Biden Takes Booster Shot on the Production Set of His Fake White House

President Biden gets booster shot amid push to increase COVID-19 vaccination rate. I saw this photo and I thought, “Oh come on, this isn’t real…” How can this be real, right?

It has to be fake – why on earth would Joe Biden get a booster shot on the “set” of a fake “White House?”

Rand Paul Argues With HHS Xavier Becerra Over COVID-19 Rules

This is the most cathartic thing I have seen in quite some time.  Rand Paul destroys Becerra on the subject of forcing those with naturally acquired immunity to get the vaccine.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) grilled HHS Sec. Xavier Becerra during a Senate Health Committee hearing on Thursday. Xavier Becerra is an American politician and lawyer serving as the 25th United States secretary of health and human services. Becerra previously served as the attorney general of California from January 2017 until March 2021.

Our team has not seen that Israeli study.” (Minutes later) “Our team has reviewed every study.

The Secret Is NOT to Refuse The Jab - Sample Letter

Conditional Acceptance Vaccine
SAMPLE LETTER BELOW

🚨🚨🚨 The secret is NOT to refuse the Jabb....

From a lawyer:

If you are being forced to Vax in order to keep your job, here’s a great way to handle it. (Conditional acceptance) The secret is NOT to refuse it.

“I write with regard to the matter of potential covid vaccine and my desire to be fully informed and appraised of ALL facts before going ahead. I’d be most grateful if you could please provide the following information, in accordance with statutory legal requirements.”:

1. Can you please advise the approved legal status of any vaccine and if it is experimental?

2. Can you please provide details and assurances that the vaccine has been fully, independently and rigorously tested against control groups and the subsequent outcomes of those tests?

3. Can you please advise the entire list of contents of the vaccine I am to receive and if any are toxic to the body?

4. Can you please fully advise of all the adverse reactions associated with this vaccine since it’s introduction?

5. Can you please confirm that the vaccine you are advocating is NOT experimental mRNA gene altering therapy?

6. Can you please confirm that I will not be under any duress from yourselves as my employers, in compliance with the Nuremberg Code?

7. Can you please advise me of the likely risk of fatality, should I be unfortunate to contract Covid 19 and the likelihood of recovery? 

8. Can you please advise me if I were to experience any adverse reactions is the manufacturer of the vaccine liable? If the manufacturer isn’t liable will the company I’m currently employed with with be responsible & liable as it is their request that I have the vaccine in order to carry on my employment?

Once I have received the above information in full and I am satisfied that there is NO threat to my health, I will be happy to accept your offer to receive the treatment, but with certain conditions – namely that:

1. You confirm in writing that I will suffer no harm.

2. Following acceptance of this, the offer must be signed by a fully qualified doctor who will take full legal and financial responsibility for any injuries occurring to myself, and/or from any interactions by authorized personnel regarding these procedures.

3. In the event that I should have to decline the offer of vaccination, please confirm that it will not compromise my position and that I will not suffer prejudice and discrimination as a result?

I would also advise that my inalienable rights are reserved.

The point is that if they CANNOT provide that information you’ve NOT got any obligation to vax. 

Related articles:

If Data On The Duration Of The Pfizer Vaccine Is “Not Yet Available,” Then How Can The CDC Recommend A Booster After 8 Months?

Vaccine Duration: They Are Hiding Something
Vaccine Duration: CDC Is Hiding Something

Flying under the radar is an admission made by the FDA regarding the durability of the one COVID-19 vaccine – the Pfizer vaccine (under the name COMIRNATY) –  that was officially “approved”: “data is not yet available to inform about the duration of protection that the vaccine will provide.”

This stands in contrast to CDC admissions, in support of their push for a booster shot, that “vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 infections is decreasing over time.”

Anyway, what a statement in light of the history of the Pfizer vaccine - and the publicly available data.

For background, let’s review some history. The Pfizer vaccine’s IND (New Drug Application) was filed in April 2020, after which it was granted its Fast Track Designation in July 2020. On December 11, 2020, the FDA issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer vaccine for persons age 16 and up. The Pfizer vaccine (COMIRNATY) was “approved” by the FDA on August 23, 2021.

Since the summer of 2020, Pfizer has been studying its vaccine on tens of thousands of individuals. The reliability of these studies was diminished greatly in December 2020, when the Pfizer study participants were “unblinded” and offered the Pfizer vaccine if they initially received the placebo.

From the time of the Pfizer vaccine EUA until the FDA gave its “approval” of the Pfizer vaccine, hundreds of millions of Pfizer vaccines had been administered. As of September 26, 2021, approximately 223 million people had received the Pfizer vaccine.

And as we previously discussed, the FDA’s approval of COMIRNATY was suspicious for a number of reasons, including because the COMIRNATY fact sheet admits “The duration of protection against COVID-19 is currently unknown.”

We had doubts about the truthfulness of that statement back in August, noting that Pfizer was relying on data “through March 13, 2021.” We observed that the data was five months old, asked if the FDA was using outdated information to support its COMIRNATY approval, and noted that more recent evidence pointed to vaccine effectiveness diminishing over time.

On that point, with studies that have been ongoing since the summer of 2020, and hundreds of millions of vaccines being administered, and the CDC concessions of duration issues, how is it possible for the FDA to conclude “data is not yet available to inform about the duration of protection that the vaccine will provide”?

If it sounds like they’re hiding something – it’s because they are.

The CDC has issued a press release (attributable to CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, NIH Director Francis Collins, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, among others) “based on a thorough review of the evidence” that:

“We are prepared to offer booster shots [Pfizer and Moderna] for all Americans beginning the week of September 20 and starting 8 months after an individual’s second dose.”

This leads us to an important question:

If the data on the duration of the Pfizer vaccine is “not yet available,” then how can the CDC and Dr. Collins and Dr. Fauci recommend the Pfizer booster shot after 8 months?

While the CDC has provided some information on the topic, there is certainly more they aren’t telling us.

26 of 27 Scientists Who Published Paper Calling COVID Lab Leak Theory a ‘Conspiracy’ Have Ties to Wuhan Lab

China Wuhan Flag Lab Leak Covid

A group of virologists in February 2020 published a letter in The Lancet stating they “overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife.” Twenty-six of them had ties to China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is at the heart of the controversy over its gain-of-function research using bat coronaviruses.

Story at-a-glance:

In February 2020, a group of virologists published a letter in The Lancet, stating they “overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife,” and calling the lab leak theory a conspiracy.

Twenty-six of them had ties to China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), which is at the heart of the controversy over its gain-of-function (GOF) research using bat coronaviruses.

The heavy conflicts were revealed by an investigation by The Daily Telegraph newspaper and confirm the questions many experts have raised over the paper’s credibility and motives.

Signatory Peter Daszak, EcoHealth Alliance president, is a name that comes up often, because Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance funded controversial GOF research at the WIV.

Signatory Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust, published work with the head of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, George Gao, Ph.D., who he refers to as an “old friend.”

John Mackenzie, a tropical infectious disease expert at Curtin University in Perth, Australia, was a signatory on The Lancet paper, but he did not disclose that he was also a committee member of the Scientific Advisory Committee of WIV’s Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases.

Several of The Lancet paper’s original signatories have reversed their positions and are now calling for a full investigation into COVID-19’s origins.

Where did SARS-CoV-2 come from?

It’s one of the most relevant and hotly debated questions of our time, yet investigations that may reveal its answer appear to have been doomed from the start.

In February 2020, a group of virologists published a letter in The Lancet, stating they “overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife,” and calling the lab leak theory a conspiracy, adding, “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.”

The Lancet paper was instrumental in stymying open debate about whether SAR-Cov-2 leaked from a lab and resulted in those who challenged the natural origin theory being labeled as conspiracy theorists.

“All debate into whether COVID-19 had man-made origins or leaked from the lab in Wuhan — the Chinese city that was ground-zero for the virus — was effectively shut down by the letter,” the Daily Mail reported. The letter, however, was not the result of independent investigation but, rather, a heavily conflicted PR attempt.

26 of 27 authors of Lancet paper had ties to Chinese lab

Twenty-seven scientists are listed as authors of The Lancet paper, “Statement in Support of the Scientists, Public Health Professionals, and Medical Professionals of China Combatting COVID-19.”

Twenty-six of them had ties to China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), which is at the heart of the controversy over its GOF research using bat coronaviruses.

The heavy conflicts were revealed by an investigation by The Daily Telegraph newspaper and confirm the questions many experts have raised over the paper’s credibility and motives.

If you look at The Lancet letter, Dr. Richard Muller, Professor Emeritus of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, stated during his testimony at the House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Select Coronavirus Crisis hearing, held June 29, they say you can dismiss a lab origin because China identified the host animal and even went so far as to praise China for its openness.

“This paper, The Lancet, does not read well when we look at it 16 months later,” Muller said, noting that a host animal hasn’t been found.

Investigation details Lancet paper’s 26 conflicted scientists

Ronald Corley, Ph.D., a professor of microbiology at Boston University, is the only scientist that was not found to have ties to WIV. A sampling of the more than two dozen other scientists that do have links — uncovered by The Telegraph investigation — are revealed below:

Peter Daszak — Peter Daszak, EcoHealth Alliance president, is a name that comes up often, because Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance funded controversial GOF research at WIV. Further, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a part of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, gave funding to the EcoHealth Alliance, which then funneled it to WIV.

Daszak was also made a commissioner of The Lancet Commission on COVID-19, but once his extreme conflict of interest was been made public, he was recused from the commission. The investigation revealed that five other signatories also worked for the Lancet Commission on COVID-19.9

Daszak declared no competing interests in The Lancet paper, but in an update published June 21, The Lancet stated, “Some readers have questioned the validity of this disclosure, particularly as it relates to one of the authors, Peter Daszak.” The journal invited the authors to “reevaluate their competing interests,” and Daszak suddenly had much more to say about his collaborations with China.

In an email revealed by a FOIA request, Daszak stated that he composed The Lancet paper after his “collaborators” in China asked for a “show of support.” Daszak is also the treasurer of the Global Virome Project, which is partnered with EcoHealth Alliance. Its goal is to identify potential zoonotic viral threats, taking over from the former Predict project.

Daily Mail noted, “The Predict project was also found to have part-funded contentious work by Wuhan researchers on bat coronaviruses, which were altered to see if they could infect humans. The funds for the research were provided by the EcoHealth Alliance.”

Jeremy Farrar — Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust, has a position on the U.K.’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, which advises the government on COVID-19, as well as a board seat with the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, which gave $1 billion to COVID-19 vaccine development.

Farrar has also published work with the head of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, George Gao, Ph.D., who he refers to as an “old friend.” Gao helped launch the Global Virome Project and has been linked to Shi Zhengli, Ph.D., the director of WIV’s Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases, also known as “batwoman,” who has been studying bat-borne viruses since 2004, including SARS-like coronaviruses. Daily Mail reported:

“Her team discovered a virus in 2013, which is the closest ever previously found to Sars-Cov-2 – the virus that causes Covid-19. Two other signatories — Dr Josie Golding and Professor Mike Turner — are known to have current or past connections with the Wellcome Trust. Dr Golding is the Trust’s Epidemics lead, while Prof. Turner is a Parasitology expert at the University of Glasgow, and formerly worked with the Trust.”

Linda Saif — Linda Saif, a microbiology expert at Ohio State University, was a speaker at a May 2017 workshop in Wuhan, that was organized in part by WIV. Other speakers at the workshop included Shi and Gao. Saif spoke on the topic of animal coronaviruses.

John Mackenzie — John Mackenzie, a tropical infectious disease expert at Curtin University in Perth, Australia, was a signatory on The Lancet paper, but he did not disclose that he was also a committee member of the Scientific Advisory Committee of WIV’s Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases.

Kanta Subbarao — Kanta Subbarao, a virology expert from the University of Melbourne, Australia, former chief of NIAID’s Emerging Respiratory Viruses Section, spoke at a 2016 Wuhan conference about emerging diseases. The conference was organized, in part, by WIV.

Ralph Baric — Five of The Lancet paper’s signatories have published articles with Ralph Baric, whose name was omitted from the paper, but who has a significant tie to it nonetheless. Baric, Ph.D., of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, developed humanized mice used in GOF research by WIV.

Baric worked closely with Zhengli and COVID-19 vaccine maker Moderna, and together with NIAID, sent mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates to Baric at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Dec.12, 2019 — prior to the pandemic, raising significant red flags.

At the time The Lancet statement was released in February 2020, Daszak had advised Baric against adding his signature because he wanted to “put it out in a way that doesn’t link it back to our collaboration so we maximize an independent voice.”

Several signatories have reversed their positions

After publicly suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 came from a natural origin — and any talk to the contrary a conspiracy theory — several of The Lancet paper’s original signatories have reversed their positions and are now calling for a full investigation into COVID-19’s origins.

This includes Peter Palese of the Icahn School of Medicine in New York, who told MailOnline in June 2021, “’I believe a thorough investigation about the origin of the COVID-19 virus is needed. A lot of disturbing information has surfaced since the Lancet letter I signed, so I want to see answers covering all questions.”

Signatory Stanley Perlman from the University of Iowa similarly said, “It is difficult to eliminate a possible lab leak as part of the process, so this still needs to be considered.”

Bernard Roizman, a microbiology expert at the University of Chicago, who also signed the paper has since stated he believes SARS-CoV-2 was “released by ‘sloppy’ scientists.”

Yet, the signatories have not come clean about their own conflicts of interest. When The Lancet published its June addendum disclosing Daszak’s conflicts, it invited the other signatories to also update their competing interests. Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist with Rutgers University, told The Telegraph:

“Incredibly, only Daszak appears to have done so. Conflicts of interest were not reported for any of the other 26 signers of the letter — not even those with obviously material undisclosed conflicts such as EcoHealth employees and Predict contractors.”

An orchestrated campaign to control the narrative

The Lancet paper was just one piece of the campaign to control the narrative around COVID-19’s origins. Another one of the major pieces of propaganda is “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,”27 a paper published in Nature Medicine in March 2020 that became the preeminent “proof” that SARS-CoV-2 had a natural origin and couldn’t possibly have come from a lab.

It was later revealed that Dr. Anthony Fauci, NIAID director, Farrar and Dr. Francis Collins, National Institutes of Health director, had a hand in the paper, as one of its authors wrote a March 6, 2020, email to the trio and colleagues, thanking them for their “advice and leadership.”

According to Charles Rixey, a COVID-19 analyst who combed through 100,000 pages of FOIA documents and reviewed more than 1,000 research articles, however, the five editors of the Nature Medicine paper, who he refers to as “the Proximals,” were aware of the existence of a furin cleavage site  on the virus as early as Feb.1, 2020, the day a conference call was organized by Farrar and Fauci “to address several aspects of the SARS-CoV-2 genome that pointed towards an artificial origin, by means of generating adaptive changes through passaging and/or direct manipulation of the genome.”

After the Feb. 1, 2020, conference call, a Feb. 3 meeting was held by Fauci, presidential science adviser Kelvin Droegemeier, Chris Hassell, senior science adviser for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and National Academies’ policy director Alexander Pope, during which the “group slapped the table on what the narrative was going to be — not what the science indicated.” Rixey wrote:

“Therefore, the signal was sent to all scientists that pursuing the lab origins angle meant career death (no academy membership), no funding (via Fauci or Ross or Farrar), no publication in the big 4 journals during the historic pandemic (NEJM, Science, The Lancet & Nature [by virtue of their publishing of the tone-setting pieces]), no executive patronage for things like generic drugs, etc.”

Many have stated that we’ll never truly know the origin of SARS-CoV-2, short of China confessing or a whistleblower coming forward, but as Muller stated during his testimony, “We have a whistleblower, the virus itself.”

Even as scientists who have worked closely on GOF research with WIV have tried to shut down investigations into the lab leak theory, the virus may ultimately reveal the truth.

SARS-CoV-2 has a unique trigger on the surface called a furin cleavage site and a unique code in the genes for that site called a CGG-CGG dimer — these markers do not exist in natural coronaviruses but are known to have been used in GOF research.

Dr. Steven Quay, who holds 87 patents across 22 different fields of medicine and invented seven FDA-approved medicines, believes that SARS-CoV-2 came from a laboratory in China.

His Bayesian analysis of SARS-CoV-2 origins revealed that finding a CGG-CGG codon pair in the furin site of SARS-CoV-2 is “a highly improbable event,” and this can be used to adjust the likelihood that SARS-CoV-2 is of zoonotic origin to only 0.5%, while the likelihood of laboratory origin is 99.5%.

Originally published by Mercola.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children's Health Defense.

Prison Study Says Vaccines Are Not Effective After 4 Months

prison study vaccine durability
It's over folks.

Seriously, there are now two -- and only two -- possible paths.

Sue, on the basis below.  You will win if the judiciary is competent and so is your counsel.  Competence is not in my wheelhouse; that is up to you.  If you file bull**** you will lose, and should.  But if your counsel is competent and your argument clear and concise you win because the CDC has documented that your position is correct -- the vaccines are in fact worthless from a public health perspective beyond a period of about four months and you win on the balance of harms in that circumstance for reasons I will explain below.

If the judiciary is no longer an arbiter of fact then you have to choose between slavery and revolt.  That's all that's left if you are in a position that this is impacting your ability to earn a living or otherwise do something necessary.  Yes, that gets ugly fast.  I would hope the judiciary understands exactly how ugly, and how fast and thus does its job.

A prison is highly analogous to a hospital or other healthcare setting.  Both are "conjugal" living arrangements.  Both have a locked-in component (the patients in one, the prisoners in the other) and working and mingling in society component (the doctors, nurses, orderlies, janitors, etc. in one, the guards, cooks, janitors, and similar in the other.)  In both cases the locked-in persons are not really free to leave; in both, they typically leave only when allowed by the working component (yes, you can sign yourself out against medical advice in a hospital, but few actually do.)

Both confine people, typically two to a room but sometimes one, among the conjugal and locked-in persons.  Both, therefore, are highly effective places to spread disease -- especially airborne pathogens.

But -- in the prison, it is now documented that after four months the vaccine's effective rate of protection was statistically zero.

The argument for forcing vaccinations in these highly-confined environments says much less those which have fewer constraints, such as colleges, secondary and primary schools, and other workplaces is that people are put at "unreasonable" risk by unvaccinated individuals.

Yet the data is that four months post-vaccination there is no statistical difference between vaccinated and not when it comes to attacking rates.  By the CDC's own data the vaccines are worthless to protect others after four months.

Let me point out a few other inconvenient facts.  First, the companies and CDC likely knew this prior to the jabs going into widespread use, since their effectiveness is basically zero compared against unvaccinated controls within four to six months.  The original EUA trials were about four months in duration, which means they, or the firms, had this data -- and with a high degree of certainty either ignored indications of it or deliberately concealed it.  That's fraud and upon proof retroactively voids liability protection back to the first EUA-administered jab, including that provided by the PREP Act as willful misconduct is outside of PREP Act and other applicable legal liability protection.

Second, the FDA standard for a vaccine, which they formally adopted for Covid-19 vaccines, requiring that they must be at least 50% effective in preventing the disease in question over the period of concern.  Since a seasonal respiratory virus is, as the name implies, an annual risk that would place the period of time at "one year."  None of these jabs, on the CDC's own evidence, are licensable under the FDA's standards and thus none can be mandated in any way.

We now know why the JAMA study, which found 83% population immunity as of May which is sufficient to suppress Covid-19 given its experimentally-determined R0, failed to do so.  63% of the population was not immune to former infection; they were immune by vaccination and by June and July enough of those vaccinated people had their protection age off sufficiently to be worthless against infection and transmission.  This is why, on the facts, the summer surge happened.

Now, you might argue that this means the government can force jabs every four months.  Indeed Israel is attempting to do exactly that.

Nope.  That is neither lawful or Constitutional in the United States.

Remember the law on accommodations when it comes to those with a "disability" (who cannot choose and thus cannot consent): An accommodation is lawful if and only if it is not an unreasonable burden on the person forced to make the accommodation.  If the accommodation would be "unreasonably burdensome" it cannot be required.

Thus you can be forced, when remodeling your commercial building (or building a new one), to put in a ramp, an electric door opener, and a button for someone in a wheelchair because it's not an unreasonable accommodation to do so.

You can't be forced, as an employer, to put in a completely separate air feed, a separate means of entrance and egress, and hermetic seals around a workspace so a person with a void immune system (aka "bubble boy") can be hired as an employee without immediately being exposed to a bacterial or viral agent that will kill him or she yet would be harmless or of minimal significance to someone with a functional immune system.

You also can't be forced, as a homeowner, to put in that same ramp because it is unreasonable to force you, who do not need such an accommodation, to suffer the expense because someone might come to your private residence (or may purchase the same from you in the future) who does.

So can an employee ever be forced to be vaccinated on the premise of protecting others?  Maybe.  If all of the others can choose to protect themselves for no more risk than the employee is required to take then the answer is no.  In other words, you can't make me wear a mask so you don't have to.  But you might be able to make me wear one if you can't wear one and you can prove there is the less or equivalent risk to me from doing so than not.

And here we get into the next problem for the CDC, which is their own data once again:

Divide all those numbers by 10 to get "per-100,000" rates.

So for someone under 17 the risk of death from Covid-19, assuming you get infected, is 2/100,000 (or 0.002%)

For someone 18-49 it is 50/100,000 (or 0.05%)

For someone 50-64 it is 600/100,000 (or 0.6%)

And for someone 65+ it is 9,000/100,000 (or nine percent)

These are obviously too-broad ranges but they're the CDC's numbers.  We could take a stab at disentangling them using the NYC Coroner data, for example, and I have -- but we don't have to in this case because the CDC has provided enough data on their own, within the Federal government, to complete the analysis.

VAERS says the risk of death shortly following vaccination for Covid-19 is at least 15,386 / 200,000,000 (remember, this is "died with" not "died of" in both cases of vaccination and infection) or 7.69/100,000.  This, by the way, is wildly higher than that for the flu shot (about 20-30 deaths per year across 170 million shots delivered) and thus is very unlikely to be a coincidence.

Here's the problem -- this rate of risk is per vaccine delivered.  For someone under 17 the risk of the vaccine exceeds the risk of their dying from Covid-19.  For someone in 18-49 the math looks better -- if you only take one shot ever.  But that's not the paradigm, is it?  Nope.  So the risk of the vaccine over three shots a year is 21/100,000 and over six shots in total, or approximately 18 months, it is virtually the same as the disease.  Yet over the first 16 months or so -- most of which was during a time when there were no vaccines -- only 20% of the population was infected.  The risk is taken when you get jabbed (is certain), but the risk of infection is only taken if you get infected (is not certain.)

In other words, since we now know from the CDC itself that the vaccines are not durable and must be repeated every four months for someone under 50 the cross-over of risk occurs in less than two years after which they are better off being infected.  For someone under 18, they are always better off being infected.

Remember that infection confers sterilizing immunity and, on the science, is durable.  How durable we do not know precisely but we do know that other coronaviruses, including OC43, were believed to cause a similar pandemic (specifically in the 1890s) and now cause colds and mild flu in most people.  In addition, persons infected with the original SARS were shown to still have protection against reinfection seventeen years later.  In other words, if you choose natural immunity and get infected the odds are you permanently protected against a severe (hospitalized) or fatal outcome, although at some point you will get it again, likely more than once in your lifetime.

Now here's the punchline: To argue that you must take the jab "for others" the argument is in fact that you must risk your own life to save other's lives because the common good, albeit diffuse and indistinguishable from person to person, mandates you place yourself at risk of permanent disability or fatal outcome and the risk of that disabling or fatal outcome is, over time, higher than that which would occur if you did nothing and risked a natural infection.

This is simply not supportable under our Constitution or law and in fact, is a violation of your pre-political rights.

Contemplate this scenario which is exactly the same as those arguing for and imposing "mandates": We clearly need more children in the United States.  As of 2018, the birth rate is 1.73 live births per woman and it has fallen further in recent years, down 20% since 2007.  At a birth rate under approximately 2.1 per woman your nation and society eventually go extinct since that is the number required to maintain your population.

It is a clear societal yet diffuse "good" to have children born to at least replace those persons who die.  Without the same over sufficient time, there is quite literally nobody left! 

This outcome absent change is guaranteed to occur.  Long before you actually all go extinct, however, the government will fail due to a lack of the ability to collect the taxes and fund itself necessary to operate.  In other words, the destruction of your society doesn't happen when the last person dies -- as I'm sure you can realize it happens long before then when there are insufficient people to maintain the infrastructure necessary to keep a modern way of life operating.

This is identical to the "risk" posed by Covid-19.  It is diffuse and uncertain, yet statistically, it will do harm.  That it will harm some specific person cannot be determined in advance; indeed, among my close associates, I had an older married couple, both with serious morbidities.  One was killed by this virus in early 2020, the other untouched despite sleeping in the same bed.  Similarly, who will get harmed as the population dwindles cannot be determined in advance either, but that it will happen is a mathematical certainty.

Therefore the government and private businesses have the right to forcibly impregnate women who do not otherwise get pregnant and force them in each case to carry the fetus to term so as to prevent that from happening -- right?

Uh, of course not.

Why not?

Because the personal risk of harm -- physical, medical, psychological and financial -- to any given woman may, at some time and indeed most of the time over time, exceeds the diffuse societal benefit from her giving birth to said child.  Therefore even though it is clearly not only in the interest of the public as a whole for the rate of child-bearing to be at least replacement it is not lawful to intrude into a person's body to cause it to be so.

The exact same analysis applies here.  Yes, protection of public health is a proper function of government since public health is diffuse yet personal health is, by definition, personal and thus not diffuse.  When the two align mandates are supportable.  A cost of personal health (or risk thereto) that is de minimis or is literally zero of course argues for the public interest.

For example, quarantining someone known infectious with reasonable scientific certainty with an infectious disease is reasonable because the public benefit is clear and the personal cost is limited in time and impact, with a zero risk of mortality due to a temporary constraint on personal movement.  In the context of mandated vaccinations the USSC has been clear as well; for a disease (e.g. smallpox) where the fatality rate was 30% and the vaccine killed you one or two times in a million the argument held for this reason.  You had a tiny risk of dying from the vaccination (personal harm) but the public benefit with a disease that killed 30% of the time was immense.  Further, for all persons not previously infected the personal risk .vs. reward odds were always positive by utterly ridiculous ratios.  When your personal risk of the smallpox vaccine killing you was 1/500,000 (0.0002%) yet the disease killed 30% of the time in non-vaccinated persons there's little argument to be had.

This is clearly not the case here; in those under 50 repeated vaccination is, on balance, more dangerous than the virus and in those under 18 it is always more dangerous even from the first use.  Never mind that the jabs contribute nothing to population immunity (a public good) since you can still be infected and become contagious while infection and recovery do.

Biden's position, and that of the Federal Government, is unsupportable on both the facts and the law.

There is no debate on the facts when those arguing for mandates prove with their own claims and data that their argument is unsupportable both as a matter of fact and as a matter of law.  A viable disagreement to be submitted to a court requires that a trier of fact have some set of facts in dispute.  The CDC, an organ of the government itself, has admitted there are no facts in dispute; the vaccines are ineffective and are, on their own data, more harmful than the infection in a large percentage of the population.  The public health argument thus fails on its first premise.

We are either a nation bound by law or we are not.  If we are not, and the government and judiciary so-declare they must understand that this declaration means exactly what you think it might.

50k+ Medicare Patients Died Soon After Getting COVID Shot

Whistleblower

‘They are lying. There is no question they are lying,’ said Attorney Renz. ‘The mantra of ‘safe and effective' must stop after today’s information.’

A whistleblower has provided government data documenting 48,465 deaths within 14 days of COVID-19 vaccination among Medicare patients alone, according to medical freedom rights attorney Thomas Renz.

The announcement Saturday was made by the Ohio-based attorney, who remains involved in several major cases brought against federal agencies relating to fraud and violations of medical freedom rights.

In his presentation, Renz expressed his appreciation for whistleblowers who were coming forward to provide the public with such important information from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service (CMS). He described the CMS database as the largest available in the U.S. for the study of COVID-19 trends because it contains the data of approximately 59.4 million Medicare beneficiaries.

One slide showed that the number of “persons who died within 14 days of a COVID-19 vaccine” equated to 19,400 for those younger than 81 years old, and 28,065 for those 81 and over, totaling 48,465 deaths.

“This is raw data,” Renz explained. “There’s no analysis.” And, he emphasized, these death numbers are from less than 20% of the U.S. population.

“Do you want to know why 14 days is important?” he asked. “Because if you die with 14 days, you’re not considered vaccinated.” According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), one is not considered as being “vaccinated” until 14 days after their completed injection regimen, raising the question of whether government authorities have been classifying these fatalities as something other than vaccination-related deaths.

Renz provided screenshots of the “raw data from the Medicare servers,” calling it “a present for the scumbag ‘fact-checkers’ who keep lying.”

“And what I want to know, are you going to fact check the HHS now?” he taunted. “Are you going to fact-check Fauci?”

In July, a whistleblower who works professionally as a computer programmer in health care data analytics, made a declaration under penalty of perjury that CMS data revealed “at least 45,000” vaccine-related deaths due to experimental COVID-19 vaccine injections. USA Today and others “fact-checked” the claim and called it misinformation.

A press release on Renz’s website responds, “Today’s revelations solidify that the ’Trusted News Initiative’ is actually the source of misinformation and propaganda, and that [the] Attorney Thomas Renz Whistleblower was correct all along.”

Since the roll-out of the COVID-19 gene-based vaccines began last December, with adverse reactions, including death, being passively reported on the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), many have believed the actual numbers of injuries to be much higher.

The most recent data from the CDC’s VAERS system released last Friday reveals reports of 726,965 adverse events in the U.S. following vaccination, including 15,386 reports of deaths and 99,410 reports of serious injuries, between December 14, 2020, and September 17.

Yet the presumption of significantly higher real numbers is supported by a 2010 Harvard Pilgrim study which found that “fewer than 1% of vaccine injuries” are reported on VAERS. In addition, even vaccine manufacturers have calculated at least a “fifty-fold underreporting of adverse events” on this system.

Further, a recent whistleblower report from Project Veritas reveals medical personnel in federal hospitals confirming the presence of many patients suffering from COVID vaccine injuries, yet “nobody” reports them to VAERS.

Renz also provided evidence affirming that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been using this same CMS data to monitor different types of adverse reactions to the injections in “near real time,” even while these government agencies and the media continue to repeat that this gene-based vaccine is “safe and effective.”

Displaying data of Medicare beneficiaries in the State of New York alone revealed thousands of cardiovascular events, cases of COVID-19, and deaths among a total of 16 tracked adverse events.

“Remember, these are ‘side effects’ that the government, media, and social media continue to tell the public that are not happening,” he said. “They are lying. There is no question they are lying.”

“The mantra of ‘safe and effective’ must stop after today’s information,” Renz said.

Medical Professionals Declare COVID Policies “Crimes Against Humanity”

Medical crimes against humanity

Thousands of doctors, now more than 5,200 doctors and scientists have signed the “The Physicians Declaration,” condemning policymakers for authoritarian approaches of forcing a “one-size-fits-all” COVID treatment strategy which is resulting in “needless illness and death.” 

An international alliance of physicians and medical scientists met in Rome, Italy on September 12 - 14 for a three-day Global COVID Summit to speak “truth to power about COVID pandemic research and treatment.” The summit presented an opportunity for the medical professionals to compare studies and assess the efficacy of the various treatments for the Coronavirus that have been developed in hospitals, doctors’ offices and research labs throughout the world. 

However, many of these medical professionals have experienced career threats, character assassination, censorship of research papers, clinical trials and patient observations, their professional history and accomplishments altered or omitted in academic and mainstream media because of them providing life-saving treatments for COVID patients.

Dr. Robert Malone, who discovered in-vitro and in-vivo RNA transfection and invented mRNA vaccines while he was at the Salk Institute in 1988, read the Declaration at the summit. 

“The Physicians Declaration” states: 

“We the physicians of the world, united and loyal to the Hippocratic Oath, recognizing the profession of medicine as we know it is at a crossroad, are compelled to declare the following; 

WHEREAS, it is our utmost responsibility and duty to uphold and restore the dignity, integrity, art and science of medicine; 

WHEREAS, there is an unprecedented assault on our ability to care for our patients; 

WHEREAS, public policy makers have chosen to force a “one size fits all” treatment strategy, resulting in needless illness and death, rather than upholding fundamental concepts of the individualized, personalized approach to patient care which is proven to be safe and more effective; 

WHEREAS, physicians and other health care providers working on the front lines, utilizing their knowledge of epidemiology, pathophysiology and pharmacology, are often first to identify new, potentially life saving treatments; 

WHEREAS, physicians are increasingly being discouraged from engaging in open professional discourse and the exchange of ideas about new and emerging diseases, not only endangering the essence of the medical profession, but more importantly, more tragically, the lives of our patients; 

WHEREAS, thousands of physicians are being prevented from providing treatment to their patients, as a result of barriers put up by pharmacies, hospitals, and public health agencies, rendering the vast majority of healthcare providers helpless to protect their patients in the face of disease.  Physicians are now advising their patients to simply go home (allowing the virus to replicate) and return when their disease worsens, resulting in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary patient deaths, due to failure-to-treat; 

WHEREAS, this is not medicine. This is not care. These policies may actually constitute crimes against humanity. 

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS: 

RESOLVED, that the physician-patient relationship must be restored. The very heart of medicine is this relationship, which allows physicians to best understand their patients and their illnesses, to formulate treatments that give the best chance for success, while the patient is an active participant in their care. 

RESOLVED, that the political intrusion into the practice of medicine and the physician/patient relationship must end. Physicians, and all health care providers, must be free to practice the art and science of medicine without fear of retribution, censorship, slander, or disciplinary action, including possible loss of licensure and hospital privileges, loss of insurance contracts and interference from government entities and organizations – which further prevent us from caring for patients in need. More than ever, the right and ability to exchange objective scientific findings, which further our understanding of disease, must be protected. 

RESOLVED, that physicians must defend their right to prescribe treatment, observing the tenet FIRST, DO NO HARM. Physicians shall not be restricted from prescribing safe and effective treatments. These restrictions continue to cause unnecessary sickness and death. The rights of patients, after being fully informed about the risks and benefits of each option, must be restored to receive those treatments. 

RESOLVED, that we invite physicians of the world and all health care providers to join us in this noble cause as we endeavor to restore trust, integrity and professionalism to the practice of medicine. 

RESOLVED, that we invite the scientists of the world, who are skilled in biomedical research and uphold the highest ethical and moral standards, to insist on their ability to conduct and publish objective, empirical research without fear of reprisal upon their careers, reputations and livelihoods. 

RESOLVED, that we invite patients, who believe in the importance of the physician-patient relationship and the ability to be active participants in their care, to demand access to science-based medical care.” 

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “These medical professionals have been censored and threatened for simply upholding the Hippocratic Oath to ‘do no harm.’ Throughout history, many breakthrough discoveries that have now become accepted science were initially censored. It’s past time to end medical censorship and allow doctors and scientific experts the freedom they rightfully deserve.” 

Candace Owens Says "We Are In A Mental Health Crisis"

Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson discuss the new Church of COVID: “This has moved from a public health crisis, to a mental health crisis. An obsession and a cult with COVID-19.”

Candace Owens Mental Health Crisis


NBA Players Are Going to Save the World

Kyrie Irving

Lawyers & Scientists Are Building A Case For Why Natural Immunity Should Be Treated Same As Vaccination

natural immunity logo


Now that at least one employer in the healthcare field - Michigan's Spectrum Health - has decided to accept proof of natural immunity from prior infection as a reason to waive its vaccination mandate for all employees, legal experts (and the reporters who love to quote them) are wondering: will the legality of proving natural immunity potentially win out in court?

The answer to that question, they say, will depend - as all things COVID-related do - on "the science", that nebulous and frequently shifting concept of how prior infection impacts immunity to new variants (and whether vaccine's do as well).

According to a report in Yahoo Finance, the notion that natural immunity is superior is already gaining support in the legal world. Presently, a handful of studies from different countries offer a conflicting view of whether natural immunity actually is superior to vaccinated immunity, or a combination of prior infection and vaccination

Since it's likely the federal government's aim to roll out vaccine mandates that cover practically every US worker (they're not too far off already), the issue of natural vs. vaccine immunity and whether some individuals should receive exemptions based on their antibody levels almost certainly be adjudicated in the federal courts.

At least one attorney quoted by Yahoo agrees:

"I think that a judge might reject a rule that's been issued by a body, like the U.S. Department of Labor or by a state, that has not been sufficiently thought through as it relates to the science," Erik Eisenmann, a labor and employment attorney with Husch Blackwell, told Yahoo Finance.

As we reported when it was first published, a report out of Israel suggests that natural immunity could be many times more effective than the Pfizer vaccine at preventing infection with the delta variant. That study has yet to be peer-reviewed, however, and the world is anxiously awaiting the results.

However, another peer-reviewed study cited by the CDC looks at dozens of cases in the US where certain people who tested positive for COVID never ended up generating the antibodies, which, science dictates, are necessary to fend off future infection.

The CDC also published a study of 246 Kentucky residents, concluding that vaccination offers higher protection than a previous COVID infection. The CDC said the study went through a "rigorous multi-level clearance process" before submission, but now some are concerned it's slightly out of date since it pre-dates the rise of delta.

But as far as supporting natural vs. vaccinated immunity goes, this study is another big one: A C A June study by the Cleveland Clinic and Washington University tracked 52,238 Cleveland Clinic employees found that within 1,359 previously infected and unvaccinated people, none contracted a subsequent COVID-19 infection over the five-month study. The findings led authors to conclude that prior infection makes a person "unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination."

Then there's this:

In a smaller study conducted by Washington University School of Medicine and published in Nature, senior author Ali Ellebedy, Ph.D., an associate professor of medicine and of molecular microbiology, found antibody-producing cells in the bone marrow of 15 of 19 study subjects 11 months after their first COVID-19 symptoms. "These cells will live and produce antibodies for the rest of people’s lives. That’s strong evidence for long-lasting immunity,” Ellebedy said.

The legal and scientific standards are intertwined here, but as more data develops that appears to validate the argument that natural immunity is at least as effective as vaccinated immunity, it's more likely that lawyers will succeed in convincing judges that the standard should be "immunity by any means."

Read about T-Cells

Full story and comments

Johnson & Johnson: 'Kids Shouldn’t Get A F*cking Vaccine;' There are "Unknown Repercussions"

Project Veritas exposes scientist/lab technician Justin Durrant & business lead Brandon Schadt from J&J who say kids should not get the vaccine because they don't need it.  

Brandon Schadt

Thousands of Doctors Sign Declaration For Early Treatment

Panel of doctors

Earlier this month a physicians’ declaration was written by a team under the leadership of Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA technology and a strong critic of the current official response to COVID-19. This text, which defends physicians’ right to treat corona patients with the best knowledge of early treatments and against  aggressive intrusion by governmental entities, has now gained 4,200 signatures from other physicians.

Speaking about the official suppression of early treatments of COVID-19, this declaration states: “This is not medicine. This is not care. These policies may actually constitute crimes against humanity.”

As LifeSite reported, Dr. Malone originally met with a group of physicians in Costa Rica to author such a declaration. Dr. Heather Gessling and Dr. Ryan Cole were among the physicians who met in San Juan, Costa Rica, in early September. In a video, several of the participants of that smaller gathering speak up, among them Dr. Malone and Dr. Cole, as well as Dr. Pierre Kory. Many of these physicians are known for their courageous stance during this coronacrisis in favor of truth and against the ongoing manipulations by the government and the media.

Dr. Malone subsequently read the same declaration to an audience at the 12-14 September 2021 International Covid Summit in Rome. The Summit participants also adopted this text, hence its title “Rome Declaration.”

The International Covid Summit in Rome took place in the Italian Senate and was hosted by Roberta Ferrero, an Italian senator. It concentrated on the question of early treatment protocols for COVID, some of which include Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine. The conference opened with a video message from Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, whom Dr. Malone then called a hero who deserves the Nobel Prize for his heroic and effective way of saving the lives of many COVID-19 patients throughout this coronacrisis.

The Rome Declaration criticizes the heavy intrusion of the state into their methods of treating COVID-19 patients. “The profession of medicine as we know is at a crossroad,” the manifesto reads. “There has been an unprecedented and intentional assault on our ability to care for our patients. Physicians, and all health care providers, must have the freedom to practice the art and science of medicine without fear of retribution, censorship, slander, and disciplinary action to include possible loss of licensure and hospital privileges, loss of insurance contracts and interference from government entities and organizations — all further preventing us from caring for patients in need.”

These physicians point out that most physicians today are telling their COVID-19 patients “to simply go home, allowing the virus to replicate” and to return only when they get sicker, which, according to the declaration, results in “hundreds of thousands of unnecessary patient deaths, due to failure-to-treat.”

These policies, they add, could eventually even be called “crimes against humanity.”

“This is not care,” they write.

Furthermore, the Rome Declaration states that the scientists of the world, skilled in biomedical research, should “insist on their ability to conduct and publish objective, empirical research without fear of reprisal upon their careers, reputations, and livelihoods.” Among the first signatories of the Rome Declaration – who come from all over the world – are Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche (U.S.A.), Dr. Ira Bernstein (Canada), Dr. Pierre Kory (U.S.A), Dr. Eivind H. Vinjevoll (Norway), Dr. Olufemi Emmanuel Babalola (Nigeria), Dr. Richard Urso (U.S.A.), as well as Dr. Peter McCullough (U.S.A.).

Dr. Bernstein, from Toronto, explains here (below) in a recorded interview his views and participation at the Global Covid Summit.

Vaccines For Kids Potentially More Dangerous than Virus, German Gov’t Reports

Germany Study

According to a safety report published by the Federal Institute for Vaccines and Biomedicines in Germany, the number of reported cases of suspected adverse effects following COVID-19 vaccination in children aged 12 to 17 has now exceeded the total number of COVID-related hospitalizations for children within the same age group since the beginning of the pandemic.

The report, which was published on September 20 by the PEI (Paul-Ehrlich-Institut), a German federal agency and medical regulatory body in charge of promoting drug and vaccine safety, has released new data on COVID-19 vaccines adverse effects, particularly among children aged 12 to 17.

The data, which was collected from the beginning of the vaccination campaign until August 31, shows that 1,228 vaccinated children aged 12 to 17 reported one or several suspected adverse effects following vaccination. This comes only three months after the beginning of the vaccination campaign for that age group, and just two weeks following a recommendation by the STIKO, the German Standing Committee on Vaccination.

By comparison, the total number of children aged 12 to 17 who were admitted to the hospital for COVID-19 between March 2020 and July 2021 is 1,225. In other words, within just 3 months, the number of cases of vaccinated children suffering from potential vaccine-related adverse effects exceeded the number of COVID-related hospitalizations within the same age group over a period of 16 months.

This new data seems to indicate that more children are suffering from the vaccine meant to protect them from COVID-19, than from the virus itself.

The most serious adverse effects reported include heart diseases such as myocarditis and pericarditis, as well as other serious health conditions such as thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and the Guillain-BarrΓ© Syndrome.

Even more concerning are the first reported cases of fatalities following vaccination in that age-group. According to the PEI report, “three of the 1,228 reported cases of adverse effect have resulted in the death of the patients within two to twenty-four days following vaccination with [Pfizer/BioNTech].”

Based on the newly release data, if the vaccination campaign extends to all minors aged 12 to 17, as well as to other age groups, as is currently expected, the total number of vaccine-related deaths among minors could be triple or even four times that of COVID-related deaths in the same age group throughout the whole pandemic. In other words, the vaccines offered to protect children from COVID are potentially more dangerous to children than the virus itself, according to an analysis published by Susan Bonath of RT DE.

The report also showed a significant increase of reported cases of adverse effects in adults, including a staggering increase in severe adverse reactions. Data collected throughout the month of August shows a 15-fold increase with skyrocketing numbers of severe reactions going from 1,094 to 15,122 in just one month. A steady increase in the number of vaccine-related deaths can also be observed.

According to Bonath’s analysis of the report, the total number of reported vaccine-related injuries and deaths over a span of seven months far exceeds that of all other vaccines together over a span of twenty years, from 2000 to 2020, with the number of long-term effects almost four times higher and the number of deaths more than three times higher.

This remarkable discrepancy was pointed out by RT DE editor Florian Warweg at a press conference with the Federal Ministry of Health on September 8. Warweg, who referred at the time to data which is no longer up to date, asked Andreas Deffner, spokesperson of the Federal Health Ministry:

Indiana Parents Sue Governor Over Quarantining Healthy Kids

Indiana Parents Sue Governor

A group of parents in northeastern Indiana has reached their breaking point with government officials turning deaf ears to their children’s suffering under irrational and scientifically unfounded COVID rules with no clear end point.

After spending months trying to work with local officials to get their kids’ lives “back to normal,” only to have their school board allegedly break its own rules to mandate masks and quarantines of the healthy barely two weeks into this school year, four families filed a lawsuit against Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb (R), his Indiana State Department of Health and its commissioner, their county health commissioner, Northwest Allen County Schools and its superintendent, and their local school board and several of its members.

The lawsuit alleges these officials have broken state laws and the state and national constitutions by quarantine “searches and seizures” that violate the Fourth Amendment and repeatedly restricting Hoosier children’s constitutionally guaranteed right to a public education based on unproven allegations that the children are COVID-infectious.

“It used to be that if you missed 10 days of school you were truant. Now kids are missing 30-40 days of school”a year because of extreme quarantine rules, said Andrew Frisinger, a father and plaintiff in the lawsuit.

In recent weeks, the district has sent more than 1 in 10 students home to quarantine based on the state’s “close contact” standard. Nearly all of those children were healthy. The lawsuit seeks precise data about how many children forced to quarantine were actually sick, as the district has not released that information publicly.

Walking through school halls in the district where he grew up, met his wife, enrolls his kids, and has spent years volunteering as a coach for myriad sports, “felt like walking into a funeral” under COVID regulations, Frisinger said: “Lunchrooms are quiet, hallways are quiet. Teachers who should be teaching are now focused on masks. Five years ago, we would have said, ‘This is not America.’”

‘Arbitrary, Capricious, and Vague’

Even when children are allowed in school, their learning is undermined by a fear-driven and science-free mask mandate and other COVID fear structures that make it hard to see people’s facial expressions, make schools a joyless and oppressive environment, and turn teachers from educators into mask police, said the parents who filed the lawsuit in a group call with The Federalist.

They are deeply concerned that their children’s most recent three school years—one-quarter of their K-12 careers—have been constantly disrupted and for no health benefits. It is well documented that children are the demographic at least risk from COVID. Yet children are being denied the education crucial to their futures, with no end in sight.

“To me it feels like they’re holding our kids’ education hostage. You can have all this that your tax dollars are paying for if you follow this rule, this arbitrary mandate,” Frisinger said.

The parents spoke of the effects on their kids of never knowing if a school event or school itself would go forward as planned, of their own and their kids’ confusion that rules arbitrarily differ from school to school and county to county with no apparent relation to health outcomes, of patently ridiculous rules like having kids eat and play sports together without masks yet the same kids on the same day being forced to mask to get on the bus.

“Not being able to play sports for some of my kids has been very hard. My children had to be at home countless days because of this, which has affected their grades. My oldest suffers from hearing loss, so you can imagine how hard that’s been,” said Jacqui Christman, a mother of five and with her husband also plaintiffs in the suit.

Some of their kids who have never gotten in trouble at school before are now constantly in trouble for mask violations, and some don’t want to go to school at all because of the massive psychological pressure, the parents said. With kids safer from COVID than from all the other flus that have never altered school operations, why are the adults doing this to them? Nobody will answer that question or just about any other, the parents said.

“The challenged quarantine procedures and contact-tracing program lack any rational basis, are arbitrary, capricious, and vague, have no real or substantial relation to the objectives of the program or mandate, and violate the Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights,” says the lawsuit.

Parents: This Is Our Last Resort

After seeking relief through every other means they could think of—attending school board meetings, calling and emailing elected representatives, talking with administrators—for now three school years, the parents feel they have no other option but to file a lawsuit, said their lawyer, Kevin Mitchell. The parents repeatedly expressed that they considered this step a last resort after they spent years trying everything else and getting nowhere.

“These are healthy kids they’re quarantining,” said plaintiff Mike Bell, a father of four. “We know it may bring unwanted attention to us or our kids. But we’re three years into this and it’s not going away. We’ve been patient, and we’re just done. No one is listening, and they [elected officials] keep pointing the finger at someone else. So I’m choosing to stand up for my kids, and I believe kids everywhere, and I am proud to be fighting for our kids and doing what we feel is right.”

The families described themselves as not rich or powerful, as a “simple fireman,” teacher, volunteer coach, moms, and dads who represent the “simple majority.” They believe they represent the clear majority of parents in their district, region, and state, noting that when students and locals are allowed to choose whether to wear a mask almost none do. They started a GoFundMe to help with legal expenses (disclosure: after learning about the fund while reporting this story, this author donated).

Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Indiana state law defines under what circumstances people may be placed under effective house arrest with a quarantine, and that law has not been followed during the entire pandemic, notes the lawsuit. One of the law’s requirements is that people must be proven to be contagious before they are forced to stay home under threat of arrest.

Local school requirements based on 18 months of constantly shifting executive decrees, however, flip that on its head and assume children are sick if they spent a cumulative 15 minutes in a day near someone who later tested positive, the lawsuit notes. It says this violates citizens’ rights to live freely until proven, through due process, to have violated the law. This also violates the children’s right to an education, the lawsuit alleges, by subjecting children to unlimited 14-day quarantines even when they are not sick.

“The whole structure has shifted to students and families to prove they are well enough to go to school. As a legal matter, that is sobering, and we should consider that,” Mitchell said in an individual interview. “Compare it to the Fourth Amendment context—when it comes to a search, there has to be a legal cause. To tell a student you cannot attend school unless you disprove something, that constitutional right to attend school has flipped. And that’s a right under the Indiana Constitution.”

The lawsuit also makes a rare challenge to the governor’s emergency powers, alleging state law does not authorize Indiana’s governor to “mandate medical treatment or intervention, including face masks, in K-12 schools.” The emergency powers law states its limit is 30 days. Yet Holcomb has now unilaterally extended his emergency powers a record 17 times.

“The position the health agencies are taking is [that] we’re in this indefinite health emergency and even though life has continued in other avenues, the students should continue to live restricted while everyone else is not,” Mitchell said, noting that Hoosiers are working, eating out, shopping, going to professional sports games and festivals, and living normally, without masks, just about everywhere except school.

Are There Any Limits to ‘Emergency Powers’?
The lawsuit also alleges that the governor’s myriad COVID dictates—which he has issued at least biweekly for the past year and a half—usurp the legislature’s constitutional authority to write and pass laws. Legally, governors are supposed to carry out the laws the legislature passes, not effectively legislate through executive orders.

“Certainly the governor has emergency authority, so the question then becomes what constitutes an emergency under the statute?” said former Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill, a Republican, in a telephone interview. “It’s not a question whether an emergency occurred, the question becomes how long can you continue the process of the emergency and what is it you are authorized to do pursuant to that emergency?”

The state legislature has the authority to stop the governor’s lawlessness and end the state of emergency, Hill noted, but has for two years now left Hoosiers subject to arbitrary executive rule: “An emergency should only go so far, and at some point you want to enact legislative policy to direct people’s conduct. If there’s a reason to restrict the freedom of any Hoosier, that restriction should be subject to a legal exercise by the general assembly, those elected by the people.”

The office of the current state attorney general, Republican Todd Rokita, declined a request for comment on this case. Rokita has issued an opinion stating that in some cases state universities may force students to take COVID-19 injections.

The following request for comment was emailed to Holcomb’s press secretary, Erin Murphy:
Dear Erin,

I’m wrapping up the story I called you about repeatedly several days ago, and it’s set to go live early next week. It’s about a lawsuit against the governor and his health department based on their school masking and quarantine rules as enforced in Northwest Allen County schools.

I’m especially curious about the governor’s position on this contrasted with his statement condemning Joe Biden’s recent COVID mandates as ‘a bridge too far.’ I’d like to know what the governor sees as the main differences between his emergency rule and Biden’s emergency rulings, which appear to this layperson to be pretty indistinguishable.

In addition, I would like to know the governor’s position on the limits of his claimed emergency powers — that he can legally keep renewing Indiana’s state of emergency indefinitely? If that’s the case, how does an ‘emergency’ last 18 months and when do Hoosiers get their rights back?

I’m also curious about whether the governor has ensured that all the Biden-administration-approved Afghan refugees he’s welcomed into our state have gotten their COVID shots and whether they are being required to follow his health department’s quarantine and masking rules, or whether those are only applicable to American citizens.

Thank you! If I don’t hear from you by Monday I will be including this email in my article in full.

Murphy declined to comment on this case, claiming, “We don’t comment on pending litigation.” A review of the last 12 months of press releases from Holcomb’s office, however, shows him publicly commenting on several events involving pending litigation, including the assassination of an Indiana police officer, the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol melee, state attorneys general opposing Biden’s vaccination mandate, and a lawsuit Holcomb filed to prevent the state legislature from restraining his emergency powers.

The next step in the lawsuit is for those sued to respond within approximately the next three weeks.

‘The pandemic is real, but children are neither victims nor vectors of this,” Frisinger said. “I just want to get back to normal, not only for the students but also for the staff we all support and love, and for the parents that are so confused right now.”

Joy Pullmann is executive editor of The Federalist, a happy wife, and the mother of six children. Her newest ebook is a design-your-own summer camp kit, and her bestselling ebook is "Classic Books for Young Children." Sign up here to get early access to her next full-length book, "How To Control The Internet So It Doesn’t Control You." A Hillsdale College honors graduate, @JoyPullmann is also the author of "The Education Invasion: How Common Core Fights Parents for Control of American Kids," from Encounter Books. 

10-State Coalition Supporting Ban on Big Tech Censorship

big tech censorship

Texas Attorney General Paxton announced on Sept. 20 that he is leading a coalition of 10 states in filing an amicus brief with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in support of Florida’s law that attempts to regulate censorship on Big Tech social media platforms.

Paxton signed on behalf of Texas, joining the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, and South Carolina who have also filed an amicus brief in support of Florida’s law.

“The regulation of big tech censorship will inevitably suppress the ideas and beliefs of millions of Americans,” Paxton said in a statement. “I will defend the First Amendment and ensure that conservative voices have the right to be heard. Big Tech does not have the authority to police the expressions of people whose political viewpoint they simply disagree with.”

Florida’s SB 7072 law allows Floridians to take legal action against Big Tech platforms if they censor a user’s content without consistent standards.

The new bill also prevents Big Tech from banning Floridian political candidates. Social media companies that deplatform candidates for statewide office will be fined $250,000 a day. The fine is $25,000 per day when deplatforming candidates for other offices.

Big Tech companies that violate the law can be brought to trial for monetary damage, and the state’s attorney general can litigate companies that don’t comply with the law under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the bill into law in May but District Judge Robert Hinkle in June granted a temporary injunction preventing the governor from implementing the law after two Internet trade groups—NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association— filed a lawsuit.

The trade groups argued the law may violate the First Amendment by compelling social media platforms to host offensive speech they otherwise would not and by interfering with their editorial policies.

The coalition in its amicus brief said the district court’s First Amendment analysis is “riddled with errors.”

“It veered off course from the outset by concluding that S.B. 7072 regulates speech when that law instead regulates conduct that is unprotected by the First Amendment: social media platforms’ arbitrary application of their content moderation policies,” the coalition wrote.

Earlier this month, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed Texas’s House Bill 20—similar to Florida’s law—which protects Texans from wrongful censorship on social media platforms.

House Bill 20 prevents social media companies with more than 50 million monthly users, such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, from banning users based on their political beliefs. The attorney general would also be able to take legal action on behalf of Texas residents that were banned or blocked by a platform due to such discrimination.

“We will always defend the freedom of speech in Texas,” Abbott said. “Social media websites have become our modern-day public square. They are a place for healthy public debate where information should be able to flow freely—but there is a dangerous movement by social media companies to silence conservative viewpoints and ideas. That is wrong, and we will not allow it in Texas. I thank Senator Bryan Hughes, Representative Briscoe Cain, and the Texas Legislature for ensuring that House Bill 20 reached my desk during the second special session.”

Protests Have Finally Erupted in Israel Against Vaxx Passports

Watch: Israelis Rise-Up Against Vaxx Passports After Being Told More Shots Needed To Be Considered "Fully Vaccinated"

Protests have finally erupted in Israel as it has slowly dawned on people there that the goalposts for vaccine passports keep being shifted by the government.

It is now expected to be announced that at least FOUR vaccinations will be needed to be considered ‘fully vaccinated’ and able to engage in society.

Over the weekend marches took place in the streets of Tel Aviv against the so-called ‘Green Pass’:

Protests have finally erupted in Israel as it has slowly dawned on people there that the goalposts for vaccine passports keep being shifted by the government.

Vaccine Mandate Cease & Desist Letter to School Sample Letter

cease and desist letter school board

School Board Members

Address

City, State, Zip 

RE:   School Board Lack of Authority to Mandate New Vaccine Requirements for School Attendance and violations of state, federal, and Constitutional law  

Dear Superintendent and Members of the School Board:   

As a parent two children in the School District, I am hereby asserting my child’s right to an in-person education as guaranteed by our California Constitution, free of any unlawful and coercive new vaccination requirements. School Board lacks legal authority to add any new vaccine requirement in order for my child to attend in-person school.  

Under existing California law, the Board of City is not the proper authority to add a new vaccine to the childhood immunization schedule.    

California Health & Safety Code Requirements for Adding New Vaccines 

There is a list of ten childhood immunizations required in order for students to gain admittance to public schools in California at certain stages of their education, and this list does not include any COVID-19 vaccines.  See Cal. Health & Safety Code § 120335(a)(1)-(10).   Under California Health & Safety Code § 120335(a)(11), only the California Department of Public Health (the “Dept” or “CDPH”) can add a new vaccine to this childhood immunization schedule, and at this time, the CDPH has not done so.  No matter how eagerly the School Board would like to impose a new vaccine on unwilling students, California law simply does not allow individual public schools or school districts like School Board to unilaterally decide which additional vaccines its students must take prior to being allowed to enjoy an in-person public education, an education guaranteed by our California Constitution, Article IX. Even the CDPH is expressly bound by statutory limitations on its authority to take measures to protect the spread of diseases as it can do so only when necessary and only if the measures actually work. See Cal. Health & Safety Code § 120140. 

Moreover, even if the CDPH itself elected to mandate a COVID-19 vaccine under Section 120335(a)(11) for all relevant California public schools, California law also requires that both medical and personal belief exemptions be allowed.  See Cal. Health & Safety Code § 120338.  Accordingly, any unilateral COVID-19 mandate that School Board purports to impose on its students, and particularly without allowance for medical and personal belief exemptions, is illegal under California law and is also unconstitutional on its face.   

Federal Emergency Use Authorization Law Requires a Right to Refuse EUA Products and Experimental Medical Trials involving Children Require Parental Consent 

In addition, while neither CDPH nor our state legislature has mandated any COVID-19 vaccine for public or private school attendance, neither authority can do so while the vaccines are still under emergency use authorization without express informed consent. 21 U.S.C. § 360-bbb-3 (the “EUA statute”).   This EUA statute explicitly states that anyone to whom an EUA product is administered must be informed of the option to refuse the product, as well as the risks and benefits of receiving it.  Although the FDA has purportedly approved one of the mRNA vaccines, in reality, the approved vaccine, the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine, is not available or in widespread circulation in the United States.  Instead, the only COVID-19 vaccines being offered to members of the public in California, including students 12 years of age or older, are still under emergency use authorization, including the Pfizer Biontech COVID-19 vaccine product. There is consequently no full FDA approval of any COVID-19 vaccine that is available for students of any age in California.    In addition, all COVID-19 vaccines, including the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine, remain authorized only under emergency use for ages 12-15, and thus no public entity can mandate such an experimental vaccine for students in that age range.   If neither CDPH nor our state legislature can currently mandate these vaccines due to federal EUA law and federal pre-emption issues, clearly the School Board cannot unilaterally mandate an experimental use COVID-19 vaccine for its students either.    

EUA products are defined by federal law as experimental which means the administration of them is akin to entering one into a medical trial. It is important to point out that there are legal and regulatory requirements that must be adhered to prior to entering a minor into a medical trial. Pointedly, a child cannot by law be entered into a medical trial unless there is a benefit. Even if there is only a minimal risk to children, the regulations require that the parents expressly assent to the entry of their child into a medical trial. 45 CFR 46.404, 45 CFR 46.408. If there is a greater than minimal risk, which here there is the greatest risk of death, there must be a direct benefit and the risk must be as favorable as alternative approaches. 45 CFR 46.405. With an undisputed 99.97% recovery rate for children and existing alternative treatments available, this legal threshold cannot be met.  

Unnecessary Liability for School Board for an Unnecessary Product 

Finally, it should be noted that under the Federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, all COVID-19 vaccine makers are provided immunity from liability for their products. However, School Board and any schools attempting to mandate an experimental use vaccine or even an FDA approved vaccine that such school lacks authority to mandate under our Health & Safety code will certainly open themselves up for lawsuits if a student is injured by an unlawfully mandated COVID-19 vaccine. 

It is also unclear why School Board believes that mandating a COVID-19 vaccine will do anything to prevent the spread of COVID-19 on school grounds.   COVID-19 vaccines appear to be failing in significant measures around the globe.  Highly vaccinated countries such as Israel and the United Kingdom are showing their own cases rising dramatically, with hospitals filling up with patients who are already fully vaccinated.   Even the CDC is warning that boosters may soon be needed for U.S. consumers of these products, as more so-called “breakthrough cases” are discovered.   It is unclear how School Board can be so blindly insistent of the benefits of a vaccine product at the same time numerous health authorities and media outlets around the globe are revealing these products to be unable to stop either transmission, infection, or even hospitalization or death.  There is also the possibility that the vaccine products themselves are causing the variants, as numerous scientists have previously warned, because they are “leaky vaccines” (they do not eradicate the virus, they are only designed to lesson severe symptoms, per their own literature). Due to that nature, since the virus is not eliminated, it is under pressure to mutate.  As these COVID-19 vaccine products are still in their clinical trial stages, there is still much unknown about their benefits or potential long-term health risks.  

Moreover, the delta variant is now alleged to be the dominant variant in California. The CDC has made it clear in recent weeks that vaccinated persons can transmit the delta variant and might even possess higher viral loads than those who were not vaccinated, particularly those who have already naturally recovered from COVID-19.   Since none of the vaccine products were ever tested for or intended to prevent infection or transmission (per the literature in their own clinical trials), choosing to get a COVID-19 vaccine must remain an individual and personal health choice, with individualized risk-benefit assessments.  

There is no legitimate public health reason to mandate that healthy children take a product that is still in its experimental clinical trials and that could cause more harm than benefit to this age cohort. School Board has no place attempting to mandate a product that does not even satisfy a rational basis, let alone a compelling governmental interest, for intruding upon significant Constitutional protections and rights to privacy, due process of law, and equal protection under the law.   

At this point, those who are vaccinated have presumably protected themselves against severe COVID or death. As numerous studies indicate, and public health authorities acknowledge, children are at little risk of developing severe COVID-19.   Accordingly, requiring any COVID-19 vaccine, especially among student populations in middle and high school, for a product that does not even prevent transmission to others, is not the answer.  It appears to be an unethical and unscientific way to use children as a shield to protect segments of the adult population who do not actually understand the limitations of these vaccine products, and who have their own option to be vaccinated. 

In conclusion, School Board lacks any legal authority to bypass our existing state and federal laws and impose a new experimental vaccine as a condition to attending school. Accordingly, my child will not be taking an experimental COVID-19 vaccine product in order to be allowed to attend in-person education within School Board, as he/she already has a Constitutional right to attend without such unlawful and coercive vaccination conditions attached.   

Any attempts to prevent my child from exercising his/her basic Constitutional rights to an in-person public education in California will be met with prompt legal action. 

Sincerely,

Popular Posts (Last 7 Days)

Topics

5G Activist ADE Advertising Air Quality Airlines Alchohol Alex Berenson Allergic Angry Moms Antibody Antitrust Apple Apps Arizona Aspirin Astra Zeneca Australia Bankruptcy Banks Banned Bars BBB Beaches Bell's Palsy Ben Shapiro Biden Big Pharma Big Tech Bill Gates BioNTech BitChute Black Rock Blackmail Blood Clots Booster Brave Brownstone Institute Bryan Ardis Business California Canada Cancer Candace Owens Cares Act CDC Censorship Chart Chicago Children China Class Action Clinical Trials Closures CNN Comirnaty Conspiracy Contact Tracing Corruption COVAX Cover Up Crimes Against Humanity Cult Cuomo Dan Bongino DARPA Data David Martin Deaths DeSantis Diabetes Died Suddenly Disinformation Doctor Reiner Doctors DOJ Dominion Dr Michael Yeadon Dr Reiner Dr Shiva Dr Zelenko Drugs Durability DWAC ECDC Education Election Elon Musk Email Enforcement Europe Exemptions Extortion Facebook Fact Checkers Fake Laws Fake News Fake Tests Fake Vaccine False Positive Famotidine Fauci FBI FDA Fear Mongering Federal Reserve Feds Fines Florida Flu Flu Shots Fluvoxamine Fox France Fraud Free Speech Freedom FTC Gain of Function Research Gavin Newsom Geert Vanden Bossche Genome George Soros Germany Glenn Beck Globalism Google Government Guillain-BarrΓ© Halloween Harvard Health Health Department Healthcare Heart Herd Immunity Hero HHS Hospitals How To Humor Hydroxychloroquine Hypocrisy Immune System India Injured Insurance Investment IRS Israel Italy Ivermectin J&J Japan Jeff Bezos Jim Jordan Jobs Joe Rogan Judy Mikovits LA County Larry Elder Lawsuits Leadership Let Them Breathe Lies Loans Local Laws Lockdown Los Angeles Mandates Map Masks Mass Hypnosis Media Medicaid Melatonin Mental Health Michigan Microsoft Minnesota Moderna Money Montana mRNA Mutation Myocarditis Nanoscience Nashville Natural Immunity NBA New Jersey New Media New York New Zealand Nextstrain NFL NIH Nursing Homes NY NY Post Ohio Omicron Omricon Opinion Opposing View Oppression Outdoors Parks Passport Patents PCR Pennsylvania Pericarditis Peter McCullough Pfizer Phishing Physicians Declaration Placebo Pneumonia Police Politics Poll Pollution PPP Prevention Pro Choice Project Veritas Protest Racism Rand Paul Real Estate Refuse Regeneron Relief Checks Remdesirvir Restaurants Restraining Order Robert Kennedy Robert Malone Ron Johnson Rudy Giuliani Rumble Russia Safegraph SBA Scams Schools Science Scott Gottlieb Senate Seniors Side Effects Sidney Powell Social Distancing South Korea Spain Sports Stadiums Stakeholder Capitalism Stay at Home Sterilization Steve Kirsch Study Substance Abuse Surveillance Sweden Swine Flu Symptoms T Cells Taxes Teachers Technology Teslaphoresis Testing Texas Tips Tom Cotton Tony Bobulinski Transmission Treatment Tribunals Trojan Horse Trump TruthSocial Tucker Carlson Twitter Tyranny UK Unemployment United Nations Unity Project Vaccine VAERS Video Vietnam Vitamin D War Warren Buffett Washington WEF Whistleblower WHO Wisconsin Women Workers Comp Zinc