Government Negligence (Or Malfeasance) On Grand Scale

Sorry We Are Closed

Dr. Ari Joffe is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases at the Stollery Children’s Hospital in Edmonton and a Clinical Professor in the Department of Pediatrics at University of Alberta. He has written a paper titled COVID-19: Rethinking the Lockdown Groupthink that finds the harms of lockdowns are 10 times greater than their benefits.

You were a strong proponent of lockdowns initially but have since changed your mind. Why is that?

There are a few reasons why I supported lockdowns at first.

First, initial data falsely suggested that the infection fatality rate was up to 2-3%, that over 80% of the population would be infected, and modelling suggested repeated lockdowns would be necessary. But emerging data showed that the median infection fatality rate is 0.23%, that the median infection fatality rate in people under 70 years old is 0.05%, and that the high-risk group is older people especially those with severe co-morbidities. In addition, it is likely that in most situations only 20-40% of the population would be infected before ongoing transmission is limited (i.e., herd-immunity).

Second, I am an infectious diseases and critical care physician, and am not trained to make public policy decisions. I was only considering the direct effects of COVID-19 and my knowledge of how to prevent these direct effects. I was not considering the immense effects of the response to COVID-19 (that is, lockdowns) on public health and wellbeing.

Emerging data has shown a staggering amount of so-called ‘collateral damage’ due to the lockdowns. This can be predicted to adversely affect many millions of people globally with food insecurity [82-132 million more people], severe poverty [70 million more people], maternal and under age-5 mortality from interrupted healthcare [1.7 million more people], infectious diseases deaths from interrupted services [millions of people with Tuberculosis, Malaria, and HIV], school closures for children [affecting children’s future earning potential and lifespan], interrupted vaccination campaigns for millions of children, and intimate partner violence for millions of women. In high-income countries adverse effects also occur from delayed and interrupted healthcare, unemployment, loneliness, deteriorating mental health, increased opioid crisis deaths, and more.

Third, a formal cost-benefit analysis of different responses to the pandemic was not done by government or public health experts. Initially, I simply assumed that lockdowns to suppress the pandemic were the best approach. But policy decisions on public health should require a cost-benefit analysis. Since lockdowns are a public health intervention, aiming to improve the population wellbeing, we must consider both benefits of lockdowns, and costs of lockdowns on the population wellbeing. Once I became more informed, I realized that lockdowns cause far more harm than they prevent.

There has never been a full cost-benefit analysis of lockdowns done in Canada. What did you find when you did yours?

First, some background into the cost-benefit analysis. I discovered information I was not aware of before. First, framing decisions as between saving lives versus saving the economy is a false dichotomy. There is a strong long-run relationship between economic recession and public health. This makes sense, as government spending on things like healthcare, education, roads, sanitation, housing, nutrition, vaccines, safety, social security nets, clean energy, and other services determines the population well-being and life-expectancy. If the government is forced to spend less on these social determinants of health, there will be ‘statistical lives’ lost, that is, people will die in the years to come. Second, I had underestimated the effects of loneliness and unemployment on public health. It turns out that loneliness and unemployment are known to be among the strongest risk factors for early mortality, reduced lifespan, and chronic diseases. Third, in making policy decisions there are trade-offs to consider, costs and benefits, and we have to choose between options that each have tragic outcomes in order to advocate for the least people to die as possible.

In the cost-benefit analysis I consider the benefits of lockdowns in preventing deaths from COVID-19, and the costs of lockdowns in terms of the effects of the recession, loneliness, and unemployment on population wellbeing and mortality. I did not consider all of the other so-called ‘collateral damage’ of lockdowns mentioned above. It turned out that the costs of lockdowns are at least 10 times higher than the benefits. That is, lockdowns cause far more harm to population wellbeing than COVID-19 can. It is important to note that I support a focused protection approach, where we aim to protect those truly at high-risk of COVID-19 mortality, including older people, especially those with severe co-morbidities and those in nursing homes and hospitals.

You studied the role modelling played in shaping public opinion. Can you break that down for us?

I think that the initial modelling and forecasting were inaccurate. This led to a contagion of fear and policies across the world. Popular media focused on absolute numbers of COVID-19 cases and deaths independent of context. There has been a sheer one-sided focus on preventing infection numbers. The economist Paul Frijters wrote that it was “all about seeming to reduce risks of infection and deaths from this one particular disease, to the exclusion of all other health risks or other life concerns.” Fear and anxiety spread, and we elevated COVID-19 above everything else that could possibly matter. Our cognitive biases prevented us from making optimal policy: we ignored hidden ‘statistical deaths’ reported at the population level, we preferred immediate benefits to even larger benefits in the future, we disregarded evidence that disproved our favorite theory, and escalated our commitment in the set course of action.

I found out that in Canada in 2018 there were over 23,000 deaths per month and over 775 deaths per day. In the world in 2019 there were over 58 million deaths and about 160,000 deaths per day. This means that on November 21 this year, COVID-19 accounted for 5.23% of deaths in Canada (2.42% in Alberta), and 3.06% of global deaths. Each day in non-pandemic years over 21,000 people die from tobacco use, 3,600 from pneumonia and diarrhea in children under 5-years-old, and 4,110 from Tuberculosis. We need to consider the tragic COVID-19 numbers in context.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/canadian-experts-research-finds-lockdown-harms-are-10-times-greater-than-benefits

USA Employee Vaccination Exemptions: Some Clarifications

Some well-meaning, trusted community members are disseminating erroneous information about covid-19 vaccine exemptions for employees, so I’m presenting the information below to, hopefully, clarify some misunderstandings. I’ve helped 100’s of healthcare workers nationally get religious exemptions to flu shots over the past 9 years, so am well-versed on the legal and practical concerns. (No one else has extensive experience in this arena.)

( Why is our community so quick to turn to alternative MD’s and PhD’s with science matters, yet unwilling to reach out to alternative legal experts with legal matters? )

Here are the critical points:

Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which applies to employers with 15 or more employees, provides legal remedies for employees whose employer discriminates against them in a variety of categories, including, for our purposes, religion.

A few states have vaccine exemption laws that apply to employees, but most state exemption laws apply to only to daycare, school, and college enrollment.

Federal regulations implement Title VII statutes, providing rules and procedures for enforcement of Title VII violations.

Title VII creates, in effect through anti-discrimination laws, a religious exemption to vaccines in the workplace. It is not an exemption law per se; it is an anti-religious-discrimination-in-the-workplace law that can function, for our purposes, like a religious exemption law. I’ve used it to help clients avoid mandatory TB tests, too, but its application could address any religious belief or practice in conflict with an employer policy (as well as other listed categories of discrimination).

When an employee requests “religious accommodation” due to an employer policy that conflicts with the employee’s religious beliefs or practices, the employer must provide a “reasonable accommodation” unless the employer can show that doing so would cause the employer an “undue hardship.” The precise meaning of these phrases varies from situation to situation and is determined by applicable legal precedent. Proper understanding and application of legal precedent generally requires formal legal training and experience (not unlike complete understanding of medical studies may require science training and research experience).

By law, each request for religious accommodation must be considered individually, on a case-by-case basis. So, there is no one-size-fits-all “answer” to employee religious exemptions. However, some generalizations may nevertheless be made.

Employers have the right to scrutinize employees’ religious beliefs to determine if they meet the legal requirements. However, in practice:

Many employers misunderstand those requirements, and so may reject legally qualifying exemption requests;

Most employees misunderstand the law and so make exemption requests that fail to meet the legal requirements;

Neither of these first two points is due to a lack of intelligence. Rather, they are due to people’s failure to educate themselves on the law before proceeding. In both cases, common sense thinking usually doesn’t fully align with the law.

Over the years I’ve seen:

Most hospitals create unlawful (overly restrictive) exemption policies. Most employees don’t realize this, so they may fail to request an exemption, believing they don’t qualify when perhaps they do.

Many employees don’t want a vaccine but will get one anyway to avoid making waves (fear of losing their job or other retaliation), or to avoid having to wear a face mask, not realizing that the face mask policies are illegal.

When professionally confronted, most hospital administrators made some, but not all, policy corrections needed to bring their policies fully into compliance with the law.

Hospital administrators know their employees are unlikely to sue them. So, some knowingly keep illegal policies, because they know they can get away with it (and they usually do).

Employees can complain to the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) for free, if they believe their employer has unlawfully discriminated against them. The EEOC will usually correct common issues such as shooting down an employer’s illegal “clergy support” requirement for a vaccine religious exemption, but they support hospital administrator’s unlawful policies in many other regards—e.g., they endorse blatantly illegal face mask policies; and deny the application of Title VII to students doing clinical work, despite their own attorneys’ publicly stated contrary assertions on the matter.

Employers can lawfully deny a religious exemption request if they can show that doing so would cause them an “undue hardship.” This usually means “will cost a lot of money,” but is not necessarily limited to that. In practice, most hospitals ultimately allow religious exemptions for flu shots, but refuse religious exemptions for other routine vaccines such as TDaP and MMR. In recent years, hospitals have increasingly required childhood vaccines, instead of just flu shots, as a condition of employment.

This point is critical. If exemptions are already being denied for routine vaccines, do you really think employers are going to allow exemptions for emergency covid-19 vaccines?

Not a chance. (But if some do, it will be a temporary policy. Mark my words…)

Allowing a religious exemption for only some routine vaccines doesn’t make sense to me scientifically, and therefore is arguably unlawful, but vaccine policy has never been based on real science. So, why should we be surprised when that continues to be the case? This is perhaps the most critical point:

EMPLOYERS CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT, LEGAL OR NOT, AND MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, THEY GET AWAY WITH IT.

The primary two reasons they do this are that their agenda isn’t legal and they usually get away with it. The primary two reasons they *can* do this are that few employees will fight them (costs too much to hire an attorney, fear of retaliation); and the corrupt legal system will more often ignore the law and rule in the employer’s favor than it will rule against big pharma in favor of a single employee. It’s not this way 100% of the time, but pharma doesn’t need 100% to successfully advance its agenda.

THE BOTTOM LINE:

Federal civil rights law is not likely to help anyone avoid a covid-19 workplace requirement. If employers are already successfully refusing exemptions for routine vaccines, doing so successfully with emergency covid vaccines will be a piece of cake. If an employer does allow religious exemptions initially, that’s likely to be a temporary condition, as the stated agenda by Mr. Bill “The World Obeys Me” Gates is: “no exceptions.”

For information and resources concerning employee exemption rights, see vaccinerights.com

For information about how to deal with a vaccine that has no exemptions, email: alan@vaccinerights.com

Did you find this article helpful? Please consider sharing it, and making a small donation at vaccinerights.com to support the creation of more helpful articles. Thank you!

Your Brain

Your Brain

Half right.
Your mind is the computer, not your brain.
Your mind is not your brain, it is a function, not a thing.
Your brain is a mechanical switchboard.
It does not even hold enough space to store three months of your memories.
They are stored in your mind.
You are an immortal, indestructible being who uses the function of your mind to run your body.
And the thoughts you allow residency in your mind, the decisions you make, the considerations you hold are all senior to your brain, your body and the physical universe.

So, knowing this, how best do you operate?
1. Find out what your basic purpose is in life.
2. Work out what the product is you want to create that is most closely aligned with your basic purpose.
3. Decide you are going to become world class at producing that product.
4. Start (or continue) gaining expertise and then extreme competence then world leading excellence in producing your product.
5. Along the way, ignore the self-doubts, self-invalidations, negative thoughts and any self or other originated intention counter or opposing your intention that you be world class in creating your chosen product.

If you have read and understood and can think with this and intend to apply it, then I have achieved my product – a more aware you!

Have a world class day!

Analyze Yourself

While the statement in and of itself is true, too much introspection is not good either.

That is introverting and what people who mean you no good wish to do to you.

So as a solo action, the oppoisite is much more likely to be correct, extroversion – where you look out at the environment and in truth, this has far more workability as evidenced by the success I have had in running extroversion techniques on others. In fact one girl I met dog walking in the park claimed that 5 minutes of me doing that gave her a better result than years of psychologists and psychiatrists. OK, considering psychiatry is destructive, not a high bar to get over, but you get the point.

Not to say you cannot benefit hugely from establishing what is your basic purpose, which requires an understanding of your talents and personality, but even then, many (most) would find that a far easier task to perform when assisted by another.
Analyze Yourself