Explainer: Supreme Court’s OSHA and HHS Vaccine Mandate Decisions

[bonnie]

5 hours ago, GHansen said:

So if you are not against vaccines, why do you post info on all the things that might go wrong if one takes the vaccine?

If I were opposed to vaccines I would not have been vaccinated almost a year ago (as soon as it was available)   followed with the booster.  Common sense would tell most people that. I did make sure I understood what the risks might be compared to benefit.  As you have shown there are those that want risks ignored, what is a few dead here or there compared to the benefit.

There are possible side effects to every medicine in the PDR and many if not all medicinal herbs.

Most understand that

Several years ago, a Chinese physician won the Nobel prize for developing an anti malarial pharmaceutical that has saved many lives. She derived the compounded  remedy from a Chinese medical text at least 2000 years old. it's considered low toxicity but may cause problems. It's from a plant called sweet wormwood. Better to die of malaria than take a chance on the medicine?

There is more than the typical obvious way of being dishonest and unfortunately some feel the need to use this form of dishonesty to prove their point. Better to die of malaria than take a chance on the medicine? Never indicated anything like that so why the implication.

My husband takes medications every day that carry certain risks. We have made sure to understand the risks compared to the benefits. More importantly there is not anyone forcing that decision on us so your example was a poor misdirection

 

 

 

5 hours ago, GHansen said:

Nearly every post you write expresses antigovernment sentiments. 

Not anti government.  Again you are putting your spin on what I said.  I am against anyone attempting to take the unlawful right to by pass the checks and balances unique to this country to prevent dictorship/ government control. 

If government mandates are required to compel recalcitrant citizens to get vaccinated, bring them on, preferably with some teeth such as incarceration for non compliance.

THis is the mentality that the founding fathers wished to avoid in leaders of this country. There will come a time, and I personally believe not to far in the future where this mentality will reign for a short  time.  Those  that believe this way probably would be very happy to see  government force for more than  the vaccine mandate. For our own good of course

 

 

 

 

~

 

[bonnie]

Unless you can stick to what has actually been said,this is pointless

No I am not anti government. I am against a president that decides the checks and balances  in our laws do not apply to him. Those opposed to vaccines do not make sure they are vaccinated. Those that have experienced near medical tragedies  with " medical experts" don't blindly accept what some experts and wannbe civilan experts decide they should

I am against ignoring the risks involved and pretending they don't exist.  The risks have been proven to exist for many. 

[bonnie]

13 hours ago, GHansen said:

 

If government mandates are required to compel recalcitrant citizens to get vaccinated, bring them on, preferably with some teeth such as incarceration for non compliance. 

You certainly seem to have a lot of company in your viewpoint. Glad that for a short time yet cooler heads prevail.

 

Poll reveals many Democrats wish to repeal natural law, imprison fellow citizens

By Eric Utter

A poll conducted jointly by the Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports surveyed 1,016 "likely voters" in the United States on January 5.  The poll revealed...that a large percentage of Democrat voters would have made excellent Germans circa the 1930s and 1940s.  Specifically, it revealed that 59% of likely Democratic voters want the government to enact a policy mandating that unvaccinated Americans be confined to their homes at all times, except for emergencies.  (Conversely, 79% of Republicans and 71% of unaffiliated voters oppose such draconian punitive measures.)

Moreover, 45% of Democrats called for the government to round up citizens who are not vaccinated against COVID-19 and force them into "designated facilities."  (These same people, I'm certain, are — or would be — appalled at FDR rounding up Japanese-Americans and placing them in "designated facilities" during World War II.)  An even higher percentage of voters who have a "very favorable" opinion of President Biden was in favor of putting unvaccinated Americans into COVID camps.  Interestingly, the same measure was opposed by 71% of all voters surveyed and 95% of those who have a "very unfavorable" impression of Biden.

The poll found that a shocking 29% of Democrats surveyed want to have children temporarily removed from their unvaccinated parents.  (That's odd, given that Democrats purport to be overwhelmed with grief when illegal alien parents are temporarily separated from their children when crossing our southern border.  And, in that case, they don't care if either the parents or the children are vaccinated.)

Democrats' desire to imprison their unvaccinated fellow citizens in their homes is obvious everywhere, as actions taken — and edicts issued — by federal, state, and local leaders alike have proven these last two years.  (Remember "Two weeks to flatten the curve?"  That morphed into "Two years to flatten your spirit and crush your soul.")  And in opinion pieces such as the one published in the Salt Lake Tribune recently, which openly called for the military to enforce the absolute confinement of unvaccinated citizens.  Does anyone see a problem with turning the American military loose on the home front to confront and oppress those it is constitutionally sworn to defend?

In an article titled "Utah leaders have surrendered to COVID pandemic," the Salt Lake Tribune Editorial Board said: "Were Utah a truly civilized place, the governor's next move would be to find a way to mandate the kind of mass vaccination campaign we should have launched a year ago, going as far as to deploy the National Guard to ensure that people without proof of vaccination would not be allowed, well, anywhere."  Anywhere.

How can this be?  This is what happens when people do not acknowledge the primacy of natural law.  If our rights don't come from our Creator (we didn't create ourselves), then there are only three other possibilities, all horrendous: 1) we create our rights ourselves, screw everyone else; 2) we have no rights whatsoever; or 3) our rights come from other people.  If everyone can make up his own rights, then there are no parameters.  If I believe I have the right to your house, your wife, and your life, then we have chaos, anarchy, and devastation.  The rule of law would be impossible.  If we have no inherent rights whatsoever, well, say goodbye to your house, your wife, and your life again.  And if our rights come from others...it's the same result.  Under this logic, the Holocaust wasn't necessarily wrong.  Neither is theft, rape, incest, or premeditated murder.

The government of the largest country in the world once deemed it necessary and proper to construct a vast network of Gulags to deal with those who didn't toe the party line.  The government of that same nation today is authoritarian and getting more so.  Today, in modern China, the ruling Communist Party believes that it has the right, even the duty, to imprison hundreds of thousands of Uighurs.  And harvest their internal organs.  Sometimes while they are still alive, according to reports.  If our rights don't come from our Creator, how can slavery be wrong?  If large groups of people, extremist organizations, terrorists, or governments (and it is often impossible to distinguish among them) say it is necessary and proper to enslave Black people, White people, Jews, kids, women, Canadians, Capricorns — or those with red hair and freckles who happened to be born on a Thursday — and our rights are determined by them...who can argue against this?  How?

The truth is that the United States became the freest, wealthiest, most creative, and most respected nation in world history largely because of its founding belief in natural law as recognized by the Founders in the Declaration of Independence.  Amazingly, this recognition was, and is, unique.  And if you think about it, without this acknowledgment, nothing else really matters.  Because, without this acknowledgment, the government can toss you in jail for jaywalking.  Or for being fond of soup.  It can prevent you from protecting yourself while allowing others to take away your happiness, liberty, and very life.

Our rights don't come from President Biden.  Nor did they come from President Trump.  They don't come from Don Lemon, Joy Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Sean Hannity, or Tucker Carlson, either.  They don't come from Bob, Sally, or Pat.  Your rights don't come from me, and my rights don't come from you.

Thank God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bonnie]

Is this the monster  that some have received to be very careful of the monster that may be created in our approach to covid?

There's disturbing vaccine data coming from Scotland

There's disturbing vaccine data coming from Scotland - American Thinker

By Andrea Widburg

The vaccines are proving to be a constantly moving target.  Two shots will save us.  No, three will.  No, better make it four.  Heck, let's just keep it open-ended, but you'd better get shots if you want to work, shop, eat out, go to a concert, maybe even board a plane.  But what happens to this manic shot regime when we're beginning to get data showing that not only do the shots not prevent people from getting COVID (which is the traditional effect of a vaccine), but they may actually leave people more vulnerable to COVID?

Israel, which was so terrified of having COVID shut it down, thereby leaving it vulnerable to the genocidal organizations and nations around it, embarked upon the most aggressive vaccination program in the world.  Now it's the nation with the world's highest per capita COVID rate, per a weekend report:

The death toll, as of Friday afternoon, was at 8,371.

The positivity rate in Covid tests reached record highs of 20.13 percent.

In total, 2.2 million Israelis were infected since the start of the pandemic. Some 4.5 million received three doses of the vaccine and over 500,000 four doses.

That kind of news report tells me that the vaccines don't work as vaccines.  That is, they do nothing to stop people from getting the disease.  This runs counter to our 200-year-old understanding of what a vaccine is — namely, the single dose of a substance that triggers the body's natural immune system ensuring that the person will never get the infectious agent that is the vaccine's target (e.g., smallpox, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, etc.).

Indeed, the CDC's Rochelle Walensky has conceded that the vaccines stop people from neither catching nor spreading COVID.  The new rap from the CDC is that the shots formerly known as vaccines are now therapeutics.  Oh, and there's no end to the number you'll have to take to get that vax pass for working, shopping, traveling, education, etc.

None of that addresses the newest, most concerning information about the vaccines: what if it turns out that they're not even a therapeutic?  What if you get more sick, not less sick, from the vaccination?  Data out of Scotland suggests that this is a real possibility:

Scottish data shows that the COVID-19 age-standardized case rate is highest among the two-dose vaccinated and lowest among unvaccinated! It further shows this trend of negative efficacy for the double-vaccinated persisting for hospitalizations and deaths. Something is very wrong here, and together with other data points, it raises concerning questions about the negative effect of waning antibodies, constant boosting, and the consequences of a leaky vaccine with narrow-spectrum suboptimal antibodies against an ever-evolving virus.

Daniel Horowitz has a detailed analysis of the data in the above-linked article, and I recommend reading it.

Of course, this was always a risk with mRNA vaccines.  In August, Pandra Selivanov wrote about the chicken experiments that today's arrogant scientists ignored:

Marek's disease affects chickens, not humans.  It's one of the deadliest viruses in the world, killing one hundred percent of unvaccinated chickens in ten days.  Not even Ebola, one of the most feared viruses that affects humans, kills everyone it infects.  Maybe only ten percent of people infected with Ebola live, but that's still ten percent more than chickens infected with Marek's.

And why am I thinking about a disease that infects only chickens?  It's because the vaccine for Marek's not only protects chickens against the disease but it also makes the virus far more dangerous.  Vaccinated birds rarely die but can spread Marek's to unvaccinated birds, just as vaccinated humans can spread variants of COVID to unvaccinated humans.

At the end of all of this, we're going to discover that the vaccines made minimal difference to the spread of COVID.  I think we'll also discover that, in America alone, hundreds of thousands of people died because the Fauci-guided bureaucratic and medical institutions insisted on these pointless vaccines while ignoring therapeutics.