California Medical Ethics Expert Sues University Over Vaccine Mandate

We recently discussed the lawsuit filed by a George Mason University professor who refused to get the Covid vaccine upon the recommendation of his doctors and due to his natural antibodies after recovering from the virus. GMU later relented and gave him an exception. However, now a University of California professor has sued on the same ground. Aaron Kheriaty, professor of psychiatry and human behavior at the University of California at Irvine, is the latest effort to force review of the issue of natural antibodies as a protection from Covid.

Kheriaty is suing the Board of Regents and the University president due to his antibodies from a case of Covid-19 in July 2020. He told SBG“[i]f my immunity is as good, indeed, very likely better, than that conferred by the vaccine, there doesn’t seem to be any rational basis for discriminating against my form of immunity and requiring me to get a different form of immunity.”

What is most interesting about the case is that Kheriaty serves as director of UCI’s Medical Ethics Program and is a member of the UC Office of the President Critical Care Bioethics Working Group. Kheriaty has complained that it is now verboten to even raise natural antibodies despite studies showing that they may be even more effective than vaccines.  A study (often cited by the CDC) suggests the opposite.

Kheriaty cited studies showing that recovery yields considerable protection., including a study from researchers at the La Jolla Institute for Immunology found that that the immune systems of those who recovered from COVID-19 had durable memories of the virus up to eight months after infection.  He goes into detail on such studies. Thus, this is not some screed against vaccines but a science based challenge.

There has been an obvious aversion of the CDC and the Biden Administration in addressing the natural antibody issue. Most media have held that same line and there has been little discussion of such objections.

The challenge for Kheriaty is whether a court will find that taking the vaccine as someone with natural antibodies has not been found to be dangerous or harmful. As a result, it may conclude that it is simply too difficult for employers to establish natural antibodies and their specific level of protection. However, the same difficulty is present by vaccinated individuals who will likely have differing levels of protection over time.

Past challenges to mandates have included the natural antibody issues.  Recently, in a challenge to Indiana University’s mandate, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected a motion for a preliminary injunction. The Court noted that there is not “a fundamental right ingrained in the American legal tradition” to refuse a vaccine. Challenges have also bee rejected to policies at Houston Methodist Hospital and Los Angeles Unified School District.

This case however presents the natural antibody case in its strongest and most direct terms. The odds are in favor of the university but it could be a case with potential for the Supreme Court.

Here is the complaint: Kheriaty Complaint

177 thoughts on “California Medical Ethics Expert Sues University Over Vaccine Mandate”

  1. It doesn’t need to be proven that it is not harmful for people with naturally acquired immunity to get vaccinated. The point is that it’s not necessary, therefor the risk/benefit analysis makes no sense for them.

    Those who recovered from Covid have immunity equal to or greater than the vaccinated. Treating them like pariahs, Untouchable Dalits, second class citizens when in fact they have strong immunity is unethical, and contrary to the science.

    1. “Those who recovered from Covid have immunity equal to or greater than the vaccinated.”

      Right now, that’s unclear, as there aren’t enough peer-reviewed studies. Globally, it may also depend on which vaccine was used.

      There’s also research — some peer-reviewed, some not — that vaccination after infection+recovery provides greater immunity than infection+recovery alone.

      People who’ve recovered from Covid and declined vaccination aren’t being treated like Dalits. If you’d spent time in India, you wouldn’t make the comparison so lightly.

      1. Quote ; “Right now, that’s unclear, as there aren’t enough peer-reviewed studies. Globally, it may also depend on which vaccine was used.

        There’s also research — some peer-reviewed, some not — that vaccination after infection+recovery provides greater immunity than infection+recovery alone.”

        You are so full of bullsheet !!!. You know it too…yet you post such drivel. Look at Israel’s stats on infection vs infection of those whom took the toxic blue jab. Proves you are spouting disinformation !. Why do you think now big brother is spouting a third and even a fourth shot of this toxic stew….because it does not work as they advertise . On top of that the refuse to talk about the growing adverse VAERS numbers to their narrative.

    2. Agree! And let’s not forget – although the CDC has declared the vaccines “safe” there is NO long term data on their safety. Why should someone with natural immunity be coerced into an experimental medical injection if not necessary? It is illogical, anti-science and just plain wrong.

  2. The EU Covid passport accepts prior infection as equivalent to a vaccine shot. If it is good enough for the EU, it should be good enough for the USA.

    Meanwhile, breakthrough infections to those supposedly fully vaccinated are accelerating. The NYT in an article a couple of weeks back said BT infections range from 12% to 28%, depending on the state. Those are fairly high numbers and certainly would not be described as “rare” any longer. Israel has reported that natural immunity is up to 27X better than vaccine induced immunity, which makes sense given that the mRNA/DNA vaccines focus only on a specific configuration of the virus covering spike protein while the body’s immune system looks at the whole virus package and builds much more robust and lasting protection. This is the actual science.
    ————
    The EU Digital COVID Certificate Regulation entered into application on 01 July 2021. EU citizens and residents will now be able to have their Digital COVID Certificates issued and verified across the EU.

    What is the EU Digital COVID Certificate?

    An EU Digital COVID Certificate is a digital proof that a person has either
    – been vaccinated against COVID-19
    – received a negative test result or
    – recovered from COVID-19

    Key features of the certificate

    – Digital and/or paper format
    – with QR code
    – free of charge
    – in national language and English
    – safe and secure
    – valid in all EU countries

    https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/coronavirus-response/safe-covid-19-vaccines-europeans/eu-digital-covid-certificate_en

    1. JoJo – I completely agree with you that naturally acquired immunity should be an acceptable alternative to the vaccine. I like that it can also contain negative test results. By allowing a negative test result or naturally acquired immunity as an option to vaccination, this would prevent the caste system we’re seeing develop here.

      There was one study that found that the immune systems of people who recovered from Covid recognized 56 SARS-CoV2 binding sights in addition to those found on the spike protein.

      As for breakthrough infections, as more people either get vaccinated, or recover from Covid, then the virus will increasingly only have access to people with immunity. The replication of this particular virus creates variants. It’s haploid, and the way it replicates tends to skip or jumble parts of its RNA. As immunity increases, this creates environmental pressure (scarcity of resources) that selects for variants that can sneak past our immunity. This means that as immunity goes up, breakthrough infection rates of the vaccinated will go up. There will be less non immune people available for the virus to infect, and only the resistant variants will be able to replicate in a host.

  3. Only owners of private property may impose healthcare requirements on voluntary employees.

    Public and governmental organizations have no constitutional power to impose healthcare requirements on free individual Americans.

  4. Jonathan: Professor Kheriaty may be a “medical ethics expert” but he is not an epidemiologist.. He is trying, through his lawsuit, to make a political statement that no one, who has recovered from Covid should be required to be vaccinated. It’s what a lot of the anti-vacs are saying–“personal freedom” and “personal choice” trumps medical science. So let’s try to discuss some facts about the natural immunities of those who have recovered.

    The NIH says the immune systems of more than 95% of people who have recovered from Covid-19 have immunity from reinfection for up to about 8 months. The CDC produced a study that found unvaccinated people who have had Covid are more than twice as likely to be re-infected with the virus compared with people who were fully vaccinated. after contracting the virus. And people re-infected are more likely to be asymptomatic which increases the likelihood of spreading the virus. Nicole Iovine, chief hospital epidemiologist at University of Florida Heath, says: “Natural infection will cause your immune system to make many types of antibodies and immune response to all parts of the virus, but only a small fraction of that response is actually protective. When you get the vaccine, the entire response is targeted to the virus’s protein”. She goes on to point out: “With the delta variant, you want to have the odds in your favor…you don’t want to leave yourself with excess risk, and that’s where vaccination is going to give you that extra layer of protection that natural infection and immunity cannot”. From what I haver read that is the consensus.

    Now along comes Professor Kheriaty. In support of his erroneous position you say “…studies showing that they [natural antibodies] may be even more effective than vaccines”. What “studies”? This in not what the NIH and CDC are saying. People who have recovered from Covid should still get vaccinated to reduce the risk of re-infection, which will prevent transmission and suppress the opportunity for more variants–like the highly contagious delta-to emerge. That’s the position of Dr. Fauci who is pushing for booster shots after about 8 months. Immunity diminishes over time even for those who are fully vaccinated. You and Kheriaty are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts. The Professor may have recovered but he may have been re-infected and is asymptomatic because of his natural level of antibodies that will degrade over time. You admit that “it is simply too difficult for employers to establish natural antibodies and their specific level of protection”. That said, is it medically ethical for Kheriaty ( a professor of medical ethics) to argue he should be exempted from vaccination especially since no one can say for certain his level of natural immunity? Should he be allowed to put others at risk under these circumstances? I don’t think so.

    1. Just as I don’t have to be an astrophysicist to understand how planets revolve around the sun or that the universe is expanding, someone doesn’t have to be a “epidemiologist” in order to understand how the bodies immune system works.

      1. Really? You know multi-body gravitational dynamics? Good luck with that. You proved yourself wrong. You know that planets revolve around the sun, but you do not know the details that matter. Same for immune systems, you know the basics, but the important details you are clueless about.

    2. Turley’s just stirring the pot to keep the Fox/Trump/Republican theme going that Democrats are taking away your Constitutional rights.

    3. Dennis: “What “studies”? This in not what the NIH and CDC are saying”

      ***

      Dennis, it is unscientific to rely on information from government organizations already caught in deceitful behavior.

  5. Policies that treat those with naturally acquired immunity the same as those without immunity are not based on any science. Vaccines mimic an infection in order to generate immunity. Those who recovered from Covid-19 have immunity equal to or greater than those who are vaccinated. I read one study where the immune system of those with naturally acquired immunity recognized 56 more binding sites than the s protein alone.

    There there are the ethical problems with creating a caste society based on immune status.

    I’m vaccinated against Covid-19. I had a bit of a hard time with the second dose, but I’m still glad I got it. We need a more reasonable approach. Count those with naturally acquired immunity accurately, as immune. Encourage, don’t force, vaccination or getting a titer to find out if you have natural immunity.

    1. Karen,

      “ Those who recovered from Covid-19 have immunity equal to or greater than those who are vaccinated. I read one study where the immune system of those with naturally acquired immunity recognized 56 more binding sites than the s protein alone.”

      The natural immunity doesn’t last long. That’s the problem. The majority of people who got covid the first time have reduced immunity from the new variant.

      Natural immunity at a minimum lasts 8 months. It’s one reason why so many are getting sick with the delta variant. The vaccine offers a stronger protection but it is only 80% effective against the new variant. As long as people keep refusing to vaccinate or mask up there will be more opportunities for a new and more vaccine resistant variant. That’s why it’s more important now more than ever to have as many people vaccinated as soon as possible.

      1. None of that is true. Some reading for you:
        ———-
        August 25, 2021
        COVID vaccine protection wanes within six months – UK researchers
        https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/covid-jab-protection-wanes-within-six-months-uk-researchers-2021-08-25/

        New CDC studies point to waning immunity from vaccines
        The publication of the studies comes a week after the agency released its first three reports on vaccine efficacy.
        By ERIN BANCO and ADAM CANCRYN
        08/24/2021
        https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/24/cdc-studies-vaccine-immunity-506782

        Pfizer Board Member: ‘Natural Immunity’ Against COVID-19 Needs to Be Included in Policy Discussions
        August 30, 2021
        theepochtimes.com/pfizer-board-member-natural-immunity-against-covid-needs-to-be-included-in-policy-discussions_3971383.html

        Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine—but no infection parties, please
        By Meredith Wadman
        Aug. 26, 2021 , 8:00 PM
        sciencemag.org/news/2021/08/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-no-infection-parties

    2. Karen: please stop. More of your “caste society” crap, misusing a word you don’t understand, equating vaccine refusal to the situation in which someone is stuck in a social group in which they were born and cannot escape. The CDC is the expert on immunology, not you. You are not qualified, and reading studies and literature you don’t have the background to appreciate doesn’t qualify you to give advice.

      1. Natacha: “The CDC is the expert on immunology,”

        ****
        They don’t seem very expert these days. They are the ones who said people shouldn’t take ivermectin because it is for cattle and we aren’t cows.

        Cute– high school cute. You bought into that b.s. too, Natacha.

        It is, of course, also a medicine for humans, often prescribed in the US for scabies. In other countries for many diseases. It has been taken for years by millions of people and it has saved so many people from crippling illness that a Nobel Prize was awarded for it–because of its use with humans.

        It has been demonstrated to be effective with Covid, both as a prophylactic and as a treatment in Africa, India, and Peru. That evidence led conservative Japan to adopt it for Covid.

        The CDC’s latest contribution has been to produce a list of potentially harmful words that should be replaced with other peculiar locutions.

        Yes, changing ‘homeless’ to ‘people without homes’ sounds like a marvelous advance for civilization. ‘Homeless’ is already a euphemism for ‘bums’.

        Right now the CDC seems to be dominated by politicized snow flakes who rival the inmates of homes for the retarded for incompetence.

        1. “They are the ones who said people shouldn’t take ivermectin because it is for cattle and we aren’t cows.”

          No, they didn’t. They didn’t say anything close to that.

          Among other things, here’s what they did say:
          “Ivermectin is a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved prescription medication used to treat certain infections caused by internal and external parasites. When used as prescribed for approved indications, it is generally safe and well tolerated.
          “During the COVID-19 pandemic, ivermectin dispensing by retail pharmacies has increased, as has use of veterinary formulations available over the counter but not intended for human use. FDA has cautioned about the potential risks of use for prevention or treatment of COVID-19.
          “Ivermectin is not authorized or approved by FDA for prevention or treatment of COVID-19. The National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel has also determined that there are currently insufficient data to recommend ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19. ClinicalTrials.gov has listings of ongoing clinical trials that might provide more information about these hypothesized uses in the future.
          “Adverse effects associated with ivermectin misuse and overdose are increasing, as shown by a rise in calls to poison control centers reporting overdoses and more people experiencing adverse effects.
          “…
          “In some cases, people have ingested ivermectin-containing products purchased without a prescription, including topical formulations and veterinary products. Veterinary formulations intended for use in large animals such as horses, sheep, and cattle (e.g., “sheep drench,” injection formulations, and “pour-on” products for cattle) can be highly concentrated and result in overdoses when used by humans. Animal products may also contain inactive ingredients that have not been evaluated for use in humans. People who take inappropriately high doses of ivermectin above FDA-recommended dosing may experience toxic effects.”

          https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/2021/pdf/CDC_HAN_449.pdf

          1. Anon- “No, they didn’t. They didn’t say anything close to that. ”

            **

            Right- FDA said it first: https://twitter.com/US_FDA/status/1429050070243192839?s=20 “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”

            CDC followed up with a similar bit of propaganda quoting and linking to the FDA tweet which is actually saying something ‘close to that.’

            The CDC did publish ‘Preferred Terms for Select Population Groups and Communities” https://www.cdc.gov/healthcommunication/Preferred_Terms.html

            Reading their list I notice they don’t like the word ‘crazy’ but unfortunately that is the word that best describes the people working there now: crazy.

            Was ‘liars’ on the list? Didn’t check. But that applies as well.

            Federal agencies have destroyed their credibility. In their quest for ‘diversity’ they have apparently hired the full quota of idiots.

            1. I guess you’re too lazy to click on the link included in that very same tweet to see where they say “There seems to be a growing interest in a drug called ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans. Certain animal formulations of ivermectin such as pour-on, injectable, paste, and “drench,” are approved in the U.S. to treat or prevent parasites in animals. For humans, ivermectin tablets are approved at very specific doses to treat some parasitic worms, and there are topical (on the skin) formulations for head lice and skin conditions like rosacea. However, the FDA has received multiple reports of patients who have required medical attention, including hospitalization, after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for livestock.”

              So no, they didn’t say anything close to “people shouldn’t take ivermectin because it is for cattle and we aren’t cows.”

              Oh, the horror that they tell people not to take veterinary ivermectin while also pointing out that it’s approved and prescribed for other human use.

              Don’t let that get in the way of your desire to rage dishonestly though.

              1. Anon: “So no, they didn’t say anything close to “people shouldn’t take ivermectin because it is for cattle and we aren’t cows.”

                ***

                The CDC linked the FDA Tweet which says exactly: “https://twitter.com/US_FDA/status/1429050070243192839?s=20

                “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”

                That’s more than close. Note the word ‘COW’.

                What’s wrong with you?

                1. What’s wrong with *you*? I think you’re capable of considering the rest of the tweet you’re quoting from, but you’re choosing not to.

                  Telling people not to take veterinary ivermectin isn’t telling them “people shouldn’t take ivermectin.”

                  You are not a horse and should not take veterinary products developed and approved for horses.
                  You are not a cow and shouldn’t take veterinary products developed and approved for cows.
                  You are a person and can take ivermectin for people, when prescribed by a doctor. If you want to take it for Covid, find a doctor who’ll prescribe it off-label instead of acting like a jack@ss.

                  1. The principal tweet is clear enough:

                    “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.
                    Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19
                    Using the Drug ivermectin to treat COVID-19 can be dangerous and even lethal. The FDA has not approved the drug for that purpose.”

                    That is very misleading. Any drug, even water, “can be dangerous and even lethal.” . Ivermectin has been used around the world by millions of people without significant side effects. It is one of the most benign drugs one can take, but nobody would glean that from the FDA warning that we aren’t cows.

                    By the way, you failed to notice that the FDA message does not say “You Should Not Use VETERINARY Ivermectin” It deliberately obscures the difference with absolute terms: “you should not use ivermectin”. Odd that you didn’t notice that or grasp its implications. Do most people look further than the initial Tweet? Probably not. Natacha has repeated the notion that ivermectin is for animals and not people.

                    “The FDA has not approved the drug for that purpose.” So what? Many commonly used drugs are prescribed off label.

                    Despite the FDA scare phrases, there has been an enormous amount of information that ivermectin is successful as a prophylactic to reduce infection with Covid and that it is useful in treatment. Examples involving millions of people have been seen in Peru, Africa and India. Japan has adopted it because of that evidence, but the Japanese are a serious people.

                    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

                    https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/06000/review_of_the_emerging_evidence_demostrating_the.4.aspx

                    Neither the CDC nor the FDA nor Fascist Book, Twitter, nor Google are even trying to address the evidence. They try to bury it or obfuscate it, much as they did with HCQ.

                    You seem to be trying to do that as well, acting, to use your term, like a jack@ss.

                    1. “By the way, you failed to notice that the FDA message does not say “You Should Not Use VETERINARY Ivermectin” ”

                      By the way, you falsely assume that I didn’t notice, and you apparently failed to understand why they said “You are not a horse. You are not a cow.” Some people were taking veterinary ivermectin and getting sick from it. They make this explicit in the linked page: “Never use medications intended for animals on yourself or other people. Animal ivermectin products are very different from those approved for humans. Use of animal ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans is dangerous.”

                      “It deliberately obscures the difference with absolute terms: “you should not use ivermectin””

                      You are dishonest when you cut off the end, which impacts the meaning: “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19

                      You could have chosen to focus on whether they should have said that, but instead, you follow your usual course and start by criticizing them for something they didn’t do.

                      “Neither the CDC nor the FDA nor Fascist Book, Twitter, nor Google are even trying to address the evidence. They try to bury it or obfuscate it…”

                      BS. You’re either a liar or quite incompetent at searching for information.

                      If you Google ivermectin Covid, you’ll get millions of hits.

                      The top result for me was the FDA.gov page we’re discussing, which explicitly states “Clinical trials assessing ivermectin tablets for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in people are ongoing” and links to https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=COVID-19&term=ivermectin&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=&Search=Search, showing the dozens of ongoing trials. The CDC *also* links to those clinical trials, as well as to the NIH page discussing ivermectin as a possible Covid treatment and the status.

                      The second Google result for me was the following research article:
                      Bryant, A., Lawrie, T. A., Dowswell, T., Fordham, E. J., Scott, M., Hill, S. R., & Tham, T. C. (2021). Ivermectin for prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection: a systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis to inform clinical guidelines. Am J Ther., Jul-Aug; 28(4): e434–e460.

                      If you search Twitter, you’ll easily find tweets about ivermectin use in Japan, etc.

                      But don’t let all these facts get in the way of your diatribe.

                    2. Anon: “By the way, you falsely assume that I didn’t notice”.
                      **
                      If you did notice that they failed to qualify their attack on Ivermectin by saying veterinary ivermectin and yet wrote what you did, then it is another example of your dishonesty that S. Meyer has so often identified. I was giving you the benefit of doubt.

                      As for Big Tech suppression of invermectin information I don’t care what you get with your search terms. Too many videos of experts discussing it have been swept from Twitter, You Tube and Fascist Book to deny that they are stomping with Fascist hob-nailed boots on information that doesn’t follow the approved narrative.

                    3. “I don’t care what you get with your search terms”

                      Yep, you’ve made it very clear that you seldom care about counterevidence to your false claims. Ironic that you think me dishonest.

                    4. Anon: “You are dishonest when you cut off the end, which impacts the meaning: “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19”

                      ***
                      Obviously i did include the Covid treatment issue in the post immediately before yours. It wasn’t necessary in the first post since we were discussing FDA and CDC opposition to Ivermectin for Covid. I assume most have normal attention spans and can remember the topic.

                      Here is the full quote that you say I didn’t make:

                      The principal tweet is clear enough:

                      “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.
                      Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19
                      Using the Drug ivermectin to treat COVID-19 can be dangerous and even lethal. The FDA has not approved the drug for that purpose.”

                      I think your habit of accusing everyone of dishonesty is a product of your own deeply entrenched dishonesty. You think everyone is like you, but we are better than that.

                    5. “I think your habit of accusing everyone of dishonesty is a product of your own deeply entrenched dishonesty.”

                      Oh, the irony. I don’t accuse everyone of dishonesty, or even most people. I accuse some specific people of it, and I explain why when I do (in this case, that it’s dishonest to cut a quote short in a way that changes its meaning). More often, I instead note that the false statement derives from either dishonesty or ignorance, and I don’t draw any conclusion about which.

                    6. Anon– “(in this case, that it’s dishonest to cut a quote short in a way that changes its meaning”
                      ***
                      Except that cutting the quote short did not change meaning in that context and that in the next quote I gave I included all of it which you dishonestly chose to ignore.

                      You are not an honest commentator.

                    7. And I don’t think you’re honest.

                      You and I disagree about whether it changed the meaning, and we disagree about the extent to which each of us is dishonest. What a surprise that we disagree.

  6. BREAKING BOMBSHELL: WHO/CDC Docs Prove COVID Vaxx Created Deadly Delta Variant

    159,499 views

    Sep 9, 2021
    76
    Share
    Download
    The Alex Jones Show
    The Alex Jones Show

    Dr. Richard Fleming of ********** joins The Alex Jones Show to expose the COVID vaxx origins of the delta variant. Read more here: **********************

    https://banned.video/watch?id=613a81482026d11782e4d343

    West Virginia Governor Drops Bombshell: 25% Increase In Death Amongst Vaccinated Individuals

    138,163 views

    Sep 7, 2021

    https://banned.video/watch?id=613801fb52ad2c11984cfde9

  7. Can anyone explain how Nigeria and the Congo make up 54% of cases of malaria and yet have .09% and .24% of their population with covid cases respectfully and first world U.S. has 12.36% of their population with covid cases.

    1. Malaria is not an airborn disease. Malaria is endemic in poorer parts of the world, carried by mosquitos that live there year-round and easily transmit it to humans. It is not endemic in the US thanks to things like insecticides, window screens, and air-conditioning. I wouldn’t assume that the Covid case counts in Nigeria and the Congo are accurate, as I doubt that they have the capacity to do sufficient testing.

      1. I know what malaria is. You missed my point of bringing it up. Think, what could those two countries be using that would be giving them such low covid numbers?

        “I wouldn’t assume that the Covid case counts in Nigeria and the Congo are accurate, as I doubt that they have the capacity to do sufficient testing.”

        But we should trust ours? So we can only trust the numbers that support a narrative?

        1. “I know what malaria is. ”

          Then you knowingly made a false comparison, which reflects badly on you.

          “But we should trust ours?”

          Ours are probably a bit low too, since people aren’t being randomly tested, but they’re much closer to correct, because a much larger % of the population has been tested, including many people who’ve been tested multiple times, since people’s status can change.

          “So we can only trust the numbers that support a narrative?”

          That’s not what I said and not what I meant, and I encourage you not to ask loaded questions. They’re counterproductive.

      2. Ok, Here’s another way to look at it if you do not believe in their testing.

        Congo .003% of population died from covid
        Nigeria .001%
        U.S.A. .194%

        1. To know what % of the population died from Covid, you need to test the people who’ve died. So “if you do not believe in their testing,” your new way to look at it isn’t very accurate either.

          Also, if you really want to understand this issue, then look up the research instead of just assuming things. Here’s an example: “We found that proportion of population aged 65+, population density, and urbanization are significantly positively associated with high numbers of active infected cases, while mean temperature around the first quarter (January-March) is negatively associated to this COVID-19 outcome. These factors are those for which Africa has a comparative advantage.” There are other relevant factors; for example, more of the US population is obese.

          If you’re looking for a single factor to explain it, don’t do that. It’s not a single factor.

        2. Jim22,

          This Anonymous likes to use expressions learned in high school debate. He commonly accuses others of using ‘loaded questions ‘ when they are not. He also falsely accuses others of making a false dichotomy or, as here, a false comparison when they are not. Another is accusing someone of making a strawman argument. They are deliberate distractions meant to pull you away from points he can’t defend. There are others which you will recognize when aware.

    2. The people of Nigeria, Congo and Africa in general have stronger immune systems than coddled snowflake Americans. This isn’t that difficult.

    3. Does anybody believe the stats from Nigeria and the Congo? Really. In Niger and Nigeria the average woman has 6 to 7 kids. Born into abject poverty. Really how can countries like this not have Covid running rampant through their populations.

  8. The White House knew of the position of the postal workers and it’s why they left them out of the mandatory requirement. The postal workers union is against mandatory vaccinations for the workers they represent. https://www.apwu.org/news/apwu-statement-mandatory-vaccination-federal-employees. Biden didn’t want to piss off a 650,000 strong voting block. However, there is an interesting caveat in the unions statement. “For now”. They have to wet the end of their finger and leave it up to see which way the wind is going to blow. Wait and see. They will be have been against it before they became for it. Unless they decide to stand by their principles. Color me very sceptical. Just because the Union may change their tune it doesn’t mean that their members will. The Biden administration and the postal Union have put themselves between a rock and a hard place. The squirming under the pressure should be a very entertaining spectacle to behold.

    1. “The White House knew of the position of the postal workers and it’s why they left them out of the mandatory requirement. ”

      No, an explanation from a 2018 GovExec article: “Because the Postal Service has since 1971 been set up as an independent agency tasked with operating to resemble a private enterprise, it is often exempted from otherwise governmentwide provisions.”

      1. But that explanation crumbles because then the postal service is a “private enterprise” with more than 100 employees, and so still then the usps is still given a unique unexplained exemption.

        1. “Operating to resemble a private enterprise” doesn’t mean “IS a private enterprise.” You probably know that they’re not actually a private enterprise.

          Regardless, this particular stance is not because “of the position of the postal workers” to Covid vaccination. It’s a standard exemption, and it may be rolled back in this specific instance.

          1. Let’s see Anonymous. The post office is not a private business but they operate as a private business so they are left out of the government mandate because the are controlled by the government. The latest on the left is that they are now part of the government and will now be subject to the mandate. I earlier posted a link showing that the postal workers Union is against a vaccine mandate. I’m curious as to your thoughts on their position unless you are loathe to make your position public concerning the heart of the matter rather than the periphery.

              1. Anonymous, you are loathe to actually have an answer that makes any sense. When you have no answer your predictable response is the placement of “Troll” if someone points out the fallacies in your comments. You are willing to respond negatively to the comments of others but no criticism of your comments are to be allowed. When you post a negative comment about some statement I have made I do not consider you a “Troll”. I only consider you as amazingly misinformed. As the argument goes on you have a pattern of straying farther and farther from the subject. Then your final brilliant touché is TROLL.

          2. It’s a standard exemption, and it may be rolled back in this specific instance.

            Because Biden’s handlers pulled reasons out of Dr Jill’s Uranus

      2. OK then Anonymous. As a private business the post office has over 100 employees. If all the Mail carriers refuse to get vaccinated will the post office be fined $14,000 dollars per occurrence or will they fire the non compliant. According to the statistics, black people are more hesitant to get the vaccine. 136,000 postal workers are black and now Biden is telling them they must get the vaccine or else. Biden just didn’t step in it this time he fell into the whole outhouse. I don’t think these spots are going to wash out.

      3. Anonymous is correct. He tells us that it is a government rule allowing for an exemption of the post office from a government mandate and then he tells us that this government rule, written down on paper can just be rolled back if the government so desires. Is it a rule or is not a rule. (See Anonymous post at 12:57)Just look for a whim and it’s ok to change the rules. Classic.

    2. Uh…TTT, postal workers are NOT federal employees any more. Haven’t been for a long time. More of you Trumpsters making up facts to use against Biden.

  9. This isn’t smallpox and we aren’t going to vaxx our way out of this (smallpox had no animal reservoirs). The virus will keep mutating with or without the vaccines and will have to “burn itself out” in a manner similar to Spanish Flu of 1918.

    BTW – while a N95 mask worn under clinical conditions is useful, the average cloth mask worn by the public does little for the wearer except as a morale booster and possible signal of virtue.

    There has never been a successful vaccine that will eliminate coronaviruses. They’ve tried for years with livestock.

    Maybe one of my leftist moral bettors can explain the following:

    Why can’t covid be contracted while (mostly) peacefully protesting but going to church or a restaurant is deadly?

    Why can’t covid be spread by those illegally crossing the Southern US Border? I am Hispanic and not sure of why this is true myself.

    Again, this dispute is just another symptom of the Balkanization of the country and there are many others. And while you may force some to take the vaccine out of fear for their livelihoods, you can’t make them like it. And they won’t forget.

    I WANT A DIVORCE.

    antonio

    1. “This isn’t smallpox and we aren’t going to vaxx our way out of this (smallpox had no animal reservoirs). The virus will keep mutating with or without the vaccines and will have to “burn itself out” in a manner similar to Spanish Flu of 1918.”

      Vaccination can help it “burn itself out” (your words) faster and can reduce the frequency of mutations, thereby making it less likely that more virulent and/or easily transmitted mutations arise and get a foothold in the population.

      “while a N95 mask worn under clinical conditions is useful, the average cloth mask worn by the public does little for the wearer except as a morale booster and possible signal of virtue.”

      Those aren’t the only 2 choices. Surgical masks are widely and cheaply available, and if you wear a surgical mask, you’ll protect others (in case you’re knowingly or unknowingly infected) and help protect yourself a bit (if they’re infected).

      All of our driving laws also protect people imperfectly, but it’s still wise to have them and to obey them.

      As for your loaded questions, reword them so that they’re no longer loaded, and I’ll answer.

      For example, your first question might be “can Covid be contracted while protesting?” My answer is: yes, but the likelihood depends on the circumstances (are the people inside or outside? how close are they to each other? how long are they together? are they wearing masks? are they chanting or yelling? …).

      1. The mass vaccination with a leaky virus (as opposed to a sterilizing one) during a pandemic has increased the frequency of mutations.

        Besides the virus has a 98% overall survival rate. And that is with counting all positive tests as cases and those that die with a positive covid test as dying FROM covid (happened to relative who suffered from colon cancer for 4 years; but died with a positive covid test) .Of course, the precise survival rate depends on one’s age and general health condition. And more adverse events have occurred for this vaccine than any other previously documented.

        There has NEVER been a successful virus for corona viruses for livestock. Please contact me after you’ve had your 15th booster shot.

        It was NEVER about public health; if it were the protests on behalf of St. George of Minneapolis would never have been allowed in 2020 and the southern border would have been shut down as the Canadian border.

        And another thing, I really don’t care what people that despise and wish my demise think, I want a divorce and if people such as me are so ignorant, wicked, etc. you should welcome this, but I won’t hold my breath.

        antonio

        1. “The mass vaccination with a leaky virus …”

          Presumably you mean “leaky vaccine.” The SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are not particularly leaky compared to other vaccines.

          “… has increased the frequency of mutations.”

          A claim for which you’ve provided no evidence, perhaps because the vaccines prevent most infections in most of the body’s cells, so there are many fewer cells in which they can mutate.

          “the virus has a 98% overall survival rate.”

          Let’s take your claim. First, you’d need to separate out the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. If you meant “the virus has a 98% overall survival rate for people who are unvaccinated and who have not previously contracted it” (so you’re excluding reexposure among those who didn’t die after initial exposure), then if everyone remained unvaccinated, you’re talking about huge #s of eventual deaths. Second, just because someone survives doesn’t mean that they have no longterm serious medical effects.

          “more adverse events have occurred for this vaccine than any other previously documented.”

          Another claim for which you present no evidence.

          “There has NEVER been a successful virus for corona viruses for livestock”

          Presumably you mean “successful vaccine.” The bovine rotavirus-coronavirus vaccine is pretty effective, which is why it’s used.

      2. How do you expect to beat a respiratory virus with known animal reservoirs? Do you propose to eliminate all warm blooded mammals? I know lefties want to reduce meat consumption. Please advise.

        antonio

        1. https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-the-dangers-of-weak-vaccines/a-56339759

          Vaccines are points of pressure within the grand scheme of evolution

          The evolution of virus variants

          To reproduce, viruses insert their genetic make-up into a host cell. Each reproduction comes with small copying mistakes, and each one of these mistakes in turn changes the virus’s genetic code — it mutates. Vaccines put evolutionary pressure on the virus. The variants of the virus that are selected to continue reproducing are those that manage to evade the immune system by mutating.

          1. ANON- “Vaccines put evolutionary pressure on the virus. The variants of the virus that are selected to continue reproducing are those that manage to evade the immune system by mutating.”
            ***
            Which is another way of saying that the vaccines are causing the new variants of Covid.

          2. Your article also says “Fortunately many vaccines have managed to remain efficient through the normal cycle of virus evolution. Neither smallpox nor measles developed a mutation that evaded the immunity brought about by the vaccines developed to eradicate them. In the past, only a few viruses have developed to become vaccine-resistant. One exception is the seasonal flu, which changes so quickly that it requires a new vaccine every year. If SARS-CoV-2 behaves in a similar way, the corona vaccines would have to be updated regularly as well. According to BioNTech-Pfizer, such an update for the mRNA-vaccines could be developed within weeks.”

  10. Since the DOJ is currently in a state of collapse Dr Boyle believes taking those Eugenics lunatics mRNA vax pushers up on state murder charges & conspiracy to commit murder.

    ******

    Former War Crimes Prosecutor Lays Out Blueprint to Prosecute Fauci and Co. for Creating COVID-19

    61,034 views
    Sep 8, 2021
    42
    Share
    Download
    The Alex Jones Show
    The Alex Jones Show

    Dr. Francis Boyle joins The Alex Jones Show to break down the details of how Fauci can be prosecuted for engineering COVID-19.

    https://banned.video/watch?id=613946b9c886a6142c5057b3

    1. For those of you that were like me wondering why most all the hospitals in the US are still sticking with medical protocols that their action continues to kill & injure patients it’s likely because of this.

      “2004 PREP ACT”

      That act gave Hospitals some tort protection against death/injures as long as they follow NIH’s protocols.

      And for further fun digging into what the Lunatic Eugenicist have been up to to murder/imprison most of us.

      Pat# 11-107588

      Pat# W02020060606

      HR 6666

      CDC’s Gene Zones

  11. “The Court noted that there is no ‘a fundamental right ingrained in the American legal tradition’ to refuse a vaccine.”

    That is a completely backwards view of the nature and purpose of our Constitution. The fundamental question is: By what right does the government force an individual to undergo a medical procedure?

    1. The Constitution does not proscribe requiring vaccination in some instances, and the government has long required vaccination for some things, like attending public school, for purposes of public safety. I’m sure that you’re capable of looking up previous court cases about previous vaccination requirements and reading the judges’ reasoning.

    2. Forced medical procedures must be one of those ‘negative rights’ Leftists say are needed in the Constitution. Punishing the healthy has never solved anything.

  12. We’re going to protect vaccinated workers from unvaccinated co-workers. — Joe Biden

    Pretzel logic from the party that believes men can get pregnant and now wants to mandate injecting experimental drugs into every American for a disease with a 99.95% survival rate.

    No thanks, I’ll pass.

    I didn’t declare war on the establishment; it declared war on me. — unknown

    1. “We’re going to protect vaccinated workers from unvaccinated co-workers.” — Joe Biden

      Joey, If I’m vaccinated why do I need protection from the unvaccinated, isn’t that the whole idea of being vaccinated?? I wonder if anyone will ask Peppermint Patty that question when they Circle Round to ask her that?

      1. “If I’m vaccinated why do I need protection from the unvaccinated, isn’t that the whole idea of being vaccinated??”

        Damn good question. Too bad that those demanding blind submission are impervious to logic.

      2. “If I’m vaccinated why do I need protection from the unvaccinated”

        Because vaccination doesn’t provide 100% protection, and even though the odds of your then needing to be hospitalized after a breakthrough infection are low, they’re not zero. Also, you may have unvaccinated kids at home (or you may work with unvaccinated kids, depending on what kind of work you do, or take care of your unvaccinated grandkids, …) or you may have a spouse/S.O. who has a weak immune system and is vaccinated but not as well-protected by the vaccine, so if you have a breakthrough infection due to your unvaccinated coworker, you risk infecting your kids or spouse/S.O. I bet there are more reasons, but that’s a start to answer your question.

    2. The Pfizer vaccine has regular FDA approval, just like lots of other drugs. How do you define “experimental drugs”? Are all FDA-approved drugs “experimental” to you?

      1. Is there any long term data on the safety and efficacy of the mRNA “vaccines”?

        Or was the Pfizer approval rushed through for political purposes?

        If the answer to my first question is “no”, then the answer to the second is “yes”.

        It’s interesting that Pfizer’s long term clinical trials were ended just as soon as they received FDA approval…

        1. How do you define “experimental drugs”? Are all FDA-approved drugs “experimental” to you?

          “If the answer to my first question is “no”, then the answer to the second is “yes”.”

          No, it’s quite possible for the answer to your first question to be “no” and the answer to the second to also be “no.” Unless you’re claiming that any drug that lacks “long term data on the safety and efficacy” is “rushed,” in which case you’ll need to specify how “long term” you’re talking about, and then we can look at whether you also consider the approval of a variety of other drugs that were approved without such data to have been “rushed.”

          “Pfizer’s long term clinical trials were ended just as soon as they received FDA approval”

          They’re still doing trials for children. They also say “We will monitor [trial] participants’ health for two years after they receive their second dose of the vaccine. Pfizer will continue to perform safety surveillance after potential licensure of a COVID-19 vaccine… Government authorities, such as the Centers for Disease and Control (CDC), will also conduct safety surveillance.”

          1. So the answer to my first question is “no” — there are no long term safety and efficacy data for any of the mRNA vaccines, including the recently FDA “approved” Pfizer jab. And, since Pfizer ended its long term clinical trails by vaccinating the control group, monitoring the participants is limited in its usefulness since there is no basis for comparison.

            And there are plenty of other drugs which have been rushed through FDA approval, remember Vioxx (to name just one)?

            Since you believe what “they” say, you take the jab… As for me, considering the answer to the second question is “yes”, I’ll wait to see how the large scale human trials unfold over the next two or three years before making a decision. And, if you have been vaccinated, thank you for adding another data point to the set.

            1. According to you, what length of time = “long term”?
              Put differently, according to you, drug approval is “rushed” if the effects have been studied for less than ___ years (how would you fill in the blank?).

  13. Why are the White House, Postal Workers and Vaccine producers exempted from the mandate. I know “science.” What does it take for the cognitively impaired to see we are in a tyranny?

    1. Because the individual who is the sole entity that the constitution is to protect has been perverted into feudalism. The constitution has NO protection for groups – NONE.

  14. The totalitarian horde of the extreme political left is hell bent on federalizing everything and forcing 100% compliance to their will across the board and they will stop at nothing to achieve their goals. These anti-Americans will force businesses to be their proxy in crushing your individual rights, this is a hallmark of totalitarianism, more specifically fascism, and it is happening right now!

    The extreme political left has been actively trying to control everything about the COVID narrative and the media is a willing government proxy. They have been actively demonizing any COVID treatments that become public and they have their media proxy publish propaganda lies about such treatments to gin up public hysteria towards the treatments. As far as the extreme political left and their Pravda like media lapdogs, the vaccine is the ONLY valid medical treatment related to COVID and yet there are people that have had the COVID vaccines that are dying from COVID, I have a fully vaccinated friend that just died less than two weeks ago from COVID!

    You will be assimilated, resistance is futile.

    Do you find value in the United States Constitution?

    Do you think you have a human right to choose your own medical treatments?

    When it comes to COVID vaccines; do you condone extorting, intimidating & persecuting others if they do not assimilate to the will of the extreme political left?

    1. Do you realize that there have long been vaccine mandates (for things like polio, MMR, chickenpox)?
      Do you realize that during the Revolutionary War, Washington mandated vaccination of the troops against small pox?
      Do you realize that the Constitution does not prevent vaccine mandates by the government or businesses?

      1. The constitution has no right or power to mandate vaccinations. The constitution only has the power the people give it. No one consented to any mandate for this non vaccine FAILED experiment. You need a civics. education. Do you know the vaccine mandate you referred to cause the 1918 flu epidemic and the 1917-18 vaccine killed more US soldiers than the conflict and the shedding of the vaccinated killed more people in the USA than all wars since.

        1. “Do you know the vaccine mandate you referred to cause the 1918 flu epidemic and the 1917-18 vaccine killed more US soldiers than the conflict and the shedding of the vaccinated killed more people in the USA than all wars since.”

          You’re wrong. A vaccine against the flu didn’t even exist in 1918.

      2. You can pick and choose your facts all you want, but this country is fast becoming Italy of the mid-20s and Germany post-1933. And the plague has given the power hungry left all it needs to accomplish their mission of fundamentally transforming America…aka, destroy it as a free nation.

      3. “Do you realize that the Constitution does not prevent vaccine mandates by the government or businesses?”

        Do you realize that you have a backwards view of the nature and purpose of our Constitution?

        1. I think you’re mistaken. With respect to the federal government, the Constitution generally protects our rights by proscribing certain actions by the government. For example, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…,” “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause …” The Constitution clearly doesn’t proscribe vaccine mandates directly, and the courts have ruled with previous mandates that it also doesn’t do it indirectly. See, for example, Jacobson v. Massachusetts in 1905. With respect to private businesses, they’re free to require all sorts of things of their employees as a condition of employment, and they generally aren’t constrained by the Constitution, but instead are constrained by some laws (e.g., against certain kinds of employment discrimination).

          If you think I’m mistaken, please do explain why you think I “have a backwards view of the nature and purpose of our Constitution.” TIA.

          1. The Constitution clearly doesn’t proscribe vaccine mandates directly, and the courts have ruled with previous mandates that it also doesn’t do it indirectly. See, for example, Jacobson v. Massachusetts in 1905.

            Correct. So the question is now: Can the government compel private business to mandate anything the government can’t legally do itself? Common sense says no, but then again that Roberts fellow is still on the bench.

            1. See the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. The government has been mandating things for workplace safety for decades.

              1. That isn’t the question being asked, but I reckon you already knew that. Case in point, CDC unlawfully instituted eviction moratoriums. Courts are more likely than not to find OSHA doesn’t have Absolute Power either.

                1. The answer to “Can the government compel private business to mandate anything the government can’t legally do itself?” is: no.

                  But that’s not the question here. The question is whether the government can legally compel private businesses to mandate vaccination under the OSH Act.

                  1. Ah, but only today did someone other than OSHA decide vaccines are now a health and safety concern…and only for companies with 100+ employees? That makes no medical or safety sense. The OSHA act does NOT give anyone carte blanc, Absolute Power. If it did, coerced seasonal flu shots for everyone to ensure their livelihoods remain intact would be the norm already. But again, you already know that, too.

                1. No, it’s not begging the question. It’s a fact that the government has been mandating things for workplace safety for decades because Congress passed legislation, OSHA, enabling it to do so. If you’re implying that OSHA is unconstitutional, then present an argument for that.

                  1. Government has done a lot of things for long periods of time before it was decided by courts or just people speaking up that it was wrong. Dredd Scott decision and preventing women from voting are just two examples. OSHA’s authority is not absolute. Even less so when it comes to personal medical decisions.

                    1. Reposting to the correct subthread:

                      “Government has done a lot of things for long periods of time before it was decided by courts or just people speaking up that it was wrong.”

                      Morally wrong and unconstitutional are not the same thing. The government has done both. But that doesn’t prove that requiring vaccination is either one (and whether things are morally wrong is a matter of opinion, not fact).

                      “OSHA’s authority is not absolute.”

                      I didn’t say it was, and I agree that it isn’t. It’s still a fact that the government has been mandating things for workplace safety for decades because Congress passed legislation, OSHA, enabling it to do so. Can it mandate that businesses require vaccinations under OSHA? Probably. The executive branch can require vaccination for federal employees directly, as long as it allows certain exemptions.

                  2. Anon– “If you’re implying that OSHA is unconstitutional, then present an argument for that.”
                    ***
                    Professor Hamburger already has but his thesis won’t fit here. Read it for yourself.

                  3. “I[]t’s not begging the question.”

                    When you cite as “evidence” the very conclusion you are trying to prove, that is begging the question.

                    1. Sam– Very true. It’s a known logical fallacy that people often assume means something like “it makes one ask…”

                      But it is no surprise that Anon would throw it out as an nonsense distraction. He does that a lot. Other favorites of his are false dichotomy and false comparison or loaded question or don’t pretend to read my mind followed with accusations of incompetence, or inability to read or dishonesty. As S. Meyer noticed when he is in over his head he
                      quickly diverts to shallow waters.

                    2. I agree. But I wasn’t doing that. Since you think I was, I suggest that you test your belief by quoting both “the very conclusion [I am] trying to prove” and what I “cite as ‘evidence.'”

                      I’ll get you started by quoting the evidence: “the government has been mandating things for workplace safety for decades because Congress passed legislation, OSHA, enabling it to do so.” This is a fact.

                      Now your turn: quote what you think I was trying to prove, and check whether it’s interchangeable with that fact.

                    3. Your premise that a government agency is doing something and has been doing something for a long time doesn’t make the case it should continue or add anything new without questioning it. That narrative falls flat when the president himself says he can’t order people to get vaccinated then turns around and says, but OSHA can. I mentioned that in my last comment – the part you left out – OSHA doesn’t have to authority to demand workers be vaccinated or test negative to the lastest infection any more than the CDC issuing rental moratoriums. Your belief they do does not make it so. Constitutionally, it’s no where near an enumerated power. Ask yourself, what would Adams, Jefferson, or Paine say is the proper roll for the federal government in dealing with private property rights and personal medical issues. Chances are very good they would agree the government has already gone too far eskew by simply being the country’s largest employer.

                      To clarify, if you believe they would agree with the idea any government agency can do whatever it wants (simply because it has in the past) until a Court orders it to stop, you’re surely misguided at best. Your written words indicate as much.

                      If you find your next reply met with silence please don’t confuse it with agreement. Stay safe.

                    4. “Your premise that a government agency is doing something and has been doing something for a long time doesn’t make the case it should continue or add anything new without questioning it.”

                      I didn’t argue that “it should continue or add anything new without questioning it.” Of course it should be questioned: is it legal? is it wise? …

                      This is precisely why I asked Sam to *quote* what he thinks my argument is. If you’re going to pretend that I’m arguing things I haven’t argued, no wonder you mistakenly think I’m begging the question.

                      “OSHA doesn’t have to authority to demand workers be vaccinated or test negative to the lastest infection any more than the CDC issuing rental moratoriums.”

                      That’s a false analogy. OSHA is charged with regulating worker safety, and it’s easy to find commentary in the news with statements like “Lawrence O. Gostin, a Georgetown University law professor who specializes in public health, added, ‘The president’s plan is bold, audacious and unprecedented. But I do think it’s entirely lawful. He’s on extremely strong legal ground.’”

                      “Your belief they do does not make it so.”

                      I agree that my belief doesn’t make it so. Your disbelief doesn’t make it so either. What will make it so is the text of as-yet-unwritten (or at least not-yet-public) regulation — since details matter to constitutionality — in combination with the text of the OSH Act, vis-a-vis the text of the Constitution.

                      “Constitutionally, it’s no where near an enumerated power.”

                      People clearly disagree about that.

                      “Ask yourself, what would Adams, Jefferson, or Paine say is the proper roll for the federal government in dealing with private property rights and personal medical issues.”

                      The text of the Constitution — and the legislation derived under its powers — did not end at our founding. Science and technological advances did not end at our founding. The Founders thought it proper that people could be enslaved and women could be denied the right to vote, their understanding of interstate commerce didn’t involve planes, etc., so I think their beliefs are the wrong place to focus.

                      “if you believe they would agree with the idea any government agency can do whatever it wants (simply because it has in the past) until a Court orders it to stop …”

                      I don’t believe that.

                      I also think that our guesses about their beliefs is the wrong place to focus. Focus on the text of the Constitution, the text of the OSH Act, the text of the regulation (which we do not yet know), the relevant science, and evidence-based reasoning about the constitutionality.

                    5. “But it is no surprise . . .”

                      And incessant, insane, Jesuitical hair-splitting. And pedantry that would make a schoolmarm blush.

                      “[H]e quickly diverts to shallow waters.”

                      Reminds me of that line from Nietzsche:

                      The one who “muddies his waters, in order to make them appear deep.”

                    6. “This is precisely why I asked Sam to *quote* . . .”

                      Why should I bother? You’ll just use some other Sophistical device to evade and deflect.

                      Once a person has proven himself to be intellectual dishonest, further engagement is not only pointless — it’s suicidal.

                    7. “Why should I bother? You’ll just use some other Sophistical device to evade and deflect. Once a person has proven himself to be intellectual dishonest, further engagement is not only pointless — it’s suicidal.”

                      You should bother quoting my argument in order to provide evidence for your claim that I’d engaged in begging the question, because you have a burden of proof for it.

                      Ironically, by assuming that I’d “just use some other Sophistical device to evade and deflect” and implying I’d proven myself “to be intellectual dishonest” — without providing any evidence for either one — and then refusing to provide evidence for your earlier claim, basing it on your new evidenceless assumptions, you are the one who is begging the question.

                      The sophistry is yours.

                    8. “You should bother quoting my argument . . .”

                      Already did (with ellipses). You choose to ignore it, or don’t understand it. (And I have no desire to explain it.)

            2. Casual Observer,

              “ Correct. So the question is now: Can the government compel private business to mandate anything the government can’t legally do itself? ”

              Yes it can. The constitution’s commerce clause gives the government regulating power over businesses. By way of OSHA the government CAN require businesses to require vaccination just as it has before with smallpox and measles.

              1. If it could have been done directly (Joe already admitted it would be illegal and struck down by the courts), they wouldn’t need OSHA to create a new rule. But then again, look who loves authoritarians if she already agrees with them.

          2. “. . . please do explain why . . .”

            Because the Constitution is not a limitation on private action. It’s a limitation on government action, specifically on when the government may use its police powers. A constitutionally limited government can take only those actions that are permitted by its Constitution. There is no clause empowering the government to compel vaccinations, thus doing so is unConstitutional. And arguing that “the Constitution does not prevent” the government is a backwards view of the purpose of our Constitution. (The issue here is government action, not private business action.)

            Incidentally, that some state governments have mandated vaccinations in the past (and upheld by some courts) is not an argument that those actions were Constitutional. It is an appeal to tradition.

            (“TIA” — ?)

            1. “the Constitution is not a limitation on private action.”

              I agree. I never suggested that it is, so that doesn’t address your claim that I “have a backwards view of the nature and purpose of our Constitution.”

              “It’s a limitation on government action”

              In part, yes. (I say “in part,” because some of the Constitution is not trying to limit the government’s actions but is instead delineating the branches and their powers.) I already said as much by noting “the Constitution generally protects our rights by proscribing certain actions by the government.” So once again, this doesn’t address your claim that I “have a backwards view of the nature and purpose of our Constitution.”

              “A constitutionally limited government can take only those actions that are permitted by its Constitution.”

              We agree there too.

              “There is no clause empowering the government to compel vaccinations, thus doing so is unConstitutional.”

              The Constitution doesn’t mention “vaccinations,” but as you often note, if someone expects the Constitution to enumerate all possible concerns, that person has a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution. The question is whether the text empowers requirements for federal employees and legislation like the Public Health Service Act and the Occupational Safety and Health Act. If you’re arguing that those are unconstitutional, the onus is on you to explain why. The Spending, Commerce, and Necessary and Proper clauses are all relevant to those laws, and the Executive can regulate to ensure safety for the federal workforce.

              “arguing that “the Constitution does not prevent” the government is a backwards view of the purpose of our Constitution.”

              I disagree. You and I agree that the Constitution is in part “a limitation on government action.” For you, how is the question of whether the Constitution prevents some government action different from how it limits government action?

              “that some state governments have mandated vaccinations in the past (and upheld by some courts) is not an argument that those actions were Constitutional”

              Court opinions are arguments about constitutionality. One may think that the court’s opinion is wrong (as I do in Dred Scott), but if the court’s opinions aren’t arguments that specified actions are constitutional, then whose opinions are?

              TIA = Thanks In Advance

              1. “[I]f someone expects the Constitution to enumerate all possible concerns . . .”

                That is an imprecise and overly broad characterization of what I wrote. And it is an inaccurate view of the purpose of our Constitution.

                What I wrote (and what is accurate) is that the Constitution does not enumerate all of a *private* citizen’s choices and actions. It is supposed to enumerate all of the actions that *government* is permitted to take.

                1. “it is an inaccurate view of the purpose of our Constitution.”

                  I agree, and I already said so: IF someone expects the Constitution to enumerate all possible concerns, THEN that person has a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution.

                  “It is supposed to enumerate all of the actions that *government* is permitted to take.”

                  But it mostly does so via very general clauses, such as the Spending, Commerce, and Necessary and Proper clauses. It would be incorrect to think that mandating vaccination is proscribed solely because the word “vaccination” doesn’t appear. The issue is whether mandating vaccination falls under the powers that are enumerated.

  15. We t in dumb.
    Come out dumb too.
    Hustling round Miami in their alligator shoes.
    Get covid on the weekend at the barbeque.
    They’re dying and maybe that’s a good sound.

  16. Why can’t journalist just put two and two together. A mild virus created by the USA outsourced to China, marketed and propagandized by the five eyes and their little brother, UN, WEF and failed EU to bring down the world to cover for 60 years of absurd regulatory self interested action. Funded and indemnified their partner on crime, big Pharma and media to create a vaccine that will destroy mankind and enforced by unconstitutional and and low IQ government and low moral losers like Fauci, CDC, FDA, OSHA (for God’s sake) and Biden, Gates, Obama, Harris, Pelosi, Newsome, Cuomo, Xi, Schwab, Fink, and Kerry? Have eyes but cannot see. Hell will be hot for all of you.

  17. “I’ve made up my mind, don’t confuse me with the facts.”
    The blade cuts both ways and there is ample irrationality on both sides of the argument regarding having or not having the vaccination. The evidence strongly suggest that symptoms, hospitalizations, and mortality are greatly reduced in those who have been vaccinated.

    Dr. Kheriaty brings up a good point. The human immune system is a complex and beautifully designed. It will be interesting in the years to come to compare the long-range immunity of those who have recovered from COVID naturally compared to those who have had a vaccine. What should be done now? Evidence cannot be swept under the rug if it does not fit a political narrative.

    Little is written about the unintended consequences from COVID panic and government mandates that shut down elective surgeries and ongoing medical treatment in the first few months of the pandemic. Now, clinics, hospitals, operating rooms and the entire medical system is overwhelmed by patients who put off care, many now presenting with advanced disease because of this disruption or for being more scared of getting COVID than being treated for their medical conditions (cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc.).

    I carefully read the daily reports in our area and the larger majority of COVID deaths are in older individuals and the larger majority have “underlying conditions.” Who is addressing the underlying conditions? It is well and good to do what is necessary to diminish the impact of the pandemic, but it is expedient that medical and government “experts” look beyond simple metrics. There has been much lost in the past 18 months, most of all our sanity.

    1. “Who is addressing the underlying conditions?”

      PCPs should be addressing them with their patients. As a society, we’d also do well to look at societal decisions that would help treat them, such as subsidizing fruits and vegetables instead of subsidizing dairy and meat, subsidizing membership at community fitness centers for those who are low income (my county does this), …

      1. In other words, throw more money at it. It is a societal problem, but a food problem. Do you really think the people who are most at risk for obesity are going to trot down to the gym to workout if the membership if free much less subsidized? Of course not. We have a system whereby Big Food makes people sick with the industrialized caca they pass off as food and is deceptively marketed and Big Pharma sells pills to treat those lifestyle-induced illnesses.

    2. Natural immunity gained from first exposure only lasts so long before needing a booster at the very least. Given that the majority of people were already infected by the alpha variant before the vaccines became available it is obvious that immunity from the delta variant was not assured. This of why there are people still getting infected.

      Natural immunity lasts according to the latest studies at a minimum of 8 months. The majority of people who first got sick with the first variant are well past that point now. This of why we are seeing delta which is more infectious spread more rapidly.

      Getting the vaccine is a better alternative than getting sick again as evidenced by the huge numbers of hospitalizations.

      1. Natural immunity occurs through both memory (e.g. cross-reactive) and antibodies that have been clinically determined to be more comprehensive (e.g. sterilizing) and durable than vaccine-induced immunity. Also, there is a conditional risk of infection and disease progression vs the absolute risk of the vaccines, not limited to the pathogenic spike protein.

        That said, unlike the victims of planned parent/hood, the general population is not a captive audience of babies and seniors.

        1. In 2002, I traveled to a specific 3d world country where several vaccinations were required (i.e. among them ebola which has a 50% mortality rate). The MD specially checked for antibodies to determine which vaccines were needed and others which were not. Didn’t receive vaccines for those which I possessed antibodies. This has little to do with “public health”.

          Vaccine nazis, please contact me after you’ve had your 15th booster shot (if still around to do so).

          Maybe I can get an exemption since I’m Hispanic, member of a recognized victim group and cannot spread cornona virus.

          antonio

  18. Whatever one’s thoughts on the vaccine and/or mandatory vaccination, I am sure it will lead to increased national unity and morale. What could possibly go wrong with forcing half the population to engage in something they vehemently oppose? Especially with a “leaky vaccine” for a virus that is constantly mutating. We probably aren’t going to vaxx our way out of this down to covid zero.

    Unfortunately, leftists could care less about “national unity or morale”. They hate us anyway and want to discredit and destroy those who oppose them whether on this, CRT, open borders, opinions about BLM, etc.

    The vaccination controversy is just another sign that the country is Balkanized and hopeless disunited.

    I want a divorce.

    antonio

    1. I’m force to do that daily as my tax dollars support, among other things, fanatical churches; billionaires and their space flights; corrupt politicians and their families e.g. Mitch MCCONNELL. Each and every day I have to watch as Republicans do more and more to destroy our country and rack up deaths while claiming to be pro life. This is a public health move. Most if not all of the right wing politicians who are stoking this fire have been vaccinated! Fox News has mandated vaccinations.

      1. For every item you list as being part of the Republican boogeyman, I can list even more for Democrats. For example, using taxpayer funds for PBS (a leftist tool if I ever saw one), Planned Parenthood, and too many other to measure. You write as if you are part of the last decade/century. I see no “fanatical churches” other than BLM, Antifa, and other organized thugs that are continually financed by taxpayers as well as corrupt corporations.

      2. “Fox News has mandated vaccinations.”

        That private businesses do something (e.g., require vaccinations), therefore the government can do it — reveals a woeful ignorance about the nature and purpose of government.

    2. Antonio,

      “ Especially with a “leaky vaccine” for a virus that is constantly mutating. We probably aren’t going to vaxx our way out of this down to covid zero.”

      The very reason why we have a mutating virus is because it’s being propagated by the very people who are refusing to get vaccinated and spreading it to others. It’s the unvaccinated that are creating the problem. Those who are vaccinated and getting sick are only getting infected BECAUSE the unvaccinated are carrying it around and filling up hospitals and UCU’s.

      It’s the same thing with refusing to mask up. Those who are refusing to wear a mask are the ones spreading the virus and the more it spreads the more chances for it to mutate into a vaccine resistant variant.

      This is why it’s important to have as many people vaccinated and wear masks. To deny the virus any opportunity to mutate and spread.

      Biden’s National vaccine mandate is constitutional and it will benefit everyone in the long run.

      1. Actually no. There are two forms of immunity: Mucosal and Internal. Vaccines in general only confer internal immunity, which natural immunity confers both internal and mucosal immunity. That is why vaccinated individuals can still carry a viral load large enough to infect others. While their internal organs and tissues have antibodies their mucosal membranes do not

        This is why if you are low risk it is always better to have obtained natural immunity through infection and recovery than through immunization.

        BTW: no amount of vaccination or compliance is going to eliminate this because unlike smallpox or polio, for example, it has been proven COVID will live in animal hosts and you can’t obviously vaccinate every living thing on the planet.

      2. “The very reason why we have a mutating virus is because it’s being propagated by the very people who are refusing to get vaccinated . . .”

        A virus does not mutate to avoid the defenses of a vaccine?

        That is science illiteracy.

        1. Sam,

          “ A virus does not mutate to avoid the defenses of a vaccine?”

          No Sam, a virus mutates to ADAPT to the body’s new defenses. It adapts to survive. That’s science literacy.

          That’s why we have anti biotic resistant bacteria. It adapted to the anti bacterial remedies because we are using too much of anti bacterial products.

        2. No, mutations occur randomly, and are then selected if they confer an advantage. IF a mutation allowed the virus to “avoid the defenses of a vaccine [sic]” (these are the body’s own defenses), THEN it would confer an advantage, as long as it also didn’t have significant disadvantages, such as speeding up death of the host to the point of preventing it from being spread. BUT you cannot assume that the antecedent clause is true in that IF-THEN.

      3. “Biden’s National vaccine mandate is” tyrannical.

        If someone tries to force a needle into my arm, and it will be the last action he takes on this Earth.

        Now we will see if Americans still have enough self-assertion for civil disobedience.

    3. Leftists only care about COMPLIANCE and CONFORMITY and could care less on how they get there.

      And besides it is for their own good, right? Kind of like spreading “democracy” to primitive, 3d world countries. America has a great track record with that.

      antonio

  19. How many examples do we need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that all this pandemic horseshit is not about science or health, but simply about CONTROL?

    1. Does over 600k dead Americans show otherwise?! How many more deaths does to take to show that the opposition to covid measures is about narcissism?

        1. It’s not just narcissism, but just plain stupidity.

          You have these people refusing to take the vaccine because it was experimental or not approved. But they readily accept the idea of taking horse deworming medicine without a care in the world of what’s in it. It’s not even approved for treating COVID-19.

          The human doses have not been shown to be effective as a treatment for covid outside of a test tube.

          Monoclonal antibodies are approved under the same emergency use authorization that the COVID vaccine was. People were hesitant exactly because of this status, but many readily take this as an alternative to the vaccine. The problem is it is only used AFTER you get infected and are seriously sick. The vaccine prevents the majority people from getting that far.

          Seriously, I can understand the president’s change of policies due to the sheer stupidity of those who are being so ignorant about how we can best deal with this. I don’t blame him from finally making a National mandate thru OSHA.

          1. Nigeria and the Congo make up 54% of cases of malaria and yet have .09% and .24% of their population with covid cases. The U.S. has 12.36% of their population with covid cases. I’ll let you connect the dots.

            1. It’s not just Africa, there is clinical evidence and signal diversity that crosses national, geographical, and climate borders that indicates early therapeutic treatments and natural immunity, past and present, produce superior outcomes. That said, we should close and end planned parent/hood facilities and practices. A focused, rational plan reduces excess deaths and collateral damage.

          2. What BS spews from Svalez keyboard. There was Noble Prize for the so-called deworming medicine. Your ignorance overflows.

        1. -Prairie Rose,
          That right there.
          No one talks about a well balanced diet, exercise, getting fresh air out doors!
          Saw a article about a teenage girl who had COVID and was hospitalized.
          Her mother kept insisting the girl was healthy. She was grossly obese! Like 5’6″ and 200 pounds!

          How about instead of vaccines, we take command of our health? Eat minimally processed foods or whole foods? Exercise daily. Get our weight down to healthy levels.
          The USA is first in a number of things to include, per-Prairie Rose, “. . . co-morbidities and lousy diets and sedentary, indoor lifestyles.”

          I know, I know. No money to be made by the insurance companies, Big Pharma, Big Ag, fast food, the sugar industry and all those lobbying groups with that kind of program.

          1. UpstateFarmer,
            “Her mother kept insisting the girl was healthy. She was grossly obese! Like 5’6″ and 200 pounds!”

            Yep, there are aggravating doctors out there who tell people they are healthy when they are overweight or obese or that, despite being sedentary and obese that when they get diagnosed with Type II diabetes that it isn’t their fault!

            Or: Your bloodwork looks great! (Nevermind about your obesity, hypertension, and atrial fibrillation.)

        1. We need to take the high road and have the strongest arguments. I am concerned that sort of retort, while perhaps cathartic, will only entrench people with opposing perspectives.

          Peace.

          1. Normally I’d agree with your comment…

            But the folks on the other side of these arguments, generally, don’t seem interested in facts and logic.

      1. Planned parent/hood, vaccines that increase personal risk and community exposure, masks that convey a false sense of safety, immigration reform (i.e. external carriers), and denying and stigmatizing early, effective, affordable treatments and threatening to cancel medical providers… and collateral damage.

    2. I know. Infinite – because you are stuck in a country that has brain dead cowards as it population. This con was obvious in the first month. This is just the next phase of control over the sheep by low IQ stooges in government or academia who could never hack in the real world. This inferiority complex tools are hell as a group as they pay back the world for their psychopathy.

      1. People working in academia have higher average IQs than the general population, and schools and government are part of the real world.

        1. Anonymous says:
          September 10, 2021 at 10:30 AM

          “People working in academia have higher average IQs than the general population, and schools and government are part of the real world. ”

          That can’t be the case they have higher IQs since so many were so stupid as to willingly take these Experimental Gene Therapy Inoculations.

          They Flunked that IQ test.

          Just read/listen to some of the subject matter experts I’ve reposted here.

        2. Don’t confuse intelligence with a propensity to make ethical, wise, or kind decisions. After all, some of the most terrible people who ever lived were highly intelligent – Nazi Dr Mengele, Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, Harry Harlow torturing baby monkeys in a Pit of Despair…

          Intelligent people have made very stupid, cruel, and thoughtless decisions for centuries.

          What academics often lack is common sense and real world experience.

          1. One should also consider that there are many make-work departments and soft sciences in academia today. For example, Dr Mireille Miller-Young of UCSB specializes in black porn and prostitution. Her “groundbreaking” book on black porn was titled, A Taste of Brown Sugar.

            Don’t overestimate the higher reasoning skills of academics simply because of their work address.

            1. Not to mention ‘intellects’ complete lack of empathy for those who just aren’t good enough to be one of them.

          2. “Don’t confuse intelligence with a propensity to make ethical, wise, or kind decisions”

            I’m not.

            Simply pointing out that the IQ argument was wrong.

            “What academics often lack is common sense and real world experience.”

            Academia is PART of the real world. The average academic has as much “common sense and real world experience” as the average person.

Leave a Reply