Emergency Use Mandates

Back in December 2020, JAMA published a viewpoint column discussing the topic of vaccination mandates.

“Mandating COVID-19 vaccines under an EUA [Emergency Use Authorization] is legally and ethically problematic. The act authorizing the FDA to issue EUAs requires the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to specify whether individuals may refuse the vaccine and the consequences for refusal. Vaccine mandates are unjustified because an EUA requires less safety and efficacy data than full Biologics License Application (BLA) approval. Individuals would also likely distrust vaccine mandates under emergency use, viewing it as ongoing medical research.”

Source: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2774712

Yet here we are, surrounded by mandates, and much has changed since December 2020, with nobody talking about the “legally and ethically problematic” reality. Lawsuits have been dismissed (not even considered) from nurses who do not want to be forced to get the vaccine. Students in higher education have been forced to receive the vaccine. Now any workplace with more than 100 employees can be forced by OHSA to mandate the vaccine. And the vaccine is still under Emergency Use Authorization!

What about the reality that pregnant women face regarding this vaccine? Yes, data show that pregnancy is affected by COVID19 illness, but the mealy mouthed non answers regarding outcomes with the vaccine are worrisome.

The New England Journal of Medicine, published preliminary reassuring data regarding COVID vaccinations and pregnancy back in April with the abstract conclusion that preliminary findings didn’t show obvious safety concerns. Table 4 had the valuable information regarding pregnancy outcomes, and on first glance everything looked great. 104/827 (12.6%) women in the V-safe Pregnancy Registry had a spontaneous abortion at less than 20 weeks which was within the expected population incidence of 10-20%.

Source: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2104983

Yet of those 827 pregnant women in the denominator, 700 received their vaccine in their third trimester… It’s impossible for a pregnant woman to have an early spontaneous abortion because of a vaccine if they receive the vaccine late in the pregnancy. This kind of error, from the CDC v-safe COVID-19 Pregnancy Registry Team (with 21 authors listed!) published in the NEJM of all places is hard to fathom. The correction published on September 8, 2021 hides the egg all over their faces with a long and impenetrable paragraph trying to hide the fact that they had to drop the denominator and now have a hanging numerator of 104 that means nothing.

Source: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMx210016

A more honest correction would read: ‘we have no data yet on the risks of the vaccines and spontaneous abortions with pregnancy, and the prior data we presented as reason to trust the vaccine was faulty.’

So is it safe to criticize the safety of the vaccine if holy institutions are presenting faulty information like this?

Not according to a joint statement by the heads of the American Board of Family Medicine, American Board of Internal Medicine, and the American Board of Pediatrics. who say: “Spreading misinformation or falsehoods to the public during a time of a public health emergency goes against everything our boards and our community of board certified physicians stand for. The evidence that we have safe, effective and widely available vaccines against COVID-19 is overwhelming. We are particularly concerned about physicians who use their authority to denigrate vaccination at a time when vaccines continue to demonstrate excellent effectiveness against severe illness, hospitalization and death.”

Source: https://www.abim.org/media-center/covid-19-updates/#joint-statement-heading

Questioning the safety of the vaccine may now lead to penalties including loss of board certification.

Will there be penalties for physicians pushing for “legally and ethically problematic” vaccine mandates? Will there be penalties for NEJM authors who mislead their readers with faulty preliminary data? Will there be penalties for physicians pushing for vaccinations of pregnant women?

No, it all goes one way. And reading the literature is an abysmal exercise in looking for nuance and balance. Even the title of the NEJM article cited above refers to “Pregnant Persons” instead of pregnant women because that would be too bigoted against non-women pregnant humanoids.

Interested in “Effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccines against the Delta Variant”, well right below is another article you might be interested in on “Cabotegravir for HIV Prevention in Cisgender Men and Transgender Women.” It’s a long acting injectable that can protect against HIV infections for degenerates.

Source: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891

No wonder trust in our authority figures has plummeted. For those of you who are trying to find a physician you can trust, and don’t believe that a man can be pregnant, just remember; Race First, Brothers Always.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *