Censorship of Safe Proven Effective Treatments
Forced Compliance, Child Labor, Discrimination and Segregation
I sent email letters to California officials to Oppose Biden's Plan and Support Fundamental Rights! and received this reply from a California Lottery person…is she an elected or unelected official ?
Tiffany Donohue <firstname.lastname@example.org> Don’t send me this nonsense.
So as far as she is concerned California Laws, Constitution of the USA and Amendments are nonsense and Government Overreach is just fine and dandy? I sent her an email back and received an error, who knows why.
Why the HORSE MANURE LIES about ACTUAL SAFE, EFFECTIVE AND PROVEN TREATMENTS AND PROTOCOLS?
KFOR news ran a fake story in which a doctor claimed emergency rooms in Oklahoma were inundated with people who used horse ivermectin paste as a treatment for COVID-19 and overdosed
The story turned out to be pure fiction, as no such cases have occurred. Still, KFOR has not retracted the story or issued a correction
The idea that ivermectin is a horse dewormer that poses a lethal risk to humans is a deceptive narrative aimed at dissuading people from using a safe and effective drug against COVID-19
While ivermectin is used as a dewormer in animals, it is also a human drug, approved by the FDA since the mid-1990s. It’s on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medicines for several parasitic diseases and, like many other drugs, ivermectin is used off-label for other diseases and conditions
In addition to being antiparasitic, ivermectin also has potent antiviral properties and has even been shown to protect against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein damage
FDA banned NAC and Amazon no longer sells it but some Doctors do
Dr. Been on Nigella Sativa
A caller said: I’m an infectious disease epidemiologist. Okay, the reality is we’ve always known that you never, ever vaccinate during an ongoing epidemic or pandemic. That’s a virologist’s greatest fear because you drive the variants and mutations. It is vaccination. You are putting evolutionary selection pressure on the pathogen.
And it is selecting variants that are highly more infectious, not lethal, because it does not want to kill the host. It wants to survive. So it’s mutating downwards, Muller’s ratchet. It will mutate downwards, highly infectious. And those that are highly infectious, very ease of transmission will be selected forward.
And those are the ones that are going to be the new dominant variant. So, we were doing that. We always had about 12 variants in the background in India, et cetera. And India vaccinated with the Sinovac, as an example, and then the Delta spread. It became the dominant variant for exactly how I just explained.
And then what they’re realizing now is the Pfizer vaccine that we have existing right now in the United States, clearly in Israel — because Pfizer vaccine is the Israeli vaccine — it just does not hit the Delta anymore. The Delta bypasses the antibodies that the vaccine produces.
Plessy - have been stuffed in the dustbin of history, where they belong. The left loudly cheered their reversal.
But Jacobson - a 116-year-old ruling about a virus roughly 100 times as deadly as Sars-Cov-2 - must be preserved forever and forms the core support for a mandatory vaccination scheme.
Makes total sense.
All the happy talk about Jacobson/vax has really been bothering me, so I went back and looked at the period surrounding this alleged Jewel of the Enlightenment.
Between Dred Scott and the New Deal court, the Supreme Court continuously held that individuals had few if any rights as individuals. The vax decision [Jacobson] sits squarely in the middle of a timeline where nine white men in robes loudly scoffed at the idea that there was anything more important than the sheer brute power of business and government.
Check out the line-up of horrific cases that surround the alleged "mandatory vax is permissible" law.
Who would want to live in a time and place where this kind of legal thinking held sway?
1883: "Racial discrimination is awesome" - Civil Rights cases [8-1]
1895: "Monopolies are awesome" - US v EC Knight [8-1]
1896: "Separate but equal" - Plessy v Ferguson [7-1]
1905: Jacobson v Massachusetts [7-2]
1905: "Workers do not have and cannot have any rights vis-a-vis their employer" - Lochner v New York [5-4]
1917: "You can go to jail for questioning the government" - Debs v US [9-0]
1919: "You can go to jail for speech we don't like" - Schenck v US [9-0]
1918: "Child labor is A-OK" - Hammer v Dagenhart [5-4]
1923: "Minimum wage laws are illegal" - Adkins v Childrens Hospital [5-3]
1927: "Your Fallopian tubes belong to us" - Buck v Bell [8-1]