The Shame Of Our Courts

That shame is exemplified by what should be our leading court. As reported late yesterday, but I was too discouraged to write about it:

"Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Friday denied a request from a group of New York City teachers to block the city’s vaccine mandate for public school employees.

"Sotomayor did not refer the request to the other Supreme Court justices, or comment on her action, likely signaling they agreed with her decision. In August, Justice Amy Coney Barrett likewise rejected an effort to block Indiana University’s vaccine mandate."

This is the second time, so CNN is likely correct. The Court had time to think over how to approach this, and the decision seems to be the mass bullying and persecution of half the country. This in the face of numerous polls showing that the overwhelming majority of people oppose this degradation of our common humanity:

"Do you believe Americans should lose their jobs if they object to taking the COVID-19 vaccine?"

Super simple poll.

65% say "no."

13% "undecided" and only

22% say "yes."

Let that sink in for a bit.

In the face of the towering greed and power-hunger of the ruling elite, could we not have hoped or even expected a stand for simple justice from the Court? This lawsuit, and the many others like it, is far from frivolous. People’s lives are at stake:

Instead, the Court is sending a clear message that the injection hesitant masses and those who oppose coerced injections are so devoid of reason that there is no likelihood that they will ultimately prevail and that there concerns deserve no pause for consideration. And yet … anyone who has studied these issues dispassionately knows that none of this is that simple. In an excellent article, four out of possibly many more issues are presented:

Public Health Or Power Play?

There are serious questions to be asked about the vaccine being pushed on us. Here are just a few.

Here are those questions:

First: Why do those pushing the vaccine ignore the natural immunity that recovering from a viral infection offers?

Second: Why has information surrounding the Covid-19 pandemic been routinely suppressed?

That crucial data has been hidden and suppressed is, by now, beyond dispute. Is not the even handed evaluation of data in dispute—especially when involving matters of great public moment—what we have courts for?

Third: Why was ivermectin so widely vilified in government and media reports?

In this regard, please see the video discussion by Yale epidemiologist Harvey Risch: The War On HCQ. Risch brilliantly demonstrates that this is far from a matter of one repurposed drug—it’s about the nearly total corruption of our medical science research process by Big Pharma, through the manipulation of scientific publications and the peer review process and by the complicity of government bureaucrats with Big Pharma/Big Money.

Fourth: Where does all this end?

This final, very simple, question is exactly the question that should have led the Court to call a “time out”. While the world at large was taken by surprise by Covid, there is now ample information available to provide data for the courts to engage in reasoned analysis and weighing of the costs and benefits of the entire Covid regime—is there a “rational basis” for some or even any of it? Answers to those questions are by no means beyond our reach at this point, and a temporary injunction would have sent a message to the lower courts that it’s time to start that process. As it is, the Court seems intent on leaving these matters to time serving bureaucrats and special interests, while the nation and much of the world hurtles down a slippery slope toward an authoritarian anti-human future.

“Politicized science” is being used as a club to bludgeon dissenters into submission. But this is not science, for science requires open and free inquiry. It is not politics, either, for legitimate politics requires free and vigorous debate. It is, instead, naked power masquerading as science. Combine this with a chorus of eager and self-righteous minions and you have a toxic situation where power is dramatically expanded and abused in the name of public health. Science is an obvious casualty, but when you dress up power in the garb of pseudo-science, another casualty is freedom.

You can be sure that justice delayed will, indeed, result in justice being denied. Shame.

Listen to this voice of reason. Is this not what courts should be doing—listening to these voices—led by the Highest Court?

Dr. Richard Urso is a scientist, sole inventor of an FDA-approved wound healing drug, and the Former Director of Orbital Oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center. He believes we cannot use a one-size-fits-all approach to fighting Covid.

“We are not going to vaccinate our way out of this,” he said. “There’s no reason to not use anti-inflammatories against inflammatory disease. I used steroids in March and people were saying, ‘Why are you using steroids for inflammatory for this viral disease?’ And I said, ‘Because it’s not a viral disease.’”

[Follow link for 5 minute video]

Urso says mass lockdowns and waiting for a vaccine never made a lot of sense to him. He calls for a multi-pronged strategy includes targeted vaccination programs, but also early treatment and prevention measures.

“Early treatment should have been part of the equation. I’m not against all those other things. … we have basically put the cart before the horse. The tail is wagging the dog. Early treatment should be a mainstay for everything.”

There’s no human excuse for allowing this corrupt travesty to continue.