Sixth Circuit Refuses to Vacate Opinion on Air Force Covid Vaccine Requirement

A panel upheld a preliminary objection barring the Air force from requiring religious objectors to get Covid-19 vaccines, and a majority of the court's judges refused to vacate that decision as moot.

Last fall, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a district court preliminary injunction that barred the U.S. Air Force from requiring religious objectors to receive COVID-19 vaccinations. As I noted at the time, it appeared that the Air Force's attorneys had not fully considered how it should respond to Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) claims in this context.

The Air Force has since rescinded the vaccination requirement, and has now asked for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc  for the purpose of vacating the panel decision and lower court injunction. No dice said the Sixth Circuit.

In a brief order issued today in Doster v. Kendall, the Sixth Circuit rejected the petition. It reads:

The court received a petition for panel rehearing and for rehearing en banc. The petition did not seek review of the issues that the panel's opinion decided. Rather, it sought vacatur of the opinion and of the district court's preliminary injunctions on the ground that events postdating the opinion have now mooted the appeal and the preliminary injunctions. The original panel has reviewed the petition for panel rehearing and has concluded that the district court should review this mootness question in the first instance. It has also concluded that, even if the preliminary injunctions were now moot, that fact would not provide a basis for the "extraordinary remedy of vacatur" of the panel's opinion. U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P'ship, 513 U.S. 18, 26 (1994). The petition then was circulated to the full court. Less than a majority of the judges voted in favor of rehearing en banc.

Therefore, the petition is denied.

Judge Kethledge issued a brief statement concurring in the denial of en banc review, joined by Judges Thapar, Bush, and Murphy. It reads:

That a party chooses to comply with our decision is hardly a reason to vacate it. Here, at Congress's direction, the Air Force has rescinded the vaccine mandate at issue in this suit. The Air Force — by way of a petition for rehearing en banc — now seeks vacatur of our opinions upholding the district court's preliminary injunctions. Vacatur of our opinions is not a "normal effect" of mootness but an "extraordinary" one. U.S. Bancorp M ortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18, 26 (1994). And the Air Force has not even tried to explain why it is entitled to vacatur when the putative mootness here arose from the government's own actions. See generally id. at 25.

All those action s, of course, occurred well after we issued our opinions here. Meanwhile, "[j]udicial precedents are presumptively correct and valuable to the legal community as a whole." Id. at 26. In this case, our opinions will stand as a caution against violating the Free Exercise rights of men and women in uniform — which, by all appearances, is what the Air Force did here.

Judge Moore issued a statement dissenting from the denial of en banc review, joined by Judges Clay and Stranch. It reads:

The issue in this case is whether the Air Force's administration of its COVID-19 vaccine mandate violated certain of its servicemembers' religious rights. After a panel of this court affirmed the district court's judgment preliminarily enjoining the Air Force from enforcing its vaccine mandate—but before the case was returned to the district court—Congress enacted the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 ("NDAA"), which ordered the Secretary of Defense to rescind the military's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Pub. L. No. 117-263, § 525, 136 Stat. 2395, 2571–72 (2022). Twelve federal appellate judges on three courts of appeals have unanimously concluded that the NDAA and the military's implementation of that legislation mooted similar preliminary-injunction appeals. See Roth v. Austin, 62 F.4th 1114, 1119 (8th Cir. 2023); Dunn v. Austin, No. 22-15286, 2023 WL 2319316, at *1 (9th Cir. Feb. 27, 2023) (order); Short v. Berger, No. 22-15755, 2023 WL 2258384, at *1 (9th Cir. Feb. 24, 2023) (order); Navy Seal 1 v. Austin, No. 22-5114, 2023 WL 2482927, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 10, 2023) (per curiam). My review of these decisions and the record in this case leads me to the same conclusion. I would therefore grant the petition for rehearing en banc, which would have the normal effect of vacating the panel's opinion, and hold that Congress's action mooted the pending appeals of the district court's preliminary-injunction orders.

Comments

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Enjoy this while you can, clingers.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, Kirkland, the tide has turned and the sand is washing out beneath your feet. It is YOU who will topple head-first into the sea.

[HackJackerson]

Now, now, Dr. Ed, He's just a bitter, disaffected clinger whining as progress is shoved down his throat.

[Frank Drackman]

You'd be bitter too if you were confined at https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx
and with the "Reverend" Jerrys home Senator still "In Treatment" not looking good for his Commutation

[Kleppe]

Is this what being subject to the whims of my betters feels like?

[Armchair Lawyer]

I always enjoy being on the right side of history, freedom, liberty, and defending the rights of individuals, especially against oppressive governments.

[Area Man]

Shhhh. No one tell him Justice Jackson would agree with this decision.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-312_5h25.pdf

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Now the Navy is busy transing kids without notifying the parents.

The Democrat military is just a cesspool and China is going to kick their green gay asses.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, as long as the sailors are 18, they're adults.

But I really do wonder about our National Defense -- three terms of Obama/Biden have done an awful lot of damage to it. It's not their gay green asses but OURs -- and while a ChiCom takeover of Taiwan would *guarantee* a second Trump Presidency (with significant MAGA majorities in Congress), the consequences to both the world and to the US would be disastrous.

[Frank Drackman]

He's talking about the Navy cutting off dicks/balls/tits on "Dependent Children" (i.e. Children of "Sailors")
haven't heard of that being done (yet) they've gut their hands full cutting off the dicks/balls/tits on Active Duty "Members"
And sounds like S-S-S-tuttering John Fetterman's enjoying his "Treatment" at Walter Reed, not like there's Veterans who deserve it more than his fat ass.

Frank "Maybe I am "Bitter", what's it to ya!"

[Lee Moore]

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges”

Is there a day that goes by without us being reminded that this was the stupidest thing written by any judge, ever ?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

When the Court is enlarged, will Chief Justice Roberts

1) scold his conservative colleagues ("I told you not to overplay our hand")

2) scold Democrats ("this unnecessary action threatens the public perception of the legitimacy of the Court")

3) whine at Federalist Society events, mumble about "balls and strikes," and turn to the bottle?

[Gandydancer]

Still in denial, eh? This progress is not an event previously admitted to be possible in your triumphalist predictions.

[David Nieporent]

When the Court isn't enlarged, will you admit you're a sad little troll and STFU?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I don't expect you to understand anything about the liberal-libertarian modern mainstream, including the prospect it will use its power (much as the Republicans have used theirs).

Why wouldn't America's winners (in the culture war, at the marketplace of ideas, in elections) use the consequent power to accomplish what they consider to be important elements of progress?

Enlarging the Court would be arranged in scrupulous compliance with longstanding, express law and congruence with ample precedent.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The issue isn’t that there is no legal way to expand the Supreme Court. The issue is that there’s no way to do it without Democrats controlling both houses of congress and the presidency. Even if Trump gets the nomination and they just pull it off in 2024, they’re not going to have enough people behind it to make it happen.

I would be more than happy to make this a bet if you have terms to propose.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How would another Trump nomination influence the size of the Court? Thank you.

[Krychek_2]

Because the likelihood is that if Trump gets the nomination it will ensure Biden’s re-election, which is probably true. But that’s not Noscitur’s point. His point is that even with the Democrats in control at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue the votes still wouldn’t be there to enlarge the court. And I think he’s probably right. Not all Democrats support enlarging the court, and the Republicans would be united in opposition.

[Hugo S. Cunningham]

As a pre-Trump libertarian-conservative who mostly favored a Right-leaning SCotUS, I could see a Democratic majority advancing a principled claim that shoe-horning in Amy Coney Barrett was a violation of the precedent set by Senate Republicans for blocking Merritt Garland. They could offer the Republicans a choice: either one of SCotUS's 5-man solid-Right bloc (not Roberts) resign (creating space for a Left-leaning replacement), or the Democrats will add two seats for two Left-leaning nominees to achieve the same ideological balance. Since Thomas has become wobbly on free-speech issues in recent years, he might be the preferred choice to resign and preserve a nine-man SCotUS.

(2) Many on the Left like to claim four new seats (the Garland nomination was also "stolen"), but such claims persuade only their own partisans. If Democrats really added four seats, that would indeed blow up the Court's legitimacy, subjecting it to unending partisan expansions.

[David Nieporent]

So is that a "No"?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I will answer that question when Prof. Volokh lifts the ban of Artie Ray Lee Wayne Jim-Bob Kirkland and you apologize to Artie Ray for your lies about the Volokh Conspiracy’s hypocritical conservative censorship of liberals and libertarians.

Until then, I hope you continue to enjoy the view between Prof. Volokh’s cheeks.

[Frank Drackman]

Well Jerry, that's what got you in https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx
in the first place,
enjoying the "View" between the cheeks

[MaddogEngineer]

Why are these 2 things related? Beyond you acknowledging once again that you're a troll.

You keep using those words ("hypocritical conservative censorship"), they do not mean what you think they mean. Comment moderation is not censorship, especially when one behaves badly, and in bad faith, as you do. I bet you're one of those people who thought pre-Musk Twitter could operate however it wanted, but is now outraged by the new Twitter. Go build your own blog comment section if you don't like it here.

[Bored Lawyer]

DN: "When the Court isn’t enlarged, will you admit you’re a sad little troll and STFU?"

That's like asking the guy who thinks he's Napoleon when he will admit he lost at Waterloo. The question assumes facts not in evidence.

[Commenter_XY]

When the Court is enlarged...

Arthur, shall I call OBL to address that claim of yours from 2021...? 🙂

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Call anyone you like. You can even pray on it a while, and beg your illusory god for help. It won’t change the course of the culture war, or rescue the bigoted, superstitious, half-educated clingers of the Republican Party or their ugly, obsolete right-wing thinking.

Get better ideas, or continue to get stomped by better ideas and better Americans.

Feel free to whine about it as much as you like at this wingnut blog, but you will continue to comply with the rules established by better Americans against your wishes and efforts.

I enjoy hearing the whimpering of defeated, bigoted, disaffected conservatives in the morning.

[Frank Drackman]

You got me there Jerry, how any Surpreme Being would let Jerry Sandusky live is beyond me.

[Gandydancer]

"Twelve federal appellate judges on three courts of appeals have unanimously concluded that the NDAA and the military's implementation of that legislation mooted similar preliminary-injunction appeals."

The violations by the Air Force are capable of repetition, so it's bizarre that even one judge would think vacatur appropriate. That twelve other judges think so is a scandal.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That's why the Democrats in the Air Force are trying to hard to get this case vacated. They want to do this again during the next plandemic.

[Michael P]

The twelve judges mentioned didn't agree with vacatur, only mootness.

[David Nieporent]

“Capable of repetition” is not a standard for evaluating mootness. There is a capable of repetition yet evading review test, most famously employed in abortion cases: no case is going to be decided by SCOTUS in less than 9 months from challenge to SCOTUS decision, so she would lose standing one way or the other by the time the case concluded w/o that exception.

Or you might be referring to the voluntary cessation doctrine, which says that a case doesn’t become moot just because the defendant voluntarily stops doing the thing being challenged, since then the defendant could stop doing it, get the case dismissed, and start doing it again. But that’s not applicable here, because the Air Force didn’t voluntary stop requiring these vaccines; rather, Congress forbid it. So the Air Force can’t just start doing it again.

[Bored Lawyer]

Twelve federal appellate judges on three courts of appeals have unanimously concluded that the NDAA and the military's implementation of that legislation mooted similar preliminary-injunction appeals.

Was that while these other cases were on appeal, or after affirmance? The Sixth Circuit issued its mandate. No reason to call it back just because the object of the injunction voluntarily ceased doing the act enjoined.

[V]oluntary cessation of allegedly illegal conduct does not deprive the tribunal of power to hear and determine the case, i.e., does not make the case moot. A controversy may remain to be settled in such circumstances, e.g., a dispute over the legality of the challenged practices. The defendant is free to return to his old ways. This, together with a public interest in having the legality of the practices settled, militates against a mootness conclusion.

United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632 (1953)

[Stepped Reckoner]

"Was that while these other cases were on appeal, or after affirmance?"

None of the cases cited by Judge Moore's dissent for this roster of "twelve federal appellate judges" involved a prior published decision on appeal, with or without an issued mandate. Her dissent's conflation of those cases with this case under Munsingwear seems like apples and oranges.

[ReaderY]

I don’t understand this case.

Why doesn’t the Religious Freedom Restoration Act simply restore Goldman v. Weinberger, under which a win for the Air Force would seem an absolute slam dunk? How can it be possible that a clothing regulation forbidding a yarmulke satisfies compelling interest, but a vaccination requirement doesn’t?

[Noscitur a sociis]

That’s been my question since these cases started coming in. Here’s the panel’s response:

Of particular relevance, RFRA provides greater protection to religion in this military context than the Supreme Court's current view of the Free Exercise Clause. As noted, Smith read that clause not to trigger Sherbert’s strict-scrutiny test as long as a government action is neutral and generally applicable. 494 U.S. at 878–80, 110 S.Ct. 1595. Even before Smith, though, the Court had refused to apply strict scrutiny to military regulations that burdened a service member's religious exercise. Id. at 884, 110 S.Ct. 1595 (discussing Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503, 106 S.Ct. 1310, 89 L.Ed.2d 478 (1986)). Goldman upheld an Air Force regulation requiring “standardized uniforms” that had the effect of barring a Jewish service member from wearing a yarmulke. 475 U.S. at 504–05, 508–09, 106 S.Ct. 1310. The Court held that the Constitution required courts to review “military regulations” with a “far more deferential” eye than the scrutiny that governs “similar laws or regulations designed for civilian society.” Id. at 507, 106 S.Ct. 1310. It added that it must give “great deference” to military judgments about the “relative importance of a particular military interest.” Id. RFRA's text, by contrast, prohibits this rational-basis-style deference. Although Goldman rejected Sherbert’s strict-scrutiny test in the military context (at least for a military regulation that was arguably neutral and generally applicable), RFRA requires the government to meet that test for all actions that substantially burden religious exercise, including actions by a military “branch.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-2(1); see id. § 2000bb-1(b).

Not sure I’m persuaded.

[Gandydancer]

The point made, as I understand it, is that Goldman v. Weinberger (1986) was a straight Free Exercise Clause case, whereas this is a post-RFRA (1993) case. Is this false?:

"RFRA requires the government to meet [strict scrutiny] for all actions that substantially burden religious exercise, including actions by a military “branch.”"

[ReaderY]

[ReaderY]

Goldman simply didn’t hold that. It said it applied Sherbet. It held that combat effectiveness is a compelling state interest, hence great deference is required. The 6th Circuit here is simply disagreeing with the Supreme Court on this point.

[Brett Bellmore]

"How can it be possible that a clothing regulation forbidding a yarmulke satisfies compelling interest, but a vaccination requirement doesn’t?"

Well, the fact that you can take articles of clothing off, and put them back on, but you can't unvaccinate yourself while you're off the clock, might have something to do with it.

[Rossami]

There's also the issue that the clothing regulation was absolutely and uniformly enforced regardless of circumstances, making deference to the military's argument of necessity easy. The Air Force (and other services) allowed multiple non-religious exceptions to the vaccine rule. Those non-religious reasons made sense in isolation but, when taken together, they made it far harder to justify deference to the military's claim of absolute necessity.

[Bored Lawyer]

Bingo.

[Variant]

Quit trying to mandate useless medical treatments. STOP!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Virus-flouting, ignorant, disaffected clingers are among my favorite culture war casualties

[Frank Drackman]

You must have really enjoyed the 80's. Lots of Virus-flouting ignorant became "casualties".

[Kazinski]

Hail Mary by the Air Force denied.

Sure this one is pretty much moot, moot but capable of repetition.

And the Air Force would clearly like to have the option for repeating a vaccine mandate in the future.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's literally the only reason they'd want it vacated. If they had no intention of doing it again in the future, the request would be utterly pointless.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do any of you other racist gun nuts know the screen name Andrew Lester used at the Volokh Conspiracy?

That may be one more important issue this blog doesn’t find interesting. Or, at least, not nearly as interesting as transgender Muslim drag queens and lesbian sorority drama.

Carry on, clingers. And say a few extra prayers for Fox News, Donald Trump, Andrew Lester, the Jan. 6 Choir, and Clarence Thomas.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It's funny, you make these comments as if you've never heard of the massive chimp-out going on in Progressive Chicago.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I hear about a lot of things.

Like Gov. DeSantis musing about locating a prison next to Disney property to punish Disney for not being sufficiently bigoted toward gay Americans. I imagine the disingenuous right-wing assholes of Heterodox Academy embrace that proposal, because it would diversify that community, but the conservative cowards at this blog refrain from mentioning the issue. Or anything else Gov. DeSantis wouldn’t approve. Cowards.

Or like the damning evidence against Fox News — another prominent development this right-wing blog ignores (evidently because there is just so much important drag queen-lesbian-Muslim-transgender news to discuss). Cowards.

Or the Trump “did he rape her?” trial — another prominent defamation case this blog ignores. Cowards.

Or Clarence Thomas’ unfurling ethics issues, which the Volokh Conspirators lack the courage or character to address. Cowards.

Or the white gun nuts shooting black people through doors (for ringing a doorbell while black) and in cars (for driving on a driveway while black). This gun-loving, white, male blog publishes more vile racial slurs than it does words about those bigoted shootings. Bigot-hugging cowards.

You and these disaffected conservative law professors deserve each other. Cowards. Hypocrites. Bigots (or bigot-huggers). Culture war casualties. Losers awaiting replacement.

[Frank Drackman]

The "Replacement" that isn't happening Jerry?
OK, Jerry Sandusky was "Replaced" at Penn State, as was Joe Pa (the "Celestial" replacement)
And the "White Race-ist shoots innocent Black Teen for ringing doorbell" I'm sure that's just exactly how it happened. Of course, the homeowner was just following Senescent Joe's (please, Replacement allready!! even with Common-Law Harris) Advice to "Get a Shotgun! Fire a blast out the window!!!!"

and this latest "Mass Shooting" in Ali-Bama??
bunch of Afro-Amurican teens at a "Birthday Party" what could go wrong? (people bust on John Derbyshire, but his "The Talk" was pretty sensible advice)

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

My good deed for the day, maybe prevent a "Mass Shooting"

(10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.

(10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.

(10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot).

(10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks.

(10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.

(10f) Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians.

(10g) Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white.

(10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.

(10i) If accosted by a strange black in the street, smile and say something polite but keep moving.

Frank

[MaddogEngineer]

It's funny you pretend:
(a) only the other guys do bad things
(b) only the other guys news orgs/blogs/supporters fail to cover their side's malfeasance

[Aubrey LaVentana]

You "hear about a lot of things" but are distressed that none of the Conspirators want to indulge by posting their opinions about them, where your brilliant and sage comments on them can find the audience they deserve.

The solution usually offered by Pwogwessives is to "go build your own" weblog where you can hold forth. Or does Blogger vex you with its complexity?

[MikeNY]

How does this compare with SCOTUS’s GVR practice? As I vaguely recall it, does it not suggest that when a case becomes moot depriving a loser of an appeal the opinions below ought be vacated?

[John F. Carr]

If you want a statistical analysis you'll have to ask over at SCOTUS blog. My impression is difficult and important cases where the court has strong doubts about the decision below get undone.

I have heard of a state Supreme Court, probably California, taking the simpler step of ordering an appellate decision unpublished when the decision looks wrong but it's not worth the court's time to correct.

[Bruce Hayden]

The sad realty here is that this comes down to the power of the government to require that its military be poisoned for political and bureaucratic purposes. The mRNA vaccines were never safe, were minimally tested, should never have been approved, and were known not to prevent catching the virus by July of 2021. They are known to cause potentially fatal heart issues, which is the last thing that you want to force on AF (or any other) pilots. The demographics of the military services are that the virus poses negligible risk to the service members, while the risk of the vaccine is well above negligible.

So, why were the vaccines mandated for military personnel? They are dangerous to them, and provided no actual benefit. First, because the Administration could do so. They were flexing their muscles. Secondly, for the money. The FDA has shown itself completely corrupted, and captured by the companies it is supposed to protect us from. Those companies made many $Bilions$ through governments mandating vaccination by their ineffective, dangerous, occasionally fatal, vaccines.

[David Nieporent]

The mRNA vaccines have always been safe, have been the most heavily tested vaccines in history, and saved millions of lives. They do not cause "potentially fatal heart issues," except under such a loose definition of "potentially" as to be meaningless. Why are you such a lying troll?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The evidence gathered to date supports an association between mRNA COVID-19 vaccination and myocarditis or pericarditis; the risk appears highest for adolescent and young adult male individuals following dose 2, with symptom onset usually occurring within several days of vaccination.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/article-abstract/2793555

Weird how you don't know this, yet virtually everyone else does.

[Nige]

The association is there for a tiny percentage. Not exactly the thousands and thousands of vaccine dead that were predicted.

[Bruce Hayden]

No. It is likely that I personally knew 3 men around my age (~70) who died of vaccine induced heart issues. All three were very physically fit with good health. A fourth one works at a DOE lab, where administration of the barely tested mRNA gene therapy product vaccines was mandatory for continued employment. 200 Las Alamos PhDs quit over this. This guy couldn’t because of kids in college. After the first shot, he had chest pains. Went to the cardiologist. Anomalies were found. Requested an exemption. Denied. After second shot his heart blew up, to almost twice it’s previous size. After somewhat recovering, his employer required a booster. He again requested a waiver. Denied. He then requested a religious exemption. Denied. He then sued, and is still employed, pending resolution by the courts.

What you need to do is look at excess deaths, month by month, and compare them to waves of vaccinations (and to waves of the virus), and they line up pretty well. We aren’t talking hundreds, but hundreds of thousands of deaths. It’s not just heart attacks, of course, but also increased cancers, esp rapid spreading of long term cancers in remission, or people jumping from Stage I to IV in a couple days.

Keep this in mind, that when that Hollywood actor in a PSA is strumming his guitar and telling you to keep up your antibodies, the antibodies he is talking about are to the Wuhan variant spike proteins, obsolete since 12/21, when Omicron pushed out Delta in the US. Until the mRNA and the Wuhan variant spike proteins it generates, work their way out of your body, which often takes months, that is almost all that your Vaxed and Boosted immune system is doing, generating those Wuhan variant spike protein antibodies. Wherever the spikes from the vaccines end up in your body, the cells containing them are attacked and killed by your immune system.

[Bruce Hayden]

Ha! Ha! Ha!

They were never fully tested. In a stunning move, the FDA required post approval testing (because it was an Emergency! To get the vaccines out for some false scientific reason.) of the Pfizer mRNA gene therapy product vaccine they approved under EUA for myocarditis and pericarditis (only 2 of the better known side effects) starting in maybe March of 2021 and ending in June of 2022, with results due at the end of the year. Amazingly, the results have yet to be reported. Initially, the FDA couldn’t explain why no results. Later they admitted that Pfizer had requested a delay until June this year, and they had, of course, approved it.

One of the big breakthroughs was a stain that works on SARS-2 spike proteins. This has made finding them much easier. And they show up all over the place. And, yes, researchers can detect whether the patient has had COVID-19 recently. One of the scary things I have seen recently were photos of cancer cells aglow, chock full of stained spike proteins. They are also routinely found now in heart tissues of people who have died from myocarditis, pericarditis, etc.

Open your eyes. These vaccines ARE much more dangerous than the virus for many demographics.

[Nige]

Have you also seen the Hilary face-carving video?

[Sarcastr0]

One of the scary things I have seen recently were photos of cancer cells aglow, chock full of stained spike proteins. They are also routinely found now in heart tissues of people who have died from myocarditis, pericarditis, etc.

OK, you're totally around the bend.

[Bruce Hayden]

Keep Vaxing and Boosting yourself and all your loved ones. And there is decent probability that one of you is going to have vaccine side effects. Or, maybe the next time you fly, a recently Vaxed pilot is going to auger your plane as a result of a heart attack.

I might accuse you of naïveté, but won’t accuse you of lying. You might be. You might be an employee of Pfizer or the FDA. I don’t know, so have no basis for calling you a lier. As every attorney here probably knows, lying requires knowledge of the falsehood. You are, essentially, claiming that I know that my statements are false, by claiming that I am lying. Not just wrong, but intentionally wrong. And that would be an impossible proof problem for you, given the hundreds of articles I have posted in other fora on the dangers of the mRNA vaccines.

As for calling me a “troll”, while I know that you have been around here awhile, I think that I have likely been here longer. Back when blogs were brand new, both EV and I were participants on the Cyberia-L listserve group. He chided me for incivility on some post I had made, I noticed a link to his VC blog in his .sig, followed it, and discovered blogging and this blog. So, no, I don’t think that you have a factual basis for calling me a “troll” either.

[M L]

A short time ago the "medical establishment" considered that 10-15 years was the generally accepted time frame for evaluating vaccine safety.

[Sarcastr0]

I've heard there's been a bunch a research in vaccine development in said short time, ML.

I wonder if any previous assumptions were challenged?

[DaveM]

Honest question to the Rev: all your posts and comments feature the exact same low-wattage insults and name-calling. It seems very unusual behavior for a serious blog like the VC. What do you possibly hope to achieve by acting like a middle schooler? I'm pretty sure I've never seen anyone ever agree with you, not even once. Those who know your antics know to ignore you because you never deviate from your script. Those who don't know you give you pushback, until they get it.

So, what are you doing here? Why carry on like this, so consistently shite-posting and trolling, day after day? You can't be thinking you are changing minds. Is this just for the laughs?

[Nige]

I expect if there'd been an actual smallpox outbreak, they'd have kept it up.