America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 2 years ago by Sunoverbeach. 60 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
Desantos will not follow SCOTUS ruling.
Speyside2 Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 11-11-2021
Posts: 2,397
https://www.news4jax.com/news/florida/2022/01/14/desantis-florida-wont-enforce-health-care-worker-vaccination-requirement/

Interesting to see how this plays out.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,453
Think

More people will be coming to Florida to live a free life.

Sounds more like a good thing.
HockeyDad Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,142
We already have a state mandate for our healthcare workers. Well prolly make ours have to get four shots to make up for the lack of jabs in Florida. Science.
RayR Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,898
It's NULLIFICATION Spey2! The HORROR of it HUH? It must make you MAD!Cursing

Nullify all unconstitutional federal dicktates! Tell em' to stick it up their arse!
MACS Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,800
Speyside2 wrote:
https://www.news4jax.com/news/florida/2022/01/14/desantis-florida-wont-enforce-health-care-worker-vaccination-requirement/

Interesting to see how this plays out.


Pretty much what the local sheriff said... screw your "mandates".
Sunoverbeach Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 14,669
I have many jokes about unemployed people. Sadly none of them work
bgz Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
I have no problem with states telling the feds to fk off with rules they don't agree with. Going against scotus though... there are rules to this sh*t, whether you like the rules or not.

I'm interested in how it plays out as well.
bgz Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Sunoverbeach wrote:
I have many jokes about unemployed people. Sadly none of them work


Which explains the incessant jokes.
RayR Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,898
bgz wrote:
I have no problem with states telling the feds to fk off with rules they don't agree with. Going against scotus though... there are rules to this sh*t, whether you like the rules or not.

I'm interested in how it plays out as well.


The SCOTUS is the feds. The SCOTUS is political, the SCOTUS makes opinions, they can't enforce laws and can not make laws.

“The States then being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them [the Constitution] be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.” - James Madison

Black-Robed Deities Ignore the Constitution Again
Thomas DiLorenzo

Quote:
Reading about the supreme court’s ruling that Senile Joe’s attempt to dictate injections of unknown chemical substances into the bodies of all employees of businesses with more than 100 employees (Repeat after me: “Our Bodies, Our Choice!”) is a no go, one thing stood out. According to news reports, the court’s argument was that yes, Congress has given OSHA vast regulatory powers, but not this one.

This suggests that anything is “constitutional” as long as a majority of Congress says so and the current president agrees. So all Congress now has to do, as long as the Pelosi/Schumer crime families are in charge, is to add a rider to say, a farm bill, that gives OSHA the power to administer forced injections of mysterious, unknown chemicals into every resident of the U.S. One wonders what James Madison would think of this.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/black-robed-deities-ignore-the-constitution-again/
Sunoverbeach Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 14,669
bgz wrote:
Which explains the incessant jokes.

That's why the weekday onslaught occurs around 4pm CST. Gotta keep up appearances
rfenst Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,336
RayR wrote:
It's NULLIFICATION Spey2! The HORROR of it HUH? It must make you MAD!Cursing

Nullify all unconstitutional federal dicktates! Tell em' to stick it up their arse!

Who do you believe has the authority too disregard SCOTUS rulings and from where/what is such authority derived?
rfenst Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,336
Speyside2 wrote:
https://www.news4jax.com/news/florida/2022/01/14/desantis-florida-wont-enforce-health-care-worker-vaccination-requirement/

Interesting to see how this plays out.

1) Motion for reconsideration- denied by SCOTUS;
2) Non-compliant medical care providers simply won't get paid their Medicare/Medicaid charges, which will financially choke them into compliance very quickly- because their cash flow, operating scales and entire business structures are dependent on regular Medicaid/Medicare payments;
3) If Desantis interferes in any way- there will be an immediate federal court order prohibiting him from interfering, which would would then be appealed to SCOTUS quickly. Scotus might even simply refuse to even hear the appealast, which would either refuse to even hear the case or rule on it against him immediately.
4) If he were to still refuse, I am sure the federal government would bear pressure by withdrawing aid and resources to quickly choke the state into compliance; and finally;
5) Should it ever come to it, the next step is serious coercion and then the use of force....

Federalism. SCOTUS ruled (fairly or not) and the matter is supposed to be fully and finally decided. Desantis wants this fight. It is raw meat for the national crowd. He could have no way out from his position and he will continue to complain and argue about it ad nauseum. Wonder if he'll ask FL to secede? LOL...

Deep South governors once refused school intervention and their supporters cheered. But, it didn't take long for the federal government to step in with force. I wonder if, taken to the extreme, this could kind of play-out in the same way. HE ONLY WON BY A MERE .4%, i.e. just 4/1Oths of one percent, which is anything but a plebiscite
bgz Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
I would put the court on a higher level than what would normally be considerred the feds. I would say if they rule on your state specifically, then it should be honored. And that's what makes this interesting... the blatant defiance... it's like a bad cliff hanger.... I really kinda want to see what happens next, but in the end I probably don't care.


RayR wrote:
The SCOTUS is the feds. The SCOTUS is political, the SCOTUS makes opinions, they can't enforce laws and can not make laws.

“The States then being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them [the Constitution] be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.” - James Madison

Black-Robed Deities Ignore the Constitution Again
Thomas DiLorenzo


Sunoverbeach Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 14,669
Nobody is completely useless. You can always be used as a bad example
HockeyDad Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,142
I can see Democrats being in favor of sending in the military to enforce vaccine mandates.
RayR Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,898
rfenst wrote:
Who do you believe has the authority too disregard SCOTUS rulings and from where/what is such authority derived?


You don't read so good for a lawyer otherwise you wouldn't keep asking me that same question.
It ain't your fault, they probably drummed into your head in lawyer school that the majority opinion of the robbed deities of the SCOTUS were the final arbiters of what is constitutional. Did they also ban you from reading Jefferson and Madison's Principles of '98 (The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions)?

Here's one of the greatest examples, a President as well as some states telling the SCOTUS to go pound sand.

States' Rights vs. Monetary Monopoly
By Thomas DiLorenzo

May 9, 2003

Quote:
The federal government today can wage wars without the consent of our congressional representatives, overthrow foreign governments, tax nearly half of national income, abolish civil liberty in the name of "homeland security" and "the war on drugs," legalize and endorse infanticide ("partial-birth abortion"), regulate nearly every aspect of our existence, and there’s little or nothing we can do about it. "Write your congressman" is the refrain of the slave to the state who doesn’t even realize he’s a slave (thanks to decades of government school brainwashing).

But Americans were not always slaves to federal tyranny. Perhaps the best illustration of this is how Americans once utilized the Jeffersonian, states’ rights traditions of nullification and interposition to assist President Andrew Jackson in his campaign to veto the re-chartering of the Second Bank of the United States (BUS) in 1832. Jackson essentially ended central banking in America until it was revived thirty years later by the Lincoln administration. The story is told in James J. Kilpatrick’s wonderful 1957 book, The Sovereign States: Notes of a Citizen of Virginia.

The Bank was notorious for fraud, mismanagement, corruption, and attempts to engineer a "political business cycle." Prior to 1861, the American people were still sovereign over their government. They exercised that sovereignty in the way the founders intended: through state political conventions or legislatures. The federal government was their agent.

More...

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2003/05/thomas-dilorenzo/states-rights-vs-tyranny/
bgz Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Sunoverbeach wrote:
Nobody is completely useless. You can always be used as a bad example


Why thank you kind sir, I take that as a complement... to what it completes though I'm not certain.
Sunoverbeach Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 14,669
No target intended. Just the next joke on the list.

Though if you feel complimented, I'm happy to have brightened your weekend
rfenst Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,336
RayR @ #16

Please just answer the question in your own words (no links or quotes from any one).

I want to know your personal thoughts off the top of your head, without you doing any research, or posting any links or quotes; no matter how long or short your answer may be and without ad hominem abusive so that I am not distracted by it.

I think this will help me better understand where you are "coming from."
RayR Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,898
rfenst wrote:
RayR @ #16

Please just answer the question in your own words (no links or quotes from any one).

I want to know your personal thoughts off the top of your head, without you doing any research, or posting any links or quotes; no matter how long or short your answer may be and without ad hominem abusive so that I am not distracted by it.

I think this will help me better understand where you are "coming from."


Why do you insist on not understanding the position?
It's an easily understood principle of federalism. If the parties to the constitution (the various states) consider federal laws which States solemnly regard as palpably unconstitutional then it is their right to express their opinion that the laws are void, and hence not laws at all. No one signed up to be part of the confederacy of sovereign states and resign their rights to any of the branches of the general government that might go rogue. The Supreme Court is no different from any of the other branches, it is not made up of angels, but made up of partisan political animals, and a majority of them may at times forget what their purpose is.

rfenst Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,336
RayR wrote:
Why do you insist on not understanding the position?
It's an easily understood principle of federalism. ..

If the parties to the constitution (the various states) consider federal laws which States solemnly regard as palpably unconstitutional then it is their right to express their opinion that the laws are void, and hence not laws at all. No one signed up to be part of the confederacy of sovereign states and resign their rights to any of the branches of the general government that might go rogue. The Supreme Court is no different from any of the other branches, it is not made up of angels, but made up of partisan political animals, and a majority of them may at times forget what their purpose is.


I understand federalism.

And, no. It is the states' right to pursuit new legislation or popular vote to create different laws or a constitutional amendments reversing SCOTUS rulings, not outright disregard SCOTUS rulings it finds unpalpable..

Again, if not SCOTUS in 98.2%+++ percent of it's cases, who else or what would be the final arbiter instead? Where would they derive their authority from?
delta1 Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,797
HockeyDad wrote:
I can see Republicans being in favor of sending in the military to enforce anti-1st Amendment curfews...anti-abortion mandates...voter suppression laws

fixed
delta1 Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,797
at one time, GOP was the self-appointed party of the Rule of Law and Law and Order, and nearly broke their arms patting themselves on the back for out-maneuvering Dems to allow Trump to appoint two SCOTUS Justices...

now some GOP want their cake and eat it too...screw the SCOTUS ...we don't have to listen to them, even if they are the highest law of the land...

GOP is now the party of authoritarians
Whistlebritches Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 22,128
delta1 wrote:
at one time, GOP was the self-appointed party of the Rule of Law and Law and Order, and nearly broke their arms patting themselves on the back for out-maneuvering Dems to allow Trump to appoint two SCOTUS Justices...

now some GOP want their cake and eat it too...screw the SCOTUS ...we don't have to listen to them, even if they are the highest law of the land...

GOP is now the party of authoritarians



What happened to states rights!!!

Has Sleepy Joe paid one bit of attention to SCOTUS???

Please by all means throw me some bullschit liberal spin..........I need a good laugh
delta1 Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,797
take a look in your bathroom mirror, Mr. Nutsack...



the US is a federal system and all states have rights but must abide by SCOTUS rules, which is the highest court and decides the law of the land...

what if a state enacts a law to disregard a SCOTUS decision...states have rights to enact such laws, but they can, and will be challenged and decided by................guess where?....SCOTUS

https://libguides.law.ucla.edu/c.php?g=686105&p=5160745
RayR Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,898
rfenst wrote:
I understand federalism.

And, no. It is the states' right to pursuit new legislation or popular vote to create different laws or a constitutional amendments reversing SCOTUS rulings, not outright disregard SCOTUS rulings it finds unpalpable..

Again, if not SCOTUS in 98.2%+++ percent of it's cases, who else or what would be the final arbiter instead? Where would they derive their authority from?


No one is disregarding SCOTUS opinions, either majority or minority opinions. They are opinions, not dicktates by activist judges legislating from the bench.
The idea that a majority opinion cannot be disputed and is a rubber stamp on legislation or the acts of the executive branch is an extremely dangerous idea.
A state can judge those opinions and make its own opinion as to whether there is an overreach of federal power or not.
A sovereign state in the republic is therefore a necessary check on the powers of the federal government.
They derive their authority by the fact that The United States of America was never designed as a singular entity with a top-down authoritarian government no matter what nationalists say to the contrary. The federal government as it is commonly called was designed to be a general government with limited powers to serve what they view as necessary specific functions for its creator, the various states. Who else then can be the final arbiters, but the states themselves?




rfenst Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,336
[quote=RayR]No one is disregarding SCOTUS opinions, either majority or minority opinions. They are opinions, not dicktates by activist judges legislating from the bench.
The idea that a majority opinion cannot be disputed and is a rubber stamp on legislation or the acts of the executive branch is an extremely dangerous idea.
A state can judge those opinions and make its own opinion as to whether there is an overreach of federal power or not.
A sovereign state in the republic is therefore a necessary check on the powers of the federal government.
They derive their authority by the fact that The United States of America was never designed as a singular entity with a top-down authoritarian government no matter what nationalists say to the contrary. The federal government as it is commonly called was designed to be a general government with limited powers to serve what they view as necessary specific functions for its creator, the various states. Who else then can be the final arbiters, but the states themselves?[/q]

How the U.S. was designed and imagined 250 years ago has nothing to do with the realities of today's world. It is worthy of study, consideration and maybe even change. But, it it no longer automatically meets the demands of reality and doesn't account for the history of change in this country (and the world) since then. Longstanding ideas do have their place, just not reflexively. Things change, chit happens. Welcome to reality.
rfenst Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,336
RayR wrote:
No one is disregarding SCOTUS opinions, either majority or minority opinions. They are opinions, not dicktates by activist judges legislating from the bench.
The idea that a majority opinion cannot be disputed and is a rubber stamp on legislation or the acts of the executive branch is an extremely dangerous idea.
A state can judge those opinions and make its own opinion as to whether there is an overreach of federal power or not.
A sovereign state in the republic is therefore a necessary check on the powers of the federal government.
They derive their authority by the fact that The United States of America was never designed as a singular entity with a top-down authoritarian government no matter what nationalists say to the contrary. The federal government as it is commonly called was designed to be a general government with limited powers to serve what they view as necessary specific functions for its creator, the various states. Who else then can be the final arbiters, but the states themselves?

How the U.S. was designed and imagined 250 years ago has nothing to do with the realities of today's world. It is worthy of study, consideration and maybe even change. But, it it no longer automatically meets the demands of reality and doesn't account for the history of change in this country (and the world) since then. Longstanding ideas do have their place, just not reflexively. Things change, chit happens. Welcome to reality.
rfenst Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,336
delta1 wrote:
at one time, GOP was the self-appointed party of the Rule of Law and Law and Order, and nearly broke their arms patting themselves on the back for out-maneuvering Dems to allow Trump to appoint two SCOTUS Justices...

now some GOP want their cake and eat it too...screw the SCOTUS ...we don't have to listen to them, even if they are the highest law of the land...

GOP is now the party of authoritarians

I don't know about R's being the the party of authoritarianism, but there sure is a lot of hypocrisy on this particular issue. You can't block the other side's appointment(s), make your own instead and then complain about it afterwards. What a bunch of pu$$ies.
RayR Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,898
rfenst wrote:
How the U.S. was designed and imagined 250 years ago has nothing to do with the realities of today's world. It is worthy of study, consideration and maybe even change. But, it it no longer automatically meets the demands of reality and doesn't account for the history of change in this country (and the world) since then. Longstanding ideas do have their place, just not reflexively. Things change, chit happens. Welcome to reality.


We can see the realities of today, how franked up things are when age-old principles have been discarded for short-sighted greed for political power. Those fundamental principles cannot be repealed any more than the law of gravity.
Speyside2 Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 11-11-2021
Posts: 2,397
Cooper v. Aaron (1958)
Holding: States cannot nullify decisions of the federal courts.

Several government officials in southern states, including the governor and legislature of Alabama, refused to follow the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision. They argued that the states could nullify federal court decisions if they felt that the federal courts were violating the Constitution. The Court unanimously rejected this argument and held that only the federal courts can decide when the Constitution is violated.

Ramble on Ray.
Speyside2 Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 11-11-2021
Posts: 2,397
Robert, could DeSantis be charged and convicted for contempt?
RayR Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,898
Speyside2 wrote:
Cooper v. Aaron (1958)
Holding: States cannot nullify decisions of the federal courts.

Several government officials in southern states, including the governor and legislature of Alabama, refused to follow the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision. They argued that the states could nullify federal court decisions if they felt that the federal courts were violating the Constitution. The Court unanimously rejected this argument and held that only the federal courts can decide when the Constitution is violated.

Ramble on Ray.


Oh ya, that's an old one. Tom Woods covered that one way back as well as other such foolishness in this article Demolishing Critics and Smearians

The Supreme Court declared itself infallible in 1958

Quote:
The obscure obiter dicta of Cooper v. Aaron (1958) is sometimes raised against nullification. Here the Supreme Court expressly declared its statements to have exactly the same status as the text of the Constitution itself. But no matter what absurd claims the Court makes for itself, Madison's point above holds – the very structure of the system, and the very nature of the federal Union, logically require that the principals to the compact possess a power to examine the constitutionality of federal laws. Given that the whole argument involves who must decide such questions in the last resort, citing the Supreme Court against it begs the whole question – indeed, it should make us wonder if those who answer this way even understand the question.


https://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/02/thomas-woods/demolishing-critics-and-smearians/
HockeyDad Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,142
Speyside2 wrote:
Robert, could DeSantis be charged and convicted for contempt?


Why? It’s not Florida’s responsibility to enforce a rule from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. They need to go enforce it.

At some point this whole “Jail the opposition” movement is going to get serious.
RayR Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,898
Like "charged and convicted for contempt"...of what? By not agreeing to enforce a clearly unconstitutional edict?
Speyside2 Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 11-11-2021
Posts: 2,397
Guess what, it's the law Ray10.
Speyside2 Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 11-11-2021
Posts: 2,397
Where as Lew Rockwell is an opinion, you lose.
Speyside2 Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 11-11-2021
Posts: 2,397
Oh great constitutional scholar, where are your law degrees from, and what think tanks are you a part of? Did you clerk for any scotus judge?
RayR Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,898
Speyside2 wrote:
Oh great constitutional scholar, where are your law degrees from, and what think tanks are you a part of? Did you clerk for any scotus judge?


You don't need a law degree to understand them wurds dummy.
I know peeps with law degrees that don't understand wurds, usually on purpose because it doesn't fit their weaselly agenda. See Biden administration, even Supreme Court justices.
Speyside2 Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 11-11-2021
Posts: 2,397
I consider Alan Dershowitz our greatest constitutional scholar. He disagrees with you Ray.

https://www.newsweek.com/were-supreme-courts-decisions-vaccine-mandates-correct-opinion-1669495

Alan Dershowitz wrote this as you will see at the bottom. I fully agree with his reasoning.
RayR Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,898
Speyside2 wrote:
I consider Alan Dershowitz our greatest constitutional scholar. He disagrees with you Ray.

https://www.newsweek.com/were-supreme-courts-decisions-vaccine-mandates-correct-opinion-1669495

Alan Dershowitz wrote this as you will see at the bottom. I fully agree with his reasoning.


"the Constitution may well permit different rules for different states, especially if Congress does not act to federalize the issue of vaccine mandates."

Your "greatest constitutional scholar" Dershowitz is being wishy-washy here.
The Constitution does not have to permit anything, the states retained their sovereignty as they stated in 10th Amendment and can make their own rules as long as they don't violate their state constitutions and/or really piss off their peeps to revolt. Like DUH! The states created the constitution to regulate the powers of the federal government, not vise versa!

Congress federalizing vaccine mandates is unconstitutional on its face.
MACS Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,800
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9WdhoiFFSo

Pretty good watch...
Sunoverbeach Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 14,669
When ordering at a restaurant, my wife asked what they do to prepare the chicken. "Nothing special," said the waiter. "We just tell them they're going to die."
rfenst Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,336
Speyside2 wrote:
Robert, could DeSantis be charged and convicted for contempt?

If he disregards a specific court order addressed to him without properly objecting or appealing it and is therefore found to be in contempt, then yes, absolutely. But, it won't ever happen.
RayR Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,898
MACS wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9WdhoiFFSo

Pretty good watch...


But he's mean to the Fauchists and he's on their hit list!
They say he spreads "misinformation that's dangerous to the COVID industrial complex!
He was banned from Twitter!
He was on Joe Rogan and they say he was spreading misinformation and they want him CENSORED!!
He has gray hair and a beard! Argh!

The Defenestration of Dr. Robert Malone
By John Mac Ghlionn January 6, 2022

Quote:
Dr. Robert Malone is a U.S. virologist and immunologist who has dedicated his professional existence to the development of mRNA vaccines.

In the 1980s, Malone worked as a researcher at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, where he conducted studies on messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology. In the early 1990s, Malone collaborated with Jon A. Wolff and Dennis A. Carson, two eminent scientists, on a study that involved synthesization.

In fact, Malone is the father of mRNA vaccines. He has served as an adjunct associate professor of biotechnology at Kennesaw State University, and he co-founded Atheric Pharmaceutical, a company that was contracted by the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases in 2016.

As you can see, Malone is no ordinary man. In fact, he’s a rather extraordinary man. Before embarking on a distinguished career in science, Malone worked as a carpenter and as a farmhand. Becoming a doctor was a lofty aspiration, but through hard work and determination, his dream became a reality. Over the course of three decades, Malone has established himself as one of the most competent people in the fields of virology and immunology.

Why, then, is he considered “a pariah” (in his own words) by so many of his peers? Why did Twitter recently suspend his account?

Malone is arguably among the most qualified people in the world to speak on what we as a society should and shouldn’t be doing during the pandemic. Yet for reasons that will become abundantly clear, he finds himself ostracized, largely silenced, and cut off from the scientific community. Why?

Two months before his Twitter account was suspended, Malone wrote a rather prophetic Twitter post:

“I am going to speak bluntly,” he wrote. “Physicians who speak out are being actively hunted via medical boards and the press. They are trying to delegitimize us and pick us off one by one.”

He finished by warning that this is “not a conspiracy theory” but “a fact.” He urged us all to “wake up.”

MORE...

https://brownstone.org/articles/the-defenestration-of-dr-robert-malone/

.

Speyside2 Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 11-11-2021
Posts: 2,397
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w

This is a pretty good history of MRNA. Anyone who thinks Malone is the one to believe might want to read this article in it's entirety. I'll leave it at that.
HockeyDad Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,142
“Those experiments were a stepping stone towards two of the most important and profitable vaccines in history: the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines given to hundreds of millions of people around the world. Global sales of these are expected to top US$50 billion in 2021 alone.”

Nice!
BuckyB93 Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 14,209
Science!

I think Walmart will be offering a free oil change while you wait for getting your booster.
BuckyB93 Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 14,209
Four Tee NINE!
DrMaddVibe Offline
#50 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,453
Speyside2 wrote:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w

This is a pretty good history of MRNA. Anyone who thinks Malone is the one to believe might want to read this article in it's entirety. I'll leave it at that.



Whew, they sure mentioned him a whole lot in that article.

In late 1987, Robert Malone performed a landmark experiment. He mixed strands of messenger RNA with droplets of fat, to create a kind of molecular stew. Human cells bathed in this genetic gumbo absorbed the mRNA, and began producing proteins from it

Realizing that this discovery might have far-reaching potential in medicine, Malone, a graduate student at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, later jotted down some notes, which he signed and dated. If cells could create proteins from mRNA delivered into them, he wrote on 11 January 1988, it might be possible to “treat RNA as a drug”. Another member of the Salk lab signed the notes, too, for posterity. Later that year, Malone’s experiments showed that frog embryos absorbed such mRNA. It was the first time anyone had used fatty droplets to ease mRNA’s passage into a living organism.

But the path to success was not direct. For many years after Malone’s experiments, which themselves had drawn on the work of other researchers, mRNA was seen as too unstable and expensive to be used as a drug or a vaccine. Dozens of academic labs and companies worked on the idea, struggling with finding the right formula of fats and nucleic acids — the building blocks of mRNA vaccines.

Today’s mRNA jabs have innovations that were invented years after Malone’s time in the lab, including chemically modified RNA and different types of fat bubble to ferry them into cells (see ‘Inside an mRNA COVID vaccine’). Still, Malone, who calls himself the “inventor of mRNA vaccines”, thinks his work hasn’t been given enough credit. “I’ve been written out of history,” he told Nature.

Malone’s experiments didn’t come out of the blue. As far back as 1978, scientists had used fatty membrane structures called liposomes to transport mRNA into mouse3 and human4 cells to induce protein expression. The liposomes packaged and protected the mRNA and then fused with cell membranes to deliver the genetic material into cells. These experiments themselves built on years of work with liposomes and with mRNA; both were discovered in the 1960s (see ‘The history of mRNA vaccines’).

Years later, Malone followed the Harvard team’s tactics to synthesize mRNA for his experiments. But he added a new kind of liposome, one that carried a positive charge, which enhanced the material’s ability to engage with the negatively charged backbone of mRNA. These liposomes were developed by Philip Felgner, a biochemist who now leads the Vaccine Research and Development Center at the University of California, Irvine.

Despite his success using the liposomes to deliver mRNA into human cells and frog embryos, Malone never earned a PhD. He fell out with his supervisor, Salk gene-therapy researcher Inder Verma and, in 1989, left graduate studies early to work for Felgner at Vical, a recently formed start-up in San Diego, California. There, they and collaborators at the University of Wisconsin–Madison showed that the lipid–mRNA complexes could spur protein production in mice7. (Malone and his Vical coworkers also explored using mRNA for vaccines: their early patent filings describe injecting mRNA coding for HIV proteins into mice, and observing some protection against infection, although not the production of specific immune cells or molecules; this work was never published in a peer-reviewed journal).

Malone contends that Verma and Vical struck a back-room deal so that the relevant intellectual property went to Vical. Malone was listed as one inventor among several, but he no longer stood to profit personally from subsequent licensing deals, as he would have from any Salk-issued patents. Malone’s conclusion: “They got rich on the products of my mind.”

Verma and Felgner categorically deny Malone’s charges. “It’s complete nonsense,” Verma told Nature. The decision to drop the patent application rested with the Salk’s technology-transfer office, he says. (Verma resigned from the Salk in 2018, following allegations of sexual harassment, which he continues to deny.)

Malone left Vical in August 1989, citing disagreements with Felgner over “scientific judgment” and “credit for my intellectual contributions”. He completed medical school and did a year of clinical training before working in academia, where he tried to continue research on mRNA vaccines but struggled to secure funding. (In 1996, for example, he unsuccessfully applied to a California state research agency for money to develop a mRNA vaccine to combat seasonal coronavirus infections.) Malone focused on DNA vaccines and delivery technologies instead.

In 2001, he moved into commercial work and consulting. And in the past few months, he has started publicly attacking the safety of the mRNA vaccines that his research helped to enable. Malone says, for instance, that proteins produced by vaccines can damage the body’s cells and that the risks of vaccination outweigh the benefits for children and young adults — claims that other scientists and health officials have repeatedly refuted.

Karikó had toiled in the lab throughout the 1990s with the goal of transforming mRNA into a drug platform, although grant agencies kept turning down her funding applications. In 1995, after repeated rejections, she was given the choice of leaving UPenn or accepting a demotion and pay cut. She opted to stay and continue her dogged pursuit, making improvements to Malone’s protocols, and managing to induce cells to produce a large and complex protein of therapeutic relevance.

Although some involved in mRNA’s development, including Malone, think they deserve more recognition, others are more willing to share the limelight. “You really can’t claim credit,” says Cullis. When it comes to his lipid delivery system, for instance, “we’re talking hundreds, probably thousands of people who have been working together to make these LNP systems so that they’re actually ready for prime time.”

This article plus the other research I've done on Malone doesn't detract from what he has been saying all along.

Does anyone even know the name of the man that made space travel possible? Can it be surmised down to one man, or like this mRNA does it take many solid contributors to see the dream to completion? Discounting one of them is a disservice and especially when one helped create a key component and didn't get the "fruits" of his labor, well even I can see that would make someone jaded. I'm more interested in what he did and what he knows than to dispose of his work like a used Kleenex.

I wonder how many here have taken the time to actually listen to his discussion with Joe Rogan? Not gonna hear that on CNN.
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
2 Pages12>