ALERT Dire threat to check and balances!!! Record them here!!

[Crusty Echo 7]

White House says businesses should still mandate jabs for employees in spite of court ruling - LifeSite

A White House spokesperson said businesses ‘should continue to move forward and make sure they’re getting their workplace vaccinated’ despite a federal court order.

www.lifesitenews.com

White House says businesses should still mandate jabs for employees in spite of court ruling
A White House spokesperson said businesses ‘should continue to move forward and make sure they’re getting their workplace vaccinated’ despite a federal court order.

White House Deputy Press Secretary

Tue Nov 9, 2021 - 12:36 pm EST

(LifeSiteNews) — The Biden administration on Monday told businesses they should move forward with requiring workers to get inoculated against COVID-19 despite the fact that the federal government’s jab mandate for businesses with 100 or more employees has been temporarily halted by a federal court which cited “grave statutory and constitutional issues” with the rule.

On Monday, White House Deputy Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said “people should not wait” for the courts to rule on the constitutionality of the mandate.​

Jean-Pierre, who has been filling in for press secretary Jen Psaki she had tested positive for the coronavirus despite being “fully vaccinated,” added that businesses “should continue to move forward and make sure they’re getting their workplace vaccinated.”

“Do not wait to take actions that will keep your workplace safe. It is important and critical to do, and waiting to get more people vaccinated will lead to more outbreaks and sickness,” Jean-Pierre said.

The comments came after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit moved Saturday to temporarily stay the Biden administration’s sweeping mandate, which was enacted through an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) via the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) under the U.S. Department of Labor.

If implemented, the mandate would force employers to require their workers to show proof of “full vaccination” or participate in frequent testing and wear a mask while indoors on the job.
Issued in response to a request for a stay submitted by Texas, Utah, Mississippi, and South Carolina, as well as a group of businesses and religious groups that argued they would be negatively affected by the mandate, the court’s Saturday ruling temporarily stalled the controversial requirement, which is intended to take effect January 4, 2022.

Though the Fifth Circuit was the first court to rule on the case just two days after the Biden administration released its 490-page document outlining the mandate, more than half of U.S. states have also filed suit against the government along with a bevy of private companies.
On Thursday, conservative media outfit The Daily Wire was one of the first major companies to sue the federal government for its OSHA mandate, calling the rule a “grotesque abuse of power.”​

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR DAILY HEADLINES

US Canada Catholic

In response to the Fifth Circuit Court’s order that the federal government reply to its ruling by 5 p.m. Monday, officials in the Biden administration responded by asking the court to lift the stay and arguing that a continued pause of the rule could cost lives.
In its 28-page response, the government argued that “[n]o reason exists to rule on petitioners’ stay motions immediately,” and “a stay would likely cost dozens or even hundreds of lives per day.”

However, the Biden administration’s own rule issued allegedly in response to the “emergency” posed by the spread of COVID-19 comes nearly two months after it was announced by President Joe Biden, and even if upheld by the courts will not take effect until January.

The Monday response to the court also failed to note that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has admitted that the shots do not stop transmission of the virus. Meanwhile, a growing body of data indicates that the strategy of mandating experimental COVID-19 drugs to defeat the coronavirus has failed, undercutting the rationale for continuing mandates.

While the federal government considers 194 million Americans (58% of those eligible) to be “fully vaccinated,” ABC News reported last month that more Americans died of COVID-19 this year (353,000) than in all of 2020 (352,000), according to data from Johns Hopkins University.

Further, it remains unclear how many jabs Americans will need in future to keep their jobs if the mandate were to be implemented. As the effectiveness of the COVID-19 drugs on the market has plummeted, the CDC has already signaled it may change the definition of “fully vaccinated” to include at least one booster shot.

It is also unclear how the federal court will respond to the government’s request for a lifting of the stay, and whether the case will be heard in another court.

David Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University, told CNBC it’s very likely the case will go all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“There are justices on the court who want to rein in the administrative state and this is a case in which those concerns are likely to come to the fore,” Vladeck said.

Whether or not the matter goes to the Supreme Court, the divisive mandate has been met with stiff opposition from states and businesses and appears likely to undergo serious judicial challenges.

“The federal government can’t just unilaterally impose medical policy under the guise of workplace regulation, and that is exactly what they’re trying to do here,” said Florida’s Republican Governor Ron DeSantis in a Thursday press conference in which he announced his state would join with Georgia and Alabama to sue the Biden administration.

DeSantis has also moved to ensure the permanent protection of Floridians’ jobs and freedoms by holding a special legislative session set to commence November 15.

In the special session, the GOP-dominated legislature is set to consider a raft of legislative proposals to prohibit employer jab mandates, defend the rights of parents to decide whether or not their children should wear masks at school, and ban schools in the Sunshine State from mandating COVID-19 shots or quarantines.

Further, a proposal supported by House Speaker Chris Sprowls (R-Palm Harbor) and Senate President Wilton Simpson (R-Trilby) would see Florida pull out of OSHA entirely, replacing the federal safety administration with one operated by the state.

“If OSHA, the Department of Labor and OSHA, is going to be weaponized as a way to hold hostage businesses throughout the state of Florida, no problem. We want a different plan,” Sprowls said. “We want out of OSHA. We’ll submit our own regulatory authority and say goodbye to the federal government.”​

If upheld by the courts, the OSHA rule would impact some 84 million Americans and slam noncompliant businesses with fines of $13,653 per violation or, for repeated noncompliance, up to $136,532 per offense. The U.S. Department of Labor has also suggested it may consider expanding the requirement to include businesses with fewer than 100 employees, potentially impacting nearly every adult American.​

 

[Crusty Echo 7]

What Govts and Media Are Not Telling You About Vaccine Mandates

If I were a local, state, or the federal government and wanted to implement vaccine mandates for public employees, to be ...

uncoverdc.com

Home Journalism Articles What Govts and Media Are Not Telling You About Vaccine Mandates
What Govts and Media Are Not Telling You About Vaccine Mandates
By
Matthew Tobeck
-
November 1, 2021



Share
https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php...a-are-not-telling-you-about-vaccine-mandates/
https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?te...ng-you-about-vaccine-mandates/&via=tracybeanz
https://reddit.com/submit?url=https...ia+Are+Not+Telling+You+About+Vaccine+Mandates



If I were a local, state, or the federal government and wanted to implement vaccine mandates for public employees, to be sure, I would cite the 1905 case Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the now-infamous Supreme Court case that upheld a Massachusetts compulsory smallpox vaccine law as constitutional.

That said, while this oft-cited 100-plus-year-old case appears to be one of the most persuasive cases for arguing for the validity of COVID-19 vaccine mandates, there are a number of important points the advocates of vaccine mandates conveniently didn’t tell you about the scope and substance of Jacobson.
Leaving aside the fact that the vaccine mandate in Jacobson was for smallpox, a disease that has historically has a 30% mortality rate (COVID-19 is well below 1% in most of our population) and leaving aside the fact that the repercussions for not complying with the smallpox vaccine mandate was a $5 fine ($155 in today’s dollars), it is important to note that Jacobson upheld a state law, in one state, Massachusetts. Moreover, it upheld a law created by that state’s legislature and not a mandate produced by executive fiat.

In other words, Jacobson is not the green light for vaccine mandates nationwide people say it is.

Massachusetts had a Specific State Law
In addition to Jacobson pertaining only to a state law created by its state legislature, it is simply not true that all vaccine mandate statutes created by future state legislatures post-Jacobson would read the same as that law in Massachusetts. Nor is it true that they would operate under the constitutional provisions as found in Massachusetts that apparently allowed for such a mandate in that state. In fact, it is nearly impossible that the facts underlying all such future laws would be identical to those in Jacobson and would, therefore, of necessity, warrant the same holding as in Jacobson.
Further, it is also vital to note that the manner in which different states and localities are instituting their various vaccine mandates today is not via a statute passed by their respective legislatures, as was the case in Massachusetts. Rather, many states and localities are issuing them through executive or administrative fiat. Some, or even many, of those mandates, are questionable on those grounds and may exceed the scope of powers statutorily granted to such entities – something not at issue in Jacobson.

All this to say that Jacobson was a state case that dealt with a specific state’s law. In no way did it pertain to the constitutionality of the federal government attempting to mandate vaccines on private entities through an executive agency such as OSHA, as is being proposed by the current administration in Washington. And, in no way does it per se grant carte blanche to state executive and administrative agencies the right to institute vaccine mandates under their respective forms and limitations of government. Such a mandate, if ever promulgated by the federal government or state agencies, would not be on point with the Jacobson case and would not be justified by the holding there.

Federal Power-Grabs
To delve even deeper, for those unfamiliar, the powers conferred to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution are quite different from the powers granted by the people to state governments. Generally, state governments possess plenary power, while the role of the federal government was supposed to be one of limited and enumerated powers (even though, in many ways, states are abdicating their powers today).

Not only does the federal government not possess general police powers, as do states, but administrative agencies such as OSHA can only act within the bounds of the powers granted them by Congress. In other words, that Jacobson upheld a state compulsory vaccine law in no way grants the federal government powers it never had in the first place. Still, it appears we see many executive agencies acting outside the scope of the statutes that created them. And, it further seems likely that the broad scope of some of those enabling statutes could even themselves be so broad as to be construed as unconstitutional if challenged today. OSHA is a good example of this.

And speaking of a state’s police powers, the Court had something to say about that in its Jacobson ruling. “According to settled principles, the police power of a State must be held to embrace, at least, such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment as will protect the public health and the public safety.”

Yes, even the police powers of a state, which states rightly possess, must be “reasonable.” In Jacobson, the Court believed that Massachusetts’ mandate regarding a vaccine for the specific disease of smallpox – and with the stated alternative $5 penalty – was reasonable. The Court went on to clearly state that future mandates might be unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional.

Jacobson Said Future Courts Would Be Compelled to Find Against Unreasonable Mandates
In Jacobson, the Court went out of its way to warn us that future laws in this regard could be arbitrary and unreasonable and might require the Court to intervene against such laws:

“t might be that an acknowledged power of a local community to protect itself against an epidemic threatening the safety of all, might be exercised in particular circumstances and in reference to particular persons in such an arbitrary, unreasonable manner, or might go so far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public, as to authorize or compel the courts to interfere for the protection of such persons.”
Could a mandate for a demographic of persons whose COVID mortality for most age groups is almost zero be considered arbitrary or even unreasonable, especially mandates for young children (mortality rate = 0.003%)? Could a vaccine mandate for people who have already had COVID-19 and who have natural immunity, and therefore who arguably possess better immunity than people who have been vaccinated be considered arbitrary or unreasonable, or “go so far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public?” These are just a few examples among many.

A State Cannot Claim “Good Intentions”
Simply stated, it is not enough for a state to claim good intentions and assert a supposed right to force vaccinations on its populace. Throughout Jacobson, the Court made this point abundantly clear, and they underscored its warning at the close of their opinion:

“Before closing this opinion, we deem it appropriate, in order to prevent misapprehension as to our views, to observe—perhaps to repeat a thought already sufficiently expressed, namely—that the police power of a State, whether exercised by the legislature or by a local body acting under its authority, may be exerted in such circumstances or by regulations so arbitrary and oppressive in particular cases as to justify the interference of the courts to prevent wrong and oppression.”
It would seem to those who have read Jacobson that the Court thought it very necessary to make abundantly clear this was a narrow state decision and that the Court might be compelled in the future to interject itself into other cases of compulsory mandates under different circumstances.
It is very interesting to see how the multitude of intellectuals and media personalities today are attempting to use the Jacobson case as a justification for forced COVID-19 vaccinations. It’s also interesting to see how they conveniently neglect to mention the many limitations placed on Jacobson – by both the Constitution and as expressly stated by the Court itself.
Far be it from me to impugn anyone’s intellectual honesty in this regard. I guess they just missed a few facts.

 

[Crusty Echo 7]

Church v. Biden: Government Changes Position
By
Michelle Edwards
-
November 10, 2021 Image: Narendra Bisht




On Monday, in Church v Biden, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly denied the Plaintiffs’ emergency application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and motion for a preliminary injunction. Despite the judge’s denial, the 41-page order establishes that the Plaintiffs seeking an exemption from receiving any COVID-19 vaccine due to a sincerely held religious belief will not lose their jobs while their request is pending. Pleased with the proceedings thus far, Plaintiff attorney Mike Yoder told UncoverDC the ruling just as easily could have been “denied as moot.” He explained there is currently no need for an injunction because “we’ve been successful in getting the government to change their position.”

Yoder commented the court’s denial of the injunction was due to modifications made by the Defendants—the U.S. government—to the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force (Task Force) to “protect itself against a preliminary injunction that would’ve lasted indefinitely if entered.” He added, “Before the liberal media grabs ahold of this, just know—we didn’t get a preliminary injunction NOT because we are not winning or correct. We are winning, and anyone that tells you different is lying to you. We will win this.”

Screenshot / Mike Yoder Instagram
Task Force guidance directs that “federal employees need to be fully vaccinated by November 22, 2021.” CDC guidelines dictate that an individual is not “fully vaccinated” until two weeks after receiving the required number of doses of a COVID-19 vaccine. That means federal employees must have received their “last dose of the vaccine by no later than November 8, 2021, to meet the November 22, 2021 deadline to be fully vaccinated.” Plaintiffs’ concerns arose, as the initial lawsuit points out, over the particulars surrounding the government directive that federal employees who fail to comply with the deadline and “have neither received an exception request nor have an exception request under consideration” are “subject to discipline, up to and including termination or removal.”

Kollar-Kotelly stated that Defendants allege “there is no basis on the current record to assume that the federal employee Plaintiff exemption requests will be denied.” In explaining her decision against injunctive relief, she wrote:
“Plaintiffs’ ‘extraordinary’ request for immediate injunctive relief is not merited. At this early stage of the proceedings, the record reflects that each Plaintiff has requested an exemption to the very COVID-19 vaccine mandates they challenge. These exemption requests all remain pending, and during their pendency, no Plaintiff faces disciplinary action for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine. Plaintiffs, therefore, come before this court complaining of a compulsory inoculation they may never need to take and of adverse employment actions they may never experience. This uncertainty weighs decisively against the ripeness of Plaintiffs’ claims and the irreparability of their purported injuries. Emergency injunctive relief is not appropriate under these circumstances.”

Kollar-Kotelly touched on the Plaintiff’s argument that Joe Biden’s Executive Order 14043 (EO)—which requires that recipients of EUA-authorized medical products be “informed” of the “option to accept or refuse administration of the product”—violates the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). The court asserts these arguments revolve around unforeseen future events that may not occur as anticipated or even at all. Without disputing the Plaintiffs’ claim there is no FDA “approved” vaccine, the order states, “in the event their exemption requests are ultimately approved, they would not have to be vaccinated against COVID-19, meaning the injuries alleged in this case would never occur.”

The Judge’s ruling underscores throughout the order that each Plaintiff confirms they have already submitted a request for a religious exception to the Federal Vaccine mandate in Biden’s EO 14043. The court notes there is “no basis” on the current record “to assume” that the Plaintiffs’ exemption requests will be denied. Considered on a case-by-case basis, the court stresses that hypothetical predictions and the “mere potential” for future injury are insufficient, pointing out that the exemption request for Special Agent Kristofor Hallfrisch has already been approved. Kollar-Kotelly explains that Defendants state that if a federal employee request is denied, appealed, and the appeal is then denied and they subsequently “face adverse reaction if they fail to get vaccinated against COVID-19,” the federal government has “administrative appeal procedures” that offer additional opportunities to present arguments for exemptions.

In summarizing why Plaintiffs’ have not shown substantial likelihood their request for emergency TRO and preliminary injunction are justified, Judge Kollar-Kotelly reiterated again that “each of the Federal Employee Plaintiffs alleges that he or she has already submitted an exemption request, and is awaiting a decision on the request.” Concluding the court finds public interest outweighs the balance of harm to Plaintiffs in this decision, the Judge resolved:

“No Federal Employee Plaintiff has yet been compelled to receive a vaccine in contravention of their constitutional right to religious free exercise of related statutory objections. The record also indicates no Federal Employee Plaintiff will be subject to discipline for refusing the vaccine during the pendency of their present outstanding religious exemption requests. This exempted status currently allows the Federal Employee Plaintiffs to raise their religious objections to the vaccine, while also retaining their federal jobs. Under these circumstances, the Federal Employee Plaintiffs cannot rely on the presumption of irreparable harm that attaches to First Amendment violations, because no such violation has yet occurred. And it is unclear if any such violation will ever occur. An approved exemption request would allow the exempted federal employee to refuse the COVID-19 vaccine entirely.“

 

[bw]

Actually the WH is quite correct. Businesses can move forward even if there is no mandate. The WH wants corporations to do the constitutional dirty work for them. All that takes is urging from the top and complicit executives.

 

[Crusty Echo 7]

Bill Gates admits COVID shots ‘only slightly reduce’ transmission, calls for ‘new’ approach to vaccines
In an interview calling for future ‘pandemic preparedness’ and bringing up the possibility of a smallpox ‘bioterrorist’ attack, the pro-abortion Microsoft founder admitted mRNA shots are ineffective and said 'we need a new way of doing the vaccines'

Wed Nov 10, 2021 - 2:17 pm EST
LONDON, England (LifeSiteNews) – Billionaire population control and vaccine advocate Bill Gates criticized the currently available COVID jabs as not sufficiently halting transmission of the virus Thursday, stating that “we need a new way of doing the vaccines.”
In a wide-ranging 30-minute interview with leading British politician Jeremy Hunt, head of the U.K. Health Select Committee, Gates discussed many of the topics debated at the COP 26 climate summit underway in neighboring Scotland, later in the interview turning his attention towards “pandemic preparedness” and the current global COVID shot rollout.

Gates told Hunt that “we didn’t have vaccines that block transmission” regarding the available remedies for the virus at the onset of the crisis, later saying of the abortion-tainted COVID jabs, “we got vaccines to help you with your health, but they only slightly reduce the transmissions.”

“We need a new a new way of doing the vaccines,” Gates, who has been a prominent pusher of the shots, added.

On September 29, YouTube announced that it would be implementing a stricter clamp down on content which alleges any kind of failure of the “approved vaccines” for COVID-19.

YouTube clearly stated that “claims that vaccines do not reduce transmission or contraction of disease … will be removed.” Though the video of Gates’ interview has been published on the platform for almost a week, there is yet no indication that it will be removed for directly contravening YouTube’s strict “harmful vaccine content” rules.

Gates stressed the importance of suppressing what he called “false information” surrounding the novel coronavirus and the accompanying government approved “vaccines.” He lamented the rise of so-called “mask hesitancy” and “vaccine hesitancy” among those who choose not to don the coverings or subject themselves to the experimental shots.
Instead of relying on social media to regulate “what stuff should circulate” online regarding scientific discussions on medicine and COVID shots, Gates suggested that governments ought to “step up” to control censorship of online media after criticizing platforms like Facebook for being “a little slow” to bring down the hammer.

Continuing, the technology mogul heaped yet more opprobrium on social media giants, mocking their motivations regarding content publishing as being far from virtuous, while at the same time advocating for governments to take over the policing of internet discussions.

Arguing that it is not “realistic” to expect Big Tech to moderate heavily enough, Gates suggested that “eventually governments will decide [on supposed] wild conspiracy theories: do they have to be double checked? Do they have to slow down their spread? Do you have to put counterbalancing point of views there?”

 

[Crusty Echo 7]

See above; they're lying in the first place, subduing any counter to it and taking things out of context to generate a huge information warfare campaign against the American people and the world. It's not just the government but oligarch's like gates. Who wants to get a "vaccine" from a guy who says we need depopulation????

 

[Crusty Echo 7]

Actually the WH is quite correct. Businesses can move forward even if there is no mandate. The WH wants corporations to do the constitutional dirty work for them. All that takes is urging from the top and complicit executives.

Yep, they want to distance themselves from the bad-guy and liability. Same thing with dumping the enforcement for servicemen/women, fed civilians and contractors on the service chiefs. Sneaky bastards!

 

[danielboon]

Matthew 24:12

 

[Dozdoats]

Are you making some fundamental decisions on some very basic issues yet?

 

[Crusty Echo 7]

Already have, not getting any vaccinations!

 

[TammyinWI]

 

[Crusty Echo 7]

Actually the WH is quite correct. Businesses can move forward even if there is no mandate. The WH wants corporations to do the constitutional dirty work for them. All that takes is urging from the top and complicit executives.

They can “mandate” enough to be sued; only states have the authority for public health.

For those of who Support and defend the constitution, we might want to make sure we read it too!

 

[Crusty Echo 7]

INVESTIGATION - Deadliest batches of the Covid-19 Vaccines were disproportionally sent to red Republican states across the USA
On October 31st we exclusively revealed how an investigation of the USA’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) found extremely high numbers of adver

theexpose.uk

INVESTIGATION – Deadliest batches of the Covid-19 Vaccines were disproportionally sent to red Republican states across the USA
BY THE EXPOSÉ ON NOVEMBER 10, 2021 •


On October 31st we exclusively revealed how an investigation of the USA’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) found extremely high numbers of adverse reactions and deaths have been reported against specific lot numbers of the Covid-19 vaccines numerous times, meaning deadly batches of the experimental injections have now been identified.
That investigation also led to the discovery that 130 different lot numbers of Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine distributed to more than 13 states, harmed on average 639 times more people, hospitalised on average 109 times more people, and killed on average 22 times more people than the 4,289 different lt number of Pfizer vaccine distributed to 12 states or less.
However, the most shocking finding of the investigation was that 100% of Covid-19 vaccine deaths reported to VAERS with identified lot numbers had been caused by just 5% of the batches produced. But the deeply troubling findings don’t end there, because we decided to conduct further analysis of the VAERS data on the Covid-19 vaccines, and we’ve discovered that the majority of the deadliest batches were clearly sent to Republican controlled red states across the USA.

The data used in the investigation was pulled from the publicly accessible VAERS database which can be viewed here. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a United States programme for vaccine safety, co-managed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
The programme collects information via reports made by doctors, nurses, and patients about adverse events (possible harmful side effects) that occur after administration of vaccines to ascertain whether the risk–benefit ratio is high enough to justify continued use of any particular vaccine.
The investigation of VAERS data published October 31st included reports of adverse reactions and deaths within the VAERS database as of October 15th 2021, the findings of our further investigation into VAERS data include reports of adverse reactions and deaths within the VAERS database as of October 22nd 2021.

The original investigation found that reported deaths due to the Pfizer vaccine were only associated with certain batches of the jab each assigned a lot number. The ‘lot number’ is a specific string of numbers and letters that tracks a specific batch of vaccine from production and into a persons arm and it is usually found on a vaccine label or accompanying packaging.
The chart above shows that 96% of the lots of Pfizer vaccine had zero death reports made against them. Meaning the 2,828 reported deaths were associated with just 4% of the lots of Pfizer vaccine.
Five lot numbers were associated with 61-80 deaths each, a further 5 lot numbers were associated with 81-100 deaths each, and just 2 separate lot numbers were associated with over 100 deaths each.

The same can be seen for the Moderna Covid-19 vaccine. Ninety-five-percent of the lots of Moderna vaccine had zero death reports made against them. Meaning the 2,603 deaths were associated with just 5% of the lots of Moderna vaccine.
Thirteen lot numbers were associated with 41-60 deaths each, 2 lot numbers were associated with 61-80 deaths each and 1 lot number was associated with 81-100 deaths.
The original investigation of VAERS data also found that specific batches of the Pfizer and Moderna Covid-19 vaccines which were distributed to between 13 and 50 states across the USA had an unusually high number of adverse event reports and deaths compared to lots that were distributed to 12 states or less across the USA

As you can see from the above table 4,289 different lots of Pfizer vaccine were distributed to 12 states or less across the USA, recording 9,141 adverse event reports against them alongside 99 deaths and 657 hospitalisations. This equates to an average of 2 adverse event reports per lot and 0 deaths and hospitalisations.
However, a further 130 different lots of Pfizer vaccine were distributed to between 13-50 states across the USA, recording 166,170 adverse event reports, 2,799 deaths, and 14,155 hospitalisations. This equates to an average of 1,278 adverse event reports per lot number, alongside 22 deaths and 109 hospitalisations.
The question is, which states were the deadly lots of Covid-19 vaccine sent to?
A full list of the lot numbers sent to 13 or more states across the USA can be downloaded here. The list displays the number of adverse reactions and deaths associated with each lot number and includes the Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen Covid-19 vaccines.
Top 26 most harmful lot numbers sent to 13 or more States
Because our previous investigation had uncovered that 100% of Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine deaths and 100% of Moderna Covid-19 Vaccine deaths were cased by just 4% of the batches of Pfizer vaccine produced and 5% of the batches of Moderna vaccine produced we were able to conduct a straight forward search of the VAERS system listing the number of deaths due to both vaccines by the State they occurred.
The results were as follows –
Pfizer + Moderna
As you can see, at first glance it appears as if the deadliest lots of Covid-19 vaccine have been distributed pretty evenly between Republican and Democrat controlled states within the USA, with California, a Democrat controlled state recording the most deaths at 466, followed by three Republican states, Kentucky, Texas, and Florida, recording, 338, 338, and 336 deaths due to either the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA injections.
However, these numbers need to be put into context in order to understand where the majority of the deadly lots of Covid-19 vaccine were actually distributed to, and to do this we need to know how many people have been vaccinated in each state.
In order to do this accurately we had to include the Janssen viral vector Covid-19 vaccine in the numbers, but VAERS data does also shows that a small amount of batches of the Janssen injection are also responsible for the majority of Janssen vaccine deaths.

Credit – Karl Denninger
So we conducted another search of the VAERS system this time also including the Janssen vaccine alongside both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.
The results were as follows –
Pfizer + Moderna + Janssen
As you can see the order of States remained the same, showing at first glance that the deadliest lots of Covid-19 vaccine have been distributed pretty evenly between Republican and Democrat controlled states within the USA.
But look what happens when you take into account the number of people vaccinated in each state and calculate the vaccination / death rate –

The top 8 States with the highest vaccination death rate are all Republican controlled red States, and 19 of the top 24 states with the highest vaccination death rate are again Republican controlled red States. Kentucky, Arkansas, West Virginia, Montana, Alaska, North Dakota, Wyoming, and Tennessee all top the list, with Florida placing 20th in the list of 51 states.
By calculating the vaccination / death rate, we’re also able to see that California has actually been the state least affected by the deadly lots of Covid-19 vaccine, not the most affected as it appeared to be at first glance without putting the vaccine death numbers into context.
The numbers show that the Republican controlled state of Kentucky has a 1,900% worse vaccination / death rate than the Democrat controlled California, suggesting the Republican state received 20 times the amount of deadly batches of Covid-19 vaccine than the Democrat controlled state received.
The numbers also suggest that the Republican controlled state of Florida received three times the amount of deadly batches of Covid-19 vaccine than the Democrat controlled state of California received, with its vaccination / death rate 200% higher than California’s.
Conclusion
This investigation of VAERS data reveals several concerning findings which warrant further investigation, but it also leads to questions of why authorities within the USA which are supposed to monitor the safety of the Covid-19 vaccines have not discovered this themselves.
Why is it that certain batches of the vaccine have proven to be more harmful than others?
Why is it that certain batches of Covid-19 vaccine have proven to be deadlier than others?
Why were the majority of the most harmful and deadly Covid-19 vaccines distributed to Republican controlled States across the USA?
These extremely serious questions require urgent answers.

 

[Crusty Echo 7]

Credit to Jonas Parker for the previous post CORONA - INVESTIGATION – Deadliest batches of the Covid-19 Vaccines were disproportionally sent to red Republican states across the USA

 

[Crusty Echo 7]

Biden's 'Unhinged Socialist' Banking Nominee Wants Oil, Coal, & Gas Industries To 'Go Bankrupt'

BY TYLER DURDEN
WEDNESDAY, NOV 10, 2021 - 06:37 PM
President Biden's Marxist nominee for Comptroller of the Currency - who said she wants to "end banking as we know it," has just said the quiet part out loud, again.
Top banking pick Saule Omarova - who was born and educated in the USSR, earned the "Lenin" award, and has refused to turn over her thesis: "Karl Marx’s Economic Analysis and the Theory of Revolution in The Capital" - now wants to put millions of Americans in the energy sector out of a job.


Recommended Videos








Unmute

Advanced Settings




FullscreenPauseUp Next











In comments from March which have resurfaced this week in a viral video, Omarova touted the need for a National Investment Authority (NIA), which would 'facilitate sustainable and socially inclusive infrastructural growth' - especially when a systemic crisis requires a Congressional bailout.
"The NIA will be able to negotiate equity stakes in private enterprise that receives that public aid, be it a part of the systemic bailout or be it part of, for example, individualized restructuring help," she said, adding ""For example for certain troubled industries and firms that are in transitioning."
"Here, what I'm thinking about is primarily the coal industry and oil and gas industry. A lot of the smaller players in that industry are going to probably go bankrupt in short order, at least we want them to go bankrupt if we want to tackle climate change."
Watch:

This unhinged socialist wants millions of Americans who work in the energy industry to go bankrupt.

And Joe Biden picked her as his top banking nominee. https://t.co/RFBsXaGcRv
— Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) November 10, 2021

So - she wants to "end banking as we know it" and destroy the oil, gas and coal industries.

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

 

[Intestinal Fortitude]

Actually the WH is quite correct. Businesses can move forward even if there is no mandate. The WH wants corporations to do the constitutional dirty work for them. All that takes is urging from the top and complicit executives.

socilaism at its Finest! just like the Nazi's!!

 

[thompson]

Bill Gates admits COVID shots ‘only slightly reduce’ transmission, calls for ‘new’ approach to vaccines

 

[Dennis Olson]

I’m not at all sure what you have in mind with this thread. We have tens-of-thousands of threads calling out a warning. If you’re trying to duplicate Ragnarok’s work, that’s a tall order. Just sayin.

 

[dawgofwar10]

I did not listen to the Red Headed Vagabond nor will I listen to Tyrona Shoes!!!

 

[Crusty Echo 7]

I’m not at all sure what you have in mind with this thread. We have tens-of-thousands of threads calling out a warning. If you’re trying to duplicate Ragnarok’s work, that’s a tall order. Just sayin.

Do you mind posting a link to Ragnorak’s work or combining the threads?

I try to give credit where it’s due and if this is duplicating his work (consolidating evidence where this is an internal attack on the U.S. Constitution then I’m all for it. Thanks!

 

[subnet]

I work in Healthcare and my place of employment is moving ahead with the mandate, even with the fed stay.

 

[Millwright]

Do you mind posting a link to Ragnorak’s work or combining the threads?

I try to give credit where it’s due and if this is duplicating his work (consolidating evidence where this is an internal attack on the U.S. Constitution then I’m all for it. Thanks!

There are several members who have done a huge amount of research in their compilation threads.

Ragnarok, Marsh, Danielboon, Plain Jane, and a few others have put a lot of effort into posting every bit of "news" that is to be found on the interwebz, pertaining to most recurring topics.

You might spend some time reading back and seeing these ongoing threads, so as not to duplicate them.

 

[Dennis Olson]

Ragnarok is famous for his “Four Horsemen” threads. Take a look-see. We have a fantastic search engine on the board. Try it out.

 

[Ractivist]

I found the information quite interesting...targeted attack by state....

 

[Profit of Doom]

I work in Healthcare and my place of employment is moving ahead with the mandate, even with the fed stay.

Has anyone tried pointing out to them that all jabs are still
EUA and cannot be mandate? There are no FDA approved jabs.

Be Not Deceived: Emergency Vaccines Cannot Be Mandatory

<p>The Dr. Cole Series, Part 5 On March 18, 2021, Dr. Ryan Cole, M.D., spoke on issues surrounding Covid-19 at the Idaho State Capitol. The following transcript is taken from his presentation, and this installment serves a Part 5 of a 5-part series. Dr. Cole is a Board Certified, Mayo Clinic...

trueidahonews.com

No FDA-Approved COVID-19 Shots Available - Liberty Counsel

WASHINGTON, D.C. – There are currently no fully FDA-approved licensed COVID shots available. All COVID shots remain under federal Emergency Use...

lc.org

Senator Ron Johnson Points Out No FDA Approved Vaccine is Currently Available in The United States, Pfizer Comirnaty Vaccine Not Being Used - The Last Refuge

On August 23, 2021, the FDA announced that Pfizer was granted Biologic License Application approval for their COVID-19 vaccine. [Press release Here] you can find the Approval Letter at the following LINK HERE. The approved Pfizer vaccine is not the same as the original COVID-19 vaccine from the...

theconservativetreehouse.com

 

[NoDandy]

See above; they're lying in the first place, subduing any counter to it and taking things out of context to generate a huge information warfare campaign against the American people and the world. It's not just the government but oligarch's like gates. Who wants to get a "vaccine" from a guy who says we need depopulation????

EXACTLY !!! No one with min two brain cells !!!

 

[Blastoff]

Logged into my my chart medical record yesterday, it ties into EPIC. Clearly listed I have had 2 of 4 vaccinations for Covid-19. Clearly showed this data came from state records and could be updated eith a click of a button. I got my vaccinations at Walgreens. Already being tracked folks.