The current scientific uncertainties demand that the administration of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine to children, adolescents, and young adults of child-bearing age be paused until proper scientific studies that focus on the safety and pharmacokinetics and biodistribution of the vaccines and the vaccine-encoded spike protein can be conducted.
Geert Vanden Bossche posits that a mass vaccination regime targeting very specific viral structures during an ongoing pandemic amounts to a global gain of function experiment. Further, that the resulting variants could be able to affect the vaccinated even more than the unvaccinated as the infection may elicit an immune memory response that is ineffective and that can interfere with the working of the general non-memory immune system, the system that may be protecting the young.
ZDoggMD mixes some rebuttal with some rather immature ad hominem:
Edward Nirenberg gets more into the nitty gritty in: Addressing Geert Vanden Bossche’s Claims. Most relevant to any possible virus evolution is the question of to what extent the vaccines are “leaky”. Relevant to safety is if they compromise natural immunity.
Dr. Izzy Gerstenbluth discusses mass vaccination during a pandemic with his colleague, Dr. Ashley Duits:
It is nearly certain that the Reptilians are not in fact from the star system of Alpha Draconis, but of terrestrial origin. One theory is that they are a higher caste of Zombie, where the zombification process has left a residual lizard brain. Another is that they are a next evolutionary stage of the ancestral population, and that they have just found it convenient to make use of the Zombie hoards in order to supplant it.
This one is a little confusing because while it is often used to refer to an impossible restoration of some sort by the military, it could also refer to any irreversible choice, such as the one made in the early hours of November fourth.
“Things to Come” was, in the end, quite optimistic. The actual shape of things to come seems to leave not much room for optimism. Movies, fact and fiction, have covered much that is related to what we can expect.
The historical Zombie eruptions have involved a less brain dead variety than the current, but that is no guarantee that they were more deadly.
Twitter disallows many statements, as does Facebook. Youtube removes videos and whole channels. Amazon removes books. Where there is not simple deletion of information there can be guiding notes attached to historical and seemingly neutral scientific information.
One interesting possibility is that this is explained as a stage of the zombification process, where the brain begins to liquefy and barriers between the associative and analytical lobes start to break down. If it were only so simple.
“Herd Immunity” went through a fairly radical shift in meaning, at least for a while.
These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.
One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us. I respectfully dissent.
Thomas provides some cover for the Court’s dereliction of duty by prefacing his analysis with an assertion unsupported except perhaps relative to some narrow claim:
That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election.
The Duran suggests that the court not taking the cases and leaving these issues undecided will cause trouble in the future, but that argument presupposes that the goal should be to provide clear rules under which a democracy can operate. It seems more likely that confirming that the courts are closed to election challenges will cause the least trouble under the form of governance that actually exists.
Theoretically, it’s possible that a system designed to be gamed and abused won’t be. But a party concerned about the integrity of the system wouldn’t expend so much effort making it easier to rig elections; it would do the opposite.
Far from seeing any effort to explain, all I see is an enlivened and merciless push to ram through the results while censoring and slandering anyone who asks questions or points out irregularities. Either they don’t have explanations, or they don’t care what we think. Or both.
There is something to be said—from the point of view of the powerful—for just ramming things through and explaining nothing. It’s a clear demonstration of who’s boss. It demoralizes the other side. And it’s nearly certain to change the system permanently in ways that benefit the ruling class for as long as they can keep it going.
That may well work in securing the White House this time. But if they just ram this through without explaining what really happened, then the legitimacy not just of our electoral system but of our entire government will have suffered an extreme, and possibly fatal, blow.