Thanks for the detailed treatment on this subject. I see where you're coming from regarding the threat of losing the chevron defense as it could cascade to other regulatory agencies. However, the last two years have made me believe that there's more to lose at stake by keeping Chevron defense than their is to gain by keeping it. The federal agencies have shown abject incompetence and putting political popularity over science.
I'm on the same boat. As a conservationist, I'm a huge fan of Chevron when it's helped us keep air clean & ecosystems intact. However, COVID has revealed the perils of not imposing checks & balances on agency powers. As courts don't blindly defer to the Chief Executive in their interpretation of laws, perhaps we shouldn't blindly defer to executive agencies. Some open questions are: what checks and balances can we put in place? Will agencies be able to react quickly enough to our fast-changing society without Chevron deference?
Reviewing this 8 months later I return to your early statements that the Covid injections are, or were, "Safe and Effective."
The Thailand adolescent male RCT is a fine example of the unreliability of the "Safe" meme, as are any number of analyses of the VAERS database. Jessica Rose is excellent if you have not looked at her VAERS analyses.
For "effective" there are also many commentators who dispute this. I start withJoel Smalley <metatron.substack.com> who has some nice work on negative efficacy, but also read <amidwesterndoctor.substack.com> for a clinically informed picture. Or look at the Cleveland Clinic study on their 51,000 employees- the more shots you take, the more often you become ill.
I do agree with "Safe and Effective" from the point of view of the pharmaceutical companies- no liability and huge profits.
I wish to add one small observation to your legal analysis- the fact that the judgment was obtained in a Florida court is significant, as most "blue state" courts would likely have taken the CDC side without any other consideration.
Thanks for the detailed treatment on this subject. I see where you're coming from regarding the threat of losing the chevron defense as it could cascade to other regulatory agencies. However, the last two years have made me believe that there's more to lose at stake by keeping Chevron defense than their is to gain by keeping it. The federal agencies have shown abject incompetence and putting political popularity over science.
I'm on the same boat. As a conservationist, I'm a huge fan of Chevron when it's helped us keep air clean & ecosystems intact. However, COVID has revealed the perils of not imposing checks & balances on agency powers. As courts don't blindly defer to the Chief Executive in their interpretation of laws, perhaps we shouldn't blindly defer to executive agencies. Some open questions are: what checks and balances can we put in place? Will agencies be able to react quickly enough to our fast-changing society without Chevron deference?
^than there is to gain if we lose it.
Reviewing this 8 months later I return to your early statements that the Covid injections are, or were, "Safe and Effective."
The Thailand adolescent male RCT is a fine example of the unreliability of the "Safe" meme, as are any number of analyses of the VAERS database. Jessica Rose is excellent if you have not looked at her VAERS analyses.
For "effective" there are also many commentators who dispute this. I start withJoel Smalley <metatron.substack.com> who has some nice work on negative efficacy, but also read <amidwesterndoctor.substack.com> for a clinically informed picture. Or look at the Cleveland Clinic study on their 51,000 employees- the more shots you take, the more often you become ill.
I do agree with "Safe and Effective" from the point of view of the pharmaceutical companies- no liability and huge profits.
I wish to add one small observation to your legal analysis- the fact that the judgment was obtained in a Florida court is significant, as most "blue state" courts would likely have taken the CDC side without any other consideration.