Posted on 09/29/2021 1:02:57 PM PDT by Red Badger
It's over folks.
Seriously, there are now two -- and only two -- possible paths.
Sue, on the basis below. You will win if the judiciary is competent and so is your counsel. Competence is not in my wheelhouse; that is up to you. If you file bull**** you will lose, and should. But if your counsel is competent and your argument clear and concise you win because the CDC has documented that your position is correct -- the vaccines are in fact worthless from a public health perspective beyond a period of about four months and you win on the balance of harms in that circumstance for reasons I will explain below.
If the judiciary is no longer an arbiter of fact then you have to choose between slavery and revolt. That's all that's left if you are in a position that this is impacting your ability to earn a living or otherwise do something necessary. Yes, that gets ugly fast. I would hope the judiciary understands exactly how ugly, and how fast and thus does its job.
The bottom line is right here, in this study:
LINK AND PIC AT SITE...................
A prison is highly analogous to a hospital or other health-care setting. Both are "conjugal" living arrangements. Both have a locked in component (the patients in one, the prisoners in the other) and a working and mingling in society component (the doctors, nurses, orderlies, janitors, etc. in one, the guards, cooks, janitors and similar in the other.) In both cases the locked-in persons are not really free to leave; in both they typically leave only when allowed by the working component (yes, you can sign yourself out against medical advice in a hospital, but few actually do.)
Both confine people, typically two to a room but sometimes one, among the conjugal and locked-in persons. Both therefore are highly-effective places to spread disease -- especially airborne pathogens.
But -- in the prison it is now documented that after four months the vaccine's effective rate of protection was statistically zero.
The argument for forcing vaccinations in these highly-confined environments, say much less those which have fewer constraints, such as colleges, secondary and primary schools and other workplaces is that people are put at "unreasonable" risk by unvaccinated individuals.
Yet the data is that four months post-vaccination there is no statistical difference between vaccinated and not when it comes to attack rates. By the CDC's own data the vaccines are worthless to protect others after four months.
Let me point out a few other inconvenient facts. First, the companies and CDC likely knew this prior to the jabs going into widespread use, since their effectiveness is basically zero compared against unvaccinated controls within four to six months. The original EUA trials were about four months in duration, which means they, or the firms, had this data -- and with a high degree of certainty either ignored indications of it or deliberately concealed it. That's fraud and upon proof retroactively voids liability protection back to the first EUA-administered jab, including that provided by the PREP Act as willful misconduct is outside of PREP Act and other applicable legal liability protection.
Second, the FDA standard for a vaccine, which they formally adopted for Covid-19 vaccines, requiring that they must be at least 50% effective in preventing the disease in question over the period of concern. Since a seasonal respiratory virus is, as the name implies, an annual risk that would place the period of time at "one year." None of these jabs, on the CDC's own evidence, are licensable under the FDA's standards and thus none can be mandated in any way.
We now know why the JAMA study, which found 83% population immunity as of May which is sufficient to suppress Covid-19 given its experimentally-determined R0, failed to do so. 63% of population was not immune by former infection; they were immune by vaccination and by June and July enough of those vaccinated people had their protection age off sufficiently to be worthless against infection and transmission. This is why, on the facts, the summer surge happened.
Now, you might argue that this means the government can force jabs every four months. Indeed Israel is attempting to do exactly that.
Nope. That is neither lawful or Constitutional in the United States.
Remember the law on accommodations when it comes to those with a "disability" (who cannot choose and thus cannot consent): An accommodation is lawful if and only if it is not an unreasonable burden on the person forced to make the accommodation. If the accommodation would be "unreasonably burdensome" it cannot be required.
Thus you can be forced, when remodeling your commercial building (or building a new one), to put in a ramp, an electric door opener and a button for someone in a wheelchair because it's not an unreasonable accommodation to do so.
You can't be forced, as an employer, to put in a completely separate air feed, a separate means of entrance and egress, and hermetic seals around a workspace so a person with a void immune system (aka "bubble boy") can be hired as an employee without immediately being exposed to a bacterial or viral agent that will kill him or her yet would be harmless or of minimal significance to someone with a functional immune system.
You also can't be forced, as a homeowner, to put in that same ramp because it is unreasonable to force you, who do not need such an accommodation, to suffer the expense because someone might come to your private residence (or may purchase same from you in the future) who does.
So can an employee ever be forced to be vaccinated on the premise of protecting others? Maybe. If all of the others can choose to protect themselves for no more risk than the employee is required to take then the answer is no. In other words you can't make me wear a mask so you don't have to. But you might be able to make me wear one if you can't wear one and you can prove there is less or equivalent risk to me from doing so than not.
And here we get into the next problem for the CDC, which is their own data once again:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7038e3-H.pdf
Divide all those numbers by 10 to get "per-100,000" rates.
So for someone under 17 the risk of death from Covid-19, assuming you get infected, is 2/100,000 (or 0.002%) For someone 18-49 it is 50/100,000 (or 0.05%) For someone 50-64 it is 600/100,000 (or 0.6%) And for someone 65+ it is 9,000/100,000 (or nine percent)
These are obviously too-broad ranges but they're the CDC's numbers. We could take a stab at disentangling them using the NYC Coroner data, for example, and I have -- but we don't have to in this case because the CDC has provided enough data on their own, within the Federal government, to complete the analysis.
VAERS says the risk of death shortly following vaccination for Covid-19 is at least 15,386 / 200,000,000 (remember, this is "died with" not "died of" in both cases of vaccination and infection) or 7.69/100,000. This, by the way, is wildly higher than that for the flu shot (about 20-30 deaths per year across 170 million shots delivered) and thus is very unlikely to be a coincidence.
Here's the problem -- this rate of risk is per vaccine delivered. For someone under 17 the risk of the vaccine exceeds the risk of their dying from Covid-19. For someone in 18-49 the math looks better -- if you only take one shot ever. But that's not the paradigm, is it? Nope. So the risk of the vaccine over three shots a year is 21/100,000 and over six shots in total, or approximately 18 months, it is virtually the same as the disease. Yet over the first 16 months or so -- most of which was during a time when there were no vaccines -- only 20% of the population was infected. The risk is taken when you get jabbed (is certain), but the risk of infection is only taken if you get infected (is not certain.)
In other words since we now know from the CDC itself that the vaccines are not durable and must be repeated every four months for someone under 50 the cross-over of risk occurs in less than two years after which they are better off being infected. For someone under 18 they are always better off being infected.
Remember that infection confers sterilizing immunity and, on the science, is durable. How durable we do not know precisely but we do know that other coronaviruses, including OC43, were believed to cause a similar pandemic (specifically in the 1890s) and now cause colds and mild flus in most people. In addition persons infected with the original SARS were shown to still have protection against reinfection seventeen years later. In other words if you choose natural immunity and get infected the odds are you permanently protected against a severe (hospitalized) or fatal outcome, although at some point you will get it again, likely more than once in your lifetime.
Now here's the punchline: To argue that you must take the jab "for others" the argument is in fact that you must risk your own life to save other's lives because the common good, albeit diffuse and indistinguishable from person to person, mandates you place yourself at risk of permanent disability or fatal outcome and the risk of that disabling or fatal outcome is, over time, higher than that which would occur if you did nothing and risked a natural infection.
This is simply not supportable under our Constitution or law and in fact is a violation of your pre-political rights.
Contemplate this scenario which is exactly the same as those arguing for and imposing "mandates": We clearly need more children in the United States. As of 2018 the birth rate is 1.73 live births per woman and it has fallen further in recent years, down 20% since 2007. At a birth rate under approximately 2.1 per woman your nation and society eventually go extinct since that is the number required to maintain your population.
It is a clear societal yet diffuse "good" to have children born to at least replace those persons who die. Without same over sufficient time there is quite literally nobody left!
This outcome absent change is guaranteed to occur. Long before you actually all go extinct, however, the government will fail due to lack of the ability to collect the taxes and fund itself necessary to operate. In other words the destruction of your society doesn't happen when the last person dies -- as I'm sure you can realize it happens long before then when there are insufficient people to maintain the infrastructure necessary to keep a modern way of life operating.
This is identical to the "risk" posed by Covid-19. It is diffuse and uncertain, yet statistically it will do harm. That it will harm some specific person cannot be determined in advance; indeed, among my close associates I had an older married couple, both with serious morbidities. One was killed by this virus in early 2020, the other untouched despite sleeping in the same bed. Similarly, who will get harmed as the population dwindles cannot be determined in advance either, but that it will happen is a mathematical certainty.
Therefore the government and private businesses have the right to forcibly impregnate women who do not otherwise get pregnant and force them in each case to carry the fetus to term so as to prevent that from happening -- right?
Uh, of course not.
Why not?
Because the personal risk of harm -- physical, medical, psychological and financial -- to any given woman may, at some time and indeed most of the time over time, exceeds the diffuse societal benefit from her giving birth to said child. Therefore even though it is clearly not only in the interest of the public as a whole for the rate of child-bearing to be at least replacement it is not lawful to intrude into a person's body to cause it to be so.
The exact same analysis applies here. Yes, protection of the public health is a proper function of government since public health is diffuse yet personal health is, by definition, personal and thus not diffuse. When the two align mandates are supportable. A cost of personal health (or risk thereto) that is de minimis or is literally zero of course argues for the public interest.
For example quarantining someone known infectious with reasonable scientific certainty with an infectious disease is reasonable because the public benefit is clear and the personal cost limited in time and impact, with a zero risk of mortality due to temporary constraint on personal movement. In the context of mandated vaccinations the USSC has been clear as well; for a disease (e.g. smallpox) where the fatality rate was 30% and the vaccine killed you one or two times in a million the argument held for this reason. You had a tiny risk of dying from the vaccination (personal harm) but the public benefit with a disease that killed 30% of the time was immense. Further, for all persons not previously infected the personal risk .vs. reward odds were always positive by utterly ridiculous ratios. When your personal risk of the smallpox vaccine killing you was 1/500,000 (0.0002%) yet the disease killed 30% of the time in non-vaccinated persons there's little argument to be had.
This is clearly not the case here; in those under 50 repeated vaccination is, on balance, more-dangerous than the virus and in those under 18 it is always more-dangerous even from the first use. Never mind that the jabs contribute nothing to population immunity (a public good) since you can still be infected and become contagious while infection and recovery does.
Biden's position, and that of the Federal Government, is unsupportable on both the facts and the law.
There is no debate on the facts when those arguing for mandates prove with their own claims and data that their argument is unsupportable both as a matter of fact and as a matter of law. A viable disagreement to be submitted to a court requires that a trier of fact have some set of facts in dispute. The CDC, an organ of the government itself, has admitted there are no facts in dispute; the vaccines are ineffective and are, on their own data, more harmful than the infection in a large percentage of the population. The public health argument thus fails on its first premise.
We are either a nation bound by law or we are not. If we are not, and the government and judiciary so-declare they must understand that this declaration means exactly what you think it might.
>> in those under 50 repeated vaccination is, on balance, more-dangerous than the virus and in those under 18 it is always more-dangerous even from the first use.
Predators are going after the youth.
All this sounds really good Karl, but you are basing this on the premise that we live in a nation of laws, we live in a Nation of Men and the Law means what we want it to mean when we need it, got it?
Seriously: that doesn't matter.
It's a Brave New World.
These are obviously too-broad ranges but they're the CDC's numbers. We could take a stab at disentangling them using the NYC Coroner data, for example, and I have -- but we don't have to in this case because the CDC has provided enough data on their own, within the Federal government, to complete the analysis.
VAERS says the risk of death shortly following vaccination for Covid-19 is at least 15,386 / 200,000,000 (remember, this is "died with" not "died of" in both cases of vaccination and infection) or 7.69/100,000. This, by the way, is wildly higher than that for the flu shot (about 20-30 deaths per year across 170 million shots delivered) and thus is very unlikely to be a coincidence.
But even that analysis is too generous to the vaccine. It doesn't correct for the greater incidence of vaccination than infection. They want to vaccinate everybody, whereas maybe only 30% of the population might contract COVID, at least to a degree that they'd end up getting counted in the stats. So to be apples to apples, you need to calculate the risk of dying from/with COVID for the ENTIRE population, both infected and uninfected, which would make the author's point even more strongly.
Good read, thank you.
Bingo.
The US is now every bit as corrupt as Afghanistan.
Sue the bastards!
Karl has a real problem confusing what should be with what is....
Can we get a team of about 1,000 really aggressive, really nasty lawyers to go after this hammer and tongs for about six months pro bono? It would do the country an enormous service.
“Let me point out a few other inconvenient facts. First, the companies and CDC likely knew this prior to the jabs going into widespread use, since their effectiveness is basically zero compared against unvaccinated controls within four to six months. The original EUA trials were about four months in duration, which means they, or the firms, had this data — and with a high degree of certainty either ignored indications of it or deliberately concealed it. That’s fraud and upon proof retroactively voids liability protection back to the first EUA-administered jab, including that provided by the PREP Act as willful misconduct is outside of PREP Act and other applicable legal liability protection.”
Now, given this excerpt from his blog, it seems to mean if a company knew its vaccine was ineffective after four months and hid this fact, they could be held financially responsible for any damages. Does anyone really think the government would allow Pfizer to be sued for damages caused by their vaccine?
And by the way, one of our local talk show hosts was hospitalized by the vaccine and had to pay for it out-of-pocket because it was an experimental treatment. Insurance was not required to cover his hospitalization.
Ping
The judiciary is not going to save us.
On to the next option.
The major constitutional problem with government “vaccine” mandate is this imo. Non-elected governent bureaucrats, like those under the umbrella of the unconstitutional (imo) Health and Human Services Department, don’t have the express constitutional authority to make such decisions imo.
More specifically, the delegates to the Contitutional Convention had intended for popularly elected government officials to accept the risk of getting voted out of office for voting the unpopular way on such decisions. (Government health officials perhaps need to be popularly elected.)
Unfortunately, corrupt career lawmakers have learned the dirty trick of front-ending their legislative responsibities with unconstitutional, so-called government regulatory agencies so that non-elected bureaucrats can make lawmakers’ unpopular regulatory decisions for them.
This unconstitutional transfer of power not only gives crook lawmakers a way to keep their voting records clean, making it easier to get reelected, but it also scandalously weakens the voting power of ordinary citizens.
Insights welcome.
The ultimate remedy for unconstitutionally big, alleged election-stealing, Democratic Party-pirated federal and state governments oppressing everybody under their boots...
Consider that all the states can effectively “secede” from the unconstitutionally big federal government by doing the following.
Patriots need to primary federal and state elected officials who don’t send voters email ASAP that clearly promises to do the following.
Federal and state lawmakers need to promise in their emails to introduce resolutions no later than 100 days after start of new legislative sessions that proposes an amendment to the Constitution to the states, the amendment limited to repealing the 16th and ill-conceived 17th Amendments.
A new term to remember: “Vaccinazification”. Using an illusory threat of a disease to impose fascist controls over others.
No, they are not! Sheesh! Look words up before publishing!
Pretty sweet. One get out of responsibility card for the insurance companies...
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2020/09/21/583303.htm
Imagine a scenario where COVID-19 was manufactured in a lab and was released as an act of terror. Tracey Gibbons, senior vice present, Underwriting, at Third Point Re, considers this possibility during a presentation for Carrier Management’s new series of ExecTalk videos.
“It would effectively become a terror loss and only [be] covered by carriers that have not excluded nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological, or NBCR terrorism,” Gibbons said...
...“This sort of scenario could open carriers up to losing multiple regional limits as the virus worked its way around the globe. I haven’t heard anyone talk about this or seen any insurers or reinsurers think about modifying the way they manage the aggregation of these exposures as a result.”...
And one for the hostile elite to prep the world for global tyranny. That would be called a win/win, right?
ACTION:
Notice of Emergency Use Authorization Declaration.
SUMMARY:
The Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) is issuing this notice pursuant to section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act. On February 4, 2020, the Secretary determined pursuant to his authority under section 564 of the FD&C Act that there is a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad and that involves a novel (new) coronavirus (nCoV) first detected in Wuhan City, Hubei Province, China in 2019 (2019-nCoV). The virus is now named SARS-CoV-2, which causes the illness COVID-19. On the basis of this determination, he also declared that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use of medical devices, including alternative products used as medical devices, pursuant to section 564 of the FD&C Act, subject to the terms of any authorization issued under that section.
DATES:
The determination was effective February 4, 2020, and this declaration is effective March 24, 2020.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Under section 564 of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3, the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), acting under delegated authority from the Secretary of HHS, may issue an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) authorizing (1) the emergency use of an unapproved drug, an unapproved or uncleared device, or an unlicensed biological product; or (2) an unapproved use of an approved drug, approved or cleared device, or licensed biological product. Before an EUA may be issued, the Secretary of HHS must declare that circumstances exist justifying the authorization based on one of four determinations: (1) A determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that there is a domestic emergency, or a significant potential for a domestic emergency, involving a heightened risk of attack with a, chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (“CBRN”) agent or agents; (2) the identification of a material threat by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to section 319F-2 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act sufficient to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad; (3) a determination by the Secretary of Defense that there is a military emergency, or a significant potential for a military emergency, involving a heightened risk to United States military forces, including personnel operating under the authority of title 10 or title 50, of attack with (i) a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; or (ii) an agent or agents that may cause, or are otherwise associated with, an imminently life-threatening and specific risk to United States military forces; or (4) a determination by the Secretary that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a CBRN agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent or agents.
Based on any of these four determinations, the Secretary of HHS may then declare that circumstances exist that justify the EUA, at which point the FDA Commissioner may issue an EUA if the criteria for issuance of an authorization under section 564 of the FD&C Act are met. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, HHS, requested that the FDA, HHS, issue an EUA for certain medical devices to allow the Department to take response measures based on information currently available about the virus that causes COVID-19. The determination of a public health emergency, and the declaration that circumstances exist justifying emergency use of certain medical devices by the Secretary of HHS, as described below, enable the FDA Commissioner to issue an EUA for these devices for emergency use under section 564 of the FD&C Act.
II. Determination by the Secretary of Health and Human Services
On February 4, 2020, pursuant to section 564 of the FD&C Act, I determined that there is a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad and that involves a novel (new) coronavirus (nCoV) first detected in Wuhan City, Hubei Province, China in 2019 (2019-nCoV). The virus is now named SARS-CoV-2, which causes the illness COVID-19.
III. Declaration of the Secretary of Health and Human Services
On March 24, 2020, on the basis of my determination of a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad and that involves the novel (new) coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, I declared that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use of medical devices, including alternative products used as medical devices, pursuant to section 564 of the FD&C Act, subject to the terms of any authorization issued under that section.
Notice of the EUAs issued by the FDA Commissioner pursuant to this determination and declaration will be provided promptly in the Federal Register as required under section 564 of the FD&C Act.
Dated: March 24, 2020.
Alex M. Azar II,
The icing on the cake for the wannabe tyrants... they got a declaration of war... on a non-identifiable whatchamacallit!
Karl does not mention there are effective, proven treatments that can treat SARs with a very high success rate.
Corona viruses are a large part and an ever mutating member of the, "common cold". We shut the world down for a bad strain.
“So can an employee ever be forced to be vaccinated on the premise of protecting others? Maybe.”
uh no. there is no “maybe.” the right to informed consent for any health procedure is an individual right under our system. no blanket rule can be enforced on an individual without that individual’s consent or the gov’t must allow due process to inflict any coercion. the fact that biden is already using coercion with vaccine mandates is illegal in my view.
in fact **any** coercion negates informed consent and is immoral and illegal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.