We explore real-life reformation here in this informed, online community.
No. Explains Robert Barnes: "The United States Supreme Court long ago recognized that any attempt to punish speech “outside the court room which comment upon a pending case” would “weigh heavily” toward unconstitutionality. Bridges v. State of Cal., 314 U.S. 252, 260 (1941). Only speech that presented a “clear and present danger” to the ability of the courts to function could even be considered for proscription or punishment. Bridges v. State of Cal., 314 U.S. 252, 262 (1941). Indeed: “what finally emerges from the clear and present danger cases is a working principle that the substantive evil must be extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high before utterances can be punished.” Bridges v. State of Cal., 314 U.S. 252, 263 (1941)."
The FDA has rejected its strongest safety warning for Covid mRNA vaccines despite acknowledging that children were killed by the products.
This news surfaced during a televised Bloomberg interview with FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, who said the agency has “no plans” to apply its strongest safety warning to Covid mRNA vaccines.
In that interview, Makary confirmed that the FDA’s own safety and epidemiology centre had formally recommended a boxed warning — a step reserved, under FDA rules, for drugs with “special problems, particularly ones that may lead to death or serious injury.”
