The Federalist carried a very interesting article this morning on a topic that's been out there--more or less waiting in the wings. I'm referring to the issue of mandates for employees to submit to experimental gene therapy injections. We're talking about two different but related issues. One is the issue of private companies issuing such mandates, while the other relates to governments doing so. The article in question has to do with an extremely broad mandate issued by Dem governor of Washington state, Jay Inslee. I've been predicting, based on early indications, that mandates of this sort will arouse opposition--especially now that the Dread Delta has revealed that the mandates could quickly develop into open ended demands with no set time limits. The initial time frame for a boost, for example, was 8 months, which has now decreased to 5 months--but these are all averages. The actual rate of decrease in effectiveness will clearly differ among individuals. Some wags have suggested IV implants so that a constant drip can be administered.
With that in mind, skepticism regarding these medications is increasing--what, people are asking, was the point of the "vaccines" in the first place? In the face of these developments, some Dem rulers on the state and local level have gone ahead with mandates for their employees, and opposition has quickly developed--usually led by unions:
It’s unlikely Washington state Gov. Jay Inslee expected this level of pushback. In progressive Washington, it’s rare to see such bipartisan ire towards an Inslee policy. How will he respond?
The most controversial element of the mandate is a gotcha question that all employees seeking a religious exemption must answer:
State officials on Wednesday published new guidance for public school faculty and staffers who plan to seek a religious exemption from the COVID-19 vaccine as the deadline for the required vaccinations nears.
A new form was released that asks several questions for those who are applying for the exemption.
The form’s questions to state workers include:
- “You assert that you have a sincerely held religious belief or religious conviction that prevents you from receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.. Yes or no?”
- The second question is the most controversial. “You affirm/agree that you have never received a vaccine or medicine from a health care provider as an adult. Yes or no.”
That sounds like if you've taken ibuprofen from a health care provider you'll be denied a religious exemption if you have concerns about the use of fetal tissue in vaccine development. Obviously the gotcha question is designed to catch people who are using the religious exemption as a subterfuge and aren't truly sincere--and that probably would be a large number of those seeking an exemption, by my guess.
But opposition doesn't stop there. The Federalist points out:
Not all of the resistance is over the religious exemption subterfuge, of course. Some don’t trust the vaccine yet. Others feel they don’t need it as otherwise healthy people or recovered COVID patients. Many think this is government overreach. In fact, a number of vaccinated employees simply refuse to turn over private medical paperwork to the state for fear that this takes away their freedoms.
It’s unlikely Inslee expected this level of pushback. In progressive Washington, it’s rare to see such bipartisan ire towards an Inslee policy. How will he respond? It may depend on whether the thousands of employees try to force Inslee’s hand.
The "bipartisan ire"--fueled by unions--is described here:
This follows a pattern of opposition that appears to be emerging around the country, including in Deep Blue states and metro areas. It's a healthy development that fits a broader pattern of opposition in other matters that hit home with many: CRT in schools, etc.
ADDENDUM: Who knows, maybe some of the people in WA have read this Reuters story: Japan's Moderna vaccine contamination woes widen as 1 mln more shots suspended.
Now, moving on, here's a nice reminder of an important point:
"Putting yourself at risk of dying to have 'natural' immunity is not a great tradeoff." -- Robert Schooley, MD, of University of California San Diego— Robert W Malone, MD (@RWMaloneMD) August 30, 2021
Risk is relative. Can we please get back to evidence-based medicine instead of fearporn? pic.twitter.com/zbZpAJ5La1
How do you feel about professors of medicine who are scientifically and statistically illiterate? How else would you put this? I suppose you could explain this as rank dishonesty--I'm not sure which, at this level, is more appalling. You can read about Schooley at the link, but there's no way in the world that he should be unaware of the actual statistics or of the concept of cost/benefit analysis--however you want to phrase that in medical terms. The point is, no one should reflexively assume that a person with assorted letters after their name truly knows what they're talking about--i.e., are "experts"--or, alternatively, is motivated in their statements by a scientifically detached desire to ascertain and/or disseminate the truth.
The fact that so many people are coming to this realization is another healthy development in these days of the Covid Regime.