Author Topic: The War with Medical Fascism  (Read 702 times)

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile
This is how it works
« Reply #50 on: September 26, 2021, 09:35:20 PM »
https://twitter.com/EmeraldRobinson/status/1440305398305624069

Emerald Robinson:

The pandemic is to force you to get the vaccine.
The vaccine is to force you to get the vaccine passport.
The vaccine passport is to force you into the social credit system.
The social credit system is to force you into obeying the government.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile
This is where we are 9/27/21
« Reply #52 on: September 27, 2021, 08:39:47 PM »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56025
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56025
    • View Profile
Washington Times
« Reply #56 on: September 28, 2021, 01:42:07 PM »
Americans with natural immunity look for ways around vaccination mandates

Policymakers prefer low-cost shots over tests for antibodies

BY TOM HOWELL JR. THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Vaccine holdouts with some immunity from prior coronavirus infections find themselves in the muddled middle as the nation debates how far to go in mandating the shots, with some employers giving them carve-outs and blue states taking hard lines.

Spectrum Health in Michigan is granting exemptions to employees who can show positive antibody tests within the past three months. Major health care systems in eastern Pennsylvania said they will grant yearlong reprieves from their vaccine rules to those who demonstrate natural immunity.

Strict mandates in Washington and New York states require workers to get vaccines, flustering those who say they are already producing antibodies.

Meanwhile, the Consumer Brands Association, a trade group representing 2.1 million workers, wants to know how President Biden’s push to require vaccination or weekly testing at large companies will be applied to workers with prior infections.

Firms are waiting for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to shed light on the situation.

“How will the requirements address natural immunity? Will individuals that have contracted COVID-19 be required to be vaccinated or submit to testing requirements?” the association said this month in a letter to Mr. Biden.

Favorable treatment is unlikely because Dr. Anthony Fauci and other administration

officials have repeatedly told people with previous infections to get vaccines.

They point to a high-profile study out of Kentucky that found unvaccinated people with previous infections are twice as likely to be reinfected as those who recovered and then got vaccinated. The offi cials also question the durability of naturally induced protection, even as they acknowledge that more research is needed.

“It is conceivable you got protected, but you may not be protected for an indefinite period of time,” Dr. Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told CNN this month. “I think that is something that we need to sit down and discuss seriously.”

The lack of formal deference to those who have recovered from COVID-19 and fears of side effects from vaccines are frustrating some lawmakers. Sen. Ron Johnson, Wisconsin Republican, recently told the National Institutes of Health that constituents want exemptions for the previously infected.

He cited studies from Israel and elsewhere that suggest infection- acquired immunity can be as robust as those from messenger-RNA vaccines in people who never had COVID-19.

Nurses and other constituents are flooding his office with calls and emails saying officials and companies pushing mandates “totally disregarded” those with natural immunity.

Scientists say some people who have been infected might get a similar immune response as that afforded by vaccines, though individual experiences differ based on factors such as genetics, the nuances of their immune systems and their COVID-19 illnesses.

They also say it’s more cumbersome and costly to rely on repeated lab tests to prove individual protection than a low-cost vaccine on the front end.

“It’s a fair statement that natural infection can produce substantial immunity, but it’s much more variable than the vaccinations. You just don’t know what you’re going to get,” said Roger Shapiro, an associate professor of immunology and infectious diseases at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

“It is very complicated to try and have a public strategy that relies on people drawing blood and saying, ‘My COVID infection from two years ago still shows protection,’” he said.

He said vaccines should produce consistent responses from T cells in the body. Antibody levels may subside months after vaccination, he said, but T cells have long memories and are useful in recognizing and attacking new variants of the coronavirus.

Natural infection also spurs a T-cell response, but relying on infection as a strategy has a high human cost. History shows viruses can burn through populations in multiple waves before the collective immune response reduces the pathogen from a deadly illness into a mild one.

The Russian flu of 1890 killed about 1 million people out of a global population of about 1.5 billion in multiple waves before subsiding into a manageable problem. Recent research suggests a known coronavirus that causes common colds might have been the culprit at the time.

Scientists say the best way to stop waves of infection is through vaccination.

“Trying to get protected from COVID through natural infection is not protection; it’s getting infected. It’s completely nonsensical,” Dr. Shapiro said. “We certainly never would want to rely on something so risky for protection when 1% to 2% of those under that strategy might die from trying to use it.”

When patients who have been infected ask Dr. Panagis Galiatsatos in Maryland whether they should get a vaccine, he tells them yes.

“The vaccines give us an exact outcome of antibodies,” said Dr. Galiatsatos, an assistant professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore. “There is data that supports those with the best immunity are those with natural [immunity] and vaccine.”

Still, plenty of people who have beaten the virus say they are ready to fight rules that force them to decide between getting vaccinated or losing their jobs.

George Mason University relented to one objector, law professor Todd Zywicki, who sued for an exemption from the school’s vaccine mandate.

He presented multiple antibody tests and statements from his doctor, who said the vaccine was medically unnecessary. The professor will hold office hours and in-person events as long as he maintains 6 feet of distance and will be tested for infection once a week.

New York state does not allow exemptions for previously infected health care workers subject to vaccine mandates.

“While you may have some short-term antibody protection after recovering from COVID19, we don’t know how long this protection will last,” the state’s website says.

Many health care workers in New York had until Monday to get their initial shots, meaning thousands of holdouts might be nudged from their jobs in the coming days.

“I’m young, I’m healthy and I have no comorbidities. I had COVID already. So I don’t understand why I have to be forced to get a vaccine,” nurse Stephanie Defonte told Spectrum News NY1.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, is not backing down from the mandate. She said the state might bring in the National Guard or declare a state of emergency that allows qualified health care staff from other states and countries to fill gaps at medical centers whose workers are weary from the pandemic.

Also Monday, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan lifted a lower-court judge’s block on a vaccine mandate covering all teachers and workers in the nation’s largest school district.

Mayor Bill de Blasio announced in August that about 148,000 New York City public school employees would have to get at least a first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by Sept. 27.

In Massachusetts, a police union is warning that dozens of state troopers plan to resign after a judge rejected its attempts to provide “reasonable alternatives” such as mask-wearing or regular testing to a vaccine mandate issued by Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican.

Those seeking accommodations include troopers who have recovered from COVID-19, have antibody levels and don’t want a vaccine.

“It is unfortunate that the governor and his team have chosen to mandate one of the most stringent vaccine mandates in the country with no reasonable alternatives,” said Michael Cherven, president of the State Police Association of Massachusetts.

Mr. Johnson said it is “shocking” that the Biden administration is putting forth mandates and others cannot give firm answers on how natural immunity stacks up against vaccination.

“This administration clearly does not want the public to question whether natural immunity is more effective than vaccines,” the senator said. “As President Biden revealingly declared, the vaccine mandate ‘is not about freedom or personal choice.’ This administration’s decision to disregard the effectiveness of natural immunity and demand vaccination ignores current data and is an assault on all Americans’ civil liberties.”

Spectrum Health in Grand Rapids, Michigan, said the data supported exemptions for the previously infected if they can show positive PCR or antigen tests for the coronavirus and positive antibody tests.

The system said workers who have recovered from COVID-19 ought to get vaccinated, however.

“There is increasing evidence that natural infection affords protection from COVID-19 reinfection and severe symptoms for a period of time,” the system said. “Current studies are not clear on how long natural immunity protects from reinfection.”

St. Luke’s University Health Network in Pennsylvania is allowing employees to defer the vaccine for a year after the date they tested positive. The nearby Lehigh Valley Health Network also added the deferral option.

“Some of the evidence that came out recently from an Israeli study, as well as our own observation, is that if you have had a natural infection — we are talking about that this can be verified by a PCR — that it appears that the kind of immunity that you develop is actually either equal or superior to that than someone who might get two doses of an mRNA vaccine such as Pfizer or Moderna,” Dr. Jeffrey Jahre of St. Luke’s told WNEP-TV, the local ABC affiliate.

He said people should get the vaccine to maximize their protection and should not try to become infected to achieve immunity.

“The important thing for everyone to know is to please get the vaccine,” he said. “Don’t rely on natural infection."

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56025
    • View Profile
Re: The War with Medical Fascism
« Reply #59 on: October 01, 2021, 09:30:44 AM »
Not necessarily a bad thing.  There are family situations where isolation is not possible and elders are put at risk.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56025
    • View Profile
WT: CA prof with natural immunity vs. Uninversity
« Reply #60 on: October 04, 2021, 05:46:05 AM »
CALIFORNIA

Professor vows to fight on after judge rejects ‘natural immunity’ exemption

BY TOM HOWELL JR. THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A psychiatry professor is vowing to continue the fight after a federal judge rejected his attempt to block a COVID-19 vaccine mandate at the University of California on the grounds that persons like him enjoy natural immunity from previous infection and don’t need the shots.

Aaron Kheriaty, who works at the Irvine campus of the university system, said he wants to procure evidence about how the university reached its decision to require the shots.

“We are eager to move to the discovery phase and depose their expert witnesses, gather data on infection rates from the university, etc.,” Mr. Kheriaty told The Washington Times in an email. “If we lose the case at trial we certainly will appeal to the circuit court.”

U.S. District Judge James Selna in Santa Ana, California, said Thursday the university acted rationally in imposing a mandate designed to protect public health while failing to provide an exemption for those with natural immunity.

The ruling denied a motion from Mr. Kheriaty for a preliminary injunction.

It is believed to be the first ruling of its kind as Republican lawmakers and others urge governments and employers to create exemptions for people who recovered from COVID-19 and demonstrate antibody levels.

Biden administration officials have pressed people with prior infection to get the vaccine. They say immunity from vaccines is easier to measure, and it is unclear how durable natural infection is in each person. And they point to a study in Kentucky that found people with prior infection were twice as likely to be reinfected if they shirked the vaccine versus those who came forward for the shots.

The debate is likely to intensify over the coming months.

Mr. Biden is pushing for companies with 100 or more workers to require the shots or weekly testing, while California Gov. Gavin Newsom said he plans to add COVID-19 vaccines to the list of mandatory vaccines at K-12 schools over the coming year.

Sen. Roger Marshall, Kansas Republican, led a group of doctors this week in pressing the administration to give deference to those with some level of protection from their infection.

More than 43 million Americans have tested positive for the virus during the pandemic.

The senators said failing to recognize those who recovered and have some level of protection could cause a crisis as military members refuse the vaccine, or employers see their workers walk off instead of getting the shots.

“We urge the CDC to harness available data and technology to establish better patient-centered solutions that will truly determine an individual’s level of protection against COVID19,” the senators wrote to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“It may be the case that it is not medically necessary for an individual to receive a vaccination. It may also be the case that a sufficient level of protection may be produced from one dose.”

For now, Mr. Kheriaty said he received a letter from a senior associate dean on Thursday that said he will be placed on “investigatory leave” with pay during the month of October, after which he could face “corrective action.”

“While on Investigatory Leave, you are not to perform any work for the university,” the letter says. “You are not to be present on the premises at the UC Irvine campus in Irvine, California, nor on any clinical space owned or operated by the University of California, Irvine

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56025
    • View Profile
WSJ: Fauci scare mongering AIDS in the 1980s
« Reply #61 on: October 04, 2021, 05:56:38 AM »
second

Unlearned AIDS Lessons for Covid
In the 1980s, Fauci and Redfield sowed fear about a heterosexual epidemic that never happened.
By John Tierney
Oct. 3, 2021 5:02 pm ET


‘Follow the science,” we’ve been told throughout the Covid-19 pandemic. But if we had paid attention to history, we would have known that once a disease becomes newsworthy, science gets distorted by researchers, journalists, activists and politicians eager for attention and power—and determined to silence those who challenge their fear-mongering.

When AIDS spread among gay men and intravenous drug users four decades ago, it became conventional wisdom that the plague would soon devastate the rest of the American population. In 1987, Oprah Winfrey opened her show by announcing, “Research studies now project that 1 in 5—listen to me, hard to believe—1 in 5 heterosexuals could be dead of AIDS in the next three years.” The prediction was outlandishly wrong, but she wasn’t wrong in attributing the scare to scientists.

One early alarmist was Anthony Fauci, who made national news in 1983 with an editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association warning that AIDS could infect even children because of “the possibility that routine close contact, as within a family household, can spread the disease.” After criticism that he had inspired a wave of hysterical homophobia, Dr. Fauci (who in 1984 began his current job, as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases), promptly pivoted 180 degrees, declaring less than two months after his piece appeared that it was “absolutely preposterous” to suggest AIDS could be spread by normal social contact. But other supposed experts went on warning erroneously that AIDS could spread widely via toilet seats, mosquito bites and kissing.

Robert Redfield, an Army physician who would later direct the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention during the Covid pandemic, claimed in 1985 that his research on soldiers showed AIDS would soon spread as rapidly among heterosexuals as among homosexuals. He and other scientists became much-quoted authorities for the imminent “heterosexual breakout,” which was proclaimed on the covers of Life in 1985 (“Now No One Is Safe from AIDS”) and the Atlantic in 1987 (“Heterosexuals and AIDS: The Second Stage of the Epidemic”).


In reality, researchers discovered early on that transmission through vaginal intercourse was rare, and that those who claimed to have been infected that way were typically concealing intravenous drug use or homosexual activity. One major study estimated the risk of contracting AIDS during intercourse with someone outside the known risk groups was 1 in 5 million. But the CDC nonetheless started a publicity campaign warning that everyone was in danger. It mailed brochures to more than 100 million households and aired dozens of public-service announcements, like a television ad with a man proclaiming, “If I can get AIDS, anyone can.”


The CDC’s own epidemiologists objected to this message, arguing that resources should be focused on those at risk, as the Journal reported in 1996. But they were overruled by superiors who decided, on the advice of marketing consultants, that presenting AIDS as a universal threat was the best way to win attention and funding. By those measures, the campaign succeeded. Polls showed that Americans became terrified of being infected, and funding for AIDS prevention surged—much of it squandered on measures to protect heterosexuals.

Scientists and public officials sustained the panic by wildly overestimating the prevalence of AIDS. Challenging those numbers was a risky career move, as New York City’s health commissioner, Stephen C. Joseph, discovered in 1988 when he reduced the estimated number of AIDS cases in the city by half. He had good reasons for the reduction—the correct number turned out to be much lower still—but he soon needed police protection. Activists occupied his office, disrupted his speeches, and picketed and spray-painted his home.

Another victim of 1980s-style cancel culture was Michael Fumento, who meticulously debunked the scare in his 1990 book, “The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS.” It received good reviews and extensive publicity, but it was unavailable in much of the country because local bookstores and national chains succumbed to pressure not to sell it. Mr. Fumento’s own publisher refused to keep it in print, and he was forced out of two jobs—one as an AIDS analyst in the federal government.

The AIDS fear-mongers suffered few consequences for their mistakes. The false alarms were long forgotten by the start of the Covid pandemic, when the news and public policy were dominated by scientists who overestimated fatalities by a factor of 10 and erroneously warned that people could easily be infected by touching contaminated surfaces or breathing air outdoors. Today most people, especially the young, vastly overestimate their risk of dying thanks to press coverage more uniformly alarmist than during the AIDS epidemic.

Even at the height of the AIDS panic, there was some skepticism across the political spectrum. The same year that Life promoted the heterosexual scare, another Time Inc. magazine, Discover, dismissed it in large type on the cover declaring that AIDS would likely remain “largely the fatal price one can pay for anal intercourse.” Rolling Stone ran a long article of mine debunking the heterosexual breakout, and Mr. Fumento’s arguments were featured in leading newspapers and in both liberal and conservative magazines. While doomsayers got the most attention, their attempts to curtail civil liberties—like mandating universal testing to identify and isolate AIDS carriers—failed because of opposition from both the left and the right.


With Covid, though, skepticism is mostly confined to the right. The mainstream press and public-health authorities have largely ignored or smeared eminent scientists who question the worst-case scenarios and the wisdom of lockdowns and mandates for tests, masks and vaccines. Their legitimate challenges to Covid orthodoxy have been rejected by medical journals, denounced by officials like Dr. Fauci, and censored by social-media platforms. The journalistic, political and scientific establishments haven’t merely ignored the lessons of the AIDS epidemic. They’ve repeated and amplified the mistakes, spreading more needless fear and eliminating more civil liberties than the AIDS alarmists ever imagined.

Mr. Tierney is a contributing editor of City Journal and a co-author of “The Power of Bad: How the Negativity Effect Rules Us and How We Can Rule It.”

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12939
    • View Profile
Fauci
« Reply #62 on: October 04, 2021, 07:16:25 AM »
"Fauci and Redfield sowed fear about a heterosexual epidemic that never happened."

Fauci disgusts me.

Hugh Hewitt let him off easy.

Lousy interview
he sucked up to him too much

I don't think he even mentioned how Fauci lied and still does about the origin of covid 19 fro a Chinese lab


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile
Re: Fauci
« Reply #63 on: October 04, 2021, 11:25:13 AM »
Fake conservative buttkisser Hewitt.

"Fauci and Redfield sowed fear about a heterosexual epidemic that never happened."

Fauci disgusts me.

Hugh Hewitt let him off easy.

Lousy interview
he sucked up to him too much

I don't think he even mentioned how Fauci lied and still does about the origin of covid 19 fro a Chinese lab

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile
This is why
« Reply #67 on: October 06, 2021, 08:44:07 AM »


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14830
    • View Profile
Re: Fauci
« Reply #69 on: October 06, 2021, 02:19:08 PM »
ccp:
Hugh Hewitt let him off easy.

Lousy interview
he sucked up to him too much

I don't think he even mentioned how Fauci lied and still does about the origin of covid 19 fro a Chinese lab
--------------------------------------------------

Recent Hewitt Fauci interview:
https://youtu.be/mCiC60JWC0g

What you say is true.  Hewitt brings in people we don't like and calls it "an interview, not a debate".  He did however ask some tough questions, told Fauci he had lost trust, backed that up with examples and called for his resignation to his face.  On the softball side of it, Hewitt wants to be known as pro-vaccination and offered his audience to Fauci to make that case with him to people Fauci normally wouldn't reach.

He could shout down his adversary guests but then, like every other show, there wouldn't be any.  Also, he has the rest of the 15 hours per week to make his own views known.  Career-wise, he wants to be a great interviewer, he wants to be a debate moderator, and he gets a weekly shot at putting one (mostly) conservative view on the Washington (com)Post along with occasional Meet the (de)Press(ed) appearances.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56025
    • View Profile
Re: The War with Medical Fascism
« Reply #72 on: October 09, 2021, 02:38:23 AM »
A post I made on FB:

Said respectfully, but I think you are mssing my point.

My point is that the data being offered to prove the efficacy of the shots, includes people who have natural antibodies and that this is bad science.

Given the refusal to gather data on who does and who does not have natural antibodies, this would appear to be quite dishonest.

Cui bono?

With that point clarified, and as best as I can tell it is incontrovertible, we then need to look at the comparative efficacy of natural antibodies and the various shots.

My readings persuade me that the natural antibodies are better than the shots and that the immune response conferred lasts quite a bit longer-- indeed there are serious people who raise the possibility that it could be very long term.

I have seen it asserted by the vaxxers, without any quality studies to back it up of which I am aware, that topping off natural immunities with a shot is a good idea. OTOH I have seen quality studies showing natural superiority of a magnitude of 6.72 (Israel) or 13 or more times effective.

In my case, I would have gotten a shot but caught the Wuhan Cooties in October 2020-- before it was available to me. Since then I have tested my antibodies in April and August.

They are fine.

My assessment of what is best for me is to stick with my naturals until I decide otherwise. My operating philosophy is to change my mind if/when facts prove me wrong-- but that determination is mine, and does not belong to the State. I am a free man, an American by God!

What genuinely angers me is the apparent purposeful dishonesty in calling people with natural immunities "unvaccinated" as part of an apparent propaganda ploy to portray me as an ignorant yahoo spreading the Wuahn Cooties as part of a massive authoritarian play to cause a fear stampede so they can assert control over a free people.

This is serious stuff.

I am aware of the legal issues here-- the assertion of the power to compel vaccinations in the SCOTUS decision in 1905 of Jacobson but:

a) the assertion of power was founded on legislation, not the executive edic we have here-- Biden's assertion of this power violates the Separation of Powers;

b) since the decision in 1905 Consitutional Law has recognized a Ninth Amendment right to privacy (the Griswald case for example.

I would add my Fourth Amendment right to be "secure in my person" and the Fourth's requirement of "reasonableness" on the part of governmental action to the contrary.

Given the contamination of governmental data as I describe above and given that I have a more than reasonable basis for my belief in my natural immunties, the government fails to meet its burden to assert force over my choices with my body.

Fuck off Joe Biden. Fuck off Anthony Fauci.




=================

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/natural-immunity-an-alternative-to-vaccines_4039793.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-10-09&mktids=c7e7e5758b5a8b6c4844d199556e6dff&est=5tOAPVwivQLY6lNz2ohXkLb0VI4mpKAsdkLuF%2BeM7lEyhXWgOVECF8ZKVw%2FgIp1%2FDBkw

=============

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/court-sides-with-unvaccinated-michigan-athletes-in-mandate-case_4039447.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-10-09&mktids=c7e7e5758b5a8b6c4844d199556e6dff&est=Wv%2BC6u1eBoh5bYgsh%2BOrVNBE2FHE04dpktjLYcu4Ig93xY9iCgvVa8ZxdwyFP09atWnc

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile
Re: The War with Medical Fascism
« Reply #73 on: October 09, 2021, 08:04:59 AM »
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/meme%2020211008%2001.jpg



A post I made on FB:

Said respectfully, but I think you are mssing my point.

My point is that the data being offered to prove the efficacy of the shots, includes people who have natural antibodies and that this is bad science.

Given the refusal to gather data on who does and who does not have natural antibodies, this would appear to be quite dishonest.

Cui bono?

With that point clarified, and as best as I can tell it is incontrovertible, we then need to look at the comparative efficacy of natural antibodies and the various shots.

My readings persuade me that the natural antibodies are better than the shots and that the immune response conferred lasts quite a bit longer-- indeed there are serious people who raise the possibility that it could be very long term.

I have seen it asserted by the vaxxers, without any quality studies to back it up of which I am aware, that topping off natural immunities with a shot is a good idea. OTOH I have seen quality studies showing natural superiority of a magnitude of 6.72 (Israel) or 13 or more times effective.

In my case, I would have gotten a shot but caught the Wuhan Cooties in October 2020-- before it was available to me. Since then I have tested my antibodies in April and August.

They are fine.

My assessment of what is best for me is to stick with my naturals until I decide otherwise. My operating philosophy is to change my mind if/when facts prove me wrong-- but that determination is mine, and does not belong to the State. I am a free man, an American by God!

What genuinely angers me is the apparent purposeful dishonesty in calling people with natural immunities "unvaccinated" as part of an apparent propaganda ploy to portray me as an ignorant yahoo spreading the Wuahn Cooties as part of a massive authoritarian play to cause a fear stampede so they can assert control over a free people.

This is serious stuff.

I am aware of the legal issues here-- the assertion of the power to compel vaccinations in the SCOTUS decision in 1905 of Jacobson but:

a) the assertion of power was founded on legislation, not the executive edic we have here-- Biden's assertion of this power violates the Separation of Powers;

b) since the decision in 1905 Consitutional Law has recognized a Ninth Amendment right to privacy (the Griswald case for example.

I would add my Fourth Amendment right to be "secure in my person" and the Fourth's requirement of "reasonableness" on the part of governmental action to the contrary.

Given the contamination of governmental data as I describe above and given that I have a more than reasonable basis for my belief in my natural immunties, the government fails to meet its burden to assert force over my choices with my body.

Fuck off Joe Biden. Fuck off Anthony Fauci.




=================

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/natural-immunity-an-alternative-to-vaccines_4039793.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-10-09&mktids=c7e7e5758b5a8b6c4844d199556e6dff&est=5tOAPVwivQLY6lNz2ohXkLb0VI4mpKAsdkLuF%2BeM7lEyhXWgOVECF8ZKVw%2FgIp1%2FDBkw

=============

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/court-sides-with-unvaccinated-michigan-athletes-in-mandate-case_4039447.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-10-09&mktids=c7e7e5758b5a8b6c4844d199556e6dff&est=Wv%2BC6u1eBoh5bYgsh%2BOrVNBE2FHE04dpktjLYcu4Ig93xY9iCgvVa8ZxdwyFP09atWnc

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56025
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56025
    • View Profile
Re: The War with Medical Fascism
« Reply #84 on: October 12, 2021, 10:45:40 PM »
Very useful piece-- I will track down the referenced cases and give them a proper read.

In the meantime I would note that:

a) in Jacobson there was a LAW, not an executive edit.  This raises separation of powers issues with attendant Delegation doctrine issues;

b) the Constitution has evolved since then.  We now have "levels of scrutiny" according to the nature of the C'l right in question and we now have a recognized to Privacy via the Ninth Amendent.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14830
    • View Profile
Re: The War with Medical Fascism
« Reply #85 on: October 13, 2021, 05:40:20 AM »
... we now have a (selectively) recognized right to Privacy..

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56025
    • View Profile


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56025
    • View Profile


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile