Posted on 09/29/2021 1:02:57 PM PDT by Red Badger
>> 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.