Mass murder is an open and shut case. Lots of legal jargon for it, that's what lawyers are for. There is TONS of evidence that denying a person medicine when they're sick is a bad idea. Any type of infection shares the characteristic that the earlier you treat it, the better. This stuff multiplies and it ain't healthy.
About 40 Governors are denying medicine to sick people until they're in such horrible shape that they need to be admitted to the hospital with CCPvirus. It shouldn't be difficult to realize that this is NOT a good idea, regardless of what sort of treatment is involved. Many people turned away from any medical care when they test positive cannot physically return to get medical care after they think they're in bad enough shape to be admitted. Then they die. Others make it but are too far gone to save, and die.
All those deaths are preventable. All those are directly caused by the Governor. Contrast that to SD, where once you test positive you can get "whatever you need," and are included on a Statewide study. SD has 12 x lower IFR than the National average. Dr Zelnko gets 38 X lower IFR and hospitalizations than the National average. This tells me not everyone in SD is using Dr Z's protocol, but it's not because the Governor has forbidden it. And that Governor has access to all the same information every other Governor does.
The only reason these other Governors deny sick people medicine in a pandemic is because they want to kill as many as possible, and they want the crisis to continue as long as possible. They want you to lose your job and your employer to go under. They want the Fed to bail out State and local governments until the national debt is grotesquely out of whack with gdp, and everybody knows we can never pay it back.
This is the face of evil. Governors are our only visible enemy right now (with the exception of the few States where your Governor is ok but you're still having problems; then you need to focus on your Mayor)
They're just proving the anti-vac people right with this shit. Just not in the way most would think. No sense relying on healthcare when you can't afford or obtain it anyways. Ik I don't.
I don't know about all that man. I know that when the Government starts restricting people's movement and freedom of assembly without due process and without being subjected to the standard of strict constitutional scrutiny, that they are violating our civil rights.
I'm not sure taking it to the "we need to start charging them with murder" level is going to help anything. I mean, murder trials take years just to assemble let alone try and convict in court. Then there are appeals. Certainly seems unrealistic at least as far as actually getting charges to stick or get these restrictions to go away sooner.
On the other hand a simple and well constructed court filing in federal court could lead to an actual injunction or court order for these emergency executive orders to be reviewed or rewritten or whatever.
No court action will change anything soon enough to matter. Denying sick people medicine is criminally insane. It started with Cuomo and probably at least 40 Governors have repeated that mistake. Citizen's arrest is perfectly legal when we stop a felony in progress. 20,000 at each State Capitol all at the same time insures nobody gets hurt. Our founding Fathers did not sue King George, and they were mostly lawyers. If we want anything to change, we have to change it. Yes, Court actions take years. The lasting changes will come through the Courts. We do this and the rest of our enemies retreat. We get all our rights back, including the right to free and fair elections.
You sound pretty out on a limb on all this stuff. You aren't wrong in that what most of these Governor's signed off on will ultimately cost lives, at least indirectly and in the long term. We disagree on how we should use the costs and the legal system.
I'm saying we use the courts but we use them correctly. Use the courts like the left does. Whenever the Trump administration has done anything they've gone to a friendly district court and get an injunction. We should do that with these laws. That stops things, at least temporarily.
"Out on a limb" Is that always how you describe a new idea?
"Ultimately cost lives, at least indirectly and in the long term"
For THE PAST TWO MONTHS!! There is nothing iffy or future about this, and it is crime completed. Unfortunately it's also ongoing. 88% of people on ventilators die. I haven't seen data for total hospitalized. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that ANY infection is better off treated earlier rather than later. Making sick people wait to get medicine until they're half dead and can be admitted to a hospital makes NO sense. There is malice involved.
SD has a IFR of 12 x less than the National average; once you test positive you get "whatever you need" and are included in a Statewide study. Guaranteed they're not all following Dr Zulenko's protocol because that gets a 95% reduction. Repeated throughout the entire Country of Brazil.
If I know this, no Governor has an excuse.
There are no "laws" involved. Governors have issued royal decrees. They have no business interfering with a Dr and patient. They have influenced other organizations, including those that discipline Drs and pharmacists. SD demonstrates one Governor can very well make all the difference.
If injunctions need to be filed, file them. We should not be at the mercy of "friendly" Courts.
The most murders I can find anyone convicted of in the US is 8. Very few Governors are responsible for fewer than 8 preventable deaths. Denying sick people medicine is criminal. It's also cruel and unusual. It should be very easy to paint this as against the interests of the Nation and it's people.
Mass murder is an open and shut case. Lots of legal jargon for it, that's what lawyers are for. There is TONS of evidence that denying a person medicine when they're sick is a bad idea. Any type of infection shares the characteristic that the earlier you treat it, the better. This stuff multiplies and it ain't healthy.
About 40 Governors are denying medicine to sick people until they're in such horrible shape that they need to be admitted to the hospital with CCPvirus. It shouldn't be difficult to realize that this is NOT a good idea, regardless of what sort of treatment is involved. Many people turned away from any medical care when they test positive cannot physically return to get medical care after they think they're in bad enough shape to be admitted. Then they die. Others make it but are too far gone to save, and die.
All those deaths are preventable. All those are directly caused by the Governor. Contrast that to SD, where once you test positive you can get "whatever you need," and are included on a Statewide study. SD has 12 x lower IFR than the National average. Dr Zelnko gets 38 X lower IFR and hospitalizations than the National average. This tells me not everyone in SD is using Dr Z's protocol, but it's not because the Governor has forbidden it. And that Governor has access to all the same information every other Governor does.
The only reason these other Governors deny sick people medicine in a pandemic is because they want to kill as many as possible, and they want the crisis to continue as long as possible. They want you to lose your job and your employer to go under. They want the Fed to bail out State and local governments until the national debt is grotesquely out of whack with gdp, and everybody knows we can never pay it back.
This is the face of evil. Governors are our only visible enemy right now (with the exception of the few States where your Governor is ok but you're still having problems; then you need to focus on your Mayor)
They're just proving the anti-vac people right with this shit. Just not in the way most would think. No sense relying on healthcare when you can't afford or obtain it anyways. Ik I don't.
Heh, funny you should mention that. I haven't had health insurance since 1991.
I don't know about all that man. I know that when the Government starts restricting people's movement and freedom of assembly without due process and without being subjected to the standard of strict constitutional scrutiny, that they are violating our civil rights.
I'm not sure taking it to the "we need to start charging them with murder" level is going to help anything. I mean, murder trials take years just to assemble let alone try and convict in court. Then there are appeals. Certainly seems unrealistic at least as far as actually getting charges to stick or get these restrictions to go away sooner.
On the other hand a simple and well constructed court filing in federal court could lead to an actual injunction or court order for these emergency executive orders to be reviewed or rewritten or whatever.
No court action will change anything soon enough to matter. Denying sick people medicine is criminally insane. It started with Cuomo and probably at least 40 Governors have repeated that mistake. Citizen's arrest is perfectly legal when we stop a felony in progress. 20,000 at each State Capitol all at the same time insures nobody gets hurt. Our founding Fathers did not sue King George, and they were mostly lawyers. If we want anything to change, we have to change it. Yes, Court actions take years. The lasting changes will come through the Courts. We do this and the rest of our enemies retreat. We get all our rights back, including the right to free and fair elections.
Evil prevails when good men do nothing.
You sound pretty out on a limb on all this stuff. You aren't wrong in that what most of these Governor's signed off on will ultimately cost lives, at least indirectly and in the long term. We disagree on how we should use the costs and the legal system.
I'm saying we use the courts but we use them correctly. Use the courts like the left does. Whenever the Trump administration has done anything they've gone to a friendly district court and get an injunction. We should do that with these laws. That stops things, at least temporarily.
"Out on a limb" Is that always how you describe a new idea?
"Ultimately cost lives, at least indirectly and in the long term"
For THE PAST TWO MONTHS!! There is nothing iffy or future about this, and it is crime completed. Unfortunately it's also ongoing. 88% of people on ventilators die. I haven't seen data for total hospitalized. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that ANY infection is better off treated earlier rather than later. Making sick people wait to get medicine until they're half dead and can be admitted to a hospital makes NO sense. There is malice involved.
SD has a IFR of 12 x less than the National average; once you test positive you get "whatever you need" and are included in a Statewide study. Guaranteed they're not all following Dr Zulenko's protocol because that gets a 95% reduction. Repeated throughout the entire Country of Brazil.
If I know this, no Governor has an excuse.
There are no "laws" involved. Governors have issued royal decrees. They have no business interfering with a Dr and patient. They have influenced other organizations, including those that discipline Drs and pharmacists. SD demonstrates one Governor can very well make all the difference.
If injunctions need to be filed, file them. We should not be at the mercy of "friendly" Courts.
The most murders I can find anyone convicted of in the US is 8. Very few Governors are responsible for fewer than 8 preventable deaths. Denying sick people medicine is criminal. It's also cruel and unusual. It should be very easy to paint this as against the interests of the Nation and it's people.