6 Comments

Thank you for the SCOTUS info! Am sure my employer will act like it is all a done deal - which they have all along despite protective state legislations [TN SB 9014 and HB 9077]!

I am so very tired of the fear-the-unvaccinated narrative !!! It doesn't follow any common sense and the mechanisms of the so-called vaccines themselves simply do not possess characteristics for stopping transmission, which was well known prior to their release !

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02243-1/fulltext

PS - how do we make sure "the arguments and facts will be developed much further" in state courts? THANKS AGAIN! 'Heroes don't look like they used to, the look like you do'

Expand full comment

Thank you Terry. Here is another Lancet article talking about the fraud of COVID vaccine Relative Risk Reduction of 95% versus Absolute Risk Reduction of 1%. If my risk of hospitalization or death is tiny to begin with, but you reduce it slightly more with vaccination, that is relatively a big percent, but not meaningful to your overall risk. The public has been misled by the vaccine manufacturers to believe they are protected.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext#sec1

Expand full comment

This is great to see outside of the dirty dozen :)

I will use it in my Affidavit of Fact to my employer. THANK YOU Juliet!

Can any one elaborate of this idea that lower courts will have to "develop" the arguments and facts SCOTUS just gave a "decision" on? I didn't even know that was a thing - interplay between SCOTUS and "lower" courts. I did notice in TN [HB9014/SB9077] legislation that was passed to protect employees from forced vaccination was very careful to allow for "enforceable" mandates. So now it would all ride on, apparently, this said "arguments and facts"being "developed much further"

Expand full comment

Is there precedent of the lower courts overturning SCOTUS rulings? I guess my ultimate question is when will this actually be considered "final"?

Expand full comment
author

The Supreme Court ruling is only about the stay. It goes back down to the lower courts to flesh out the facts and law. I think the CMS rule is on shaky ground and the arguments and facts will be developed much further below.

Expand full comment

ok

What would you make of this, in the interim:

At will employment does not indemnify you for myriad actions evading the

letter or intent of State of Tennessee legislated Covid-19 employee

financial, health, and, privacy protections nor inalienable rights secured by the US Constitution.

At will employment does not indemnify you for actions related to

assumptions of opinion that statistical Relative Risk Reduction of

so-called vaccine efficacy, can accurately be

conflated with statistical Absolute Risk Reduction of said product intervention.

At will employment does not indemnify you for actions related to

assumptions of opinion that statistically conflate deaths as a result

of Covid illness with some type of categorization or so-called

diagnosis of Covid at the time

of said death.

At will employment does not indemnify you for actions related to

assumptions of opinion that statistically conflate deaths attributed

to Covid when one or more life-shortening co- morbidities are present,

with risks of severe illness or death when some type of

categorization or so-called diagnosis of Covid is determined without

said co-morbidity present.

At will employment does not indemnify you for actions related to

assumptions of statements promulgating or conspiring influence of

perception of public health emergency or

pandemic.

At will employment does not indemnify you for actions related to

assumptions of statements conflating so-called significant Covid

illness with so-called diagnosed cases of so-called Covid where no

significant illness is present, especially with respect to statements

promulgating perceptions of public health emergency or

pandemic.

At will employment does not indemnify you for conspiring to impose

unlawful conditions, including any conditions misleadingly promulgating

public health emergency or pandemic.

At will employment does not indemnify you for actions related to

assumptions of opinion that abbreviate or rush action purportedly to address a

so-called Covid variant of concern, when said variant is not, or no longer,

scientifically documented as dominantly present.

At will employment does not indemnify you for any actions related to

assumptions of opinion that so-called vaccine targets future

spontaneously emerging variants, as this is mathematically

demonstrable as extremely unlikely.

At will employment does not indemnify you for actions related to

assumptions of opinion that so-called vaccine targets chronologically

relevant spontaneous variants, as this is mathematically demonstrable

as extremely unlikely.

At will employment does not indemnify you for actions related to

assumptions of opinion that innate immunity does not exist or is

irrelevant to any spontaneously mutated so-called novel Covid virus.

At will employment does not indemnify you for actions related to

assumptions of opinion that so-called "vaccines" meet regulatory standards or can be found to be safe.

At will employment does not indemnify you for actions related to

assumptions of opinion that so-called "vaccines" can be regulated under current infrastructure which is lacking in the technology necessary to, per regulatory standards, verify ingredient components such as (yet to be declared) non-natural nucleic acids.

At will employment does not indemnify you for actions related to

assumptions of opinion that so-called "vaccines" can ever be regulated even with future technological infrastructure, per intentions of regulatory standards, as it is not possible to rule out undeclared ingredient components, as a nearly infinite possibility of non-natural sequences could be (intentionally) a component , yet remain intentionally undeclared and easily undiscovered. That is, any planned adulteration can easily go undetected due to lack of technological resources to monitor, per the intentions of existing regulatory standards, the new technologies of so-called mRNA/DNA "vaccines."

:)

Expand full comment