide attempts? Mandate statins to reduce heart attacks?
The wheels are bobbly, and based Israel data, it's predictable the wheels are about fall off. When the efficacy falls to Israel levels, it'll be hard to argue they're even a therapeutic
Israel data was still supporting strong severe outcome efficacy throughout July, before they rolled out triple-dosing. UK data currently supports it as well. The boosters are unnecessary except assuming malevolent intentions (a desire to speed up vaccine escape selection)
Data please. Both saw spikes in hospitalizations in August - 50% fully vaxxed in Israel
Well, exactly - even after "infection efficacy" plummeted, meaning that the pseudo-vaccinated granted *no* protection from viral challenge, the severe outcome efficacy signal was strong. I did a writeup based on the Israel data mid-July, but it was too conservative in its predictions. However, my rewording of those predictions is still holding up after a month (https://unglossed.substack.com/p/boostermania#footnote-anchor-4).
A comment I left in another forum two days ago is better:
""Negative infection efficacy" achieved after ~4 month post-vaccination mark in England.
https://dailysceptic.org/2021/09/10/vaccines-have-negative-effectiveness-in-the-over-40s-as-low-as-minus-38-shows-new-phe-report/
A good writeup as far as describing the different ways the report derives "efficacy" and why the real-time efficacy is more important than early or overall figures.
Negative infection efficacy is merely "0 infection efficacy" + per-capita disparity in immunity gains from infection and recovery during the spring and summer. The unvaccinated in England became less potent fuel *per capita* than the pseudo-vaccinated whose protection from symptomatic infection has now evaporated. Temporary protection is always going to be followed by catching up, when will we learn this ("we" meaning the lay citizens being hawked false cures by doctors and experts who just want to destroy our bodies with stress and experimental spike protein bombs).
As before, severe outcome efficacy appears to be holding up, meaning boosters are not necessary (Israel's Ministry of Health likely only rolled them out to avoid the arrival of negative apparent infection efficacy; quite repugnant really)."
Funny you should mention Prozac. I believe that comes into the list of Covid treatments by the FLCCCdotnet at some point, among many other meds.
I saw that. I think it has anti-inflammatory properties. They add it if symptoms don’t resolve with Ivermectin alone after day 2.
You’re right, but how about the vast majority of us who’ve had the Covid without using one minute/particle of their precious “resources”?
Ummm…early treatment protocols with Ivermectin ALSO keep people “out of hospitals”. FACT
Sure does.
Kamala is off script. She literally tweeted last night the mandate was to protect the vaccinated.
How do they protect the vaccinated from the vaccinated?
Ikr? I'd like to see a vaccine to protect people from all this dumbness we've been subjected to.
I couldn't find that tweet...
Why isn't the fact that OSHA didn't follow its own processes a good argument and/or the ADA and treating nonvax vs vax differently on testing, while data shows vaxed can shed/spread just as much?
These are all good arguments which would/should have come out if OSHA followed the administrative rule-making process. Biden chief of staff admitted this OSHA rule was a "work around" - certainly a work around the Constitution but also a work around of rule-making process.
Klain should be called before Congress to “explain” that tweet especially considering his “boss” (cough!) took an oath to “preserve, protect and DEFEND the Constitution against ALL enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC.”
Those are all valid arguments. My comment was really only focused on finding a legal basis for an immediate injunction. There are multiple factual arguments that the EO is arbitrary or even absurd. The problem, in my experience, is that factual arguments are much more open to "interpretation" by judges without opening them up to a lot of criticism by their peers. The goal, in my opinion anyway, is to find a legal argument that has a good chance. As dysfunctional as most of the legal system is right now, I still believe that if a judge makes a legal interpretation in a written opinion that is unfounded or absurd, they will hear about it. That is not to say that it doesn't happen, but there is at least a higher reputational price to pay.
Yeah, I feel bad for you and anyone who faces this outrageous and probably unconstitutional mandate. They threw in loopholes to evade challenges, e.g. the bi-weekly testing. Until you figure it out, your employer is taking a huge risk if they don't offer you either the bi-weekly testing or an accommodation (WFH).
Agree. Dysfunctional legal system is an understatement.
Arguments like that would always hinge on competing expert witnesses, who would probably show better shedding in the better funded (i.e., vaxed) cases, therefore justified. Seems to me the strongest case would be to demonstrate all cases result from immune deficiencies which are mostly voluntary -- obesity, diabetes, nutrient deficiencies, etc. But the medical industry and their government enablers studiously resist that information, so it would be a tough case.
Where is the “science”??
Its always available to those who want it, and ignored by those who don't.
So far, while the testing detected viral particles, there has been no evidence that any of those swabs were cultured. A recovered person can shed non-infectious particles for a considerable period of time. The nose has immune cells at work too, doesn't it? The claimed spread by the vaccinated is to support the narrative for all to be masked in response to the nervous folk thinking the unvaccinated were not wearing a mask. Tut, tut, can't have that. (IMHO).
The “vaxxed” (cough!) can easily have viral loads in their naso-pharangeal passages. Which is why Walensky said the vaxxed should wear masks: Their “vaccine” is NOT a “vaccine”!
Why does viral load matter if it is inert, incapable of infection? We know what Walensky said, but her stated reason "high viral load" is meaningless without evidence that load could infect. She deduced infectability from totally different situations all based on PCR positive <20. Those recovered from a recent infection can also show up positive (don't know at what PCR cycle count).
I think the major problem in combating it legally is that it falls into that "no one has been crazy or audacious enough to try it before" category.
We can't lean on any direct precedent because it is, well, unprecedented.
Any state that does not include medical freedom/choice in their constitution's bills of rights implicitly has total authority to mandate any medical intervention for "public good," including, say, a lobotomy or whatever you can imagine. "Cruel and unusual punishment" clauses are totally subjective and no judge will ever question whatever the medical establishment says is "safe and effective." The religious freedom argument for natural biological integrity is strong but no rich old man on a court fearing a social media-fueled recall campaign will see it that way.
Illinois enshrines medical choice in the legal code - but expect that to be quickly overturned, since it is not backed by constitutional letter. Every state needs an amendment that actually enshrines medical choice. Has done for over a century. It's just that citizens were more afraid of plagues than their governments and doctors. Ask Mary Mallon how moving to the "land of the free" worked out for her.
The police power of a STATE resides “perpetually and inalienably within [its] legislature;” not as a “policy choice” within the arbitrary “discretion” of an Executive. That was the whole reason for the strict standards: the Judiciary saying "it ain't our job to second guess the legislature."
Legislatures do not issue Executive Orders or mandates; they pass laws.
https://www.houseofstone76.com/copy-of-jacobson-v-mass-in-a-nutshell
Yeah. It may not be their job to second guess the legislature as to the separation of power issue, but Jacobsen doesn't answer the question - who protects the individual from unconstitutional use of police power. In later cases, e.g. Brown v. BOE, the Court clearly found that the Judiciary DID have the power second guess state legislatures. So why did Roberts punt on this point?
Roberts' paraphrasing of Jacobson was intellectually dishonest.
Jacobson never implied an equivalence between Governors and State Legislatures by shared property of being “politically accountable officials of the States.”
See pgs. 6-9
https://www.houseofstone76.com/copy-of-jacobson-v-mass-in-a-nutshell
What i want to see in court challenges is the evidence that there are and have been early, successful treatments all along. This would finally give place for the real story to be told and may be the avenue in which it is done.
Here is a list of the doctors that have pioneered the work and are experts in this. I am sure there are others because it's growing every day.
Pierre Kory, Ryan Cole, Henry Ealy, Dan Stocks, Paul Merrick. Brian Tyson, Richard Urso
There is a case in the Northern District of AL that incorporates this argument into their complaint. America's Frontline Doctors, et al v. Xavier Becerra, et al. The case number is 21-cv-00702-CLM. Unfortunately their motion for Preliminary Injunction was denied, but the case is still ongoing. The relief sought is extensive including declaratory judgment stating that the public health emergency has ceased to exist if it ever existed and therefore the vaccine EUA's are unlawful and terminated. The complaint is very well written in my opinion. I would recommend it to anyone interested in this topic.
I would look at the authorization from the FDA. It appears that they approved the comirnaty and not the Pfizer vaccine which is being challenged by the Childrens Health Defense. The comirnaty is not being offered in the states. Also, as the Nuremberg Code states, no one can mandate a medical procedure unless there is no other option for treatments available. There is mounting evidence and testimony that ivermectin and hydroxy with a combination of vitmain d and zinc cure covid19. Also, if you look at Alberta Canada, they were able to get around all these mandates because scientists and the NIH never isolated covid 19 which means they cannot prove that it exists. If covid did come from a lab which Judicial Watch has evidence of, then that means the vaccine would also be a bioweapon. I have a ton of info should you need it. I hope this helps.
I appreciate that very much. I don't have an actual client in front of me yet because the EO has not gone into effect. There is no standing until someone has actually been impacted by the policy. If, or when a client comes in, I imagine I will be on here and reaching to a lot of you. Most of my practice is in the federal courts, but this is not my normal area of practice. There will be a learning curve for me.
What do you say to the issue of Jacobsen simply finding that the State has the right to fine you, but you still have the right of refusal? That was the actual outcome, was it not?
I believe that is what the case held. But the "fine" imposed under this EO is loss of employment. The fact that Jacobson is the case being cited to support vaccine mandates is absurd to me. But I am certain that there is a judge somewhere that will hold that it is valid and that the "fine" imposed is not unjust. I am not aware of a lot of case law supporting medical therapy mandates other than cases applying to minors where their guardians sought to refuse medical treatment on their behalf.
It was and most people I see citing this case (with stupid memes) ignore that fact.
But you don't catch sunburn from others. And your sunburn is secondary to "everybody else." Another comparison might be if I have a machine gun in my closet to prevent tyranny, it doesn't matter if my neighbor also has one. But the government declares them illegal anyway, and Supremes and "everybody else" happily agree.
The thing about supremes in particular and lawyers in general is they're inherently adversarial, and seldom agree on anything. All the cited cases in this post and others were split, some wide, mostly narrow. It's evidence there is no "truth," and the law and our lives are controlled by random chance. Successful people focus on their own abilities to improve their own odds, and don't wait for government diktats. Those who wait for government salvation are often disappointed.
You're missing the entire point which is that vaccines protect the person who takes them. But now we all know that isn't true, and that they don't work, and more often, they harm the person who gets them. Or kills them.
A successful vaccine not only protects the individual, but stops the spread. The covax sort of do the first, for a little bit, and don’t even contemplate the second. I would agree that they are more akin to a therapeutic than a vax.
There is absolutely no scientific proof of this.
Well, the scientific proof for the former is debatable, but for the latter I would point to my local area where the zip codes with the highest vax rates also have the highest case rates. Correlation isn’t causation and all that, but its pretty damn interesting. Then you can look at the data from Mass around the Fourth of July that prompted the CDC to re-recommend masks. 75% of the 400+ cases were vaccinated. So they are transmitting it, and with high viral loads to boot.
What kind of vaccine requires the vaccinated to mask to protect themselves from the unvaccinated? Like, when I get any other vaccine, staying away from infected individuals is not something I am told to do or concerned about.
You want proof the jab isn't stopping the spread?
Vaccines are never perfect. They exercise the natural immune system to improve outcomes. Some immune systems react differently to pathogens, and to vaccines. Never a perfect solution for everyone. The value of every vaccine is measured by the benefit for the many versus the risk for the few -- the greater good. Individuals should try to be among the many, not the few, and to know the difference.
Again: Not the point. The authorities are the ones claiming that vaccines work. So the analogy of sunscreen would be apt. They are not admitting that they don't work.
They do work. Not perfectly, not forever, as the safe space indoctrinated desperately hope for, but relative to the virus, they're a net benefit. That argument would be of the angels on a pin head type. Even sunscreen is more or less beneficial depending on skin type.
A successful case will need to address basic rights, not medical variabilities. Abortion was decided based on the rights of mothers to control herself. Might work for injections too. But it might also overturn Roe. Lots of discussion recently about the dichotomies of "choice."
But the sole benefit to the individual is - if you believe it - that they reduce severity and prevent death. Except that Israel, Singapore and other early Pfizer-jabbed countries, and the UK PHS data, proves that is a lie. Yes, the UK data shows that if you are vaccinated you have a proportionately less chance of getting hospitalised but if you get hospitalised, you have a considerably higher chance of dying.
I don't consider choice a dichotomy. It's a fundamental right, but it must be based on factual real-life information, that like that of the Myths behind the mask - which is actually the jackboot on the face, as Orwell put it...
The other interesting thing is that if you know where to look, it's very clear from articles in the mainstream media (fortunately they don't read each other, so the evidence mounted fast) that the biggest key to the Sydney outbreak that resulted in their current lockdown, was the spread in multiple hospitals by vaccinated staff and that continues to this day, but once the articles started pouring out, the government forbade that discussion.
There are a lot of nurses and doctors with considerable remorse, because they know they spread the virus in the hospitals and they know their transmission resulted in deaths.
And it's my guess that Australia isn't an isolated example because there are now several articles in pubmed describing that situation in USA, Finland and Vietnam...
You might be right about lawyers, but the Court took a precipitous fall from being "apolitical" as it was set up to be, during the Robert Bork confirmation hearings. It only went downhill from there.
Yep. Bad times for American jurisprudence. And Joe Biden was part of the mob
Yeah, I agree the sunburn analogy doesn't work, agree lawyers are adversarial (ahem, no offense taken, lol) and also agree people should never count on government for salvation.
Your last statement is the crux of the problem. The issue to me is that the system we have is all that we have to resolve conflicts peacefully. It's currently dysfunctional as hell, but if it fails I don't see any way to avoid violence and chaos.
Oh, it's worse than that. In this country, "experts" are now defined as someone with peer review, who holds an honourable position, pub-med lished research blah blah blah. That ruling came in in about 2017. However, in 2014, I was a witness in a case which came back to court in 2020. In this case it was ruled I could be a witness because the judge had deemed that I was a credible witness.
I was pitted against the country's most esteemed ex-spurt, whose affidavit was total junk with almost zero references... based on, brushing the lapel and quoting WHO qualifications. My affidavid was solid science refuting every single point, and while the cross examination was rough, not once was I tripped.
We left confident that the science was solid and would rule the day, but no. My evidence was ruled OUT, not because the science was bad, but because I didn't fit the new criteria of Expert because of no medical degree, eminent positions, peer acclaim and Bill Gates endorsements via funding etc etc etc.
Right there, you know the judge has bought into the politically RIGHT narrative, which supports the jackboot in the face concept, which to my mind, is very prevalent in everything about this whole deal.
Not one look at the science, or that the expert had everything bassackward.
Ahhh, social justice...if only you were a transwoman, or some other suppressed category. Then all you would need would be to assert your feelings, and they carry the day as facts.
to add "because the judge in 2014 had deemed"
I’m not sure if any of this will help, but this is what we have going on in the UK. So I’ll post a few links.
https://lookaside.fbsbx.com/file/Open%20Letter%20-%20Care%20Workers%2026%20July%202021.pdf?token=AWx6o416S2vZc4UCrx0u4ClxGqXuDBYi5Ju3YzumYb-3x_yUotEWZpB3_bLJLR3QdTx8jOJw2otBh_F8oVl5Q2XBJugFYap0Lj04F9Wu-X6MWy-uCKcq3zQ-N_2OBSuNpvP4NBex2h3C5eg6CAlaFHmAPZlh2NVWaUJapI1W6FCQBaeAop9pwOPfsBZb76bwfNin-jGGDWFTyX-pIB6-MZ-wXYGMixgHZei_TgMSJVEVOg
https://lawyersforliberty.uk/mandatory-vaccination/
https://www.covid19assembly.org/2021/08/letter-for-care-home-workers/
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/22/section/45E
We have a few unions like Workers Union of England working with law firms and a consultation which they are getting as many as poss to fill out.
https://consultations.dhsc.gov.uk/612f51cbbf327c44607a7bb9
https://unitynewsnetwork.co.uk/care-employer-fails-to-rebut-workers-of-england-medical-freedom-alliance-and-lawyers-for-liberty-statement-on-covid-jab-coercion/
Just wondering if you've considered the following in your legal analysis. They are approaching it under OSHA's emergency power provisions which I guess say if there is grave danger they can put something in the federal register, that can get then litigated while rule making commences. I have not been able to find the OSHA recordable events and under a similar emergency authority OSHA has required employers to record any events (days off, death, hospitalization) if someone catch COVID at work. I would bet if you can get those numbers and compare them to man hours worked, you could easily demonstrate there is no grave danger here...just a thought for you to consider.
If they publish it as ETS without notice and comment, then OSHA will have to cite the data they are relying in finding grave danger of unvaccinated workers (should be an interesting exercise because all workplaces are different and in different locations with different mandates) and that the reg is necessary (no other options). Given the exemptions that have already been announced and the border situation -- how they prove that American workers in some generic work place pose a grave danger and that forced vaccination of said workers is the only option is beyond me.
There is a conflict in SCOTUS decisions. The one that affirms the right to bodily determination is, of course, ignored by the MSM.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/rule-of-law/conflict-in-laws-jacobson-violates-human-right-to-consent/
The Botsford case is key. The distinction between Jacobson and Botsford is the distinction between vaccine and therapy.
Cases with conflicts of principle are more likely to get considered by SCOTUS because it is "constitutional." The determination of what how single medication is classified might be decided by a lower court, but so far courts have accepted this as a vaccine so the old idea of vaccine no longer applies. I am not saying Botsford isn't worth pursuing but doubt it could ever go to SCOTUS by itself, and using both might be wise.
The right to bodily sovereignty currently covers treatment but not vaccine. If I were opposing this from Pharma’s side, I would argue that the old notion of vaccine no longer applies, which is why the definition was changed by FDA. If I won my case, it then could be possible to mandate treatments through a slippery slope of changing regulations. IMO all vaccines are treatments, albeit in advance of a condition, and what would be constitutionally correct is bodily sovereignty regardless of the nature or timing of the medical intervention.
Do you have a link to the Botsford case please?
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/141/250/
I think the 7th circuit erred, but they did not say "there is no legally recognizable right not to take a vaccine." The court said Indiana (the state) did not mandate vaccination and that IU had vax or test/mask policy, along with religious exceptions. 6 of 7 qualified for religious exemption, 7th probably did too but also had test/mask out. The test/mask options could be challenged because it's just not scientifically valid and possibly compelled expression. But still, not the best case to take to the Supreme Court to challenge Jacobson
It's always fun to read the dissenting opinions, always filed along with the decision.
Scalia dissents were the best. Thomas and Alito have filled the void.
Yep. Just had an argument (wish it could have been a discussion) about this very topic yesterday. With a true believer. I try to avoid these conflicts but he would not leave me alone re the vaccine. I HAD COVID. I HAVE ANTIBODIES. He accused me of killing him. In fact, he accused me of killing millions of people every day! I yelled, "Are you dead? I've been hiking with you for weeks now! Are you dead???" He then referenced the small pox decision. One cannot have a reasonable discussion with a true believer.
Much easier when asked to say "yes" and change the subject. Arguing it accomplishes nothing, except an emotional outlet for the argumentative. I like to talk about Moderna and phizer stocks. Gives them something constructive to argue about.
The van Damme movie Soldier was fun. He's driving his tank to attack the bad guy. Bad guy says "you're driving toward me, turn left." Good guy says "Roger" and keeps going. Repeats several times until bad guy gets crushed. Our situation is like a bad movie. Lots of wisdom in bad movies.
Brilliant!
Next time change the subject, by asking to borrow 20 bucks to go the doctor. Once you get the money. Say you're not getting it, and hopefully they terminate the relationship. Make it even easier by never contacting them again.
Alex. I can’t thank you enough for what you do. Wonderful work.
People: we must financially and otherwise support the Alex Berenson’s of this world.
Please do not give money to the organizations and institutions that will crush you. Give instead to those that support liberty and honest inquiry.
It’s important to remember Jacobsen was protesting the $5 fine he had to pay for non compliance, but today people think Jacobsen justifies ANY penalty for the not vaccinated
This. And that is one of the reasons the court upheld the decision. They didn't think the penalty was unreasonable vs the requirement. It would be like if Biden mandated the COVID vaccine, but the penalty was a one time payment of $500 to find some bullshit health initiative. Vs. the current requirement which could cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost employment over the course of your life.
Apples and oranges to be sure.
Of course we today live under an Administrative regime (hence the senile mongrel is using OSHA), where the Constitution is a "living and breathing" document, and just a "goddamn piece of paper". So it is quite possible that further unreasonableness rules the day.
LOL at any crayon eater who tries to compare Smallpox to COVID. The infection fatality rate of Smallpox was 30%+. It's even worse than comparing COVID to the Spanish Flu.
Did you know that the Spanish Flu killed 45,000 members of the US military, mostly when they were in camps on US soil (so not horrific battle conditions).
Guess how many members of the US Active /reserve military Covid has killed in 20 months.
34. That's right, 34 total active/reserve military deaths (none under the age of 27) vs 45,000.
The smooth brains will go "but, but, but...we were at war - the military was bigger back then!!! REEEEEEEEE"
Actually it was a bit bigger back then. 2.9 million in 1918 vs 2.1 million in 2020. So let's bump the 34 number up to 45 (which would pretty closely standardize based on a 2.9 million denominator and also keep the math simple).
So 45,000 military deaths from the Spanish flu vs. 45 military deaths (adjusted to 1918 military size) for COVID.
which means the Spanish Flu was 1,000X more deadly than COVID for young and healthy people.
Point is that COVID is dangerous for a specific subset of the population and for other subsets, the risk of serious illness is extremely low.
Let's put it this way. If someone walked up to you right now and said "You have your choice between contracting HIV or COVID (unvaccinated), but you have to choose one." Would you honestly consider taking the HIV option even for a second if you were young and healthy? Of course not. Even the thought is absurd.
Point is that COVID vaccines should be mandated for no one, and should be purely optional.
I just saw a horrifying video of a newborn baby who had clear systemic neurological damage and was experiencing ongoing tremors from head to toe. The mother was forced to take a covid vaccination a month from delivery because she needed a C-section and they wouldn't let her in the hospital without the shot. Now that child is going to suffer for life from that vaccine.
This is why vaccine mandates are evil. Never mind the idiocy of giving a new vaccine to a pregnant woman right before delivery. Never mind the videos of teenagers in the hospital with myocarditis. I'm writing up an article on this but I feel like we need to do more than write articles about it. Organize, somehow.
Was waiting for a blood draw and a number of people in the waiting room had uncontrollable tremors. Maybe a coincidence - but I've done bloodwork for years and I've never seen anything like it.
That's a symptom of the Donny kill shot. Lots and lots of videos on bitchute about it. Mostly of women.
So heartbreaking. These people are worse than evil.
just saw the same video today. it's awful.
The VAERS website just released the weekly numbers indicating that there are now 14,701 confirmed deaths from the COVID vaccine in the US. Back on July 24th, the relevant figure was 11,405 and at the beginning of July, 9,125 deaths had been reported from the vaccinations. What all this means is that the number of deaths linked to the CDC promoted vaccines this year are skyrocketing and this is based on their own data. Now why is that and why would we ever consider giving this stuff to children? The number of adverse reactions reported this year is also huge. I guess this is what 'follow the science' is all about.
The VAERS is a passive system and is not complete. There are other data bases that are not public. A whistle-blower claims the CMS (Medicare and Medicaid) data base(s) contained an estimated 45,000 deaths within 72 hours of injection as of mid-to-late July.
https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/files/alabama-preliminary-injunction/
Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 15 Filed 07/19/21 Page 41 of 67
D. Whistleblower Testimony: 45,000 Deaths Caused by the Vaccines
I was aware of the limitation of the self reporting nature of the VAERS system but it testifies that there is a serious problem recently with the so-called vaccines. Why the spike in the number of those who have died because of the injections is something that I only wish researchers would figure out.
The CDC has changed it's messaging wrt VAERS on Fakebook recently, which is very telling. A few months back they downplayed the system, even though it's their system. Now, they're trying to "inform" people as to how it works.
My point is that there are other systems behind walls that contain vaxx AE data that is alleged to be devastating.
Steve Kirsch estimates the vaccines have killed 200 000 Americans so far.
It's not a vaccination program, it's a GENOCIDE.
Consider the CDC V-safe app! Supposedly this easy-to-use phone app allows vaccine recipients to log adverse events and this data is supposed to be added to VAERS. If you believe that.
I’ll pay the $5
Most of what the govt does is unconstitutional. Yet the Supreme Court let’s it happen. A bunch of unelected bureaucrats. It should be abolished.
Exactly. The 3 pillars of government representing "checks and balances" are nothing but an illusion. The Supreme Court is there to rubber stamp the Executive branch's decisions. Period.
The checks and balances were destroyed by the 17th amendment. Prior to the 17th, Senators were appointed by each state to directly represent the respective state. Once popular voting was allowed , senators no longer have to represent each state. They are bought and paid for by lobbyists. The states no longer have true representation before the federal government. The 17th needs repealed to restore the original checks and balances.
They could also be recalled by the state legislature(s). There had to be Rockefeller money behind that Amendment. The regime of wilson gave us that, the Fed and the IRS.
Actually, only if the executive branch is Democrat. Otherwise they reject everything.
Who based on SCAB, er, ACB, in her Weeknd comment, is more concerned about how the court looks then what the court does.
Again, you can die the hero, or live long enough and become the villain.
Sometimes movie lines transcend and truly defined the human existence.
Question: is requiring a series of as yet untested vaccinations without determined end the same as requiring a single fully tested vaccine that is only administered once in a lifetime?
They are not vaccines.
RGT, you are an attorney, correct? Let's assume these did qualify as "vaccines" (Realizing they don't in their current form.) Would an unending series of vaccines to address a single virus really be comparable to a once in a lifetime vaccine?
I'm not an attorney. Requiring is the issue. Nothing should be required.
Are you asking would an unending need to take supplements to address a single virus be comparable or are you asking would an unending series of failed shots be comparable?
Oops, saw your response to Taco Jones above and sounded as though you were an attorney. Not really asking, perhaps leveling an accusation is a better term. An undetermined series of injections with questionable societal and individual benefits on the public is NOT comparable to requiring proven vaccines that require a single administration. Forcing such unproven remedies on the public is reckless endangerment.
I agree. It is also reckless endangerment to not thoroughly investigate and promote treatments that are already available in many forms - nutrition, supplements, off-label use drugs etc. It's an individual's choice.
Agreed, attempts to bury alternative treatments and therapeutics has been silly and childish from the beginning...politically driven and irresponsible. Not sure that sins of omission would classify as reckless endangerment, though. Endangerment presupposes action not inaction, but I am not a lawyer.
Yes, because they're in charge and you're not. You aren't even allowed to ask that question, because you're not qualified, and you're not in charge. Agents will come to your house to explain it to you shortly.
It's the "Fuck you, that's why" clause of the Constitution.
Margaret Sanger, Woodrow Wilson and Bull Conner were huge fans of Jacobson. The Virginia law scotus upheld in the Buck v Bell case (forced sterilization), relying on Jacobson, became part of the Third Reich model law.
Margaret Sanger was also a huge fan of eugenics, a practice allowed under Jacobson.
How ironic that Sanger was a virulent racist, yet the leftists today. Deify her. You wish you were making this stuff up, but sadly one does not.
The Covid injections are the only product in the world whose failures are blamed on those who haven't taken the product.
Here are the four standards that the 1905 case cited as justification for the ruling. The vaccine had to meet these standards. Do these standards cited in Jacobson v Massachusetts meet the justification for a Covid vaccine?
My arguments follow the standards.
1. Necessity. Vaccines need to be given with purpose, not arbitrarily. What could be more arbitrary than giving a vaccine to a person who has already recovered from the virus? What could be more arbitrary than giving a vaccine to a majority of people who have well over a 99 percent survival rate? What could be more arbitrary than forcing people to take a vaccine when there are inexpensive and effective treatments readily available with medications that have been around for decades?
2. Reasonable Means. It must prevent or get rid of an actual threat to public health. The so-called vaccines do not prevent or get rid of an actual threat to public health according to the CDC, and according to the god and co-originator of Covid.
3. Proportionality. If a vaccine proportionally harms rather than helps an individual, it is unconstitutional. Since the government and the media are colluding to silence people and to prevent people, including medical doctors, from reporting detrimental effects - including deaths - to the public, it’s more difficult to show “proportionality.” The government is not tracking vaxed people who are catching the virus again and spreading it again, because they don’t want people to know the magnitude of the failure of the vax. More importantly, they are not tracking or reporting the data of hundreds of thousands of detrimental effects - including deaths - to the public. There are reasons that half the country opposes this vax. One - It doesn’t work. Two- The government wants to vax people who are already immune due to exposure and recovery. Three - They keep pushing people to take the vax over and over. How many months until “booster” #4, is “recommended.” Four - They have no idea of the long-term effects of this vax. Five - It has harmed or killed many thousands. Six – It isn’t a vaccine. A vaccine prevents a disease. A vaccine works long-term… not a few months. This doesn’t work at all. Seven – After being jerked around for 18 months, no one in their right mind would trust anything that the government or associated public “health” officials say.
4. Harm avoidance. The vaccine should not pose a health risk to those who take it. There are reported and verified cases of people who have been harmed by this vax and the fact that it doesn’t work and it also transmissible after getting the vax, also falls into the category of harm. And the fact that the government is not allowing those cases to be counted, heard and studied is further proof of harm.
Great analysis. A preliminary argument: Has the government proved, not just assumed, that the vaccine mandate is occurring during a pandemic aka "under the pressure of great dangers" as set forth in Jacobson. There's been a lot of hysteria but no proof that the country is "under the pressure of great dangers" NOW from the virus.
You seem to imply that the supremes are somehow more even keel in temperament and decision making now. Can you provide charts and pie graphs for such evidence?
Also, are we to believe they can’t be bought just like any other crooked politician?
They weren’t saviors then, they aren’t saviors now. Don’t hold your breath on them overturning mandates despite it being in more modern and “woke” times.
It's a good point. The judges back then were evil and stupid and came from a population that was largely evil and stupid, but nobody alive back then would have believed that men could give birth like half of our population does.
Anybody who believes that civilization can continue is completely deluded.
Somehow when it comes to "Stare Decisis" some of those Decisies are more Stare'd than others.
Ikr? How is it that Dummy Roberts can look at Jacobson as some sort of super-precedent with all the subsequent horrors it unleashed?! I would think that a good rule thumb is that if the Third Reich and Bull Conner relied on a SCOTUS decision, it deserves NO stare decisis.
Best . Post. Of . Late.
‘Nuff said.