The Supreme Court – a simple majority of the nine members thereof – will shortly issue a decree regarding their affirmation or not of the federal government’s lawful authority under the Constitution to compel every man, woman and child in the country to submit under duress to the unwanted taking of therapeutic medicines (plural, since the power to coerce being sought does not end with one dose of these medicines but rather asserts open-ended power to coerce the taking, ongoing).
Therapeutic in italics to emphasize the distinction between that and prophylactic – a very different thing. Very much as a “case,” medically speaking, is a different thing than the cases! the cases! breathily “reported” by the PR organs of the pharmaceutical cartels styled “the media.”
Vaccines – as they have been defined until now – are prophylactic in that they prevent the vaccinated individual from getting or transmitting a given sickness. A person who has been vaccinated for, say, malaria cannot get – or give malaria.
He has immunity.
This was the basis for the Warp Speeded approval by the FDA (the federal adjunct of Pfizer, et al) of the “vaccines” the federal government asserts it has the lawful authority under the Constitution to compel every man, woman and child in the United States to submit to.
In air-fingers quotes to emphasize the fact – now admitted to – that the “vaccines” under consideration by the Court do not immunize. They are not prophylactic. They are therapeutic.
They are like aspirin, which does not prevent you from getting a headache but can temporarily alleviate the symptoms of a headache. They are also something worse in that a headache is not transmissible while the sickness a “vaccinated” person can get can also be transmitted others . . . and it is a reasonable argument that a person who doesn’t feel sick – or not very, on account of his therapeutic “vaccination” – is probably more likely to transmit it than the person who feels sick enough (not having been “vaccinated”) to stay home.
Interestingly, we don’t hear much all of a sudden about the “asymptomatic spread’ that was so rabidly asserted as a Major Danger before the “vaccines” were Warp Speeded into existence.
Even more interesting is the fact that before there were “vaccines,” an “asymptomatic” person was far less likely to be a spreader of sickness since he was probably not sick.
As opposed to the “vaccinated” person who doesn’t feel sick.
But what’s about to be decided by the Court – meaning, what the Court will decide you’ll do, according to what they say – is whether the Constitution empowers the federal government, via the regulatory apparat (OSHA) to coerce every man, woman and child in this country to submit to the taking of therapeutic medicines.
The implications of this are stupendous. They go far beyond the “vaccines” Warp Speeded into existence. If the Court finds that the Constitution endows the federal government with the power to compel every man, woman and child in the country to take a medicine that may make them feel better – or which (secondary argument presented by the lawyer-things arguing the federal government’s position) reduce the putative “burden” on the “health care system,” then very soon thereafter, Doctor’s Orders will become literally that.
The range of such orders is essentially infinite – since almost anything can be therapeutic. It is good for you to eat more vegetables, for instance. There is a therapeutic benefit to regular exercise. How much (and what type” of foods will you be allowed to eat? Will you be compelled to take psych meds, if the doctor so orders?
It might even be argued – it is almost certain to be argued – that birth control is therapeutic, whenever the government asserts that having children “burdens” the system.
It will also almost certainly be asserted – if the Court affirms the principle of it – that government has the lawful authority under the Constitution to require that every man, woman and child in the country submit to some kind of app – or even a chip – that continuously monitors their health and transmits data regarding it, to the government or its designated corporate functionaries, for therapeutic purposes.
Most people aren’t lawyers and even fewer think like lawyers. Those who do understand that in court, case law – precedent – is everything. Once a court decides that “x” is lawful then it is already decided that “y” – the elaboration of “x” is also lawful.
Prior examples of this include the courts deciding that the Constitution – the Bill of Rights – does not protect people who haven’t committed any crime nor given the slightest reason to suspect they may have committed one from being compelled to halt their travel, at random checkpoints, present their “papers” and establish their innocence of the crime of “drunk” driving . . . because they are using the public right of way and because the government has a “compelling interest” that countermands the precisely stated prohibitions on the exercise of government power in the Bill of Rights.
The court having decreed the “constitutionality” of that, it was inevitable the government would assert the lawful power to have its agents put their hands down your pants at airports and other “public” places.
This is what’s up for deciding now: Your right to not take drugs – or do something – on the basis of government’s assertion that it is “good for you” . . .
We’ll soon know whether we will henceforth be living in a therapeutic state. And whether the Constitution has any prophylactic powers against such a state of affairs.
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)