Barbara offers an extremely well-thought out argument for the illogic of requesting testing for on-line students and faculty. As a former university philosophy professor, I support her efforts and cannot find a flaw in her arguments.
This is a mythos, ethos, pathos and logos masterclass. I assure you, I’m not trying to brown nose you here lol. This is just really good stuff!!! Thank you for providing such a clear voice in this chaotic haze!
Apropos of the ludicrous requirement of the Human Resources wing of Peralta Community Community Colleges that teachers and students who are granted a religious exemption to the jab mandate must undergo weekly Covid 19 PCR testing even if their interactions are on-line only, please download the above link to Jon Rappoport’s blog post about the danger of using the self-administered Covid 19 test kits manufactured by Abbott that contain a very dangerous chemical, sodium azide, in the reagent solution component of the kits; the nasal swab ones are purportedly cleaned with another toxic chemical, ethylene oxide. So, all or most of these testing kits are potentially very harmful in addition to having zero diagnostic value.
Terrific letter by Barbara- very conciliatory but very logical and factually based including questioning the Human Resource folks apparent preposterous and delusional belief that virus particles can be transmitted through a computer screen.
If the test kits are, in fact, bioweapons falsely being promoted as medical diagnostic tools, aren’t these Human Resources folks criminally and civilly liable for inflicting harm on anyone who has been pressured or blackmailed into submitting to this policy? Criminal liability include the blatant violation of the Nuremberg Code that explicitly prohibit coerced participation in medical experiments accompanied by the precedent that, “i was just following orders,” is not a valid legal defense against being complicit in these crimes against humanity.
This policy also is evidently an illegal and unconstitutional assault on staff and students who are exercising their religious freedom rights, i.e., the Human Rights folks are being punitive toward Barbara, et. al., by attempting to force them to undergo a fraudulent, useless, and potentially harmful experimental testing procedure in retaliation for their religious beliefs.
Barbara offers an extremely well-thought out argument for the illogic of requesting testing for on-line students and faculty. As a former university philosophy professor, I support her efforts and cannot find a flaw in her arguments.
This is a mythos, ethos, pathos and logos masterclass. I assure you, I’m not trying to brown nose you here lol. This is just really good stuff!!! Thank you for providing such a clear voice in this chaotic haze!
https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/12/30/new-covid-at-home-test-dangerous-and-misleading-but-everybodys-doing-it-so-who-cares-right/
Apropos of the ludicrous requirement of the Human Resources wing of Peralta Community Community Colleges that teachers and students who are granted a religious exemption to the jab mandate must undergo weekly Covid 19 PCR testing even if their interactions are on-line only, please download the above link to Jon Rappoport’s blog post about the danger of using the self-administered Covid 19 test kits manufactured by Abbott that contain a very dangerous chemical, sodium azide, in the reagent solution component of the kits; the nasal swab ones are purportedly cleaned with another toxic chemical, ethylene oxide. So, all or most of these testing kits are potentially very harmful in addition to having zero diagnostic value.
Terrific letter by Barbara- very conciliatory but very logical and factually based including questioning the Human Resource folks apparent preposterous and delusional belief that virus particles can be transmitted through a computer screen.
If the test kits are, in fact, bioweapons falsely being promoted as medical diagnostic tools, aren’t these Human Resources folks criminally and civilly liable for inflicting harm on anyone who has been pressured or blackmailed into submitting to this policy? Criminal liability include the blatant violation of the Nuremberg Code that explicitly prohibit coerced participation in medical experiments accompanied by the precedent that, “i was just following orders,” is not a valid legal defense against being complicit in these crimes against humanity.
This policy also is evidently an illegal and unconstitutional assault on staff and students who are exercising their religious freedom rights, i.e., the Human Rights folks are being punitive toward Barbara, et. al., by attempting to force them to undergo a fraudulent, useless, and potentially harmful experimental testing procedure in retaliation for their religious beliefs.