QuixoticJoey66
LightNews LightNews
quix66.bsky.social
QuixoticJoey66
@quix66.bsky.social
25 followers 84 following 42 posts
"Mold Skool" GenXer...STEM Nerd/Geek...
Humanist...
Sustainable gardening and scientific based discussions with progressive solutions for all is how I roll!
Posts Replies Media Videos
quix66.bsky.social
Fun
July 17, 2025 at 5:39 PM
Reposted by QuixoticJoey66
drandrealove.bsky.social
The development & testing of ANY new regulated medicine involves placebo-controlled clinical trials — it’s a cornerstone of research.

That’s true for vaccines.
Cancer treatments. Bronchodilators. Analgesics. Antibiotics. Diuretics. Immunomodulators.

Small molecules. Biologics.

All of them.

2/
May 5, 2025 at 12:22 AM
Reposted by QuixoticJoey66
altcdc.altgov.info
CDC is still being muzzled from routine communications. Perhaps as a hat tip to TLOU, which they normally would have posted on as they did for S1, this months EID Journal is budding with fungal disease articles and has some beautiful cover art of fungi. Coincidence?
wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/spotligh...
Fungal Diseases Spotlight - Emerging Infectious Diseases journal - CDCCenters for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC twenty four seven. Saving Lives, Protecting Peoplehome4expandexpandexpandexpandexp...
Fungal
wwwnc.cdc.gov
May 5, 2025 at 2:24 AM
Reposted by QuixoticJoey66
mjsdc.bsky.social
Judge Boasberg writes: "The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders—especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it."

Anything less would make “a solemn mockery” of “the constitution itself.” storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
One might nonetheless ask how this inquiry into compliance is able to proceed at all given that the Supreme Court vacated the TRO after the events in question. That Court’s later determination that the TRO suffered from a legal defect, however, does not excuse the Government’s violation. Instead, it is a foundational legal precept that every judicial order “must be obeyed” — no matter how “erroneous” it “may be” — until a court reverses it. Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 314 (1967). If a party chooses to disobey the order — rather than wait for it to be reversed through the judicial process — such disobedience is punishable as contempt, notwithstanding any later-revealed deficiencies in the order. See id. at 314, 320. That foundational “rule of law” answers not just how this compliance inquiry can proceed, but why it must. See id. at 320. The rule “reflects a belief that in the fair administration of justice no man can be judge in his own case,” no matter how “exalted his station” or “righteous his motives.” Id. at 320–21. The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders — especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it. To permit such officials to freely “annul the judgments of the courts of the United States” would not just “destroy the rights acquired under those judgments”; it would make “a solemn mockery” of “the constitution itself.” United States v. Peters, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 115, 136 (1809) (Marshall, C.J.). “So fatal a result must be deprecated by all.” Id.
April 16, 2025 at 4:09 PM