Why are Sudden Deaths due to "Natural Causes" or "Etiology Unexplained" up in 4 Texas Counties? (Tarrant-Johnson-Denton-Parker)

The Tarrant Medical Examiner classifies sudden deaths into a variety of sudden death categories. Most are recorded as something like "sudden death with a history of [specified] disease." 

But the Medical Examiner also has several generic sudden death categories, which I have grouped together. These are variations of "sudden death due to natural causes" or "sudden death etiology undetermined". Focusing on these unspecified sudden deaths in adults, I put together a chart which shows that 2021 has seen a significant rise in such deaths.

In fact, there were more sudden, unexplained, natural deaths from June to September of this year, than there were total in any previous year. Now, what was happening during those months...

No such deaths have yet been reported for October-December, 2021, but there are still 409 deaths which have not yet been given a determination, most of them falling in those months. 

Age, date of death and description here

I honestly hope that there is a reasonable explanation for this which is due to an increased number of residents or a change in policy or personnel or something. But I also have no faith that anyone is really tracking the effects of the large-scale medical experiment that has been taking place.

I am not jumping to conclusions, I just want an explanation and assurances that the "vaccination" records of the dead are being tracked.

Edit: On a social media post that has since been "moderated" into oblivion, someone asked where I got this data. I got it from the link below. I downloaded each year going back to 2011. I sorted for "sudden deaths" and looked for those that had no explanation. This is a different category than "unknown causes" because this death category includes the signifier "sudden." I have previously posted about an Open Records Request where I am trying to satisfy my curiosity and quell my concerns. I posted as well about the rise in searches for "sudden death" and others have also noticed this. I don't claim to have answers. I just want to know. And if a bunch of us are just conspiracy theorists, I think that the best way to bring us back into the fold would be to provide information and stop ending discussions. Just throw us a bone and give us the data so that we can go chase some other conspiracy.

It is no conspiracy theory however that the Pharmaceutical-Medical-Government-Media-Military establishment trained for such occasions as this and during their training, they decided that they should shut us up, drown us out, and discredit us. See for example The SPARS Pandemic 2025-2028, a Futuristic Scenario for Public Health Risk Communicators. 

Also: I am happy to share the full spreadsheet that I put together with anyone who wants it. I am just not posting it here because it has people's names in it. You can leave a comment if you want to see it or email me at david.foley.JMJ@protonmail.com.

Following up

In this graph, I used all adult or adolescent "sudden" categories. The results here are not as dramatic as the sudden unexplained results above. So far, 2021 does not have more overall "sudden" deaths than 2020. But, again, there over 400 pending cases, so we don't know what the final result will be. The last "sudden" death recorded was in September and that is about where the backlog of "pending" cases begins. 

In a rude projection, I matched a projected column which ends in September 2021 to the September 2020 column. If the numbers hold (they could be more, they could be less) to what happened last year, we would be adding another 18 cases. If that is what happens, 2021 will indeed have shown a significant increase in overall sudden deaths in addition to very significant increase in sudden-unexplained deaths. 

Far left column is projected (56) next is so-far 2021 (38), next is 2020 (49) etc

12-29

Another note is that there were ten-year highs for all-category sudden deaths in three months in 2021: March, June, and July.

For years 2021-2011, the numbers recorded in March were

    9-0-6-4-5-4-3-6-5-1-2

For the month of June in those years

    8-6-1-5-5-1-2-4-1-2-2

For the month of July in those years

    6-3-1-4-3-4-1-4-5-4-1

What do those numbers mean? It is hard to say. Were injection rates high in March, June, and July? I think so, but I am not sure.  

Perhaps these numbers are too small to think much of and perhaps this is just statistical noise. But, there are still 4 cases pending for March, 3 cases pending for June, 8 cases pending for July, 28 for August, 36 for September, 67 for October, 120 for November, and 115 for December. When all of those pending cases are categorized, my guess is that there will be no argument about whether 2021 was a bellwether year in sudden deaths. 

The only question will be why. I hope someone asks. And I hope they aren't afraid to ask if it has something to do with the injections that have been incessantly pushed.

Federal Employee Fired for Injection Refusal Just before Christmas

In my post Staying true to its Arbitrary Roots, Federal Employee Mandate takes December Off, mostly, (Nov-29), I mentioned that the SFWTF was cryptic when it caveated its guidance to agencies about waiting until January to start firing people. The SFWTF wrote,

“We understand that your agencies may need to act on enforcement sooner for a limited number of employees, such as where there are additional or compounding performance or workplace safety issues under consideration, but in general, consistency across government in further enforcement of the vaccine requirement after the start of the new calendar year is desired,” they added.

I observed, that it sounded like they were talking about probationary employees but don't want to say it. 

At least one probationary federal employee just before she would have gained the rights of a permanent employee and two weeks before Christmas.

Michaela Coughlin was a civilian operations research analyst at Eglin Airforce Base. She took a principled stand was fired on December 17, 2021. She describes her reasons:

"So my whole argument here is obviously I have my own personal reasons but it stands to that we have a personal choice to do this," Coughlin said. "This is tyranny at play here so especially being a federal employee under the office of office were held to a higher standard. And we can’t go breaking the constitution here whether or not I would’ve had the vaccine wouldn’t of change things for me because we all have a right to choose."

https://weartv.com/news/local/unfair-labor-practice-complaint-filed-against-eglin-air-force-base-over-vaccine-mandate

Well said and good luck.

 

Definition of "Fully Vaccinated" depends on what they can get away with, simple as that

Press Secretary Psaki on 12-20-21/;

Q:..Is there going to be any sort of update to those requirements that will include further guidance on, you know, whether boosters will be included as like a — as a requirement towards being fully vaccinated, essentially?

MS. PSAKI: Sure, it’s a good question. So, we would — first, the CDC has not changed their evaluation of what being “fully vaccinated” means. I think Dr. Fauci has said it’s not a matter of “if” but “when.” And then, obviously, we base any of our policies from the federal government on the CDC guidance.

Dr. Fauci said on 12-09-21 that the decision to change the definition of "fully vaccinated" was dependent on the status of cases in the courts.

   

 "Well, timing of that matters, Kate, with regard to the lawsuits"

The goal is to get more shots into more American arms as fast as possible. The only thing slowing them down is the courts. Once they get the green light to mandate the first installment of the subscription service, they will mandate its continuance. At some point, they will likely roll the flu shot into it as well.  

By the way, it is not acceptable for a President to use his powers over the workplace as a means to change the behavior of citizens. That is not what those powers are for. We don't have a king or an emperor. But the Administration has admitted that is what it is doing as part of its plan to get "the unvaccinated vaccinated."

The President’s plan will reduce the number of unvaccinated Americans by using regulatory powers and other actions to substantially increase the number of Americans covered by vaccination requirements—these requirements will become dominant in the workplace

When the President is not only requiring the military service members and the employees that he directly controls to be injected or leave, but also attempting to make it so they cannot work anywhere without the only jab, how can anyone say that he is not coercing people to take an EUA product?

 

Cobwebs, Small Flies, and Big Lies, some things never change

Laws like to Cobwebs catch small Flies

Great ones break thro' before your eyes

    -Poor Richard's Almanac 

See also

The Plan is Pretty Clear

If it doesn't make a lot of sense to you that the President has required teleworking employees to receive injections to keep their coworkers safe, that's probably because the goal of the mandate has less to do with the safety of the workforce than it does to move the needle on the number of Americans (i.e. citizens) who are "vaccinated."

Just look at the the White House website. He is bluntly using every tool at his disposal to make American citizens get vaccinated. His Safer Federal Workforce Task Force and agency heads barely even try to come up with reasons to justify a policy that has no nooks or crannies except for those "as required by law." But why should they? 

He has already telegraphed that this is just part of the plan to get Americans vaccinated. Of course, the problem with this is that the President is not supposed to use the pretense of workplace safety in order to commandeer the bodies of his workforce to achieve his goals that are unrelated to workplace safety.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/covidplan/#vaccinate

The President announced vaccination requirements for the federal government in July and called on the private sector to do more to encourage vaccination as well. Since that time, employers, schools, nursing homes, restaurants, hospitals, and cities in all 50 states have announced new vaccination requirements. Since July, the share of job postings that require vaccination are up 90%. And we know these requirements work. At the beginning of August, when Tyson Foods announced its requirement—only 45% of its workforce had gotten a shot. Today, it stands at 72%, meaning half of Tyson’s unvaccinated workers have now gotten a shot—well ahead of the company’s November 1^st deadline. After United Airlines announced its vaccination requirement, more than half of its unvaccinated employees went out and got vaccinated with weeks left to go before the deadline. In Washington State, the weekly vaccination rate jumped 34% after the Governor announced requirements for state workers.

All told, these efforts—and countless other Administration initiatives and policies—have resulted in over 175 million fully vaccinated Americans. But there are still nearly 80 million Americans eligible to be vaccinated who have not yet gotten their first shot.

The President’s plan will reduce the number of unvaccinated Americans by using regulatory powers and other actions to substantially increase the number of Americans covered by vaccination requirements—these requirements will become dominant in the workplace. In addition, the plan will provide paid time off for vaccination for most workers in the country.

Is anyone keeping track?

Earlier tonight, I sent a request to my county's medical examiner for the vaccination dates (if any) for certain people whose causes of death are be publicly available. I cross-referenced them in VAERS to confirm they had not been reported there. I have no information as to the "vaccination" history of any of these people and could not glean anything from the internet other than that they died way too young.

Given that several new, experimental medical products have recently been injected by more than half of the public, I would expect the medical examiner to have this information at his fingertips. 

If he does not have that information, that can only be because he is not looking for it when he assesses the cause of death. If he is not looking for it, is anyone?

I would like nothing more than to find out that most of these people were not "vaccinated" and that if they were "vaccinated" they had not received any injections near the times of their deaths. Even though it is a small sample size/universe, I would find that somewhat comforting. On the other hand, I would be more concerned than I am now if I saw that all of them had been "vaccinated" within two weeks of their deaths.

I will update this page with any information that I receive.

Historic Defiance of an Order and Discharge of Members of the Armed Forces

Earlier this week, we learned that the Air Force had terminated 27 airmen for defying the order to take experimental injections. 

Whatever you think of the "vaccines", you should at least respect these airmen for following through on their moral convictions.  I find it as pathetic as it is predictable that the relatively few press outlets who covered this story failed to acknowledge the moral courage of these men, but rather sought to diminish their importance by quoting only Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek said "all of them were in their first term of enlistment, so they were younger, lower-ranking personnel." In other words, their life's dream was to serve in the Air Force and they had to give it up for the convictions not long after they joined. .  

The Hammer and Syringe Emblem

Even worse is the transparently dishonest characterization of this purge as normal by comparing these heroes to common order violators.

It is not unusual for members of the military to be thrown out of the service for disobeying an order; discipline is a key tenet of the armed services. As a comparison, Stefanek said that in the first three quarters of 2021, about 1,800 airmen were discharged for failure to follow orders.

Of those 1,800, how many involved a group of airmen being discharged for refusing to follow an order out of moral conviction? Comparing these courageous airmen to those who are discharged for common order violations strikes me as spiteful and inappropriate.

In 1968, 43 soldiers from Fort Hood refused to be deployed to repress peace demonstrations at home. 

I am no military history buff and I don't know if there have been other similar events.  I think it is pretty safe to guess however, that we will soon be eclipsing the 43 order-refusers of 1968 in a mass defiance of orders event that will eventually lead to the largest discharge of soldiers in modern times.

Federal Vaccine Mandates: Three Iced, Two In Effect. Don't forget to pray for members of the Military and Federal Employees

There has been a lot of great news about the blocking of three federal mandates (OSHA, CMS, and federal contractors). But, the orders requiring servicemembers and federal employees have not yet been blocked.

 Please pray for the members of the military and the federal civilian employees,  and especially for the spiritual and physical health of those who took the injections because of the mandates.

Whose "Community Standards"?

A group of federal employees who reject the mandated injections recently had their thriving Facebook group disabled.  According to Mr. Zuckerberg's Company, "Feds 4 Medical Freedom goes against our Community Standards on misinformation that could cause physical harm." Facebook claims that it encourages free expression, but doesn't allow false information about COVID-19 that could contribute to physical harm.

So, you are free to talk on Zuckerberg's platform, just so long as what you say isn't false. That is, you are free to talk, as long as what you say agrees with Zuckerberg. You can get away with contradicting Zuckerbergian shibboleths until Zuckerberg's monitors notice that you are getting too many views, likes, reposts, and new members. At that point, you might be a danger to yourself and others.

I would not have such a problem with that if Mr. Zuckerberg were more upfront about it. The terms and conditions should be clear: "You are not allowed to disagree with the orthodoxy and shibboleths of your betters on this platform." Instead, he claims that this is part of "our Community Standards."

I have lived in various states and regions of America. I think that I understand the community standards of most American communities. Based on all of my experience, I don't recognize the Community Standard. It is foreign to me.

American Community Standards involve accepting that a man has the right to open his mouth and be proved an idiot. American Community Standards involve the right to exclaim that the Emperor has no vaccine.

The "Community Standards" of Mr. Zuckerberg's company is simply the standard of an insecure elite that  knows it cannot compete in the free flow of ideas and information. 

Since we are now communicating over the Internet, Americans had better do something to make sure that their Internet communications are governed by American Community Standards.  And we'd better do it fast. In 2017, you were probably not planning how you would find ways to speak freely about your opinions in the event of a health emergency, but at that time, Big Pharma was making plans to partner with Big Tech to muzzle you. 

If you want to understand what is happening, you need to read RFK's book and follow the citations for yourself. The prescience of the scenario from the 2017, The SPARS Pandemic 2025-2028, a Futuristic Scenario for Public Health Risk Communicators, is unsettling. 

 

 

FOOD FOR THOUGHT: How might using social media partners to silence and deplatform critics ensure that Americans have access to information that is as free, safe, and effective as the vaccine?

A Good Question Raised by U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty

U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty noted and asked in his order yesterday in Louisiana v. Becerra the following:

The CMS Mandate does not yet require boosters to the COVID-19 vaccines. However, the CDC recently recommended boosters.  If boosters are needed six months after being “fully vaccinated,” then how good are the COVID-19 vaccines, and why is it necessary to mandate them?

Judge Doughty's question is spot-on and apparently had not been answered to his satisfaction. Indeed, how could it have been? This is one of the worst conundrums of arbitrariness that the President faces. The drug companies and the federal agencies admit that the injections lose protections after six months, but the mandates grants employment privileges to those who took them a year ago, while banishing those who decline. Makes no sense.

The Administration's only way out of this Bermuda Triangle of logic is to require booster shots, which would have happened had that FDA advisory panel not rejected the booster application in September. Until boosters are mandated, the mandate makes absolutely no sense as anything but a political loyalty test.

Federal Vaccine Mandates Found Not Immune to Challenges- Roundup

Lots of good stuff has been happening on in the courts in the last couple of weeks.

5th Circuit's order in BTS Holding v. OSHA on 11-12, enjoining the OSHA mandate.

Judge Winsor's order on 11-12, rejecting the claim rejected a claim by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine being administered under Emergency Use Authorization is interchangeable with Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine.

Judge Merryday's order on 11-22, requiring the military branches to provide information about exception grants on a schedule to prove the exception grant process is not "a ruse."

Biden Administration's kicking of  the can on the federal employee mandate out until January.

Judge Schelp's order on 11-29, enjoining the federal healthcare worker mandate in 10 states. 

Judge Doughty's order on 11-30, enjoining the federal healthcare worker mandate in all other states.

Judge Tatenhove's order on 11-30, enjoining the federal contractor mandate in 3 states.

Hopefully one of the challenges to the federal employee mandate turns the corner soon. I am aware of 12. 

1. Brnovich v. Biden, filed by Attorney General of Arizona, on 9-14, No. 21-1568 (D. Ariz.) ("Defendants’ imposition of vaccine mandates on U.S. citizens and lawfully employed aliens, but not on unauthorized aliens at the border or already present in the United States, constitutes discrimination on the basis of national origin and alienage in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.") See his 10-22 motion for TRO ; Order granting leave to file amended complaint and new motion for preliminary injunction 11-10; Amended Complaint;  Motion for Preliminary Injunction 11-19; 
2. GREGG COSTIN, et al. v. Biden filed by Michael Yoder on 9-23 (D.C.), 1:21-cv-02484
3. Foley v. Biden, filed by David Foley and Daniel Flickinger on 9-29 (Northern District of Texas)  4:21-cv-01098-O, See Defendant's Response, the Judge's Order, and Plaintiff's Response to that Order, and Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion; Plaintiff's second motion to amend and draft amended complaint; Defendant's request for extension of time to file answer to original complaint in light of potential amendment 11-22;  Plaintiff's opposition to Defendant's request for extension 11-23; Defendant's Reply re extension of time 11-24; Order granting motion for extension in part 11-29
4. Navy Seal, et al v. Biden filed by Liberty Counsel on 10-15 (Middle District of Florida) 8:21-cv-02429; Order denying prelim injunction, deferring judgment in part (military only), and ordering information about exemption requests provided on schedule (military only); Defendant opposition to class certification and exhibits 12-3
5. ALTSCHULD ET AL v. RAIMONDO et al  (D.C.) filed by the Federal Practice Group on 10-19,   1:2021cv02779, Defendant Response to motion for preliminary injunction ;exhibits11-3; Order denying preliminary injunction 11-8
6. Rydie et al v. Biden et al Employee A v. Biden, filed by Jonathan Bolls on October 19, 2021 (Maryland) 8:2021cv02696, see motion for TRO; Biden response in opposition 11-12; Plaintiff Reply; Order Denying TRO 11-19
7. Church v. Biden, filed filed by Michael Yoder on 10-24 (D.C.)1:21-cv-02815, as reported by Under Cover DC; Plaintiffs’ application for a temporary restraining order;  opposition from the Defendants; Plaintiff's Response 11-3; Memorandum Order denying preliminary injunction 11-8
8. Smith v Biden, 1:21-cv-19457-CPO-SAK filed 10-29 (NJ); brief in support motion for injunction with exhibits; opposition to motion for injunction 11-5; Reply to motion in opposition 11-6;  Order denying injunction 11-8; 
9. AFGE Local 501 et al v. Biden et al filed by Mark Berkowitz on behalf of AFGE Local 501 and Council of Prison Locals CPL 33 on 10-30 (Southern Florida) 1:21-cv-23828-JAL, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order denying preliminary injunction (11-15) 
10.  James Joseph Rodden, et al. v. Dr. Anthony Fauci, et al. filed by John J. Vecchione, Jenin Younes, and Harriet Hageman of New Civil Liberties Alliance and Robert Henneke of Texas Public Policy Foundation on November 5, 2021 (Southern District of Texas) 3:21-cv-00317; Defendant's response in opposition to motion for preliminary injunction, exhibits; Plaintiff's reply and exhibit; Order denying injunction 11-27-21
11. Payne v. Biden, filed by Reed Rubinstein for America First Legal Foundation on November 22, 2021 (D.C.)  1:21-cv-03077; Plaintiff's motion for Summary Judgment (Nov 24); Memo in support of motion for summary judgment
12.  AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES COUNCIL OF PRISON LOCALS 33 and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES LOCAL 2018 v. DIRECTOR KIRAN AHUJA, JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Attorney General MERRICK B. GARLAND and LLOYD AUSTIN, filed by Bruce L. Castor, Jr. Michael T. van der Veen on behalf of Council 33 and Local 2018 on November 23, 2021 (E.D. Pa) 2:2021cv05172

I keep the list updated here: https://laborrelated.blogspot.com/2021/10/list-of-law-suits-filed-by-federal.html

Staying true to its Arbitrary Roots, Federal Employee Mandate takes December Off, mostly

As reported by the Federal Times, the White House is said to have delayed enforcement of the mandate until "after the holiday season" for most federal employees.

The move was announced by the partial release of an email sent from OPM/OMB/SFWTF leaders to agency heads. In the email,

“Given that tremendous progress, we encourage your agencies to continue with robust education and counseling efforts through this holiday season as the first step in an enforcement process, with no subsequent enforcement actions, beyond that education and counseling and, if warranted, a letter of reprimand, for most employees who have not yet complied with the vaccination requirement until the new calendar year begins in January,” Ahuja and Miller wrote.

“We understand that your agencies may need to act on enforcement sooner for a limited number of employees, such as where there are additional or compounding performance or workplace safety issues under consideration, but in general, consistency across government in further enforcement of the vaccine requirement after the start of the new calendar year is desired,” they added.

Who is that? Sounds like they are talking about probationary employees but don't want to say it. Possibly employees whose PIPs are running out. But would they really want to complicate a performance discharge with the mandate? Possibly. Or possibly they just don't want to admit that they have made a wholescale change to the mandate.

Whatever their intentions, by moving the deadline to January, the Administration has made the mandate even more arbitrary, if that is possible. Perhaps it is like multiplying against zero over and over again and it doesn't get "more arbitrary." I am not sure.

In any event, by January 2022, those employees who first became "fully vaccinated" in January 2021 will no longer have any claim to an immunity advantage over the rest of us. Pfizer and the FDA admitted that, whatever it does, the stuff wears off in six months. After a year, there is nothing left. We know this from Israel. We know this from Ireland. We know this from Gibraltar which has had serious outbreaks after achieving 100% "vaccination." 

So, the real question is when is the definition of "fully vaccinated" going to change to having your third, fourth, and fifth shots. That is where this is headed. My guess is that change will occur in January. Before they have even resolved the administration, let alone the litigation, of the first round of the mandate, they will be coaxing the good sheep to stay good and get their boosters. 

If you have taken your shots already, you need to ask yourself when you decided to continue taking tri-monthly mRNA treatments  for the rest of your life. It is not too late to get off this train. Before you take your next injection, do yourself a favor and read RFK Jr.'s book The Real Dr. Fauci and also seek out sources that attempt to debunk it. After all, your next shot could be your last. 

Omicron and the Spinning of Fear

It's like they aren't even trying anymore. Emergency declarations are made by states. Dire warnings given. But if you take the time to actually read about the big, bad Omicron...it is described as "mild."

From Reuters:

Coetzee, who is also on the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Vaccines, said unlike the Delta so far patients have not reported loss of smell or taste and there has been no major drop in oxygen levels with the new variant.

Her experience so far has been that the variant is affecting people who are 40 or younger. Almost half of the patients with Omicron symptoms that she treated were not vaccinated.

 The most predominant clinical complaint is severe fatigue for one or two days. With them, the headache and the body aches and pain.

That sounds exactly like what I had on 11/5. I had fatigue, low fever on the first night, and a bad headache for a couple of days. My back muscles felt like I had overdone it on a rock climbing wall or rowboat or something. Two days and two Motrin later, I was fine (I did confirm my positive Covid results through both over-the-counter and through-the-counter methods).

So, we should all be super scared because it is so mild or something.

Also, it is incredible how the spin factory never stops spinning.

Why would you possibly phrase a sentence this way?

Almost half of the patients with Omicron symptoms that she treated were not vaccinated.

They use syntax to try to confuse the issue at every turn. The better way to phrase that would be as follows:

More than half of the patients with Omicron symptoms that she has treated had been vaccinated.

But wait a minute, vaccines are supposed to make you not get the virus.  But this admission contradicts that and it should be concerning to vaxx hoax believers. It should be even more concerning if you consider that less than 30% of South Africans are "vaccinated." 

So, more than half of Omicron patients come from the minority of the South African population that has been injected....and the symptoms for both groups are mild. Therefore, everyone panic and get injected with everything available. If you have had two shots, get a third. If you have had all three of Pfizer, get a J&J as well. Get the Moderna too. Get them all again and again until you die. Only way to beat this mild threat is to be fully vaccinated.

via GIPHY

Federal Agency Vaccination Rates

You know that we are dealing with a smoke and mirrors operation when they play little tricks at every turn. On Wednesday (Nov. 24), the Administration selectively published vaccination rates for certain federal agencies or departments.  The numbers were posted amidst a very "rah, rah, this is going great" narrative. It is kind like if Andrew Jackson advocates had spun it as "Great news, 90% of federal officials are on board with pledging their loyalty to the new president," instead of shrugging at the purge of the 10% with the motto, "to the victor go the spoils."

Since the numbers release was a P.R. post (not an act of transparency to inform the public) they didn't mention the lowest vaccinated agencies or positions. For instance, I'd like to know the "vaccination" rate for federal prison guards. I assume they would have a particularly low rate because two prison guards locals are the only federal unions to have broken rank with the jab-scabs injection-pushing AFGE national. The thing about prison guards is that they have been doing their jobs since the pandemic began. They have witnessed Covid outbreaks and mass "vaccinations" on controlled populations. Go ahead and try to tell those guys the side effects aren't so bad.

But selective publication and lack of transparency is only part of the smoke and mirrors. The funnier part is that rather than just tell the public what they interested in--"vaccination" rates--they instead introduce the new concept of "compliance" which includes both those who have been injected with these toxin-creating products and those who have requested exceptions from them. The only employees not listed in the "compliance" column are those stoic souls who have simply refused to take this poison and not even requested an excuse. By this trick, the Administration groups most of those who are fighting its edict (those seeking exceptions) with those who have actually complied, conflates them as the same, and claims it is a success. This is like some weak sales trick to get you to look at a different number than the one you are interested in. "The car starts 92% of the time. 5% of the time it doesn't start for reasons that we know. Only 3% of the time does it fail to start for unknown reasons...So, the starts for this car are 97% understood, great car."   Hey, press, here is your headline, "99% are compliant!" Even the complaint press wasn't going to make that the headline, although they did go over the compliance rates in their coverage, and thus assisted the Administration in distracting from the issues.

*Edit, here is an outlet called the Federal New Network that really jumped the shark with this for the Administration: Headline Federal agencies close to 100% compliance with vaccine mandate as enforcement begins; and here is the Daily Caller taking the bait or carrying the water: Federal Government Has 96.5% Compliance Rate With Biden’s Vaccine Mandate, According To Administration (pathetic propaganda)*

In any regard, here are the "vaccination rates" released on Wednesday (I have reordered the columns so that "vaccination" appears before "compliance" and sorted them by "vaccination" rate) .

No surprise that the elephant in the room went unaddressed: how many have been given exceptions?

One surprise for me is the EPA which has 8% of employees unvaccinated and 5% out of compliance (i.e. the stoics who are not asking for an exceptions). After reflection, I should not have been surprised though. EPA scientists understand important things like statistics, toxins, and regulatory capture, and they are experts at sifting through scientific lies and obfuscations (Robert F. Kennedy Jr's excellent book The Real Anthony Fauci gets into the similarities in fields).  

On another note, I imagine that the 10% of NASA employees who are rejecting the injections have pretty firm grips on statistics and the scientific method and aren't going to be easily persuaded by the low level propaganda we see coming out of the CDC and news outlets.

 

I would really like to know the percentage of FDA employees who are not taking the Kool-Aid. Unfortunately, they are lumped in with HHS and unknown to we of the outer circles and FOIA is a very slow process.

The Dog that Doesn't Bark and the Defense that is not made - Exception Process is Ruse

As discussed in my last post, the military's record for approving religious exception requests is somewhat of a running joke. You can count the number of exceptions they have granted with a donut.

Per Judge Merryman: 

 "Whether characterized as a facial challenge or as a class of precisely similar as applied challenges, requiring only a single judicial determination, the plaintiffs’ contention is — based on current data — quite plausible that each branch’s procedure for requesting a religious exemption is a ruse that will result inevitably in the undifferentiated (and therefore unlawful under RFRA) denial of each service member’s request. Particularly, the data produced by the defendants show that more than 16,643 requests for a religious exemption pend. The military has granted no exemptions but has denied hundreds. This disparity, although susceptible to a benign explanation is, as well, susceptible to an explanation actionable and remediable under RFRA."

Which got me to thinking about federal employees. About 10% of the federal workforce or 175,000 employees are said to have pending exception requests. How many have been approved? I know of none. I have  read most of the filings in the 12 cases that have been filed against the Government since the EO was issued. One thing that I have noticed is that the Government frequently argues that claims are not ripe because exceptions for plaintiffs might yet be granted, but it never points to the grants that it has made. There was a mention of one in Church v. Biden, but when you look at the complaint a little bit, it looks like the purported grant there is disputed. If there was a grant, the Government is apparently trying to take it back. See discussion of Special Agent Hallfrisch at page 14 of the complaint. I don't know quite what to make of the Special Agent Hallfrisch situation, but if the Government is "trying to take it back," I will not count it as an accommodation.

 In response to my own motion for preliminary injunction, On October 5, 2021, the Government noted that the NLRB had already received requests from other NLRB employees on September 25, 2021 and September 28, 2021. I replied that it would be more assuring if the Government could have written that those requests had been granted.

Here we are two months after the first NLRB employee put in his or her request. How long does it take for a group of federal managers to evaluate the sincerity of one's beliefs? 

Given that the Government never points to all of those employees to whom it has granted exceptions, I think we can see in this absence the "dog that doesn't bark" and deduce that, like the military, the civilian agencies have not given any exceptions.

"Watson, what would a ruse look like?"

US District Judge Merryday: "quite plausible that each branch’s procedure for requesting a religious exemption is a ruse that will result inevitably in...denial of each service member’s request"

Did you think you would live to see the day when a federal judge would think that it is quite possible that the military branches are engaging in ruse procedures to end-run the religious rights of servicemen? We are now at that point. And, unfortunately, the judge is not wrong.

In Judge Merryday's November 22 Order  in Navy Seal, et al v. Biden (8:21-cv-02429) a Liberty Counsel case (Middle District of Florida), we see evidence that the "exception process" at the federal government is just as fake as the "vaccines" from which citizens are seeking exception.  Like the "vaccines", exception requests at best provide some protection for a short period of time. They also come with side effects (like unfavorable assignments) and don't ultimately stop you from getting fired.  

Judge Merryday:

 "Whether characterized as a facial challenge or as a class of precisely similar as applied challenges, requiring only a single judicial determination, the plaintiffs’ contention is — based on current data — quite plausible that each branch’s procedure for requesting a religious exemption is a ruse that will result inevitably in the undifferentiated (and therefore unlawful under RFRA) denial of each service member’s request. Particularly, the data produced by the defendants show that more than 16,643 requests for a religious exemption pend. The military has granted no exemptions but has denied hundreds. This disparity, although susceptible to a benign explanation is, as well, susceptible to an explanation actionable and remediable under RFRA."

(emphasis supplied) 

Although I view them grimly, these numbers come as no surprise.  As I wrote in response to an agency solicitation for religious exception requests:

Wicked and Cruel Exercise  

It is my (nonreligious belief) that this whole inquiry is essentially a demeaning and cruel exercise where no matter how much groveling they do, very few employees will be granted an exception and roughly zero employees will be accommodated in a manner that involves them retaining their jobs. 

If you have any concrete guidance as to the idea of an accommodation being something that is possible for employees, please provide me with that assurance. If there is not really any chance of accommodation, please stop this demeaning inquiry. 

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver discussed Judge Merryday's order as follows:

 “Although the court withheld an injunction today, the military will now be under a microscope to report the status and disposition of all religious exemption requests. The military has not granted any of the 16,643 requests. The military now has a clear choice—voluntarily accommodate those with sincere religious beliefs or be ordered by the court to accommodate sincere religious beliefs. Federal employers and civilian contractor employers must hear the message from this court loud and clear—the federal executive orders expressly require religious exemption.”

From my point of view, federal mandate challengers should take heart that at least one federal court is raising its eyebrows about the lack of exemption approvals. As the days go on and the number of exemptions remains at about zero, more courts will be doubtlessly raise their eyebrows as well.

Pray for the members of our armed forces.

St. Michael the Archangel,

defend us in battle.

Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the Devil.

May God rebuke him, we humbly pray,

and do thou,

O Prince of the heavenly hosts,

by the power of God,

thrust into hell Satan,

and all the evil spirits,

who prowl about the world

seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

Feds for Medical Freedom

So far, only one federal employee union (Local 501, an AFGE local that represents prison guards in the Miami area) has taken legal action against President Biden's unconstitutional federal employee vaccine mandate. There are 986 other AFGE locals who are standing on the sidelines with their hands in their pockets. 

Meanwhile, at the national level, AFGE has been complicit, complacent, and accommodating to the President's demand that federal employees submit to experimental treatments.

 The best that national level AFGE has done is to ask President Biden to make the federal employee deadline consistent with the federal contractor deadline, which has been moved back to January 18.

AFGE and other unions will tell their members that the President's powers are airtight and that there are no viable legal challenges. Do you really think they would say the same thing if President Trump had done something similar?  Including Local 501's case, there are nine cases challenging the mandate in federal court. AFGE and its locals aren't failing to take action because they lack any grounds to challenge the mandate. They aren't challenging the mandate because they don't want to challenge the mandate.

Meanwhile, a growing number of federal employees are banding together to do that which the unions should be doing.

This is a video about their group: 

https://www.facebook.com/Feds4MedFreedom/videos/911401359491987/

All-Cause Mortality and Occam's razor

11,000 people were given a placebo and 11,000 were given Pfizer's elixir of life. Six months later, 38 participants had died.  This total includes all causes of death, regardless of whether it is traceable to the injections or the virus. Which group fared better? 17 placebo participants died, compared to 21 who had received the elixir; a difference of 23.5%. 

That was in March of 2021.  How have these groups done since? We will never know that because the placebo participants were later informed that they had not gotten the elixir of life and were encouraged to take the "vaccine."  Even placebo group guinea pigs children who participate in these studies are later informed that they were in the placebo group and encouraged to become "fully vaccinated." Given that the virus poses a virtually non-existent threat to children, this move can at best be seen as squandering a very good source of information about long-term risks. At worse, it could be viewed as a deliberate effort to prevent investigation. 

Meanwhile, all-cause mortality is up significantly in Scotland as a whole. See https://scottishunity.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/MortReport_2021-45.pdf  Incidentally, 80% of the Scottish population has received at least one dose. 

Hospitals in America are seeing record numbers of emergency room patients. These patients are really sick and they don't have Covid. See https://khn.org/news/article/hospital-emergency-rooms-swamped-seriously-ill-non-covid-patients/:

"But now, they’re too full. Even in parts of the country where covid isn’t overwhelming the health system, patients are showing up to the ER sicker than before the pandemic, their diseases more advanced and in need of more complicated care."

Leading theories are that people waited until covid had died down to have heart attacks and get cancer.

On the other hand, if the results of the Pfizer were extrapolated, we would expect to see about a 24% increase in excess deaths among those who took the injections.

Where have all the rebels gone?

Catholic Voices of Dissent on COVID-19 Vaccines

I am going to collect some Catholic voices of dissenting on the Covid vaccines here. By referencing them, I do not necessarily endorse them.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

George Buscemi asks in A Disconnected Elite, November 17, 2021, Crisis Magazine:

Along these lines of subsidiarity, why is there hardly any recognition on the part of upper-echelon clergy of the many Catholics and pro-lifers who, wanting to resist abortion and other modern ills with “maximum determination,” voluntarily decide to withdraw from the emerging pharmaceutical dystopia? Is this not akin to St. Benedict of Nursia’s quest for a more authentic albeit demanding Christian life? The hierarchy should be more sensitive to the signs of the times and the talk of parallel societies and “Benedict options,” for these are signs that the globalist, one-world ideal pedalled by pharmaceutical corporations and their proxies is considered by many anti-Christ, not least of which because it in no way respects subsidiarity.

Douglas Farrow writes in his November 3, 2021 article Vaccine Passes for the Mass in Crisis Magazine:

That is why we are witnessing, as in Grand Falls, government-imposed and episcopally-sanctioned diocesan schisms. But schism, in ecclesial terms, is a cardinal sin. And this sin presently entails—we must not overlook this!—a twofold assault on the little ones whom Jesus insisted His disciples permit to approach Him.

First, it helps sustain an attack on their bodies, for the authorities are now gearing up to subject these little ones, who are at virtually no risk from COVID-19, to the far greater risks of the injections. (Of this “far greater” there is no statistical doubt; only the sin of sloth prevents anyone from knowing that.) And why? As ever, for dishonest gain; but also for the sake of acclimatising the entire population to the shiny Nowa Huta that is its Pharma-run future.

More importantly, it is a stone of stumbling for their souls, a rock of offense. They and their parents are being told that they are not welcome in church and/or that they do not require their church. Virtual church will do for them if virtual proof of vaccination is wanting. What won’t do is not being vaccinated. For as the World Health Organization reverently declared in a recent global synod, “in vaccines we trust.”

All people are being told, then, that the leadership in such churches is not half as serious about the things of God as about the things of man, even the medically and politically perverse things of man, by which man oppresses man. When that message is fully absorbed, what will be the result? What indeed, if not the proliferation of cardinal sins and a still more obvious apostasy? As if seconding the power of excommunication to the ministry of health were not obvious enough!

Archbishop for the Military Services, USA Timothy Broglio, October 12, 2021, Statement on Coronavirus Vaccines and the Sanctity of Conscience

 Even if an individual’s decision seems erroneous or inconsistent to others, conscience does not lose its dignity. This belief permeates Catholic moral theology as well as First Amendment jurisprudence. As stated by the United States Supreme Court, “[R]eligious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection.” The denial of religious accommodations, or punitive or adverse personnel actions taken against those who raise earnest, conscience-based objections, would be contrary to federal law and morally reprehensible. 

John Clark, September 28, 2021, Without the Right of Conscience, There Is No Common Good

The right of conscience does not merely exist alongside common good; conscience is a component of common good.

The denial of this principle inevitably leads to totalitarianism. As Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that “one must follow a certain conscience, or at least not act against it.” History illustrates that the penultimate policy of totalitarianism is to disallow the following of conscience; the ultimate policy of totalitarianism is to force people to act against their own consciences.

The attack on conscience is devastating to the common good. As Cardinal Ratzinger phrased it, “the silencing of conscience leads to the dehumanization of the world.”

Jane Smith, September 27, 2021, Crisis Magazine, The Fake Theology behind Vaccine Mandates

None of these documents, however, have the degree of magisterial authority to require assent; they are all low-level documents or non-magisterial statements that cannot impose obligations on Catholics. While these sources do attempt to make a strong case that there is a “moral responsibility” to receive the vaccine, none speak of a moral obligation to do so. And, as we shall show, according to Catholic theology, they can’t do so. (For an explanation of the various levels of authority of Church teaching, see the “Doctrinal Commentary on concluding formula of Professio fidei.”)

Bishop Athanasius Schneider, September 14, 2021

The fact that abortion is in the causal chain in the testing and/or producing of all the current Covid-19 vaccines means that they are gravely immoral. I will not argue that here. Please see my letter where I discuss it thoroughly and definitively.

So in that sense Catholics are not disobeying the Pope because the directive itself is undermining the clarity of the Catholic doctrine and the Catholic witness against abortion and the fetal industry. Furthermore, the Pope is not teaching in this case infallibly.

Suzanna Sammons, September 7, 2021, Crisis Magazine,  Stop Pretending the COVID Jab is Morally Equivalent to Other Meds

Bishop Thomas Olmstead, letter to the faithful regarding COVID-19 vaccinations and individual decisions based on a well-formed conscience (August 27, 2021)

Bishop of a diverse flock with the care of many souls, I continue to encourage the prayerful consideration that each individual must make in regard to receiving the vaccine. For those who have discerned to receive one, they can be assured that they can do so in good conscience. For those who have discerned not to receive one, they too can do so in good conscience. What is primary for us as individuals is to form our conscience through the teachings of the Church.

Archbishop Samuel J. Aquila, Bishop Stephen J. Berg, James R. Golka, Jorge Rodriguez, A Letter from the Bishops of Colorado on COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates (August 5, 2021)

If any person comes to an informed judgment that he or she should receive or not receive a vaccine, that person should follow their conscience, and they should not be penalized for doing so. We encourage any individual seeking exemption to consult their employer or school. The Colorado Catholic Conference also has a letter template available to be signed by pastors of the Faithful if a Catholic wants a written record that they are seeking exemption on religious grounds.

Eric Sammons, Abortion-Tainted Vaccines: From Objection to Obligation April 22, 2021, Crisis Magazine:

A careful reading of the statement reveals a far different emphasis versus what we now hear from our Church leaders, including those at the Vatican. After detailing the moral arguments regarding the degree of cooperation one might have when taking an abortion-tainted vaccine, the PAL states forcefully,

Therefore, doctors and fathers of families have a duty to take recourse to alternative vaccines (if they exist), putting pressure on the political authorities and health systems so that other vaccines without moral problems become available. They should take recourse, if necessary, to the use of conscientious objection with regard to the use of vaccines produced by means of cell lines of aborted human foetal origin. Equally, they should oppose by all means (in writing, through the various associations, mass media, etc.) the vaccines which do not yet have morally acceptable alternatives, creating pressure so that alternative vaccines are prepared, which are not connected with the abortion of a human foetus, and requesting rigorous legal control of the pharmaceutical industry producers. (emphasis added)

“They should oppose by all means…the vaccines which do not yet have morally acceptable alternatives”—do we see this happening today? Far from opposing “by all means” these vaccines, the Church rather is advocating for them, to the point of assisting in their promotion and even their distribution.

 

 

Bishop Athanasius Schneider, December 11, 2020, Covid vaccines: ‘The ends cannot justify the means’

In the case of vaccines made from the cell lines of aborted human fetuses, we see a clear contradiction between the Catholic doctrine to categorically, and beyond the shadow of any doubt, reject abortion in all cases as a grave moral evil that cries out to heaven for vengeance (see Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2268, n. 2270), and the practice of regarding vaccines derived from aborted fetal cell lines as morally acceptable in exceptional cases of “urgent need” — on the grounds of remote, passive, material cooperation. To argue that such vaccines can be morally licit if there is no alternative is in itself contradictory and cannot be acceptable for Catholics.

 Bishop Joseph Strickland, December 8, 2020, Letter to Flock of East Texas

Every procured abortion murders an innocent human person. For university, government, or industrial scientists to use materials obtained from the remains of an electively aborted child in the research, development, testing, or production of any vaccine is immoral and constitutes formal cooperation in evil. We must never cease to protest this practice with maximum determination to defend the dignity and sacredness of children in the womb. They are not objects to be used but persons to be received as gifts, our brothers and sisters. As your shepherd, I cannot in good conscience receive a vaccine that has been produced using an aborted child. There are ethical vaccines in development which are worth waiting for.