You each did an exceptional job of packaging up so much meaningful information into your presentations, and I was grateful I took the time to join the Zoom call. I rarely have time to participate in opportunities like that but couldn’t resist such a terrific lineup.
Unfortunately, your presentation went mute for me partway through, Meryl, so I’m glad to have the video available so I can watch what I missed.
I saw that on the RSV Vaccine for pregnant moms. Disgusting. RSV was only a concern for premies previously but I knew when they started pushing that narrative it was the RSV vaccines they were working on. These people are greedy sick bastards.
Thank you. The Residence of "Care Homes" some information.
They are still vaccinating people in "care homes" According to CMS data https://data.cms.gov/
Week 8/6/23 had 14,541 facilities reporting % up to date with vaccination. Averaging all facilities - 62.3% of residents were considered up to date on vaccination and 25.72% of staff. Each facility is listed but the number of residence and staff included in the percentage at the facilities is not provided in this data set so it is not possible with this set to show on population basis. In Maine (84 facilities reported) the average was 70.2% of residence and 26.6% of staff . Florida (675 facilities reported) was 53.2% of residence and 21% of staff. Texas (1170 facilities) 49.96% of residence and 21.1% of staff. Only Puerto Rico (6 facilities) had more staff (43.5%) than residence (43.5%) up to date with vaccination. So what is considered "up to date" by CDC - that complicated information can be found at https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/pdfs/hps/covidvax/UpToDateGuidance-508.pdf
It looks like the purpose is to compare weekly residents hospitalized that were up to date with vaccination v. those not up to date. When you look at their data it looks like the vaccines are effective for keeping residents out of the hospital - UNTIL you look at how they define up to date. No info is given as to the vaccine status of those who died.
Out of curiosity I checked every state - it does not really line up with red/blue states - but not surprising since the control is probably more so federal than state. This is very disturbing - especially since the staff looks to be hesitant about continuing vaccination but don't seem to be as inhibited about vaccinating the residence. With influenza or C-19 it would probably be the staff that brings it to the residence - but none of these shots ever stopped transmission.
Does anyone feel that people who formerly were clueless are now questioning? It seems to me that there still are too many people ready to get vaxxed and masked and not question the validity. It seems the same people I know who refused to discuss it still don’t want to do so or the ones whose eyes may have slightly opened are focused on fears of nuclear war per Putin (another distraction/fear based) and can’t connect the dots and see the bigger picture.
Observations from VAERS for COVID-19 vaccines: miscarriages increased within a few days of immunization - 24 hours being the highest counts, fetal tropin levels elevated for a few fetuses - similar to myocarditis pathology. Model: a subset of pregnancies terminated by shots. Hypothesis: elevated histamine levels and other inflammatory molecules involved. Model: the same patterns of adverse events are likely for RSV mRNA vaccine and others based on mRNA and adenoviral platforms.
New RSV shots and their backstory. Royalties for the NIH scientists who designed the antigen, manufacturers shielded from liability as well as downstream.
Arbitrability Returns to the Supreme Court in Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., the Sequel
Arbitrability—or who decides what claims are subject to arbitration—is returning to the Supreme Court next week for the second time in as many years. The first time the matter reached the Court, the Supreme Court unanimously held that, where a contract clearly and unmistakably delegates questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator, a court cannot decide the issue in the first instance, even if the court thinks the argument for arbitration is “wholly groundless.” Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 524 (2019).
The issue has now returned to the Supreme Court following remand and a new decision by the Fifth Circuit. Archer & White Sales, Inc. v. Henry Schein, Inc., 935 F.3d 274 (5th Cir. 2019). On December 8, 2020, the Court will hear the case again, this time to decide “[w]hether a provision in an arbitration agreement that exempts certain claims from arbitration negates an otherwise clear and unmistakable delegation of questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator.”
This whirlwind of litigation justifying two trips to the Supreme Court all stems from the following language in the governing contract:
Disputes. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of North Carolina. Any dispute arising under or related to this Agreement (except for actions seeking injunctive relief and disputes relating to trademarks, trade secrets, or other intellectual property of [Schein]), shall be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance with the arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association [(AAA)]. The place of arbitration shall be in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Henry Schein, Inc., 139 S. Ct. at 528 (alterations in original).
Courts do not interpret such arbitration clauses on a blank slate. The Supreme Court has explained that, when confronted with an arbitration provision and a motion to compel arbitration, a court generally must consider two threshold issues: (1) is there a valid agreement to arbitrate and (2) is the dispute encompassed within the arbitration provision? Yet, these questions are not always for a court to decide. Parties can delegate these threshold issues to the arbitrator, as long as the parties “clearly and unmistakably” indicate their intent to do so. AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Commc’ns Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643, 649 (1986).
In determining whether the parties to an arbitration agreement have “clearly and unmistakably” indicated an intent to have the arbitrator decide arbitrability, courts have generally held that it is sufficient that the arbitration clause incorporates commercial rules that allow the arbitrator to decide threshold questions of arbitrability. For example, the arbitration clause in the Henry Schein case states that the arbitration shall be governed by the AAA rules. And the AAA rules provide that “[t]he arbitrator shall have the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, scope, or validity of the arbitration agreement or to the arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim.” AAA Commercial Arbitration R. 7(a). Based on this language, “[v]irtually every circuit to have considered the issue has determined that incorporation of the American Arbitration Association’s (AAA) arbitration rules constitutes clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability.” Oracle Am., Inc. v. Myriad Grp. A.G., 724 F.3d 1069, 1074 (9th Cir. 2013); see also Blanton v. Domino’s Pizza Franchising LLC, 962 F.3d 842, 846 (6th Cir. 2020) (collecting cases). Accordingly, courts have generally recognized that an arbitration clause referencing commercial arbitration rules, like the one here, requires an arbitrator to decide arbitrability.
The wrinkle here, however, is the carve out. Archer & White argues that referencing the AAA rules in the arbitration provision does not equate to delegating arbitrability to the arbitrator, let alone “clear and unmistakable” evidence of the intent to do so. Moreover, even if reference to the AAA rules was sufficient, Archer & White contends that the carve-out applies to decide whether the arbitrability of a claim is delegated to an arbitrator, not to the scope of the arbitration. Archer & White reads the arbitration provision and the associated carve-out to include two separate carve-outs: (1) “Except for actions seeking injunctive relief, the parties agree to resolve any dispute by binding arbitration”; and (2) “Except for actions seeking injunctive relief, the parties agree to arbitrate arbitrability.” (Brief for Respondent, at 27.) Thus, in Archer & White’s view, the clear and unmistakable intent of the parties was to exempt claims for injunctive relief from arbitration in total, with an arbitrator having no role at all.
Henry Schein disagrees. It argues that a carve-out provision, like the one in its contract with Archer & White, only operates to exempt claims for injunctive relief from arbitration and does not affect the scope of an otherwise valid delegation of questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator. Henry Schein notes that the contract in this case clearly and unmistakably delegates arbitrability to the arbitrator, at least as to most categories of disputes. Thus, what is at issue is not whether arbitrability was delegated but the scope of that delegation. But to answer that question, in Henry Schein’s view, would require a court to examine the substance of the claims and decide whether those claims are subject to arbitration—which is exactly what a court is not supposed to do if arbitrability is for an arbitrator to decide. In other words, allowing a court to decide the scope of an arbitrability delegation conflates arbitrability with whether a claim is arbitrable, even though those two questions are supposed to be separate.
I was on this Zoom call. There were 600 places, where was everyone?! Only 130 showed up, Dr Nass sent out the details she has just reached 1,000 paid subscribers, over 27,000 total subscribers... We are being kept apart.
One image declares the intent of NIH to rethink their approach, to date unsuccessful, of preventing certain diseases in children. Of course they mean to turn to pharma solutions, they will never consider diet and environmental poisons. And thus they will continue to squander taxpayer money and achieve nothing. Unless, of course, endangerment from drugs is intentional.
We're all getting bombarded with info so many of us have to be selective with what we pay attention to. I decided to at least watch the segment with Dr. Yeadon and he lays out the program so clearly. He makes me realize on a deeper level what I understood before but wasn't 100% convinced about ... the deception and the outright evil is so vast.
You each did an exceptional job of packaging up so much meaningful information into your presentations, and I was grateful I took the time to join the Zoom call. I rarely have time to participate in opportunities like that but couldn’t resist such a terrific lineup.
Unfortunately, your presentation went mute for me partway through, Meryl, so I’m glad to have the video available so I can watch what I missed.
I saw that on the RSV Vaccine for pregnant moms. Disgusting. RSV was only a concern for premies previously but I knew when they started pushing that narrative it was the RSV vaccines they were working on. These people are greedy sick bastards.
Thank you. The Residence of "Care Homes" some information.
They are still vaccinating people in "care homes" According to CMS data https://data.cms.gov/
Week 8/6/23 had 14,541 facilities reporting % up to date with vaccination. Averaging all facilities - 62.3% of residents were considered up to date on vaccination and 25.72% of staff. Each facility is listed but the number of residence and staff included in the percentage at the facilities is not provided in this data set so it is not possible with this set to show on population basis. In Maine (84 facilities reported) the average was 70.2% of residence and 26.6% of staff . Florida (675 facilities reported) was 53.2% of residence and 21% of staff. Texas (1170 facilities) 49.96% of residence and 21.1% of staff. Only Puerto Rico (6 facilities) had more staff (43.5%) than residence (43.5%) up to date with vaccination. So what is considered "up to date" by CDC - that complicated information can be found at https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/pdfs/hps/covidvax/UpToDateGuidance-508.pdf
It looks like the purpose is to compare weekly residents hospitalized that were up to date with vaccination v. those not up to date. When you look at their data it looks like the vaccines are effective for keeping residents out of the hospital - UNTIL you look at how they define up to date. No info is given as to the vaccine status of those who died.
Out of curiosity I checked every state - it does not really line up with red/blue states - but not surprising since the control is probably more so federal than state. This is very disturbing - especially since the staff looks to be hesitant about continuing vaccination but don't seem to be as inhibited about vaccinating the residence. With influenza or C-19 it would probably be the staff that brings it to the residence - but none of these shots ever stopped transmission.
Does anyone feel that people who formerly were clueless are now questioning? It seems to me that there still are too many people ready to get vaxxed and masked and not question the validity. It seems the same people I know who refused to discuss it still don’t want to do so or the ones whose eyes may have slightly opened are focused on fears of nuclear war per Putin (another distraction/fear based) and can’t connect the dots and see the bigger picture.
Observations from VAERS for COVID-19 vaccines: miscarriages increased within a few days of immunization - 24 hours being the highest counts, fetal tropin levels elevated for a few fetuses - similar to myocarditis pathology. Model: a subset of pregnancies terminated by shots. Hypothesis: elevated histamine levels and other inflammatory molecules involved. Model: the same patterns of adverse events are likely for RSV mRNA vaccine and others based on mRNA and adenoviral platforms.
New RSV shots and their backstory. Royalties for the NIH scientists who designed the antigen, manufacturers shielded from liability as well as downstream.
.
https://casetext.com/case/horowitz-v-pfizer-inc-2
And...December 3, 2020
Arbitrability Returns to the Supreme Court in Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., the Sequel
Arbitrability—or who decides what claims are subject to arbitration—is returning to the Supreme Court next week for the second time in as many years. The first time the matter reached the Court, the Supreme Court unanimously held that, where a contract clearly and unmistakably delegates questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator, a court cannot decide the issue in the first instance, even if the court thinks the argument for arbitration is “wholly groundless.” Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 524 (2019).
The issue has now returned to the Supreme Court following remand and a new decision by the Fifth Circuit. Archer & White Sales, Inc. v. Henry Schein, Inc., 935 F.3d 274 (5th Cir. 2019). On December 8, 2020, the Court will hear the case again, this time to decide “[w]hether a provision in an arbitration agreement that exempts certain claims from arbitration negates an otherwise clear and unmistakable delegation of questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator.”
This whirlwind of litigation justifying two trips to the Supreme Court all stems from the following language in the governing contract:
Disputes. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of North Carolina. Any dispute arising under or related to this Agreement (except for actions seeking injunctive relief and disputes relating to trademarks, trade secrets, or other intellectual property of [Schein]), shall be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance with the arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association [(AAA)]. The place of arbitration shall be in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Henry Schein, Inc., 139 S. Ct. at 528 (alterations in original).
Courts do not interpret such arbitration clauses on a blank slate. The Supreme Court has explained that, when confronted with an arbitration provision and a motion to compel arbitration, a court generally must consider two threshold issues: (1) is there a valid agreement to arbitrate and (2) is the dispute encompassed within the arbitration provision? Yet, these questions are not always for a court to decide. Parties can delegate these threshold issues to the arbitrator, as long as the parties “clearly and unmistakably” indicate their intent to do so. AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Commc’ns Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643, 649 (1986).
In determining whether the parties to an arbitration agreement have “clearly and unmistakably” indicated an intent to have the arbitrator decide arbitrability, courts have generally held that it is sufficient that the arbitration clause incorporates commercial rules that allow the arbitrator to decide threshold questions of arbitrability. For example, the arbitration clause in the Henry Schein case states that the arbitration shall be governed by the AAA rules. And the AAA rules provide that “[t]he arbitrator shall have the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, scope, or validity of the arbitration agreement or to the arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim.” AAA Commercial Arbitration R. 7(a). Based on this language, “[v]irtually every circuit to have considered the issue has determined that incorporation of the American Arbitration Association’s (AAA) arbitration rules constitutes clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability.” Oracle Am., Inc. v. Myriad Grp. A.G., 724 F.3d 1069, 1074 (9th Cir. 2013); see also Blanton v. Domino’s Pizza Franchising LLC, 962 F.3d 842, 846 (6th Cir. 2020) (collecting cases). Accordingly, courts have generally recognized that an arbitration clause referencing commercial arbitration rules, like the one here, requires an arbitrator to decide arbitrability.
The wrinkle here, however, is the carve out. Archer & White argues that referencing the AAA rules in the arbitration provision does not equate to delegating arbitrability to the arbitrator, let alone “clear and unmistakable” evidence of the intent to do so. Moreover, even if reference to the AAA rules was sufficient, Archer & White contends that the carve-out applies to decide whether the arbitrability of a claim is delegated to an arbitrator, not to the scope of the arbitration. Archer & White reads the arbitration provision and the associated carve-out to include two separate carve-outs: (1) “Except for actions seeking injunctive relief, the parties agree to resolve any dispute by binding arbitration”; and (2) “Except for actions seeking injunctive relief, the parties agree to arbitrate arbitrability.” (Brief for Respondent, at 27.) Thus, in Archer & White’s view, the clear and unmistakable intent of the parties was to exempt claims for injunctive relief from arbitration in total, with an arbitrator having no role at all.
Henry Schein disagrees. It argues that a carve-out provision, like the one in its contract with Archer & White, only operates to exempt claims for injunctive relief from arbitration and does not affect the scope of an otherwise valid delegation of questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator. Henry Schein notes that the contract in this case clearly and unmistakably delegates arbitrability to the arbitrator, at least as to most categories of disputes. Thus, what is at issue is not whether arbitrability was delegated but the scope of that delegation. But to answer that question, in Henry Schein’s view, would require a court to examine the substance of the claims and decide whether those claims are subject to arbitration—which is exactly what a court is not supposed to do if arbitrability is for an arbitrator to decide. In other words, allowing a court to decide the scope of an arbitrability delegation conflates arbitrability with whether a claim is arbitrable, even though those two questions are supposed to be separate.
The wheels on the bus go round and round
Thank you so much Dr. Nass for speaking on my program! You were fantastic. 💕 Your readers may benefit from this article too, where I’ve included many of your slides and Sasha’s slides. https://truth613.substack.com/p/recording-of-amazing-august-20-conference
Have you seen the latest Pfizer commercials?
"Pfizer- Outdo Yesterday". I saw it for some pill help deal with some shot that deals with some GMO related bodily reaction er other.
The gall of these knuckleheads.
Awesome zoom meeting! I love you guys, sincerely.
So far I've heard most of o Looney, discussing ropeworms and lockstep viruganda.
I couldn't read most of the Michael Yeadon with the crappy sound, but he was one of the first to warn. A saint.
Sasha is playing now, they save d you for last for the finale...
I was on this Zoom call. There were 600 places, where was everyone?! Only 130 showed up, Dr Nass sent out the details she has just reached 1,000 paid subscribers, over 27,000 total subscribers... We are being kept apart.
What a horror!
One image declares the intent of NIH to rethink their approach, to date unsuccessful, of preventing certain diseases in children. Of course they mean to turn to pharma solutions, they will never consider diet and environmental poisons. And thus they will continue to squander taxpayer money and achieve nothing. Unless, of course, endangerment from drugs is intentional.
FDA just approved pfizer's vaccine for RSV despite a 20% increase in PRETERM BIRTH in the dose group!
twitter thread by Dr Tracy Hoeg:
https://twitter.com/TracyBethHoeg/status/1693773037395730731
Fantastically excellent presentations. Watch and share. Thank you!
We're all getting bombarded with info so many of us have to be selective with what we pay attention to. I decided to at least watch the segment with Dr. Yeadon and he lays out the program so clearly. He makes me realize on a deeper level what I understood before but wasn't 100% convinced about ... the deception and the outright evil is so vast.
You were mentioned in this article and recognized as an expert Dr Nass.
https://www.sott.net/article/483745-We-wont-be-fooled-again