in

TOP MED JOURNAL: How to Avoid ‘Challenges on Due-Process Grounds’ So Those Refusing C19 Vaccine Can Lose Their Liberty & Right to Work

AP featured image

How would you feel about the state taking away someone’s freedom or right to work for refusing a vaccine that’s only 50% effective against a virus that – even according to the CDC’s own flagrantly cooked books – isn’t any worse for most of us than the seasonal flu?

How about if dozen of research studies show half of us already have pre-existing immunity from contracting harmless variants we’ve been exposed to all our lives?

And what if the government agencies pushing the vaccine had kept these and a host of other pertinent facts hidden so they could keep us in a perpetual state of terror-stricken mass delusion?

Supposing all of that were true, should those very agencies have the power to force the injection of a frantically rushed-to-market vaccine on the American people?

Should they be able to do so even if it hadn’t been produced with such alarming, completely unprecedented, record-breaking speed?

If you answered, “Hell, no!” to any of these questions, there’s some serious trouble brewing on your horizon.

Because all those things are exactly what will happen if a Stanford law professor named Michelle M. Mello gets her way.

And, given the power the CDC has already claimed over your life when nobody was watching, you’d be a fool to think she won’t if everyone doesn’t start waking up to the ugly future that’s been unfolding before our eyes these past six months.

It’s the dawn of COVID-1984. And, if we don’t put a stop to it soon, the nightmare has only begun.

We’ll start with Mello’s scheme to nullify the Fifth Amendment and turn to the CDC’s brazen assertion that they have the authority to “apprehend and detain” anyone they wish “for purposes of preventing communicable disease spread” that you’ve never heard a word about next

Mello just published an article with a couple of other college professors – none of whom, if my decades of experience is any guide, are likely to have done an honest day’s work in their lives – that lays the groundwork for the further subjugation of the hardworking Americans that her profession of useless parasites feeds off of.

And don’t think it was published in one of those wretched little academic journals that nobody reads, let alone pays any mind.

Their blueprint for giving a bunch of incompetent and corrupt bureaucrat mediocrities the authority to force the injection of unnecessary drugs into your body appeared in the latest issue of one of the world’s most prestigious outlets for scientific research: the famous New England Journal of Medicine.

So you’d be wise to pay attention.

Our trinity of academic overlords wrote their mini-medical Mein Kampf out of concern over “a recent poll [which] found that only 49% of Americans planned to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2.” the virus that’s supposed to cause COVID-19.

We’re talking about a disease that’s no more deadly than the seasonal flu to anyone below fifty even on the CDC’s patently crooked accounting.

But the methods used to compile COVID-19’s death rate are very crooked, indeed. They’re bound to be making it look massively more deadly than it really is. Among other inflating factors, anyone dying within 60 days of a positive diagnosis gets counted among its victims.

Doesn’t matter how mild your symptoms were or how patently obvious it is that something else killed you. Makes no difference if you had no symptoms at all.

Bleeding out from a gunshot wound…

… dying in a road accident or from some other deadly event or unrelated malady…

Doesn’t matter. If a doctor checked that COVID-19 box within 60 days of your death, you wind up being counted among its official victims.

And that’s just one of many crooked tricks and government incentives that are wildly inflating the virus’s death rate.

So the fact that only 49% of Americans plan on lining up for a hastily produced vaccine –  which, as even the NIH notes, there’s always at least some small chance is going to kill anyone who does – shows that at least the other 51% of us are well-informed enough to make a wise decision.

But, apparently, that’s something Mello and her colleagues think shouldn’t be tolerated.

No matter how much you’ve studied the issue, your view on whether vaccination for COVID-19 is necessary or safe matters no more to them than does your dog’s disinclination to go to the vet.

And you love your dog. Whereas the people who want to inflict this totalitarian nightmare on us wouldn’t lose a wink of sleep if you suffered and died.

Nor does it matter that no less a leading light than Yale epidemiologist Harvey Risch has explicitly warned that Fauci and the other bureaucrats putting enormous sums of money in pharmaceutical coffers by relentlessly shilling for a COVID vaccine already caused tens of thousands of Americans to die by suppressing medication that works because they’re in bed with special interests who profit from less effective and more costly alternatives.

For that matter, it doesn’t make any difference that Fauci himself has admitted to killing thousands of Americans by denying them access to lifesaving treatments for AIDS.

Mello wants to force you to put your life in the hands of such people.

If you haven’t figured it out by now, the real disease she’s trying to stamp out isn’t COVID-19.

It’s your freedom.

And Mello and her fellow two members of our useless, overpaid, underworked, class of academic leeches have just the cure:

Employment suspension or stay-at-home orders for persons in designated high-priority groups who refuse vaccination.

Don’t let that restriction to “high-priority” groups fool you. If that category doesn’t wind up being pretty big, it’s hard to understand their concern about that poll saying only 50% of Americans plan on getting vaccinated.

Moreover, the unspeakably insolent trio state right up front that the goal “is ensuring a high enough vaccination rate to achieve herd immunity.”

Since both Anthony Fauci and CDC director Robert Redfield continue to ignore the dozens of studies showing around half of us have pre-existing immunity to SARS-CoV-2 and keep pushing the flagrant lie that 90% of Americans are still susceptible, you can be damn sure everyone will wind up in that “high-priority” group.

You can also be certain any such plan will be adopted in the blink of an eye.

For despite Mello and her colleagues’ reassurance that, “vaccination mandates [should be] imposed only after a time-limited trial of voluntary vaccine provision has proved unsuccessful,” it turns out that, sadly:

In this case, the costs of a failed voluntary scheme are sufficiently high that the attempt should be limited to a matter of weeks.

Presumably, the cost is so high for the same reason that “relatively substantive penalties” are justified. Namely  “because of the infectiousness and dangerousness of the virus.”

Except, no matter how much they say it, it just isn’t true.

SARS-CoV-2 is neither terribly infectious nor dangerous. The only thing dangerous here is the legion of academics providing cover for dishonest and corrupt bureaucrat puppets like Fauci and Redfield so they can defile America’s commitment to individual liberty and inflict untold misery and death on her people for whoever the true master pulling their strings is.

But the most interesting thing about their repulsive article is that Mello and her collaborators make it completely clear they’re using bogus public health concerns as a smokescreen to hide their real goal: figuring out a way around the pesky guarantees of individual liberty in the U.S. Constitution.

For one thing, the tyrannical trio asserts that fines shouldn’t be used as punishment because they “disadvantage the poor.” This is a pretty strange consideration given that they’re insisting people who refuse vaccination lose their job, which disadvantages the poor a whole lot more than a one-time fine that it might be tough to even collect.

How many Americans would prefer to completely lose their right to work over a fine?

In reality, Mallo and her friends are ruling out less severe restrictions under the guise of transparently phony compassion.

But the fact that they’re even citing the heavier toll financial penalties take on the poor as a reason to exclude imposing them shows their real concern can’t possibly have anything to do with public health.

Imagine someone sincerely suggesting that we should stop imposing fines for speeding or drunk driving because they hurt poor people more than the rich. You can’t because everyone understands that driving recklessly or while intoxicated gets other people killed. And no one who was sincerely proposing mandatory vaccination as a way to save lives would use the fact that fines hit poorer people harder as a reason not to impose them.

But a much better glimpse into Mello and her colleague’s dark totalitarian souls is provided by their reason for not using criminal penalties to forcibly inject us with unnecessary drugs.

Almost unbelievably, they’re completely upfront that criminal penalties are a bad idea because they “invite legal challenges on procedural due-process grounds.” And why risk running afoul of our Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process when you can make an end-run around it using phony ginned-up concerns about public health?

And, again, you’d be wise to take the possibility very seriously, indeed.

You see, when you weren’t looking, the CDC asserted its authority to “apprehend, detain, examine, quarantine, isolate, or conditionally release individuals for purposes of preventing communicable disease spread.”

But what’s in some ways even more amazing is the nature of the most prominent document in which the CDC laid claim to the right to dispose of us as they see fit and the role it played in justifying shutting down our businesses and locking us in our homes in the first weeks of March, when the age of  COVID-1984 first began.

 

House Republicans Call For Hearings To Identify Rioters’ Sources Of Funding

Terrible: A Poll About Trump’s COVID Diagnosis Reveals a Changing of the American Heart