I think the only way to fix this in a reasonable manner is to get them to repeal the PREP Act. This makes Big Pharma responsible for what they do, the efficacy and side effects instead of giving the blanket passes. They'll clean up their acts if forced by the products that they manufacture. This won't stop jabs in general, but it won't allow pharma to present something and say, "now do it because we say so. Really, it works." Right now, if they say shooting you up with corn syrup will stop a blight on your ears, they get a pass if the blight only lessens even though they are killing you from diabetes.
And the very fact that manufacturers are exempt from liability should have raised a red flag to begin with. People are not exactly making informed decisions, when they allow their children to be poisoned. At this very moment, the most toxic injection for another non-existent condition (HPV) is about to become mandated.
Corn syrup is now renamed to "corn sugar." Artificial sweeteners are even worse, and lots of people drink "diet" beverages, while even chewing gum contains aspartame, a known carcinogen...
Whatever legal scholar of whatever stature who claims that a "vaccine" mandate is "Constitutional" is simply ignorant about law, about rights, and about the Constitution.
This is the same "steve" (team of writers?) who got all exited about the new and upcoming high tech masks we could wear during the next "pandemic." Woo hoo! Go "steve"!
He talks about the dangers and temptations of fascism. And then espouses it.
He whines about Informed Consent. And then abrogates it.
Dude--or, team of "dudes" in a certain basement @ Langley--is such a fraud.
I think you misread this while thing. He's saying that they misinterpreted the case with the small pox and don't do any thinking or research themselves...as most agencies run by the gov, go along to get along and don't tax yourself too much.
His mask thing was saying that you would have to wear a really costly, fancy one for them to work. The ones used by the general public are useless. I really think you need to read a bit more.
In that piece "steve" argues that "vaccine" mandates are indeed constitutional IF "they [governments] can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the intervention’s benefits outweigh the risks."
Nobody among those with power gives a flying f* about the Constitution; in Dimitri Orlov's words, "it has become just about as relevant as an old copy of Pravda in an abandoned Siberian outhouse." (not the hockey player, a writer: http://www.cluborlov.com/)
Nobodies have been masquerading as legislators and "experts," and based on them, "emergency powers" were bestowed on further nobodies.
Steve is quite useful, if one places some of the information he posts into the whole picture. I understand that he has invested in the "covid" injections, which also speaks for itself.
I just made a snarky reply to Steve 20 minutes ago.. It echoes your perspective.
I think the only way to fix this in a reasonable manner is to get them to repeal the PREP Act. This makes Big Pharma responsible for what they do, the efficacy and side effects instead of giving the blanket passes. They'll clean up their acts if forced by the products that they manufacture. This won't stop jabs in general, but it won't allow pharma to present something and say, "now do it because we say so. Really, it works." Right now, if they say shooting you up with corn syrup will stop a blight on your ears, they get a pass if the blight only lessens even though they are killing you from diabetes.
And the very fact that manufacturers are exempt from liability should have raised a red flag to begin with. People are not exactly making informed decisions, when they allow their children to be poisoned. At this very moment, the most toxic injection for another non-existent condition (HPV) is about to become mandated.
Corn syrup is now renamed to "corn sugar." Artificial sweeteners are even worse, and lots of people drink "diet" beverages, while even chewing gum contains aspartame, a known carcinogen...
Whatever legal scholar of whatever stature who claims that a "vaccine" mandate is "Constitutional" is simply ignorant about law, about rights, and about the Constitution.
This is the same "steve" (team of writers?) who got all exited about the new and upcoming high tech masks we could wear during the next "pandemic." Woo hoo! Go "steve"!
He talks about the dangers and temptations of fascism. And then espouses it.
He whines about Informed Consent. And then abrogates it.
Dude--or, team of "dudes" in a certain basement @ Langley--is such a fraud.
I think you misread this while thing. He's saying that they misinterpreted the case with the small pox and don't do any thinking or research themselves...as most agencies run by the gov, go along to get along and don't tax yourself too much.
His mask thing was saying that you would have to wear a really costly, fancy one for them to work. The ones used by the general public are useless. I really think you need to read a bit more.
Wrong! On both counts.
Yes, I've seen it and "Like"d it.
Are you looking in a mirror?
In that piece "steve" argues that "vaccine" mandates are indeed constitutional IF "they [governments] can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the intervention’s benefits outweigh the risks."
Yes, you should indeed read carefully! :)
That's how they are saying it was approved. They did this last year.
🤜🏻💥🤛🏻
Nobody among those with power gives a flying f* about the Constitution; in Dimitri Orlov's words, "it has become just about as relevant as an old copy of Pravda in an abandoned Siberian outhouse." (not the hockey player, a writer: http://www.cluborlov.com/)
Nobodies have been masquerading as legislators and "experts," and based on them, "emergency powers" were bestowed on further nobodies.
Steve is quite useful, if one places some of the information he posts into the whole picture. I understand that he has invested in the "covid" injections, which also speaks for itself.