Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 44

Thread: Natural immunity to have its day in court

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    49,883
    Thanks
    14,463
    Thanked 32,101 Times in 21,165 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,307 Times in 1,235 Posts

    Default Natural immunity to have its day in court

    The stated goal behind mandatory vaccination policies is to protect against the spread of disease, meaning that the crux of any policy is immunity. The notion that a previous COVID-19 infection provides natural immunity that can be at least as good as vaccination in some people is something a judge would likely need to consider in a challenge to a mandatory policy, especially against a government actor.

    “I think that a judge might reject a rule that's been issued by a body, like the U.S. Department of Labor or by a state, that has not been sufficiently thought through as it relates to the science,”

    https://www.aol.com/finance/natural-...123106348.html
    _________________

    Thank you!

    Think about that: a judge is going to have to step in and rescue science because Biden and Fauci are hell bent on jabbing every living soul when the science is clear that it’s not necessary. It may even be detrimental if it turns out we need more natural immunity in the mix to reach herd immunity.

    The problem is Big Pharma pulls Fauci’s strings and Biden is everyone’s puppet, literally, so it’s Max Vax all the way, even though it’s going to cause a worker shortage in healthcare and other industries.

    Sad state of affairs.
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Darth Omar For This Post:

    ExpressLane (09-26-2021)

  3. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    virginia
    Posts
    2,859
    Thanks
    1,067
    Thanked 1,631 Times in 1,004 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 318 Times in 295 Posts

    Default

    What a good judge would "reject" is the notion that a medical-science question is a subject of law. Courts should not settle this, and won't, at least not on a medical basis. It's possible on the other hand a court would hold on other grounds that an agency has overstepped its lawful authority
    White lives matter but are overrated.

  4. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    49,883
    Thanks
    14,463
    Thanked 32,101 Times in 21,165 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,307 Times in 1,235 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by martin View Post
    What a good judge would "reject" is the notion that a medical-science question is a subject of law. Courts should not settle this, and won't.
    Without appealing to the CDC or Fauci, what is the science/medical justification for jabbing the *already immune*?

    This should be quick decision by the judge.
    Last edited by Darth Omar; 09-26-2021 at 08:59 AM.
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Darth Omar For This Post:

    ExpressLane (09-26-2021), Lionfish (09-26-2021)

  6. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    10,308
    Thanks
    7,516
    Thanked 5,017 Times in 3,732 Posts
    Groans
    305
    Groaned 108 Times in 108 Posts
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by martin View Post
    What a good judge would "reject" is the notion that a medical-science question is a subject of law. Courts should not settle this, and won't, at least not on a medical basis. It's possible on the other hand a court would hold on other grounds that an agency has overstepped its lawful authority
    Courts rule on medical issues all the time. They listen to medical experts on both sides of the issue then they make a ruling.
    IMPEACH 46

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to ExpressLane For This Post:

    Darth Omar (09-26-2021)

  8. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    39,346
    Thanks
    11,571
    Thanked 21,856 Times in 15,222 Posts
    Groans
    242
    Groaned 1,514 Times in 1,430 Posts

    Default

    that a long read but worth it. Notice the CDC cites a study not finding antibodies that is pre-delta while Cleveland and Israeli study are more upto date and do find such -as well as antibodies in the bones

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to dukkha For This Post:

    Darth Omar (09-26-2021)

  10. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    8,642
    Thanks
    628
    Thanked 4,582 Times in 2,820 Posts
    Groans
    12
    Groaned 946 Times in 887 Posts

    Default

    Why do you want more people to get COVID?

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BartenderElite For This Post:

    christiefan915 (09-26-2021), guno (09-26-2021)

  12. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Steeler Nation
    Posts
    57,264
    Thanks
    48,870
    Thanked 30,017 Times in 20,997 Posts
    Groans
    4,920
    Groaned 2,578 Times in 2,462 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Omar View Post
    The stated goal behind mandatory vaccination policies is to protect against the spread of disease, meaning that the crux of any policy is immunity. The notion that a previous COVID-19 infection provides natural immunity that can be at least as good as vaccination in some people is something a judge would likely need to consider in a challenge to a mandatory policy, especially against a government actor.

    “I think that a judge might reject a rule that's been issued by a body, like the U.S. Department of Labor or by a state, that has not been sufficiently thought through as it relates to the science,”

    https://www.aol.com/finance/natural-...123106348.html
    _________________

    Thank you!

    Think about that: a judge is going to have to step in and rescue science because Biden and Fauci are hell bent on jabbing every living soul when the science is clear that it’s not necessary. It may even be detrimental if it turns out we need more natural immunity in the mix to reach herd immunity.

    The problem is Big Pharma pulls Fauci’s strings and Biden is everyone’s puppet, literally, so it’s Max Vax all the way, even though it’s going to cause a worker shortage in healthcare and other industries.

    Sad state of affairs.
    You want people to get Covid with all its risks rather than get vaxxed? Why?

    "The next step is understanding that a call to rely on “natural immunity” is, first and foremost, a call to get infected with COVID.

    What many are calling “natural immunity” is just infection-mediated immunity as opposed to vaccine-mediated immunity. In addition to the risks of the acute infection—which include death—we still know little about “long COVID,” those lingering feelings of difficulty breathing, fatigue, brain fog, or a host of other symptoms that some people experience for months after infection."

    https://www.thebulwark.com/what-is-natural-immunity-and-why-should-you-get-the-vaccine-even-if-you-already-had-covid/


    “What greater gift than the love of a cat.”

    ― Charles Dickens


  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to christiefan915 For This Post:

    Cypress (09-26-2021), guno (09-26-2021)

  14. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    29,484
    Thanks
    20,162
    Thanked 15,607 Times in 10,692 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,304 Times in 4,606 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Darth,

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Omar View Post
    The stated goal behind mandatory vaccination policies is to protect against the spread of disease, meaning that the crux of any policy is immunity. The notion that a previous COVID-19 infection provides natural immunity that can be at least as good as vaccination in some people is something a judge would likely need to consider in a challenge to a mandatory policy, especially against a government actor.

    “I think that a judge might reject a rule that's been issued by a body, like the U.S. Department of Labor or by a state, that has not been sufficiently thought through as it relates to the science,”

    https://www.aol.com/finance/natural-...123106348.html
    _________________

    Thank you!

    Think about that: a judge is going to have to step in and rescue science because Biden and Fauci are hell bent on jabbing every living soul when the science is clear that it’s not necessary. It may even be detrimental if it turns out we need more natural immunity in the mix to reach herd immunity.

    The problem is Big Pharma pulls Fauci’s strings and Biden is everyone’s puppet, literally, so it’s Max Vax all the way, even though it’s going to cause a worker shortage in healthcare and other industries.

    Sad state of affairs.
    The Supreme Court already ruled in favor of mandatory vaccinations in 1905:

    "In Jacobson, a 7-2 majority upheld the compulsory vaccination law as a reasonable application of the state’s police powers. The decision is not only an important constitutional precedent; the majority opinion written by Justice John Marshall Harlan is also philosophical and eloquent. “There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good,” he wrote. “On any other basis, organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy.”"

    Jacobson: Mandatory Vax is legal
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  15. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to PoliTalker For This Post:

    Cypress (09-26-2021), guno (09-26-2021), martin (09-26-2021)

  16. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    virginia
    Posts
    2,859
    Thanks
    1,067
    Thanked 1,631 Times in 1,004 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 318 Times in 295 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ExpressLane View Post
    Courts rule on medical issues all the time. They listen to medical experts on both sides of the issue then they make a ruling.
    Juries decide claims of negligence in medical cases. Show us a case where a court has ruled on conflicting expert medical opinions regarding medical treatment other than on non medical grounds such as First Amendment rights.
    White lives matter but are overrated.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to martin For This Post:

    guno (09-26-2021)

  18. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    10,308
    Thanks
    7,516
    Thanked 5,017 Times in 3,732 Posts
    Groans
    305
    Groaned 108 Times in 108 Posts
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BartenderElite View Post
    Why do you want more people to get COVID?
    It might be a good thing to not vaccinate young kids and young adults.
    IMPEACH 46

  19. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    29,484
    Thanks
    20,162
    Thanked 15,607 Times in 10,692 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,304 Times in 4,606 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    For people to acquire natural immunity that means they had to acquire the disease.

    It is well known that when that happens, people become contagious and also spread the disease.

    That is what we need to stop doing.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to PoliTalker For This Post:

    guno (09-26-2021)

  21. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    10,308
    Thanks
    7,516
    Thanked 5,017 Times in 3,732 Posts
    Groans
    305
    Groaned 108 Times in 108 Posts
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by martin View Post
    Juries decide claims of negligence in medical cases. Show us a case where a court has ruled on conflicting expert medical opinions regarding medical treatment other than on non medical grounds such as First Amendment rights.
    The court uses juries to decide fact. That is consider a court decision. Juries only have power to make decisions because of the power of the court. The Judge only has power because of the power of the court. So when ones says Courts have ruled that means a ruling has come from a certain court not a specific Judge.


    So me a jury has made a decision out of the authority of the court.
    IMPEACH 46

  22. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    10,308
    Thanks
    7,516
    Thanked 5,017 Times in 3,732 Posts
    Groans
    305
    Groaned 108 Times in 108 Posts
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    For people to acquire natural immunity that means they had to acquire the disease.

    It is well known that when that happens, people become contagious and also spread the disease.

    That is what we need to stop doing.
    Its well known that vaccinated people spread the disease.
    IMPEACH 46

  23. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    37,570
    Thanks
    211
    Thanked 16,406 Times in 11,433 Posts
    Groans
    4,396
    Groaned 3,715 Times in 3,453 Posts

    Default

    It has been done. The vaccine offers double the protection that natural immunity offers. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2...rotection.html Your odds of getting a breakthrough is much stronger if you shun the vaccine.

  24. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    50,924
    Thanks
    16,634
    Thanked 10,823 Times in 8,855 Posts
    Groans
    634
    Groaned 1,598 Times in 1,541 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Omar View Post
    The stated goal behind mandatory vaccination policies is to protect against the spread of disease, meaning that the crux of any policy is immunity. The notion that a previous COVID-19 infection provides natural immunity that can be at least as good as vaccination in some people is something a judge would likely need to consider in a challenge to a mandatory policy, especially against a government actor.

    “I think that a judge might reject a rule that's been issued by a body, like the U.S. Department of Labor or by a state, that has not been sufficiently thought through as it relates to the science,”

    https://www.aol.com/finance/natural-...123106348.html
    _________________

    Thank you!

    Think about that: a judge is going to have to step in and rescue science because Biden and Fauci are hell bent on jabbing every living soul when the science is clear that it’s not necessary. It may even be detrimental if it turns out we need more natural immunity in the mix to reach herd immunity.

    The problem is Big Pharma pulls Fauci’s strings and Biden is everyone’s puppet, literally, so it’s Max Vax all the way, even though it’s going to cause a worker shortage in healthcare and other industries.

    Sad state of affairs.
    Brilliant! Don't give kids ANY kind of vaccine because the body will build up the immunity!
    Dachshund Lives Matter


    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    two words in that article perfectly describe the lunacy of leftie mentality...........'light pollution'
    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    i guess you're just that dumb to not understand how light isn't pollution
    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    NOISE isn't pollution, twit. it's simply a disturbance. the continual redefinition of words because a group of people feel threatened is among the stupidest things you fuckers have handed down to younger generations

  25. The Following User Says Thank You to AProudLefty For This Post:

    guno (09-26-2021)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-14-2021, 09:44 PM
  2. Natural (acquired) immunity
    By anatta in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-07-2021, 06:21 AM
  3. 'Natural Immunity' to COVID-19: Taking Politics Out of Science
    By Underdog in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 02-24-2021, 04:53 PM
  4. vaxxer propaganda natural immunity is racism
    By AssHatZombie in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-02-2020, 06:31 AM
  5. Court OKs broad Web libel immunity
    By LadyT in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-21-2006, 12:26 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •