Excellent catch. I'd rather take my chances with IVM or HCQ and zinc/D3 than an experimental jab. The judge should also cite that 'covid' death rates are less than .1% for most people, so the risk was never that big anyway.
Off-topic somewhat but need opinions. Many of my church friends are tripled vaxxed. They are all self-described conservatives. We were talking about the media last week and almost all of them said they watch and rely on Newsmax for truthful information. Since I don’t have a TV anymore I went to the website to check them out. To me, they seem to embrace many of the mainstream narratives, but with just a touch of conservatism. It made me wonder if newsmax is just another controlled news source. There was no pushback against the COVID scam or the shots. Is this an accurate impression of newsmax?
And I also read that Grant Stinchfield was fired for refusing to attack Tucker Carlson. link to article: https://archive.ph/gjvqF
I started watching Newsmax right after the 2020 election, as I lost all hope with other "conservative" news channels. But it didn't take long for them to stink just as much as the others.
We were watching OAN and loved it but Direct TV, AT&T, and just about every other provider dropped them...because they tell the truth! Samsung TV blocks them and I've heard Sony TVs do as well. OAN had top notch journalists but access is extremely limited. We watch newsmax now but dislike most of it, especially Greta Van Sustern who tries very hard to cover the fact that she's a dem. Any station that let's Pfizer buy ad time is part of the narrative! OAN didn't succomb, all of the others continue to flood us with "get the safe and effective booster" garbage.
I've mentioned this many times before. I am very disappointed in religious leaders. Did none of them do any research? The subject is not mentioned at all at my church, except in individual conversations. It seems that people think it is "political" and don't want to offend anyone. Meanwhile, I am seeing what are certainly vaccine induced diseases or injuries, such as two cases of pancreatic cancer, several who have had strokes, one case of asthma which was acknowledged by a pulmonologist as having been caused by the jab, a severely injured young mother who cannot return to her family's ministry in Central America unless she improves, and one of our pastors who has been sick over and over and has just returned to work after his latest month long bout of pneumonia. The Epoch Times https://www.theepochtimes.com/ is an excellent resource. I depend on that, on this substack, on Lifesite News https://www.lifesitenews.com/ and The Highwire https://thehighwire.com/ We don't have cable TV and I can't honestly remember the last thing we watched on TV. All the sources I mentioned are free, except for Epoch Times, but it is well worth what it costs, in my opinion.
Sadly, many religious leaders were mesmerized by alleged Christian Francis Collins. I say alleged because although he identifies as Christian, he also thinks that murdering young human children is okay, as long as they are not yet born, and he thinks that harvesting organs and tissue from live born tiny humans is also acceptable, for Science. (Aborted tissue used for research must be taken from living babies who have not yet died. I know. It’s appalling. So never let anyone ever tell you again that this is just “leftovers” from an abortion. These babies are delivered alive, their organs harvested, which results in their death.)
Anyway, Francis Collins was deployed to persuade Christian leaders to follow the C D C. I heard in video the ethicist from the Christian Medical and Dental Association say, out loud, that he didn’t believe the allegations of risk of miscarriage due to jab, because Francis Collins said it was safe, and he trusts Francis Collins.
How can you trust somebody who CLAIMS to be Christian and yet is okay with abortion?
This statement and the signatories below will make your blood curdle.
Wow there’s somebody else who sees through Francis Collins! Exactly right about his false faith! He has done so much damage to Christianity by his tireless efforts to get them to question Gods Word the Bible. He has lied repeatedly about COVID and now, with what you are saying about his support for abortion I can’t help but think he is working for Satan. Thanks for posting this. I’m sending it to someone who has need to know about this man and his activities.
Agreed! Another statement that angered me was that "Jesus would get the vaccine." Somehow, I think Jesus would be standing against the injustice, even the genocide that is happening, especially now that they've come after our children. Francis Collins wouldn't be able to fool Him.
Well, since Jesus was fully human and fully God, He would know that the shots were not safe and effective. He would also know the motives of the ones who are pushing them.
But, I mean, at the moment of encountering someone who sincerely believes that they ARE safe, effective, and being proffered out of love for humanity…. I am not saying there is no counter to their argument. I am saying that invoking the name of Jesus rapidly squelches discussion.
Kind of like the person who says, “well, God is telling me to marry Joe.” Well, okay. But if we know that Joe is a Satanist, and we also know that God said don’t join light and dark, then maybe we can discuss whether it is really God telling you to marry Joe, or your own (bad) reasoning.
Those discussions were not permitted in many Christian groups, however.
Ironically, the pastor and his wife are not vaccinated. Many young couples refused it. The ones who took the shots were by and large, elderly. They simply have tremendous faith in doctors and their own doctor in particular. But like you, I also see the results. It is so frustrating.
I caught that, too. You have to think of it as a legal document, not the judge singlehandedly wanting to take down the "vax". He's saying the only rationale for getting the shot, according to current CDC guidance and growing evidence, is personal protection from severe symptoms. As such , the policy is nonsensical and unfair. His ruling is based on the fact that the jab mandate policy was predicated on the thoroughly discredited principle that the shots protect everybody around you from transmission.
We know the jabs probably don't even protect from severe symptoms (and certainly not balanced against risk of injury), but the lawsuit wasn't really about that. It was about invalidating the mandate policy.
Actually, I prefer the way the judge framed this. In a way, we unvaxed got "lucky" that the COVID jab was so obviously bad. But what happens during the next pandemic (you know it's coming) if the pharma companies manage to come up with a vaccine that actually does work and prevents you from being infected? I would still maintain that I should have the freedom to make medical decisions for myself without facing the lord of my job.
I would hope the judge's use of this phrasing could serve as a precedent in a situation like that.
Good point! Throwing this mandate out on the basis that this jab doesn't work at all would leave the door open for a mandate of some future vaccine that works better.
You just put into words what I have been mulling over for months! Should the freedom to choose be maintained even if it does work? For one thing, this has taught us that they can cover and make it appear as though it does work for long enough to get the majority of people to succumb. So, during that "honeymoon period," the pokes look effective and the only thing protecting those not wanting it is the appeal to freedom to choose.
I caught that right away, too. That wasn't necessary at all and controdictory to earlier statements. It makes those of us who rejected getting this shot look wreckless. All of us here ARE and have been protecting ourselves by taking supplements among a variety of other things, just not the shot. It makes me wonder why this statement was made.
I see it as the job said you must take the jab to protect others and prevent transmission even if you don’t want to protect yourself. The judge recognizes that the jabs don’t protect others or prevent transmission. The judge is not making a claim as to whether or not the jabs actually protect the individual that takes it or not, but is making a statement about medical choice. I appreciate the wording.
Just saying maybe the judge said they didn't protect themselves because they continued to work for an employer that required jabs whereas if they had left that employer they would have protected themselves. Maybe my comment should have been better left in my head. 🤪
"The Petitioners should not have been terminated for choosing not to protect themselves."
This is the only part of which l disagree with the court. By not taking this "vax" we chose TO PROTECT ourselves.
Excellent catch. I'd rather take my chances with IVM or HCQ and zinc/D3 than an experimental jab. The judge should also cite that 'covid' death rates are less than .1% for most people, so the risk was never that big anyway.
Off-topic somewhat but need opinions. Many of my church friends are tripled vaxxed. They are all self-described conservatives. We were talking about the media last week and almost all of them said they watch and rely on Newsmax for truthful information. Since I don’t have a TV anymore I went to the website to check them out. To me, they seem to embrace many of the mainstream narratives, but with just a touch of conservatism. It made me wonder if newsmax is just another controlled news source. There was no pushback against the COVID scam or the shots. Is this an accurate impression of newsmax?
I used to read Newsmax website, but no longer…they are in with the mainstream narratives…
Emerald Robinson was fired from Newsmax for refusing the Vax. She now writes on substack https://emeralddb3.substack.com/
And I also read that Grant Stinchfield was fired for refusing to attack Tucker Carlson. link to article: https://archive.ph/gjvqF
I started watching Newsmax right after the 2020 election, as I lost all hope with other "conservative" news channels. But it didn't take long for them to stink just as much as the others.
We were watching OAN and loved it but Direct TV, AT&T, and just about every other provider dropped them...because they tell the truth! Samsung TV blocks them and I've heard Sony TVs do as well. OAN had top notch journalists but access is extremely limited. We watch newsmax now but dislike most of it, especially Greta Van Sustern who tries very hard to cover the fact that she's a dem. Any station that let's Pfizer buy ad time is part of the narrative! OAN didn't succomb, all of the others continue to flood us with "get the safe and effective booster" garbage.
Thanks for your post. That was the kind of information I was looking for.
Kitkat, good assessment. They’re basically Fox wannabe.
Haven’t read Newsmax for awhile, but my last impression of them was that they aren’t as conservative as they once were. Weird.
So.weird. how so many allegedly conservative entities fell head over heels into the covid quagmire. I still do not understand it.
I've mentioned this many times before. I am very disappointed in religious leaders. Did none of them do any research? The subject is not mentioned at all at my church, except in individual conversations. It seems that people think it is "political" and don't want to offend anyone. Meanwhile, I am seeing what are certainly vaccine induced diseases or injuries, such as two cases of pancreatic cancer, several who have had strokes, one case of asthma which was acknowledged by a pulmonologist as having been caused by the jab, a severely injured young mother who cannot return to her family's ministry in Central America unless she improves, and one of our pastors who has been sick over and over and has just returned to work after his latest month long bout of pneumonia. The Epoch Times https://www.theepochtimes.com/ is an excellent resource. I depend on that, on this substack, on Lifesite News https://www.lifesitenews.com/ and The Highwire https://thehighwire.com/ We don't have cable TV and I can't honestly remember the last thing we watched on TV. All the sources I mentioned are free, except for Epoch Times, but it is well worth what it costs, in my opinion.
Sadly, many religious leaders were mesmerized by alleged Christian Francis Collins. I say alleged because although he identifies as Christian, he also thinks that murdering young human children is okay, as long as they are not yet born, and he thinks that harvesting organs and tissue from live born tiny humans is also acceptable, for Science. (Aborted tissue used for research must be taken from living babies who have not yet died. I know. It’s appalling. So never let anyone ever tell you again that this is just “leftovers” from an abortion. These babies are delivered alive, their organs harvested, which results in their death.)
Anyway, Francis Collins was deployed to persuade Christian leaders to follow the C D C. I heard in video the ethicist from the Christian Medical and Dental Association say, out loud, that he didn’t believe the allegations of risk of miscarriage due to jab, because Francis Collins said it was safe, and he trusts Francis Collins.
How can you trust somebody who CLAIMS to be Christian and yet is okay with abortion?
This statement and the signatories below will make your blood curdle.
https://statement.biologos.org/
Wow there’s somebody else who sees through Francis Collins! Exactly right about his false faith! He has done so much damage to Christianity by his tireless efforts to get them to question Gods Word the Bible. He has lied repeatedly about COVID and now, with what you are saying about his support for abortion I can’t help but think he is working for Satan. Thanks for posting this. I’m sending it to someone who has need to know about this man and his activities.
Agreed! Another statement that angered me was that "Jesus would get the vaccine." Somehow, I think Jesus would be standing against the injustice, even the genocide that is happening, especially now that they've come after our children. Francis Collins wouldn't be able to fool Him.
Oh, that made me angry too.
Invoke Jesus, because then you supposedly have the moral high ground. I mean, how does one argue against that?!
(Seriously, how does one argue against that.)
Well, since Jesus was fully human and fully God, He would know that the shots were not safe and effective. He would also know the motives of the ones who are pushing them.
Well, right.
But, I mean, at the moment of encountering someone who sincerely believes that they ARE safe, effective, and being proffered out of love for humanity…. I am not saying there is no counter to their argument. I am saying that invoking the name of Jesus rapidly squelches discussion.
Kind of like the person who says, “well, God is telling me to marry Joe.” Well, okay. But if we know that Joe is a Satanist, and we also know that God said don’t join light and dark, then maybe we can discuss whether it is really God telling you to marry Joe, or your own (bad) reasoning.
Those discussions were not permitted in many Christian groups, however.
Ironically, the pastor and his wife are not vaccinated. Many young couples refused it. The ones who took the shots were by and large, elderly. They simply have tremendous faith in doctors and their own doctor in particular. But like you, I also see the results. It is so frustrating.
Yeah I read it for a while but got disgusted with them for parroting the MSM. They just pretend to be conservative.
Ruddy is a donor to the Clinton Foundation. So, yes.
I caught that, too. You have to think of it as a legal document, not the judge singlehandedly wanting to take down the "vax". He's saying the only rationale for getting the shot, according to current CDC guidance and growing evidence, is personal protection from severe symptoms. As such , the policy is nonsensical and unfair. His ruling is based on the fact that the jab mandate policy was predicated on the thoroughly discredited principle that the shots protect everybody around you from transmission.
We know the jabs probably don't even protect from severe symptoms (and certainly not balanced against risk of injury), but the lawsuit wasn't really about that. It was about invalidating the mandate policy.
Actually, I prefer the way the judge framed this. In a way, we unvaxed got "lucky" that the COVID jab was so obviously bad. But what happens during the next pandemic (you know it's coming) if the pharma companies manage to come up with a vaccine that actually does work and prevents you from being infected? I would still maintain that I should have the freedom to make medical decisions for myself without facing the lord of my job.
I would hope the judge's use of this phrasing could serve as a precedent in a situation like that.
Good point! Throwing this mandate out on the basis that this jab doesn't work at all would leave the door open for a mandate of some future vaccine that works better.
I've been concerned about this!
You just put into words what I have been mulling over for months! Should the freedom to choose be maintained even if it does work? For one thing, this has taught us that they can cover and make it appear as though it does work for long enough to get the majority of people to succumb. So, during that "honeymoon period," the pokes look effective and the only thing protecting those not wanting it is the appeal to freedom to choose.
I caught that right away, too. That wasn't necessary at all and controdictory to earlier statements. It makes those of us who rejected getting this shot look wreckless. All of us here ARE and have been protecting ourselves by taking supplements among a variety of other things, just not the shot. It makes me wonder why this statement was made.
I see it as the job said you must take the jab to protect others and prevent transmission even if you don’t want to protect yourself. The judge recognizes that the jabs don’t protect others or prevent transmission. The judge is not making a claim as to whether or not the jabs actually protect the individual that takes it or not, but is making a statement about medical choice. I appreciate the wording.
They didn't protect themselves by leaving a job with jab mandates! All in how you read it!
Oh, but they did... Not sure I follow ?
Just saying maybe the judge said they didn't protect themselves because they continued to work for an employer that required jabs whereas if they had left that employer they would have protected themselves. Maybe my comment should have been better left in my head. 🤪