A ruling based on out(dat)ed rubbish and quite frankly, ignorance

We need our officials and judges to get up-to-date

An article was published on December 12, 2022 written by Amy Beth Hanson entitled: “Judge rejects vaccine choice law in health care settings”, in AP news. I quote:

“The public interest in protecting the general populace against vaccine-preventable diseases in health care settings using safe, effective vaccines is not outweighed by the hardships experienced to accomplish that interest,” Molloy concluded in his Dec. 9 ruling.

Let’s break this down. It is well-established now that the COVID-19 injectable products do not stop transmission. In fact, according to the peer-reviewed literature, these shots render folks even more susceptible to viral infection, including with SARS-CoV-2 thus in truth, the shots perpetuate transmission.

Think about that in the context of the constant flow of main-stream messaging.

This Judge who made a ruling that is outdated and dare I say, ludicrous, in the context of both epidemiology and vaccinology. These COVID-19 injectable products are non-sterilizing meaning that they do not function to stop transmission. They always have been non-sterilizing. They may lead to immune suppression and autoimmunity in many cases according to case studies, peer-reviewed literature and pharmacovigilance data, and thus, ‘protecting the general populace against vaccine-preventable diseases in health care settings’ would necessary entail the immediate halt of roll-out of these particular products. If this judge had any idea about the facts of these matters, he would understand this and I imagine, would not have made this artifactual ruling.

‘…Safe, effective vaccines’ these COVID-19 injectable products ARE NOT. The data collected for the past two years in combination with the manufacturers’ own clinical trial data show beyond a reasonable doubt that these products are not safe, and not effective. Effectiveness would entail the ability to at least, slow down transmission or an ability to keep people injected out of the hospital with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to COVID.

As of December 9, 2022, 76% of the 1,464,277 reports in VAERS in the context the COVID-19 shots include COVID-19 as a listed SYMTOM¹ (adverse event) and of these, 16.6% were hospitalized or required an emergency room visit. 19% were considered severe.²

Again, this is not debatable at this point in time. If 8% of the population requires medical care in the context of an injectable product, then that product is by no means safe. That is an enormous, preventable burden on the health care system, in fact.

Safe and Effective is a meaningless mantra used as an advertising gimmick - it is nothing more than a slogan to sell products.

Figure 1: Advertisement for Distaval and Valgraine, which were among the brand names in England. https://the60sat50.blogspot.com/2010/09/monday-september-12-1960-thalidomide.html.

“Hardships experienced”? Are you kidding me? How many people lost their livelihoods to this COVID debacle? How many people have lost their lives to depression from not being able to see their loved ones? Hardships? This must be one of the most hypocritical sentiments I have read to date. Again, it is a meaningless banality not reflective of reality in the slightest.

Talk to the people, your honor, and you’ll hear about hardships endured due to the imposition of draconian lockdowns, unconstitutional and unethical mandates, impositions on inalienable rights and continued illegal medical discrimination against those who chose to simply get SARS-CoV-2 and establish robust and life-long immunity the way the immune system ‘intends’ to. This is its function. And no your honor, natural immunity is NOT A MYTH.

1. strings_covid <- c("COVID-19", "Suspected COVID-19", "SARS-CoV-2 test positive", "COVID-19 pneumonia", "Asymptomatic COVID-19", "Vaccine breakthrough infection"

2. filter(HOSPITAL == "Y" | ER_ED_VISIT == "Y" | DIED == "Y" | L_THREAT == "Y" | DISABLE == "Y")