Author Topic: The War with Medical Fascism  (Read 106194 times)


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19758
    • View Profile
Wow - is this guy nuts (Fauci)
« Reply #203 on: November 28, 2021, 09:33:11 PM »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile
Re: The War with Medical Fascism
« Reply #205 on: December 02, 2021, 01:20:49 PM »
COVID-19 is a serious disease that can have deadly consequences. The good news is that now the recovery rate is between 97% and 99.75%. As the world approaches its second full year grappling with the ever-mutating virus and the public health response, some serious public policy and political questions require attention:

Are some people looking to leverage vaccination status to stigmatize and marginalize political opponents?
Is vaccine status being equated with ideology or political affiliation?

Is vaccine status going to be the new societal discriminator for those who might be "more equal" than others?
Are we seeing efforts to control and pressure citizens for daring to question government officials?

What about officials who seek to change the meaning of terms such as "fully vaccinated," or altogether abandon terms and conditions that were used to persuade the public to shut down businesses and society at-large.

The German news magazine, Der Spiegel, recently featured a story titled: "Study Finds Link Between Far Right and High Corona Rates in Germany." The subtitle of the story is:

"The number of coronavirus infections is rising sharply in parts of Germany where the far-right AfD party enjoys greater support. Is it a coincidence? Researchers took a close look at the corollaries and drew some conclusions that surprised even them."

Der Spiegel reporters Holger Dambeck and Peter Maxwill reported:

"An interdisciplinary team at the Research Institute for Social Cohesion and a researcher from Munich systematically investigated the connection between the election results and the spread of the pathogen. The experts' findings are clear: The higher the number of votes the AfD got in a region in the 2017 election, the faster the coronavirus spread there in 2020."

The broader political messaging is clear: Conservatives are disease-spreading troglodytes that endanger civilization.

The sensationalized findings focus on correlation and not a causal relationship, so the study and the speculative reporting are transparently sloppy smear-jobs. The real objective of both the study and the magazine reporting is clearly to damage political opponents by associating them with a deadly disease.

Given Germany's notorious history of brutally stigmatizing various minority populations, it is shocking and outrageous that a German "research institute" and the Hamburg-based weekly news magazine would sink to such sleazy malice.

Sadly, the United States has its own set of operatives seeking to marginalize those who question vaccine mandates, as well as persons with valid reservations concerning the long-term safety and efficacy of the various vaccines. In the British medical journal, The Lancet, Dr. Günter Kampf, a professor at the Institute of Hygiene and Environmental Science at the University of Greifswald in Germany, wrote an important, brief piece, published on November 20, 2021: "COVID-19: Stigmatizing the Unvaccinated is Not Justified." Kampf wrote:

"In the USA and Germany, high-level officials have used the term pandemic of the unvaccinated, suggesting that people who have been vaccinated are not relevant in the epidemiology of COVID-19. Officials' use of this phrase might have encouraged one scientist to claim that 'the unvaccinated threaten the vaccinated for COVID-19'. But this view is far too simple."

Kampf goes on to detail substantial, documented evidence that vaccinated individuals continue to have a relevant role in COVID-19 transmission. He describes a July 2021 COVID outbreak in Massachusetts, wherein 74% of the cases were in people who were fully or partly vaccinated. He closes his argument with a plea:

"I call on high-level officials and scientists to stop the inappropriate stigmatization of unvaccinated people, who include our patients, colleagues, and other fellow citizens, and to put extra effort into bringing society together."

Kampf is not alone. Dr. Paul Elias Alexander is a clinical epidemiologist who teaches evidence-based medicine and research methodology. He was also a senior advisor on COVID pandemic policy for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Alexander has been published by the Brownstone Institute, writing:

"... existing immunity should be assessed before any vaccination... Such would be evidence of immunity that is equal to that of vaccination and the immunity should be provided the same societal status as any vaccine-induced immunity. This will function to mitigate the societal anxiety with these forced vaccine mandates and societal upheaval due to job loss, denial of societal privileges etc. Tearing apart the vaccinated and the unvaccinated in a society, separating them, is not medically or scientifically supportable."

Alexander's report on naturally acquired immunity to Covid-19 seems to be ignored in the media and by government officials. Why is that? 130 research studies discussing the relative merits and protections of natural immunity appear to be scrupulously ignored. One would think that a full, open and honest public dialogue and corresponding public treatment plan would discuss the full spectrum of medical facts, conditions, and treatments.

Conspicuous for defying convention and taking the broader, holistic approach to COVID-19 is Florida's Surgeon General, Dr. Joseph Ladapo, who holds both MD and PhD degrees from Harvard. He is the refreshing exception to authoritarianism and a seemingly endless cycle of public scare tactics.

We are seeing a growing authoritarianism by governments across the globe concerning the drive to vaccinate everyone: mandates, lockdowns, vaccine passports and restrictions on civil liberties. We are also seeing a corresponding resistance to heavy-handed, government imposed measures. Protests have erupted across Europe over renewed lockdown drives by European governments. Australians are also now pushing back in protest.

The Biden administration attempted to issue an unprecedented federal mandate for vaccination, that has been thwarted (for the time-being) by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court made it explicitly clear that the mandate raises grave constitutional concerns. Nonetheless, the Biden White House arrogantly "encouraged" — some might say ordered – businesses to continue forward with forcing employees to be vaccinated.

Despite the Biden White House's seemingly power-mad drive to defy courts, browbeat businesses, and intimidate citizens, this is still the United States and the Constitution is still the law of the land. Even though the normally vocal "my body, my choice" crowd seems to have vanished hypocritically from the public square over vaccine choice — American workers are pushing back against the fascist-like government/corporate partnership demanding vaccinations.

COVID-19 is a serious disease, but it bears constant repeating that the recovery rate now is between 97% and 99.75%. The American public has never had a federal vaccine mandate imposed upon it. Fear, shock, intimidation and ultimatums are not the decision-making components of a representative democracy. The Constitution is not "waived" due to disease or natural disaster. We must beware of politicians and other officials who seek to exercise power through "mandates" without a single vote or the active exercise of informed consent.

We must resist authoritarian impulses and exercises by various officials seeking to consolidate power and impose their will over the constitutional processes and guarantees we enjoy. Our Constitution was designed and ratified for exactly such challenges and it has endured 231 years through a myriad of challenges far more grave than a virus. The Constitution guarantees that we remain a country of freedom and opportunity in spite of a pandemic and those officials seeking to address public health.

Chris Farrell is Director of Investigations at Judicial Watch and Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile
WSJ: Two track jobs recovery
« Reply #207 on: December 03, 2021, 03:35:24 AM »


America’s Two-Track Jobs Recovery
Memo to Ron Klain: Here are the pandemic policies that worked.
By The Editorial Board
Dec. 2, 2021 6:46 pm ET


Lockdowns and other harsh government measures don’t stop Covid, so why is the White House still trying to defend them? “Stronger COVID measures produce STRONGER ECONOMIC outcomes,” White House chief of staff Ron Klain tweeted Wednesday. “That’s why jobs, growth and economic activity are UP this year, significantly over last year.”

Egad. Jobs and economic growth have rebounded as vaccines became widely available and Democratic-led states finally lifted their destructive lockdowns. But lockdown states continue to suffer high unemployment while Republican-led states that maintained many fewer restrictions have almost fully recovered.

It’s clear from the numbers, if you’ll bear with us. The Labor Department recently reported that the unemployment rate in October hit the lowest on record since 1976 in West Virginia (4.3%), Georgia (3.1%), Oklahoma (2.7%), Utah (2.2%) and Nebraska (1.9%). Vermont (2.8%), Idaho (2.8%), South Dakota (2.8%), New Hampshire (2.9%), Alabama (3.1%), Montana (3.1%), Wisconsin (3.2%) and Indiana (3.3%) are close to their pre-pandemic rates.

In some of these states, many unemployed have dropped out of the labor force, which has reduced their unemployment rates. But the labor force has grown in Idaho, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah and Wisconsin as well as some others. All these states have GOP governors and legislatures, with the exception of Wisconsin (Democratic Governor) and Vermont (Democratic legislature).


Nine states, on the other hand, have unemployment rates above 6%—California (7.3%), Nevada (7.3%), New Jersey (7%), New York (6.9%), New Mexico (6.5%), Connecticut (6.4%), Hawaii (6.3%), Michigan (6.1%) and Alaska (6.1%). All have Democratic government trifectas save Michigan (GOP legislature) and Alaska (GOP Governor and legislature).


While payroll jobs nationwide are 2.7% below their pre-pandemic peak, Utah and Idaho have exceeded theirs by 3.5% and 1.6%, respectively. Arizona (-0.2%), Texas (-0.5%), South Dakota (-0.7%), Nebraska (-0.8%), Alabama (-1.2%), Arkansas (-1.2%), Montana (-1.2%), Georgia (-1.3%), Tennessee (-1.7%), South Carolina (-1.8%) and Florida (-1.9%) will do so soon.

By contrast, New York (-8.2%), Pennsylvania (-5.4%), Michigan (-5.1%), Massachusetts (-5.1%), California (-5%), New Jersey (-4.8%), Connecticut (-4.7%) and Illinois (-4.7%) will take much longer to recover the jobs they lost, if they ever do. The New York City (-10.1%), San Francisco/East Bay (-7.4%) and Los Angeles (-6.6%) regions have even further to go.

Utah
Idaho
Ariz.
Texas
S.D.
N.Y.
Pa.
Md.
Mich.
Calif.
-10%
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
There are about four million “missing” jobs since February 2020 in the 23 states with Democratic governors versus 1.3 million in the 27 with GOP governors even though they have only 15% more population. (State and national data don’t always align.) Incredibly, the missing jobs in California, Illinois and New Jersey exceed all those in the 27 GOP-led states combined.

What explains this startling dichotomy? One obvious culprit is the extent of lockdowns. Democratic governors tended to favor extensive lockdowns that were especially hard on small businesses. Population migration has also reduced the demand for services. Many offices in New York and San Francisco haven’t fully reopened, so hospitality jobs that depend on them haven’t returned.

Yet there are also many more missing workers in leading lockdown states. Florida’s labor force has expanded 1.2% during the pandemic while California’s has shrunk 2.1%. There are 950,000 fewer employed workers in California than before the pandemic versus 12,000 fewer in Florida. Put another way, California is missing 40 times more workers than Florida, adjusting for population. This is one reason ships are backed up in Los Angeles, where the unemployment rate is still 9.4%, though the labor force has shrunk by 120,000.

Government payments also reduced the incentive to work. Most Republican-led states withdrew expanded pandemic unemployment benefits by early July but they didn't lapse in Democratic states until Labor Day. California’s eviction moratorium didn’t expire until October, and Democrats have offered to pay 100% of the back rent for tenants dating to April 2020. The Golden State this summer also sent $1,100 checks to lower-income families.

We wish this partisan distinction didn’t exist, but the pandemic heightened the economic policy differences between the two political parties. The states have provided a market test, and GOP policies won. Mr. Klain is taking credit for the pandemic policy results in Florida and Georgia, not in New York or California.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: December 05, 2021, 08:39:00 AM by Crafty_Dog »







Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile
WT: Lawsuits target Biden vaxx overreach
« Reply #217 on: December 08, 2021, 02:24:26 AM »
Given who the author works for, this article is surprisingly accurate:

Lawsuits challenging Biden’s vaccine mandates target overreach

By Robert Charrow

Editor’s note: This is one in a series examining the Constitution and Federalist Papers in today’s America.

This has not been a good month for the Biden administration with respect to COVID-19. First, the new omicron variant has landed on our shores, and Moderna announced that its vaccine may not be as effective against this new variant. The Dow Jones Industrial Average and other markets have reacted accordingly.

Second, as of this week, more Americans have died from COVID-19 under the 10 months of the Biden administration, with both vaccines and effective therapeutics, than during the same 10-month stretch under the Trump administration without the vaccine and few therapeutics.

Third, President Biden’s three-pronged attempt to compel Americans to get vaccinated — a Department of Labor rule aimed at workplaces, a Department of Health and Human Services rule aimed at certain providers who bill Medicare, and an executive order aimed at federal contractors — has been rebuffed by the courts in what has become a litigation feeding frenzy. These three sets of cases do not question the efficacy or safety of the COVID-19 vaccines. They are likely the safest vaccines ever produced, and more folks should voluntarily get vaccinated. Nor are the cases necessarily about individual liberties. State governments have, for more than 100 years, imposed vaccine mandates on their citizenry, especially children.

Rather, the cases focus on whether the federal government (in contrast to the state governments) has the constitutional authority to impose the mandates, and if so, can that authority be exercised by the agencies through emergency rule making or by the president through an edict.

The health of our citizenry has traditionally been a matter exclusively within the purview of the states. Our earliest federal laws — from the 1790s — related to quarantines. They authorized federal authorities to assist the states in enforcing their health laws, but only when requested.

The actions of the early Congresses shine light on how our Founding Fathers envisioned the division of power between the states and the federal government. Our more recent laws, including Medicare and the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, have been careful to pay heed to state authority in this area, especially with respect to the practice of medicine. Nevertheless, the recent vaccine mandate cases show that some still have difficulty seeing the line dividing state and federal authority.

First up was the Labor Department rule from the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, which seeks to require employers of 100 or more to mandate their employees be vaccinated or be tested weekly and wear masks while at work. The rule also requires employers to give employees a paid day off to recover from the side effects of the vaccine. The rule was issued on an “emergency” basis without notice and comment, thereby short-circuiting the normal rule-making process.

Challenges to OSHA rules like this go directly to the federal courts of appeals. The states of Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Utahand numerous businesses that would be adversely affected by the rule immediately challenged it in the 5th Circuit, located in New Orleans. On Nov. 12, the court stayed the rule pending further judicial review, concluding, among other things, that “health agencies do not make housing policy, and occupational safety administrations do not make health policy … In seeking to do so here, OSHA runs afoul of the statute from which it draws its power and, likely, violates the constitutional structure that safeguards our collective liberty.”

Many other states and businesses also challenged the OSHA rule in various other appeals courts. In an odd twist, a panel of judges in the District of Columbia consolidated the many cases, including the one from the 5th Circuit, under the “lottery rule.” Under the law, when numerous parties challenge an agency order in different appeals courts, all the cases are supposed to go to a single appeals court, chosen through a random draw. The winner of this lottery was the 6th Circuit, which sits in Cincinnati.

It will now be up to the 6th Circuit to decide the fate of the OSHA rule. Maybe. It is unclear whether the lottery rule even applies in this instance. It comes into play only when “orders” are being challenged. Here, a rule is being challenged, and a “rule” is, by definition, not an “order.” The two are mutually exclusive. As the legal battle started, OSHA put its rule on ice until the court could resolve the matter.

Next up is the rule issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services mandating all employees of hospitals and other health care providers that participate in the Medicare or Medicaid programs be vaccinated. This rule was challenged by three groups of states in three federal trial courts — Pensacola, Florida; St. Louis; and New Orleans.

The first case went the federal government’s way. A conservative judge in Pensacola concluded that Florida had not demonstrated that it would be irreparably injured by the rule and therefore, denied the state’s request for a temporary restraining order.

Nine days later, though, the St. Louis court preliminarily halted the rule in 10 states. The following day, the New Orleans court put the rule out of its misery by granting a nationwide preliminary injunction. It stressed both federal government overreach and CMS’ failure to go through notice- and-comment rule making as factors in its decision.

Last to be reviewed judicially was Mr. Biden’s executive order mandating that government contractors require their employees to be vaccinated. It was challenged in a Kentucky federal court by the states of Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee. The court issued an injunction on the requirement in those three states, finding the “president exceeded his authority.”

These successful legal challenges have all been mounted by states that are understandably concerned that the executive branch is seeking to encroach into areas traditionally reserved for state governance. The cases bring to the fore the tension that has existed throughout the life of our federal system, between state autonomy and federal authority. In recent years, the Supreme Court has been more mindful than in the past that federal power is inherently limited by the Constitution. Merely because federal action may be good for public health does not mean it is lawful or constitutional.


• Robert Charrow was the general counsel at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of his law firm or its clients




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile
WSJ: Biden's Mandate Wipeout
« Reply #221 on: December 11, 2021, 05:37:31 AM »
Biden’s Federal Vaccine Mandate Wipeout
The Administration ignored the law. It is getting crushed in court.
By The Editorial Board
Follow
Updated Dec. 9, 2021 7:25 pm ET



What legal sage advised President Biden to impose vaccine mandates? The adviser needs to have his law licence pulled because the courts are repudiating the Administration’s mandates at an astonishing pace. A federal judge in Georgia was the latest on Tuesday when he blocked its vaccine requirement for employees of federal contractors—the fifth judicial rebuke in less than a month.

Judge R. Stan Baker ruled in a challenge brought by seven states that the Administration had exceeded its authority under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act. The President claimed his executive order would “promote economy and efficiency in procurement” by contracting with sources “that provide adequate Covid-19 safeguards for their workforce.”


But the law does not give the President “the right to impose virtually any kind of requirement on businesses that wish to contract with the Government (and, thereby, on those businesses’ employees) so long as he determines it could lead to a healthier and thus more efficient workforce or it could reduce absenteeism,” Judge Baker wrote.

Last week federal Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove enjoined the Administration from enforcing the contractor mandate in Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee. While conceding that Congress delegated broad power to the President, the judge noted that his “authority is not absolute” and the President’s overreach raises “several concerning statutory and constitutional implications.” The mandate “intrudes on an area that is traditionally reserved to the States,” Judge Tatenhove wrote, noting the Constitution grants the states general police powers to regulate public health and welfare.


Two judges recently scored the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for exceeding its authority by mandating vaccines for employees of healthcare providers that receive government funds. The Social Security Act authorizes CMS to prescribe rules and regulations that may be necessary to carry out the Medicaid and Medicare programs.


But as both judges noted, the Supreme Court has said that Congress must “speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency, decisions of vast economic and political significance.” “If CMS has the authority by a general authorization statute to mandate vaccines, they have authority to do almost anything they believe necessary, holding the hammer of termination of the Medicare/Medicaid Provider Agreement,” Louisiana Judge Terry Doughty noted.

Judge Doughty also blasted CMS for skipping notice-and-comment, and failing to consider surgical alternatives to its sweeping mandate and the reliance interest of states and providers on federal funds. “The Plaintiff States make a strong case that the CMS Mandate violates the States’ police power,” he wrote.

These smackdowns come on the heels of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling early last month that stayed the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s vaccinate-or-test mandate for workers of employers with 100 or more employees. The Fifth Circuit ruled against the Administration on procedural, statutory and constitutional grounds.

Mr. Biden’s vaccine mandate for federal employees is still standing, but the Administration has said that those who didn’t comply by the Nov. 22 deadline won’t be punished. “The goal of the federal employee vaccination requirement is to protect federal workers, not to punish them,” Office of Personnel Management and Office of Management and Budget leaders wrote to executive agencies.

They added: “We encourage your agencies to continue with robust education and counseling efforts through this holiday season as the first step in an enforcement process, with no subsequent enforcement actions.” Why not do the same for private employers and workers? The White House is punishing private workers while inoculating government servants from its overreach.

***
Perhaps White House chief of staff Ron Klain thought mandates would be popular, but public opinion is turning negative as the costs become plain. Democrats Jon Tester and Joe Manchin joined all Senate Republicans in voting Wednesday to block the President’s mandate on private employers. Speaker Nancy Pelosi won’t allow a vote in the House, but the bipartisan Senate repudiation, like the judicial rulings, shows what a blunder the coercive mandates are.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile
Dem message shifts due to backlash
« Reply #224 on: December 13, 2021, 04:44:42 AM »
Democrats’ message shifts, portrays vaccine mandate only as option

Biden’s hard line on workers backfires

BY TOM HOWELL JR. THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Democrats are increasingly talking up the testing option for employees who refuse to get vaccinated for COVID-19, a tacit acknowledgment that they are losing the public relations battle over President Biden’s mandates.

Rhetoric about the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s workplace rule initially highlighted the effort to get Americans vaccinated. After a slew of lawsuits, mounting worries about layoffs and Republicans’ portrayal of the mandate as an attack on individual liberties, Democrats are talking more about testing and masking requirements.

“The OSHA rule does not mandate the vaccine. It’s a way out of the weekly test. A weekly test that is a little swab swirled around your nostril five or six times for 30 seconds. That’s the requirement,” Sen. Christopher Murphy, Connecticut Democrat, said Wednesday in a speech slamming a Republican resolution to quash the OSHA rule.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters a day later that OSHA dictated “not just a vaccine requirement, but also a testing option.”

It’s a shift in tenor from September, when Mr. Biden characterized the OSHA rule for federal employees as a lever to reduce the spread of the coronavirus by increasing the share of vaccinated workers.

The science around controlling the virus hasn’t changed since early fall, and the White House pointed to instances when it accurately described the regulation as a choice between weekly testing or vaccination.

Public health experts have taken note of the rhetorical shift.

“The White House is focused on softening the public perception of the OSHA rule,” said Lawrence Gostin, a global health law professor at Georgetown University who is tracking the issue.

“I do think there is a shift in tone and messaging,” he said. “Initially, the OSHA rule was intended to substantially boost vaccination coverage in the U.S. Had it gone forward without legal challenges, I believe President Biden would have achieved far higher rates of vaccination in the country. The legal and political backlash has been intense, and much of that backlash is focused on coerced vaccination. The Biden administration has pushed back by saying that the rule is not a vaccine mandate but has a testing and masking opt-out.”

The OSHA rule, or emergency temporary standard, requiring companies with 100 or more workers to form a roster of who is vaccinated and unvaccinated was published in November. Workers who remained unvaccinated were told to start wearing a mask in December and submit to weekly testing as of Jan. 4.

A federal appeals court suspended the rule while judges across the country hear arguments that it is onerous and legally dubious.

Before the wave of lawsuits, the White House promoted the plan as one way to compel vaccination. Officials suggested that some companies would follow the practices of employers and universities with vaccine-only standards, which are less expensive to administer. The government provides shots across America but doesn’t plan to pick up the tab for testing under the OSHA rule.

“Many businesses may choose the option of allowing for testing as an option. Many may choose that they should just make vaccines the requirement. But it leaves it up to them to make that decision,” Ms. Psaki said in a Sept. 10 briefing. “The vaccines are free and available to everyone in the country. [Businesses] have to make that decision themselves. It’s certainly more cost-effective to require vaccines. They may not decide to do that.”

On Wednesday, as the Senate prepared to pass a resolution disapproving of the OSHA rule, Ms. Psaki characterized the mandate as a broad and flexible strategy to improve safety.

“It’s about not just requiring vaccination,” she said, “but the alternative of testing — so, testing once a week.

“And I think our view and the view of many Americans is that if people aren’t vaccinated, having them test once a week is quite reasonable as we’re thinking about how to protect our workplaces, how to protect stores and retail locations as people are out shopping for Christmas and the holidays, how to protect our children in schools and public places,” she said.

Capitol Hill Democrats made similar arguments while slamming the Senate Republicans’ disapproval resolution, which passed with the help of two Democrats but faces long odds in the House and Mr. Biden’s veto pen.

“Despite how my Republican colleagues talk about it, letting employers have the flexibility to offer a testing option means they don’t have to ask workers to leave their job if they choose not to get vaccinated,” said Sen. Patty Murray, Washington Democrat and chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. “This step for getting people vaccinated or requiring testing is overwhelmingly popular with the American people.”

A Kaiser Family Foundation poll released this month found that a majority, 52%, supported the federal government’s rule forcing large employers to ensure vaccination or weekly testing, with 45% opposing the idea. More than half of respondents with 100 or more people in their workplaces said their employer already requires vaccination (36%) or said they want their employer to require it (17%).

A Politico/Morning Consult poll from September found that 58% support the OSHA rule, including 41% who “strongly support” it and 17% who “somewhat support” it.

The debate over the OSHA rule is unfolding at a delicate time for Mr. Biden, who is trying to sell his agenda but is buffeted by high inflation and a low approval rating. A CNBC survey released Friday shows the president’s approval has settled around 41%.

Arthur Caplan, director of the division of medical ethics at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine, said Mr. Biden is politically vulnerable, so “the administration has lost some of its heft to try and push policies that remain unpopular among many — not all, but many.”

He said the initial messaging was “100%” focused on increasing vaccination.

“So I think we’re seeing an attempt to reshape a mandate into something that gives more options and more flexibility in order to get something done,” he said.

The White House rejected the suggestion that there has been a sea change. It pointed to instances in which aides noted a testing option.

“As for the legal side of this, let me be crystal clear to avoid what appears to be possible misinformation or disinformation around the emergency temporary standard being a vaccine mandate: That would be, on its face, incorrect,” White House deputy press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said on Nov. 5. “As has been explicit for months, it is a standard for a safe workplace to either comply with weekly testing or to be vaccinated.”

The testing option has reemerged this month as Republican lawmakers force Democrats to go on record in support or opposition of the OSHA rule and as New York Mayor Bill de Blasio pushes a more stringent city mandate for vaccinations.

The Democratic mayor, who will leave office at the end of the year, said anyone who reports to a private-sector workplace in the city must be vaccinated as of Dec. 27. Adults must show proof of two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine by Dec. 27, and children ages 5-11 must show proof of at least one dose by Dec. 14 to enter social venues or dine indoors in the city, Mr. de Blasio said.

The Partnership for New York City, a business group, said it was blindsided. It said Mr. Biden’s OSHA rule provided a testing option and more time to comply.

Democrats in Washington said the wiggle room afforded by Mr. Biden should obviate objections to the federal standard.

“Estimates suggest that that requirement can save thousands of lives,” Mr. Murphy said in his floor speech. “But apparently, the cost of a nose tickle is too great a cost to pay to save thousands and thousands of Americans from dying from a preventable pandemic.”




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile
SCOTUS and religious exemptions to the Mandates
« Reply #228 on: December 14, 2021, 09:12:46 AM »
I would note an important difference between State/municipal mandates and federal ones:

Federal efforts at police power have weak Constitutional basis, whereas per the Tenth Amendment State and municipal police power is very strong.


============
Vaccine Mandates and Religious Exemptions
SCOTUS rejects another chance to weigh in on states eliminating religious exemptions to COVID vaccine mandates.

Thomas Gallatin


In a 6-3 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an emergency request brought by healthcare workers in New York objecting to that state's vaccine mandate for medical workers that intentionally excludes religious exemptions. This is the second such emergency request rejected by the Court. Back in October, the justices rejected hearing a lawsuit brought by healthcare workers in Maine seeking religious exemption to their state's vaccine mandate. What gives?

Similar to the Maine case, the healthcare workers in New York sought exemption from the COVID vaccine mandate based on their religious objection to abortion. The suit contended that "abortive-derived fetal cell lines" were used in developing the vaccines.

For its part, the state of New York claimed that the COVID vaccines themselves do not contain aborted fetal cells, but also acknowledged the "HEK-293 cells — which are currently grown in a laboratory and are thousands of generations removed from cells collected from a fetus in 1973 — were used in testing during the research and development phase of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines." The state also argued, "The use of fetal cell lines for testing is common, including for the rubella vaccination, which New York's healthcare workers are already required to take."

Furthermore, New York observed that Catholic leaders including Pope Francis have given their approval for receiving the COVID vaccines.

Writing for the Court's three dissenting members, Justice Neil Gorsuch not only disagreed with the majority's rejection of the case but further noted that he would have ruled against the state. He contended that New York's actions show clear animus toward religion. "Even if one were to read the State's actions as something other than signs of animus," Gorsuch stated, "they leave little doubt that the revised mandate was specifically directed at the applicants' unorthodox religious beliefs and practices." He also highlighted the fact that several other states have been able to meet "COVID-19 public health goals without coercing religious objectors to accept a vaccine."

The justice wasn't done. Warning of the nature of political leaders to abuse emergencies for the "collective good," Gorsuch alluded to wars: "Pandemics often produce demanding new social rules aimed at protecting collective interests — and with those rules can come fear and anger at individuals unable to conform for religious reasons."

Gorsuch also blasted the majority for failing to address the issue, writing, "We should know the costs that come when this Court stands silent as majorities invade the constitutional rights of the unpopular and unorthodox."

But it's not all bad news when it comes to challenges to COVID vaccine mandates. Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt recently announced, "The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Department of Justice's motion for stay pending appeal in our lawsuit against the vaccine mandate on healthcare workers, meaning our injunction will stay in place."

Moreover, thanks to shortages of nurses and other workers, as well as continued court setbacks for Biden's mandate, many big hospital systems have dropped vaccine mandates. Not that long ago, nearly a third of healthcare workers remained unvaccinated.

Finally, while the Court has once again dodged weighing in on religious exemptions in relation to these COVID vaccine mandates, it seems that at some point the Court will eventually be forced to take up one of these cases. It's apparent that some state leaders will continue to push against religious liberty rights at any opportunity that arises.




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile
State EO mandate
« Reply #232 on: December 16, 2021, 07:01:05 AM »
What I see here is a State exercise of Police Power under the Tenth, which is where the police power properly resides; as such it is not limited by the C.   The remaining question is whether the absence of Legislative action violates Separation of Powers.  For example, in Jacobson for example there was legislative action.

The article says "It is unclear if lawmakers will now pursue further court action against the mandate."

I could be wrong, but I am guessing that standing here would be for those purported to be subject to the mandate, not the State Legislature.


https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/louisiana-governor-to-add-covid-19-vaccine-to-list-of-required-school-immunizations_4158355.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-12-16&mktids=8d26f9d2b2a6ab16ddb8b98410a0553a&est=uEA22FxLEVNsr4J3fm9JwoGfq9HKYVefujd3p0f731SKmmm5h22MOJIX4ulk6cJkCEFs
« Last Edit: December 16, 2021, 08:00:45 AM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile
ET: Japan gets it right
« Reply #235 on: December 20, 2021, 02:17:57 PM »
Japan’s Vaccination Policy: No Force, No Discrimination
Aaron Kheriaty
Aaron Kheriaty
 December 17, 2021 Updated: December 18, 2021 biggersmaller Print
Commentary

Japan’s ministry of health is taking a sensible, ethical approach to Covid vaccines. They recently labeled the vaccines with a warning about myocarditis and other risks. They also reaffirmed their commitment to adverse event reporting to document potential side-effects.

Japan’s ministry of health states: “Although we encourage all citizens to receive the COVID-19 vaccination, it is not compulsory or mandatory. Vaccination will be given only with the consent of the person to be vaccinated after the information provided.”

Furthermore, they state: “Please get vaccinated of your own decision, understanding both the effectiveness in preventing infectious diseases and the risk of side effects. No vaccination will be given without consent.”

Finally, they clearly state: “Please do not force anyone in your workplace or those who around you to be vaccinated, and do not discriminate against those who have not been vaccinated.”

They also link to a “Human Rights Advice” page that includes instructions for handling any complaints if individuals face vaccine discrimination at work.

Other nations would do well to follow Japan’s lead with this balanced and ethical approach.

This policy appropriately places the responsibility for this healthcare decision with the individual or family.

We can contrast this with the vaccine mandate approach adopted in many other Western nations. The United States provides a case study in the anatomy of medical coercion exercised by a faceless bureaucratic network.

A bureaucracy is an institution that exercises enormous power over you but with no locus of responsibility. This leads to the familiar frustration, often encountered on a small scale at the local DMV, that you can go round in bureaucratic circles trying to troubleshoot problems or rectify unfair practices. No actual person seems to be able to help you get to the bottom of things—even if a well-meaning person sincerely wants to assist you.

Here’s how this dynamic is playing out with coercive vaccine mandates in the United States. The CDC makes vaccine recommendations. But the ethically crucial distinction between a recommendation and mandate immediately collapses when institutions (e.g., a government agency, a business, employer, university, or school) require you to be vaccinated based on the CDC recommendation.

Try to contest the rationality of these mandates, e.g., in federal court, and the mandating institution just points back to CDC recommendation as the rational basis for the mandate. The court will typically agree, deferring to the CDC’s authority on public health. The school, business, etc., thus disclaims responsibility for the decision to mandate the vaccine: “We’re just following CDC recommendations, after all. What can we do?”

But CDC likewise disclaims responsibility: “We don’t make policy; we just make recommendations, after all.”

Meanwhile, the vaccine manufacturer is immune and indemnified from all liability or harm under federal law. No use going to them if their product—a product that you did not freely decide to take—harms you.

You are now dizzy from going round in circles trying to identify the actual decision-maker: it’s impossible to pinpoint the relevant authority. You know that enormous power is being exercised over your body and your health, but with no locus of responsibility for the decision and no liability for the outcomes.

You are thus left with the consequences of a decision that nobody claims to have made. The only certainty is that you did not make the decision and you were not given the choice.

Japan’s policy avoids most of these problems simply placing responsibility for the decision on the individual receiving the intervention, or the parent in the case of a child who is not old enough to consent.

Incidentally, this focus on choice and freedom was somewhat reflected in Japan’s policies throughout the pandemic, which were less stringent that most countries, including those in the United States.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile
WSJ: SCOTUS's Wuhan Test
« Reply #236 on: December 20, 2021, 08:46:41 PM »
The Supreme Court’s Covid Vaccine Test
Justices have to decide if they want to let OSHA rewrite the law.
By The Editorial Board
Follow
Dec. 20, 2021 6:47 pm ET


Justice Antonin Scalia famously wrote that Congress doesn’t hide elephants in mouseholes. But that’s essentially what a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals majority said Congress did late Friday when they lifted a stay on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s vaccinate mandate.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals last month stayed OSHA’s “emergency temporary standard” after finding the agency exceeded its legal authority by requiring that employees of private employers with 100 or more workers be vaccinated or tested weekly. The Biden Administration appealed to the Sixth Circuit, where numerous other lawsuits were consolidated.


Judges Julia Smith Gibbons and Jane Branstetter Stranch rescued the mandate by deferring to the Administration. They say Congress gave OSHA the power to issue emergency orders to protect workers from “grave dangers.” The Labor Secretary merely must find “that employees are exposed to grave danger from exposure to substances or agents” that are toxic or physically harmful and that an “emergency standard is necessary to protect employees from such danger.”

Covid meets the dictionary definition of an “agent,” the majority says, ergo OSHA can issue its mandate. The majority also says new variants support OSHA’s determination that Covid still poses a grave danger, and it is not “appropriate to second-guess that agency determination considering the substantial evidence, including many peer-reviewed scientific studies, on which it relied.”


But the question the judges are asked to decide isn’t whether Covid is a grave danger, as Judge Joan Larsen explains in her potent dissent. The question is whether OSHA acted within the law as written by Congress. It certainly didn’t as we read the law.


For starters, the Labor Secretary must show that an emergency temporary standard is “necessary” to protect workers from a grave danger—not merely “reasonably necessary or appropriate.” OSHA argues its mandate is effective and useful, but this is irrelevant.

OSHA waited nearly a year after vaccines became available to issue its sweeping rule. The agency also didn’t attempt to calculate the number of Americans who have contracted Covid at work or identify a particular risk of workplace exposure. OSHA claims workplaces in general are risky and unvaccinated workers in general are at high risk. But some workers at some workplaces have a higher risk of contracting the virus and getting severely ill.

“The government’s own data reveal that the death rate for unvaccinated people between the ages of 18 and 29 is roughly equivalent to that of vaccinated persons between 50 and 64,” Judge Larsen notes. OSHA is obligated by administrative law to consider more tailored alternatives, and it did not.

The Supreme Court’s major questions doctrine says Congress must “speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast ‘economic and political significance.’” Congress also cannot delegate sweeping legislative power to regulators.

The agency has only issued 10 emergency temporary standards in 50 years—six were challenged in court and five were struck down—but all involved discrete illnesses in particular industries. “This emergency rule remains a massive expansion of the scope of its authority,” Judge Larsen writes, comparing it to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s eviction moratorium that the Supreme Court struck down.

***
Businesses have appealed the Sixth Circuit’s vaccine decision directly to the High Court. The Biden Administration has also asked the Court to stay lower-court decisions enjoining its vaccine mandate for healthcare workers.

This is an important moment for the Court. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett have declined to enjoin New York’s and Maine’s healthcare-worker vaccine mandates that deny religious, but not medical, exemptions. Some Justices may want to defer to regulators on health and safety during the pandemic.

But the separation of powers is crucial to safeguarding individual liberty. Justices now have two key tests on whether they will rein in the administrative state. They will have to decide if they take their major question and non-delegation doctrines seriously, or are they merely seminars at the Federalist Society?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile
NY bill for Cootie Camps
« Reply #237 on: December 21, 2021, 04:28:57 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile
Government Failures Buried Government Actions
« Reply #238 on: December 21, 2021, 04:56:53 AM »

https://amgreatness.com/2021/12/20/covid-spin-ops-government-failures-buried-government-actions-hyped/

COVID Spin-Ops: Government Failures Buried, Government Actions Hyped
Government failures created COVID and increased its spread and kill. Spin-ops then treated government actions as the solution. Buyer and citizen beware.
By James Anthony

December 20, 2021
Two years into the COVID-19 pandemic, here is what we know about the origins of the disease and governments’ role in bungling the response.

The United States, French, and Chinese governments collaborated on gain-of-function research. This research created a pandemic-capable respiratory virus that for humans was more infectious and more dangerous than most coronaviruses, which are commonplace.

Much of this research was done in a lab sited not in a remote location but in Wuhan, China: a metropolis with a population of 8.3 million people. An accidental release there could not be contained. An intentional release there could be made to look like an accident. Building the lab there grievously violated safety practices that had been near-universal since the disastrous Union Carbide toxic-chemical accident in Bhopal, India in 1984.

Government officials dismissed the possibility of effective early treatment of COVID-19. No industrialized nation’s government funded or otherwise encouraged timely, well-designed clinical trials or other clinical work with immune-boosting vitamin D, generic antiviral ivermectin, generic antiviral hydroxychloroquine with zinc, or the clot-reducing supplement NAC. In the United States, state governments likewise did not fund or incentivize clinical trials or use of preventives or treatments not sold by government cronies. All governments and cronies cautioned strongly against using preventives or treatments not sold by government cronies.

No industrialized nation’s government systematically funded or otherwise encouraged testing for immunity, especially testing not for antibodies known to fade but for lasting immunity known to endure 17 years and counting in the case of SARS-CoV-1.

Every industrialized nation’s government strongly recommended using only negligible early-outpatient treatment, government cronies’ branded drugs, and government cronies’ hospital treatments.

New York and other state governments mandated that infectious patients be accepted into nursing homes that were unable to prevent transmission via aerosols; the route normally dominant in pandemics involving respiratory viruses.



The U.S. government claimed jurisdiction over fast, inexpensive home tests, prevented the sale of the tests developed first, and greatly delayed the sale of the tests developed later. State governments had asserted jurisdiction but didn’t defend their jurisdiction and didn’t defend customers’ and businesses’          rights.

In every industrialized jurisdiction but Sweden and Florida, governments deprived many people of the right to work for extended periods.

Remdesivir had never been approved for other diseases, had serious side effects, and like the later messenger RNA therapies, promoted development of more-dangerous variants of the virus. But the U.S. government approved remdesivir for COVID first out of the gate, and long held it up as the sole approved therapy.

The U.S. government also blocked liability for, funded development of, approved, and promoted novel mRNA therapies with narrow action that reproduced only the virus’ disease-causing spike protein and none of COVID-19’s other 28 proteins.

These mRNA therapies’ narrow action caused variants to evolve that were more infectious and, in the case of the Delta variant, more deadly. The narrow action also crowded out what would otherwise have been the more effective broad-spectrum immune response of people who had natural immunity from prior infection but whose possible natural immunity was ignored as these people were persuaded to also get the vaccine, and made to believe that this would help.


Reproducing the disease-causing spike protein made the vaccine itself produce disease, which was treated as a side effect, in significant numbers of people—producing death in some, serious disease in others, and unknown future contributions to serious disease in an unknowable number of people. In many of these cases, people would have done far better if they could have just fought the more conventional virus itself rather than been persuaded to try a novel mRNA therapy.

Government Spin Doctoring
And here is a short account of everything government officials have told the public since lockdowns and other restrictions began in March 2020.

The novel coronavirus could be devastating to mankind. Millions would die unless governments acted quickly.

U.S. government scientists were the world’s best experts on healthcare for a novel pandemic-generating virus.

Above all, the virus needed to be caught by as few people as humanly possible.

Allowing people to catch the virus and reach herd immunity would have killed people. People were going to be killed by Sweden’s government. People were going to be killed by Florida’s government.

People needed to wash their hands frequently. People needed to disinfect surfaces frequently. People needed to not touch other people. People needed to stay six feet away from other people. People needed to stay six feet away from other family members.



Masks wouldn’t prevent transmission. Surgical masks would reduce transmission. Surgical masks and cloth masks would reduce transmission. Masks were the key to beating this disease. If a person didn’t wear a mask, he would be killing people. Children needed to wear masks. Small children needed to wear masks.

To make sure hospitals had enough capacity, governments needed to slow the spread by keeping healthy people who had nonessential jobs from working for 15 days, then for 28 days, then for months on end, depending upon the U.S. government’s advice and the state, county, and city governments’ competence.

To make sure hospitals had enough capacity, governments also needed to move elderly, infected people out of hospitals and into nursing homes.

The virus was natural. It originated in bats and was transmitted to a human through a wet-market grocery where live animals were sold for food. The virus originated in bats, was transmitted to some to-be-established intermediate species, and from there was transmitted to a human.

Hydroxychloroquine had a side effect that killed people. Plus, for this novel virus, hydroxychloroquine was unproven. It was a good thing that the government waited and scientifically checked out hydroxychloroquine’s efficacy, because the drug didn’t work on this virus.


Ivermectin was a horse medicine. People aren’t horses. Ivermectin was an antiparasitic, so it obviously wouldn’t treat a virus. Ivermectin overdoses would kill people. Ivermectin use in place of medicines approved for COVID-19 would kill people.

Fast tests weren’t accurate enough, and that would hurt people. The U.S. government was protecting people from the test manufacturers who, unlike the government, cared only about profit and not people’s lives. The U.S. government simply was protecting people from themselves.

Remdesivir was safe and was effective against this novel virus.

Experts all said that vaccines take five to 10 years to develop, but the government’s innovative public-private partnership developed not one but three vaccines in nine months.

All three vaccines were “safe and effective” at preventing transmission of the virus. The vaccines prevented transmission of the disease.

The vaccines were proven, but natural immunity failed sometimes and hadn’t been shown to last. Antibodies didn’t last, either. When antibodies were gone, the strong implication was that immunity would also be gone or would be insufficient.

The vaccines didn’t prevent transmission but did prevent serious disease. Boosters would prevent serious disease. Vaccines for all ages were safe for all and would keep the people who were at risk from getting the virus transmitted to them, and doing anything less than that would kill these people.



The Delta and Omicron variants each called for near-universal vaccination with the vaccines developed for the original virus.

New variants would call for new narrow-spectrum vaccines.

The Cure
Governments caused this disaster, worsened it, and used every study, crony, and avenue of communication for spin.

For the government officials who knew that their government was culpable, the spin was damage control. For the government officials who didn’t know that their government was culpable, the spin was marketing. Every action helped the government and controlled everyone else.

Healthcare doesn’t need to be vulnerable to centralized-government failures.

The internet had been developed so that if conventional communications were destroyed by a nuclear attack, communications would continue. It provides this resilience by being massively decentralized.

Massive decentralization has been, and can continue to be, a feature of the practice of medicine. Each skilled practitioner has preparation going into any novel situation, can rapidly gain clinical knowledge, and can rapidly share knowledge with peers.

Some doctors have applied clinical knowledge and individual judgment to COVID and have produced excellent outcomes.

But many doctors have dispensed centralized, government-funded advice.

This advice has been much like the coverage in legacy media, in which the press buried vital information and offered highly misleading, government-sanctioned advice.

The result? Important research is being ignored, if it’s done at all. What studies have been done have applied generics wrong. Hydroxychloroquine has been studied without supplementing zinc. Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin have been administered late, when their efficacy was weakest and the disease effects were strongest.

All such studies predictably generated outcomes that fail to indicate how effective these generics might have been if they were properly administered early in the course of the infection and disease.

No patent-protected medicine from government cronies has been studied in such disadvantageous ways, or ever would be. Let every buyer beware.

Government fails all the time—in war, in control of the economy, in health-payment systems, in social services, in schools, you name it.

The cure is for individuals to use their best judgment when shopping for every product. For individuals to use their best judgment when voting for every politician. And for politicians to use judgment and have the emotional intelligence to limit other politicians.

Individuals and politicians can each push back on other politicians, limiting governments. Then we the people will be free to work out the best solutions ourselves.


About James Anthony
James Anthony is the author of The Constitution Needs a Good Party and rConstitution Papers and has written articles in The Federalist, American Thinker, Foundation for Economic Education, and rConstitution.us. Mr. Anthony is a chemical engineer with a master’s in mechanical engineering.





Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile