This Loophole in the OSHA Regulations Could Help You Get Around the Biden Vaccine Mandate

PJ Media ^ | 10/17/2021 | Stacey Lennox

[SeekAndFind]

OSHA is reportedly getting ready to issue the vaccine mandate President Biden asked them to create. This action is unprecedented on several levels. Using OSHA’s emergency powers to avoid the administrative law procedures that include a public comment period is dubious at best. To issue an Emergency Temporary Standard, “OSHA must determine that workers are in grave danger due to exposure to toxic substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful or to new hazards and that an emergency standard is needed to protect them.”

div class="thm-piano-mop-premium">

Does COVID-19 meet that standard? The current infection fatality rates (IFR) for Americans under 50 make it difficult to assert that there is grave danger for the majority of the working-age population. As of October 9, the current public health situation, according to the NHCS provisional death counts, the CDC data tracker, and the CDC estimate disease burden, looks like this for the majority of the working-age population:

Does an estimated IFR of 0.07% constitute an emergency for OSHA when the widely cited IFR for the flu is 0.1%, according to the WHO and Dr. Anthony Fauci? Americans 18-49 actually make up a more significant percentage of non-COVID deaths than COVID-related deaths.

The pandemic is also 18 months old with no other emergency standard issued by OSHA. In fact, OSHA basically admits the agency was not authorized to issue standards when it first posted guidance for employers in January, making a clear distinction: These were recommendations, not standards employers were required to follow.

[Svartalfiar]

The problem with alternate treatments is it requires a tremendously expensive procedure—clinical trials—to get them approved for use. To get the financing you will need an organized effort and that could open up the door to people taking the money to their offshore banks.

Do you even read what you write when you write it?

The problem with fancy new treatments is that they require a tremendously even more expensive procedure - research, development, clinical trials, etc - to get them designed, created, safe, AND approved for use. To get the financing, well, usually it takes several years just for that step. And just as much (likely more) is gonna go to those same people with those same offshore bank accounts.

The difference here is that existing treatments have already completed all those RnD steps, already have a lot of safety knowledge, long-term studies, the only thing left is to test efficacy against the specific new disease you're trialing them on, and maybe safety factors if the dosages are higher than already established safe doses.

The ONLY REASONS your new 'vaccines' were so fast is because of a massive, unConstitutional government funding push, a complete bumrush on clinical trials (skipping/combining phases, etc) and complete blackout on alternate treatments.

[Svartalfiar]

You criticize Big Pharma but do you consider the huge cost of research and development, testing and production for something like Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine for COVID-19? The money does not come out of thin air.

I am fully aware of this massive cost, and I know full well only a small percent of those $$ even make it past initial research, much less make it to animal trials, much less make it to human trials, much less even get approved. And yet, for these "vaccines", the money DID come out of thin air - FedGov just threw billions of $$ at these companies, and I'm sure plenty ended up in your other guy's offshore bank accounts.


What? Do you want Pfizer and Moderna to lose money on it?You bet I do, when the cost to me and the rest of the country for them to 'make money' is a complete disregard for other, more effective and much cheaper treatments, a massive destruction of private liberties, a huge increase in national debt that FegGov has no Constitutional power to expend, and so on. Their profit comes at a much greater expense.


If you say that ivermectin has already been created and has passed the trials and has FDA approval, there is one problem. They do not know if the necessary dose to treat COVID is safe for humans and will be effective. Clinical trials have to be done to learn the answer to many questions. If the trials do not show ivermectin is safe at the necessary dose, then out goes that remedy after much expense.

Once again, testing effective dosages for an already known off-label is much less work and expense than a new drug that has to INCLUDE THAT SAME STEP, as well as 100s of others. Your new drugs have the same problem, only more so, you claim [ivermectin] has - no one knows what the effective dosaging is, but in addition no one knows what the max safe dose, toxic dose, etc is. No one knows ANYTHING about them - all of that still needs additional testing besides just effective dose.


The average cost of phase 1, 2, and 3 clinical trials across therapeutic areas is around $4, 13, and 20 million respectively. Pivotal (phase 3) studies for new drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cost a median of $41,117 per patient. Who is willing to take a chance on ivermectin for COVID?

So about $40MM to completely test a potential treatment, which equals about 1000 test subjects for your new drug. That doesn't sound close to a sufficient clinical trial pool to get a drug approved. Sounds like the financial incentives lean extremely heavily to utilizing existing treatments instead of developing new ones, ESPECIALLY new ones that are an entirely new type of drug. And apparently a lot of people are willing to try out Ivermectiin, take a look at Japan and several other countries!

[Svartalfiar]

And, I forgot to add -

Pharma has very little financial exposure here - Most of the $$ they’d be risking if they got shut down here would be almost entirely Federal dollars, not their own. They’ve already profited off this, even if every single ‘vaccine’ got pulled tomorrow.

Also, you said clinical trials of existing drugs would be very expensive. Why would all the unConstitutional funding that went to the ‘vaccines’ not also be applied to that? Are you arguing Gov should have funding for the ‘vaccines’ but not funded any other research? Why?

[cgbg]

There is only one cure for climate change—get lots of folks vaccinated so they get sick and die.

[jonrick46]

"Do you want Pfizer and Moderna to lose money on it?You bet I do, when the cost to me and the rest of the country for them to 'make money' is a complete disregard for other, more effective and much cheaper treatments, a massive destruction of private liberties, a huge increase in national debt that FegGov has no Constitutional power to expend, and so on. Their profit comes at a much greater expense."

You say there are cheaper treatments to combat COVID-19. Let's say everyone could get ivermectin over the counter. Everyone would be self-dosing to prevent getting COVID-19. How much would ivermectin cost if the demand shot up to the Ozone Layer. Would you expect the government to pay the cost?

The use of ivermectin at the population level of the U.S. would produce environmental problems. It would enter the water supply in sewage discharge and affect marine life with serious consequences.

There needs to be more study of ivermectin to determine the dose safety if it is to be used as a preventative. If it is to be used as a treatment, the unvaccinated patient would have had all that time to transmit their contagion before they were isolated as symptoms appeared. Those who are vaccinated, can get infected, but their length of contagion is short and normal safety measures would limit their ability to infect. The cost to benefit ratio of the vaccine outweighs going out into the chicken yard and doing a "sky is falling!" dance against the vaccine.

You have to understand that over 380 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been administered in the United States from Dec. 14, 2020, through Sept. 13, 2021. In that period, VAERS received 7,653 reports of death (0.0020%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. That's less chance of dying from a bee sting (.00168%). You might say that the chance of death from COVID is around 2%. However to be really accurate, it depends upon your age. I found a calculator that you can use to give your chances of death according to your age:

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/covid-pandemic-mortality-risk-estimator

You will say that getting COVID will be 98% chance of complete recovery. However, getting COVID risks long term side effects which will shorten you life:

Patients who were infected by COVID-19 had a high rate of stroke and other nervous system ailments; mental health problems such as depression; the onset of diabetes; heart disease and other coronary problems; diarrhea and digestive disorders; kidney disease; blood clots; joint pain; hair loss; and general fatigue. Patients often had clusters of these ailments. They will add to shorten your life. And the more severe the case of COVID-19, the higher the chance of long-term health problems including death.

According to the CDC: "A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy and medical records, there has not been established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines."

The CDC has also reported:

As of Sept. 8, 2021, VAERS received 1,413 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis among people ages 30 and younger who received COVID-19 vaccine, and the CDC and FDA have confirmed 854 of them. "CDC and its partners are investigating these reports to assess whether there is a relationship to COVID-19 vaccination."

These myocarditis and pericarditis ailments are short-term and will lead to a cure.

"Recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between" the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and TTS, "a rare and serious adverse event — blood clots with low platelets — which has caused deaths." I am not sure the experts have determined how the vaccine causes this rare ailment.

[Tellurian]

The use of ivermectin at the population level of the U.S. would produce environmental problems. It would enter the water supply in sewage discharge and affect marine life with serious consequences.

I guess you're worried about 6 ppm in a gallon of the US water supply, if it takes a month to degrade. It might be beneficial, not harmful. Less disease? Less colorectal cancer? Maybe Ivermectin (just like fluoride?) would be a good thing.

[jonrick46]

Those getting vaccinated have as much chance of dying as one dying from a prop pistol on a movie set.

[Svartalfiar]

You say there are cheaper treatments to combat COVID-19. Let's say everyone could get ivermectin over the counter. Everyone would be self-dosing to prevent getting COVID-19. How much would ivermectin cost if the demand shot up to the Ozone Layer. Would you expect the government to pay the cost?

Ivermectin would likely not shoot up in cost much, it is easy and cheap to manufacture, and many governments already have large stockpiles of it. Ivermectin is one of the WHO's critical list for drugs every government should have a stockpile of.
And no, the government shouldn't be paying any of the cost for any of this medical stuff, but it'd be cheaper for them to buy everyone a bottle of ivermectin pills than it's costing them to buy everyone a shot (two, three, more?) from Pfizer and Moderna.


The use of ivermectin at the population level of the U.S. would produce environmental problems. It would enter the water supply in sewage discharge and affect marine life with serious consequences.

Sure, large amounts of any drug in fecal matter may pose some issues, but most sewage is treated in wastewater plants already. Environmental runoff is minimal. And how would ivermectin be worse than all the runoff from the ChinaVirus "vaccines"? Does anyone even know what waste products the body produces from those shots? Every single argument you make against ivermectin or other existing off-label drugs, applies just as much, if not more so, to the "vaccines".


There needs to be more study of ivermectin to determine the dose safety if it is to be used as a preventative. If it is to be used as a treatment, the unvaccinated patient would have had all that time to transmit their contagion before they were isolated as symptoms appeared. Those who are vaccinated, can get infected, but their length of contagion is short and normal safety measures would limit their ability to infect. The cost to benefit ratio of the vaccine outweighs going out into the chicken yard and doing a "sky is falling!" dance against the vaccine.

If there needs to be more study on ivermectin, then why doesn't the government complete those studies? Why are they doing their best to BLOCK THOSE STUDIES from even being attempted? Why are doctors getting fired for simply mentioning that they think ivermectin might be a possible treatment? And the "vaccines" appear to be even less effective than we first thought - various studies show people who are "vaccinated" may be more contagious than others, even as their protection quickly wanes and boosters look to be consistently required.

The cost to benefit ratio for the "vaccines" CANNOT be determined. There is no knowledge of the cost, with the longest long-term studies maybe having people with a year of exposure? Many of these heart problems an other antibody issues are types of problems that could take years to become a visible issue for some people. As for the benefit, the maybe better recovery rate (which seems to be narrowing and narrowing as time goes on), doesn't seem like much of a benefit when you're still fully contagious, still can get sick, and only lasts for what, eight months?


You have to understand that over 380 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been administered in the United States from Dec. 14, 2020, through Sept. 13, 2021. In that period, VAERS received 7,653 reports of death (0.0020%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.

And yet, FDA has pulled drugs that have been around way longer, after way fewer adverse effects were reported down the road? Name a single vaccine that has had this level of reported deaths in such a short time? And that's with incredible amounts of government and Pharma coverup of these issues, in a system that's estimated to only report 2-10% of actual issues related to any given vaccine. And we're just waiting for more people to continue having issues with these.

[glennaro]

We want people to get vaccinated, not get infected and die

To make this statement you must ignore that other therapeutics are available -- therapeutics that are at least as effective as these vaccines (which, based on growing, consistent data, are actually therapeutics themselves), which do not have the myriad side effects (ranging from inconvenience to paralysis to heart damage to death) of the vaccines, and which are far less costly than the vaccines.

[jonrick46]

Do the therapeutics reduce the spread better than the vaccines?

[jonrick46]

You present many questions that I would rather you present to your doctor. Some of them could even be addressed by your pharmacist.

With the short time I have, my recommendation is to get yourself vaccinated and spend more time with the political epidemic that is the Marxist subversion of America. For starters, read Mark Levin’s book “American Marxism.”

[SE Mom]

Bookmark

[Ahithophel]

Thanks.

[glennaro]

Hard to say, but that’s one of the purposes for a control group of non-needle-era. Cheers!

[Svartalfiar]

You present many questions that I would rather you present to your doctor. Some of them could even be addressed by your pharmacist.

And yet, I present them to you because I was having a discussion with you, not a doctor. And I don't think a single question was about specific medical care..


With the short time I have, my recommendation is to get yourself vaccinated and spend more time with the political epidemic that is the Marxist subversion of America. For starters, read Mark Levin’s book “American Marxism.”

With the short time you have now, yet you've had plenty of time to respond the last couple times? Do you just not have logical answers to what I asked? But thanks, I'll take that recommendation and probably stick with not getting experimental crap squirted into my arm, this was probably your weakest argument yet.