My Trust In Biden And My Trust In Goo - I Loves Both Like A Rock In My Shoe....,

WaPo |  For generations we’ve had vaccine mandates, particularly for childhood diseases, in every state plus D.C. Few thought to call this tyranny because communities have a duty to maintain public health, and individuals have a duty to reasonably accommodate the common good — even if this means allowing your child to be injected with a substance carrying a minuscule risk of harm.

So there can be no objection rooted in principle to vaccine mandates, unless you want to question them all the way down to measles, mumps and rubella. The problem must be covid-19 in particular.

If the coronavirus vaccines are risky, experimental concoctions with frequent side effects, then government and business mandates are social coercion run amok. We might as well mandate vaping.

But if these vaccines are carefully tested and encourage greater immunity to a deadly disease, with minimal risk of side effects, then the “heroism” of vaccine resisters takes on a different connotation: It means resisters are less courageous and more selfish than your average 6-year-old getting a second MMR dose. Perhaps vaccine mandates should be modified to include lollipops for whingeing malcontents.

So which view is correct? If only there were empirical means, some scientific method, to test the matter. If only there had been three phases of clinical trials, involving tens of thousands of volunteers, demonstrating the drugs to be safe and effective. If only the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration were constantly monitoring safety concerns about the vaccines. If only we could estimate the number of covid deaths that might have been prevented if vaccine uptake were higher.

To break the suspense — we do live in such a world. “From June through September 2021,” concluded a recent Peterson-KFF report, “approximately 90,000 covid-19 deaths among adults likely would have been prevented with vaccination.” So the matter is simple: Who is making vaccination more likely to take place, and who is not?

In this light, it’s hard to blame the small group of workers who have been misled into believing that liberty is the right to infect your neighbors with a deadly pathogen. The main fault lies with the media outlets that spotlight and elevate such people, and with political figures who seek their political dreams by encouraging lethal ignorance.

Lesko Brandon Using Your Employers Power To Mandate Jabs And Terminate For Cause If You Refuse

marketwatch |   “Typically, an employee who is terminated for failing to comply with company policies is not eligible for unemployment benefits, which would include refusing to comply with a company’s COVID-19 prevention policies, masking requirements or vaccine requirements,” Ackels told MarketWatch.

But an employee who has proof of a medical exemption or religious objection to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine may still be eligible to collect unemployment benefits if fired, said Rebecca Dixon, executive director at the National Employment Law Project, a nonprofit that advocates for worker’s rights.

Otherwise, refusing to get a COVID-19 vaccine, if your employer requires one, “is akin to an employee’s refusal to submit to permissible drug tests or participate in safety trainings,” said Ronald Zambrano, employment law chair at West Coast Trial Lawyers, a Los Angeles–based law firm. That is, such an employee, when terminated, would not qualify for unemployment benefits, Zambrano said.

Ultimately, “this could lead to tens of thousands of people across the United States without work or access to unemployment benefits because they refuse to get vaccinated,” Zambrano said.

What if employees quit because they don’t want to get vaccinated?

Quitting over refusal to get vaccinated when an employer requires it appears unlikely to improve one’s chances of securing unemployment payments.

“If you quit because of the mandate then you’d have to have good cause attributable to the employer in order to collect unemployment benefits,” Dixon said. “Good cause is usually viewed from that of a reasonable person. Given the overwhelming evidence of the safety of the vaccine, it’s likely that good cause would not be found” in the case of a person who quits a job because of a vaccine mandate.

That said, state workforce departments can update “eligibility requirements such that, depending on the circumstances, employees fired for refusing to get the COVID-19 vaccine could be eligible for unemployment benefits,” Ackels said.

The Department of Labor didn’t respond to MarketWatch’s request for comment.

The Texas Workforce Commission, noting that “[e]very unemployment insurance claim is reviewed on a case by case basis” and that “what happens in an unemployment claim is dependent upon the individual facts,” said that an employee “may be eligible for benefits if you were fired for reasons other than misconduct.”

The commission, while noting that most people who quit jobs are deemed ineligible for unemployment compensation, observed that it is possible to qualify if it is demonstrated that they quit “for good cause connected with the work.”

Officials at the commission did not indicate whether any individuals fired from a job for refusing to be vaccinated had qualified for unemployment benefits or whether any employer have been charged, as the commission suggested was possible.

Lesko Brandon Needs To Start Punishing Citizens Who Question Or Disobey His Mandates!

MIT |  By some lights, it seems curious how authoritarian leaders can sustain their public support while limiting liberties for citizens. Yes, it can be hard to overthrow an entrenched leader; that does not mean people have to like their ruling autocrats. And yet, many do.

After all, authoritarian China consistently polls better on measures of trust and confidence in government than many democratic countries, including the U.S. And elected leaders from Africa to East Asia and Europe have seen their popularity rise after rolling back civil rights recently. What explains this phenomenon?

“Successful authoritarians do not take public support and the durability of their systems for granted,” says MIT political scientist Lily Tsai, who has spent years studying autocratic regimes. “They know they have to constantly work hard to make sure there is support and voluntary cooperation.”

The specific way many autocrats achieve this, Tsai believes, is by investing heavily in “retributive justice,” the high-profile use of punishment against people who have run afoul of values shared by leaders and their supporters. Such punishments, it seems, signal to the public that its leaders are maintaining a social order based upon core moral values, even as they restrict certain liberties.   

“It’s an important strategy for mobilizing public support that unfortunately we don’t always acknowledge,” Tsai says. “Successful authoritarians understand that people need to feel there is a stable social and moral order, arguably before anything else, and they have to consciously and continuously produce it.”

Now Tsai, the Ford Professor of Political Science and chair of the MIT faculty, has examined this idea at length a new book, “When People Want Punishment,” published by Cambridge University Press. In it, she explores how retributive justice functions, and seeks to shift our understanding of how authoritarians prosper — an especially urgent question while many have gained traction around the globe. Fist tap Dale.

L.A. Firefighters File Intent To Sue Over The City's NeoVaccinoid Mandate

NYTimes  |  Vaccine hesitancy among police officers in the United States has been one of the themes of pandemic news this year, but in some places, firefighters are joining the resistance.

This week, hundreds of firefighters in Los Angeles filed a notice of intent to sue the city over its vaccine mandate, saying an Oct. 20 deadline to get vaccinated is “extreme and outrageous.”

The notice, filed on Thursday, said each of the 871 firefighters would seek $2.5 million each if the lawsuit is filed — for a projected total of over $2.1 billion. A lawyer representing the group said that the city would have 45 days to evaluate the notice and that he expected to file the suit immediately after that period.

Firefighters in Spokane, Wash., joined state workers in a lawsuit over statewide vaccine mandates, according to KXLY-TV. In Orange County, Fla., a group of firefighters upset by a vaccine mandate sued the county, WFTV reported.

The International Association of Fire Fighters’ statement on vaccines offers no support for rejecting vaccine mandates. Instead, it notes the extreme importance of vaccination for “fire fighters and medical emergency personnel who work in confined and uncontrolled environments while treating or transporting patients or interacting with the public.” The statement lists the few options available for exemptions, and lists some of the financial penalties and job losses that defying mandates could incur.

Kevin McBride, the lawyer representing the Los Angeles firefighters, said in an interview that his clients did not trust the available vaccines and could be fired for defying the city’s vaccine mandate.

All three vaccines used in the United States are highly effective at preventing serious illness, hospitalization and death from Covid-19, and serious side effects, like a strong allergic reaction, are extremely rare.

Mr. McBride said the Los Angeles authorities had rejected his offer of a “middle ground” in which weekly testing would substitute for getting the shot. The mandate passed by the Los Angeles City Council in August did not include an option for regular testing.

As of Thursday, about 64 percent of members of the Los Angeles Fire Department were fully vaccinated, according to a spokeswoman, Cheryl Getuiza, and about 1,200 members had not had a single shot. Since the pandemic began, two members have died, and 1,070 have been infected, she said.

Los Angeles is also experiencing vaccine hesitancy among its law-enforcement agents. The firefighters’ notice of intent to sue was filed on the same day that the Los Angeles County sheriff, Alex Villanueva, said he would not enforce the vaccine mandate at his department, which employs some 18,000 people.

Let My Brothers And Sisters Work

ladailypost |  WWII was the most devastating and destructive wars of all time. It began when Adolph Hitler took power at a time when Germany was economically and politically unstable. He invaded Poland, and made treaties with Italy and Japan to enhance his ability to dominate the entire world and proceeded to murder 6 million Jews in what he called the “final solution”.

Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) was established when the world’s leading scientists wanted to create a weapon that would put an end to Hitler’s plan and the unspeakable devastation of the war.

By bringing together scientists who could put their unique and different minds together in a rigorous way to think and debate and create, LANL was able to win WWII and the cold war afterwards.

Decades later, LANL seems to have lost sight of the value of intellectual freedom and dissent. The latest example is that LANL has asked it’s employees who choose not to take vaccines due to their faith to either quit their job or take leave without pay on Oct. 15.

First of all, this measure seems medically unnecessary, since the vaccination rate at LANL is over 90 percent, which is well above the minimum rate to stop  runaway circulation of COVID-19 at the lab. On top of that, I’m amazed that in a society of free will, more than 90 percent of people would ever choose to do the exact same thing no matter what it is. But what’s mind boggling is that the lab is demanding 100 percent alignment  or you’re fired!

This kind of extreme and unbending policy is not unfamiliar to me. Growing up in a communist country, I witnessed and experienced long brain-washing and knew people were getting their heads cut off when 100 percent consensus wasn’t achieved.

While an individual’s utopian wishful thinking of saving every life may make him a hero some of the time, it’s dangerous when an organization has an utopian policy of saving every life because the results come at the cost of other people’s lives. In this case, life of  hundreds families will put upside down in such a short time.

Personally, I am not even anti-vaccine; I am fully vaccinated.

As a biologist and a Christian, I understand why people choose not to vaccinate for medical or religious reasons. Their choice came with some risks, mostly (>99%) to themselves. Taking a risky path is usually a rare behavior in any group and can lead to valuable contributions to society.

As an organization based on science, LANL should take the lead to protect religious freedom

Why?

Because religion, specifically Christianity, is the father of modern science. Modern science could not exist if there was no Christianity.

Let me explain. I was an atheist before I became a Christian. I experienced two stages of conversion, first emotional conversion and then rational conversion. The rational conversion happened when I  studied the history of modern science, Christianity, and other religions. My conclusion from that study is that modern science could only occur in a society that practices faith. In this short writing, I will tell you briefly about my main reasonings.

Is There A Tipping-Point Where The Wrong Little Person Get's Crushed By The NeoVaccinoid Mandate?

CBS-4  |  A Colorado woman with stage 5 renal failure was months away from getting a new kidney. Now, she and her donor are looking for another hospital after learning UCHealth’s new policy.

According to UCHealth, the majority of transplant recipients and living donors are now required to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Neither woman has received their shots.

Leilani Lutali met her donor, Jaimee Fougner, in Bible study just 10 months ago.

“It’s your choice on what treatment you have. In Leilani’s case, the choice has been taken from her. Her life has now been held hostage because of this mandate,” said Fougner.

Fougner says she hasn’t received the vaccine for religious reasons. Lutali hasn’t gotten the shot because she says there are too many unknowns. Until last week, neither woman thought they needed to be vaccinated for the transplant.

“At the end of August, they confirmed that there was no COVID shot needed at that time,” said Lutali. “Fast forward to Sept. 28. That’s when I found out. Jamie learned they have this policy around the COVID shot for both for the donor and the recipient.”

The women received this letter from UCHealth:

Scandinavia Cancels mRNA NeoVaccinoids For Those Under 30 - Pentagon Threatening Dishonorable Discharges

apnews  |  Scandinavian authorities on Wednesday suspended or discouraged the use of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine in young people because of an increased risk of heart inflammation, a very rare side effect associated with the shot.

Sweden suspended the use of Moderna for those recipients under 30, Denmark said those under 18 won’t be offered the Swiss-made vaccine, and Norway urged those under 30 to get the Pfizer vaccine instead.

The countries have adequate supplies of both Pfizer and Moderna vaccines and will be able to continue their vaccination campaigns.

In neighboring Finland, authorities are expected to announce their decision Thursday, according to Dr. Hanna Nohynek, chief physician at the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, told local broadcaster YLE.

reuters |   Finland on Thursday paused the use of Moderna's (MRNA.O) COVID-19 vaccine for younger males due to reports of a rare cardiovascular side effect, joining Sweden and Denmark in limiting its use.

Mika Salminen, director of the Finnish health institute, said Finland would instead give Pfizer's vaccine to men born in 1991 and later. Finland offers shots to people aged 12 and over.

"A Nordic study involving Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark found that men under the age of 30 who received Moderna Spikevax had a slightly higher risk than others of developing myocarditis," he said.

Swedish and Danish health officials had announced on Wednesday they would pause the use of the Moderna vaccine for all young adults and children, citing the same unpublished study.

Norwegian health officials reiterated on Wednesday that they recommended men under the age of 30 opt for Pfizer's vaccine.

The Finnish institute said the Nordic study would be published within a couple of weeks and preliminary data had been sent to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for further assessment.

The Vaccine Mandate Has Taught Elites "In The Future Go Straight To Coercion!"

FT |  Vaccine mandates are not incurring a vicious public backlash, at least not yet. Almost a month has passed since President Joe Biden announced that most US workers would have to be vaccinated or frequently tested. Street protests are real but containable. Resignations from work are at modest levels. The governor of California even feels emboldened to require vaccines for school children….

If it holds, the public’s grudging tolerance of mandates will have eye-opening lessons. For one, people are hopeless predictors of their own future behaviour. Surveys had suggested a rash of job-quitting in the event of employer mandates (just as they had implied that France, whose vaccination rate is pulling ahead of Britain’s, would be a laggard). Public opinion data does not just inform the election predictions of speculative columnists. It is also an important basis of government policy. If the science has a systemic blind spot for the future, for what people think they would do in hypothetical scenarios, it has distorted governance.

Another conclusion is that partisanship has its uses… It is a sign of the most dire civic rot that people base even their approach to personal health on their tribal fealties. But it also means that Biden’s mandate is mostly alienating those who were never going to vote for him anyway. The very bifurcation of America can empower as well as curb a leader.

Of all the inferences to be drawn from the elusive backlash, the last is the most far-reaching. In fact, after five years of anti-elite politics, from Brazil to the Philippines, it feels transgressive to express this thought: in the end, people want to be led.

A truism, possibly? Or something more unpleasant? More:

The public has already supplied an example of what we might call enlightened docility. Imagine being told in 2016 that, in four years, there would be vast support for a lockdown with no peacetime precedent, prescribed by an invisible expert class. Next to coercion of that scale and nature, the mandates are laissez-faire. I say all this with the jitters of a man carrying a vase in a greased hand across a stone floor.

No, not concerning at all! In a way, the whole process resembles the neoliberal playbook: (1) Degrade public health by underfunding and corruption, (2) watch it fail in a very public test, and (3) replace it with coercion. Best of all, in future you can go directly to coercion!

OSHA - Any Adverse Reaction To An Employer Mandated Covid Jab Is Work-Related

ENR  |  New guidance from the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration is causing contractors to change their COVID-19 vaccine requirements, and many of them criticize the guidance as diametrically opposed to the Biden administration's stated desire to increase vaccinations.

Update: EEOC Says It Will Create Specialized Return-to-Work Guidelines

On April 20, OSHA released the new guidance in the frequently asked questions section of its website for COVID-19 safety compliance.  

The question asks whether an employer should record adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccination if the employer requires the vaccine. OSHA states that if a vaccine is required, then any adverse reaction is considered work-related and therefore it must be recorded. Under OSHA rules, most employers with more than 10 employees are required to keep a record of serious work-related injuries and illnesses. Recorded injuries and illnesses become part of a contractors safety record.

TAKE OUR POLL: Do you agree with OSHA's guidance on employers requiring vaccines?

This is the actual text of the new question and answer on the OSHA website:

"If I require my employees to take the COVID-19 vaccine as a condition of their employment, are adverse reactions to the vaccine recordable?

"If you require your employees to be vaccinated as a condition of employment (i.e., for work-related reasons), then any adverse reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine is work-related. The adverse reaction is recordable if it is a new case under 29 CFR 1904.6 and meets one or more of the general recording criteria in 29 CFR 1904.7."

In response, several large contractors said they have changed or will change their vaccination policy to only recommend—not require—a vaccine.

"We, sadly, had to back off our (employee vaccination) mandate because OSHA did something I don't understand at all," said Bob Clark, founder and executive chairman of Clayco in a recent ENR Critical Path podcast. "I side with OSHA frequently, we're in its VIP program, but on this they're just wrong. It's a terrible decision they've made and I think it'll be overturned."

Clark said Clayco, which participated in crafting the initial Centers for Disease Control guidance on construction site safety during the pandemic, would be communicating with OSHA through members of congress to seek changes to the guidance. A spokeswoman for OSHA did not immediately return messages asking for clarification of the new guidance. Construction industry groups universally panned the guidance and said it would hurt their efforts to encourage employees to get vaccinated.

"What they put forward could potentially discourage employers from supporting their workers getting the vaccine," said Kevin Cannon, senior director of safety and health services at the Associated General Contractors of America. "AGC is not in support of any mandate, however we participated, April 19th through 23rd, in vaccine awareness week. We had a lot of members who were in chapters that supported the event. We even had some who hosted vaccine clinics on an active job site or in their offices."

Cannon said some member contractors may have changed their approach to those events had they known, at the time, they could potentially "be on the hook for recording these potential adverse reactions."

"Science" And "Follow The Science" Have Been Subverted By Punitive Political Partisans

mises |  In an op-ed for the Washington Post last week, Marty Makary of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine argues that the medical profession has hurt its credibility in pretending that natural immunity is virtually irrelevant to the covid equation. Moreover, the dogmatic "get vaccinated" position constitutes a lack of honesty about the data. Rather, Makary concludes:

[W]e can encourage all Americans to get vaccinated while still being honest about the data. In my clinical experience, I have found patients to be extremely forgiving with evolving data if you are honest and transparent with them. Yet, when asked the common question, “I’ve recovered from covid, is it absolutely essential that I get vaccinated?” many public health officials have put aside the data and responded with a synchronized “yes,” even as studies have shown that reinfections are rare and often asymptomatic or mild when they do occur.

And what are these studies? Makary continues:

More than 15 studies have demonstrated the power of immunity acquired by previously having the virus. A 700,000-person study from Israel two weeks ago found that those who had experienced prior infections were 27 times less likely to get a second symptomatic covid infection than those who were vaccinated. This affirmed a June Cleveland Clinic study of health-care workers (who are often exposed to the virus), in which none who had previously tested positive for the coronavirus got reinfected. The study authors concluded that “individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from covid-19 vaccination.” And in May, a Washington University study found that even a mild covid infection resulted in long-lasting immunity.

The policy bias in favor of vaccines ignores many other facts as well, such as the relative risks of vaccines, especially for the young:

The current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention position about vaccinating children also dismisses the benefits of natural immunity. The Los Angeles County School District recently mandated vaccines for students ages 12 and up who want to learn in person. But young people are less likely to suffer severe or long-lasting symptoms from covid-19 than adults, and have experienced rare heart complications from the vaccines. In Israel, heart inflammation has been observed in between 1 in 3,000 and 1 in 6,000 males age 16 to 24; the CDC has confirmed 854 reports nationally in people age 30 and younger who got the vaccine.

A second dose of the two-shot mRNA vaccine like that produced by Pfizer and Moderna may not even be necessary in children who had covid. Since February, Israel’s Health Ministry has been recommending that anyone, adult or adolescent, who has recovered from covid-19 receive a only single mRNA vaccine dose, instead of two. Even though the risk of severe illness during a reinfection is exceedingly low, some data has demonstrated a slight benefit to one dose in this situation. Other countries use a similar approach. The United States could adopt this strategy now as a reasonable next step in transitioning from an overly rigid to a more flexible vaccine requirement policy. For comparison, the CDC has long recommended that kids do not get the chickenpox vaccine if they had chickenpox infection in the past.

The nonscientific, ideology-induced blind spot for natural immunity also prompted The BMJ  (the journal of the British Medical Association) to note that "[w]hen the vaccine rollout began in mid-December 2020, more than one quarter of Americans—91 million—had been infected with SARS-CoV-2…. As of this May, that proportion had risen to more than a third of the population, including 44% of adults aged 18–59."

And yet, the authors note this fact doesn't appear to be a part of any policy discussion at all: 

The substantial number of infections, coupled with the increasing scientific evidence that natural immunity was durable, led some medical observers to ask why natural immunity didn’t seem to be factored into decisions about prioritising vaccination.

This problem is reflected in the Biden administration’s drive for booster shots—announced in mid-August—even before there was any clinical research on booster shots at all. Even by mid-September, as one hospital’s chief medical officer put it, “the data is not compelling one way or another.”

But those sorts of details don’t trouble federal “public health” officials, and the Biden administration quickly moved toward pushing booster shots for everyone.

Of Course The Voice Of Youtube Community Guidelines Is A Nasally Effeminate Soy Boy

youtube |  Crafting policy around medical misinformation comes charged with inherent challenges and tradeoffs. Scientific understanding evolves as new research emerges, and firsthand, personal experience regularly plays a powerful role in online discourse. Vaccines in particular have been a source of fierce debate over the years, despite consistent guidance from health authorities about their effectiveness. Today, we're expanding our medical misinformation policies on YouTube with new guidelines on currently administered vaccines that are approved and confirmed to be safe and effective by local health authorities and the WHO.

Our Community Guidelines already prohibit certain types of medical misinformation. We've long removed content that promotes harmful remedies, such as saying drinking turpentine can cure diseases. At the onset of COVID-19, we built on these policies when the pandemic hit, and worked with experts to develop 10 new policies around COVID-19 and medical misinformation. Since last year, we’ve removed over 130,000 videos for violating our COVID-19 vaccine policies.

Throughout this work, we learned important lessons about how to design and enforce nuanced medical misinformation policies at scale. Working closely with health authorities, we looked to balance our commitment to an open platform with the need to remove egregious harmful content. We’ve steadily seen false claims about the coronavirus vaccines spill over into misinformation about vaccines in general, and we're now at a point where it's more important than ever to expand the work we started with COVID-19 to other vaccines. 

Specifically, content that falsely alleges that approved vaccines are dangerous and cause chronic health effects, claims that vaccines do not reduce transmission or contraction of disease, or contains misinformation on the substances contained in vaccines will be removed. This would include content that falsely says that approved vaccines cause autism, cancer or infertility, or that substances in vaccines can track those who receive them. Our policies not only cover specific routine immunizations like for measles or Hepatitis B, but also apply to general statements about vaccines.

As with our COVID guidelines, we consulted with local and international health organizations and experts in developing these policies. For example, our new guidance on vaccine side effects maps to public vaccine resources provided by health authorities and backed by medical consensus. These policy changes will go into effect today, and as with any significant update, it will take time for our systems to fully ramp up enforcement.

 

NBA Mandingo Rebellion As Star Players Refuse To Submit To The Evil Mr. NA

rollingstone |  Monday, September 27th: Irving was not present for Nets Media Day at Barclays Center in Brooklyn, where city law requires athletes to have at least one dose of Covid vaccination to participate in team activities.

Appearing from his home for a brief press conference with reporters, Irving declined to answer directly four separate questions regarding his vaccination and playing status. “Living in this public sphere, there’s a lot of questions about what’s going on in the world of Kyrie,” he said, “and I would love to just keep that private and handle that the right way with my team and go forward with a plan.”

The Nets dodged questions about what such a plan might be. San Francisco city officials removed religious and medical exemptions from their policy on Friday, making the NBA’s decision on Wiggins easier. A league source said any comment on further applications for exemptions in New York would make too clear who had applied; the New York Knicks have said their team is 100-percent vaccinated.

One by one, the basketball players — non-vaccinated star here, fully-inoculated veteran on mute down there, a full-on anti-vaxxer front-and-center — logged into the video conference. The annual summer meeting of the powerful NBA union had gone virtual again on August 7, and high on the agenda for the season ahead was a proposed mandate from the league office that 100 percent of players get vaccinated against Covid-19.

One response echoed from squares across the screen, according to players and an executive on the call: Non-starter. Non-starter.”

The NBA had relied on science above all to lead the sports world through the Covid nightmare, from the league’s outbreak-driven shutdown to a pandemic-proof playoff bubble in Disney World to game after game with fans back in the stands. But after two plagued seasons of non-stop nasal swabbing, quarantining and distrust, unvaccinated players were pushing back. They made their case to the union summit: There should be testing this year, of course, just not during off-days. They’d mask up on the court and on the road, if they must. But no way would they agree to a mandatory jab. The vaccine deniers had set the agenda; the players agreed to take their demands for personal freedom to the NBA’s negotiating table.

This month, league officials caught a break: Two of America’s most progressive cities, New York and San Francisco, would require pro athletes to show proof of one Covid-19 vaccination dose to play indoors, except with an approved medical or religious exemption. Which meant that one of the NBA’s biggest stars — one known for being receptive to conspiratorial beliefs — would be under heavy pressure to get a shot. And if Brooklyn Nets superstar Kyrie Irving could be convinced to take the vaccine, then maybe, just maybe, the whole league could create a new kind of bubble together.

When asked directly about Irving’s vaccination status — or his plans to change it — multiple people familiar with his thinking declined to answer directly. But one confidant and family member floated to Rolling Stone the idea of anti-vaxx players skipping home games to dodge the New York City ordinance… or at least threatening to protest them, until the NBA changes its ways.

“There are so many other players outside of him who are opting out, I would like to think they would make a way,” says Kyrie’s aunt, Tyki Irving, who runs the seven-time All-Star’s family foundation and is one of the few people in his regular circle of advisors. “It could be like every third game. So it still gives you a full season of being interactive and being on the court, but with the limitations that they’re, of course, oppressing upon you. There can be some sort of formula where the NBA and the players can come to some sort of agreement.”

 

FDA Official "Just Force These Vaccine Hesitant Negroes Or Put A Yellow Star On Them!"

projectveritas |  Project Veritas released the second video of its COVID vaccine investigative series today exposing U.S. Food and Drug Administration [FDA] economist, Taylor Lee, who was recorded calling for forced COVID vaccinations and a registry for all unvaccinated Americans.

Lee said that U.S. Government policy could emulate Nazi Germany when it comes to the COVID vaccine.

“Census goes door-to-door if you don’t respond. So, we have the infrastructure to do it [forced COVID vaccinations]. I mean, it’ll cost a ton of money. But I think, at that point, I think there needs to be a registry of people who aren’t vaccinated. Although that’s sounding very [much like Nazi] Germany,” Lee said.

“Nazi Germany…I mean, think about it like the Jewish Star [for unvaccinated Americans],” he said.

“So, if you put every anti-vaxxer, like sheep, into like Texas and you closed off Texas from the rest of the world, and you go, ‘Okay, you be you in Texas until we deal with this [pandemic].’”

Lee said that due to a large portion of the African American community being hesitant to take the COVID vaccine, the solution would be to “blow dart” on them:

Taylor Lee, FDA Economist: “I think that a lot of the time -- so there's also this issue of -- I remember reading about how with COVID [vaccine] trials, they were having an issue recruiting African American people. It was because of a different medication the government tried to do that was specifically designed to kill African Americans.”

Veritas Journalist: “Oh, so like a mistrust thing.”

Lee: “Yeah.”

Veritas Journalist: “But this thing [COVID vaccine] is safe, though.”

Lee: “We know that now, but like again, I think there is still this big mistrust and like it's deep-rooted.”

Veritas Journalist: “Yeah. Can’t blame them [African Americans].”

Lee: “I can’t. But at the same time, like, blow dart. That’s where we’re going.”

Lee affirmed that “wealthy white people” are more likely to get the COVID vaccine because they are “educated,” and added that he would be willing to force COVID vaccines upon Americans himself if needed.

“I’m gonna go door-to-door and stab everyone [with the COVID vaccine], ‘Oh, it’s just your booster shot! There you go!’”

Lee also said that FDA officials can often be political appointees rather than actual scientific experts.

“There are political appointees [at the FDA] that are generally scientific advisors or are appointed by the president or the commission…They're being paid based on if the other people are staying in power,” he said.

 

HHS Nurse Goes On The Record About Adverse Reactions To Mr. NA NeoVaccinoid Goo...,

projectveritas  |  [PHOENIX – Sept. 20, 2021] Project Veritas released the first video of its COVID vaccine investigative series today featuring an interview with U.S. Health and Human Services [HHS] insider, Jodi O’Malley, who works as a Registered Nurse at the local Indian Medical Center.

O’Malley told Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe about what has been going on at her federal government facility. She recorded her HHS colleagues discussing their concerns about the new COVID vaccine to corroborate her assertions:

Dr. Maria Gonzales, ER Doctor, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: “The problem in here is that they are not doing the studies. People that had [COVID] and the people that have been vaccinated -- they’re not doing any antibody testing.”

Jodi O’Malley, Insider and Registered Nurse, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: “Nope.”

Dr. Gonzales: “Everybody is quiet with that. Why?”

O’Malley: “Now, you got this guy in Room Four who got his second dose of the [COVID] vaccine on Tuesday and has been short of breath. Okay? Now his BNP is elevated. D diver elevated, ALT, all his liver enzymes are elevated. His PTPTINR is elevated.”

Dr. Gonzales: “He’s probably got myocarditis!”

O’Malley: “Yes!”

Dr. Gonzales: “All this is bullshit. Now probably myocarditis due to the vaccine.”

O’Malley: “Right.”

Dr. Gonzales: “But now, they [government] are not going to blame the vaccine.”

O’Malley: “Well and you know what -- but he has an obligation to report that doesn’t he? It happened right -- what is it -- sixty days after if you see anything?”

Dr. Gonzales: “They have got to.”

O’Malley: “But how many are reporting?”

Dr. Gonzales: “They are not reporting.”

O’Malley: “Right!”

Dr. Gonzales: “Because they want to shove it under the mat.”

O’Malley explained this conversation in detail during her interview with O’Keefe:

James O’Keefe, Project Veritas founder: “In this instance with Dr. Gonzales, what patient was she referring to? Without saying the name.”

Jodi O’Malley, Insider and Registered Nurse, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:“She was referring to a thirty-something-year-old patient that had congestive heart failure.”

O’Keefe: “Congestive heart failure? In that particular patient’s case, it was not reported?”

O’Malley: “No.”

O’Keefe: “Were there other instances that they didn’t report? Or just this one?”

O’Malley: “Yeah, many.”

O’Keefe: “How many did you see?”

O’Malley: “Oh, I’ve seen dozens of people come in with adverse reactions [to the COVID vaccine].”

…

O’Malley: “So, what the responsibility on everyone is -- is to gather that data and report it. If we’re not gathering [COVID vaccine] data and reporting it, then how are we going to say that this is safe and approved for use?”

The whistleblower also recorded Dr. Gonzales’ disagreement with another HHS doctor pertaining to the research and reporting behind the COVID vaccine:

Jodi O’Malley, Insider and Registered Nurse, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: “So how come after 18 months, we haven’t had any research? Isn’t that fishy to you?”

Dr. Maria Gonzales, ER Doctor, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: “It does -- it is fishy.”

O’Malley: “It’s super fishy.”

Dr. Dale McGee, ER Doctor, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: “It’s not that it hasn’t been done. It hasn’t been published, that’s why.”

Dr. Gonzales: “It hasn’t probably been done because the government doesn’t want to show that the darn [COVID] vaccine is full of sh*t.”

 

Silly Atlantic Opinion Piece Fails To Explain Why Cornpop Bet The Ranch On A NeoVaccinoid Mandate

theatlantic |  Biden’s bet, while risky, grows more solid by the day. Republicans are making a counterargument that they believe their base wants to hear, which would be fine if their base were sufficient to wrest control of Congress from the Democrats. Biden is trying to appeal to a wider audience. Two of the most prized voting blocs in an election—suburban and independent voters—favor Biden’s vaccine-mandate plan by solid margins. They don’t see the vaccine requirement as government overreach; for them, it’s a step toward reentering a world they remember from two years ago.

“Republicans could be making a real mistake on the long-term play on this issue, especially heading into the midterms,” Rob Stutzman, a longtime Republican strategist based in California, told me. “Voters are looking at this through a personal lens, not a political lens. If I’m vaccinated, I’m really annoyed that we’ve had a second surge that was made worse because of the unvaccinated. And I’m annoyed because that means I have to put a mask back on and I have kids in school who are now at risk.”

Read: The fundamental question of the pandemic is shifting

Twenty years ago, after hijacked planes brought down the World Trade Center and blew a hole in the Pentagon, George W. Bush signed the PATRIOT Act, making it easier for the federal government to surveil Americans in the name of national security. Enough Americans were traumatized by the events of 9/11 to make that sort of encroachment on civil liberties palatable, so long as it meant the government would safeguard them from another terrorist attack. Over the years, the trade-off proved a devil’s bargain, as government watchdogs have chronicled abuses of privacy that had nothing to do with foiling another attack on U.S. soil.

Biden’s vaccine mandates are more grounded in American tradition. George Washington ordered that his Continental Army be inoculated against smallpox while fighting the British during the Revolutionary War. Schools have long required vaccinations for diseases such as polio. “Nobody wants the government to tell you what to do,” says Frank Luntz, a longtime Republican pollster who has shared some of his research on COVID-19 with the White House. “But—and this is a big but—they’re even more afraid of the government allowing people who are standing beside them, traveling with them, working with them, and partying with them to give them COVID.’’

In the Reagan era, much of Republican identity was bound up in support for business and lower taxes. But the threshold question these days for Republicans looking to rise within the party is their fealty to Donald Trump. A strong argument can be made that Biden’s plan is helpful to businesses and the larger economy, and something that, in less polarized times, Republicans might have actually embraced. People are less likely to go to a movie theater if they fear that the couple eating popcorn in the seats next to them might be unvaccinated. They are less likely to attend a conference—injecting money into both the local and national economies through airfare, hotels, car services, and meals—if others in the crowd are unvaccinated.

U.K. Ministry Of Defense: Human Augmentation Dawn Of A New Paradigm

gov.uk  |   The ability to enhance one’s physical, psychological or social capability has been a source of power throughout history, and warfare is the epitome of this dynamic.  The paradox of war is that humans are central to its conduct but are also the weakest link.  We want ‘war fighters’ – whether they be cyber specialists, drone pilots or infantry soldiers – to be stronger, faster, more intelligent, more resilient and more mobile to overcome the environment and the adversary.  We have designed increasingly complex technologies to enhance lethality, survivability and mobility.  As technology has become more sophisticated our thinking has become more focused on the machine rather than the person, but this needs to change if we are going to be effective in the future. 

Recent advances in the life sciences and related technologies have led to the emergence of the interdisciplinary field known as human augmentation which has the potential to disrupt every aspect of our lives.  The interdependencies and potential implications of human augmentation are so vast and complex that it is difficult to make sense of what it means for the future of society and Defence.  The aim of this strategic implications project is to take the first step in making sense of these potential changes to human capabilities.  It offers a conceptual model for thinking about human augmentation, its future direction and identifies key implications for Defence and its stakeholders.

Human augmentation will become increasingly relevant, partly because it can directly enhance human capability and behaviour and partly because it is the binding agent between people and machines.  Future wars will be won, not by those with the most advanced technology, but by those who can most effectively integrate the unique capabilities of both people and machines.  The importance of human-machine teaming is widely acknowledged but it has been viewed from a techno-centric perspective.  Human augmentation is the missing part of this puzzle.

Thinking of the person as a platform and understanding our people at an individual level is fundamental to successful human augmentation.  Industrial Age warfare saw people as interchangeable components of military units or the material with which to operate the platforms – vehicles, aircraft and ships.  These platforms are routinely monitored and analysed but it is remarkable that our ability to understand our most critical capability – the human – is so under-researched.  Successful application of human augmentation demands a more sophisticated approach to understanding our people and their capabilities.  Defining the key elements of the ‘human platform’ – physical, psychological and social – provides a conceptual baseline to enable a multidisciplinary conversation.  

Physical performance is the capability to affect the physical environment and move within it.  Strength, dexterity, speed and endurance are key components and there is
often a trade-off between them.

Psychological performance comprises cognition, emotion and motivation.  Cognition is the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience and the senses.  It includes processes such as attention, the formation of knowledge, long-term and working memory, reasoning, problem solving and decision-making.  Emotion describes the subjective human experience and is closely linked with motivation, which is the force that energises, activates and directs behaviour.

Social performance is the ability to perceive oneself as part of a group and the  readiness to act as part of the team.  It is founded on self-awareness and the ability to understand the behaviour of others.  It is tightly linked to communication skills, collaboration and trust.  The core tenet of social performance is group cohesion.

Human augmentation is not a shortcut – getting the basics of human physiology, biochemistry and psychology right is a prerequisite to human augmentation and will become more important in the future.  Research into human augmentation has shone a stark light on how little we know about how to do the basics well.  We need to do more to understand the precise effects of nutrition, sleep and hydration, and their relationship with other areas of the body to realise significant, yet untapped potential.  Technology that improves monitoring will make it possible to individually optimise sleep, nutrition and other factors to deliver transformational gains across an organisation at relatively low cost and limited ethical risk.

Human augmentation is not just tomorrow’s business, there are short-term and  long-term opportunities that require engagement today.  The following matrix illustrates the technical maturity and the magnitude of policy considerations of human augmentation technologies.  It shows that there are technologies that could be integrated today with manageable policy considerations.  The most transformative technologies (for example, genetics and brain interfaces) currently sit at a low level of technological maturity but we must be prepared for this to change quickly.  Bioinformatics and collection and analytics (encompassing sensors, artificial intelligence-enabled processing) are particularly important enablers for other human augmentation technologies and warrant focused research and development attention.

Politics Pretending To Be Science

Evidence says it’s fantasy implying (((1] Politics))) and ((( 2] “The Science”))) are anything but:
(((2]))) follows (((1]))).

Those were political decisions to:

1] Deem vaccination as The Final Solution, back on Jan. 15, 2020 as “worth the risk” — over and above: equal, or more resource allocation to prevention and cure.

1a] Political decision to deem “it is out of the question” to provide any Emergency Use Authorization for treatments; while before-the-fact promising those to Moderna and Pfizer neo-vaccinoid manufacturers.

2] political decision to throw billions of dollars — not at prevention and cure, rather: billions and billions creating experimental vaccines.

3] political decisions to block and malign prevention and cure, to boot.

4] political decision to “warp speed” neo-vaccinoid.

5] political decision to block, using all means, treatments.

5a] political decision to censor and block the many warnings from spring 2020 forward, ongoing and continuing: potential dangerous consequences of mass neo-vaccinoid during pandemic, such as mutations run amok, deaths, injuries, permanent disabilities.

6] political decision to block treatment, to tell the sick, already in hospital: go home until you are so ill you need hospitalization; and provide the sick ZERO treatment.

And don’t say these things didn’t happen.

7] political decision to absolve neo-vaccinoid manufacturers of all liability

8] political decision to deny superior herd immunity, and deem neo-vaccinoid immunity superior

9] political decision to bully health care providers to shut your mouths and keep them shut about adverse neo-vaccinoid effects, once they were rolled out in USA circa mid December, 2020. To shut up or else.

And don’t say this is not happening, and continues.

10] Political decisions to use narrative: covid infections bad in 2020; covid infections OK in 2021 — provided you got neo-vaccinoided.

Don’t say this isn’t happening.

11] Political decision for Biden to call Xi and Putin tyrants while extra-constitutionally attempt to mandate businesses make their workers be neo-vaccinoided, or else.

12] political decision to have so-called covid tests run at 35+ cycles knowing full well results from this are garbage. . .

13] political decision to lower this cycling when the inevitable breakthrough cases began to proliferate

13a] political decision to hide data on breakthrough cases

14] political decision to count a death a ‘covid death’ on a death certificate without evidence that it be a death DUE TO covid

15] thus a political decision to inflate death counts, irrespective of “the science” and absent evidence [just as 35+ threshold political decision to inflate case counts, irrespective of science].

16] political decision to hide data on neo-vaccinoid injuries, deaths, to American public

17] political decision to threaten doctors that use and prescribe IVM and chloroquines to their patients; and now to ban doctors from treating their patients.

Don’t say these things did not happen.

18] political decision to claim Vaccine Effectiveness = 95% for mRNA shots.

19] political decision to hide the actual VE [approaching VE=ZERO].

20] political decision to deploy military grade propaganda pushing the political decisions and wrap them in veneer of “The Science.”

21] political decision to ban children from schools, and now mask them, and now neo-vaccinoid them despite fact: risks from these shots far far far outweigh benefits

It is one thing for us old folk to be worried for our own health and security and the like.

Another entirely to throw our kids to the wolves, knowing full well we are throwing them to the wolves.

And it was a political decision NOT TO mandate any neo-vaccinoid trials on the short term and long term effects of covid neo-vaccinoid on pregnant women! This is a political and a criminal decision, perhaps.

We have no idea the risks on this essential dimension; no trials on pregnant women [the CDC terminology is “pregnant persons”].

And no one put a gun to Fauci’s head when he stated: an attack on me is an attack on science.

This very sick man in charge of COVID USA.

No one put a gun to Walensky’s head when she stated: we have hope, we don’t have data.

She, in charge of CDC?!?!

“John Tukey once said that the collective noun for a group of statisticians is a quarrel. This applies to other scientists, too.”

Among the most eminent and knowledgeable MD and scientist in USA [and among the earliest in 2020 who was censored] recently discussed his take on the perfidy: the political decisions . . . and these, from and because which: men like him were attacked without reason. He dared critique the narratives created, the political narratives dressed up as science:

“But ‘we are at war’ led to a step beyond: This is a dirty war, one without dignity. Opponents were threatened, abused, and bullied by cancel culture campaigns in social media, hit stories in mainstream media, and bestsellers written by zealots. . . .Wikipedia pages were vandalized. Reputations were systematically devastated and destroyed. Many brilliant scientists were abused and received threats during the pandemic, intended to make them and their families miserable. . . .Politics dressed up as public health not only injured science. It also shot down participatory public health where people are empowered, rather than obligated and humiliated.”

The ACLU USED TO Denounce Coercive Mandates...,

Greenwald |  The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) surprised even many of its harshest critics this week when it strongly defended coercive programs and other mandates from the state in the name of fighting COVID. “Far from compromising them, vaccine mandates actually further civil liberties,” its Twitter account announced, adding that “vaccine requirements also safeguard those whose work involves regular exposure to the public."

If you were surprised to see the ACLU heralding the civil liberties imperatives of "vaccine mandates” and "vaccine requirements” — whereby the government coerces adults to inject medicine into their own bodies that they do not want — the New York Times op-ed which the group promoted, written by two of its senior lawyers, was even more extreme. The article begins with this rhetorical question: “Do vaccine mandates violate civil liberties?” Noting that "some who have refused vaccination claim as much,” the ACLU lawyers say: “we disagree.” The op-ed then examines various civil liberties objections to mandates and state coercion — little things like, you know, bodily autonomy and freedom to choose — and the ACLU officials then invoke one authoritarian cliche after the next (“these rights are not absolute") to sweep aside such civil liberties concerns:

[W]hen it comes to Covid-19, all considerations point in the same direction. . . . In fact, far from compromising civil liberties, vaccine mandates actually further civil liberties. . . . .

[Many claim that] vaccines are a justifiable intrusion on autonomy and bodily integrity. That may sound ominous, because we all have the fundamental right to bodily integrity and to make our own health care decisions. But these rights are not absolute. They do not include the right to inflict harm on others. . . . While vaccine mandates are not always permissible, they rarely run afoul of civil liberties when they involve highly infectious and devastating diseases like Covid-19. . . .

While limited exceptions are necessary, most people can be required to be vaccinated. . . . . Where a vaccine is not medically contraindicated, however, avoiding a deadly threat to the public health typically outweighs personal autonomy and individual freedom.

The op-ed sounds like it was written by an NSA official justifying the need for mass surveillance (yes, fine, your privacy is important but it is not absolute; your privacy rights are outweighed by public safety; we are spying on you for your own good). And the op-ed appropriately ends with this perfect Orwellian flourish: “We care deeply about civil liberties and civil rights for all — which is precisely why we support vaccine mandates.”

What makes the ACLU's position so remarkable — besides the inherent shock of a civil liberties organization championing state mandates overriding individual choice — is that, very recently, the same group warned of the grave dangers of the very mindset it is now pushing. In 2008, the ACLU published a comprehensive report on pandemics which had one primary purpose: to denounce as dangerous and unnecessary attempts by the state to mandate, coerce, and control in the name of protecting the public from pandemics.

The "Scientific Consensus" Is About To Rapidly Solidify Behind The "Political Mandates"

jonathan-cook  |  In some of these blogs I have been trying to gently highlight what should be a very obvious fact: that “the science” we are being constantly told to follow is not quite as scientific as is being claimed.

That is inevitable in the context of a new virus about which much is still not known. And it is all the more so given that our main response to the pandemic – vaccination – while being a relatively effective tool against the worst disease outcomes is nonetheless an exceedingly blunt one. Vaccines are the epitome of the one-size-fits-all approach of modern medicine.

Into the void between our scientific knowledge and our fear of mortality has rushed politics. It is a refusal to admit that “the science” is necessarily compromised by political and commercial considerations that has led to an increasingly polarised – and unreasonable – confrontation between what have become two sides of the Covid divide. Doubt and curiosity have been squeezed out by the bogus certainties of each faction.

All of this has been underscored by the latest decision of the Joint Committee on Vaccinations and Immunisation, the British government’s official advisory body on vaccinations. Unexpectedly, it has defied political pressure and demurred, for the time being at least, on extending the vaccination programme to children aged between 12 and 15.

The British government appears to be furious. Ministers who have been constantly demanding that we “follow the science” are reportedly ready to ignore the advice – or more likely, bully the JCVI into hastily changing its mind over the coming days.

Over the weekend, the vaccines minister, Nadhim Zahawi, even suggested, in a potentially radical overhaul of traditional ideas of medical consent, that doctors – and presumably schools – might soon be allowed to persuade children as young as 12 to get vaccinated against their parents’ wishes.

And liberal media outlets like the Guardian, which have been so careful until now to avoid giving a platform to “dissident” scientists, are suddenly subjecting the great and the good of the vaccination establishment to harsh criticism from doctors who want children vaccinated as quickly as possible.

Watching this confected “row” unfold, one thing is clear: “the science” is getting another political pummelling.

 

Politics A Piss-Poor Substitute For Science-Driven Public Health Policy...,

NYTimes |   Top federal health officials have told the White House to scale back a plan to offer coronavirus booster shots to the general public this month, saying that regulators need more time to collect and review all the necessary data, according to people familiar with the discussion.

Dr. Janet Woodcock, the acting commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, and Dr. Rochelle P. Walensky, who heads the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, warned the White House on Thursday that their agencies may be able to determine in the coming weeks whether to recommend boosters only for recipients of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine — and possibly just some of them to start.

The two health leaders made their argument in a meeting with Jeffrey D. Zients, the White House pandemic coordinator. Several people who heard about the session said it was unclear how Mr. Zients responded. But he has insisted for months that the White House will always follow the advice of government scientists, wherever it leads.

Asked about the meeting, a White House spokesman said on Friday, “We always said we would follow the science, and this is all part of a process that is now underway,” adding that the administration was awaiting a “full review and approval” of booster shots by the F.D.A. as well as a recommendation from the C.D.C.

“When that approval and recommendation are made,” the spokesman, Chris Meagher, said, “we will be ready to implement the plan our nation’s top doctors developed so that we are staying ahead of this virus.”

Less than three weeks ago, Mr. Biden said that contingent on F.D.A. approval, the government planned to start offering boosters the week of Sept. 20 to adults who had received their second shot of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccine at least eight months ago. That would include many health care workers and nursing home residents, as well as some people older than 65, who were generally the first to be vaccinated. Administration officials have said that recipients of the single-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine would probably be offered an additional shot soon as well.

Mr. Biden cast the strategy as another tool that the nation needed to battle the highly contagious Delta variant, which has driven up infection rates, swamped hospitals with Covid-19 patients and led to an average of more than 1,500 deaths a day for the past week, according to a New York Times database. “The plan is for every adult to get a booster shot eight months after you got your second shot,” he said on Aug. 18, adding: “It will make you safer, and for longer. And it will help us end the pandemic faster.”

But the announcement of a late September target date for starting the booster campaign set off alarm bells inside the F.D.A. — apparently playing a role in decisions by two of its top vaccine regulators, announced this week, to leave the agency this fall.