Governor Greg Abbott (R) on Monday banned vaccine mandates by any entity in Texas.
“The Covid vaccine should always remain voluntary and never forced,” Abbott said.
“Abbott issued an executive order stating that no entity in Texas can compel receipt of a Covid-19 vaccination by any individual, including an employee or consumer, who objects to such vaccination for any reason of personal conscience, based on a religious belief, or for medical reasons, including prior recovery from Covid-19,” the governor’s office announced….
Readers of this blog already know this but it’s nice to have pfizer on the record admitting it. If Comirnaty really is physically identical to the Pfizer/BioNTech shot, then the fake “approval” must be a ploy to inject more clueless people while maintaining pfizer’s (and the FDA’s) legal immunity for vaccine injury, since the “emergency use authorization” granted for the original version shields everyone from legal liability. What does that say about the toxicity of what is being injected? Is comirnaty actually being used anywhere on the planet, or was it only created as a legal mirage for just this purpose? It it’s never used, there will never be suits for injuries. Wake up people.
A Wyoming teen was filming last week as she was placed under arrest for refusing to wear a face mask inside her school building.
In the footage, a Laramie High School official tells 16-year-old Grace Smith she’s not allowed to enter a hallway to go to class because she’s not wearing a mask.
Meet Grace. She's a 16 year old girl who's showing more courage than most men right now. She's refusing to comply with the mask mandate her Wyoming school board is trying to force. She was fined and arrested. Here's her arrest. She's a hero.
— Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) October 9, 2021
More from WyomingNews.com:
Grace Smith returned to LHS on Thursday morning after serving two consecutive two-day suspensions for not complying with Albany County School District #1’s mask mandate, which says anyone inside a district building must have his or her face covered. The rule, brought on by an upsurge in COVID-19 cases, was put in place last month and will be reviewed by the school board next week, ahead of a scheduled Oct. 15 sunset.
After the high school junior refuses to put on a mask, an administrator comes up to her and has her sign paperwork indicating she’s being suspended.
Grace again refuses to don a mask and refuses to leave the school building.
At this point, an announcement goes out over the intercom that the school has been placed on lockdown, and an officer informs the student he intends to handcuff her and bring her down to the station…..
A medical doctor professes hundreds of congressional lawmakers, family members and staffers have received Covid-19 preventative care that included an ivermectin regimen – and kept those facts from the American people.
The incredible claim was made in tweets last week from Dr. Pierre Kory, who promotes an early preventative treatment protocol that includes administration of ivermectin, vitamins C and D3, zinc and monoclonal antibodies.
“Fun fact: Between 100-200 United States Congress Members (plus many of their staffers & family members) with COVID.. were treated by a colleague over the past 15 months with ivermectin & the I-MASK+ protocol at http://flccc.net,” Dr. Kory tweeted, adding, “None have gone to hospital. Just sayin’.”
A follow-up tweet by the FLCCC Alliance (Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance), which outlined the preventative protocol, referred to Kory’s “fun fact” as a breaking scandal, and added that the congressmen stayed silent as ivermectin was taken to the woodshed.
Responding to questions asking for the names of Congressmen or an official source, Kory noted his intel came from “a highly credible source inside Congress” and that he stood by his tweet.
In an update following his original tweet, the doctor also predicted he’d soon be removed from Twitter for daring to alert the public about his preventative treatment regimen.
The acceptance and normalization of corporate censorship and political subversion is an indication of how enslaved we are.
Five years ago astrophysicist and science communicator Neil deGrasse Tyson tweeted a very memorable and quote-worthy tweet:
Earth needs a virtual country: #Rationalia, with a one-line Constitution: All policy shall be based on the weight of evidence
— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) June 29, 2016
Tyson’s ideal world appealed to many people fatigued from emotion-driven, knee jerk politics and political tribal warfare that had invaded every arena of public life, including science. It appealed to many of his fellow scientists, people trained to think objectively and test hypotheses based on observations about the natural world.
The only problem—the huge weight of evidence demonstrates why the virtual country Rationalia just plain ain’t ever gonna happen.
That’s because for humans, thinking rationally takes a tremendous amount of energy and effort. As a result, most of the time we don’t bother. Instead, the vast majority of our thinking is guided completely by our intuition—our instincts alone with none of that pesky interfering rational thought.
This dichotomy is masterfully explained in exquisite detail by Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman in his book Thinking Fast and Slow, and covered with a focus on political divisions in Jonathan Haidt’s masterpiece The Righteous Mind. Both are fantastic works in their own right, and provide fascinating explanations for why people have different views and why it is so difficult to change them.
More importantly, this cognitive dichotomy applies to everyone, even scientists. That may be surprising to some (including some scientists, apparently), as the media and politicians have portrayed scientists (at least the ones they agree with) as imbued with a magical ability to discern and pronounce absolute truth.
This couldn’t be further from reality. I often tell people that the difference between a scientist and the average person is that a scientist is more aware of what he/she doesn’t know about their specific field, whereas the average person doesn’t know what they don’t know. In other words, everyone suffers from crushing ignorance, but scientists are (one hopes) usually more aware of the depth of theirs. They might occasionally have an idea about how to slightly increase a particular body of knowledge, and sometimes that idea might even prove successful. But for the most part they spend their time thinking about a deep chasm of knowledge specific to their field.
Scientists are often hindered by their own years of experience and the potentially misleading intuition that has developed as a result. In the book Virus Hunter, authors C.J. Peters and Mark Olshaker tell how a former CDC director remarked that “young, inexperienced EIS (Epidemic Intelligence Service) officers CDC customarily sent out to investigate mystery disease outbreaks and epidemics actually had some advantage over their more experienced and seasoned elders. While having first-rate training and the support of the entire CDC organization, they hadn’t seen enough to have preset opinions and might therefore have been more open to new possibilities and had the energy to pursue them.” Experts are also terrible at making predictions, and as explained by researcher and author Philip Tetlock in his book Expert Political Judgement, they are no more accurate at forecasting than the average person. The more recent failures of pandemic prediction models have only strengthened this conclusion.
Most successful scientists can trace their crowning achievements to work that occurred early in their careers. This happens, not only because scientists get more job security, but because they get hampered by their own experiences and biases. When I was a lab technician in the late 90s, I remember asking an immunologist for his advice on an experiment I was planning. He ended up giving me a bunch of reasons why there wasn’t any good way to do that experiment and get useful information. I told a postdoc about this encounter, and I recall her saying “Don’t listen to him. That guy can talk you out of doing anything”. Experienced scientists are acutely aware of what doesn’t work, and that can result in an unwillingness to take risks.
Scientists operate in a highly competitive environment where they are forced to spend most of their time seeking research funding by endless grant writing, the vast majority of which are unfunded. To be competitive for this limited pool, researchers put the most positive spin on their work, and publish their most positive results. Even if the study veers off-track from what was originally planned, the resulting manuscript rarely reads that way. And these pressures often result in data analysis falling into an error-prone spectrum from more innocently emphasizing positive results to ignoring negative or contrary data to outright fabrication. Detailed examples of this are given by author Stuart Ritchie in his book Science Fictions: How Fraud, Bias, Negligence, and Hype Undermine the Search for Truth. Not only does Ritchie explain how science gets distorted by pressures for recognition and funding by well-meaning scientists, he gets into gory details about some of the most prolific fraudsters. Another excellent resource that covers scientific errors and research malfeasance is the website Retraction Watch. The sheer numbers of retracted papers, many by the same scientists, highlight the importance of documenting and attacking scientific fraud.
The problems with research data reporting and replicability have been known for years. In 2005, Stanford Professor John Ioannidis, among the most highly cited scientists, published one of the most highly cited articles (over 1,600), Why Most Published Research Findings are False. In the study, Ioannidis used mathematical simulations to show “that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.” Ioannidis also offered six corollaries derived from his conclusions:
- The smaller the studies conducted in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
- The smaller the effect sizes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
- The greater the number and the lesser the selection of tested relationships in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
- The greater the flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
- The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
- The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true.
If you look at the list carefully, 5 and 6 should jump out and scream at you. Here’s a closer look:
“Corollary 5: The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. Conflicts of interest and prejudice may increase bias, u. Conflicts of interest are very common in biomedical research, and typically they are inadequately and sparsely reported. Prejudice may not necessarily have financial roots. Scientists in a given field may be prejudiced purely because of their belief in a scientific theory or commitment to their own findings (emphasis mine). Many otherwise seemingly independent, university-based studies may be conducted for no other reason than to give physicians and researchers qualifications for promotion or tenure. Such nonfinancial conflicts may also lead to distorted reported results and interpretations. Prestigious investigators may suppress via the peer review process the appearance and dissemination of findings that refute their findings, thus condemning their field to perpetuate false dogma. Empirical evidence on expert opinion shows that it is extremely unreliable.”
“Corollary 6: The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true. This seemingly paradoxical corollary follows because, as stated above, the PPV (positive predictive value) of isolated findings decreases when many teams of investigators are involved in the same field.This may explain why we occasionally see major excitement followed rapidly by severe disappointments in fields that draw wide attention. With many teams working on the same field and with massive experimental data being produced, timing is of the essence in beating competition. Thus, each team may prioritize on pursuing and disseminating its most impressive “positive” results…”
Scientists prejudiced because of their beliefs, motivated by the “heat” of the field, and thus prioritizing positive results are all blazingly obvious sources of bias in SARS-CoV-2 research. Ioannidis and colleagues have published on the explosion of published SARS-CoV-2 research, noting “210,863 papers as relevant to COVID-19, which accounts for 3.7% of the 5,728,015 papers across all science published and indexed in Scopus in the period 1 January 2020 until 1 August 2021.” Authors of COVID-19-related articles were experts in almost every field, including “fisheries, ornithology, entomology or architecture”. By the end of 2020, Ioannidis wrote, “only automobile engineering didn’t have scientists publishing on COVID-19. By early 2021, the automobile engineers had their say, too.” Others have also commented on the “covidization” of research, highlighting the reduction of quality of research as COVID mania drove researchers from unrelated fields towards the hottest and most lucrative game in town.
5 and 6 are also relevant to the myth of anthropogenic “global climate change”, another rationale for depopulation used by interests which have made a business model of environmental catastrophe. Fear-based marketing is an important clue to scientific fraud.
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”
— Dr. Marcia Angell, 2009 http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jan/15/drug-companies-doctorsa-story-of-corruption/
“The case against science is straightforward: Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, â€œpoor methods get resultsâ€. The Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council have now put their reputational weight behind an investigation into these questionable research practices. The apparent endemicity [i.e. pervasiveness within the scientific culture] of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of â€œsignificanceâ€ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication. National assessment procedures, such as the Research Excellence Framework, incentivise bad practices. And individual scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct.”
— Richard Horton, editor in chief of Lancet http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf
From the beginning of the March 2020 lockdowns for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the subject of natural immunity (also called post-infection immunity) has been neglected. Once the vaccination became widely available, what began with near silence at the beginning turned nearly into a complete blackout of the topic.
Even now, there is an absence of open discussion, presumably in the interests of promoting universal vaccination and required documentation of such vaccination as a condition of participating in public life and even the jobs marketplace. Still, the science exists. Many studies exist. Their authors deserve credit, recognition, and to have their voices heard.
These studies demonstrate what was and is already known: natural immunity for a SARS-type virus is robust, long-lasting, and broadly effective even in the case of mutations, generally more so than vaccines. In fact, a major contribution of 20th-century science has been to expand upon and further elucidate this principle that has been known since the ancient world. Every expert presumably knew this long before the current debates. The effort to pretend otherwise is a scientific scandal of the highest order, especially because the continued neglect of the topic is affecting the rights and freedoms of billions of people.
People who have contracted the virus and recovered deserve recognition. For that matter, people who prefer an exposure risk to the virus in order to gain robust immunity deserve the freedom to make that choice. The realization that natural immunity – which pertains now to perhaps half of the US population and billions around the world – is effective in providing protection should have a dramatic effect on vaccine mandates.
Individuals whose livelihoods and liberties are being deprecated and deleted need access to the scientific literature as it pertains to this virus. They should send a link to this page far and wide. The scientists have not been silent; they just haven’t received the public attention they deserve. The preparation of this list was assisted by links provided by Paul Elias Alexander and Rational Ground’s own cheat sheet on natural immunity, which also includes links to popular articles on the topic. ….
Southwest Airlines has been forced to cancel over 1,800 flights in two days as employees stage a “sickout” over the COVID-19 vaccine mandates. No one is admitting it was a “sickout” that caused the cancellations, however. Blame is being put literally everywhere else.
Thousands of passengers who booked Southwest Airlines flights for weekend travel have been left stranded in United States airports after the airline canceled flights amid reports of a protest against the vaccine mandate, according to a report by RT. The mainstream media, the ruling class, and those companies who have already made it their mission to exact tyranny upon their employees do not want the general public to know that people are refusing this shot in droves….
It’s the virus. It’s infected the engines. Damn! Better mask them.
Bittersweet video of a student learning from his mom that he won’t need to wear a mask to school anymore went viral on social media.
The footage shows Arkansas mother Elizabeth Bennett breaking the great news to her son, telling him that he won’t have to wear a mask to school anymore after winning a lawsuit in court over mask mandates.
His heartbreaking reaction tells you everything you need to know about mask mandates.
Mom telling her son that they took the school to court and beat the mask mandate. You have to watch this. 😭❤️ pic.twitter.com/D32FVRg1yW
— Cassandra — Peta Kills Animals (@CassandraRules) October 11, 2021
Bennett was part of a group called Bentonville Parents for Choice, who won a lawsuit against the Bentonville School District last Wednesday after Benton County Circuit Judge Xollie Duncan placed a temporary restraining order on the school’s mask mandate.
“Lynn Sitton and I prayed before the ruling that God would be present in that room. And He was. We will need His help more than ever, because today’s ruling poked the bear. No more masks for Bentonville Public schools!” Bennett told Conduit News.
“Judge Duncan addressed each point brought up in the hearing last week and found that BPS has zero legal authority to mandate masks. She said it was an infringement on constitutional rights,” she added.
Greg Payne, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, praised the judge’s decision for recognizing the constitutional rights of the parents.
“I’m excited for the families,” Payne said. “It’s a redemption for them. The court recognizes that they have a fundamental liberty interest in the case.”
“Parents can still put masks on their children, but the ones that don’t want to are not required to mask their children,” he said.
Read the lawsuit:…
Where to start with this woman? If her child has asthma a mask is probably the last thing he needs, but if she thinks masks work then wear a mask. If someone has a peanut allergy do we have to abolish peanuts? But in any case, where are all these catastrophic immune issues suddenly coming from? Well now, what do vaccines do? They hyperstimulate the immune system. What could go wrong you ask? Look around. If you don’t want your kid to have asthma or peanut allergy then don’t vaccinate. Simple.
Amtrak announced it will require nearly all of its 18,000 employees be fully Vaccinated by Nov. 22. Multiple sources are reporting that train crews have now joined the protest started by Air Traffic Controllers and Southwest pilots and employees.
Rumors that American Airlines pilots are next.
Southwest Airlines canceled more than 1,000 flights on Sunday as employees continue to react to the company’s decision to impose vaccine mandates. Earlier this week, employees learned they would be required to be vaccinated by December 8 or face termination. Reports circulating on social media suggest disgruntled employees responded to the mandate with a #sickout. Speaking on condition of anonymity, an employee for Southwest said, “The pilots are very upset. There is no organized sick out, but many employees are very disgruntled.”
The pushback began Friday when a reported 3 out of 35 employees showed up for work at the Jacksonville center. According to the source, “almost every flight out of Orlando was cancelled,” as employees protested the new mandate. The source went on to suggest that the Biden administration was in touch with several airlines over the past week and “threatened all CEO’s” to enforce vaccine mandates.
Southwest is not the only airline encountering significant pushback from its employees. United Airlines has reportedly imposed mandates and is placing pilots on “unpaid administrative leave” while the airline reviews applications for religious exemptions, which raises questions of legality. To further muddy the waters, Southwest’s pilot union has reportedly offered “significant” support to United pilots trying to fight company mandates.
The source estimates that nearly 50% of Southwest pilots remain unvaccinated. If airlines continue down this path, the growing fear is the response will “break the system.” “Things are going to get a lot worse,” he said. As many pilots consider their options leading up to the December 8 deadline, it is becoming increasingly clear that the new mandates are slowly chipping away at the foundation of America’s economy.
In the meantime Southwest Pilots Union Sues To Block Airline’s Vaccination Mandate
In what appears to be one of the first cases of a union pushing back against the new COVID vaccination requirements handed down by the Biden Administration, a union representing pilots at Southwest Airlines is suing to stop the vaccine requirement from being forced until a lawsuit is resolved….