Kash’s Corner: Ivermectin Court Battles, Vaccine Mandates, and Omicron
“There’s going to be extensive COVID litigation for years to come.”In this episode of Kash’s Corner, we discuss growing lawsuits and court battles over vaccine mandates and the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19.Earlier this month, a Pennsylvania COVID-19 patient, Keith Smith, who fought for ivermectin treatment in court, died at the age of 52. The process of getting a court order, including waiting over the Thanksgiving holiday, delayed the opportunity for him to be given ivermectin by nine days, his wife said.“That’s not to say ivermectin would have worked,” Kash Patel said, “but all they wanted … was the right to try.”
Hey everybody and welcome to a special edition of Cash's Corner.
I'm coming at you from the United Kingdom on the other side of the pond, and my good friend Jan Ykellik is back stateside.
How are you, Jan?
Well, I'm great.
And uh yeah, I know it's uh it's our first attempt at doing one of these kind of you know remote, but you're actually you're doing something quite wonderful.
You're spending time with the with your giant family in the UK.
I I am.
I'm fortunate that uh I figured out this quagmire of travel restrictions.
Well, I should correct myself.
I don't know if I figured it out versus got lucky, and also that every government in the world doesn't know exactly what to do when it comes to travel with Omicron, but we can get into that.
But yes, it's nice to see my family, one of my sisters got engaged, and so we're having a great time over here.
Well, so let's talk about that.
So, what is you know, these uh the restrictions and the rules and the travel, they all keep changing all the time.
What was your experience?
Uh it was not uh thrilling.
Uh basically you you're gonna spend a fortune on COVID test, and not just one, but at least three.
If you're coming from, and I can only speak from coming from the US to England, and within the United Kingdom, which has numerous countries itself, there are different levels of testing and restrictions.
Scotland's different versus Wales versus England and whatnot.
So you have to take tests before you land within the before you take off from the states within a certain time period.
You have to take a test when you arrive within a certain time period.
Then you have to take a test multiple days after that, depending on the length of your stay.
And then we're trying to get back to the US, you have to take another test before you take off within a certain time period.
And of course, all these tests can't just be taken anywhere, they have to be at certain designated sites.
And then if you if you're lucky enough to set all that up and make it to the test, you have to upload this information on a very specific system before they let you board the plane.
So it is quite a pricey and time-intensive ordeal.
Well, okay, so just tell me how much did you spend on this out of curiosity?
Just on the testing for round trips gonna cost me uh five to seven hundred dollars.
You know, that's pretty incredible because that's like it could be like double the plane ticket, you know, for uh some people.
One of the things that uh we've been covering a lot on American thought leaders with folks is just basically how this whole kind of regulatory system disproportionately affects the working class and just kind of normal people.
Uh uh, it makes their lives more difficult.
This is this is something where, you know, if it's double the cost of your plane ticket, I mean that's a that's a serious issue.
No, it's and it's not just the monetary aspect of it, right?
Jan, you and I and and Generation Y and X and whatnot are a little more savvy when it comes to apps and the use of phones and iPhones and smartphones to sort of facilitate travel.
But uh for my parents' generation, you know, it was a three-hour uploading process nightmare because they're just not familiar with that sort of stuff, and I can't imagine they're the only ones who are trying to travel overseas to see families.
So if you have the monetary means to do it, there's a whole technical side issue that makes it it's probably even harder to just try to come over here, and most people maybe just give up, even if they have the money to take the test and prepare.
And as you pointed out just a while ago, it's it all keeps changing.
So the UK is set to unroll out a whole new set of requirements tomorrow.
And I'm supposed to fly out tomorrow.
So I may get stuck on this island.
I don't know.
So, you know, and this is uh uh really interesting point.
A lot of people are talking about Omicron right now, obviously, and frankly, there's a lot now that everything that I've read thus far, all the scientific papers are look I've looked at, are basically saying that this is a much weaker variant, okay?
Basically, in terms of symptoms and so forth.
This is what we would expect uh over time.
It's not even clear if it it's gonna replace the delta or not.
These are all kind of uh questions.
But the the big thing that I read in a paper uh by Andrew Red et al.
recently is basically that the T cell immunity, i.e.
the immunity that you get, the natural immunity you get from having had COVID in the past is actually very robust against Omicron.
So that is like that is fantastic news, and something that I'm frankly not seeing put out in too many media.
So I have a comment on that and an opinion.
First, I'll take it in reverse.
First of all, I may be biased, but I think Epoch Times has been doing the best COVID reporting since the COVID outbreak.
They're actually reaching out to people who know the science, who know the data, who aren't willing to just make it up to get a headline.
So when you cite a report like that, and um, you know, your deep knowledge in it, it actually I are I I want to tell our audience, I think it's coming from a place of pretty intense research.
And let me just juxtaposition that with how how it's being handled over here in England, right?
You would think Omicron is like the second coming of the devil.
People over here are terrified, terrified of Omicron, more so than they were of COVID when it originally broke.
And that's just an anecdotal example of me hanging out with my extended family, which is quite large.
But um that's what the papers read like here, the everyday newspapers read like here when they're not talking about the F1 race which just happened.
But they are terrified of Omicron and it's causing a tectonic shift.
And I keep asking what you just pointed out.
What's the evidence to show the justification?
How do we know Omicron, as you said, isn't isn't not as bad for you as the original form of COVID or the Delta variant or whatever next form of COVID's coming?
There's there's data from a number of countries, including South Africa, that show I I I mean, I think in some cases I saw like zero deaths, uh, mild symptoms.
There's no evidence out there that would suggest that it's worse, and there's plentiful evidence documented uh that it's that it's a lot milder.
Well, I hope our our audience in England takes on to this because here's an example of what Prime Minister Boris Johnson is doing based on whatever data he's um being uh fed.
He has now unrolled a plan to vaccinate one million people a day in England.
And just to put that in perspective, there England has a population of about 70 plus million people.
America has 375 million.
Now, the papers have already come out and said, well, that's a good idea in theory to respond to quote unquote Omicron.
They don't have the capability, the logistical capability to even meet that measure.
But it's causing the public to stir because they're saying, or they're reading our prime minister saying it's so bad that we have to vaccinate a million people a day for the next 30 days, otherwise, you know, the end of time might come.
But what's that based on?
And that's what's not in the newspapers here.
And if that's happening in England, one of the you know greatest countries in the world, why wouldn't it be happening in other Western civilization countries?
What about third world countries who don't have the hard science and data that uh that some of us have the luxury of reading?
This is this is um very you know fascinating and disturbing.
And I certainly hope that um, you know, basically this work that's being done is shared with the prime minister.
Because I think, you know, if if anything, you know again, from everything that I've read, which is which is a bit um the indication is that we should be very happy that the very this new variant is, as one might expect, you know, much less of a problem for people than Delta.
And I just want to comment on one more aspect of it that took the headlines here and across Western Europe was that they just reported their first Omicron related death uh yet late last night or early this morning.
And so that's been everywhere on the news.
And that's tragic, of course it is, but it was inevitable that a COVID-related death was were going to continue, even if there was a variation in the virus, and I think it's being overblown.
I mean, the thing with these viruses is you have to wait and see what the actual results are of the vaccine and its efficacy and also the the morbidity rate.
So um it's unfortunate that there's a loss of life related to Omicron, but we just it's just too early.
And there's this I'll I'll comment on this briefly, but there's also this element of dying from COVID or dying with COVID.
I e, you know, basically there's been, at least in the US for a long time, there was a policy of ascribing any death where someone actually was positive for COVID as being due to COVID.
An extreme example would be, you know, someone's in a car accident, they happen to have COVID, and that it's marked as a COVID death, right?
Because that's that's how the policy worked.
So these things haven't been Disentangled in many cases.
And there's a lot of, there's a lot more, let's call it deaths with COVID than we're aware of in systems, basically in countries where that the reporting or the policy around reporting work that way.
So I'm still I don't know.
Is that was that a with COVID death?
Was that with Omicron death or from COVID to uh Omicron death?
I don't know because we don't know what the policy behind the reporting was.
All these things you kind of really need to be disclose when you're when you're writing about these things.
Otherwise, you know, as you said, you know, you can spread fear and panic inadvertently, maybe even not intentionally, when it's absolutely not warranted.
No, and and I know we're gonna talk about it, but the indoor mass mandates that are sort of sweeping through the United States, right?
And going back to your point real quick on what do we know?
Maybe it's an innocent mistake on did you die with COVID or because of COVID?
You know, hopefully they don't have any more Andrew Cuomo's running around burying statistics for political purposes.
Um, but that chance always exists.
So you're right, we we should be provided with that information, both you know, at home in the US and you know, in countries like England.
So hopefully some of that info starts coming out.
So, Cash, something I really wanted to talk to you about is uh there's all these people that are actually being fired for uh basically not complying to various vaccine mandates.
Not I'm not talking about mask mandates here, but vaccine mandates, including some pretty high-profile people.
There was a Navy commander, Lucian uh uh Kin who basically was fired for failing to abide by lawful order, and the lawful order was that he was supposed to be vaccinated.
Um, so how how does this, how does this work?
Are these reasonable expectations?
What does the law have to say about this?
No, that's a great point.
And I'm glad you started with the defense department, and I may be biased because having come out of there and being the former chief of staff, but I'm glad we start with the public sector, because the law applies differently to the public sector versus private industry, I think.
Um, at least with the military has terminated over a hundred soldiers for refusing to take the vaccine mandate.
Uh Secretary Austin uh just announced that from the Department of Defense.
So I think it's problematic.
It's we've talked about this before, but why is it problematic?
These individuals sign up to serve the country, our country, and now they're being told because they won't take a vaccination that is relatively new and hasn't been tested that they can't continue to serve.
There has to be a showing by the government, and it hasn't taken place because if we could just talk about procedurally real quick, right?
Everyone knew that the Biden administration was gonna take this step.
The step was taken, and then it had to take effect, meaning people had to actually be terminated in order for those individuals who are harmed to take their cases to court.
It would have been premature to do so if they had not yet been terminated under the regulation, which has now just happened.
So I think a lot of these cases are now finally going to get to court because these people will have what's called standing, a right to bring a cause of action.
It would have been premature to do so earlier.
So while I think it's some legal guesswork that's going to be involved, generally what has to happen is the courts uh have to adjudicate does the government have sufficient authority in a time of quote unquote an emergency, as the Biden administration is sort of couching this as, um, under the law of under OSHA and a couple of other laws that relate to this, do they have the authority to do that?
That's a question for the courts.
And it hasn't been adjudicated yet.
And I don't think they do.
Well, and you know, I keep thinking about this, but you know, if if people were to explain, like if the people that are trying to impose these mandates try to explain their rationale behind why they would want to do so, right?
Why would they want why they would want to enforce this?
Why is it so critical, right?
That people, you know, basically have to make decisions that they feel they are unable to make, you know, presumably for the bet for the good of the military or the good of society.
But that I don't feel that information is being shared.
I mean, some people argue that that information doesn't, you know, credible information doesn't exist, and that's the reason it's not being shared.
But um, you know, I I I just would think that you could bring a lot more people on board if you actually provided your rationale.
Well, I think you're right.
And and and unfortunately, what's happened is COVID has become the biggest political football of the last two plus years now, right?
And what happens is when you muddy a subject such as um a health scare, uh not even scare, a plague with politics, then you forget the information, or people intentionally don't provide the information and want to leapfrog ahead of the information to fit a specific narrative.
You know, depending on and and look, the media has reported on this from all sides of the spectrum in whatever position they want to take, but as you pointed out, none of them have the evidence.
None of them have the information to support that.
So asking someone who signs up to serve and saying you're gonna get fired if you don't take this vaccine, but not providing them with the information for that firing is just why I think the courts are going to come down harshly against the Biden administration.
And I firmly believe this is another politicization of the national security apparatus because it involves the defense department, and they're working off um satisfying headlines with certain media outfits because they have sung that tune for two plus years and they can't change that narrative now, and that hurts our defense department.
That's just one of the places that it's going to hurt us uh tremendously.
Wait, let me see if I got this straight.
Are you saying because they're not providing sort of detailed rationale as to why this policy is reasonable to the person that's basically launching the suit, that actually provides a kind of defense for that person?
Yes, exactly.
You uh you said it better than I did, because what the courts are gonna have, not get into the legal gymnastics of it, but there's sort of a of a bar of if the government wants to do X, it has to show why.
So what they'll say, the plaintiffs, the DoD members will say, Well, you you, the government told us we had to take this vaccine, and if we didn't, we were gonna get fired.
The court's gonna say why.
And the plaintiff will then say, well, they did they, the government didn't even tell us, the Department of Defense soldiers, why they fired us.
They just said, you didn't take the vaccine, you're fired.
That's insufficient in court.
Fascinating.
Okay, and so what what if the ra a rationale was provided, but one can demonstrate the rationale is faulty.
And that's another avenue.
Great point.
So the standard is very high in court to show that there's such an overbearing emergency to interfere with an individual's right of health, um, that there that a plaintiff, in this case, again, the DOD soldiers can go in and say, well, even though you provided X, Y, and Z, these reasons are are poor and they don't serve the interest of the law or the public, and a judge will adjudicate that matter.
It happens time and time again if you take any sort of uh when any time a civil liberty or a right is abridged uh by the government, the judge the judge applies three different standards depending on the classification of that civil right or liberty, and they apply the legal standard to see if it's been met.
And the only person that can adjudicate that is a judge.
Oh, fascinating.
Well, so then what do you make of this, right?
Just uh yesterday, as we're filming here, the US Supreme Court basically uh declined to issue an injunction against New York's COVID vaccine mandates, basically for the hair for the health care workers.
Basically doesn't let them seek religious exemptions for this.
So this, and this is the Supreme Court effectively kind of making a statement here, right?
Well, I think what the Supreme Court, if if I'm hearing you correctly, you said the U.S. Supreme Court.
And I think what happens in that instance is the Supreme Court is the last and final court.
So that they probably want the cases to be adjudicated by the lower level federal district court, or if it's a state issue, if it's a state court issue, it has to go through all the levels of state court, then it gets into federal court if there's a federal constitutional issue, then it goes to the federal appeals court, then it goes to the Supreme Court.
So I think the Supreme Court was probably exercising some jurisprudence uh smartness there by saying we shouldn't be the ones to jump in right away.
And also, this is gonna be an issue that's not just a New York issue or California or Texas or Idaho issue, but all of these cases are now and have been starting to rise in these separate courts, and they have to come to a head somewhere.
The Supreme Court can't proactively decide the matter for them.
Well, okay, so let's let's talk about something that is, you know, another one of these kind of contentious, incredibly contentious issues.
So we have, you know, a Pennsylvania uh COVID patient who basically has died in the process of trying to get uh ivermectin, which was prescribed to him by a telehealth doctor administered while he was in hospital.
The hospital said, you know, these are not our, I mean, this is this is rough, right?
This is me kind of kind of giving the general picture, but the the hospital basically said, well, this isn't according to our protocols, so we're not gonna do it.
Um, subsequently, I believe a judge basically said, No, there this was prescribed by a doctor, it does need to be adjudicated, but in the process, because this whole thing took uh nine days, uh, it ended up the patient ended up dying.
So, what do you make of this case?
I mean, it's a terrible tragedy, and now we have to talk about it as a tragedy and not as a win, you know, in the medical world is um only doubles that tragedy.
Yeah, this individual, I believe he's 50 some years old, married, uh, had kids.
And I think, you know, you know, President Trump's uh decision with the whole right to choose is um sort of congruo a little bit with what's going on here, he would allow patients the right to choose different sorts of treatments in hospitals near end of life to extend their life.
Well, this individual, even though he's only 52, was experiencing a near uh near end of life experience, and I think what he was seeking was something that would have been extended to him under the Trump administration, but the Biden administration has changed the policy there, and and tragically it cost him his life.
That's not to say ivermectin would have worked.
They even the family admitted they didn't know if it would have worked, but all they wanted to do was the right to try.
And I can't imagine he's the only individual sitting in a hospital bed in the United States of America with COVID who's asking the hospital to prescribe treatments that uh need to get uh that need them to help improve their status of life.
And look, we went through this with all the monoclonal antibodies, right?
When those were first issued, half the country said that's crazy science, that stuff doesn't work.
And if you fast forward now six, eight, ten months down the road, there's a line for monoclonal antibodies for people who um have come down with COVID because it works so much.
Ivermectin could be another six to eight months down the road in terms of that uh efficacy.
We just don't know.
And seizing that right from a person, I think is um extremely bad uh judgment by the hospitals.
Well, you know, a doctor, there's another case where there's a Mississippi doctor that was fired for basically trying to treat COVID-19 patients with ivermectin at all.
I mean, that's the other side of it, right?
I now not only are you are you attacking or seizing the rights of a patient, but you're seizing the rights of a doctor who you know is board certified, went to medical school and has been practicing for so long, and he's on the front line seeing what COVID does, and he's offering an option, and I'm sure the doctor is saying, even though this isn't fully tested and studied, this is an option.
If the patient and the doctor decide together, it's not like it's being forced by one side or the other.
If they both agree that this might work or could work, they should have the choice as a hospital and a doctor to administer it and as a patient to receive it.
And I think this is also going to be something you probably see land in the courts.
Um there's going to be extensive COVID litigation for years to come.
So Cash, this makes me really think of something I've been talking about for a while.
And it's sort of how we perceive medical treatment and the doctor-patient relationship, how that worked traditionally and how that's changed, even to the point where I feel I've kind of been conditioned somewhat to accept the new model.
I mean, traditionally, you know, there's the doctors take the Hippocratic Oath, and there's this doctor-patient relationship.
Doctors learn a body of knowledge, they have their sources, and then they try to treat you.
They have the responsibility for it, and they try to treat you as best they possibly can to save your life, to make you, you know, have a healthy and happy life and so forth.
But there's a lot of diagnosis and also basically deciding treatments at a higher level, like for in maybe at the organization that the doctor belongs to level, saying, okay, no, these treatments are okay, these treatments are not okay, kind of taking that out of the hands of the doctor.
And to some extent, I've realized as I kind of keep hearing media talking about this whole realm of discussion, I've kind of realized that I'm being programmed suddenly to believe that that's actually that's a reasonable way for it to work.
What are your thoughts?
So that's a great point.
And I analogize that situation with um police officers and in in in places like New York City, Chicago, and LA, they've been told from the top, people above them, layers above them, that we're not to prosecute these crimes, we're not to do X, Y, or Z. You've seen that we've talked about it on prior shows, the crime crime rate has spiked in those cities.
And a lot of my friends are our cops in those cities.
And And I asked them, well, what why aren't you guys trying to counteract the rise in crime?
And a lot of them have come up to me and said, we're not allowed to.
We've been told from the top we can't do our jobs effectively.
So shift back to your example here in COVID land for hospitals.
If organizations above the doctor-patient privil uh uh doctor-patient level are deciding what a patient and doctor can and cannot agree to, I think it's akin to the problem that police officers face on the front lines in the streets.
Um they're removing the the option of the patient and the doctor to treat that situation based on the facts and circumstances of that specific situation.
They're taking it out.
And I think they're taking it out for political reasons, largely, um, and less uh information as we've talked about previously, but that are based in fact.
Uh so it's it's scary, and I think it's unfortunately gonna get worse unless we keep talking about it.
Because off-label treatment is something that's somewhat normal if the doctor believes the drug to be uh to have efficacy for a condition.
I think you're right.
And it used to be something that um outside of COVID, at least people were allowed to discuss with their doctor and come to a decision on.
And it's not like they were prescribing extremely nefarious or illegal substances.
And so I I firmly believe that people should have that right with their doctor to have that conversation based on their own health and medical history, and the United States government or a hospital board or an organization should not be getting in the way like they are with with this and with mass mandates and other things we've talked about.
So, Cash, there's been so many court cases, you know, around Ivermectin, around mandates and so forth.
There's and there's also been challenges to these.
So, for example, there's a judge that's halting uh the mandate for the New York police department here in the city and for city workers as well.
And at the same time, there's new mandates being introduced for private sector workers uh and for private school teachers, including private school teachers.
That's how that was drawn to my attention.
There's this whole kind of rigamarole of back and forths, and I guess you're saying that this will all kind of make its way up into the Supreme Court ultimately.
As our audience knows, there's the state court system, and then there's the federal court system, right?
And a lot of these matters, i.e., the NYPD, the New York police department, usually is a state court matter.
The problem is these areas start getting murky, is because what happens is when a case is adjudicated through the state court system, i.e., let's take the New York police department case, um, it can later be transferred into federal court even after it goes through the New York state supreme court or the or the top court in New York is actually called the court of appeals.
But what they can do, they either party can say there's a federal issue.
So that federal issue can trump any decision in federal court that was made after three levels of scrutiny in state court.
That's just one example of why this matter could take so long and has to go so far and wide.
Then there's the cases that are actual federal court cases, i.e., why is the federal government mandating United States DOD soldiers be vaccinated or they're gonna be terminated?
That goes straight to federal court.
But all these dis all these issues are similar.
It's the right to work versus the right to not be vaccinated is basically what's being posited against each other.
And so there's gonna be hundreds, if not thousands of cases in state and federal court, and the only place that can adjudicate it for everybody is the one Supreme Court.
And so, Jan, to give you another example of why this m with these legal matters are so complex and so varied and so numbered, is because each state has different laws within each state.
So Florida's gonna have a different set of laws that might apply to COVID and COVID restrictions than New York, then California, then Texas, then Idaho, then the federal courts have to decide whether those laws are constitutional under the United States constitution, so individuals can go through their varied state court systems and end up in federal court.
And I know, and I think you and I have talked about it, the rules between i.e.
Florida and New York are very different vis-a-vis COVID.
And something that strikes me here is this reality that still a lot of people aren't aware of that COVID infections basically come in waves, right?
And not too long ago in Florida, there was a wave of COVID infections, and in the media, what you saw was a lot of basically Yelling at the policies of Governor Ron DeSantis saying, look, look at the horrible policies, look at look at what they've resulted.
Look at the high uh uh infection rates and uh and death rates compared to say New York or a place like this.
Now, of course, things are flipped around, and New York has the high uh infection and death rates, and Florida is doing incredibly well.
But and and just to be clear, Florida's policies actually have been very good, especially since it has an older population and it's been done, frankly, a much better job at protecting that older population, which is the ad-risk population for COVID.
But this uh this particular reality around the waves, as you can see, is being uh used differentially by media for political purposes, from the at least to my eye.
I I think you're absolutely right, Jan.
And and this hits to the theme that we've been talking about.
This is what happens when uh people in power don't wait for the information, the evidence to come out based on varied treatments, options to treat, hospital decisions.
Florida and New York have taken almost diametrically opposite uh positions on most major COVID-related issues uh concerning treatment and housing and vaccine status.
And as you said, they sort of flip-flop, but the the policies have it flip-flopped, right?
Florida has maintained under Governor DeSandis the policy he's always had regarding COVID.
And New York has taken a almost opposite approach and maintain that policy.
So unless you give it time and put out the information correctly, um, you can't analyze that data.
And the problem you highlighted is also the media.
The media will um invariably, most of the media will go after Governor Ron DeSantis because he is a Republican and they sort of stee him in a stylistically uh pro-Trump matter.
And New York, of course, you had Cuomo, and now you have Governor Hochel, who is taking on a different approach, and uh certain sectors of the media want to see her succeed, no matter what the information actually shows.
This is the politicization at the expense of the American people and and the world, because the world's looking at America on what actually works and what actually doesn't work, and that uh just extends to the limitation of options, be it in hospitals or should we or shouldn't we vaccinate our soldiers and things like that.
So, Cash, one thing I wanted to get your thoughts on, and this is something that's pretty wild in my mind.
Um, there's parents that have been reporting that their kids have been vaccinated without their consent.
In one case, you know, uh a mother reporting that you know vaccinated in exchange for pizza for getting a pizza slice.
Um, and the parent was just simply you know unaware of this and wasn't asked to consent.
And there's a whole bunch of uh uh concerns about this.
I want to talk about the legal element here.
Well, I mean, the wow, that is just um uh uh atrocious.
The that that someone thinks that they can take a minor child and vaccinate them against their the wishes of their parent or without a discussion with the parent.
The legal ramifications.
Here's a crazy thing, Jan, right?
The legal ramifications are murky because I don't know of a state legislature that has passed a law that says we're permitted to do that, or that forbids parents from getting in the way.
That would be how you enter into court for something like that.
This is almost the cart before the horse here.
Now, what the parents can do is in civil matters is take that legal issue and go to court.
And I imagine these parents will, and people are gonna listen when it comes down to our youth, to our children, um, especially when they're being quote unquote forced vaccinated without their parental consent.
I mean, you remember, you know, everybody that goes to school who's under 18, you sign all these parental consent forms for your kids to do this activity or that activity, or take this medicine, or go on this field trip.
There's a reason all of those, and the reason is legal, that all those consent forms and and interactions between the school and the parents occur.
It's a legal reason.
And it's also a child safety reason.
So this is up there as something that's probably going to leapfrog many of the other legal issues because it involves minors.
And and here's the thing, okay?
There's universal understanding in the scientific community, okay, from everything that I've said, and I and I I've seen review papers on this, I've seen actual papers on this, that children are at extremely low risk from COVID.
I mean, you know, much greater risk, for example, of uh getting being in a car accident or something like that.
It's actually good to sometimes lay things out that way so you understand people understand the relative risk because everything is cut, there's always a kind of a cost-benefit question here, right?
So children are at extremely low risk from COVID.
One, and two, and this is an uh something else that there's broad agreement in the scientific community around that children don't transmit COVID in a meaningful way.
I that's for opposite, and this, you know, this is something I was everyone's kind of wondering about like why does it work this way exactly?
There's some theories, but in Fluenza, children transmit it like crazy.
But with COVID, they don't.
So here we are, we have this situation where there are pushes to vaccinate.
Like right now in New York City.
The there's a vaccine passport, if you will, for children 5 to 11 recently.
Basically, if you want to go to a restaurant with your five to 11 year old, they need to be vaccinated.
And I I mean, nothing I there is no scientific justification for this that I could remotely find.
And this, you know, this isn't this isn't just me talking, this is like every scientific paper out there that I'm that I'm aware of.
And that's scary.
And let me again bring this back to England, which is uh where I've where I'm at and where a lot of my family is.
And here in schools uh with minors, uh almost the entire school is coming down with COVID at some point in time.
But the bounce back rate is tremendous.
And when children get infected with COVID, be it Omicron or whatnot, they don't come down with the symptoms that the adults are coming out.
Now, look, I'm not saying that's scientific fact across the board, but I've been here for a while and I have extended family here, and that's what happens.
All my nieces and nephews who have gotten it have literally bounced back very quickly without experiencing the troubling symptoms.
And they keep the schools open, and that may be a reason why they keep the schools open, uh, because of what you're talking about with uh its infection rate and how it impacts kids.
But uh, I'm not seeing that drastic health scare for for minors, especially in schools over here in England.
Well, I mean, it just it sounds like they're being more reasonable with the you know, kind of scientific reality around COVID and minors that that's very you know heartening to hear that.
I guess you've already answered this question somewhat, but you know, the the legal challenge to a mandate like that, given the overwhelming, you know, understanding uh of of the science around COVID and how it interacts with children, say five to eleven.
Um, how does that play out for a mandate of the sort I just described?
Can they just say, hey, just okay, just don't take them to the restaurants then?
I mean, that's what they'll start saying, and then they'll start being injunctive by state court and federal district courts, and as I said, the ultimate issue is just gonna have to go to the Supreme Court because it is a federal issue.
Um, the governments are saying they have a right at the state and federal level to interfere and remove a certain liberty that you have or privilege or decision that you have.
So a federal judge is gonna have to hear it and decide it.
But one federal district court ruling um is not binding anywhere but that district uh federally, so it has to go to the Supreme Court to make a decision that's actually binding, unless, of course, Congress and the president pass a law uh that says otherwise.
Well, thank God for the US Constitution.
That's that's all I keep thinking over the last uh however many months and and and years, frankly.
Listen, Cash, I think it's time for our shout out.
Yeah, so uh since we're in such a unique situation, Jan, I thought I would give our shout out to the Epoch Global team uh here in London and back in New York for bringing us our first ever transatlantic international episode of Cash's Corner.
So the shout out has to go to them for all their great work today.
Love it.
Well, everybody, thanks so much for tuning into this special little international edition of Cassius Corner, and we'll see everybody back next week.
