Is the “Workaround” Working? Federal Judge Enjoins Another Biden Mandate in Texas

The Supreme Court is preparing for arguments on January 7th in three cases looking at the legality of the vaccine mandate issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Courts have split on what White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain admits was a “workaround” of the limits on the President’s authority. Lower courts, however, are still adding potential mandate cases for expedited consideration. On New Year’s Eve, Judge James “Wesley” Hendrix of the U.S. District Court Northern District of Texas enjoined the mandate issued under the Head Start programs by the Biden administration. The opinion follows the same general analysis as many of the prior cases in finding that this “workaround” will not work.

Like the OSHA rule, the new rules under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services were put through quickly and without a “notice and comment” period of review. The rules also are unprecedented in their claim of authority to use this program to effectively implement a national vaccine mandate. It requires not just masks for children over the age of 2 but requires staff, contractors and volunteers in the program to be vaccinated by the end of January.

Judge Hendrix found that “there is a substantial likelihood that the mandates do not fit within the Head Start Act’s authorizing text, that HHS failed to follow the APA in promulgating the mandates and that the mandates are arbitrary and capricious,” and stated that it “preliminarily enjoins their enforcement in Texas.”

What is most notable about these cases is that they focus on the Chevron Doctrine, a doctrine affording agencies great deference in their interpretations and policies. Judge Hendrix found that “the plain language of defendants’ cited authority, the statutory context, and the existing regulations all confirm that the Secretary’s interpretation of ‘performance standards’ is not a permissible construction of the statute. The Court finds that plaintiffs are substantially likely to succeed on their claim that defendants exceeded their statutory authority.”

I have long been a critic of Chevron over its expansion of agency authority. The law is reflective of a dangerous trend in our government with the rise of federal agencies. Federal agencies have become a virtual fourth branch of government and that is one too many in our tripartite system. Agencies have gradually assumed greater authority and independence in the governance of the country, including the expanding role of agencies in resolving political and social controversies.

The vaccine mandates of the Biden Administration have created a target rich environment for justices who want to curtail Chevron, which will make the Jan. 7 arguments particularly interesting.

Here is the opinion: Texas v. Beccera


85 thoughts on “Is the “Workaround” Working? Federal Judge Enjoins Another Biden Mandate in Texas”

  1. Official State of North Carolina Covid Hospitalization data…..Severity Trend….sharp decline as is supposed to be typical of the latest variant of Covid.

    About 30% of Ventilators in use.

    Plenty of ICU and Standard Hospital Rooms available. Note…..several of the large hospital chains are firing hundreds of un-vaccinated healthcare workers….which has a direct effect upon the unstaffed number.

    Where is the crisis Doctor Falsie and President Biden?

    The data indicts your dire warnings.

  2. Congress has no power to regulate anything other than the value of money, the “flow” of commerce among the States, and land and naval Forces.

    Congress has no power to regulate through OSHA or HHS, both of which are illicit and unconstitutional.

    Congress is provided no power to effect any form or fashion of fraudulent “work around”; Congressmen commit crimes of high office when doing so.

    Congress is “…not to do anything they please…,” per Thomas Jefferson below.

    The executive branch has no power to mandate or, otherwise, dictate through the eminently unconstitutional OSHA and/or HHS.

    Please avail yourselves of the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution below.

    “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts

    or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”

    – Thomas Jefferson

    Article I, 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 borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

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

    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

    To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

    To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    To provide and maintain a Navy;

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

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

    1. Are these the cases coming up on Jan7 about the EUA Experimental mRNA Gene Therapy Jabs in which the Supreme Court must decide whither or not the Individual has full Autonomy over their own body or does the court decide that this is an Authoritarian State with absolute control over what can/will be injected, medicated, feed into any Individuals body?

      If they decide with the later I believe it will open the doors for complete lawlessness, for anyone to use what means necessary to defend themselves & families.

      I hear on Jan 15 that the EUA expires on these Experimental mRNA Gene Therapy Jabs unless the EUA is renewed. Big Pharma doesn’t give a damn if we use the Harvard # of 2 million killed by these Jabs so far or the Columbia # of around 176000 dead, and of course all the millions permanently damaged. Big Pharma is just after the Power which leads them to also the money. Is it Thanks In Advance from the Globalist Corporation Again Amy Coney Barrett?

      Have people here been keeping up with Twitter & all the other Big Corporations Banning anyone who speaks their mind on subjects?

      1. Exactly….on 7 Jan we hear our govt argue against us. 7 Jan will be the “end of we the people”. We’ve heard them argue before about our rights…..this is different….now they Rgue against us as people with body Iintegrity. On 7 Jan our govt declares war on we as. Our own person.

        1. 176000 killed by the Experimental mRNA Jab so far to August of 21 in the US was Columbia’s top line number. I don’t know if Columbia has a number of the estimated permanently injured yet?

          Fauci Sings:


          January 1, 2022 American Thought Leaders
          PART 2: Dr. Peter McCullough on Omicron Realities and VAERS Reports on Vaccine Injuries and Deaths
          American Thought Leaders
          American Thought Leaders

          JAN JEKIELEK

          Previously, in part one of our interview with Dr. Peter McCullough, an internist, cardiologist, and epidemiologist, we discussed the full body of evidence on COVID-19 treatment, including a preventative method that may have stamped out COVID-19 in Bangladesh. McCullough was the principal author of the first paper on early COVID-19 outpatient treatment involving multidrug regimens.

          Related Coverage
          PART 2: Dr. Peter McCullough on Omicron Realities and VAERS Reports on Vaccine Injuries and DeathsPART 1: Dr. Peter McCullough—The Inexplicable Suppression of Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, and Other COVID-19 Treatments

          Now in part two of our interview [Part 1 can be found HERE], we discuss Omicron, why asymptomatic transmission is exceedingly rare, and what McCullough is seeing in the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). How accurate is the VAERS system and how many reports of injury or death are directly attributable to the COVID-19 vaccines?

  3. That’s right, Turley, encourage the disciples to keep resisting vaccination. The reason for the ruling was the language creating the Head Start Program, which the judge held did not allow for a vaccine mandate—NOT that vaccines cannot be mandated, which they have been before, or whether it would be a good thing to mandate vaccines, which it would be. But, as usual, the reason gets lost while you tout the outcome as some sort of “victory’ for the “Don’t Tread on Me” disciples. All the disciples know is that a mandate was struck down. Just look at the posts here–they don’t understand the narrow reasoning, which you well know, and which runs counter to prevailing law providing for extreme deference to agency decisions. This is why your credentials are being rented by Fox–to lend credence to resistance to vaccines and mask-wearing. Of course, all of this is politically-motivated, which, if you were intellectually honest (which we know you are not) is calculated to make it appear that the Biden Administration is running amok and issuing requirements for vaccination that are contrary to law. Until COVID is brought under control, the economy will not fully recover, another political goal of the ReTrumplican Party and its enablers, one of which is your employer to work as a set-off to Trump’s utter incompetence and blowing the successful economy he inherited. Meanwhile, the unvaccinated continue to overwhelm hospitals and many die unnecessarily. But, unemployment is the lowest it has been in the past 50 years. Of course, your employer claims that the Biden Administration has done nothing, ignoring the historic unemployment statistic and the historic bipartisan infrastructure bill that Trump failed to get passed. But, your assignment is to criticize Biden and Democrats, so you ignore these things, too and focus on a ruling striking down the Head Start program vaccine mandate.

    The reason the well-predicted surge we are suffering through right now is resistance to vaccines and wearing of masks, and you are helping to foster this, which has resulted in people needlessly dying. What you are doing is wrong, Turley. Do you feel good about your work, Turley?

    1. Nothing like repeated ad hominin’s and disrespectful naming to point out a weak position; unless it’s deriding a desire for freedom. That’s always the best test of a vapid authoritarian. Thanks for making it obvious.

    2. You are an idiot. Covid has a 99.99 survival rate. The most only ppl it kills are ppl who aLready have a dnr. Not sure where you live but most the country has been open since last summer. Stop milking it and live with it. Most we the people will take the risk. If it gets me….weII x would have….but I’m not going to gene therapy my kids over it. I know I’m mortal. God has givan me thus far and owes me no more. Lady you need to look your fear in the eye….the only threat to you is yourself….your afraid to die….so you want to control everyone else….which won’t make a shifting lick of difference. In the end to you.

    3. I don’t know who this Turley is, just happened to find an article on a search about a subject I was keen on… so try to take what I’m about to say with a dash of humility, without leaping to such things as lumping me with the so-called “disciples” you speak of, since, after all, you can make no reasonable assumptions about my political predilections from the information I’ll have given you… whereas, you have laid pretty bare your political presumptions and moral attitude. I would dare say, what you are doing is wrong. There are numerous flaws in your reasoning, which I’m sure if I listed them alone you would dismiss with the absurdist retort of “truth trumping logic”, or else a flavor of “what, don’t you care about what your actions bring down on others?” So I’ll do you one better. I’ll articulate the flaws in your reasoning for your consideration, whether you care for logic or only emotional outbursts in an anonymous online forum, and then moreover, I will give you some historical context from expert sources—experts you would be forced to admit by your own standards to have the final say—to show you just how reasonable it in fact is to be skeptical of where we are being led as a society at present.

      Have you ever heard of regulatory capture? If not, why not read up on it:
      You’ll find it riveting, I’m sure. So: let’s say that you just happen—POSSIBLY—to live in a corrupt, nepotistical society that has an entrenched financial and political elite who themselves, or their ancestors all championed the cause of eugenics—the same eugenics that went on to inspire Nazi Germany’s human experimentation and “racial hygiene” programs which resulted in the deaths of so many millions: in both cases, done in the name of “keeping pure the gene pool, and maintaining a fit society.” Did you know that the first person to be legally sterilized in the US was a woman who had been raped by her uncle, and was falsely accused of being mentally handicapped, and denied proper legal counsel, and both she and the child she was forced to bear were both sterilized and shut up in an insane asylum? With me? That’s our starting point. Not the fairy tale version of history, but the real, ugly and bitter reality that undergirds the fantasy we all like to pretend about for 15 minutes out of every day so that someone else will have a good opinion about whether we said the right thing, or were concerned with the most up-to-date correct ways of thinking. Are you aware that, for example, you can find quotes of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, in which she explicitly talks about sterilizing black people, referring to them as “black weeds?” But Planned Parenthood is only interested in making sure that you practice safe sex, trust me. Nothing more.

      So in this environment of complete and utter corruption of the moral fabric of society, you want to go and make a fallacious argument in a public forum, and waste your time, and everyone else’s in the millionth repetition of a very tired and pointless discussion… about whether this one blogger in one tiny corner of the internet is upholding his moral obligation to society to blow loud the horn of “CONVID THIS”; “CONVID THAT”; “BE AFRAID”… I’ve just got to ask… do you know what planet you’re living on, or what period of history even? Have you actually read any of the CDC’s internal documents or public statements? The FDA? What about the NIH? Do you know about the gross inaccuracy of the Imperial College of London’s computer models which overestimated the lethality of the virus by a factor of 15, and how those same computer models, even when shown to be so grossly inaccurate, were nonetheless cited to justify in the US and the UK intermittent economy crippling lockdowns? If you are entirely unfamiliar with any of the hard scientific literature… whether to do with the statistical anomalies in the data, the historical precedent of scam pandemics (the swine flu of 1976 comes to mind: 60 Minutes special), the contradictions in the government’s own statements over the past two years (“two weeks to slow the spread”; “safe and effective”; “no adverse side-effects”; “tests that work”) and now I hear every other day on the news: “we’re going to learn to live with this virus.” If you don’t think that all I’ve written in this is factual, then I suggest you do your own research point by point with an unbiased search engine, like duckduckgo, and see if you can’t find that everything I’ve written is based on historical fact. If you’re brave enough to deep dive into a pool that would completely contradict everything you now think, and might drive you mad to come to terms with, then by all means: do your own research. The alternative is living contentedly in a totalitarian society that views you as less than an animal, and will lie to you today, and tomorrow convince you they never said anything at all.

  4. General comment to all: as I posted under today’s other “hot topic” (inappropriate political influence), I am sitting here watching KY-IA game and reading through comments on the good professor’s blog and I want to THANK all (even those with whom I may respectfully disagree) for the stimulating opinions, discussions, and sometime persuasions. Here’s to a good 2022!

  5. Just as an aside: Why is Biden so nonchalant about the therapeutics that are being developed? His myopia regarding the vaccine and only the vaccine will result in some people actually dying needlessly. The FDA just okayed the “miracle pills” that will save thousands of lives, but they won’t be ready for mass distribution for many months. If Biden (his people really) would have instituted am “operation warp speed” for the pills they would be ready to go right now. Trump, who everyone calls ignorant, had millions of vaccines ready to go the minute they got the FDA ok and it saved hundreds of thousands of lives, but Biden is as usual asleep at the switch.

    I would rather be forced to read a nasty tweet or two with the knowledge that my local CVS has life saving pills ready for me if I get a bad covid infection. But hey, that’s just me.

    As for the issue at hand: The agencies have TOO MUCH POWER and little leftists like to use them as “work arounds” because the public hates their policies. The Eviction Moratorium was a classic example of this creeping socialism that VOTERS will not go for.

    1. hullbobby: It is reported that Pfizer made more massive $$$$ comtributions to Biden’s presidential campaign than any other pharm. (was there also something about the friendship between Pfizer’s CEO and biden?) and Pfizer vaccines have dominated media coverage (compared to the equally-competitive/effective) Moderna)… Pfizer is not the developer of molnupiravir (the potential “miracle pill”)….That said (and unsaid), prevention is always better than Tx.

    2. To the extent therapeutics are effective the vaccines will tend to fall in importance. US public health authorities have promoted the development and use of vaccines from the beginning. This focus helps explain the attack on those advocating some repurposed drugs such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, and the relative lack of interest in fluvoxamine. The absence of definitive randomised controlled tests was for the first time ever considered a reason to prevent doctors from using their best clinical judgment to prescribe off-label medication. It is hard to know why this was done. It could be that these authorities are serving the interests of the pharmaceutical companies who fund them and employ them when they retire, and who would not profit from the use of repurposed off-patent treatments.

      1. (…Well, vaccines are intended to prevent or reduce viral/antigen variants and quickly create acquired immunological response, whereas therapeutics generally address/treat the damage already done. Notwithstanding, I agree that the need for vaccine may begin to “fall in importance” and may in fact stimulate vaccine resistance, i.e., the “now that there is a cure, I’ll take my chances” mentality.

        1. Lin, we are open to both natural infections and ones created by our enemies. A good thing that happened ( a plus for Trump) was that we could speed up the production of new vaccines. However, there is a time lag. Therapeutics might work across an entire series of viral infections, so they are essential to the nation. They can function before a vaccine can be created and taken.

          1. (Sorry, S. Meyer–I was writing my 8:03 comment while yours to me was being posted. I don’t think we disagree, -perhaps more an issue of semantics,-as the general meaning of “therapeutic” is therapy, i.e., treatment or REMEDIAL action for illness/damage already done, -whereas “vaccine” refers to prevention (or at least reduction). (I was a med student before I dropped out and went to law school–I kept getting faint during clinical things and autopsies, ha ha!) So, you are correct that “therapeutics” can keep a variant at bay until a vaccine is developed. See my 8:03 comment, and thanks

          2. (To S. Meyer and Young: This is response to your (Meyer) 10:29 comment about Young’s understanding of therapeutics/antibiotics). Erythromycin is a macrolytic antibiotic that is bacteriostatic, not bacteriocidal, which is why it produced the effect it did with your strep throat. Antibiotics can be metaphylactic, prophylactic, or curative. Metaphylactic antibiotics control the reproduction/growth–and, as you mention, give the body time to effect immunological response. Thanks.

            1. “Erythromycin is a macrolytic antibiotic that is bacteriostatic, not bacteriocidal”

              Lin, note that where sensitivity exists, those taking Erythromycin generally survive even though it is only’ static’ and not ‘cidal’. The antibiotic provides breathing space.

              One of the lead researchers who spearheaded leukemia research trials on patients wrote a book. (it would be good for some to read so they can compare how we handled Covid vs. how real researchers dealt with a real disease and scored huge victories.) One of the things some of the treatments required was wiping out the bone marrow. If the poor soul so happened to get a bacterial infection, all the antibiotics in the world couldn’t cure him. The only hope would be for his immune system to rebound and fight the infection. The antibiotics only provided time.

              1. S. Meyer:Thanks for response, my brain is effete from trying to understand what you or Young were disagreeing with me on. The chain started when Young took exception to me saying that “therapeutics generally address/treat the damage already done.” He replied “Not true. Therapeutics can stop the progress of disease before it causes GREATER DAMAGE” (emphasis mine, for what appears to be a “checkmate” choice of words…). Actually, my original statement is/was true. The medical definition of “therapeutics” is “medical treatment of disease.” Most telling is that In my original comment, I added “address” AND treat,-something apparently not grasped…Then he responded (11:50) with, “Thinking that vaccines or treatments heal damage already done…is dangerously misleading.” ?????? Then you jumped in and agreed with him that antibiotics only provided support. I agreed with you that this is what erythromycin did for your strep, but I distinguished three types of antibiotic effects/purposes–and please note that in THREE of my comments (even BEFORE you jumped in), I had already mentioned “giving the body time to effect immunological response,” Sooo..were you disagreeing, or just preaching to the choir? I’m.still not sure what all the hullaballoo(sp?) was about, but it is such an offshoot/divergent from the blog topic, I am done with it. I do not believe I have ever disagreed with you or corrected you, it’s a new year, let’s move on, and thanks for your good contributions to this blog site.

                1. Lin, no problem. We are all on the same page.

                  I note how the leftists on the blog don’t recognize Trump’s contribution, speed. They are ignorant, especially ATS, who was saying Trump didn’t have vaccines in a specified quantity for the sole purpose of criticizing Trump. ATS is a dummy because Trump pushed vaccine production to speeds few believed could occur. He let private business function, and vaccinations started a couple of days after approval. Biden criticized Trump in all ways possible, and then he and Kamala made the country afraid of the vaccine.

                  Compare that to Biden, who had the vaccines available but didn’t push therapeutics and prevented the use of drugs that other countries used to save lives. Anonymous the Stupid will point to Trump and say he failed when he succeeded where others would have failed. Where is Biden’s therapeutics? They are slowly inching their way into use while people die.

                  The left is whacko and ignorant.

              2. S. Meyer,

                Do you recall the title of the book by the leukemia researcher? I think I would like to read it. I enjoy books on the history and techniques of science, have done since I was a kid and read Microbe Hunters and Gods, Graves and Scholars. A few years ago I enjoyed Barry’s The Great Influenza and Rudwick’s The Great Devonian Controversy, and many others besides. And I worked as a tech in a research lab while in undergrad. Like me you worried about burning down your house by accident when you were young and experimenting. You probably recognized my burn account as part of my incident. Your hands-on experience with nature shows through in the clarity and rationality of your comments which I enjoy. Happy New Year.

                1. Sorry, Young, I don’t remember the name of the book. It was a long time ago. I was familiar with what was happening at the time and how they organized research at multiple hospitals with continuous revisions of the drugs and the timing while different hospitals used different protocols assigned to them. I don’t remember if I scanned or read the book, so if you find it let me know as I might want to take another glance at it. Who doesn’t remember Microbe Hunters?

                  Thanks for your lovely comment to me. Yes, I almost burned down my friend’s home, but I had fun and learned a lot. When I deal with the young ones, I take all precautions, including goggles, no matter what we plan. I have a lot of instruments at my home, and I like playing with them using microscopes and scientific scales. I used to go to flea markets to collect things that I had never seen and touched. I brought an early vacuum cleaner to my housekeeper to use, and she quit. 🙂 It wasn’t electric. One had to manually pump the vacuum cleaner for it to work.

                  1. I am careful with the young folks as well, in particular about not explaining how I did some things. My thought is that if you want to kill yourself with experiments you need to be smart enough to figure out how to do them on your own.

                    A lot of the old stuff I have seen and touched. When I was very young we had an actual icebox. The iceman came every so often and shoved a big block of ice in the lower compartment. Milk and butter and meat was squeezed into the upper half. I would like to get my hands on a classic lab balance with weights, the kind in a nicely crafted wooden case. I used one for quantitative analysis class until the new-fangled electronic balances arrived midterm. It didn’t occur then that I was seeing the end of an era. A few years later electronic calculators showed up and banished slide rules. Then came computers. My aunt said she thought they were just a fad and nobody would bother with them after a couple of years. It seems to be taking longer than that.

                    1. “I would like to get my hands on a classic lab balance with weights,”

                      Young, I have a couple of those that measures weight so accurately that measurements take place with the doors closed to prevent air currents along with levelers and the like. My wife and I used to collect junk. Now a lot of it has value. The jewelry she bought for 25 cents is now worth hundreds. Why? I do not know, except we cannot produce beautiful handmade things anymore at a price most people are willing to pay. I show people a fluter and ask them what it is for. No one even knows that it was to iron the pleats for cuffs and collars worn in the past. We used to use all this stuff as decoration and still use the old tube radio. We have gotten rid of a lot as we don’t have the same interests. Today I am more interested in art, especially art that requires skills few if any have today.

                    2. S. Meyer,

                      Nice that you have a couple of classic lab balances. They are works of precision and art and beauty. I remember that we had to slide the glass door shut to prevent any breeze or convection currents from messing with the final measurement. Of course, if the sample being weighed was not at room temperature it had to rest under a bell jar with controlled humidity until it reached room temperature–but that is true with modern, electronic balances as well. They were very, very precise if used properly. I, too, have an old radio with radio tubes that still works.

                      I would like sometime to see, but not own, an example of the device Henry Cavendish used to measure the attraction between masses. That was a wonderful and precise experiment for the time and, in fact, for any time.

                    3. Young, that would be a great machine for you to put in a room you are not using. At last my desires could be shelved or placed on walls.

                      How did you become a lawyer with such interests?

          3. (p.s., if either of you are physicians or pharmacists, please correct me if I am wrong, and I will acknowledge, thanks)

        2. ( of course I add that therapeutics (e,g., hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin) (like antibiotics) can both prevent/control (by killing or disabling variants), which manifest as “treatment” for /the damage they cause, creating some crossover effect with vaccines. However, to my knowledge, therapeutics generally do not stimulate an acquired immunity. I’d rather have a tetanus booster than rely on treatment…But to bring your posit to the forefront, I agree with your scenario or reasons for therapeutic delays)

        3. Lin: “therapeutics generally address/treat the damage already done. ”


          Not true. Therapeutics can stop the progress of a disease before it causes greater damage. Think of strep throat and antibiotics.

          With Covid field experience is showing immediate intervention with effective therapeutics leads to better outcomes. The Covid viruses are vandals destroying your body. The sooner they are stopped the better.

          1. Young: Please read my 8:03 comment before you posted your 8:27 response, thanks…

            1. Lin– I don’t think your 8:03 comment helps. In fact, you add: “However, to my knowledge, therapeutics generally do not stimulate an acquired immunity.”

              First, ‘natural immunity’ is acquired by recovering from the disease or its cognate. Thus, Jenner noticed that girls working with cows, and who had contracted coxpox, which is mild, proved also to be immune to smallpox, which is deadly. A classic vaccine [and the Covid ‘vaccine’ is not one] deliberately infects an individual with a milder form of the target disease to engender natural immunity.

              Surviving the actual disease also confers natural immunity. In his diary Samuel Pepys mentions seeing children running in and out of the sickroom of an adult smallpox patient hoping to contract, and surmount, the disease while they were young and vigorous [and expendable] so they would not get it when they were older. They were intelligently hoping for acquired natural immunity.

              Louis XV lay suffering–in fact dying–from an un-diagnosed disease that resembled smallpox but was thought not to be because someone believed he had had the disease when he was young and had thus acquired natural immunity. In fact, the earlier disease was not smallpox, he had no natural immunity, and he died of smallpox leading to a very unfortunate intervention of Fate in the affairs of the world.

              But, as you can see, for a few hundred years it was clearly understood that surviving some diseases conferred natural immunity.

              If Covid is treated early and successfully with proper therapeutics the patient will be left with a natural immunity which growing evidence indicates will be broader and more enduring than the immunity stimulated by the vaccine.

              Your word ‘stimulates’ is misleading as you use it. Therapeutics let one survive to acquire natural immunity; the disease itself stimulates natural immunity.

              1. Young: please look up the medical definition of “acquired immunity….” (and the use of that term relative to vaccines). Therapeutics and/or prior active exposure to antigens (as in the examples you mention) may create acquired immunity over time. Among other differences, Vaccines stimulate/hasten acquired immunity. I believe my use of the term is appropriate, Sorry for any misunderstanding thanks.

                1. Young: (p.s., perhaps you could google something like. “acquired immunity hastened by vaccine” and review some of the search results, thanks)

                  1. Young: here’s one for you: “active immunization: the mechanism(s) by which immunization(s) STIMULATE(S) immunity and the types of vaccines available..” (emphasis mine) Source: Thanks for listening, even if you disagree with my words. (We are getting way off track here, as to the subject of the blog…so I’ll just move on, thanks).

                  2. Lin.

                    The Covid ‘vaccine’ is not a vaccine. It uses a different mechanism that is beginning to appear rather dangerous. As I said, an actual vaccine is an attenuated version of the target disease.

                    I did your Google search using your terms and the first item on the list is from the CDC and it says:

                    “Vaccine-induced immunity is acquired through the introduction of a killed or weakened form of the disease organism through vaccination.”

                    That is what I have been saying. The immunity acquired from a true vaccine is the same immunity acquired by catching the disease and recovering from it. It is the disease itself, in its weakened form or its wild form, that stimulates the immune system and creates immunity if the subject survives. Therapeutics can help you survive. That is their contribution.

                    The Covid ‘vaccine’ does not introduce the actual disease in a weakened from. It creates immunity by a different, novel, and more or less untested mechanism. It is beginning to appear that this novel mechanism may be dangerous. Heart issues have been admitted. Young, fit athletes who have been vaccinated are dropping over with heart attacks on the playing fields. There have been many reports of blood clots and strokes though they have not fully admitted to those just yet. There may be longer term problems with the entire immune system. We will have to wait and see on that, but a possible mechanism leading to those problems has been described. Just now, it appears that the omicron type is hitting vaccinated people at a greater rate than the unvaccinated, suggesting that the ‘vaccine’ may already have weakened immune systems.

                    The very term ‘vaccine’ is derived from the Latin term for ‘cow’ because cowpox was used early on as a cognate for smallpox that would create natural immunity to smallpox. Other vaccines rely on the same underlying principle. I am not anti-vax. I get all of them. But the Covid jab is not an actual vaccine as has been understood for ages. It is an experiment and those who get it are guinea pigs. It may prove to work well and be wonderful. But the results coming in now, despite big tech and government efforts to suppress them, suggest one not get the jab without informed consent. Inform yourself. First bit of information–this is not a vaccination. It is novel and and it is still experimental.

                    Awhile back I saw a cartoon of two lab rats in a cage, one asking the other, “Have you gotten the Covid vaccine yet?” “No,” says the other, “I am waiting until they finish the human trials.”

                    1. Lin,

                      Here is more on the possible problems with the immune system when the ‘vaccine’ is used.


                      There have been a number of different medical sources looking at this issue; this is not the only one. I don’t know if this risk will emerge as viciously as it seems here. I very much hope not. I have family members who have been vaccinated and I am crossing my fingers in hope that it isn’t true.

                      Right now, unless you have significant morbidities you might be at considerable lower risk just getting the disease, treating it properly [not the Fauci protocol] and getting over it.

                    2. OK, I want to go to bed now, but I saw your new posting, so I’ll try this one more time. Your argument with me resembles jeffsilberman, -in that you skirted around the whole comment which triggered my original response. Please note that in your original comment to me at 8:27, you took umbrage to my statement that “therapeutics generally address/treat the damage already done.” You emphasized your comment by reminding me of “antibiotics” for strep infection. Amusingly, antibiotics are “therapeutics” to treat an already damaged/infected throat, so I referenced my 8:03 comment (my 8:22 one also expands…) Instead of acknowledging, You then came back and took exception to my use of “stimulating,” as in “stimulating an acquired response.” I addressed that by pointing you to medical literature and definitions. Now, all over the board, you come back and start arguing that the Covid vaccine is not really a vaccine—something I never even addressed. Anyone reading all our back-and-forths will be able to follow this transgression. Good Lord,– Just what is your point, sir/ madam? If you are trying to kill me off, I think I still have a pulse, so I’m going to bed..Good night,now, and thanks for your thoughts

                    3. Lin,

                      I haven’t taken umbrage over anything you said. I simply prefer a more precise use of terms. Usually I like your comments. I like these comments to the extent that they lead to discussion on an important set of issues.

                      In your last post you said:

                      “you took umbrage to my statement that “therapeutics generally address/treat the damage already done.” You emphasized your comment by reminding me of “antibiotics” for strep infection. Amusingly, antibiotics are “therapeutics” to treat an already damaged/infected throat”

                      Again, I think that is imprecise. There are treatments that actually stimulate and accelerate healing, as with burns, for example. I have been burned badly enough in a home experiment to be considered for a skin graft though ultimately that was not required. But those were treatments to actively stimulate healing and repair damage already done

                      Other treatments for other problems primarily stop the agent causing the ongoing damage to allow the body to heal itself. That is the case with antibiotics and strep throat. I had strep throat once and it was treated with erythomycin which did not heal my throat. It stopped the strep bacillus from continuing damage so my throat could heal itself. There is a difference between the two situations. Unchecked, strep throat can lead to heart damage or scarlet fever. The treatment stops the bacillus from progressing. The body does the healing.

                      Most of the time your use of terms in this way would make no difference, but I think that in this situation they introduce a level of ambiguity that is worth avoiding because they have led you astray on the purpose and mechanisms of true vaccines and therapies so that the risks of Covid are obscured.

                      Thinking that vaccines or treatments heal damage already done as you said: “therapeutics generally address/treat the damage already done.” is dangerously misleading. We are seeing that damage ‘already done’ by Covid infection is long lasting and, maybe, permanent, and no vaccine or intervention with ivermectin or monoclonal antibodies will undo it. You can’t treat Covid “damage already done” with those tools. However, those tools used early on may stop the progress of the disease and prevent the damage Covid is known to cause. You can’t wait too long in the expectation that those remedies can “treat the damage already done” because they can’t. They can prevent it. They can’t undo it. Act fast if you get it.

                      Think of a situation in which someone is chopping pieces off you with a machete–that’s Covid.

                      Your first priority is to stop it before you lose too much.

                      Once stopped, your next priority is to turn to remedies for repairing the damage if the damage isn’t too extensive.

                      Those are two different priorities.

                      A vaccine or therapy available now is of the first priority–stopping the chopping, the process of damage before it gets worse.

                      Fixing the damage later is a different project and may not even be possible if you had let the chopping go on too long.

                    4. “I had strep throat once and it was treated with erythomycin which did not heal my throat. It stopped the strep bacillus from continuing damage so my throat could heal itself. ” “the treatment stops the bacillus from progressing. The body does the healing.”

                      Young, you are correct. When the body deals with pathogens, antibiotics do not save the life. They provide time for the immune system to kick in. The vaccine prepares the immune system in advance. Simply stated, the vaccine can offer circulating antibodies for a limited time along with a mechanism to produce more antibodies that take time before they appear.

                      Antibiotics are not the cure. They are a delaying tactic until sufficient life-saving antibodies appear.

                    5. Young: Please see my Jan 2 11:44 response erroneously posted supra, in response to S. meyer, strep throat, and erythromycin, thanks

    3. I heard if your not white you can get monoclo antibodies. Weirdly grown in rodents. Other people do ivermectin at al. I think what kills is the cytokines storm. And a liter of Jack can maybe knock that back….and dry up a cold. What I did was a liter of Jack fu’ll nude in Sun for vid d3 and a pack or two of Marlboro. Chained. I believe the smokes killed it in my lungs. The jack dried me up and knocked down. Cytokine storm….and the sun collected the same day vid d3 to Kicked in a day later…to boost my system. But there’s no money In this…..

    4. Pfizer’s pill contains two antivirals, one of which has associations with HIV. Mercks’s Molnupiravir …”works by incorporating itself into the genetic material of the virus, and then causing a huge number of mutations as the virus replicates, effectively killing it. In some lab tests, the drug has also shown the ability to integrate into the genetic material of mammalian cells, causing mutations as those cells replicate”. Sound like fun to you? Read:

  6. Vaccine makers were given immunity. I’m curious how this impacts the legality of mandates? Is it not an issue that one is both mandated and has no recourse for potential harm? I don’t hear anyone make this argument. Thanks

    1. It may be more than that. There are two legally distinct names, BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and Comirnaty.

      The approval for the vaccine is confusing. It might be only Comirnaty that was approved which might not have the same immunity from suit. To date, I don’t think Comirnaty is being distributed in the US through normal channels.

      1. The position on immunity is confusing. As of today, while an emergency is in effect, ALL Covid-19 vaccines benefit from immunity, regardless of whether they are permitted under an EUA or full approval. Once the emergency ceases to be in effect, a fully approved vaccine will only benefit from immunity if it is fully approved for children. I can’t recall who has the authority to declare an emergency to be in effect.

        Comirnaty is fully approved for those 16 and over. For some reason it is not being offered at all in the US.

        1. “ALL Covid-19 vaccines benefit from immunity, regardless of whether they are permitted under an EUA or full approval.”

          Daniel, I don’t know if that is true. Let’s look at it this way, if you were Pfizer and concerned about immunity, all things being equal except legal concerns, would you choose to provide the BioNTech or Comirnaty?

            1. “It is true for now. The law is clear on it.”

              “for now” isn’t the question. You are fully aware that liability concerns play a big part in their decisions. What about the future? That is what counts. I am going to guess your answer. As the attorney, where all things are equal except what appears to be true for now, you would provide the BioNTech rather than Comirnaty because as straightforward as the law seems today, BioNTech is a better gamble.

              1. I’m not sure why they aren’t making Comirnaty available in the US. I suspect they are also trying to get it fully approved for children under 16, so that when the emergency is lifted Comirnaty will have immunity.

                1. According to Robert Malone, the FDA told Pfizer when approving Comirnaty that they would need to do more clinical trials regarding adverse events before marketing it in the US. Don’t know the original source for this.

        2. Daniel that is a good point. The law, the No-fault children’s vaccine act, or something like that, provides the vaccine producers a good deal of liability protection, but it is not absolute.

          I am not saying Pfizer’s logic has to do with immunity from suit, though it might. If there were a choice and everything was otherwise equal, I would consider using BioNTech.

          I am suspicious that there are things we are not supposed to know. That happens whenever there is a lack of transparency, or the government’s hand is too heavy.

      2. Meyer,

        You hit the nail on the head. I believe that the FDA approval of Comirnaty was simply a ruse to open the door for vaccine mandates. Remember, per federal and international law a person cannot be forced or coerced into taking an experimental (EAU) drug. If you want mandates you must have an approved vaccine and the ‘approval’ of Comirnaty opened that door.

        The problem is that Comirnaty is not available in the US nor anywhere else in the world. In addition, there is no explanation for the fact that Pfizer continues to manufacture the EAU version of their vaccine instead of the approved version.

        Finally, per federal law EAU drugs can only be authorized in the absence of an approved drug. The moment that Comirnaty was approved the EAU for all other vaccines should have been withdrawn. However, this did not happen.

        1. Thanks, Ray. I don’t have the answers, but there is dirt flying around, and some people on the blog see that as well. Money and power are generally at the root of the problem.

          Many things were not handled in the same fashion that the medical community used for other problems. I think Daniel mentioned this earlier.

          1. I agree: there are many questions and few answers.

            1. If Comirnaty is fully approved for use in the US why is it not available?

            2. Is it lawful to require anyone to take medication that is only authorised under an EUA? There are conflicting legal views on this issue.

            3. Why are doctors being discouraged, and sometimes threatened, for prescribing for Covid off-label use of drugs known to be safe?

            4. Why has the CDC/FDA failed to establish a system to assess adverse events reported following vaccination?

            5. Why has the CDC promoted flawed studies on the effectiveness of masks and natural immunity?

            6. Why has the CDC deliberately fused those who are hospitalised or die from Covid with those who are hospitalised or die with Covid?

            7. Why are the public health authorities pushing to vaccinate healthy children, for whom the risk of serious illness or death from Covid is substantially nil and who generally are not vectors of transmission, while knowing that the safety of the vaccines is unknown?

            8. Why did Collins and Fauci consider Kulldorf, Bhattacharya and Gupta to be “fringe epidemiologists” to be destroyed rather than engaged?

            Despite all this, the official narrative may be changing. Fauci just said that the alleged increase in hospitalisations of children is with Covid not because of Covid. And he finally recognised the HK study showing that Omicron is less invasive of the lungs than Delta.

            1. Daniel, this is an excellent list of questions. How did these questions arise? Money and power create the questions, but one more element needs to appear with time. The liars have to protect the lies. This always occurred but increased dramatically when Trump first appeared at the top of the escalator. His appearance as an outsider who had close dealings with politicians created fear among all those whose power had been corrupted.

              1. A big problem with the Trump administration was that, as an outsider, Trump initially felt compelled to listen to the insiders, particularly on staffing and how aggressively to pursue his agenda. This changed over time, and his second term could have accomplished even more than his first.

                A few more questions:

                1. Why have the notes of the conference call among Fauci’s virologist allies that took place on Feb 1, 2020 been completely redacted? Many believe that is when the line was set to label lab leak a conspiracy theory.

                2. Why is the FDA slow-walking the release of the data that led to the authorisations and approval of the vaccines?

                1. Your good queries get limited exposure on this blog. I’m certain that many of us would sign on to your authored aggregate query addressed to appropriate members/ sub-committees of Congress.

                2. “Trump initially felt compelled to listen to the insiders, particularly on staffing ”

                  Daniel, you are right, and that was one of Trump’s biggest problems. He had no Rolodex. I think he had to rely on too many people (Bush people in particular) loyal to others and not to him. He was naive because he knew the social side of people, and I don’t think he realized how closely so many were tied to one another based on being insiders and not based on political party affiliation.

                  Most of the things related to health matters (Covid) have no reason to be kept secret, including papers that Pfizer says it can’t release except over decades.

            2. “8. Why did Collins and Fauci consider . . .”

              I assume that’s a rhetorical question — sort of like: Why did Lysenko order the secret police to round up geneticists, and have them sent to prison and psychiatric wards?

              I’d like to add:

              9. Why did public health officials and politicians rely on bogus computer models to rationalize shutdowns and lockdowns? Why did they ignore the actual history and science of such shutdowns? Why did they rely on a soothsayer (Ferguson) whose computer models have a history of *failed* predictions? Why was Fauci against shutdowns before he favored shutdowns?

                1. Sam, I agree with you about the models and Ferguson. I was living in London during his previous failures. During Covid, Sweden was a good test of his model because it adopted limited mitigation measures. It was way off.

    2. Nun, you make a point that nobody else is making and it needs to be addressed. How can you mandate something that is bullet proof legally if it goes horribly wrong? I am pro-vaccine, I have both shots and the booster, I think it is dangerous and folly to not get the jab but I am against mandating it at this time. It is under emergency authorization only, it is immune from legal actions no matter what damage it may do to you and yet Biden is demanding that you take it????

      Please show me one place, foreign or domestic, where Biden has been right.

    3. “Vaccine makers were given immunity.”

      But those receiving it did not gain immunity.

      The irony.

  7. This administration is lawless. Its desire to train American citizens to act like loyal dogs is seen in all these vaccine mandates and everything else from this administration. The courts are starting to move, but I fear not fast enough.

    1. If the Supreme Court fails to reject these mandates, especially OSHA’s, it is hard to see what constraints could ever apply to the administrative state when it acts outside clear legislative authority. In particular, leaving Chevron aside, if it does not apply the “major question” doctrine here, as it did in the eviction moratorium case, it will have vitiated that doctrine.

      1. Daniel: I generally agree with your comment and opinion on this, (noting “permitted” as rational, reasonable)—excepting the subsequent judicial tempering/delineation/clarification/refinement of Chevron application, throwback to the dated Skidmore, add’l considerations of “major question,” (which you did mention) as well as further delving into ambiguity and “power to persuade” raised in Christensen, (Auer, preceded by Arabian American Oil)—and when “reduced deference” applies-I suspect all of which is why it is on the accelerated appellate path..I am interested to see how circumvention of APA and the potential raising of exigent circumstances plays out, and what SCOTUS may do with all of this…

        1. Thanks Lin. But not sure I follow what you are saying because I don’t know the ins and outs of all the cases you mention.

          The Court here found that Congress had not directly and unambiguously authorised the agency to impose vaccination and masking requirements. It then applied the second part of Chevron and concluded that it was not a permissible construction for the agency to interpret the provisions it said it relied on to authorise the actions it took.

          The Court did this without applying the “major question” doctrine, which requires that when an agency’s actions have significant effects on the economy or on the traditional balance between federal and state powers they most be authorised by a specific and clear statute. In a note, it said that the plaintiff’s case would be even easier under this doctrine.

          The Court noted that the 6th and 11th circuit courts of appeals considered the major question doctrine inapplicable to the vaccine mandate cases they were considering. Perhaps the Supreme Court will overturn this view, apply the doctrine and reject the mandates. Thomas, Gorsuch and Alito are likely to go for that. Kavanaugh, who I believe wrote the eviction moratorium decision, should do so as well. I don’t know about Coney Barrett. Roberts is unreliable.

          1. Daniel: Agree, agree, and agree (on SCOTUS justices). As to the “ins and outs” (I forgot Mead case) -neither do I! Which is why I am interested to see if SCOTUS either hangs its hat on one of the less-nuanced failures of the mandate, or provides a good current summary of a Chevron application to this matter. An old friend of mine used to say, “every time you tune in your radio station, someone moves the radio.”

  8. The court here applied Chevron to reach an outcome against the agency, which must be unusual. The tests it applied under Chevron were:

    1. Has Congress directly addressed the issue;

    2. Did it do so unambiguously; and

    3. If Congress was ambiguous, did the agency provide a permitted construction.

    The Court found that Congress had not addressed the issue, but that if it had, it did not do so unambiguously. It then further concluded that the interpretation by the agency was not a permitted construction.

    The Court relied on a straight statutory analysis. It found it unnecessary to reach the “major question” doctrine, which requires additional scrutiny of agency actions that have major economic or political effects. It said that the case for the plaintiffs would be even stronger if that doctrine applied.

    1. It seems that this decision and others, contrary to Chevron, are not really looking to see whether the agency interpretation is permissible or reasonable and giving the agency some deference but instead looking to decide what is the best interpretation of the relevant statute.

  9. Perhaps returning to the Enumerated Powers bare text….and cut the Federal Bureaucracy off at its ankles with a huge chain saw….might be the correct path.

    It is time for the People to withdraw the powers from the Federal Government it never should have.had.

    Think the Federal Government is not too involved in your life…..consider how it has changed a simple five gallon gas can into a proper disaster!

  10. The good news is that the scapegoating of anti-vaxxers is being defrocked by the courts. The bad news is that a lot of Harvard MBA’s will still carry out Biden’s mandates in corporate America. Maybe we should start calling the Chamber of Commerce “communist America.” They’re more loyal to Beijing than the rest of us and they’re not shy about it.

    The fact is that the death and hospitalization rates are still way below the peaks of the pandemic, even with many states not instituting restrictions. Omicron in South Africa is already trending down rapidly. This is not a crisis. Omicron might change that, but so far it hasn’t and doesn’t look likely to.

    Even before Omicron came along, that garbage head in the Oval Office needed scapegoats to change the subject from Afghanistan, so he gave the radicals what they always want: a witch hunt. Cannibalism and cancel culture are indistinguishable.

    1. “. . . calling the Chamber of Commerce ‘communist America.’”

      You’d think that an organization dedicated to protecting America’s business interests, would fight like hell against businesses being treated as pawns by fascists. But not so, at least for the national chapter of the CoC. It’s run by feckless fools. When government threatens to burn down the house, their reply is: “Can’t you do so one room at a time?”

      There are some state chapters fighting against vaccine mandates. Unfortunately, from the ones I’ve seen, their argument is only a practical one — that it’s an employment killer (which it is). What they don’t have, but desperately need, is a *principled* argument against government-coerced vaccines. (Up next would be a *principled* defense of capitalism.)

  11. I would hope that the Supreme Court does take an active role in dismantling the Chevron Doctrine.

    As a further matter of opinion, I would prefer that they would go so far as to rule the Administrative Agencies Act was unconstitutional from the start, and that it needs to be dismantled and tossed into the trash bin of history’s bad ideas.

    1. If you mean the APA (Administrative Procedures Act), then I have to disagree. The APA does provide protection for administrative decision makers and ALJ’s from agency pressure. Now it could stand some reform, but, as they say, don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.



    Broadcast Of 2021 – Dr. Peter McCullough Live In Studio & More – “This is a Test of Scientific Integrity” Must See Comprehensive Data Transparency


    Dec 31, 2021
    The Alex Jones Show
    The Alex Jones Show

    Dr. Peter McCullough joins Alex Jones live in studio to give his powerful presentation on the COVID virus, its mutations, and the mRNA gene therapy/viral vector injections.

  13. Somewhat ironic that Mr. Beccera is now on the opposite end of the stick.

    I don’t think that the OSHA mandate can withstand SCOTUS review, but you can never be positive about such things. Should prove to be a number of interesting opinions this term

    1. I don’t trust Roberts. He’ll come up with some voodoo opinion if he feels a political reason to do so.

  14. The Biden administration is developing a reputation for both authoritarianism and for incompetence.

    Sad that the U.S. can’t do better.

  15. These judges will get covid. It will work around their decisions. They will croak.
    Went in dumb. Come out dumb too.

Comments are closed.