“The moral test of a government is how it treats those who are at the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadow of life, the sick and the needy, and the handicapped.” – Hubert Humphrey
passionate pachyderms
Pharmacist Steve steve@steveariens.com 502.938.2414
It has been reported that the local prosecuting attorney withheld this body camera video from the media but somehow a media outlet in England got a copy of this video and only then was it released and a copy got back to the USA media.
It has been reported that Floyd’s toxicology showed that he had a very high blood level of a Fentanyl analog and that may have been why he kept saying that he was having trouble breathing. A overdose of a opiate will cause death by stopping breathing. He was also stating that he suffered from claustrophobia and did not want to get into the back of the police car.
Could this hold situation be another bad outcome when a mental health pt and the cops interact ? Was the high dose of the Fentanyl causing his underlying claustrophobia to be exaggerated ?
How many people have died because of the over-reaction to Floyd’s death… how many millions of damage to property that was caused by this death ?
After this “dust-up” with FB over me using this graphic… this graphic made me think about somethings with this saying and the DEA. The controlled substance act was signed into law in 1970 creating the BNDD ( Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs) which morphed in the DEA in 1973.
Currently with many new, updated studies and information about opiate/controlled substances that was not available back in 1970 , pts are asking… why won’t they listen to these new studies that shows that opiates and controlled substances are not as addicting – or virtually non addicting when prescribed to chronic pain pts and they are taken as prescribed.
Here is all the DEA schedules definitions https://www.dea.gov/drug-scheduling These definition were basically decided up by the BNDD/DEA back 50 yrs ago. If you notice, there is very small differences between adjacent categories – with the exception of C-I.. which basically for illegal drugs.
And medications back then were arbitrarily assigned to one of each of 6 categories.
They continue to juggle meds around in the scheduled meds list… Some times, it is just the DEA changing “their opinion”… from the beginning of the controlled substances Hydrocodone/Acetaminophen (Norco) was a C-III but in late 2014 the DEA decided that it should be a C-II… because their opinion is that people were becoming addicted to this med and/or abusing it.
When the non-opiate/ non-addicting meds came to market – Stadol & Talwin they were just Rx only items, but it didn’t take long for the DEA to classified as a controlled substance because substance abusers were using these two meds to potentiate other substances that they were taking.
When Lyrica came the market.. it was originally scheduled as a C-V because a few of people stated that it made them “high”… so you have med that was suppose to be a non-opiate pain med, but when just a few people in the clinical study stating that it made them high – it got scheduled
There have been other meds that end up being abused by some people and changed to a scheduled med
The scheduling seems to be more determined by the use/abuse by a certain small group of people and has nothing to do with the actual medicinal properties of the medication.
Makes one wonder, when the typical OD toxicology has 4 to 7 substances showing up .. with one of those typically being ALCOHOL, but the use/abuse of alcohol continues to kill abt 100,000/yr but alcohol has a very healthy tax income stream to both state & federal coffers.
This also seem to be the same logic behind the DEA’s “medical fact(s)” that there is no valid medical necessity for a pt being prescribed a opiate, benzo, muscle relaxant concurrently because the DEA has observed that substance abusers/OD’s have been observed taking those three categories of meds together in very large doses – much above what is FDA recommended doses – to get high.
The DEA has turned these opinions – that were derived at by observing what substance abuser/addicts have done and they have stated and repeated these opinions for so many decades that those opinions have been repeated so many times over 5 decades that they are now believed to be actual FACTS.
How many people who were working for the DEA in the 70’s are still working for the DEA now ? Who could have refuted that these “facts” are really guesses/opinion from those working the DEA in the 1970’s ?
A pro-Trump ad was removed from Facebook after claims that it contained false information, Fox News has learned.
America First Action PAC on Tuesday told Fox News that Facebook removed one of its ads, titled “On Hold,” which was placed in Arizona, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on July 24. The ad was flagged by Politifact on July 29, according to the PAC.
“Facebook’s decision to take down this ad shows its anti-conservative bias,” America First Communications Director Kelly Sadler told Fox News. “America First Action has logged an appeal, but the threat of anti-conservative bias, targeting, and censorship remains ahead of Election Day in November and we must be vigilant in holding big tech, like Facebook accountable.”
Sadler, during an interview on Fox Business on Tuesday, added that this “is just more bias from these social media companies.”
“We’re going to file an appeal, but there’s really little we can do about it,” she told host Stuart Varney. “These social media giants are monopolies, and ultimately they make the decision of what runs on their platform.”
Facebook confirmed to Fox News on Tuesday that the ad had, in fact, been fact-checked. A Facebook spokesperson told Fox News that ads that are fact-checked and found to contain false information are not eligible to run as a paid ad on the social media platform.
The spokesman added that the videos can, instead, run as original content on the group’s page.
America First Action, though, said certain versions of the ad were removed in particular states, but the Facebook spokesman said that once the ad was fact-checked as false, all versions would be removed from the platform.
The Facebook spokesperson said that if any version of the ad was still running on the platform, it would be due to a lag in Facebook’s fact-checking system.
The ad in question was titled “On Hold,” and shows a woman calling 9-1-1 and being put on hold. The ad moves to show Democratic nominee former Vice President Joe Biden saying “yes,” with a “defund the police?” banner.
The ad is currently marked on Facebook with a label saying: “False Information. Checked by independent fact-checkers.”
Facebook’s fact-checking comes as members of the Trump administration and prominent Republicans have claimed that social media platforms have censored right-leaning viewpoints.
Attorney General William Barr told Fox News in June that social media platforms are “engaged in censorship” and are acting more like “publishers.”
“They originally held themselves out as open forums where people, where the third parties could come and express their views and they built up a tremendous network of eyeballs,” Barr said on “Special Report” in June.
“They had a lot of market power based on that presentation,” the attorney general added. “And now they are acting much more like publishers because they’re censoring particular viewpoints and putting their own content in there to diminish the impact of various people’s views.”
Twitter, earlier this summer, slapped a warning label on one of President Trump’s tweets for the first time, cautioning readers that despite the president’s claims, “fact checkers” say there is “no evidence” that expanded, nationwide mail-in voting would increase fraud risks — and that “experts say mail-in ballots are very rarely linked to voter fraud.”
Within minutes, Trump accused Twitter of “interfering in the 2020 Presidential Election,” that the platform “is completely stifling FREE SPEECH” and vowing: “I, as President, will not allow it to happen!”
Two days later, the president signed an executive order that interprets Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 as not providing statutory liability protections for tech companies that engage in censorship and political conduct. It also cuts federal funding for social media platforms that censor users’ political views.
The presidential election is < 90 days away and the Facebook “fact checkers” have decided that some facts on this publication is FALSE
this past week I used this graphic as a comment in a threat on Facebook… I have been using this graphic on a semi-regular basis since 2015. Apparently FB has changed it “community standards” and I got a notice that the particular post had been pulled because it violated their community standards.
Apparently in the current environment of “cancel culture”… FB has hired some “snowflakes” to write and enforce their community standards. This time … they stated that they were going to graciously only give me a warning… BECAUSE everyone makes mistakes.. but they “keep score for ONE YEAR” and that if I violate their community standards again I would be put in ‘FB jail” for 24 hrs. Apparently they are of the opinion that those who post a lot on FB are so “addicted” to using their website that just the threat of being put into FB withdrawal is sufficient to make many people to be compliant.
Apparently their algorithm that they use must have come to that conclusion about me because of the number of posts and content of my posts that I would be submissive to their edits and censorship. If this is the case, would suggest that their algorithm has some serious flaws.
They gave me the option to “agree” or “contest” their decision, and so I contested their determination… and was not given the opportunity to give my reasons as to why I did not agree with their decision and it took them a WHOLE SIX MINUTES for them to send me a notification that they had reviewed their decision and that they AGREED with their decision.
It was announced on TV today that FB had censored a post of President Trump .. something about his opinion concerning kids and catching/spreading COVID-19 …
Our First Amendment to guarantee “freedom of speech” only applies to the government/bureaucracy… FB is a private corporation… so they can legally control what appear on their webpage. Of course, there is some law that regulates media that they must publish the truth, but all of these FB type website claims that they are exempt from such laws because they don’t publish anything… they are just a medium for other to publish on… Since they are now censuring what others are posting… based on some “obscure” community standards… they may end up having to decide what they really are… especially if they continue to censor Trump… since he is the “good friends” with the USA Attorney General.
First of all, I have my own domain… www.pharmaciststeve.ccom … which I own and there is no overlord trying to censor what I post, secondly there is a new competitor to FB https://www.parler.com and I have created a pharmaciststeve account on there and will start using in place of FB. https://www.parler.com is suppose to be more friendly to conservative mindset and doesn’t have snowflakes being censors.
I can assure everyone that before this is all over… some of the things that are now being stated as FALSE will at some time will turn out to be TRUE and some of the things that are now being stated as TRUE will as some time will turn out to be FALSE.
Just look back to March when many were saying that President Trump was not right to close our borders from people from China, Europe and other countries and now a few months later many of those same people are saying that Trump has done too little … too late…
Dr Fauci seems to only want to work with a med that has proven effective in a double blind placebo study… who is going to volunteer to participate for such a study when they have tested positive for COVID-19 and might end up getting a PLACEBO (sugar pill)… I wonder if such a clinical trial is even ethical.
It would appear that HCQ, Zithromax and Zn was fairly effective when given early after being infected or those with with mild/moderate symptoms. At first, it was taking abt two weeks before a person demonstrated symptoms after being infected and then they got tested and had to wait another 5-7 days before they got treated – if they tested positive.. The virus had abt a 3 week head start and the combo of meds appeared to be less effective.
It has been reported that hospitals had a financial incentive to diagnose everyone coming thru the door with COVID-19 and an additional financial incentive to put pts on vents… which 80%-90% never came off the vent alive.
The COVID-19 was believed to be a new/novel virus and no one had protocols on how it was to be treated… everything that was done … was GUESS WORK…
No matter what you are told or you hear someone else state… everyone needs to look for the political and/or financial agenda behind what they are saying.
We are told that since March that we are suppose to shelter in place, no go to church, beauty/barber shop, gym or other close gathering … unless you are protesting in the street or you are going to the funeral of a deceased member of the House of Representatives.
As COVID-19 cases began to overwhelm hospitals in the United States, state and local governments enacted public health orders in order to slow the rate of infection. These measures have ranged from stay-at-home orders and mask mandates to business closures and bans on large gatherings. All in all, 42 states issued stay-at-home orders for their residents.1 Yet despite the broad public support for such public health orders, businesses and religious groups have brought multiple lawsuits in response.2 Most of these challenges have either contended that the regulating body does not have authority to issue the order, that the order was discriminatory, or that the order constituted a regulatory taking. Moreover, these challenges largely have been partisan in nature rather than in the interest of public health. The legal validity of these orders is also supported by a long history of precedent showing that policing powers reside with the state, with courts consistently ruling that these powers include instituting protections during public health emergencies, learn more about COVID legal battles in Texas.
The COVID-19 pandemic is not over.3 In fact, as states have begun to lift public health orders, rates of coronavirus cases have started to rise.4 As a result, many local and state leaders have begun reinstituting some public health orders, likely increasing the number of legal challenges that will be filed in the courts.5 In order to ensure the safety of Americans, it is critical that courts follow the law and not succumb to partisan political arguments that are at odds with case law and scientific reality. However, it is also important for courts to be attentive to the potential for states to abuse their broad emergency authorities—especially with an election looming.
The U.S. Supreme Court has given states wide latitude in terms of their police powers, which provide state and local governments the authority to take action against impending threats to the safety of the public.6 Generally, the government must first declare an emergency.7 Once an emergency is declared, state and local governments have the ability to issue orders to protect public health and the power to restrain certain liberties.8
The 1824 Supreme Court case Gibbons v. Ogden distinguished between the authority given to the federal government and the authority of the state, holding that police powers largely belong to the state.9 Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Marshall stated that these powers included the ability to impose isolation and quarantine orders.10 Almost a century later, in 1905, the court weighed in on the state’s authority to impose public health orders in the case Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which concerned a law mandating smallpox vaccinations.11 The question for the court in this case was whether the state had the authority to issue such a mandate under the 14th Amendment.12 The court stated that it did, finding that a “community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members.”13
Jacobson remains the principal case setting the legal standard for states’ police powers and has been cited to uphold public health orders in many of the cases described later in this issue brief. However, the ruling does not give states carte blanche when enacting public health orders, as they are not allowed to exercise their power in an “arbitrary” or “unreasonable manner.”14
It has been reported that the local prosecuting attorney withheld this body camera video from the media but somehow a media outlet in England got a copy of this video and only then was it released and a copy got back to the USA media.