My wife finally got the call. She has to get her first vaccine by December. He all but told her to fill out a religious exemption and they wouldn't question it. She's not sure if she wants to or not, because she doesn't want to lie. The best example that doesn't feel like lying is, "I feel like God has given my sovereignty over my body, and I don't believe this is the best choice for me." They had that as an example she could use when she got her form. I don't know, man... this whole thing is so stupid.

I have until Monday end of day to get my vaccine or I will be placed on unpaid Administrative Leave for 30 days to comply. After 30 days without compliance I will be terminated. It's for the flu shot and been this way for 20 years now, but no one ever thought they should sue their way out of doing it. Strange times.

Don't be daft.

---

It's was recommended by the CDC that HCW receive the flu shot in 1984. It didn't start becoming mandated until 2009. As of 2012, only 66% of workers took it voluntarily, but that's probably because so many people still remembered the failed mandatory vaccine program in the 70's. They tried to eliminate swine flu, but too many people developed Guillain-Barré syndrome, so they shut it down. They went back to the drawing board, and after 35 years of good data, they started to mandate it in hospitals. When the covid vaccine has been in use for 20 years, let's talk about making it mandatory. You don't force people to take a brand new drug. It's [BLEEP] dumb. You should know better.

---

My wife finally got the call. She has to get her first vaccine by December. He all but told her to fill out a religious exemption and they wouldn't question it. She's not sure if she wants to or not, because she doesn't want to lie. The best example that doesn't feel like lying is, "I feel like God has given my sovereignty over my body, and I don't believe this is the best choice for me." They had that as an example she could use when she got her form. I don't know, man... this whole thing is so stupid.

Because she follows the science?

She's had Covid, for starters. She knows how her body reacted to it. She knows that young, healthy people are not likely to die from Covid and that natural immunity is better than vaccination. She knows that people with the vaccine still spread it. She knows that the reduction benefit offered by this vaccine to her patients is almost 0%. She knows that the efficacy of the vaccine lasts for 3 months before dropping off to zero. She knows the pharmaceutical industry constantly fudges numbers for profit (she's seen it in her own field). She knows that the CDC's studies that contradict any of this information are seriously flawed. She knows there's a very small risk of complication with the vaccine, which even small, seems like an unnecessary risk at this point in the pandemic. She knows that it's pointless to take a vaccine in December, since our Covid season seems to be July-Sept. She knows she almost died from a response to a vaccine (albeit very different in function) when she was a kid.

She doesn't know what the long-term effects of the vaccine are, because there have been no studies. She doesn't know the bio-distribution pattern of the mRNA vaccine, because they haven't measured it except in a study that substituted the mRNA with an mRNA substitute (which was basically the formula used in traditional vaccines). She doesn't know how future mutations of the virus will interact with the vaccine. She doesn't know how often she is going to be required to get vaccinated once she takes the shot. She doesn't know how her body will react to the shot.

I mean, think about that for a second... you guys are taking a shot that last about 3 months before dropping to almost zero efficacy. They are having you take it with no purpose or regard for the "covid season." She has to take a shot, right now, to hit a mandate, when she should really be taking in in late June. She might have to start injecting this vaccine into her body on the regular, which, even though it's a small risk, becomes multiplicative the more you have to do it.

There are so many [BLEEP] up things about the way we are rolling this out. It's botched beyond belief. I'm ok with the mandate for healthcare workers, but not until we've had a chance to answer the unknowns about this vaccine.

---

Please review the previous 300 pages in this thread for your answer.

Or this. I did my best to summarize.

What they aren't telling you is a religious exemption can basically be anything. It doesn't have to be part of a religious organization. Atheist have used it in the past and it has been upheld. All you have to do is state why to believe it is against your beliefs, either religious or moral. I would stay away from anything saying you don't believe the science or government though. They can deny it for that.

I used 3 areas in mine to ensure they couldn't play games with the fetal cell lines part. I used fetal cell lines, God creating our bodies and being his temple, and then God providing wisdom. The wisdom part is a key shutdown for anything they try. I used scripture about man being fools in God's eyes and had to tone it down and not say Fauci and "science" are fools. They cannot deny anything though if you say you asked God for wisdom and believe you should not take it.


Depending on the company, there will be several questions meant to get you to deny yourself but those are coming from the government and the right answers have been provided by several lawyers. PM me if you want some samples.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

My wife finally got the call. She has to get her first vaccine by December. He all but told her to fill out a religious exemption and they wouldn't question it. She's not sure if she wants to or not, because she doesn't want to lie. The best example that doesn't feel like lying is, "I feel like God has given my sovereignty over my body, and I don't believe this is the best choice for me." They had that as an example she could use when she got her form. I don't know, man... this whole thing is so stupid.

I have until Monday end of day to get my vaccine or I will be placed on unpaid Administrative Leave for 30 days to comply. After 30 days without compliance I will be terminated. It's for the flu shot and been this way for 20 years now, but no one ever thought they should sue their way out of doing it. Strange times.

Actually there have been and they won some cases. Medical and religious exemptions have to be provided.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/scien...hapter-one

This is a long, but interesting read. FSG, you should read it.

---

Wonderful tweet. Who can rebate?

Simultaneously trying to sell the 3rd and 4th shots to people who took the first 2 or 3, whilst trying to sell the 1st one as 'highly effective' to people who have taken zero, is a bold strategy.

---

Big Ben is vaxxed. Missing a game, LMAO

---

Imagine being vaccinated and them telling you can't play.

The Gruden lawsuit can't come fast enough. These demons deserve their fate.

---

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/scien...hapter-one

This is a long, but interesting read. FSG, you should read it.

Just read chapter one. It is interesting and all the points hit logically so far. 

I am definitely in the vaccine hesitant group as described by the author, but I wouldn't get it anyway because I don't react well to vaccines. 

I really wish there was an actual alternate reality in which we could see how the masses would react had Trump won reelection. I have a feeling the left would still be anti-vaxx and the right would embrace it. The complete opposite of our actual reality. People like you and me, the vaccine hesitant, would still be vaccine hesitant because we don't make decisions based on what politicians, celebrities or the various forms of media are telling us. The politics of it all complicates the whole thing a great deal. You have to wonder if this would have been politicized so much under a less polarizing figure than Trump because he is what started the left howling.

---

Wait until you get to chapter 2. It starts off kind of slow, but as soon as he starts going into how many times these companies have been sued, it becomes very clear there is a problem. The FDA and big pharma are corrupt, and have consistently put profits ahead of patient interest. They have been sued multiple times for misleading and endangering the public when it comes to prescription drugs, but people like FSG would have me believe they won't do it in the one area they can't be sued? Lol, yeah right.

---

I wish more people here would actually read something.

---

I'll just post the best part of Chapter 2 here. This is such a problem, and people are lining up, based on blind trust of these insitutions:

These suspicions heightened in the 2000s, as key physicians began revealing to the public that Big Pharma had been involved in a number of major abuses of its relationships with government, patients, physicians, and journals. One of the first to break this story was Marcia Angell, who had been editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, arguably the most important medical journal in the United States at the time. In her 2004 book, The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It, she argued that the companies spent far more on marketing, administration, public relations, and rebranding than they did on research, and that they actually discovered very few new effective drugs. Instead, they used “lures, bribes, and kickbacks,” to get drugs taken up by physicians. Angell showed how these companies penetrated medical schools, conventions, and organizations, often passing off marketing as “education,” which they provided free of charge.

More to the point, Angell argued that government agencies were highly compromised. She demonstrated how conflicts of interest permeated the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which gave “expedited” reviews and approvals for drugs with major side effects like heart attacks and stroke (such as Vioxx and Celebrex), and some with no serious benefit. Angell also revealed that “many members of the FDA advisory committees were paid consultants for drug companies. Although they were supposed to excuse themselves from decisions when they have a financial connection with the company that makes the drug in question, that rule is regularly waived.” She documented multiple instances of committee members discussing decisions on safety violations committed by the very companies that paid them, from which they did not recuse themselves.

Angell’s book, which was published to great acclaim, was impossible to dismiss as fringe. “Dr. Angell’s case is tough, persuasive, and troubling,” claimed The New York Times. Publisher’s Weekly wrote: “In what should serve as the Fast Food Nation of the drug industry, Angell … presents a searing indictment of ‘big pharma’ as corrupt and corrupting.” Over the next few years, the kinds of abuses she documented made it to the courts. As these trials became public, Americans who suffered from serious side effects caused by the drugs involved took notice.

In 2012, physician Ben Goldacre of Oxford University published Bad Pharma, in which he explored fraud settlements for pharmaceutical companies covering up known adverse events, including lethal ones, and hiding information, including about safety. The book’s subtitle—How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients—was key: Physicians often didn’t know the wool was being pulled over their eyes, or what had been kept from them. But when the practices of large pharmaceutical companies were examined in the courts, with internal documents reviewed, one illegal activity after another was revealed. Goldacre’s list makes one shudder:

“Pfizer was fined $2.3 billion for promoting the painkiller Bextra, later taken off the market over safety concerns, at dangerously high doses (misbranding it with ‘the intent to defraud or mislead’) … the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the US, until it was beaten by GSK [GlaxoSmithKline].” [...]
“In July 2012, GSK received a $3 billion fine for civil and criminal fraud, after pleading guilty to a vast range of charges around unlawful promotion of prescription drugs, and failure to report safety data.” [...]
“Abbot was fined $1.5 billion in May 2012, over the illegal promotion of Depakote.” [...]
“Eli Lilly was fined $1.4 billion in 2009.” [...]
“AstraZeneca was fined $520 million in 2010.” [...]
“Merck was fined $1 billion in 2011.”
After Goldacre’s book was published, the fines kept coming. Johnson & Johnson was made to pay $2.2 billion in 2013, which included, according to the Justice Department, “criminal fines” for having “jeopardized the health and safety of patients and damaged the public trust”; in 2019, the company was fined another $572 million for its role in the opioid epidemic, and then fined a whopping $8 billion by a jury in a different case—an amount that will no doubt be reduced, but which signals public outrage at the violations.

These huge fines, year after year, involve popular drugs taken by tens of millions of patients, with negative effects—including death. Stories of devastation have become lore in many families and communities. The circle of concern is even wider if you include those who may not have been personally affected, but are aware of this problematic legal history. When you personally take a medication, you tend to notice news about it, especially bad news. Whether or not you’ve experienced any negative effects yourself, you are naturally alert to their existence. Each time a Big Pharma company is in the courts and in the media because of some problem, the seeds of skepticism are planted in the minds of many Americans.

And not just skepticism of the companies themselves. The transgressions mentioned above were only possible on such a scale because of a textbook case of regulatory capture, consisting of a mixture of perverse incentives and priorities, a tolerance for nontransparency, and, in some cases, a culture of collusion. The FDA bills Big Pharma $800 million a year, which in turn helps pay FDA salaries. Regulators also often get jobs in the pharmaceutical industry shortly after leaving the FDA or similar bodies; there is a huge incentive to impress, and certainly not to cross, a potential future employer.

It’s useful to see how this works by examining a case that became famous as a tale of epic greed and corruption, and in which patients and physicians were misled and deceived, only after patients, families, activists, and even whole communities yelled themselves hoarse about it for years.

In 1995, the FDA approved Oxycontin for short-term serious pain, like terminal cancer or postoperative pain. This approval was based on legitimate scientific studies related to these narrow experiences. The FDA then made it available for minor pains, with around-the-clock daily usage, in 2001. That approval (for long-term use) was not based on any studies. According to a 60 Minutes report in 2019: “Equally suspicious but legal [was] the large number of key FDA regulators who went through the revolving door to jobs with drug manufacturers.”

The opioid epidemic has, to date, left half a million Americans dead.

This same compromised regulatory system allows Big Pharma to pay for, and play a key role in performing, the very studies that lead to the authorization of its own products. For decades, it was not just common for authors of studies to receive payments from the very companies making the medicines being tested; it was also systematically hidden. Drug companies secretly ghostwrote studies of their own drugs; Goldacre shows how they conscripted academics to pretend they had authored them. The papers were then submitted to mainstream journals, whose imprimatur would give the studies credibility, allowing these drugs to become the “standard of practice.”

Sixteen of the 20 papers reporting on the clinical trials conducted on Vioxx—the anti-inflammatory and pain medication that got FDA approval in 1999, then was taken off the market in 2004 for causing heart attacks and strokes—were ghostwritten by Merck employees, then signed by respected scientists. Merck ultimately agreed to pay out $4.9 billion in Vioxx lawsuits. The academics who lent their names to the studies could then stuff their CVs with these articles, receive promotions and higher salaries within academia, and ultimately get more consulting fees from pharmaceutical companies, at which point they are seen as “experts” by a trusting public.

In the current regulatory environment, companies run the studies of their own products. A Danish study found that 75% of drug company self-studies assessed were ghostwritten. A leading U.S. editor of a specialist journal estimated that 33% of articles submitted to his journal were ghostwritten by drug companies. These impostures don’t get adequately investigated by Congress because the pharmaceutical and health industries are now the highest-paying lobby in the country, having doled out at least $4.5 billion in the last two decades to politicians of both parties. “Pfizer’s PAC has been the most active,” STAT reporter Lev Facher writes, “sending 548 checks to various lawmakers and other industry groups—more checks than the actual number of elected officials in the House and Senate.”

While Goldacre’s book shows the many ways that drug studies have been rigged to deliver certain outcomes, one doesn’t always have to rig a study to get the same result. Among the most common techniques is to delay the reporting of medication side effects until after the patent runs out—and then use the bad publicity to sell a new replacement medication, which is still on patent.

Polls repeatedly show that the chief concern among the vaccine hesitant is about side effects, or at least effects that don’t show up right away. The latest edition of the standard textbook in the field, Plotkin’s Vaccines, has an excellent chapter on vaccine safety, which notes: “Because reactions that are rare, delayed, or which occur in only certain subpopulations may not be detected before vaccines are licensed, postlicensure evaluation of vaccine safety is critical.” Postlicensure first requires FDA approval, so for most vaccines that means more follow-up after the typical two-year approval process—at least several years of it.

In 2018, The New York Times’ pro-vaccine science writer, Melinda Wenner Moyer, noted with shock that she learned it was not uncommon among vaccine researchers to take the attitude that censoring bad news about their research was necessary, and that some who didn’t were ostracized by their peers:

As a science journalist, I’ve written several articles to quell vaccine angst and encourage immunization. But lately, I’ve noticed that the cloud of fear surrounding vaccines is having another nefarious effect: It is eroding the integrity of vaccine science. In February I was awarded a fellowship by the nonpartisan Alicia Patterson Foundation to report on vaccines. Soon after, I found myself hitting a wall. When I tried to report on unexpected or controversial aspects of vaccine efficacy or safety, scientists often didn’t want to talk with me. When I did get them on the phone, a worrying theme emerged: Scientists are so terrified of the public’s vaccine hesitancy that they are censoring themselves, playing down undesirable findings and perhaps even avoiding undertaking studies that could show unwanted effects. Those who break these unwritten rules are criticized.
Moyer went on to quote authorities who argue that smaller studies, and even inconclusive ones, often give us the first glimpse of an insight or problem. And this is to say nothing of the wider issue: If scientists play down their undesirable findings in potentially mandated medicines, as Moyer found them to be doing, they are not just missing opportunities for good science; they are potentially generating anti-scientific misinformation. “Vaccine scientists will earn a lot more public trust, and overcome a lot more unfounded fear, if they choose transparency over censorship,” she wrote.

By the time Moyer published her article in 2018, many Americans were already long in the habit of questioning certain elements of their public health, in part because of this hornet’s nest of corruption and regulatory capture. But this habit could also be explained in part by the general trend in medicine over the past two decades toward recognizing the superiority of individually tailored interventions, or personalized medicine, which acknowledges that different people have different risk factors, genetics, medical histories, and reactions to medical products. It is now commonplace for people to take responsibility for their own health because this is precisely what we have been telling them to do—encouraging them to get to know their own unique risk factors for disease, based on their own individual histories and genetics.

Vaccines, in contrast, are a one-size-fits-all intervention—administered en masse by those who know nothing specific about vaccinees or their children. When political and medical authorities change policies from day to day, and public health recommendations in one jurisdiction or country differ from those in others, questions will be asked. The public has been assured that we in health care recognize that the era of medical authoritarianism, and the ugly practices that led us to require informed consent, are behind us. This means that whenever there is a treatment on hand, the burden of proof to demonstrate that it is safe and effective must fall on those who offer it. It means we must never stifle questions, or shame people for being anxious.

I am a psychiatrist and a psychoanalyst, and I deal with people’s anxieties—and their paranoia too. Many people think “the anxious” are necessarily weak (one medical colleague calls the vaccine hesitant “wimps”). But this is, if not entirely wrong, a superficial way of understanding anxiety. Anxiety is a signal. It evolved to get us to pay attention to something—sometimes an external threat, and sometimes an internal one, such as an ignored feeling or forbidden thought threatening to emerge from within. Anxiety can be neurotic. It can even be psychotic. It can also save your life, because dangers do exist. When people don’t experience enough anxiety, we say they’re “in denial.”

Thus, in some situations, the capacity to feel anxiety can be an advantage, which is likely why it is preserved in evolution in so many animals. Aristotle understood this very point long ago; as he noted, the courageous person, say a soldier, can and should feel anxious—he is facing a danger, after all, and his wisdom tells him there is risk. What distinguishes the courageous person from the coward is not that they don’t worry or fear, but that they can still manage to move forward into the dangerous situation they cannot avoid facing. All of which is to say that the presence of anxiety alone is not dispositive of sanity or insanity: It, alone, does not tell you whether the anxiety is well or ill-founded. The same goes with distrust. Sometimes distrust is paranoia, and sometimes it is healthy skepticism.

As of a September 2019 Gallup poll, only a few months before the COVID-19 pandemic, Big Pharma was the least trusted of America’s 25 top industry sectors, No. 25 of 25. In the eyes of ordinary Americans, it had both the highest negatives and the lowest positives of all industries. At No. 24 was the federal government, and at No. 23 was the health care industry.

These three industries form a neat troika (though at No. 22 was the advertising and public relations industry, which facilitates the work of the other three.) Those inside the troika often characterize the vaccine hesitant as broadly fringe and paranoid. But there are plenty of industries and sectors that Americans do trust. Of the top 25 U.S. industry sectors, 21 enjoy net positive views from American voters. Only pharma, government, health care, and PR are seen as net negative: precisely the sectors involved in the rollout of the COVID vaccines. This set the conditions, in a way, for a perfect storm.

---

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/scien...hapter-one

This is a long, but interesting read. FSG, you should read it.

Just read chapter one. It is interesting and all the points hit logically so far. 

I am definitely in the vaccine hesitant group as described by the author, but I wouldn't get it anyway because I don't react well to vaccines. 

I really wish there was an actual alternate reality in which we could see how the masses would react had Trump won reelection. I have a feeling the left would still be anti-vaxx and the right would embrace it. The complete opposite of our actual reality. People like you and me, the vaccine hesitant, would still be vaccine hesitant because we don't make decisions based on what politicians, celebrities or the various forms of media are telling us. The politics of it all complicates the whole thing a great deal. You have to wonder if this would have been politicized so much under a less polarizing figure than Trump because he is what started the left howling.

The same people not taking it now wouldn't take it. Then the people who gave in because of their jobs wouldn't take it. Then those on the left with TDS wouldn't take it. It would end up being a much larger % of people not taking.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

An interesting read, and he's right that we are in a perfect storm of paranoia over all this.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

FDA recalls TWO MILLION at-home Covid tests due to false positives.

---

FDA recalls TWO MILLION at-home Covid tests due to false positives.

Just getting rid of supplies so you have to buy the new Bill Gates and Fauci test that is expensive for all the workers not getting the vaccine.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

---

FDA recalls TWO MILLION at-home Covid tests due to false positives.

Just getting rid of supplies so you have to buy the new Bill Gates and Fauci test that is expensive for all the workers not getting the vaccine.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

You probably aren't far off on that assessment.

---

It may turn out that the term "booster" is a bit of a misnomer, and that the correct number of shots for maximum efficacy isn’t yet known https://t.co/9QFjCiisqH

---

Of course it's not known yet. They still don't fully know what the vaccine does. As soon as they thought they were good Delta came along and showed them how much they didn't know.

---

Now that details of the new "miracle" drug are coming out, it's pretty clear that Ivermectin works.

These drugs do the EXACT same thing as Ivermectin. Basically, to put it in layman's terms, Sars-Cov-2 needs to have long strings of protein cut into shorter strings so that it can bind to the virus. The mechanism your body uses to do this is called a protease. Think of it like scissors that cut the string in 2. The specific protease used by Sars-Cov-2 is CL3. Both new drugs target the CL3 protease, and it's admitted in their paper that that's what they are targeting. You know what other drug targets that strain? Duh. Ivermectin. It has the strongest chance of binding the CL3 protease of all of them. This is clear from papers that were written and published in our modern medical journals. So, Ivermectin, Monulpulrivir, and the new Pfizer drug all do the same thing. They are a binding mechanism that keeps the scissor that cuts the CL3 string. Ivermectin is like glue. Merck's is like tape, and Pfizers is like velcro, to use a super flawed analogy. It doesn't really matter how you bind the scissors, you just need to do it and the virus can't replicate.

Meanwhile, Remdesivir, which is barely effective, gets the greenlight. One costs 3k for a 5 dose treatment, the other costs 6 cents per pill and can be manufactured by anyone. These companies make a drug that does the same exact thing, patent it, and then go after American tax dollars to make themselves rich. When are you guys going to start recognizing the real problem here? We have a drug that has been used by 3.9 BILLION PEOPLE ON THIS PLANET. IT HAS A SAFER PROFILE THAN ASPRIN. IT DOES THE EXACT SAME THING AS THIS NEW DRUG. We are getting robbed blind. This is so insulting.

---

And yet in non-layman's terms:

“Pfizer’s 3CL protease inhibitor is nothing like ivermectin,” Dr. David Boulware, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota, told us in an email."

“While one could debate the exact mechanism of ivermectin, the biggest difference is that pfizer’s protease inhibitor inhibits coronavirus at concentrations that are achievable in the human body,” said Boulware, who is an investigator on a clinical trial at the University of Minnesota evaluating ivermectin as an outpatient COVID-19 treatment. “In the initial lab experiments, ivermectin required 50-100x the achievable concentrations in humans.”

https://med.umn.edu/bio/dom-a-z/david-boulware

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/10/sciche...vermectin/

But of course he's just a corrupt flunkie who no one should pay attention to when we have Facebook Research to explain why he's wrong.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Honestly, I can't believe you're linking a fact check article. What would we do without those journalists deciding scientific truth for the masses. Whoops, my bad... those journalist who found one scientist to object to this larger point.

When I clicked the link in the fact check piece the scientist was using to discredit Ivermectin, I realized I have read it already. That study looked at Ivermectin in vitro, which we both no is not an adequate substitute for how it works in the human body. Do we know how they observed Pfizer's protease inhibitor? Was it in vitro? Did you bother to look that up before posting that awesome scientific fact check? Would that even matter? Does it matter that Ivermectin binds the strongest to 3CL protease inhibitor of all the other drugs tried? Are you even trying to understand how this works or are you content to copy and paste from these neutral arbiters of truth? Your fact check paper says that the mice had high viral loads to discredit Ivermectin while simultaneously admitting the mice we not as affected by the virus. Isn't that the point?

Anyways, I'll go in a different direction. My primary claim is that the drug companies are not being forthright with us. I post a reason why, and these great fact checkers reached out to these beacons of virtue and this is how they respond: “Pfizer’s protease inhibitor is not similar to that of an animal medicine and is not the same mechanism,” a company spokesperson said in an email, noting that protease inhibitors exist for a variety of viruses, including HIV and hepatitis C virus. This spokesperson tried to say Ivermectin is an animal drug. What a joke. They know better. It's propaganda. Not only that, but they know that even though different protease inhibitors exist, that their new drug and Ivermectin target the same one, unlike some of these other ones they mentioned. Get out of here with that nonsense. You should know when you're being lied to, dude.

---

Pfizermectin $72/per not as effective as basically free Ivermectin. Facts. For the coof that doesn't kill anyone. So over this whole damn Kabuki theater.

---