"Dr.: Peter Hotez: "Anti-Science Aggression" Is Racist Violent Extremism (Anti-Semitism)

stevekirsch  |  Science used to be about data and what the data shows. Sadly, today, science is about what the CDC says, even if there is no data in support of the recommendation whatsoever.

The most stunning example of this is the “six foot rule.” Did you know that it was entirely fabricated out of thin air? From Presidential Takedown page 49:

What is even more stunning is that the CDC has never admitted this publicly. This is evidence that they are a corrupt organization and the corruption goes to the very top of the organization.

We have over two years of data. Why not make it public?

We now have over two years worth of death and vaccination data for people who died after getting a COVID shot, yet nobody wants to see the record level data tied to the vaccination dates?!?!

Let me be perfectly clear:

This is an abject failure of the entire medical community for not demanding to see this data.

People paid for us to see this data with their lives. Why is it being hidden from us?

In the US, hundreds of millions of people participated in a massive clinical trial and have data to share with people. At least 500,000 of the participants paid the ultimate price: they sacrificed their lives to send a message to America about the vaccines. It is extremely disrespectful to these people to ignore their death data and not share it with the public. Why are we not allowing these people to share their data?

Do you think if we could ask those people right before they died, “Do you want to let others know what killed you?” Do you think they would all say, “No! Don’t let anyone know. Please keep it a secret!”?

Every institution in the world that is recommending or requiring COVID vaccination should be DEMANDING to see this data made public

John Beaudoin and I have been calling for the death data to be set free and made public. We have been ignored.

Why aren’t any of these organizations calling for data transparency here so we can learn the truth?

1. The mainstream medical community

2. Heads of state throughout the world

3. The CDC

4. The FDA

5. The White House

6. Congress

7. The mainstream media

8. Public health authorities

9. Any doctor or nurse who recommends the jab to patients

10. Universities who mandate the vaccines for students, staff, or faculty

11. Any organization that supports COVID vaccines for their members, employees, or visitors

The data exists in VSD as well. But the CDC won’t allow anyone to see it.

The data exists in every state health department. But you can’t FOIA it because it requires a join to avoid PII problems and FOIA requests are not allowed if they generate effort like that. So FOIA requests won’t work.

It’s time for everyone to demand that our health authorities “Show us the data!”

We should all refuse to comply until they produce it.

Jordan Trishton Walker : Grindr-Mediated Pfizer Gain Of Function Research Disclosures

brianoshea  |  Project Veritas recently released a video featuring "Jordon Trishton Walker," Pfizer executive who revealed shocking new info. But finding anything about him is tough. Here is what I've found so far.

thedailybeast  |  The Daily Mail took down a digital article last week that promoted Project Veritas’ latest sting operation alleging that a Pfizer executive admitted the pharmaceutical giant was making a “more potent” version of COVID in order to create new vaccines for sale.

Following days of anti-vaxxers and right-wing media outlets complaining about the article’s quiet deletion, and hours after The Daily Beast reached out to the tabloid, the piece was back online—and was completely changed.

Senior reporter Andrea Cavallier, the article’s original author, was originally removed from the byline but has since reappeared. The updated article, which came back online Monday afternoon, now largely focuses on Pfizer’s response to Project Veritas’ video and the far-right activist group’s suggestion that the company is practicing “gain-of-function” research. In addition to Cavallier, the byline now features health editor Connor Boyd and health reporter Caitlin Tilley.

“Our original story did not carry a response from Pfizer. We temporarily took the story down while we vigorously pursued answers,” a Daily Mail spokesperson told Confider. “Now Pfizer has responded, we are able to report that they have confirmed they manipulated the covid virus—although they insist there was no gain of function. This updated story is now fully live again.”

In a video that went viral in right-wing social media circles, a person Project Veritas claims is Pfizer’s director of research and development tells an undercover journalist that the company is “exploring” the possibility of “mutating” viruses in monkeys so as to “preemptively develop new vaccines.”

“You’re not supposed to do gain-of-function research with viruses,” the man, whom Project Veritas claims is named Jordon Trishton Walker, added. “Regularly not. We can do these selected structure mutations to make them more potent. There is research ongoing about that. I don't know how that is going to work. There better not be any more outbreaks because Jesus Christ.”

The video blew up among conservatives, especially vaccine skeptics. Fox News’ Tucker Carlson fumed about the “near-total media blackout of this story” about how Pfizer was conducting “Frankenstein science.” GOP lawmakers soon began sending letters to the company’s CEO asking him to confirm whether Pfizer was taking part in gain-of-function research, citing Project Veritas’ “investigative report.” (Conservatives have latched onto the theory that Dr. Anthony Fauci funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan, largely blaming the “lab leak theory” for possibly creating COVID-19.)

The Mail’s initial piece on the video essentially gives a play-by-play of Project Veritas’ video while noting the outlet reached out to Pfizer for comment. Shortly after it went up on Thursday, however, the article was nowhere to be found on the website. And its disappearance soon drew notice.

“Hi, @MailOnline can you clarify why you have appeared to remove this story from your website?” British parliament member Andrew Bridgen tweeted on Thursday. Bridgen was recently suspended by his own Conservative Party for peddling conspiracy theories about vaccines and comparing the side effects of COVID shots to the Holocaust.

After the Mail piece was pulled offline, Pfizer released an online statement responding to the allegations made about the company following the publication of Project Veritas’ video.

“In the ongoing development of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, Pfizer has not conducted gain of function or directed evolution research,” the statement, released Friday night, said. “Working with collaborators, we have conducted research where the original SARS-CoV-2 virus has been used to express the spike protein from new variants of concern.”

The statement also added that “in a limited number of cases when a full virus does not contain any known gain of function mutations, such virus may be engineered to enable the assessment of antiviral activity in cells.” The Mail’s updated article, which went back up on Monday afternoon, now largely focuses on Pfizer’s response to the undercover video.

Kim Iversen: To Kwestin Fauci Is STILL To Kwestin Science - And Lose Your Job...,

thedailybeast  |  Kim Iversen, a co-host of The Hill’s popular web program Rising and whom some colleagues have branded a “conspiracy theorist,” announced on Tuesday afternoon that she is “no longer” with the show.

Here's an extremely illuminating episode on how liberal corporate media works.

When @krystalball and @esaagar left @thehill's "Rising," the Hill struggled to find a heterodox, anti-establishment voice equally popular with its audience. They finally found her: @KimIversenShow.

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) July 28, 2022

Her sudden departure comes just a day after the vocal vaccine skeptic publicly groused about a recent Rising episode featuring chief White House medical adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci, adding that she “wanted to be a part of this interview” and it was “a shame I wasn’t able to be there to get the answers we all deserve.”

I wanted to be a part of this interview. It’s a shame I wasn’t able to be there to get the answers we all deserve. https://t.co/0cKubOx8Yx

— Kim Iversen (@KimIversenShow) July 26, 2022

Iversen did not respond to a request for comment. And a representative for Nexstar, the parent company of The Hill, declined to comment when asked about her abrupt exit.

Iversen has been a fierce critic of Fauci, vaccine requirements, and COVID-19 mitigation efforts. On Monday, she took to Twitter to voice displeasure over not hosting that morning’s Rising. Instead, frequent host Robby Soave and Newsweek deputy opinion editor Batya Ungar-Sargon conducted a 20-minute interview with Fauci.

Responding to a clip from the show’s official Twitter account, in which Fauci said he’s been “on the record” about his desire to keep schools open during the pandemic, Iversen sarcastically tweeted: “‘Where’s Kim?’ Good question.”

After a fan wondered who at Rising thought it was a “good move” not to have Iversen host that segment, she replied: “Good question.” She later shared the Fauci clip again, this time specifically declaring she wanted to participate in the interview and seemingly chastising her own colleagues for not getting “the answers we all deserve.”

When another follower tweeted “tell us why,” Iversen cryptically responded: “You’ll know soon enough.”

 

The West Lost Its Race For The Future With Russia When It Lost Its Education System

smoothiex12  |  In fact, I need to elaborate on the immensity of this news. Yesterday:

МОСКВА, 24 мая — РИА Новости. Министерство науки и высшего образования России подтвердило намерение выйти из Болонского процесса и отдать приоритет созданию собственной системы образования, сообщили в пресс-службе ведомства.

Translation:  MOSCOW, May 24 - RIA Novosti. The Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Russia confirmed its intention to withdraw from the Bologna process and give priority to the creation of its own education system, the ministry's press service said.

Here is the key point: 

Болонская система предполагает двухуровневую систему образования: бакалавриат и магистратура. Российская система образования кроме этих уровней включает подготовку кадров по уровню специалитета с нормативным сроком освоения образовательных программ в течение пяти-шести лет.  

Translation: The Bologna system involves a two-level education system: undergraduate and graduate. The Russian education system, in addition to these levels, includes training at the specialist level with a standard term for mastering educational programs for five to six years.

Read the whole piece (use Google to translate) and this "specialist" degree is what makes real professionals. It was always the basis of a superb Russian/Soviet education which was also program of study-rigid in providing both an extremely advanced foundation in general science (Math, Physics, Chemistry, Language etc.) while giving a professional training of the highest level. Return to classic Russian/Soviet system is yet another step in breaking the hold of many poor, if not damaging, Western ideas on Russia's life and this one is huge. You want some "elective" courses in dancing or acting while studying for engineer? Good, only on your own expense and time, otherwise, go and take entrance exams to profile colleges. It is also remarkable that it was Nikolai Patrushev who took an active role in removing this system. 

The consequence of all that will be the return to what Admiral Hyman Rickover was afraid of in 1959:  

Vice Admiral Hyman G. Rickover said today that his recent visit to the Soviet Union and Poland had convinced him that "our really great race with the Soviet Union is in education."

We all can observe today a collapse of the Western system of education through a sheer incompetence, stupidity and malice of contemporary Western "elites". We also see a precipitous decline in what was always thought as a strong point of Western education--STEM. Enough to take a look at Boeing-737 Max and at the killing of the energy sector in EU and the US. As Buzz Aldrin (I believe) said: in 1969 we thought that we would be flying to Mars in 2020, instead we have got Facebook. I may add B-737 Max, LCS and F-35.

So, I decided to give you all heads-up on this extremely important issue. And the sigh of relief in Russia, that finally the killing of Russian educational school is over. Consequences of that will be massive.

Like Standard-Issue Sheeple, MIT Has Surrendered Its Last Remaining Vestiges Of Testicular Fortitude...,

stevekirsch  |  I tried to give a talk about the science behind the COVID vaccines and mask wearing in the auditorium at MIT that I funded for $2.5M.

No dice. They won’t let me talk there. They suggested I give the talk at a different university.

See my original post: Is science dead? for the full story.

Stephanie Seneff is not an MIT faculty member

After my original posting, a lot of people suggested I ask Stephanie Seneff to sponsor me. In fact, if I had a dime for everyone who suggested Stephanie, I could retire :)

Stephanie and I are good friends (we talk all the time). She would do it if she were an MIT faculty member. But she isn’t.

I can tell you one thing though: it was absolutely stunning to me that she was the only person at MIT people suggested I ask. That in itself is remarkable.

The entire MIT faculty is wrong on this issue

There are over 1,000 faculty members at MIT and not a single one thinks the vaccines might be unsafe? Nobody?!?!?

OK, I can live with that. Apparently, they’ve all drunk the Kool-Aid at MIT.

But what is totally unacceptable is that they refuse to even consider the possibility that they could be wrong.

What ever happened to open-minded scientists?

I know that there are a few faculty members who believe I should be able to speak at MIT, but they are afraid of retribution from their peers. So they avoid the controversy by doing nothing. They won’t even let me publicly reveal who they are.

What’s even worse than that is that there are serious cases of vaccine injury at MIT that are not being reported

More on those stories later. They’ve been covered up.

MIT should be speaking out for what the science says, not actively suppressing scientific discourse. Fist tap Big Don.

Review Of The Psychoenergetic Research Conducted At SRI International

cia.gov |  A total of 25,449 trials were conducted under a variety of protocols. Analysis indicates that the odds that our result are not due to simple statistical fluctuations alone are better than 2 X 1020 to 1 (i.e. 2 followed by 20 zeros). Using accepted criteria set forth in the standard behavioral sciences, we conclude that this constitutes convincing, if not conclusive.21

The psychogenetic effort has been divided into various categories within these processes. The various categories within this domain are defined as follows:
(1) Forced-Choice – remote viewing where the targets are drawn from a limited (and known) set of potential symbols (e.g. the integers 0, 1)

(2) RV-Lab – remote viewing where the targets are drawn from a large set of
potential materials (e.g. photographs of natural scenes, natural physical
locations), and the experiments are conducted under strict laboratory conditions.
 

(3) RV-Ops – remote viewing where the targets are drawn from specific targets of
interest
 

(4) Search – remote viewing where the targets are generally known but their location is unknown (e.g. a specific military aircraft is known to have crashed – where is it?)22
 

Their point was clear that the remote viewing was convincing, if not conclusive, for these four categories, which was apparently useful to the military objective. 

The CIA made a critical review on the remote viewing, even before the GRILL FLAME was officially established in the late 1970s. Dr. Ross Adey was asked to review the outcome in 1984, and at the end of the 1980s, the SRI itself was ordered to demonstrate the effectiveness of their researches.

Making Shit Up: CDC Had No Basis For New Guidelines

Hard to believe a public health agency is running a campaign to drive vaccination by scaring people about cost of seeking care. Is CDC unaware of gaps in our healthcare system that already leave many vulnerable Americans excessively exposed to the costs and consequences of Covid? https://t.co/iEmPxYP1uO

— Scott Gottlieb, MD (@ScottGottliebMD) December 27, 2021

erictopol  |  There were serious problems about the new 5-day isolation period. First, there are no data or evidence to back it up. Yes, we’re facing an Omicron onslaught of cases and it would be useful to come up with a strategy to avoid a mass loss of functionality among our workforce and the on-the-go public, no less in the midst of the holiday season. But that doesn’t justify issuing a vacuous guideline. Second, there was no mention of using a test, to confirm that the isolated individual is now OK to circulate, that there is no indication of infectiousness. That could be done via a rapid antigen test, which denotes infectiousness, carries some reduced sensitivity with Omicron, or via a PCR. The cycle threshold value of a PCR test is also indicative of infectiousness; the lower it is, the more likely potential for spread. Either of these tests would be far better than no test to justify a reduced isolation time in any individual.

Third, there are no data for Omicron’s clearance time. We know the characteristics of shedding and average time it takes for clearance of the virus for Delta and preceding variants, but to date we have not seen any such data for Omicron kinetics. With the Hong Kong report of 70-fold copies of the virus in the upper airway for Omicron versus Delta and prior variants, there is no certainty yet that Omicron’s clearance is fast.

Fourth, the guidance did not mention a word about vaccinated or unvaccinated status of people. We know from past studies there is a more rapid clearance among vaccinees than people who were not vaccinated, but the recommendation does not take this knowledge into account. Fifth, it assumes that all people handle the virus similarly when, it fact, there is considerable variability.

Note from the Figure that there are significant differences for vaccinated, average 5.5 days (95% CI 4.6, 6.5), compared with unvaccinated, average 7.5 days (95% CI 6.8,8,2) There is marked inter-individual variability: for example, look at all the green dots even >20 days in the unvaccinated group, panel D. These data, representing nearly 20,000 samples, were obtained from predominantly healthy young men and may not be representative of the population at large. By the way, the NBA uses a 6-day isolation cutoff with testing with heavy emphasis on testing.

This problem can be fixed. The CDC could come out and revise their guidance and say there are no such data for Omicron (as a cover, like they did when they finally recommend boosters for all adults) and require testing. Even the airlines, which pushed for a shortened 5-day isolation period, wanted to use testing as part of that requested change in policy.

But the bad day wasn’t just about isolation in isolation. There was also the major gaffe about genomic sequencing surveillance. Here are the data from last week, and the corrected data this week, announced today by CDC. The point estimate for Omicron changed for the week ending December 18th from 73% to 22.5%, which is remarkable. We were led to believe that the country was well in the midst of the Omicron wave when, in fact, we were and are still experiencing a large number of Delta infections. As of December 25th, the point estimate is 59% with 95% confidence intervals lower 42%, upper 74%, indicating there is a lot of wobble, a relatively limited number of sequencing samples to draw upon, no less a reduction in confidence for the CDC itself.

 

“It Is Dangerous To Be Right In Matters On Which The Established Authorities Are Wrong.” ― Voltaire

americanthinker |  I just finished reading an article on the Big Think website titled "When science mixes with politics, all we get is politics," by Professor Marcelo Gleiser, theoretical physicist, Dartmouth College.  I mistakenly thought the commentary would decry the misuse of science by politicians, but no.  Instead, it decries the mistrust that we, the unwashed masses, have developed for the science establishment in recent years.  Unwittingly, the eminent professor gives us yet more reasons to regard science insiders with skepticism.

He does what so many of his colleagues do, which is to equate science itself with the institutions that purport to advance science.  To question politicized scientists, then, is supposedly unscientific.

Censorship of actual science has been heavy-handed, both by Democrats and by their Big Tech acolytes.  Epidemiologists, virologists, and physicians who do not toe the party line regarding COVID have been intimidated and silenced.  Science that cannot be openly questioned is not science, since the heart and soul of science are to scrutinize every claim from every angle.  If we are to be told we must follow the science, then scientists must explain to us the inductive reasoning that was applied to exclude members of Congress, and their staffs, from the COVID restrictions they imposed on the rest of us.  If scientists are to decry those of us who doubt their word, then they must equally decry the policy of distributing unvaccinated, untested illegal aliens to every state, while denying entry to legal travelers.

To decry only the skeptics, while ignoring the egregious anti-science of many politicians, does nothing to engender trust in the institutions of science.  It does the opposite.

 

Granny Goodness Urges Boris Johnson To Mandate mRNA Goo Jabs...,

reclaimthenet |  Former US Secretary of State and former Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has waded into UK politics and has said UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson should enforce vaccine passport mandates. She made the remarks in an appearance on BBC’s Andrew Marr Show.

During the interview, Clinton suggested the enforcement of vaccine mandates in order to contain the spike of infections ahead of the winter.

“I do think it is imperative that the Prime Minister do what he can to stop the rise in Covid in the UK. He doesn’t need to shut the society down but he does need to mandate vaccines,” Clinton said.

When Marr clarified that mandating vaccines equals the implementation of vaccine passports, Clinton said that was the right path to follow.

She referenced the situation in the New York health sector where vaccine hesitancy resulted in the implementation of a mandate. Further illustrating her point, Clinton claimed that a hospital in New York had to fire more than 1,000 employees for refusing to show a passport, suggesting that it was a good thing.

“I think you have got to make it clear that we are not going to go back into lockdown – that is not going to happen,” Clinton said.

“But if you don’t get vaccinated, if you don’t have proof of vaccination when you go into a club or a restaurant…”

Appearing to suggest people should be fired for not showing a passport, she said: “And if employers don’t enforce vaccines, we may see some problems here in the UK as the weather gets colder and people are forced back inside again.”

Clinton’s comment came after the PM publicly decided to stop vaccine certification plans, though there is some speculation they could still be used.

 

Vaccine Passports Would Increase The Spread Of Covid...,

summit  |  A leaked government report has found that vaccine passports could actually exacerbate the spread of COVID because they would encourage people to visit smaller, more poorly ventilated venues.

According to the report, compiled by the the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport [DCMS], introducing the scheme could actually have the opposite intended effect.

“If certification displaces some fans from structured and well ventilated sports stadia, this could lead to them attending unstructured and poorly ventilated pubs instead, where they will have access to more alcohol than if there were in the stadia,” states the report. “Evidence from the Euros showed spikes in cases associated with pubs even when England were playing abroad.”

“The policy would also slash turnover for the organisers of events required to use vaccine passports, and necessitate the hiring of thousands of new stewards which may be hard to deliver,” reports the Telegraph.

After Scotland tried to introduce vaccine passports, the process was called an “unmitigated disaster,” with staff at nightclubs receiving abuse and the technology repeatedly failing.

Many venues decided to close early and lost 40% of their footfall, illustrating once again how the scheme will put innumerable nightclubs that operate on a profit margin of 15% out of business for good.

Another example of how vaccine passports are largely useless is the fact that providing a negative test is no longer being offered as an option, despite the fact that the vaccinated can still transmit the virus.

As we highlight in the video below, people visiting nightclubs in Ireland had to be vaccinated to get in, but were then told that masks were not required while dancing.

Apparently, COVID has developed some form of artificial intelligence so that it knows when to leave people alone when they are rubbing up to dozens of other sweaty people in close proximity.

The Science Says "Non-Conformists MUST BE PUNISHED!"

dossier  |  Policymakers within the Biden Administration have clearly seen the COVID-19 data out of Israel, the first country that went all in on population-wide mRNA shots. It shows that mRNA injection efficacy is waning, which is why Israel went full steam ahead with the 3rd booster shot. It’s too early to tell exactly how that will pan out, but in the meantime, the Biden Administration needs to find a way to shimmy their way out of declaring victory over COVID just a couple months ago, given its clear resurgence throughout our nation among both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. 

Instead of owning up to the reality that we cannot eliminate a submicroscopic infectious particle from existence, and perhaps admitting that government officials wildly oversold an innovative “cure” to the disease, they’re continuing with the dictatorial insanity.

With respiratory season just around the corner, the “unvaccinated” are going to be scapegoated for when our government has once again failed to achieve the impossible task of stopping an endemic virus from circulating among a massive population.

At first, they took a somewhat more diplomatic approach, blaming the “Delta variant” for their failures to deliver. But now, they’ve shifted their wrath onto fellow Americans, specifically, the 25% of “unvaccinated” individuals in America who refuse to submit to the “health” demands of the regime. None of it makes scientific sense, but it doesn’t have to, because it’s no longer about health or science, but in protecting the reputation of the White House.

The Biden Administration is losing its unwinnable “War on COVID,” and as its ratings go down in flames, it has backed itself into a corner. Instead of being honest about their failures with the American people, Biden officials are choosing to triple and quadruple down on these broken policy measures. They’re purposely pitting Americans against each other, and labeling the “unvaccinated” as the ultimate scapegoat for their failures. Time will tell if they succeed, or if Americans decide to find the courage to reject the latest series of unconstitutional edicts.

 

Chief Science Denier Lil'Fauci Pretends Ignorance On The Question Of Natural Immunity

redstate  |  Dr. Anthony Fauci is a liar. That much has been clear for a very long time, though, it’s become more in your face as the months have worn on. The latest example comes courtesy of documents that prove Fauci lied about NIH funding going to gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China.

So has the good doctor been humbled by his recent pantsing? Of course not. Instead, he’s continued his streak of dishonesty, with this latest example being especially egregious given the facts as we know them.

So let me get this straight. The head of NIAID and the face of the pandemic response has no idea whether natural immunity exists or is durable? He’s seen none of the studies that show natural immunity confers stronger protection than two doses of the vaccine? He hasn’t looked at any of the real-world data sets? He hasn’t seen any of the numbers from the United Kingdom or Israel? Really?

No one believes this garbage. Rather, Fauci is lying again, in my opinion, because if he acknowledges natural immunity and how strong it is, he acknowledges how ridiculous Joe Biden’s vaccine mandate is. Any mandate that doesn’t include carveouts for natural immunity is logically asinine and spitting in the face of the science. So instead of just telling the truth and noting that there should be exceptions, Fauci plays dumb as if the freaking head of NIAID just has no idea about how natural immunity works.

It’s enough to make someone want to punch a wall. Deep breaths and all that.

We are led by dishonest hacks who are putting politics above the health of Americans. That is why there’s vaccine hesitancy, not because of Fox News or Donald Trump. No one trusts these people because they do not deserve any trust. They continually mislead and make decisions based on what fits the narrative they want and not based on where the facts lead.

In short, Fauci should be fired, but we’ve known that since the first month of the pandemic.

 

mRNA Neo-Vaccinoid Mandate Holds No Political Downside For Cornpop Or The DNC

NYTimes |  In December 2020, as the prospect of imminent mass vaccination against Covid-19 was finally becoming a reality, Mr. Biden leveled with the American people: He said he would not force anyone to get the jab. “No, I don’t think it should be mandatory,” he told reporters. “I wouldn’t demand it be mandatory.”

Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, recently reiterated Mr. Biden’s position. “That’s not the role of the federal government,” she declared on July 23, referring to the idea of a government mandate. Rochelle Walensky, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said the same thing a week later: “There will be no nationwide mandate.”

So much for that. On Thursday, Mr. Biden announced a far-reaching vaccine mandate that applies to most federal workers, hospitals, public schools and 80 million employees of private companies. Under the White House’s presumptuous plan, workplaces that employ more than 100 people must require their employees to either get vaccinated or submit to weekly testing — a burden so onerous that for many businesses, it will not be a choice at all.

The president’s plan is certainly well intentioned. The vaccines are the only tried-and-true strategy for defeating Covid; government officials should both encourage vaccination and make it easier to get vaccinated. Health officials must continue selling people on the vaccines by emphasizing the considerable upside: Vaccination decreases transmission of the virus and turns hospitalization and death into very unlikely outcomes. It provides such robust protection that 99 percent of coronavirus fatalities in the United States now occur in the unvaccinated population. Vaccination works, and it’s the right option for a vast majority of Americans.

But forcing vaccines on a minority contingent of unwilling people is a huge error that risks shredding the social fabric of a country already being pulled apart by political tribalism.

The president should not — and most likely does not — have the power to unilaterally compel millions of private-sector workers to get vaccinated or risk losing their jobs: Mr. Biden is presiding over a vast expansion of federal authority, one that Democrats will certainly come to regret the next time a Republican takes power. Moreover, the mechanism of enforcement — a presidential decree smuggled into law by the Department of Labor and its Occupational Safety and Health Administration — is fundamentally undemocratic. Congress is supposed to make new laws, not an unaccountable bureaucratic agency.

While more than 70 percent of American adults have received a shot, a smaller but sizable group of people, for various reasons, are unvaccinated. Some members of this group have antibodies from a previous Covid case and are reasonably protected from future illness, according to recent data. There is little benefit to forcing vaccination on such people, and Mr. Biden’s decision to not exempt them is a significant misstep.

Unvaccinated individuals who were never infected by Covid would certainly benefit from vaccination. But the coercive approach has major downsides. The most anti-vaccine Americans — those who are adamantly refusing the jab because of a misguided belief that it’s dangerous — will probably not change their minds because the government is strong-arming employers. On the contrary, the federal mandate might actually be taken as confirmation of their paranoid suspicions that the vaccines have less to do with their health and more to do with social control.

As a practical matter, it’s undeniable that the federal mandate will engender a titanic backlash and create a spate of lawsuits. Vaccine holdouts have already taken legal action against employers requiring vaccination: Todd Zywicki, a law professor at George Mason University in Virginia who had recovered from Covid and has antibodies, recently fought his institution’s mandate and prevailed. And Republican governors are certain to battle Mr. Biden over this policy. Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota, a Republican, tweeted at the president, “See you in court.”

It’s true that courts have upheld vaccine mandates in certain circumstances: In a 1922 case, the Supreme Court famously ruled that a city ordinance could deny admission to students who failed to get the smallpox vaccine. But the assertion that a public official can completely sidestep the legislative process and enact a much farther-reaching vaccine mandate via administrative action should elicit skepticism from even those who vigorously support vaccination.

 

 

The Courts WILL UPHOLD Cornpop's Mandate And Minority Resistance WILL BE Crushed

LATimes |  As Biden said in introducing his program Thursday, COVID vaccination “is not about freedom or personal choice. it’s about protecting yourself and those around you — the people you work with, the people you care about, the people you love.”

That said, there are still some questions and issues about the program that deserve answers. Here are some of the most important points.

The court

The Supreme Court has endorsed vaccination mandates for more than 105 years. The court first weighed in on mandates in 1905, with a 7-2 decision in Jacobson vs. Massachusetts, upholding a fine imposed by the city of Cambridge, Mass., on a resident who refused to get inoculated against smallpox.

“Upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members,” Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote for the majority.

Harlan saw no problem with constraining “liberty” in the name of public welfare: “In every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.”

The Jacobson decision has been the linchpin of vaccine requirements coast to coast and at almost all levels of American society. As Lawrence Gostin of Georgetown University Law School observed late last year, “All states require childhood vaccines as a condition of school entry.” Adult mandates may be rare, but “at least 16 states require influenza or hepatitis B vaccinations for postsecondary education.”

It’s true that Jacobson has sometimes been exploited to support noxious public policies — Oliver Wendell Holmes cited it as precedent, for instance, in Buck vs. Bell, the 1927 opinion in which he upheld Virginia’s forced sterilization law with the notorious comment, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

It’s also true that the court’s approach to questions of individual rights has evolved over the last century, generally in the direction of narrowing government’s ability to restrict them. But constitutional scholars tend to find that the pandemic is sufficiently dangerous to warrant the constraints Harlan endorsed.

“A law that authorizes mandatory vaccination during an epidemic of a lethal disease ... would undoubtedly be found constitutional,” Wendy Mariner of Boston University wrote in 2005. “However, the vaccine would have to be approved by the FDA as safe and effective, and the law would have to require exceptions for those who have contraindications to the vaccine.” Those conditions would appear to be met by the Biden program.

Federal powers

Biden is relying on the power of federal funding and federal workplace laws. The government’s power to set conditions on its funding are largely unquestioned.

In mentioning an earlier order he issued requiring vaccinations of all nursing home workers who treat Medicare and Medicaid patients, he stated, “I have that federal authority.” The administration’s position is that the same authority extends to firms holding federal contracts and employees of the federal government, as well as 300,000 workers in federally funded Head Start preschool programs.