Mestre da Família Artés The Last Judgment and the Mass of Saint Gregory 1500-1520
Safe and effective? Are these the vaccines that you want to have mandated for injection into your children, California parents?
Let's go Gavin! pic.twitter.com/LYrN0K8I34
— Robert W Malone, MD (@RWMaloneMD) November 12, 2021
“staggeringly overbroad” and an abuse of “extraordinary power.”
“critical to note that the (Biden Admin) makes no serious attempt to explain why OSHA and the President himself were against vaccine mandates before they were for one here.”
A US federal appeals court has again ruled against President Joe Biden’s national vaccine mandate for companies with 100 or more workers, shredding the policy as “staggeringly overbroad” and an abuse of “extraordinary power.” The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stark rebuke to Biden’s vaccine requirement for larger American companies in a ruling on Friday, stating that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) – the federal agency tapped to enforce the mandate – was not created to “make sweeping pronouncements on matters of public health affecting every member of society in the profoundest of ways.”
“The Mandate is staggeringly overbroad,” Judge Kurt Engelhardt said, noting that it does not take into account the diversity of workplaces across the country, nor the fact that Covid-19 “is more dangerous to some employees than to other employees.” As an example, he compared a hypothetical 28-year-old truck driver who works in isolation to a “62-year-old prison janitor” employed in more cramped conditions. The Biden administration initially announced the requirement in September, with OSHA following up earlier this month with an emergency order to enforce the mandate. The agency will require all workers at firms with more than 100 employees to be fully vaccinated against Covid-19 by early next year, or else test for the virus regularly and wear masks at all times while working.
The appeals court issued its first stay on November 6 after a litany of plaintiffs – including a number of companies and several US states – challenged the move, conducting an expedited judicial review. Friday’s ruling reaffirmed the pause, telling OSHA to “take no steps to implement or enforce the Mandate until further court order.” Despite the first stay, the White House has continued to urge businesses to follow the vaccine dictate and effectively ignore the ruling, potentially setting up a battle in the Supreme Court. While OSHA does have the power to issue what’s known as an “emergency temporary standard,” or ETS, the judge observed that only a single standard has survived legal scrutiny since the agency was founded in the 1970s. “The reason for the rarity of this form of emergency action is simple,” Engelhardt went on, adding that courts and OSHA itself have agreed “for generations” that such orders constitute “extraordinary power” which must be “delicately exercised, and only in those emergency situations which require it.”
I can’t see the Supreme Court allowing the OSHA abuse.
OSHA regulations are designed for dangers inherent in a given workplace or industry. In the case of hard hats, things fall, and workers need to protect their heads. Likewise, if workers are being exposed to a toxic chemical in a given industry, that industry can face an ETS. The idea is to stop businesses from creating dangerous conditions once people enter workplaces. But this national vaccine mandate is different. The administration arguably is using the workplace to make society at large safer. White House deputy press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre seemed to make that point on Monday when she insisted that OSHA clearly has this authority because “more than 750,000 people have died of COVID. You have approximately 1,300 people a day, who continue to die a day, as I said, from COVID. If that’s not a grave danger, I don’t know what else is.”
However, those are people dying in society at large, not in workplaces. While some may have contracted the virus in the workplace, courts may demand a closer nexus to a “grave danger” inherent in the workplace. The White House has expressly admitted that it is seeking to “reduce the number of unvaccinated Americans by using regulatory powers and … these requirements will become dominant in the workplace.” It is not even clear that the rule is necessary. Courts have uniformly upheld the right of employers to impose mandatory vaccination or testing requirements as a condition for employment; states have enhanced authority over such public health measures, too.
This is, admittedly, a novel issue, and there are good arguments on both sides. But it also is a generally-worded statute that can be interpreted broadly, and I expect a split in court decisions — and that only increases the likelihood of a Supreme Court review. Once there, the Biden administration could be giving some justices an opportunity to review not mandates but OSHA’s discretion over such mandate orders. A majority of the court has shown an interest in rolling back the so-called Chevron Doctrine, which affords agencies great deference in the interpretation and enforcement of federal law. After long debating whether it even has this authority, OSHA has suddenly found it, and then has issued one of the most comprehensive health-based standards in its history — all without rule-making or debate. Ironically, the Supreme Court warned against such sudden agency “finds” of regulatory authority.
In 2014, the court ruled that “When an agency claims to discover in a long-extant statute an unheralded power to regulate a significant portion of the American economy, we typically greet its announcement with a measure of skepticism. We expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decision of vast ‘economic and political significance.’” Indeed, the Court recently rejected Biden’s effort to continue the eviction moratorium under the same type of sweeping interpretation by saying “[i]t strains credulity to believe that this statute grants the [agency] the sweeping authority that it asserts.”
“..neither vaccine status nor the presence or absence of symptoms should influence the recommendation and implementation of good public health practices..”
Let’s be clear.COVID vaccine mandates are necessary because the protected need to be protected from the unprotected by forcing the unprotected to use the protection that didn’t protect the protected. Get it? A study from UC Davis and UCSF authors published on October 5, 2021 show conclusively that the viral loads are exactly the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated. “No Significant Difference in Viral Load Between Vaccinated and Unvaccinated, Asymptomatic and Symptomatic Groups Infected with SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant. The data gathered in this study during the surge of the Delta variant strongly support the notion that neither vaccine status nor the presence or absence of symptoms should influence the recommendation and implementation of good public health practices, including mask wearing, testing, social distancing, and other measures designed to mitigate the spread of SARS-CoV-2.”
In other words, the latest data from UCSF shows that basing public health practices on vaccination status is nonsensical. A person who is unvaccinated is just as likely to have and spread COVID as someone who is vaccinated. They are no different. If they were different, we’d see it clearly in that study (which sampled people at random times). In short, we are not following the science at all with mandates. We are mandating something that makes no difference to the health of others. Mandates only infringe our liberties to do what we choose with our body. [..] ” The CDC admits that there isn’t a single known case of a person with “recovered immunity” infecting someone with COVID. So if you have had COVID, you should SURELY be exempt from both vaccine mandates and testing. Yet we treat such people the same as unvaccinated. There is absolutely no way to justify that. The data is unambiguous.
And to make matters worse, nobody in the medical community is raising any objections! They are all brain dead. This stuff couldn’t be more obvious. Is there a hidden benefit that the vaccinated are less likely to get infected? Well, the study only looked at infected people, so that’s possible. However, the way the vaccine works is to create antibodies and T-cell immunity that would fight off any infection that came in. So a working vaccine would always show a significantly lower level of infection for all vaccinated people at all times. We see no difference. So explain to me the mechanism of how you think the vaccine is preventing infection? A new magical process? Is there a hidden benefit that people who are vaccinated are less likely to be hospitalized like they say? No, there is nothing we’ve seen in any of the research that would lead to this. Everything we have measured shows the opposite: it basically suppresses your immune system in general, raises D-dimer, raises troponin, etc. All bad things. The only potentially good thing it does do is raise your antibody levels, but clearly these antibodies aren’t making much of a difference based on this study since the virus has mutated to avoid the vaccines.
Macron is crazy. At least Napoleon was brilliant too.
To keep their health pass after December 15, people over the age of 65 already doubly vaccinated will have to receive a third injection before crossing the six-month and five-week date after their second dose. This Wednesday morning, Gabriel Attal clarified the announcements of Emmanuel Macron, in particular on the question of the third dose for those over 65 years old. “On December 15, the pass will be deactivated,” said the government spokesperson on France Info , for “over 65s, if you have had your second dose for more than 6 months and 5 weeks”, without to have made recall. “You will have alerts which will remind you that it is important to recall, there will also be Health Insurance”, added the government spokesperson. Nearly 100,000 appointments have been made for the booster dose of the Covid-19 vaccine within an hour of the president’s speech on Tuesday evening.
The definition of “naturally immune” to only mean those who have been infected makes no sense. Is it because what keeps most people from getting Covid is hard to measure? Across the world, max 10% of people ever even test positive. But they’re not “naturally immune”?
You would assume that if the CDC was going to crush the civil and individual rights of those with natural immunity by having them expelled from school, fired from their jobs, separated from the military, and worse, the CDC would have proof of at least one instance of an unvaccinated, naturally immune individual transmitting the COVID-19 virus to another individual. If you thought this, you would be wrong. My firm, on behalf of ICAN, asked the CDC for precisely this proof. ICAN wanted to see proof of any instance in which someone who previously had COVID-19 became reinfected with and transmitted the virus to someone else. The CDC’s incredible response is that it does not have a single document reflecting that this has ever occurred. Not one. In contrast, there are endless documents reflecting cases of vaccinated individuals becoming infected with and transmitting the virus to others. It goes on and on…
But it gets worse. The CDC’s excuse for not having a shred of evidence of the naturally immune transmitting the virus is that “this information is not collected.” What?! No proof! But yet the CDC is actively crushing the rights of millions of naturally immune individuals in this country if they do not get the vaccine on the assumption they can transmit the virus. But despite clear proof the vaccinated spread the virus, the CDC lifts restrictions on the vaccinated?! That is dystopian. The facts about natural immunity are simple. Every single peer reviewed study has found that the naturally immune have far greater than 99% protection from having COVID-19, and this immunity does not wane. In contrast, the COVID-19 vaccine provides, at best, 95% protection and this immunity wanes rapidly.
I am no mathematician, but a constant 99% seems preferable to a 95% that quickly drops. And, while the vaccinated readily transmit the virus, not so for the naturally immune. The lesson yet again is not that health authorities should never make mistakes. They will. It happens. The lesson is that civil and individual rights should never be contingent upon a medical procedure. Everyone, the naturally immune or otherwise, who wants to get vaccinated and boosted should be free to do so. But nobody should be coerced by the government to partake in any medical procedure.
Latvia’s parliament voted on Friday to ban lawmakers who refuse COVID-19 vaccine from voting on legislature and participating in discussions.Latvia, which has one of the lowest vaccination rates in European Union, was the first in the bloc to reimpose a lockdown this autumn as a surge in COVID-19 cases threatens to overwhelm its health system. The restrictions on vaccine-rejecting lawmakers, which includes docking their pay, was supported by 62 of its 100 lawmakers, and will last from Monday until mid-2022. State television reported that nine MPs have rejected the vaccine.
The ban on unvaccinated MPs in parliament was necessary to promote public confidence in the government’s policies to control COVID-19 infections, the legislation’s sponsor, lawmaker Janis Rancans, was cited as saying by the parliamentary press service. Latvia, home to 1.9 million people, has reported 236,765 infections and 3,646 coronavirus-related deaths since the pandemic began.
Once again: ..the viral loads are exactly the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated ..
Austria will impose a nationwide lockdown for people who have not been vaccinated against COVID-19, becoming the first country in the world to do so, Chancellor Alexander Schallenberg announced on Friday. Schallenberg, speaking at a press conference in Tyrol, said the nationwide lockdown is expected to be formally approved at a meeting on Sunday. Random checks will be carried out to ensure compliance with the new restrictions. “A lockdown for the unvaccinated means one cannot leave one’s home unless one is going to work, shopping (for essentials), stretching one’s legs – exactly what we all had to suffer through in 2020,” Schallenberg said earlier, according to Reuters.
The lockdown for the unvaccinated has already been formally approved in Upper Austria, where restrictions have also been announced for the entire population. This includes a legal requirement to wear an FFP2 mask in all indoor public places and a ban on events for 3 weeks. Daily coronavirus cases in Austria reached an all-time high this week, with 11,576 new cases on Wednesday alone. A further 11,040 new cases were reported on Friday, along with 40 deaths, which is the highest since April 13. About 60 percent of Austria’s population is fully vaccinated against COVID-19, making it the lowest rate in Western Europe, with the exception of tiny Liechtenstein. This means the lockdown will affect roughly 40 percent of the population.
However, questions have been raised about the feasibility of a lockdown which applies to only a part of the population. “We don’t live in a police state and we can’t and don’t want to check every street corner,” Schallenberg said.
The case heading to court is Dr. Paul Marik’s. This part of the text is Dr. Joseph Varon’s.
DR. VARON: My position at the hospitals where I have privileges has fortunately enabled me to employ any, and all effective treatments to cure COVID-19 and its effects at every stage of the disease but, most particularly, at the critical care stage when patients are admitted to hospital and/or the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). As a result of the remarkable success our hospitals have enjoyed with such patients over the past 18 months since March 19, 2020, we have exclusively applied the MATH+ protocol, with small variations as appropriate to every COVID patient entering our hospitals and ICUs.
Over the past 18 months of our hospitals’ use during the COVID pandemic, I can testify that the MATH+ protocol saves lives, and saves them in substantial numbers. I know this first, and foremost, from my own experience in our hospital, where we were able to lower our mortality for COVID-19 patients (both critically ill and those on regular wards) beginning in March 2020 (when we began utilizing the MATH+ protocol) to 4.4% as of August 2020– a dramatic improvement over the national average of 22% over the same time period.
Reported mortality averages across the globe have varied widely, but our hospitals’ results have successfully maintained far lower patient mortality rate—between 4.4% and 7%—to the present day. Multiple studies report much higher national mortality averages, including one such study that I participated in and published in June 2021 in the Journal of Community Medicine and Public Health Reports. That study, reviewing some 85 hospital studies worldwide, establishes an average 28-day hospital mortality rate among COVID-19 patients of 20% nationwide, and 21% globally. Moreover, as the study points out, because a large percentage of patients remain hospitalized after Day 28, the real average mortality rate is likely much higher. To this day—even with the advent of the “Delta variant” of COVID-19, our mortality rate has not risen above 7%. Bottom line: our hospitals’ use of the MATH+ protocol has reduced mortality of hospitalized COVID-19 patients by at least 50% below the national average.
Our experience of substantially lowering the mortality rate using MATH+ protocols is made all the more remarkable by the fact that our hospital now routinely admits severely ill patients referred by other hospitals and ICUs that for whatever reason are not administering the MATH+ protocol. These patients, in many cases, are those that the referring hospital/physician has determined will not likely survive. As our success has become increasingly known among treating physicians in the Houston area, and beyond, those referrals have risen to account for approximately 10-15% of our admitted COVID-19 patients. While we have been able to cure the vast majority of those patients using MATH+, in my opinion, the advanced stage of the disease we see in the referred patients likely accounts for some of the increase in our mortality rate for COVID patients. Nevertheless, we are currently experiencing a mortality rate in our hospitals of just 5%.
“..the skulking managers behind the ectoplasmic “President Joe Biden” (and their handmaidens in Congress) — that Satanic host of coercion-meisters, inqusitionists, corporate despots, reputational executioners, moneygrubbers, political whores, and credentialed sadists trying to run your life — are headed for a fall.”
The collapse of the global economy is underway and working itself out as it will, and the fear associated with that epic loss of resources, goods, comforts, and conveniences is driving Western Civ batshit crazy. Hence, the lunacies around the Covid-19 virus, another measure-and-control mania. Except that most of the official measurements about Covid-19 are untrue, gamed, fudged, juggled, misrepresented, and weaponized for political purposes. In fact, despite all the obsessive-compulsive statistical measuring, everything that the public health officialdom and the medical establishment did to control the disease after January 2020, only made the pandemic worse and prolonged it.
And so now all those authorities are bent on “vaccinating” every last human — which is absolutely the last thing you would rationally do in the midst of the pandemic event, since it only provokes new iterations of the virus that are immune to the “vaccines.” What’s more, the “vaccines” are so ineffective in the first place, and so toxic in the second place, that the damage they cause is arguably worse than the disease. But that quandary affords another opportunity for the self-designated “good” people (the vaxxed) to distinguish themselves from the “bad” people (the unvaxxed), and hence another way to persecute them. (Do you suppose it’s a mere coincidence that the people who refuse to get agitated by the climate change panic are often the very same people skeptical of the “vaccines.”)
Another interesting paradox in this panorama of mindfuckery is that the self-designated “good” people have behaved with uniform bad-faith and dishonesty throughout the long crisis — at least from RussiaGate through the current crusade to vax-up all the children — and that is what will change the game, probably soon. It happens that the leadership of the “good” people includes most of the figures in authority over the whole country: those public health officials like Dr. Fauci, the hospital directors who outlawed early treatment protocols, the pharma executives who buried their failed drug trials, the scientific journal publishers who killed reports that don’t support the “vaccine” narrative, the news-media editors and producers who can’t stop spinning lies, the Social Media totalitarian censors and cancellers, the tyrant mayors of New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, the “blue” state governors who destroyed small business with lockdowns and “passports,” the Woked-up state and federal bureaucrats ever preoccupied with covering their asses, the skulking managers behind the ectoplasmic “President Joe Biden” (and their handmaidens in Congress) — that Satanic host of coercion-meisters, inqusitionists, corporate despots, reputational executioners, moneygrubbers, political whores, and credentialed sadists trying to run your life — are headed for a fall.
Yeah, sure. But this is not what’s happening with Covid papers. They simply get banned and censored,
You may have heard the recent news of 44 scientific papers being retracted from a scientific journal after they were discovered to be nothing but gibberish. The usual reaction in these cases is to speak of “a few bad apples.” But this fraud exposes a problem that goes deep, very deep, in science. Science suffers from “glossolalia” — a syndrome that makes people utter meaningless sounds as if they were speaking a real language. To start, “papers” are the main output of a scientist’s work. It is the harsh law of “publish or perish,” meaning that for a scientist publishing something — anything — in an academic journal is the first line of defense against being fired. Even if a scientist has no money, no grants, no instrumentation, no ideas, they have to show that they are doing something. Woe betide the scientist who does not publish at least one paper every year! Anathema! Abomination! Horror! May you be eaten by the h-index bugbear who punishes those who sin so hideously against the sacred rules of science!
But publishing papers has a problem. When scientists publish something, in a certain way they are showing their hand. Readers will be able to understand how good they are, how well they master their field, how much money they have to perform their research, and more. They may not want others to know that, especially if they have something to hide (almost everyone does, in this world). So, many scientists practice obfuscation in order to defend their turf. So, scientists want to publish papers, but they may not want others to read them. A way to do that is to use purposefully convoluted language, eliminating all elements that would make a text interesting, turning it into the most boring possible kind of prose. The use of the passive form is a typical example (“it has been found that”) instead of the simpler “we found that….”. But there is more: for instance, why do scientists often sign their papers only with the initials of their first and middle names? (“J. I. Smith” — does it mean “Jolly Idiot Smith,” or what?). The idea is the same: to remove all hints of human interest for the text.
By far the most effective strategy is to use obscure terms. Uncommon and archaic ones can do a good job of repelling readers. An example noted by Malcolm Kendrick in his “The Clot Thickens” (2021): why in the world would anyone write “pultaceous” instead of “pulpy” if not with the specific purpose of being obscure? But what makes a paper truly unreadable is the proliferation of acronyms. If you stumble on “GDAP,” you have to decide which one of the 9 known meanings it can take (here, it is “Growing Danger of Acronym Proliferation”).
So, you start understanding how the mechanism works. First of all, an obscure paper makes it difficult for the reviewers to wade through the text and, surely, they don’t want to appear ignorant by asking what a particular term or acronym, or whatever means. Then, the paper may be full of mistakes, inconsistencies, shortcomings, and plain lies but, if it is really, obscure there is a chance that neither the reviewers nor anybody else will read it through and notice its shortcomings. It may even be cited, thus providing some extra points for the authors, by those who just read the title. Of course, it won’t make the authors candidates for the Nobel prize, but it means some respite from the wrath of the scientific PTB (obscure acronym for the “powers that be”).
Freezing soap bubble
Freezing soap bubble.. ❄️ pic.twitter.com/iYOOm3j7QA
— Buitengebieden (@buitengebieden_) November 12, 2021
Support the Automatic Earth in virustime; donate with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.