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.