Florida Couple Arrested at Airport for Using Fake Vaccination Cards

We are now seeing an increasing number of prosecutions for the selling for false vaccine cards as a huge number of reported fake cards flood the country.  This week we also saw an arrest for the use of such cards at an airport.  NBC Miami reported that Enzo and Daniela Dalmazzo were arrested when they tried to fly to Hawaii. What is notable about the case is why they were spotted.

As cities like New York enforce vaccine mandates, many of us have raised concerns over the logistics in using bars and restaurants as the gatekeepers for vaccine enforcement. There are reports of widely available false cards, including some being shipped from China. That is hardly surprising since the CDC card is a plain, easily reproduced design. There is little ability for anyone to tell a fake from a genuine copy.

The Dalmazzos were spotted because they produced such cards not just for themselves but their young child. The children are too young to have had vaccinations. Otherwise, they would presumably have been allowed to proceed into Hawaii, which requires proof of vaccination for travelers who want to avoid quarantine.

The couple now faces misdemeanor charges with the potential for a fine, year in prison or both. However, with millions of such cards floating around, it is doubtful that state and local officials could process the vast numbers of violators even if they could be detected. In addition, if real enforcement leads to hundreds of thousands of arrests, courts are likely to reflect the ubiquitous violations as reason to lower sentences.

Moreover, bars, restaurants, or movie theaters have little incentive or ability to challenge a card that otherwise appears genuine. That creates a problem if the much touted vaccine mandates are easily avoided. Those with fears of exposure will likely avoid such businesses if they cannot rely on the mandate. That in turn could lead to a greater percentage of customers who are part of the stealth unvaccinated population — further deterring the vaccinated from venturing out.

Another challenge for mandate jurisdictions are reports indicating that some 30 percent of new cases in cities like Los Angeles are among the vaccinated. That will challenge the pitch that this is a surge of the unvaccinated and could further frustrate efforts to convince non-vacs to get the shot. Even as a move from reasoned consent to induced consent to coerced consent, the non-vacs are still not moving to be vaccinated in significant numbers. Stories that variants like Lambda are vaccine resistant will further undermine such efforts.

 

 

274 thoughts on “Florida Couple Arrested at Airport for Using Fake Vaccination Cards”

  1. Vaccine mandates are foolish when the vaccinated themselves are getting sick with Covid and even when not physically sick, they can act as virus vectors to infect others through the live virus that stays in their throats and nose areas.

    But this hasn’t stopped Contra Costa county in the CA SF Bay Area from declaring a vaccine mandate wagon a few days ago, following in the slime trail of San Francisco city/county itself.

    So what constitutes a valid vaccination now? Is the single shot J&J vaccine accepted? Want to bet that some IQ deficient door guard will say that they need to see 2 shots listed on a card? What if you are eligible for a booster shot but don’t get it? Is your card still good? Are waitstaff supposed to know the gory details of vaccines?

  2. I find it hugely amusing that you refused to answer the question “What feedback would YOU give the authors to strengthen their paper?” but think it’s somehow worse that my answer to your question wasn’t what you wanted, and now are so desperate that you’re reduced to lying about me with claims like “they won’t let you say that last part but that’s what you think.”

    Good night.

  3. “It is sudden because it is less than the 10-month standard time and less than the sped-up 6 months.”

    If that’s how you define “sudden,” then you presumably believe that other FDA approvals are also “sudden,” since some other FDA approvals are “less than the 10-month standard time and less than the sped-up 6 months.” For example, I pointed out that “capmatinib — used for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer — was approved by the FDA less than 4 months after being granted priority review, a timeline similar to the Pfizer vaccine.” So you’re implying that you also believe that the approval of capmatinib was “sudden.”

    I also pointed out “If you were actually as smart as you claim, you’d understand the difference between the FDA’s actual statement, “A Priority Review designation means FDA’s goal is to take action on an application within 6 months (compared to 10 months under standard review)” (emphasis added), and your inaccurate claim, “the expected time frame for approval is 6 months.” Why do you not understand the difference between “within” and “is”? Do you likewise fail to understand the difference between the circumference of a circle and the area within it?

    “My question was: “Should the sudden approval give us more confidence in the FDA or less?””

    Your question introduces a false dichotomy, ignoring that it need not affect one’s confidence assessment either way. Your question also assumes that knowing the length of time is sufficient for assessing the confidence level, as if nothing else is an important factor. It’s a poorly-drafted question.

    “Common sense, not politics, is what is needed.”

    Scientific literacy is more relevant.

    1. “If that’s how you define “sudden,”

      Yes, I believe that was sudden. Are you dumb enough to argue what I think or don’t think so? In fact, I was surprised that I didn’t hear that the FDA was working overtime, including weekends, to get the vaccine approved earlier. I did hear the opposite, so yes, I conclude the approval to be sudden.

      If it is true that the FDA wasn’t working overtime to get the approval earlier, I wonder if racism played a part. I don’t see any reason it should, but it seems to play a role in everything else, especially where you are concerned.

      If the vaccine is approved on Monday, do you suppose it would have been a more sudden approval than that for capmatinib? That drug was for a particular group of patients dying from metastatic disease.

      We already have an emergency authorization for the vaccine, so everyone that wants it can get it. That was not true for capmatinib. I would have considered approving the vaccine for use earlier than the FDA did to the very old and sick, especially those in nursing homes. That “sudden” release probably would have saved lives.

      Tell us which drugs were approved suddenly by your definition. Perhaps you don’t know of any.

      “A Priority Review designation means FDA’s goal is to take action on an application within 6 months (compared to 10 months under standard review)” (emphasis added), and your inaccurate claim, “the expected time frame for approval is 6 months.” Why do you not understand the difference between “within” and “is”?”

      But, I do understand the difference. However, the vaccine is everywhere and can be given to any person that wants it. The emergency release of the vaccine was good enough. However, the optics are of concern because many people don’t want the vaccine. They don’t trust those in charge. They have good reasons to be afraid of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, and that rationale looks better the younger and healthier they are, especially if they think they already had Covid.

      The rapid approval ( since you don’t like sudden, which is a perfectly good word under the circumstances) sounds like the government is trying to push the vaccine down people’s throats. That is why I asked the question: “Should the sudden approval give us more confidence in the FDA or less?”

      You say my question introduces a false dichotomy. It doesn’t. I am providing the possible perception of people that already feel pushed into getting the vaccine. There is no dichotomy there, but your leftist ideology drives you to say these things.

      “ignoring that it need not affect one’s confidence assessment either way.”

      You say it need not affect the confidence. I asked the question, should it?

      “Common sense, not politics, is what is needed.” Scientific literacy is more relevant ”

      You are proving that you have almost zero scientific literacy. Science is ‘doubt’ where one continuously questions themselves. You follow a straight-line path into oblivion.

      1. “If the vaccine is approved on Monday, do you suppose it would have been a more sudden approval than that for capmatinib?”

        Since I don’t believe either are sudden, neither would be “more sudden.”

        “I would have considered approving the vaccine for use earlier than the FDA did to the very old and sick, especially those in nursing homes.”

        Which tells us that you don’t understand the approval process.

        “The rapid approval ( since you don’t like sudden, which is a perfectly good word under the circumstances) sounds like the government is trying to push the vaccine down people’s throats.”

        It may sound that way to some people, such as those who don’t understand the Priority Review process and the fact that a sizeable fraction of drugs are approved in less than 6 months. It doesn’t sound that way to other people.

        “There is no dichotomy there”

        Yes, asking whether it should give “more confidence in the FDA or less,” is giving two choices (more vs. less), a dichotomy. You ignore “it doesn’t affect my confidence either way” / “the approval timing of a single drug isn’t enough information to make a conclusion about confidence in the FDA as an organization.”

        “I asked the question, should it?”

        Ask someone who doesn’t think it’s a stupid question.

        “you have almost zero scientific literacy. Science is ‘doubt’ where one continuously questions themselves.”

        If you were more scientifically literate, you would know that there are many things in science that are accepted without doubt. For example, scientists do not doubt that chemical elements exist, that different elements have different properties, that elements combine into compounds, that mass is different from volume, and on and on. Once again, you are in such a rush to denigrate those you dislike that you only end up making yourself look worse.

        1. “Since I don’t believe either are sudden, neither would be “more sudden.”

          Anonymous, What you believe is not at issue. The issue is, what do vaccine-hesitant people think? You can’t seem to get it into your head that you are not the center of the world. The question was …

          “Should the sudden approval give us more confidence in the FDA or less?”

          People in power are hoping the approval process will incentivize more people to take the vaccine, but what happens if the sped-up approval process has the opposite effect? That is the question. What happens if people feel more strongly than before that they shouldn’t take the vaccine?

          You don’t see these problems because you think in straight lines. Your ideological betters tell you to take the vaccine, so you do. You don’t think. You are a cog in the wheel. You do the job like many of the cogs in the fascist world that did their jobs without thinking.

          Based on how you act, my question is, will the next step be internal passports of the Chinese style? Those passports will ensure everyone takes their vaccines and happy pills and note when they disagree with the government. Too much disagreement and they can’t travel or open a business. That is your world, not mine. This last comment is not for discussion. Instead, it informs you of the direction you are heading.

          1. Allan, if you assume that the “us” in “Should the sudden approval give us more confidence in the FDA or less?” refers only to “vaccine-hesitant people,” then ask vaccine-hesitant people whether it influences their confidence level instead of conjecturing about whether it “should.”

            I’m not going to ask them a poorly worded question that assumes that the approval was “sudden,” and I’m not going to say whether it “should” influence their opinions, given that the length of time is not the key issue in assessing confidence in these vaccines. I consider it a stupid question, and I explained why, and that’s as much engagement as you’re going to get from me with your stupid question.

            “People in power are hoping the approval process will incentivize more people to take the vaccine, but what happens IF the sped-up approval process has the opposite effect?”

            And what happens IF it doesn’t?

            IF you were more patient, you’d simply wait to see the extent to which it influences vaccine-hesitant people either way. I don’t expect that it will have a uniform effect on all vaccine-hesitant people because I’ve listened to interviews with vaccine-hesitant people discussing the varied reasons that they’re hesitant.

            “Your ideological betters tell you to take the vaccine, so you do.”

            No, Allan, I got vaccinated because I understand how vaccines work, and I read the information about these vaccines prior to giving consent, so that my consent was informed. I’ve been vaccinated against a variety of diseases, including ones like cholera, because I’ve spent time in countries where other diseases are found. I’ve had to take anti-malarial medication while working abroad because there is still no vaccine for malaria. I’ve worked with people in other countries who were disabled by polio. I understand the value of vaccines, likely better than you do. I certainly think better than you do, and I have the professional accomplishments to go with it (e.g., research published in peer-reviewed publications). Your desire to denigrate takes up too much of your brain power, leaving less to go to more important issues, such as whether you have good evidence for your claims.

            You are so anxious to project weakness onto me, but your unfounded claims consistently tell us about you, not me.

            1. “then ask vaccine-hesitant people whether it influences their confidence level instead of conjecturing about whether it “should.”

              The question: “Should the sudden approval give us more confidence in the FDA or less?” doesn’t even have the word vaccine in it.

              I had my vaccination, and I think the FDA is playing politics. I supported Trump’s desire to create a vaccine fast. Your side did not. In fact, your side badmouthed the vaccine.

              You only wish to argue even if you do it poorly and even when it makes you look stupid.

              “I’m not going to say whether it “should” influence their opinions, given that the length of time is not the key issue in assessing confidence in these vaccines. ”

              It is not an assessment of the vaccine though you think it is. It is an assessment of the FDA and how they do their job. You keep twisting my words because your mind is twisted. It would be better if you untwisted your mind.

              “I’m not going to say whether it “should” influence their opinions, given that the length of time is not the key issue in assessing confidence in these vaccines. ”

              The question had to do with how the FDA handles its business. I think the federal bureaucracy did a poor job with Covid, and thank God Trump opened up the bureaucracy to private enterprise.

              “No, Allan, I got vaccinated because I understand how vaccines work”

              No, you don’t. You think you know a lot more than you do.

              “I’ve had to take antimalarial medication while working abroad because there is still no vaccine for malaria. ”

              Millions of people have taken antimalarials for treatment and as prophylaxis. Millions of those people used HCQ that the left said was so dangerous. (By the way, you are not the only one to travel to many places on the globe. You are also not the only one to publish. Publishing isn’t the biggest deal, especially when you aren’t the ‘idea’ man.)

              “I understand the value of vaccines, likely better than you do. I certainly think better than you do, and I have the professional accomplishments to go with it (e.g., research published in peer-reviewed publications).”

              Stop bragging. You are a putz. You have done very little. A lot of people on this site have a lot of accomplishments. Yours are by rote because you do not have critical thinking ability.

        2. “Which tells us that you don’t understand the approval process.”

          Anonymous, No. It tells us you can’t think for yourself. The approval process by the FDA has always been cumbersome, and at the same time, they have released drugs too early. To you, we can use identical shoes on both feet. To me, things have to be tailored to meet the needs of the people.

          “who don’t understand the Priority Review process”

          That is a process that man, not God, creates. The State makes the Priority Review process, so the State sounds like your God. I want to let you know that what humans can create can frequently be improved upon. I even proposed a way to release certain needed drugs faster.

          By the way, you didn’t mention those drugs that were approved faster than the vaccine, should the vaccine be approved Monday. Did you know of any at the time you made your argument? The answer is likely no.

          I said: “You say my question introduces a false dichotomy. It doesn’t.”

          Instead of addressing what you said was false, you decided to address the definition of dichotomy. You were being deceptive and attempting to alter the context of the discussion.

          Where is the false dichotomy?

          You state: “You ignore “it doesn’t affect my confidence either way” / “the approval timing of a single drug isn’t enough information to make a conclusion about confidence in the FDA as an organization.”

          How foolish can anyone be? We have heard over and over again people feel the drug was rushed. Initially, even your initial allies said that and more, along with saying they wouldn’t take the vaccine. Of course, people are worried that the vaccine was rushed. It was.

        3. Anonymous, the question remains.

          “Should the sudden approval give us more confidence in the FDA or less?”

          News reports say people were afraid of the vaccine because it was rushed, wasn’t studied enough, and all sorts of things of that nature. Yet you want to argue. What are you discussing? Absolutely nothing. You have made no statements that are worthwhile concerning the question that started this discussion.

          I stated: “I asked the question, should it?”

          To which you responded: Ask someone who doesn’t think it’s a stupid question.

          That leads us back to the issue that you are not the center of the world. If it were a stupid question, you didn’t have to answer it, or you could have made the statement and told us why it was stupid. That is hard considering all the people that have vaccine hesitancy.

          The only thing stupid is your inability to debate an idea where you have to make up things, lie and be deceptive.

          “If you were more scientifically literate, you would know that there are many things in science that are accepted without doubt.”

          Your examples are trashy and demonstrate you are unable to think.

          Was Newton correct? Yes, BUT along came quantum mechanics. Suddenly the world changed. Unfortunately, it didn’t change for you. Look at that juvenile response that shows how little you have learned in life. Whatever day-to-day job you have, technical or not, is managed not by thought but by rote (memory).

  4. Do you have to have a proof of vaccination card and your drivers license to enter a polling place to vote in the California recall election. Just asking.

  5. “At some point a very high level of academic achievement, PhD, correlates with vaccine hesitancy. ”

    Once again, you are mischaracterizing the study. Did you even read it? I doubt it.

    It did not ask about Covid vaccine hesitancy in general, only “If a vaccine to prevent COVID-19 (coronavirus) were offered to you today, would you choose to get vaccinated?” I bet you understand what “today” means, asked prospectively from Jan.-May, yet you continue to ignore the meaning of the actual question and how someone’s answer might change over time.

    Despite asking about specific reasons (e.g., “Other people need it more,” “Concerned about an allergic reaction”), the authors did not state whether the reasons that PhDs gave had a different distribution than the reasons that less-educated people gave. If people chose “other,” they either did not ask what their other reason(s) were or did not discuss it in the paper. They only said “Further investigation into hesitancy among those with a PhD is warranted.” For all you know, the primary reason is “I’m busy teaching and working on a grant proposal and a conference proposal, and I’ll do it after I submit the proposals and finish the semester.”

    “If you are very smart and able to do a rational risk benefit analysis you are more likely than others to be hesitant.”

    Stop mischaracterizing the study. It doesn’t conclude what you just wrote. It only asks whether they’d get it “today,” from Jan.-May (overlapping spring semester). M.D.s are ALSO “very smart” / have “a very high level of academic achievement” relative to the general population. They also have more relevant expertise than the average PhD and so are in a better position to carry out an informed risk-benefit analysis. Yet you repeatedly ignore their very high vaccination rate. You do not know the % of PhDs who have already chosen to be vaccinated. You don’t even know what % of PhDs were already vaccinated when they took the survey and so were never asked whether they’d get vaccinated if offered a vaccine on that day. For all you know, many Phds were already vaccinated and the sub-sample of PhDs who were asked the follow-up question was therefore skewed.

    “If PhDs were in equal numbers to lower levels the PhDs would outnumber others in absolute terms.”

    But your premise isn’t true; they aren’t equal numbers. Your original claim was false, and instead of making excuses, it’s better to just own up to having made a mistake, “Yeah, I worded it wrong, I meant to say …”

    “Your point is superficially correct but appears to be intended to obscure the important point. ”

    There’s nothing superficial about it. You made a mistake, I pointed it out, and it doesn’t obscure anything. It’s also striking that you chose to respond to my comment about this one point, while you’re entirely silent about the points I made in my 5:58 PM comment. You’re also silent about the fact that the majority of unvaccinated PhDs indicated that they would have gotten the vaccine today if offered.

    “If you take the ‘experts’ at their word and don’t hesitate and do your own risk benefit analysis you are probably stupider than a PhD.”

    The average person is not as intelligent as the average PhD regardless. The average person is also not as intelligent as the average M.D. But who is in a better position to carry out an accurate risk-benefit analysis for a vaccine: someone with a PhD in English or an M.D.? Both of these are doctoral degrees, both people are intelligent, but their areas of expertise are not the same.

    Is that plain enough for YOU?

    1. What a rant. Look at the graph in the study. Over a period of a few months vaccine hesitancy changed a bit for several levels of education. Indeed it looks as if most people at varying levels of education were becoming slightly less hesitant. But the PhDs stand out for showing almost no change. Their line is basically flat and because others were drifting down they, the PhDs, end up as the group with the most hesitant. That is interesting.

      It could be for a number of reasons. One might be that what they do to get a PhD trains them to be less susceptible to government and cable news propaganda. Maybe they are just stubborn. Maybe they have figured out something that you haven’t.

      Whatever the case, it is clear PhDs in this study were more resistant to vaccination and it is clear that you hate that result so much that you will thrash about with silly objections like “not peer reviewed”. So what? They asked questions and counted the results. You peer review it. Count them again. You still won’t be happy.

      As for comparing doctors and PhDs it looks as if you don’t know very many of either. My general impression [not a peer reviewed study] is that PhDs are more intellectual than doctors but also more likely to be weird. You would rather have a doctor at bedside for more than just expertise.

      1. “What a rant.”

        Your opinion. Not a fact, and likely an indication of how little experience you have reading and reviewing scientific research.

        I’ve published peer-reviewed research, I’ve been a reviewer, and I’ve worked for an academic journal; the fact that you think review consists of “You peer review it. Count them again” tells us how little you understand about the review process. Examples of issues that reviewers are likely to raise and that the authors should address in any final version (assuming that it gets approved): 1) how did the distribution of already-vaccinated people compare to the distribution of not-yet vaccinated people, and if different, address the implications for the analysis of the latter; 2) did you ask people who selected “other” to state their other reason(s), and if so, what issues were raised and how were they distributed, and if not, why not; 3) did the distribution of “yes” answers to the reasons you listed vary across the sub-samples, and if so, discuss the variation.

        “the PhDs, end up as the group with the most hesitant”

        Yet again, you cannot even bring yourself to characterize the study accurately. They did not ever ask about vaccine hesitancy, only about hesitancy to getting it TODAY, prospectively.

        “Whatever the case, it is clear PhDs in this study were more resistant to vaccination”

        NO. Yet again, unless you ALSO know what % of PhDs in the study said that they had ALREADY been vaccinated and therefore weren’t asked the follow-up question, you can’t legitimately make a claim about the PhDs in the study as a group. You can only make a claim about the sub-sample who hadn’t yet been vaccinated, and you can only conclude that they were more resistant to getting vaccinated TODAY. Because they were only asked about getting vaccinated TODAY. That you think this irrelevant tells us how little you understand about the study you are discussing and tells us about your difficulty attending to relevant details.

        “it looks as if you don’t know very many of either”

        I bet I know more of both than you do. I have a PhD. How about you?

        1. “I have a PhD”

          Women’s studies?

          “you can only conclude that they were more resistant to getting vaccinated TODAY”

          One always asks a question ‘Today’. You can’t ask them in the past or the future. We live in the present, in today. In this case the graph represents questions asked on several todays.

          “I bet I know more of both [doctors and PhDs] than you do.”
          Maybe, but I wouldn’t count on it.

          “Yet again, you cannot even bring yourself to characterize the study accurately. They did not ever ask about vaccine hesitancy, only about hesitancy to getting it TODAY, prospectively.”

          It wouldn’t count for much if you asked if they were hesitant about getting it next month. There is value in knowing whether they want to get a vaccination today, as of this moment, in contrast to whether they will get it at some time in the future. Those are two different questions and two different results. Peculiar you can’t see that.

          Have you ever parachuted from a plane? If you have you already know what I am saying. Usually students love the idea–for tomorrow. They still like it practicing PLFs. But then comes the time when they need to open the door and step out of the plane. That is very different and it is not unusual for students who were brimming with enthusiasm yesterday to need a little help at the door on that first plunge TODAY in fact NOW. I should imagine a similar set of reservations arise when the prospect of getting a novel substance injected is immediately before one. I would prefer that a nurse be on hand ready to give the injection TODAY and NOW, immediately, to gauge the response. I suspect there would be even more hesitancy, but one couldn’t know until it is tried.

          ” the fact that you think review consists of “You peer review it. Count them again” tells us how little you understand about the review process. ”

          You should go back to the class on sarcasm. Clearly you don’t recognize it. Or don’t want to recognize it to try to score a cheap shot. There is no hoop for that ball. PhDs in this study were more reluctant to get the jab than other groups. Do you deny that?

          As for peer review, it has been a little tarnished lately, particularly in studies involving psychology or sociology or things like this wherever it may lie. A lot of papers have been subjected to peer review and published but the studies they describe cannot be replicated. I have seen it referred to as the ‘replication crisis’ or some such. It could be the b.s. crisis. Peer review is not the gold standard. Replication is the gold standard. When a study has been peer reviewed and passed but not replicated then one begins to suspect that peer review is not quite as good as it is thought to be.

          That is particularly true the further left one gets. The Alan Sokal Hoax showed that for some fields the reviewers and publishers cannot distinguish authentic work in their field from absolute gibberish.

          https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/

          Variations on the Sokal Hoax have been repeated several times with the same result, even recently.

          Funny, spoofing these journals and their reviewers turns out to be something that can be replicated! They are addicted to b.s.

          So, like Biden, you have turned your ‘laser focus’ on this study and decided what? That PhDs were no more reluctant to be vaccinated ‘NOW’ or ‘TODAY’ than other groups?

          If so, give up reviewing the work of others.

          Thanks for the exercise.

          1. My PhD is in a STEMM (science, tech, engineering, math, medicine) field. My undergrad and masters degrees are in a different STEMM field. Do you want to compare how many undergrad and doctoral courses each of us has taken and what professional work each of us has done that’s relevant to understanding public health research?

            If most of the study participants had PhDs in fields you denigrate, would that matter to you?

            “One always asks a question ‘Today’. You can’t ask them in the past or the future.”

            Are you trying to be obtuse?

            We’re not discussing the date they were asked (“You can’t ask them in the past or the future”), but about the date that appears in the question itself: “If a vaccine to prevent COVID-19 (coronavirus) were offered to you today, would you choose to get vaccinated?”

            Questions often don’t include a date, and when they do, the dates they reference can vary. Researchers absolutely can and do ask about past and future events in their questions. These researchers also asked a question about the past, which you’d know if you’d bothered to read the entire study or attend to what you read.

            “It wouldn’t count for much if you asked if they were hesitant about getting it next month.”

            Sure it would. It’s actually a better gauge of general hesitancy than asking only about “today,” since people (speaking about the entire sample here) may have to arrange to get off work, may need to arrange childcare or eldercare or transportation to the vaccination site, may need time to read the EUA Fact Sheet and figure out if there are any questions they want answered before signing the consent form, etc., and they’re more likely to be able to address these things with a few weeks notice than with little notice.

            “Clearly you don’t recognize [sarcasm].”

            It’s sometimes harder to recognize when written than spoken, especially depending on one’s knowledge of the speaker and the sarcastic skill of the speaker.

            “Those are two different questions and two different results.”

            Duh.

            “Peculiar you can’t see that.”

            It’s only peculiar that you’d falsely claim that I can’t, when I’ve been pointing that out all along. Are you capable of admitting your mistake?

            “Peer review is not the gold standard.”

            I didn’t imply it was. My point about peer review is that it strengthens the published version, since the reviewers point out issues that the authors should but haven’t addressed, may point out errors that need to be corrected, may highlight additional research that’s relevant to the discussion, etc.

            What feedback would YOU give the authors to strengthen their paper? (I bet you’re unwilling to answer this, but would be happy for you to show me otherwise.)

            “Replication is the gold standard.”

            If you think the results of this study have been replicated, cite the replication study. Otherwise, you recognize that this study hasn’t met that standard. For the record, replication is not an appropriate standard for some studies (e.g., case studies, those that look at change over time — since it is literally impossible to recreate the starting point for the study).

            “PhDs in this study were more reluctant to get the jab than other groups. Do you deny that?”

            I deny that the study allows you to validly conclude anything about the PhDs in the sample being “more reluctant” in general, since no participant was asked about their general reluctance, and since the answers to questions about participants’ reasons for not getting it “today” aren’t broken out by education level — as I noted, if the person says “probably not today” in May because “Other people need it more” or “Other,” where that other reason is “I’ll do it in a couple of weeks, after I finish this grant proposal and grading,” or “I’m pregnant and waiting for the CDC to make a more definitive statement about the safety of vaccination in pregnancy,” or some other time-specific concern, that does not indicate any general reluctance to being vaccinated for Covid (recall that the study occurred in the spring, and as of May, the CDC said “Limited data are available about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines for people who are pregnant … Clinical trials that study the safety of COVID-19 vaccines and how well they work in pregnant people are underway or planned”).

            1. “If most of the study participants had PhDs in fields you denigrate, would that matter to you?”

              ****
              Yes. I would pay no attention to a study conducted by people with PhDs in race, sex, gender, etc studies. There is a reason while they are so easily taken in by hoaxers like Sokal.

              You seem to have missed the point that the hesitancy study was presented for what it is rather than for what you would want it to be. It is a smapshot of responses at that time and under those conditions. It could have been different before and will likely be different if repeated at a later time. Actually most actual snapshots are like that; they catch a moment in time so it won’t be lost.

              I think what upsets you about it is that it does not accord with your self image and expectations. [HUMPF! Can’t be true. PhDs are smarter than that!]

              I once had the good fortune to meet Sir Richard Doll who proved the link between smoking and lung cancer [and bladder cancer oddly]. That led to his knighthood I believe. Originally many scientists who certainly were skilled enough to understand the conclusive results angrily rejected them. I asked him, “Do you think that was because they did not want to give up smoking?” “ABSOLUTELY,” he said. I think that is where you are. You are too emotionally invested against this simple, uncomplicated little study. You thrash.

              1. Thrashing:–

                “PhDs in this study were more reluctant to get the jab than other groups. Do you deny that?”

                I deny that the study allows you to validly conclude anything about the PhDs in the sample being “more reluctant” in general…”
                ***

                Notice that you didn’t answer a simple question.

                You substituted a different question altogether and answered that. That is part of thrashing and slipping away. You should consider politics. Those folks dishonesty do that all the time. So do you it seems.

                1. “You substituted a different question altogether”

                  No, I didn’t. I simply pointed out that you were asking me to draw a conclusion about an issue that the study doesn’t enable one to draw a conclusion about. Over and over again, you omit the term “today” as if its inclusion or omission is inconsequential.

                  You should consider taking some science classes that will help you learn not to misinterpret research.

                  1. “I simply pointed out that you were asking me to draw a conclusion about an issue that the study doesn’t enable one to draw a conclusion about.”
                    ***
                    Another lie and diversion. I asked if it was true that a higher proportion of PhDs in the study were hesitant. No conclusion. An observation. Yes or No. You wouldn’t answer.

                    Meyer says he thinks you are dishonest. I think he is right.

                  2. Fun watching a soi disant science expert struggle to explain why he can’t identify whether a single bit of data appears on a chart in a report.

                    It’s a simple chart, Anon.

              2. My question — “If most of the study participants had PhDs in fields you denigrate, would that matter to you?” — was about the study **participants**, not about who conducted it. We know the fields in which the authors obtained their degrees. We do not know the fields in which the PhD **participants** obtained their degrees. Your inattentiveness to relevant details is again noted.

                “You seem to have missed the point that the hesitancy study was presented for what it is rather than for what you would want it to be.”

                You seem to have missed the point that my criticism is largely of YOUR mistaken claims about the study, not about the study itself, though I do have some criticisms of the paper, as should be expected for a paper that hasn’t yet been reviewed. Providing feedback on papers, grant proposals, conference proposals, etc. — both assessing their quality and suggesting improvements — is a standard part of the work of an academic at a research-intensive university.

                “I think what upsets you about it is that it does not accord with your self image and expectations.”

                I think you have a weak research background and don’t listen very well, which accounts for your failure to understand that I’m mostly criticizing your misinterpretation.

                I am totally unsurprised that you’re unwilling to say what feedback you’d give the authors to strengthen their paper. I still doubt that you’ve even read the entire paper.

                1. “You seem to have missed the point that my criticism is largely of YOUR mistaken claims about the study, not about the study :
                  ***
                  My claim was that PhDs exhibited greater reluctance to get the jab at a higher proportion than other educational levels. True or not?

                  I didn’t claim to know why. I guessed some possibilities and one of those was that maybe they were just more stubborn. I am hardly putting down a marker on that.

                  However, even for that snippet of time the results are signicant for a point on which you seem stubbornly invested.

                  We are shamed by media and government and posters here into the idea that those hesitant are only a bunch of ignorant Tump supporters or mindless trailer trash or stupid black people. Okay, they won’t let you say that last part but that’s what you think.

                  And along comes this little study showing PhDs more hesitant than any other educational level. Even if it is only for an afternoon it blows a hole in the shaming project and you folks hate it.

                  It may not be a complete outlier. Remember that close to half of the CDC staff was not vaccinated. Why do you suppose that is? Trump supporters?

                2. Anon: “My question — “If most of the study participants had PhDs in fields you denigrate, would that matter to you?” — was about the study **participants**, not about who conducted it.”
                  ***

                  Nope. I know they are idiots but the public doesn’t so politically it would be even better if they were tagged as refusniks on the jab. They are among the most likely to hector everyone else…it is meat and drink to them. Best if they are hypocrites too. Like the rest of the folks on the left. Speaking of, Pelosi is holding a big, maskless party in Napa valley today. The liberal gods don’t follow rules for mere humans.

            2. “Do you want to compare how many undergrad and doctoral courses each of us has taken “

              It’s not the numbers of courses you have taken but how you have utilized the knowledge. You apparently did OK in the workplace cranking out your work product, but you never developed your mind and that is apparent when one reads what you write.

              1. That sounds about right.

                I always wonder if they truly have an argument or grasp the subject when they beat their chests and demand to compare Boy Scout Merit Badges.

                I don’t care what they have on their walls. I want to see what they have in their brains.

  6. Rhetorical question for all the newly minted armchair internet nanny-state supporters who are pushing this vaccine.

    Did any of you ask to review the findings from the clinical studies showing the long term side effects of this vaccine?

    Oh wait, never mind. You are the study.

    1. Rhetorical question, Chris: have you ever chosen to participate in a clinical study for the benefit of others?

      I have.

  7. Let me get this straight. It’s racist to ask for a black person to verity their identity, using a photo ID, utility bill, or last 4 of their SSN (but not for Latinos, Asians, etc), but it’s not racist to require a vaccination ID card in order to participate in public life, which likely will include voting?

    Explain this to me.

    Black and Latino people have the highest rate of vaccine hesitancy. They tend to vote Democrat more often than Republican. I am interested how this will play out.

    1. Imagine being a host or hostess at a restaurant in NYC that has to turn away a black patron who doesn’t have his entry card.

      1. Just for the hell of it I would be tempted to say they can’t come in because they are black and when Al Sharpton’s mob comes by say it was because they weren’t vaccinated.

        By the way, we haven’t heard–has Al Sharpton been vaccinated?

  8. “Your papers, please.”

    The ACLU has a lot to say about the dangers of travel cards. Especially when the Federal government doesn’t place any limits on how they could be required by a private company or your local or state government. The consequences for New Yorkers are shocking.

    https://www.aclu.org/video/your-papers-please

    Get Informed. Get Active. Get Engaged

  9. I myself CHOSE to get vaccinated, but at the time no one said anything about the importance of or about keeping the little white card… with my misspelled name.. on it. I didn’t know it was supposed to be proof, but rather I just thought it was confirmation that they poked me. I don’t even know what I did with the card. I might have thrown it out for all I know.

    1. ” I didn’t know it was supposed to be proof, but rather I just thought it was confirmation that they poked me. ”

      Turley attracts some real winners — like the numbskull at 7:18.

      1. Spot on Anonymous. It boggles the mind that he didn’t know that his card would end up being necessary travel papers. People that stupid don’t deserve travel privileges anyway.

      1. Thanks for the heads up, they should really make the replacement process more well known. Honestly it would be so much safer and less susceptible to fraud if the government would link the information to a central encrypted database accessible through our smart phones, kind of like they do with Apple pay. For people that don’t want to use their phone, even something like a credit card with a picture or biometric data could work too. Travel would be so much more convenient without having to worry about carrying a paper card or running it through the wash by mistake.

        1. A photo of the card (front and back) is helpful — just a quick snap of the front and back off the card — which you probably already know.

          Your ideas are good ones, but I’ve been in some far-off places where the paper copies of my vaccine booklets have come in handy.

      2. Thanks, Anonymous. It’s just printed on cardstock. It’s an awkward size that doesn’t fit in a wallet, so it just hangs out in my purse, getting dog eared.

        1. I feel for you, but imagine being a guy with a wallet trying to exercise his travel privileges! They’re only going to get more and more beat up over time. Does anyone know if it is legal to laminate them, or would that be considered an alteration of an official document?

            1. I would hesitate to pass off a copy of an official document as the original. Every now and then there are stories in the news about people who get prosecuted for trying to pass off copies of passports or government issued IDs. It would be helpful if the CDC or the DOJ would issue some guidance. Maybe they did and I just missed it?

            2. My vaccine card has stickers from the box the vaccine came in, containing the lot numbers and other identification information. They put the stickers on after giving the shot. That’s why a copy won’t work. I got mine laminated but I don’t know what will happen when I get my booster. I guess they’ll have to put the sticker on the outside of the lamination.

              1. Unfortunately, the stickers aren’t used in all cases, though they should be.

                The writing on my card is barely legible.

              2. Fantastic, but you don’t need that card to vote. You can vote wherever you wish and as many times as you want. You can also steal goods in California as long as the price isn’t greater than $800. You can shite in SF streets. You can even riot and burn down cities as long as you have your Biden get free card. Isn’t America wonderful.

          1. It’s legal but unwise, since you may need to add information later, if you get a booster shot. It’s easy enough to put it inside something protective but unsealed, like the plastic sleeves that AAA provides for car insurance and registration docs.

            1. Do you have a link to guidance saying that it is legal to laminate it? I once ran a passport through the wash right before a trip and it was a real hassle to get it replaced on short notice. Plus I don’t think the vaccine cards I’ve seen have space for a booster shot and if they do it is for only one.

              Honestly, it would be so much safer and more convenient if they would link our records to a central database and issue little personal key fobs or QR codes that we can scan when we need access privileges. More secure for including new information, better for tracking fraud, and invaluable for contact tracing.

              There’s got to be a better way.

              1. Here’s one news org. that verified it: kgw.com/article/news/verify/covid-vaccine-laminate-card-verify/283-0d81f037-af12-4188-8e27-0d6194c936e0

                You can also just take a photo and carry that. And there are already apps in use: cbsnews.com/news/covid-vaccine-proof-card-passport-apps/

                1. Thanks for the helpful information and great ideas for securing our travel papers while this gets sorted out. Safely exercising our travel privileges is only going to get easier and more convenient!

                  One major improvement would be federal government standards for the vaccine apps, similar to the FBI’s national CODIS DNA identification database. That way the information would be secure, and governments and businesses nationwide could rely on a single national standard when granting access privileges. I still think that nationally standardized key fobs or QR codes linked to the database for when we request access would be the ultimate.

                    1. We have so much to learn from foreign countries. The Chinese are far and away the leaders in making it convenient for their people to exercise their travel privileges. Macron and the French just passed a law issuing health passes that authorize people to travel, eat in restaurants, and attend events! I read somewhere that they are very popular with the French people. Likely reminds some of the older folks of the safety and security they enjoyed during WWII.

                      We are so far behind the Chinese and Europeans. Fortunately courageous cities like NYC and private companies will be able to protect us until the national government catches up!

        2. Karen, just take a photo of the front and back and leave the card at home. I’ve yet to be asked to present it anywhere, perhaps a function of where I do and don’t go. When I was abroad, I carried my international vaccination certificate (the size of a passport) with me for months in my money belt along with my passport, and when I got vaccinated for Covid, I asked them to add the information to my international certificate as well.

      3. I have created an extra copy of my card. May do several more, to carry in all the vehicles. A few minutes with photo shop and I could turn these out by the hundreds.
        But this is all for naught. Reality is coming up on us fast. This is now the seasonal flu. Nobody wants to admitt it. Yet.

        1. Papers Jew!, Papers Now Jew! Where is your Yellow star Jew????

          The American Commie/Nazis types are asking!

          Are you people such mentally ill phk’in Puzzeis that you would willingly submit yourselves & your later generational families to such Medical Tyranny & Slavery to an unelected bunch Deep State Globalist Govt Invaders???

          What’s wrong with you? Why are you so sick that your own thoughts are to confused not to protect you/your families/friends own safety???

          Just saying many of us see those issues plain as day.

          1. Listen & let this very calm individual in the video below explain to these/those types Dr Fauci/Bill Gate/HHS/FDA/CDC/ & other Govt Agencies & International Law that carry’s a penalty. Ask yourselves & check the penalties as the Legal Cases are happening know

            Do You, Can You Think? It’s here upon you nationwide now even if you can’t think. At least in the Ghetto people of the 3rd World Shole, formerly know as America, it’ll just be another day in ChiIraq/Baltimore, LA, NYC, etc…. & Street killings…etc.

            **********

            VIDEO: Angry Dreadlock Man Channels Alex Jones

            70,266 views

            ·

            Aug 19, 2021
            81
            Share
            Download
            Bill Gates Is EVIL
            Bill Gates Is EVIL

            VIDEO: Angry Dreadlock Man Channels Alex Jones

            https://banned.video/watch?id=611e8460ac99f05d6a9f23cc

      1. Great idea, but it would be safer and easier if we could just get a replacement through a central database like we do with the TSA for our trusted traveler cards.

    2. In my state, anyone can call the State Health Department and give a name and DOB to confirm vaccination status. I’d bet most other states are the same, too. No SSN or other sensitive information needed for confirmation. Actually, this is more secure than cards that can be faked.

    1. ““The F.D.A. is aiming to give full approval to Pfizer’s Covid vaccine on Monday.”

      Should the sudden approval give us more confidence in the FDA or less?

        1. You are an absolute A$$. You try to show how smart you are but prove stupidity instead. That is how you got your name, Anonymous the Stupid.

          The question was, “Should the sudden approval give us more confidence in the FDA or less?” Since the expected time frame for approval is 6 months and the approval was requested May 7, the approval is coming in half the time expected.

          The answer to my question is that the approval might give people less confidence because of the politics surrounding the vaccine. You didn’t deal with the question. You tried to make yourself look important. Instead, you made yourself look like a fool.

          Ban this turkey from the blog or wrap him up and freeze him for someone’s Thanksgiving dinner.

          1. Allan (or Seth, if you prefer that):
            If you were actually as smart as you claim, you’d understand the difference between the FDA’s actual statement, “A Priority Review designation means FDA’s goal is to take action on an application within 6 months (compared to 10 months under standard review)” (emphasis added), and your inaccurate claim, “the expected time frame for approval is 6 months.” You’d also be able to calculate fractions correctly, as we’re already more than halfway through 6 months from May 6. Did your teachers not help you learn to work with fractions that have larger denominators?

            “You didn’t deal with the question.”

            My only goal was to point out your false claim that it was “sudden.” You frequently refuse to deal with questions that are posed to you, so surely you don’t object when others do the same.

            You continue to project your own weaknesses onto me.

            1. Anonymous, one cannot get more Stupid than you as you dredge the sewers for something to say.

              I think most assume the approval requested priority which lowered the time for approval by 4 months. Acknowledging that makes the approval seem less sudden, but you wish to prove my case, so thank you.

              As far as mathematics are concerned, you might have memorized a lot of what you know, but you do not have a good understanding of it. I gave the exact date of the request for approval so anyone would have the precise time frame. My estimate of half the 6 months was close enough; after all, the standard time frame is 10 months. I could have done the calculation using the number of hours, but then you would have wanted the number of minutes. That is the type of nutcase you are.

              1. The FDA has a Priority Review system for a reason. No doubt you also object to the cancer drugs that have been approved under priority review. For example, capmatinib — used for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer — was approved by the FDA less than 4 months after being granted priority review, a timeline similar to the Pfizer vaccine. Presumably you call that “sudden” too, right? Oh wait, no, you’ve said nothing about any other drugs that have been approved with similar timelines.

                Are you aware that “Drugs Cleared Through The FDA’s Expedited Review Offer Greater Gains Than Drugs Approved By Conventional Process” (Chambers, James D., et al. Health Affairs 36.8 (2017): 1408-1415)?

                As I said, Allan-Seth, you project your own weaknesses onto others and seem unable to control your desire to denigrate. Every time you insult people, you put your own weaknesses on display.

                1. Anon to Alllan-S. Meyer: “Every time you insult people, you put your own weaknesses on display.”

                  He does indeed.

                  And it’s amazing how easily he gets all bent out of shape…

                  1. Take note anonymous how I provide fact along with my reasoning while you provide nothing but garbage and insult.

                    Anyone comparing our respective comments would find that your comments make you look like a dolt. That is not insulting. It is merely stating the obvious.

                2. Anonymous, I have no problem with a quicker review on some drugs and a slower one on others, based on the availability of substitutes and need. That was my opinion for decades. In fact, decades ago, I recommended that certain drug releases be sped up and that the pharmacies could label such drugs in special color-marked containers. Hence, those taking the drug recognized the dangers of early release.

                  I will provide an example. Steroid inhalers for asthma were denied to Americans for a couple of years while the FDA approved them. They were used in Canada for years, so smart Americans got that drug from Canada. The oral steroids given were dangerous because of the doses needed. The inhalers had a small fraction of the steroid, which was well tolerated.
                  On the other hand, I remember a new cure for arthritis headlined in the newspaper. It turned out not to be better than other drugs already out on the market. It was a me-too drug that caused too many people to develop renal failure when released to the public.

                  Common sense is what you and your ideology lack. Common sense Trump’s ideology, so put your ideological glasses away and use your brain.

                  1. “Anonymous, I have no problem with a quicker review on some drugs and a slower one on others, based on the availability of substitutes and need.”

                    Yet you falsely claimed that the anticipated approval of the Pfizer vaccine is “sudden” and avoid admitting that you were wrong.

                    Your desire to denigrate is only that, and it reflects on you, not me.

                    1. “Yet you falsely claimed that the anticipated approval of the Pfizer vaccine is “sudden” and avoid admitting that you were wrong.”

                      It is sudden because it is less than the 10-month standard time and less than the sped-up 6 months. You conclude without even understanding what was told to you in previous posts.

                      I can’t figure out where I was wrong. I felt the approval was sudden. My question was: “Should the sudden approval give us more confidence in the FDA or less?” If I interpreted it as sudden, I guess a large portion of the population will think similarly.

                      Now, don’t you think you should apologize for acting in such a Stupid fashion?

                      I’ll add more to the mix. I might have approved the vaccine for emergency use earlier than the FDA if given to the most vulnerable, such as those in nursing homes. I would not rush any approval for political reasons, so 20-year-olds or others that are hesitant but healthy and young would take it.

                      Common sense, not politics, is what is needed.

      1. It’s sudden. And it invokes less confidence. Federal agencies have blown their credibility. That’s a shame because someday they may say something that isn’t b.s. that we would want to know.

        1. It’s not sudden. Pfizer applied for full approval several months ago, and the FDA has presumably now completed their review.

          If you think this is sudden, do you think all other FDA drug approval is sudden? If not, what’s the difference?

  10. Make sure to get to the point where Biden caused the release of dangerous terrorists that were supposed to be tried in various countries
    —-

    Exclusive: Ex-Trump aide lays out Afghan withdrawal plan that Biden scrapped

    Trump’s overarching theme was a conditions-based withdrawal from Afghanistan, Kash Patel says.

    The Biden administration ignored or jettisoned carefully designed plans to withdraw from Afghanistan, with the result being chaos and bedlam, a former national security official to President Donald Trump said.

    “I don’t even know that anyone could have made this awful scenario up,” former National Security Council Senior Director Kash Patel told Just the News. “It’s literally worse than you could possibly conjure.”

    Patel, who handled the Pentagon transition to Biden’s team as chief of staff to Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller, made his remarks while appearing Thursday on the John Solomon Reports podcast.

    The Biden team has failed to prepare for evacuating American citizens and Afghans who helped the U.S. government, Patel said, and has allowed other important issues to founder.

    “There’s no plan to secure our weaponry or machinery, we’re just giving it over to terrorists,” Patel said. “And there’s no plan to secure a Kabul International Airport so that at least flights can get in and out.”

    Careful plans, though, already were laid out by the Trump administration, and were offered to Team Biden, Patel said.

    The overarching theme was a conditions-based withdrawal, whereby the U.S. military would leave Afghanistan in increments if the Taliban met clear conditions, according to Patel. Among other things, the Taliban were required to reject and repudiate Al Qaeda, and would have to negotiate in good faith. The U.S. would also maintain a special operations contingent in place, and would retain the capacity to launch air strikes under specific circumstances.

    The Trump plan included retaining control of Bagram Air Base until all Americans were withdrawn from Afghanistan. A large, sprawling site, Bagram has multiple airfields and other facilities that safely can handle significant amounts of traffic and also host a large population.

    Handing control of Bagram to Afghanistan set up the sequence of events that saw the Taliban seize the facility, Patel said.

    “We would not have ever relinquished control of Bagram Airfield, because that is our command and control node for the entire region,” Patel said. “And that’s where we would fly in and out securely.”

    Bagram also was home to a prison where the U.S. held accused terrorists who were set to be prosecuted. Among them were alleged senior Al Qaeda operatives. The Taliban released thousands of prisoners who were considered to be a high threat to the West.

    The U.S. never planned simply to release those prisoners.

    “We were working with allies and partners to prosecute them either in America or prosecute them in their home countries of origin as we successfully did under President Trump,” Patel said. The prosecutions take time, he said. “We had a plan in place and we were doing it. Releasing terrorists is never an option. It was never an option under President Trump,” Patel said.

    The overall arrangement under Trump included a robust air presence, with armed and unarmed aircraft and drones to collect intelligence or launch air strikes. That plan, too, appears to have been jettisoned, the former security official said.

    In a war zone, the U.S. always is ready to enact pre-established procedures to evacuate Americans, their local allies, and their families. The situation in Kabul, particularly at the airport, where humanitarian crises were on full display, stems from a lack of proper planning, Patel said.

    “The only way you are surprised by this sort of situation is if you don’t plan for it, if you don’t prepare for it,” he said.

    “We lost not one American casualty under President Trump’s conditions based withdrawal. Look at the chaos and death that is occurring now under Biden’s [so-called] plan for Afghanistan.”

    People on the ground inside Kabul and the airport told Just the News on Thursday that the situation continues to be both chaotic and dangerous.

    https://justthenews.com/government/security/biden-ignored-plan-carefully-withdraw-afghanistan-top-trump-aide-says

    1. The withdrawal started under Trump, and the Trump Admin. did not process any Special Immigrant Visas since March of 2020, and prior to that processed many fewer from Afghanistan than the Obama Admin. (perhaps because of Trump’s Islamophobia).

      Both Trump and Biden should be condemned for their errors. I condemn both. Do you?

      1. If you choose to be ignorant over what has happened, be ignorant. At least you will be consistent. Trump was going to maintain a big stick before the military was gone and Bagram Air Base was abandoned. He was also going to take or destroy our valuable material assets such as weapons before he left along with those that deserved to leave Afghanistan in one piece.

        Biden got rid of the big stick, Bagram and is now being squeezed by the Taliban thumb.

        You keep proving you live in a fog and have to be told what to think and say.

        1. S. Meyer: some of the ways you give yourself away are that you can’t bring yourself to deal with facts you dislike (in this case, the Trump Admin’s errors with the SIVs), your choice to insult those you disagree with, and your tendency to project.

          1. You are a particularly Stupid fellow. I do not believe Trump to be perfect, but I do believe you should provide data and explanation before providing your conclusions. That is the normal way things are managed.

            A lot was said above either by S. Meyer, one of the anonymous persons or both. That doesn’t matter. What matters is what you bring to the table. You bring nothing but your trivial arguments that produce Stupid conclusions.

            Provide an argument that isn’t Stupid, and I will respond like I would to someone who has something to say.

    2. Allan says that he posts anything of value using the name S. Meyer. So, apparently, he’s telling us that his little ‘Just The News’ article isn’t important.

    3. “. . . relinquished control of Bagram Airfield . . .”

      Biden to Americans (now being held hostage): “We’ll get you out, I promise. But first we have to abandon our airfield.”

      How does a person get to be that stupid?

      1. Americans aren’t being held hostage in Afghanistan, no matter how many times you falsely claim that they are.

  11. Once again the Trump Death Cult marches on. The percentage of infections is not that relevant. The relevant number is over 95% of those hospitalized and dead are not vaccinated. But the pro-covid crowd will latch on to any out of context stat to as many people die as possible.

    1. The relevant number is that only 1 in 5000 of persons 50 and younger who are infected with COVID-19 die from it.

      You are flipping numerator and denominator when discussing risk.

  12. Thank you Casual Observer. In my original post I assumed that those reasonably well informed here already knew this information and did not need to be led to the trough. I forgot that the not-reasonably-well-informed are also here.

    The article in College Fix actually includes links to the original information assuming that people who weren’t Biden would not need to be told how to click on a link to find the source.

    They also included a link to this nice press release: https://www.upmc.com/media/news/072621-king-mejia-vaccine-hesitancy

    Interesting that you, too, had to turn to Bing. Google is too political to be reliable on some subjects.

    1. Young, here is the last paragraph from that Carnegie-Mellon survey:

      “Generally, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was higher among the young (ages 18-24), non-Asian people and less educated (high school diploma or less) adults, and those with Ph.D.s, with a history of a positive COVID-19 test, not worried about serious illness from COVID-19 and living in regions with greater support for Donald Trump in the 2020 election”.
      …………………………………………………..

      Interestingly I found, from following the links, that Carnigie-Mellon requires that all students be vaccinated.

      1. No, that’s not “the last paragraph from that Carnegie-Mellon survey.” It’s a sentence in a UPMC press release.

        “Carnigie-Mellon requires that all students be vaccinated.”

        Schools generally require students to be vaccinated against a number of diseases. CMU also requires students to be vaccinated against Measles, Mumps and Rubella, for example.

        1. It raises interesting problems. The ‘vaccine’ isn’t a true vaccine. It is novel and experimental and drug companies are protected from liability. We didn’t like it when the Nazi doctors experimented on people. This isn’t really very different.

          Some people are having terrible side effects. If an employer or school demands you get vaccinated with an experimental substance are they liable? Should they be?

          1. “The ‘vaccine’ isn’t a true vaccine.”

            That’s scientifically false. The vaccines that have an EUA from the FDA all meet the definition of a vaccine.

            “This isn’t really very different.”

            BS. It’s hugely different for multiple reasons, including the process for obtaining emergency use authorization and the information provided to each person who is vaccinated. I signed an informed consent form prior to being vaccinated, and I had the opportunity to become informed in advance about the possible risks.

            If your questions are sincere rather than rhetorical, look up the answers for yourself.

            1. If it is a traditional vaccine why do they need an emergency use authorization?

              on the bright side there is at least one Trump project that all of the Left loves.

              1. “If it is a traditional vaccine why do they need an emergency use authorization?”

                Here, let me help you learn to look up answer when you have questions. Try searching on why would a vaccine need an emergency use authorization?

                Your search results will be different than mine, but the top result for me is an FDA doc titled “Emergency Use Authorization for Vaccines Explained”

                1. I looked at it. It is not reassuring. Notice this part: “COVID-19 vaccines are undergoing a rigorous development process that includes tens of thousands of study participants to generate the needed non-clinical, clinical, and manufacturing data.”

                  I prefer to read that a novel substance injected into my body ‘has undergone’ a rigorous development process, not that it is ‘undergoing it’ with me as a guinea pig ‘study participant’. I like the idea of your being one, though. If you turn into a lizard I am definitely not getting it.

                  Even with ‘rigorous development’ there can be problems. Remember Thalidomide? https://thalidomide.ca/en/what-is-thalidomide/

                  Remember that Fauci and other bureaucrats ridiculed Trump and said it would be impossible, impossible I say, to develop a Covid vaccine as quickly as President Trump claimed.

                  Is it possible that Fauci was right? Just this once?

                  1. You are not a study participant. The studies they reference occurred prior to them granting the EUA. Which you’d know if you’d read the entire page and noted the date. Yet another example of how you’re inattentive to relevant details.

                    “Remember that Fauci and other bureaucrats ridiculed Trump and said it would be impossible, impossible I say, to develop a Covid vaccine as quickly as President Trump claimed.”

                    No, I don’t remember anyone with medical expertise saying that it would be impossible to develop a Covid vaccine as quickly as Trump claimed. Nor do you quote Fauci or anyone else saying that. As I said previously: I don’t trust you to accurately convey other’s statements. I won’t hold my breath for you to quote them.

                    1. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/05/09/527575055/one-third-of-new-drugs-had-safety-problems-after-fda-approval

                      One-Third Of New Drugs Had Safety Problems After FDA Approval
                      —-

                      Anonymous has a problem with judgement. Some drugs need to be pushed faster and some slower.

                      In the case of Covid that was killing the oldest and sickest, it seemed appropriate to move it along even faster. Did we need to give it to 20 year olds immediately? No. Is it safe for pregnant women? How would they know? There is a lot of guess work in drug approval.

                      Many years ago I had a conversation with a physician who was on the panel to approve the first oral diabetic medication. He had a lot of reservations about the drugs safety and thought it might cause major problems. He voted for approval, not because likely problems didn’t exist but because they weighed the risks and benefits.

                      Anonymous cannot with the risks and benefits because he draws conclusions without the data and then sometimes when questioned searches for confirmation bias.

                      He is a total fool.

  13. An “internal passport” — just as in countries such as China, North Korea, and Russia.

    Mr. Franklin, I am truly sorry. But it looks as if we cannot “keep it.”

  14. Turley: this comment is misleading: “Another challenge for mandate jurisdictions are reports indicating that some 30 percent of new cases in cities like Los Angeles are among the vaccinated. That will challenge the pitch that this is a surge of the unvaccinated and could further frustrate efforts to convince non-vacs to get the shot.” The surge in hospitalizations and deaths are due to the unvaccinated, What you omit is the fact that among those who have been vaccinated but test positive, less than 1% require hospitalization, and, in fact, most of those who test positive after vaccination have no symptoms.

    It is irresponsible for you to use your platform to provide excuses for the anti-vaxxers to keep resisting vaccination.

    1. “It is irresponsible for you to use your platform to provide excuses for the anti-vaxxers to keep resisting vaccination.”

      It is “irresponsible” of him. And he obviously doesn’t care.

      1. Anon- ““It is irresponsible for you to use your platform to provide excuses for the anti-vaxxers to keep resisting vaccination.”

        It is “irresponsible” of him. And he obviously doesn’t care.”

        ***
        You are asking the professor to adopt the same type of censorship he has consistently opposed, and thank God for him.

        Meanwhile, why do you think PhDs are the largest educated group opposed to this ‘vaccine’?

        1. Since when does asking someone not to make misleading statements constitute censorship?

          “why do you think PhDs are the largest educated group opposed to this ‘vaccine’?”

          A question that assumes something you’ve provided no evidence for.

          1. https://www.thecollegefix.com/most-vaccine-hesitant-group-is-those-with-phds-research-shows

            This information was on several sites a few days ago. I used Google and got nothing. Bing popped it up as first choice. Google will try to deceive you.

            A series of bar graphs of jab resistance with left bar showing least educated and the right bar showing PhDs with others in between is U shaped, a lot of uneducated not taking the jab and many mid-range through bachelor and master degrees being willing to get it, less resistant, and then PhDs on the tight easily the most resistant.

            Google links to articles saying educated people more likely to get the jab than uneducated, which is true until you get to independent-minded very smart PhDs who are the most resistant to getting it. Google doesn’t link to that information easily.

            1. Young, your post is NOT from Carnegie Mellon University. It’s from a fake paper called “College Fix”. And I notice all their stories are Anti-Vax.

              1. But if you weren’t an idiot you could find the original study without my leading you. How many sign posts do you need?

                  1. Thank you Casual Observer. In my original post I assumed that those reasonably well informed here already knew this information and did not need to be led to the trough. I forgot that the not-reasonably-well-informed are also here.

                    The article in College Fix actually includes links to the original information assuming that people who weren’t Biden would not need to be told how to click on a link to find the source.

                    They also included a link to this nice press release: https://www.upmc.com/media/news/072621-king-mejia-vaccine-hesitancy

                    Interesting that you, too, had to turn to Bing. Google is too political to be reliable on some subjects.

                    1. “I assumed that those reasonably well informed here already knew this information and did not need to be led to the trough.”

                      Why on earth would you assume that people know something from a paper that hasn’t even gone through peer-review?

                      As for your failure to find it with Google, that must reflect your search history and/or your bad choice of search terms. I just searched on vaccine hesitancy education level and the upmc link that Casual Observer gave was my top result, along with a few links to Google Scholar results.

                1. “Google is too political to be reliable on some subjects.” Not only true, but they’ve been matter-of-fact about downplaying any info that’s contrary to the hive, media narrative. They might even giggle and snort “Misinformation!” at the study during their cocktail parties.

                  1. No, “Google is too political to be reliable on some subjects” is not true. Your search results reflect your search history and the search terms you used.

                    1. Yet in the past Google has been shown to alter search results based on political desires.

                    2. “in the past Google has been shown to alter search results based on political desires.”

                      Google considers your search history in its ranking algorithm. To the extent that “political desires” influence your search history, they will influence how your results are ranked. They don’t influence whether a result is included, only how it’s ranked. Most people don’t look beyond the first page of results. But there can be thousands of pages of results for a search.

                    3. “Google considers your search history in its ranking algorithm. “

                      If that were true, they screwed up with me and a lot of people I know with similar beliefs.

              2. Title: Time trends and factors related to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy from January-May 2021 1
                among US adults: Findings from a large-scale national survey

                Author names and affiliations: 3
                Wendy C King, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Epidemiology, Graduate School of 4
                Public Health University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, kingw@edc.pitt.edu 5
                Max Rubinstein, MPP, PhD Student, Heinz College and Department of Statistics & Data Science, 6
                Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, mrubinst@andrew.cmu.edu

                Published on medrxiv.org

            2. Yes, aside from the excess deaths at planned parent/hood facilities and practices in several Democrat districts, the specialized overweight and metabolically compromised vulnerability to infection (around 80%), the absolute risk of the vaccines exceeds the conditional risk of infection and disease progression in the vast majority (around 4% per the greenhouse effect and at-risk population aboard a cruise ship statistics at the extreme) of the population. And that does not include preexisting immunity (e.g. cross-reactive), naturally acquire immunity, and others who are eligible for early therapeutic treatments to complement natural immune system function. The calculus does not favor proactive, let alone emergency-use, vaccination in the general population.

              1. Our leaders are running around like chickens who just had their heads cut off. We have a vaccine, but what we need are therapeutics and that is where the emphasis needs to be. This virus mutates and we close sections of the nation down at great cost. It’s a horrible virus but limited in who it kills and is nowhere near as lethal as the administration or the news media would like it to seem.

                The next virus might be naturally occurring or created by our enemies including China, Iran and even Afghanistan. Therapeutics might take us out from under the thumb of terrorists or nature.

            3. If you click through to read the paper, the header says “this preprint (which was not certified by peer review)…” Presumably the final paper, if published in a peer-reviewed publication, will be revised in response to reviewers’ feedback.

              You’ll find that it was largely prospective (asked from January through May), that over 13% of respondents didn’t provide their education levels (decreasing the reliability of the variation with education, especially for the smallest subsamples, including Ph.D.s), and that there were better predictors, such as the percentage of their county’s voters who voted for Trump. It also failed to separate out the educational correlation by reason; there’s a difference between saying “probably not” to being offered a vaccination **today** because you think “Other people need it more” or you’re currently pregnant vs. because you “Don’t trust the government.”

              “A series of bar graphs of jab resistance with left bar showing least educated and the right bar showing PhDs with others in between is U shaped, a lot of uneducated not taking the jab and many mid-range through bachelor and master degrees being willing to get it, less resistant, and then PhDs on the tight easily the most resistant.”

              First, your description was true for the May sample but not true for the earlier samples, when those with a HS education or less were more resistant than Ph.D.s. Also, why are you implying that Ph.D.’s are more educated than M.D.’s? The authors don’t claim that.

              Second, the study did NOT ask whether people were “taking the jab.” It asked if they were vaccinated, and then for the subset that answered “no,” another question asked “If a vaccine to prevent COVID-19 (coronavirus) were offered to you today, would you choose to get vaccinated?” and additional questions asked about people’s reasons. The authors distinguish between those who’d consider getting vaccinated later (after their concerns were addressed) vs. those “with entrenched hesitancy.”

            4. BTW, the paper does not in any way suggest that “PhDs are the largest educated group opposed to this ‘vaccine’”

              A much larger number of people with some college or with a BA/BS said they were hesitant to be vaccinated “today” than Ph.D.s, even though a larger percentage of the latter said they were hesitant to do it “today.”

              If a is larger than b, that doesn’t imply that aX is larger than bY.

              1. Good point but it bypasses the central idea. At some point a very high level of academic achievement, PhD, correlates with vaccine hesitancy. If PhDs were in equal numbers to lower levels the PhDs would outnumber others in absolute terms.

                The media and bureaucrats have been trying to tell us vaccine hesitancy is due to ignorance and stupidity. Clearly that is not quite the truth. If you are very smart and able to do a rational risk benefit analysis you are more likely than others to be hesitant.

                Another couple of studies a month or so ago looked into the reasons people had for hesitancy and were surprised to find a high level of sound reasoning.

                Your point is superficially correct but appears to be intended to obscure the important point. If you take the ‘experts’ at their word and don’t hesitate and do your own risk benefit analysis you are probably stupider than a PhD. Is that plain enough for you?

                1. “If you are very smart and able to do a rational risk benefit analysis you are more likely than others to be hesitant.”

                  True, it takes intelligence not to follow the default.

                2. My response got decoupled for some unknown WordPress reason. It’s the August 21, 2021 at 2:05 PM comment here: jonathanturley.org/2021/08/20/florida-couple-arrested-at-airport-for-using-fake-vaccination-cards/comment-page-2/#comment-2115366

        2. Young, show us a source to support your over-the-top claim, “PhDs are the largest educated group opposed to this vaccine?” And don’t come back with some obscure blog or no-name paper.

          I can’t imagine who even keeps statistics on such opinions. If I have a PhD in Greek Studies, do I get polled along with people who have PhD’s in Science..?

          1. “study conducted by Carnegie Mellon University and University of Pittsburgh researchers found that vaccine hesitancy is highest among those with a PhD.” See above.

            I hope you are better in Greek than in science.

            Does your ‘Greek Studies’ course actually require you to learn Greek and read the great books in Greek or is it another non-academic, pussy ‘studies’ course?

      2. “It is irresponsible”

        One can tell the lefties and the non-thinkers on the blog. They always want censorship and think they have the answers to everything. In anonymous’ case he knows he has the answers to everything, but almost always his answers are wrong.

        Stupid doesn’t Trump intelligent debate.

        1. A tenured professor at a major university is expected to make accurate and not widely misleading statements.

          1. As Thomas Sowell says a businessman that comes up with a crazy idea is fired, but the academic is promoted.

      1. Isaiah, if this story concerns Israel, why are you posting from an Australian newspaper??

        Israel and Australia aren’t even close in proximity. It seems you should be able to find this story in an Israeli paper (if there’s any truth to it).

        1. Israel and Australia aren’t even close in proximity
          I posted a link yesterday from a Jerusalem news outlet Who is picking up the facts are irrelevant. The facts are the vaccinated are getting hospitalized at substantial numbers.
          That in no way means we should stop vaccinating people. What it does mean, covid will not disappear. Zero is not a goal.

    2. Further to Natacha’s point, we should expect an ever increasing number of new COVID-19 infections to come from vaccinated people. As more people get vaccinated, the vaccinated will represent a larger percentage of the total population. This does not mean that rate of infection among vaccinated people has increased. As far as I have heard, it is still about 0.1%. At the extreme, if everyone were vaccinated, then the vaccinated would represent 100% of all new cases, even though only 0.1% of those vaccinated get infected. So, if the rate of breakthrough infections doesn’t increase, then there is still good reason to get vaccinated.

      1. I don’t drive recklessly, but I’m concerned about reckless drivers because they endanger others along with endangering themselves. Same for people who choose not to be vaccinated against communicable diseases.

        Many parents of children who are too young to vaccinate and people with family members who are immune-compromised want others to be vaccinated against Covid because it makes their own family safer. Many people are mourning the deaths of family or friends who chose not to be vaccinated and then died of Covid; it affects these people even though they’re not the ones who died from it.

        Do you agree that it was good to eradicate small pox, or do you think the people who wanted to get vaccinated could get vaccinated, and no one should have “obsessed” about the rest? Do you think it’s good that we’ve continued to work on eradicating polio?

  15. Well I’d never produce a fake vaccine card , that’s the same as telling a lie, its a form of fraud. But I am disgusted that we are ignoring time proven science including medicine and acting as if everyone needs a vaccine. We don’t. This outright fabrication that the vaccine somehow makes you better than natural immunity is crap. Natural immunity is strong and has kept humans alive for tens of thousands of years. Vaccines are for those with weaker immune systems that don’t activate on contact like a healthy one does. And the irony? Aside from illness or old age the reason most people suffer from weakened immune systems is hiding from germs and living in sanitized environments.

    The autoimmune system is like a muscle. The more its used the better it functions. As we learned from sad characters like Howard Hughes who were known “germaphobes” (a word we never hear anymore, .. amazing how language changes with the direction the herd is buffaloed towards) who lived in sanitized homes and wore a mask in public, gloves so he’ d not come into contact with germs, etc, their immune system basically shuts down. Like a muscle that is not used. Exposure to stimuli on a regular basis is what keeps me healthy. And it will work for most people if they’re getting enough rest and eating right. Not everyone fits that bill but not everyone fits the “need a vaccine” bill either.

    You can’t force foreign substances into someone’s body. Not even suggesting it is anything like this, but just suppose if the vaccine contained some kind of biomarker that could be used down the road to trigger various responses, like illness, death, etc. Suppose it was an alien invasion (yes I’m being intentionally comical here but muse on the bigger concept for a moment) , like Invasion of the Body Snatchers. How easy would it be to take over the world with a seemingly harmless injection but when they get it, they become part of the collective, lol. Seriously think about the bigger concept here. A global order that everyone take this one thing. And this from the same people who gave us Zantac.

    So I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be an “antivaxxer” if that’s what they’re calling guys like me now. And I am certainly not going to be a fraud-vaxxer by producing fake documents. But my not getting vaccinated is not prolonging anything other than the frustration of a bunch of paranoid nanny-state control freaks, and it sure as heck ain’t killing your grandma. I’ll put my antibodies against yours any time. But I will admit I have some serious apprehension these days about my rights as a human being (those rights regardless of anyone bulls$# ideology or political notions supersede any rights as a “citizen” and always will, regardless of anyone’s opinion) to live and exist and make my own choices for my own health and control what goes into my own body.

    I just can’t shake the notion that I’m going to wake up one morning and find myself all alone on a street corner with Donald Sutherland standing there on some nearby stairs with a bony finger pointed at me, mouth open, jaw slack, … and a high pitched scream coming out of it.

    1. Chris dude, “natural immunity” resulted in 1/3 to 1/2 of Eoropeans croaking from the bubonic plague in about 1350.

      You’re not smarter than the 96% of doctors who have been vaccinated as of about a month ago according to the AMA.

      Get you vaccine.

      1. This was a survey, where non-vaccinated persons might not wish to reply to. That would skew the results. I am not judging the validity of those results for that reason.

        The more ST speaks the more it sounds as if he was one of those that left the blog after ruining his reputation.

    2. Chris: “I just can’t shake the notion that I’m going to wake up one morning and find myself all alone on a street corner with Donald Sutherland standing there on some nearby stairs with a bony finger pointed at me, mouth open, jaw slack, … and a high pitched scream coming out of it.”

      Sadly, it’s already happening. The “Sutherlands” are the current crop of nanny-state pod people who are memorized by their dreamy, unelected, unaccountable, ‘experts’ who are knowingly denying 150+ years of medical research practice, procedures, and protocols. They’ve decided that starting from scratch to treat an infection that’s still statistically 99.99+ percent recoverable in people with no known existing medical maladies, is some new cult infection that everyone, no matter if they’ve already recovered naturally or not, must be forced to take experimental medicine, regardless how much more harm it may or may not cause. These same ‘experts’ treat medical professionals who dare speak up to ask questions, as heretics. The Science is not on their side. We know it. They know it. They know we know it, but instead of sharing the ‘new data’ every time they make a new statement, they already know no one, at least no one in the media – who’s supposed to be inquisitive and skeptical of government – will give their new ‘statement’ a second thought, let alone any critical thought. The ‘experts’ know we’ve reached herd immunity (vaccinated+naturally recovered=herd immunity). Remember when the CDC stopped testing for H1N1 in 2009 and why? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/swine-flu-cases-overestimated/ “In late July, the CDC abruptly advised states to stop testing for H1N1 flu, and stopped counting individual cases. The rationale given for the CDC guidance to forego testing and tracking individual cases was: why waste resources testing for H1N1 flu when the government has already confirmed there’s an epidemic?” Well they’re doing it again with PCR testing for The Covid. https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert-Changes_CDC_RT-PCR_SARS-CoV-2_Testing_1.html With all the false positives and false negatives…with no way for the test to differentiate between The Covid and seasonal flu, the CDC is changing horses again in midstream. 10 bucks they’ve known all along that PCR testing can’t tell the difference not only between The Covid and flu, but it may not tell the the difference in the different strains of coronavirus, not even the five or six variants we’ve be exposed to going back decades. (Lysol has been protecting against coronavirus since long before March of 2020.) But again, no one in media will ask the CDC for any confirmation data that supports the moving goal posts, then have the nerve to look at rational, reasonable people as scum if they don’t bow to their so-called ‘betters’. “HOW DARE THEY ASK QUESTIONS AND DEMAND THE DATA WE SAY WE HAVE!” ‘Greta’ much, CDC, media, and new “Sutherlands”?

    3. You’ve never been vaccinated for anything (measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, diptheria, polio, …)?

      “The autoimmune system is like a muscle. The more its used the better it functions.”

      I take it that you don’t wash your hands before eating, eat off dirty plates, etc., the better to exercise your immune system? Even a body builder can be crushed by car, and even people with strong immune systems can be killed or injured by preventable but virulent diseases.

      “Suppose it was an alien invasion … Seriously think about the bigger concept here. A global order that everyone take this one thing.”

      Suppose iron were gold. Iron isn’t gold, and vaccination isn’t an alien invasion. We were able to wipe out small pox because almost everyone in the world was vaccinated against it. We’ve essentially wiped out polio in the same way.

      “my not getting vaccinated is not prolonging anything”

      If you contract Covid, you could easily transmit it to a child who is too young to be vaccinated. If you’re going to discuss it, be honest about the fact that the people who choose not to be vaccinated increase the risk for others, some of whom are unable to be vaccinated.

      1. I ain’t discussing anything with an anonymous troll who doesn’t even have the moral integrity to put his name behind the bulls@$t he wastes his time online spouting off. You could be writing from an office along the Moskva for all we know. One things for sure, I don’t waste my time on trolls. You wanna talk to me troll, with your nanny state fabricated bullsh$, then put a real name and face behind it. Otherwise crawl back into your cubicle because I don’t waste my time on ghosts.

        1. a) You did take time to respond, though you didn’t address my points. Whether you consider your already-invested time a waste or not is up to you.
          b) Posting anonymously doesn’t imply that someone is a troll. Prof. Turley gives people the option of commenting anonymously, and multiple people use that option. Trolling is determined by the content of someone’s comments, not by their name or lack thereof.
          c) I don’t take commands from other commenters.

          1. You are a troll and take your orders from the left. You might not think so, but you wouldn’t know better.

            By the way do you still think Jan 6 was an insurrection?

        2. They just don’t get it. They can run their mouths till their blue in the face. When I want the opinion of an anonymous troll, I’ll give it to them.

  16. FAKE; what isn’t fabricated, contrived, delusional, or feigned by the charlatans of the Democrat Woke Left. If you white you’re a racist, if you protest unarmed at the Capital you’re an insurrectionist, if you question the efficacy of the Covid vaccine (your whatever negative word or statement) you wish to describe those not vaccinated, if you host a blog (Profession Turley) you’re a lackey for FOX News. On and on they go making false statements or citing illusionary facts while accusing other of such.

    As far as the vaccine, the jury is still out, the CDC, NIH, World Health (UN), and many leading epidemiologists, doctors and scientists cannot come to a consensus on the origins of, control of, or cure for COVID 19. The Political leadership keeps throwing {DARTS, sic} at the wall willy-nilly in hopes that something sticks, all the while they are like Sergeant Schultz (I know nothing!) but won’t admit it.

    I personally weighed the known facts I could find, and the odds I could be infected by COVID and choose to be vaccinated and will get a booster shop when available, but cannot in good faith question those who choose not to be vaccinated.

  17. “You can’t handle the truth!”

    – Colonel Jessup
    _____________

    You can’t handle the scope and breadth of American freedom.

    The people are the Sovereign; government is the Subject of the Sovereign.

    Government is severely limited and restricted while the people enjoy all conceivable, maximal freedom.

    Government exists under the Constitution simply to provide security and infrastructure, as a military to provide for the common defence, laws against property damage and bodily injury, and roads, water, post office, monopoly utilities and items which provide for the general (i.e. all) welfare. That is all.

    Americans enjoy the freedom of personal healthcare, per the 9th Amendment.

    Congress has no power to tax for or to regulate personal healthcare, per Article 1, Section 8.

    Congress has no power to mandate healthcare or any aspect thereof.

    Congress has no emergency powers; Congress has the power to suspend habeas corpus only in a condition of invasion or rebellion.

    Federal and state governments have no power to deny to individuals their right to obtain personal healthcare, per the 9th Amendment.
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    “It’s the [judicial branch], stupid!”

    – James Carville

    The singular American failure is the judicial branch, including the Supreme Court, which has failed treasonously to accomplish its sworn duty to support the Constitution – the “manifest tenor” thereof.
    ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Article 1, Section 8

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;…

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes;…

    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;…

    1. George, you DO understand, don’t you, that Col. Jessup was a fictional character in the film “A Few Good Men”? Col. Jessup was NO hero. But for the work of Navy defense counsel, played by Tom Cruise, Demi Moore and Kevin Pollack, he would have allowed two solders to be convicted of murder and probably executed after killing a fellow soldier, on Jessup’s orders, to punish him for complaining about the abuse he suffered on Guantanomo. Col. Jessup’s conduct also resulted in the suicide of another officer who knew he ordered a “Code Red”.

      Then, there’s the other blogger I haven’t noticed lately, but who used the name “The Great Santini”, a fictional character played by Robert Duvall in the film version of Pat Conroy’s eponymous book. “The Great Santini” character was a grade-A a**hole who abused everyone, including his children and wife, who wished he would die. When he DOES die unexpectedly, then they have to suffer guilt because of wanting him to die, so the suffering he caused them persisted even after his death.

      I just don’t understand the fascination of some people with fictional characters who are abusive to others or why some of you feel they are heroes.

      1. Natacha: “I just don’t understand the fascination of some people with fictional characters who are abusive to others or why some of you feel they are heroes.”
        ***
        For the same reason some trolls here like you.

  18. Another challenge for mandate jurisdictions are reports indicating that some 30 percent of new cases in cities like Los Angeles are among the vaccinated.

    Most people dont work with math in their day to day life. They accept the computation is done correctly and accept the conclusion.

    What do we know of this 30% figure? Where do we get the denominator. That number would be the number tests administered. Or, sample size. The make up of the sample is critical to assigning a level of accuracy if you are going to make a decision from the answer. In this case we know the denominator is self selected people.
    The vaccinated would not be well represented. They would not seek out a test if they are not experiencing symptoms, and even if they do, they would must likely just get a booster. So the sample selection would depress the number of vaccinated testing positive. Easily by a factor of 2

Leave a Reply