That Covid19 was a huge psyop IMO. I never took any of the shots and I feel so mad, that people were lied to about taking an untested vaccine and were badly injured for life. The lock downs were crazy. I didn't mind the 2 weeks to flatten the curve for an unknown illness but after that period, it became something else. It became about total government control. That was unacceptable and must never happen again. My body my choice.
Medical Cartel'ers continue to use acronyms (PACVS) to define the latest Big P doctor caused health crisis.
Another Sydrome threatens already with an accurate Dx:
DAH syndrome // DUMB ABOUT HEALTH
Perhaps we can get a RFK endorsement? PACVS is a label that ought include a DAH dunce cap.
Meanwhile a vaccine for dumb trial enters phase 3. The epidemic seems to have leveled off while the latest "virus" meningitis threat looms. When TIME reports it will be a tell.
The truth is much simpler. Health does not come from needles. Peer review is Pay to Play.
The system is unfixable, flush it and embrace docs who actually know something about health,
while completing basic health remedial education. MAHA is signalling.
...
Medical Doctors are competent in surgical procedures and orthopedic procedures, some infectious dis-ease, and emergency care. As Bugs Bunny said: That's all folks!
“Patients suffering from PACVS present with heterogenous, prolonged symptoms that typically involve multiple organ systems, many of which overlap with chronic post SARS CoV-2infection syndrome, often referred to as Long-COVID.”
And the government control of the "covid response" (actually obscene control of our citizens) was done largely by bureaucrats, not by people elected by us.
Or real doctors and scientists! About 1.5 years ago I was having a convo with an old friend who I hadn't spoken to in years and was laying all kinds of truth bombs on her about Covid. She had no idea that Fauci wasn't a practicing MD and was surprised to learn that as a "Doctor" he had not treated a single COVID patient. This is how ignorant and/or brainwashed most intelligent people have become!
The liar did lie, however it took fools to believe the lie. Those who did have dismal health comprehension. The issue is 1000x larger that the mRNA shot.
(by definition it is not a vaccine)
Iatrogenic means doctor caused. Some of us knew over 3 decades ago that health does not, nor could it, come from needles...
The unknown illness is the psyop. As you point out if it were 2 weeks, not much harm except that these events are tests for compliance. Covidiocy demonstrated an adequate
#of Covidiots. The Medical Cartel (as always) are happy to grift away.
Toxins do make people sick, especially those with co-morbidities. Many in that category.
Your body was and remains your choice.
It did not become Gubmint control, it always was...
Many federal district judges are progressive activists and are ruling on national issues. Congress can stop this by restricting them to ruling on cases that are related only to their districts. Apparently they are currently not restricted in the kinds of cases they can hear.
Only Congress can regulate the kinds of cases federal district courts can hear. If you study Article 3 of the Constitution, the kinds of cases SCOTUS can hear are listed, but setting the rules for district courts is not its job. The Constitution says only Congress can create lower federal courts which also means that Congress could restrict the kinds of cases they can hear. I doubt Congress will ever do that, and neither does it appear likely that Congress will impeach these rogue judges. More likely the appeals courts and SCOTUS will continue tossing their decisions.
Thanks! A search yielded the result below. So if I understand this correctly in the context of your reply, SCOTUS made a narrow decision in the case below but we still need Congress to clarify. Thanks again.
In a June 2025 ruling stemming from challenges to a Trump executive order on birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court held that federal district judges likely lack equitable authority to issue universal or "nationwide" injunctions that block federal policies from being enforced against anyone beyond the plaintiffs in their case. The decision in Trump v. Casa, Inc. emphasized that such sweeping relief exceeds the traditional equitable powers granted to federal courts under the Judiciary Act of 1789, which historically only allowed remedies directed at specific parties.
Judges cannot bypass party-specific relief: The Court ruled that injunctions must generally be limited to providing complete relief only to the plaintiffs with standing, rejecting the idea that a single district judge can halt a federal policy across the entire country. This curbs a practice that had become common in recent years, where litigants would seek rulings from favorable jurisdictions to immediately stop national enforcement of controversial executive actions.
He's a federal judge; an activist, and was probably chosen on purpose by the litigants because of his political views. Federal district judges are one of the federal courts who have original jurisdiction and the lowest federal courts in the federal court hierarchy.
He can't really. But what he can do is throw a monkey wrench into the works and delay, delay, delay, which is exactly what this bought and paid for empty suit just did.
The masks were, and still are, an even bigger scam than the v@((*nes. People don't realize that doctors don't wear these to prevent VIRAL infections. We wear them in surgery to ostensibly limit BACTERIAL infections that could result from saliva being spewed into an open wound OR from human material splashing into the eyes or mouth of the surgeon. But even that is hard to justify as the "double blind controlled studies" have shown no difference in bacterial infections in patients following surgery in which doctors wore masks. I do not know if they have looked at the surgeons getting sick from splashes of material FROM the patients TO the doctors. What is known is that those masks cause bacteria to accumulate on the face of the wearer and results in a new condition called "maskne," which is basically a staph and strep infection of the facial skin that was covered by the mask. To prevent infection you need sunlight and fresh air....not being closed off. These masks after being worn are filled with oral bacteria and people touch them, place them on tables, etc. They spread infections and should be in trash cans. WEARING A MASK IS (FROM A MEDICAL STANDPOINT) THE SAME AS COUGHING AND SPITTING INTO A KLEENEX AND PUTTING IT ON YOUR FACE. THEY NEED TO BE DISCARDED.....PUT IN A TRASH CAN. During this entire thing I refused to allow anyone into my house who wore a mask. They were asked to remove them and place them into the trash can where dirty kleenex are always placed.
Go back and check the news reports from late 2019 before anyone heard of Covid. Look for Chuck Schumer’s response to concerns from the illegal immigrant community and their public service lawyers over the federal government’s (ICE) use of facial recognition software to identify those in the country illegally. There were even speeches over the subject from the floor of the Senate. A few months later, Fauci does an inexplicable about face and recommends face masks. Put two and two together. Why do you think masks were pushed hard at public places where video surveillance is ubiquitous, like hospitals and airports? Importantly, it doesn’t really matter whether facial recognition technology has the ability to be used in this manner or whether face masks can defeat it. What matters is what people believe it can do. So, the next time you see that one jackass walking through the airport in the middle of summer with a mask on, it could be another hypochondriac who believes anything the CDC says. Or, it could be an illegal immigrant who just doesn’t want to take chances. Think about it.
I got injured from one pfizer shot. For the injured the ensuing months was a terrifying nightmare. The adverse events were bizarre and doctors were given no guidance, therefore we weren’t believed, however doctors still felt compelled to weigh in on something they were ill equipped to handle. We all call it the gift that keeps on giving. It has become abundantly clear that a power more powerful than governments has controlled the silencing of the injuries, the censorship of doctors and control of credentialed professionals. The latest example is proof of the awesome power of pharma and their billionaire investors.
I guess it was a little too early in the morning for sarcasm. Yes, I’m fully aware and for three decades I’ve followed both big pharma and big AG. I am beyond disgusted at the level of corruption. Since there truly is no law- the alternative is, don’t comply with demands that put you or your children or animal companions in jeopardy.
It's never too early (or too late) for sarcasm . . . totally unnecessary. What is necessary is perhaps this opportunity for full accountability . . . https://covidjustice.org/
Kennedy has to keep doing what he’s doing and the parents have to take a stand and not comply. Homeschool! This is genocide. And where is Trump in all this? Kennedy should have never joined his team. MAHA should start a third political party. There’s certainly enough wealth involved in their movement.
A third party would be perfect. I lost total respect for Trump after his praise of and association with Gates, Fauci, the warp-speed COVID-19 "vaccine" and Remdesivir. When Kennedy announced that he was running for president, I joined the Democratic party just so I could vote for him in the primary election. Kennedy was not on the ballot here in NY at the time of the primary, so I wrote him in. As soon as the primary was over, I quit the party. But I made my point. If enough people had done the same, the party would have to listen.
Once Kennedy and Tulsi joined Trump I started paying close attention to all of Trumps speeches and interviews . Inevitability , both parties are leading the public to the same end. If we follow we are complicit in our own demise.
You lost me at "I lost total respect for Trump." In response, I will quote Elizabeth, above: "So you haven't been paying attention to anything over the last decade."
Thank you for your compelling coverage of a topic that would have been presented with at the recent scheduled ACIP meeting. Certainly very worthy, we all support!
Our concerns start with the extended silence. Very modest support for the Secretary and his well qualified, right for the job appointees. Rumors on the street that the ruling won't be appealed. Rumors a new panel will be assembled. Would it be approved by Murphy, AAP and pharma? Will it be called upon to readdress all the ACIP issues since the Secretary's appointment? What is the role of ACIP and what represents balance in terms of the missions it is being called on to address? How does each of the appointees qualifications contribute to best resolving the issues at hand? Would it be helpful to share the answers with MAHA supporters and the general public?
To me its very concerning if our Government's response to Murphy's ruling will be an attempt to silently accomodate.
IMO the President, the Secretary, the very well qualified and balanced panel have been proceeding well with the mission as we voted for!
i still see fools in stores wearing masks / 80 micron sized holesin them to stop a 3 micron size virus .. what idiots ,,like having a screen door on a submarine
I personally know several people that had bad reactions. The gaslighting is just an attempt to control people and information. 'vaccine hesitancy' is pathologizing legitimate safely concerns.
"The Covid mRNA vaccines are safe and effective" is a statement riddled with lies and deception. It's not mRNA it's modified mRNA, engineered not to breakdown. Plus it didn't stay in the injection site either meaning that dosage is unknown and uncontrolled. They are more gene therapy than vaccine but if you call it gene therapy, there's a lot more regulatory testing. Safe: not according to VAERS. And they continue to deny harms. Effective: they said it would stop the pandemic by preventing transmission. A total lie. It didn't. Worse yet they didn't even test for it!
of similarities to Lyme Disease. This is what happens when viruses and bacteria are cooked up in a lab to cause damage and released upon the world. This is how we eventually end humanity and still the franken-scientists continue. It is pure evil!
Even if it is psychosomatic it remains REAL because it is happening. Saying that it is not real because it is psychiatric is basically denying the existence of all psychiatric conditions.
If a person took a shot believing it was safe and would protect them, why would they develop psychosomatic symptoms? True believers in the vaccine who consequently developed symptoms of real bodily injury are proof of real harm NOT caused by their beliefs and attitudes.
The last I read the HHS was just capitulating on this, presumably from some political deal.
If this is correct, a horrific deal has been made in hell: Breaking News: Chairman Milhoan Confirms that ACIP Disbanded in Response to Federal Court Ruling; Sources Indicate Administration Opts to Reconstitute ACIP Rather Than Appeal
I don't know how many times I have to say it. Judges have no power of "judicial review." It's unconstitutional. They took that power in 1803, Marbury v Madison and it was illegal because no branch of gov't can give itself power. There is no life time appointment, no orders, no striking down of laws, no stays, injunctions, making policy, regulation or law. Now if you want to put that in law, these two bills from Action Radio will solve the problem, but YOU, all of you, all of MAHA, have to get behind them. We wrote them so you could get them passed.
No, it's not unconstitutional. Think about the logic of judicial review: we have a Constitution, a framework for how our government works. Something in that framework has to be able to say whether a law or a practice conforms to that framework. Would you want Congress to decide what is or is not constitutional? That would be insane, since the question of whether something is constitutional would be decided by congressional majorities. Or would you prefer the executive, the branch charged with executing the law, deciding whether a law conforms to the Constitution? That would also be fraught with political consequences. In addition, the Constitution does not grant any branch of our government to create a 4th branch whose job would be to judge the law. So, the sensible solution is to grant that authority to the Court. Another way to think of it is to ask: should students or administrators in a college be tasked with grading students' work? Or is the professor better placed to do it? Lastly, when SCOTUS makes a ruling, like Marbury v. Madison, it becomes precedent for future decisions.
Spoken like a lawyer, except that you're wrong. If the Constitution had wanted the judiciary to have veto power over the Congress, the President, the state legislatures and courts, they would have written Article III that way. And of course it never would have been ratified.
So let's take the courts giving themselves judicial review. That's precedent for the Congress taking congressional review, where any member of Congress could strike down any Supreme Court opinion. Also Executive Review, where the President could do the same thing. That would actually conform to the 14th Amendment equal protection clause as all branches would then be co-equal. So judicial review completely violates separation of powers and federalism defined powers as well.
Your argument is the same as John Marshall, that the courts should rule and decide everything based only on the view that it's "sensible." It's not, and that's hardly a legal argument anyway. Your argument isn't based on constitutional principles or even law. Your argument is based on expediency. And precedent is a convenient excuse when needed, because there was no precedent for Rowe v Wade, another impossible opinion given Article III delegated powers.
And you haven't addressed the most important question of how the judiciary could give itself power? Because it can't. No government entity can.
Sadly, you have committed the Burden of Proof fallacy. The argument assumes that because the Constitution doesn't explicitly grant judicial review powers, the judiciary was never intended to have them, without providing evidence for this interpretation.
There is also a Personal Incredulity fallacy present in the claim that the Constitution "never would have been ratified" if it had included judicial review powers. This assertion is based on the your personal belief about what the ratifiers would have accepted, without supporting evidence.
This is getting interesting. The very point you make trying to refute my argument actually makes my case perfectly. The Constitution ratified by the States creates the federal government and delegates all the powers it can have. If it isn't in the Constitution, they can't do it.
Add to that the Tenth Amendment which specifically says that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the States and the People. So in both cases your argument is destroyed.
The evidence is the Constitution. The first three articles, separately, define the powers of the three branches of government. You can not apply one Article to another. You can not assume powers not delegated. You can amend the Constitution but the judiciary never did the right thing, preferring instead to violate the Constitution in such colorful language as to baffle the uninformed, and those who don't actually read Article III.
And you still haven't answered the question of how the judiciary could give itself power? Again, there is no answer because they can't.
That Covid19 was a huge psyop IMO. I never took any of the shots and I feel so mad, that people were lied to about taking an untested vaccine and were badly injured for life. The lock downs were crazy. I didn't mind the 2 weeks to flatten the curve for an unknown illness but after that period, it became something else. It became about total government control. That was unacceptable and must never happen again. My body my choice.
Medical Cartel'ers continue to use acronyms (PACVS) to define the latest Big P doctor caused health crisis.
Another Sydrome threatens already with an accurate Dx:
DAH syndrome // DUMB ABOUT HEALTH
Perhaps we can get a RFK endorsement? PACVS is a label that ought include a DAH dunce cap.
Meanwhile a vaccine for dumb trial enters phase 3. The epidemic seems to have leveled off while the latest "virus" meningitis threat looms. When TIME reports it will be a tell.
The truth is much simpler. Health does not come from needles. Peer review is Pay to Play.
The system is unfixable, flush it and embrace docs who actually know something about health,
while completing basic health remedial education. MAHA is signalling.
...
Medical Doctors are competent in surgical procedures and orthopedic procedures, some infectious dis-ease, and emergency care. As Bugs Bunny said: That's all folks!
“Patients suffering from PACVS present with heterogenous, prolonged symptoms that typically involve multiple organ systems, many of which overlap with chronic post SARS CoV-2infection syndrome, often referred to as Long-COVID.”
You're right. A lot of doctors are trained to just follow protocols, and they don't even know it: they believe that they know everything.
A lot of what Primary Care Physicians do could be done by nurse practitioners.
We have witnessed one "judge" after another "rule" on issues far outside their comprehension.
The legal profession has always been rife with crooks in blk. robes.
The goons from Big P and the Medical Cartel facilitated this genocidal grift.
It did take clueless people who "believed" the virus fraud taking the word of their MD.
So.... where is the finger best pointed???
Liars lie. Fools are fooled. There are consequences. Could it happen again?
Appears the meningitis has been chosen as the next fear mongering attempt after
Ebola, various Avian and Swine Flu, and strains did not take...
And the government control of the "covid response" (actually obscene control of our citizens) was done largely by bureaucrats, not by people elected by us.
Or real doctors and scientists! About 1.5 years ago I was having a convo with an old friend who I hadn't spoken to in years and was laying all kinds of truth bombs on her about Covid. She had no idea that Fauci wasn't a practicing MD and was surprised to learn that as a "Doctor" he had not treated a single COVID patient. This is how ignorant and/or brainwashed most intelligent people have become!
More that an opinion. Its a fact. People were lied to. However they believed the lie.
Is that the fault of the liar? Or the people who drank the kool aid?? Or... both
The liar is at fault. But it was evident early on that the nursing homes were where most deaths occurred. Then more lies.
Taking an experiment and untested vaccine made it the person's fault.
IMO
The liar did lie, however it took fools to believe the lie. Those who did have dismal health comprehension. The issue is 1000x larger that the mRNA shot.
(by definition it is not a vaccine)
Iatrogenic means doctor caused. Some of us knew over 3 decades ago that health does not, nor could it, come from needles...
Hardly a singular issue, many took the wrong bus.
The unknown illness is the psyop. As you point out if it were 2 weeks, not much harm except that these events are tests for compliance. Covidiocy demonstrated an adequate
#of Covidiots. The Medical Cartel (as always) are happy to grift away.
Toxins do make people sick, especially those with co-morbidities. Many in that category.
Your body was and remains your choice.
It did not become Gubmint control, it always was...
https://covidjustice.org/
How can a Boston judge stop a federal mandate?
Now that’s a great question. I’d like to see an explanation for that.
Yes, I would like to see the committee just go ahead and meet anyhow, regardless of what the judge said.
Many federal district judges are progressive activists and are ruling on national issues. Congress can stop this by restricting them to ruling on cases that are related only to their districts. Apparently they are currently not restricted in the kinds of cases they can hear.
hang em
I thought SCOTUS did that
Only Congress can regulate the kinds of cases federal district courts can hear. If you study Article 3 of the Constitution, the kinds of cases SCOTUS can hear are listed, but setting the rules for district courts is not its job. The Constitution says only Congress can create lower federal courts which also means that Congress could restrict the kinds of cases they can hear. I doubt Congress will ever do that, and neither does it appear likely that Congress will impeach these rogue judges. More likely the appeals courts and SCOTUS will continue tossing their decisions.
Thanks! A search yielded the result below. So if I understand this correctly in the context of your reply, SCOTUS made a narrow decision in the case below but we still need Congress to clarify. Thanks again.
In a June 2025 ruling stemming from challenges to a Trump executive order on birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court held that federal district judges likely lack equitable authority to issue universal or "nationwide" injunctions that block federal policies from being enforced against anyone beyond the plaintiffs in their case. The decision in Trump v. Casa, Inc. emphasized that such sweeping relief exceeds the traditional equitable powers granted to federal courts under the Judiciary Act of 1789, which historically only allowed remedies directed at specific parties.
Judges cannot bypass party-specific relief: The Court ruled that injunctions must generally be limited to providing complete relief only to the plaintiffs with standing, rejecting the idea that a single district judge can halt a federal policy across the entire country. This curbs a practice that had become common in recent years, where litigants would seek rulings from favorable jurisdictions to immediately stop national enforcement of controversial executive actions.
No surprise, there.
Yeah. I thought the Supreme Court addressed that.
He's a federal judge; an activist, and was probably chosen on purpose by the litigants because of his political views. Federal district judges are one of the federal courts who have original jurisdiction and the lowest federal courts in the federal court hierarchy.
He can't really. But what he can do is throw a monkey wrench into the works and delay, delay, delay, which is exactly what this bought and paid for empty suit just did.
Cannot, thus it will be overturned in a higher court...
Strongly suspect Maritime Law is in the crosshairs.
The "Federal Reserve" is neither Federal nor a reserve...
The masks were, and still are, an even bigger scam than the v@((*nes. People don't realize that doctors don't wear these to prevent VIRAL infections. We wear them in surgery to ostensibly limit BACTERIAL infections that could result from saliva being spewed into an open wound OR from human material splashing into the eyes or mouth of the surgeon. But even that is hard to justify as the "double blind controlled studies" have shown no difference in bacterial infections in patients following surgery in which doctors wore masks. I do not know if they have looked at the surgeons getting sick from splashes of material FROM the patients TO the doctors. What is known is that those masks cause bacteria to accumulate on the face of the wearer and results in a new condition called "maskne," which is basically a staph and strep infection of the facial skin that was covered by the mask. To prevent infection you need sunlight and fresh air....not being closed off. These masks after being worn are filled with oral bacteria and people touch them, place them on tables, etc. They spread infections and should be in trash cans. WEARING A MASK IS (FROM A MEDICAL STANDPOINT) THE SAME AS COUGHING AND SPITTING INTO A KLEENEX AND PUTTING IT ON YOUR FACE. THEY NEED TO BE DISCARDED.....PUT IN A TRASH CAN. During this entire thing I refused to allow anyone into my house who wore a mask. They were asked to remove them and place them into the trash can where dirty kleenex are always placed.
The masks were a visible symbol of the invisible supposed danger. They prepared people for the vaccine.
"Do your part. Wear a mask. You're selfish if you don’t. You are endangering other people's lives."
That drove fear and compliance.
Then it turned into...
"Do your part. Get vaccinated. You're selfish if you don’t. You are endangering other people's lives."
Scammers, cheaters, liars and killers
100% correct. It was a visible sign of an unseen danger, which is always more frightening than a danger that can be seen.
Go back and check the news reports from late 2019 before anyone heard of Covid. Look for Chuck Schumer’s response to concerns from the illegal immigrant community and their public service lawyers over the federal government’s (ICE) use of facial recognition software to identify those in the country illegally. There were even speeches over the subject from the floor of the Senate. A few months later, Fauci does an inexplicable about face and recommends face masks. Put two and two together. Why do you think masks were pushed hard at public places where video surveillance is ubiquitous, like hospitals and airports? Importantly, it doesn’t really matter whether facial recognition technology has the ability to be used in this manner or whether face masks can defeat it. What matters is what people believe it can do. So, the next time you see that one jackass walking through the airport in the middle of summer with a mask on, it could be another hypochondriac who believes anything the CDC says. Or, it could be an illegal immigrant who just doesn’t want to take chances. Think about it.
So true
I got injured from one pfizer shot. For the injured the ensuing months was a terrifying nightmare. The adverse events were bizarre and doctors were given no guidance, therefore we weren’t believed, however doctors still felt compelled to weigh in on something they were ill equipped to handle. We all call it the gift that keeps on giving. It has become abundantly clear that a power more powerful than governments has controlled the silencing of the injuries, the censorship of doctors and control of credentialed professionals. The latest example is proof of the awesome power of pharma and their billionaire investors.
Horrible. All of it. Unfortunate that you had to learn the hard way.
Bobby Kennedy Jr will prevail.
He is a warrior for humanity.
He is "our" warrior!
But he can't even read a scientific study. Proof here:
https://thescamdoctor.substack.com/p/how-to-cherry-pick-data-to-scam-people?r=6hgshq
He can't even read a scientific study.....according to "the Scam Doctor."
That's proof, for sure.
I think I explain it pretty clearly in the link, feel free to ask for any clarifications though
I’m going to repeat this question- how can a state judge stop the federal government from implementing a law?
It was a federal, not a state judge .
And upon returning to the article - you’re correct. A district judge is in fact a federal judge. Thank you Mary Ann.
So you haven't been paying attention to anything over the last decade.
Excuse me? You’re an arrogant ass. I’ve been actively involved for more decades.
You received a sarcastic reply that I think means to say that this kind of judicial activism has been going on for some time now.
I guess it was a little too early in the morning for sarcasm. Yes, I’m fully aware and for three decades I’ve followed both big pharma and big AG. I am beyond disgusted at the level of corruption. Since there truly is no law- the alternative is, don’t comply with demands that put you or your children or animal companions in jeopardy.
It's never too early (or too late) for sarcasm . . . totally unnecessary. What is necessary is perhaps this opportunity for full accountability . . . https://covidjustice.org/
Great link! I’ll share.
YES.
Kennedy has to keep doing what he’s doing and the parents have to take a stand and not comply. Homeschool! This is genocide. And where is Trump in all this? Kennedy should have never joined his team. MAHA should start a third political party. There’s certainly enough wealth involved in their movement.
Kennedy started We the People Party when he was running for president!! I joined it.
A third party would be perfect. I lost total respect for Trump after his praise of and association with Gates, Fauci, the warp-speed COVID-19 "vaccine" and Remdesivir. When Kennedy announced that he was running for president, I joined the Democratic party just so I could vote for him in the primary election. Kennedy was not on the ballot here in NY at the time of the primary, so I wrote him in. As soon as the primary was over, I quit the party. But I made my point. If enough people had done the same, the party would have to listen.
Once Kennedy and Tulsi joined Trump I started paying close attention to all of Trumps speeches and interviews . Inevitability , both parties are leading the public to the same end. If we follow we are complicit in our own demise.
You lost me at "I lost total respect for Trump." In response, I will quote Elizabeth, above: "So you haven't been paying attention to anything over the last decade."
I wouldn't want Kennedy to keep trying to read scientific studies, he's proven he can't:
https://thescamdoctor.substack.com/p/how-to-cherry-pick-data-to-scam-people?r=6hgshq
Thank you for your compelling coverage of a topic that would have been presented with at the recent scheduled ACIP meeting. Certainly very worthy, we all support!
Our concerns start with the extended silence. Very modest support for the Secretary and his well qualified, right for the job appointees. Rumors on the street that the ruling won't be appealed. Rumors a new panel will be assembled. Would it be approved by Murphy, AAP and pharma? Will it be called upon to readdress all the ACIP issues since the Secretary's appointment? What is the role of ACIP and what represents balance in terms of the missions it is being called on to address? How does each of the appointees qualifications contribute to best resolving the issues at hand? Would it be helpful to share the answers with MAHA supporters and the general public?
To me its very concerning if our Government's response to Murphy's ruling will be an attempt to silently accomodate.
IMO the President, the Secretary, the very well qualified and balanced panel have been proceeding well with the mission as we voted for!
i still see fools in stores wearing masks / 80 micron sized holesin them to stop a 3 micron size virus .. what idiots ,,like having a screen door on a submarine
Not to mention the yeast, bacteria, and molds that they are growing from the moist, wet, and dark environment their masks are providing.
I still just say NO to Big Pharma Drug Cartel Devil’s Disciples!
I personally know several people that had bad reactions. The gaslighting is just an attempt to control people and information. 'vaccine hesitancy' is pathologizing legitimate safely concerns.
I had a bad reaction AND can understand they offered benefit to a majority of people who took them. It's not so black and white.
The benefit was limited to the elderly and immunocomprmised in the early stages of the pandemic. That's over, but the harm continues to stack up.
It was also beneficial in healthy adults over 50 and a not insignificant amount of healthy adults 18-49.
Most serious adverse events from mRNA COVID vaccines were more commonly caused by COVID-19 infection.
"The Covid mRNA vaccines are safe and effective" is a statement riddled with lies and deception. It's not mRNA it's modified mRNA, engineered not to breakdown. Plus it didn't stay in the injection site either meaning that dosage is unknown and uncontrolled. They are more gene therapy than vaccine but if you call it gene therapy, there's a lot more regulatory testing. Safe: not according to VAERS. And they continue to deny harms. Effective: they said it would stop the pandemic by preventing transmission. A total lie. It didn't. Worse yet they didn't even test for it!
For your consideration:
https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/the-virus-the-vaccine-and-the-lie
Long Covid has a lot
of similarities to Lyme Disease. This is what happens when viruses and bacteria are cooked up in a lab to cause damage and released upon the world. This is how we eventually end humanity and still the franken-scientists continue. It is pure evil!
https://rumble.com/v77bvqe-official-maha-movie-webinar-thursday-at-9-pm-est.html
Even if it is psychosomatic it remains REAL because it is happening. Saying that it is not real because it is psychiatric is basically denying the existence of all psychiatric conditions.
If a person took a shot believing it was safe and would protect them, why would they develop psychosomatic symptoms? True believers in the vaccine who consequently developed symptoms of real bodily injury are proof of real harm NOT caused by their beliefs and attitudes.
https://rumble.com/v77bvqe-official-maha-movie-webinar-thursday-at-9-pm-est.html
The last I read the HHS was just capitulating on this, presumably from some political deal.
If this is correct, a horrific deal has been made in hell: Breaking News: Chairman Milhoan Confirms that ACIP Disbanded in Response to Federal Court Ruling; Sources Indicate Administration Opts to Reconstitute ACIP Rather Than Appeal
IMA: “Big Pharma-Backed Medical Groups Use the Courts to Protect Industry Profits at the Expense of American Families.” https://imahealth.substack.com/p/breaking-news-chairman-milhoan-confirms
BREAKING: Federal Judge Blocks RFK Jr. Effort to Protect Children from Irreversible Gender-Altering Procedures
Sex-changing drugs and procedures will continue on minors despite evidence suggesting permanent IQ loss, a 1,800% increase in suicide risk, and tripled mortality. https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/breaking-federal-judge-blocks-rfk
I don't know how many times I have to say it. Judges have no power of "judicial review." It's unconstitutional. They took that power in 1803, Marbury v Madison and it was illegal because no branch of gov't can give itself power. There is no life time appointment, no orders, no striking down of laws, no stays, injunctions, making policy, regulation or law. Now if you want to put that in law, these two bills from Action Radio will solve the problem, but YOU, all of you, all of MAHA, have to get behind them. We wrote them so you could get them passed.
https://writeyourlaws.com/judiciary-court-bills/abolishing-the-unconstitutional-power-of-judicial-review/
https://writeyourlaws.com/judiciary-court-bills/the-rogue-federal-judge-removal-act/
No, it's not unconstitutional. Think about the logic of judicial review: we have a Constitution, a framework for how our government works. Something in that framework has to be able to say whether a law or a practice conforms to that framework. Would you want Congress to decide what is or is not constitutional? That would be insane, since the question of whether something is constitutional would be decided by congressional majorities. Or would you prefer the executive, the branch charged with executing the law, deciding whether a law conforms to the Constitution? That would also be fraught with political consequences. In addition, the Constitution does not grant any branch of our government to create a 4th branch whose job would be to judge the law. So, the sensible solution is to grant that authority to the Court. Another way to think of it is to ask: should students or administrators in a college be tasked with grading students' work? Or is the professor better placed to do it? Lastly, when SCOTUS makes a ruling, like Marbury v. Madison, it becomes precedent for future decisions.
Spoken like a lawyer, except that you're wrong. If the Constitution had wanted the judiciary to have veto power over the Congress, the President, the state legislatures and courts, they would have written Article III that way. And of course it never would have been ratified.
So let's take the courts giving themselves judicial review. That's precedent for the Congress taking congressional review, where any member of Congress could strike down any Supreme Court opinion. Also Executive Review, where the President could do the same thing. That would actually conform to the 14th Amendment equal protection clause as all branches would then be co-equal. So judicial review completely violates separation of powers and federalism defined powers as well.
Your argument is the same as John Marshall, that the courts should rule and decide everything based only on the view that it's "sensible." It's not, and that's hardly a legal argument anyway. Your argument isn't based on constitutional principles or even law. Your argument is based on expediency. And precedent is a convenient excuse when needed, because there was no precedent for Rowe v Wade, another impossible opinion given Article III delegated powers.
And you haven't addressed the most important question of how the judiciary could give itself power? Because it can't. No government entity can.
Sadly, you have committed the Burden of Proof fallacy. The argument assumes that because the Constitution doesn't explicitly grant judicial review powers, the judiciary was never intended to have them, without providing evidence for this interpretation.
There is also a Personal Incredulity fallacy present in the claim that the Constitution "never would have been ratified" if it had included judicial review powers. This assertion is based on the your personal belief about what the ratifiers would have accepted, without supporting evidence.
This is getting interesting. The very point you make trying to refute my argument actually makes my case perfectly. The Constitution ratified by the States creates the federal government and delegates all the powers it can have. If it isn't in the Constitution, they can't do it.
Add to that the Tenth Amendment which specifically says that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the States and the People. So in both cases your argument is destroyed.
The evidence is the Constitution. The first three articles, separately, define the powers of the three branches of government. You can not apply one Article to another. You can not assume powers not delegated. You can amend the Constitution but the judiciary never did the right thing, preferring instead to violate the Constitution in such colorful language as to baffle the uninformed, and those who don't actually read Article III.
And you still haven't answered the question of how the judiciary could give itself power? Again, there is no answer because they can't.
Any idea as to when HHS plans to file their appeal to the Judge's March 16 ruling?
re: https://jonrappoport.substack.com/p/lawyer-rick-jaffe-blows-the-doors-off-another-fed-vax-court-case
It looks like ACIP is be reconstituted in some way, not entirely abandoned.
Dr. Malone said last week that the decision would not be appealed.