Rutgers bans unvaccinated online-only student from virtual classes
RT | September 7, 2021
A US university student who chose to take classes remotely rather than be forced to get vaccinated against Covid-19 for on-campus learning has reportedly been barred from school despite doing his studies 70 miles (100km) away.
Logan Hollar, a 22-year-old psychology major, told NJ.com in an article published on Sunday that he was locked out of his Rutgers University email and related accounts when he tried to pay his tuition fees on August 27. He said he knows another student in the same situation.
As a result, Hollar has been blocked from participating since the first semester of what was supposed to be his senior year began on September 1. He transferred to the school last year and decided to take all his classes online because he didn’t want to be subject to the Rutgers vaccine mandate.
“I’m not in an at-risk age group,” Hollar said. “I’m healthy, and I work out. I don’t find Covid to be scary. If someone wants to be vaccinated, that’s fine with me, but I don’t think they should be pushed.”
The student’s ouster is an apparent contradiction to how jab mandates have been justified by US colleges. A legal ruling that upheld compulsory vaccines at Indiana University – which became a key precedent for inoculation mandates when the US Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal – argued that students who didn’t want to get the shots had other options. One of the options specifically mentioned was taking courses online.
A Rutgers spokeswoman told NJ.com the university’s vaccination policies differed between a “fully online, degree-granting program” and fully remote classes in which other students might be on campus for part of a course. It’s not clear how Hollar’s participation from his home in Sandyston, New Jersey, might spread Covid-19 to classmates or staff on campus in New Brunswick, halfway across the state.
The spokeswoman, Dory Devlin, noted that students can apply for medical or religious exemptions from the vaccine mandate – a process that takes two to four weeks, during which they are locked out of their accounts. However, Hollar didn’t claim a medical or religious reason; rather, he didn’t want to be forced to take a vaccine that he considered unnecessary, and opted to stay off campus to avoid having to comply.
Hollar said he sought answers from Rutgers as to why he had to be vaccinated to take online classes. One representative told him he could apply for an exemption to get reinstated, which he did. But with the clock ticking on the start of classes, he called back days later and was told the administration had decided not to grant waivers for anyone who requested them after August 23.
“I find it concerning for the vaccine to be pushed by the university rather than my doctor,” Hollar said. “I’ll probably have to transfer to a different university.” He added that he was content to be barred from campus while doing his coursework online.
I don’t need to be there. They could ban me. I just want to be left alone.
Last March, Rutgers became the first university in the country to mandate that students be vaccinated at all of its campuses. Hundreds of other US colleges and universities have imposed such orders, some of which waited for the Indiana ruling to establish a firm legal footing.
Hollar’s stepfather, Keith Williams, called the Rutgers decision “crazy,” adding, “I believe in science. I believe in vaccines. But I am highly confident that Covid-19 and variants do not travel through computer monitors by taking online classes.”
Social media users were similarly astonished, suggesting that the ban showed vaccine mandates weren’t motivated by safety concerns. “It’s not about science and health, it’s about control,” video producer Damon Salvadore said. Conservative pundit Blaire White mocked the university’s policy, saying, “I see we’re still following the science.”
Released docs describe ‘HIGHEST RISK’ involved in US-funded coronavirus research in Wuhan
Deadly bat caves & humanized mice tests
RT | September 7, 2021
Documents obtained by The Intercept reveal that the US government funded studies into coronavirus in bats in Wuhan long before the pandemic, with the proposal showing it was aware of the risk that researchers would be infected.
More than 900 pages of material related to this research were published on the non-profit media company’s website on Tuesday. The documents were acquired as part of an ongoing Freedom of Information Act litigation by The Intercept against the National Institutes of Health.
The documents detail the work of EcoHealth Alliance, a US-based organization specializing in protection against infectious diseases, and its work with Chinese partners on coronaviruses, specifically those originating in bats.
The papers detail that EcoHealth Alliance was granted a total of $3.1 million by the federal government, with $599,000 of that going to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The funding received in Wuhan was used in part to identify and genetically alter bat coronaviruses that might infect humans.
EcoHealth Alliance president Peter Daszak led one of the studies, titled ‘Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence’, which screened thousands of bats for novel coronaviruses. The research also involved the screening of people who work with live animals.
However, the released documents include a recognition of the potential risks posed by the project. “Fieldwork involves the highest risk of exposure to SARS or other CoVs while working in caves with high bat density overhead and the potential for fecal dust to be inhaled,” the grant application reads.
“In this proposal, they actually point out that they know how risky this work is. They keep talking about people potentially getting bitten – and they kept records of everyone who got bitten,” Alina Chan, a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute, in the US, told The Intercept in response to the release.
Another revelation was that experimental work with humanized mice (that is, with functioning human genes, cells, tissues, and/or organs) was conducted at the Wuhan University Center for Animal Experiment, a biosafety level-three lab, and not at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, mainland China’s first biosafety level-four lab, as originally thought.
The program ran from 2014 to 2019, and was renewed in 2019, only for former US president Donald Trump to cancel it. Robert Kessler, communications manager at EcoHealth Alliance, maintained there wasn’t a lot to say on the matter. “We applied for grants to conduct research. The relevant agencies deemed that to be important research, and thus funded it,” he noted.
While the US has blasted China for not releasing all the relevant information on Covid-19, The Intercept said it had requested the recently released documents back in September 2020.
Although they don’t provide conclusive evidence to support the theory that Covid-19 was leaked from a Chinese lab, it does highlight the fact that risky research into bat coronaviruses was being undertaken in the years leading up the pandemic, and the US was not only well aware of that, but also funded it. Bats have been identified as a possible zoonotic source for the virus.
World Health Organization experts spent around a month in China from January this year. Their report suggested that cases identified in Wuhan in 2019 were believed to have been acquired from “a zoonotic source, as many [of those initially infected] reported visiting or working in the Huanan Wholesale Seafood Market.”
Beijing has refused to take part in a second probe, rejecting the lab leak theory while, in turn, calling for an investigation into US-based laboratories.
San Francisco’s Grace Cathedral to require vaccine passports for entry
By Ken Macon | Reclaim The Net | September 7, 2021
The Grace Cathedral in San Francisco will soon have proof-of-vaccination as a requirement for entry. The vaccine mandate will apply to congregants and people attending other services and events at the church.
Leaders at the church said that the vaccine passport move is in line with guidance from public health officials on gatherings and events. However, churches are not required to follow the city-wide vaccine passport mandate, as there is a religious exemption in the state.
Grace Cathedral says it wants parishioners and other visitors to feel “safe,” the church leader said.
The cathedral, one of the largest Episcopal Cathedrals in the US, hosts multiple services and events, including yoga, attended by a large number of people.
Dean Malcolm Young told reporters that there has been a mixed reaction amongst parishioners about the vaccine mandate, but he feels most people support it. He added that everyone in the church should feel safe, and vaccine passports were the best way to do that.
The mandate will apply to all parishioners and visitors over the age of 12. Enforcement of the vaccine for non-church events will begin on Tuesday, September 7 and for those attending church services, the mandate will come into effect on September 29.
Political commentator Calvin Robinson, speaking on the Trans World Radio Christian network, called the decision “evil.”
“They are divisive in that they’re saying who can and who cannot attend Church and that is separating people from God, and therefore the definition of evil.”
The Vaccine Liability Issue Hinges on Whether the Vaccine is a Covered Countermeasure
By Meryl Nass, MD | September 6, 2021
Only companies and individuals dealing with “Covered Countermeasures” have their liability waived. Below is the definition of a covered countermeasure. For a drug or vaccine to be a covered countermeasure, it has to be designated as an Emergency Use Authorized product. Licensed products, being used for their licensed indication, are not permitted to be authorized for emergency use, since they have a license to be used for that purpose.
This is the conundrum that Pfizer, FDA, DOD and the rest of the agencies that overplayed their hand, including my Governor, Janet Mills, find themselves in. If it is an EUA, there is no liability, BUT it is experimental, so cannot be mandated. If it is licensed for the same purpose, it cannot be an EUA. While it is no longer experimental, it will have attendant liability until (in a matter of weeks) it is moved into the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Program.
Here is the info on who gets their liability waived. And below is a description of the products.
covered countermeasure
(1) Covered countermeasure The term “covered countermeasure” means— (A) a qualified pandemic or epidemic product (as defined in paragraph (7)); (B) a security countermeasure (as defined in section 247d–6b(c)(1)(B) of this title ); (C) a drug (as such term is defined in section 201(g)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( 21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1) ), biological product (as such term is defined by section 262(i) of this title ), or device (as such term is defined by section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act ( 21 U.S.C. 321(h) ) that is authorized for emergency use in accordance with section 564, 564A, or 564B of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [ 21 U.S.C. 360bbb–3 , 360bbb–3a, 360bbb–3b]; or (D) a respiratory protective device that is approved by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health under part 84 of title 42, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulations), and that the Secretary determines to be a priority for use during a public health emergency declared under section 247d of this title.
The Great Reset Demands Firing All Unvaccinated Employees
By Dr. Joseph Mercola | September 7, 2021
Over the past year and a half, I’ve written many articles detailing the evidence supporting the claim that the COVID pandemic is a ruse to usher in a new system of global centralized governance by unelected leaders, the so-called Great Reset.
The recent release of the House Foreign Affairs Committee report1 entitled, “The Origins of COVID-19: An Investigation of the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” presented solid evidence that many of the “conspiracy theories” about the virus were in fact true. For example, using some intelligence reports and other public documents, the committee found that:2
“… we now believe it’s time to completely dismiss the wet market as the source of the outbreak. We also believe the preponderance of the evidence proves the virus did leak from the WIV and that it did so sometime before September 12, 2019.”
They presented evidence of genetic modification and wrote this:3
“This report also lays out ample evidence that researchers at the WIV, in conjunction with U.S. scientists and funded by both the PRC [People’s Republic of China] government and the U.S. government, were conducting gain of-function research on coronaviruses at the WIV …
In many instances, the scientists were successful in creating ‘chimeric viruses’ — or viruses created from the pieces of other viruses — that could infect human immune systems.
With dangerous research like this conducted at safety levels similar to a dentist’s office, a natural or genetically modified virus could have easily escaped the lab and infected the community.”
The idea of the Great Reset may feel like a conspiracy theory, especially if life as you know it where you live has not dramatically changed. You still go to work, buy food, go to the gym, go out to eat and attend events. There may be people wearing masks, and you may see or hear news reports about vaccine mandates and vaccine passports, but it hasn’t reached your employer and you may not be personally affected … yet.
But, make no mistake, unless we all do our part to peacefully protest the changes being planned, write to our legislatures, and talk to our neighbors and friends, what is happening in New York,4 France,5 Germany6 and Israel,7 will soon be knocking on your front door.
Does ‘Great Reset’ Sound Like a Conspiracy? It May Be Worse
An article titled, “Welcome To 2030: I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy and Life Has Never Been Better” appeared in Forbes Magazine8 in November 2016. It was written by Ida Auken, a member of the Denmark Parliament9 and agenda contributor at the World Economic Forum (WEF).10
The article was frightening in the simplistic way it describes the dissolution of society as we know it. And, as time marches forward, we see more evidence of what the WEF has proposed as “perfect sense”11 coming true.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau suggested in September 2020 what other world leaders have also promoted12 — that the COVID-19 virus, that has killed and devastated the health of many people, provided the world is an:13
“… opportunity for a reset … our chance to accelerate our pre-pandemic efforts to re-imagine economic systems that actually address global challenges like extreme poverty, inequality and climate change.”
More than 20 world leaders came together to suggest, “At a time when COVID-19 has exploited our weaknesses and divisions, we must seize this opportunity and come together as a global community for peaceful cooperation that extends beyond this crisis.”14 And while that sounds noble, altruistic and humanitarian, it is the plan for the future that is in stark contrast to the statement.
Ivan Wecke, a journalist from Open Democracy, did a deep dive into some of what lies behind the WEF’s Great Reset plan and found what he called something “almost as sinister hiding in plain sight. In fact, more sinister because it’s real and it’s happening now. And it involves things as fundamental as our food, our data and our vaccines.”15
Although Wecke discounts the plans of the Great Reset to abolish private property, use the virus to solve overpopulation and enslave the remainder of humanity as “nebulous and hard to pin down,” he goes on to illustrate in detail how the fundamental structure of the world that controls food and data, and ultimately humanity, is being upended and restructured so that private corporations have more control and influence than governments.
WEF Calls It ‘Stakeholder Capitalism’
It comes down to “stakeholder capitalism,” which are the magic words that Klaus Schwab, WEF chairman, has been promoting for decades, and is a central theme in the organization’s Great Reset plan.16 The concept as Wecke describes it is to transform global capitalism, so corporations create value for stakeholders.17
These stakeholders can be consumers, employees, communities and others. This will be carried out through multi-stakeholder partnerships of governments and private-sector businesses across the globe. As he dug deeper into the concept, it became more apparent that this means giving corporations more power and taking that influence away from democratically elected institutions.
The initial plan was drafted after the 2008 economic crisis and included the vision that governments around the world would be only one influencer in a multi-stakeholder model. When he asked himself who would be the other nongovernmental stakeholders, Wecke only had to look at the WEF partners that meet each year in Davos, Switzerland.
These partners are some of the biggest companies in oil, food, technology and pharmaceuticals. In other words, the companies that could ultimately restructure society and control the supply chain are those that provide everyday necessities. These proposed concepts appear to have started taking shape in a strategic partnership agreement which the WEF signed with the United Nations in 2019.
Harris Gleckman, senior fellow at the Center for Governance and Sustainability from the University of Massachusetts18 calls this move an inroad to creating a place for corporations inside the United Nations.19
The WEF is using the concept of multi-stakeholders to change the current system that countries use today to work together. This multilateral system may not always be effective and may have too many layers of bureaucracy, but Wecke says it is “theoretically democratic because it brings together democratically elected leaders of countries to make decisions in the global arena.”20
Big Tech May Run the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation
What’s really happening here, though, is the move toward placing unelected stakeholders in positions of power does not deepen democracy but, rather, puts decision making in the hands of financially focused corporations. As Wecke points out, this will have real-world implications for how medications are distributed, food systems are organized and how Big Tech is governed.
Under a democratic rule of law, six corporations already control 90% of the news media consumed by Americans. Tech Startups calls this an “illusion of choice and objectivity.”21 How much more propaganda will be thrown in the face of consumers when Big Tech is monitoring and controlling Big Tech?
The year 2030 holds significance for the WEF’s vision22 which is to scale technology and facilitate “inclusive growth.” In the fall of 2021, the UN will bring together the Food Systems Summit to achieve sustainable development goals by 2030.23 Yet, Sofia Monsalve of FIAN International, a human rights organization focused on food and nutrition, told Wecke:24
“’Abandoning pesticides is not on the table. How come?’ asks Sofia Monsalve of FIAN International, a human rights organisation focused on food and nutrition.
‘There is no discussion on land concentration or holding companies accountable for their environmental and labour abuses.’ This fits into a bigger picture Monsalve sees of large corporations, which dominate the food sector, being reluctant to fix the production system. ‘They just want to come up with new investment opportunities.’”
Wecke also dug into a long list of participants in the 2020 Roadmap For Digital Cooperation25 and found influencers included Microsoft, Google, Facebook and the WEF.26 The functions for the group appear to be vague, but if the group comes to fruition, it will be a decisive victory for those Big Tech companies that have been pushing to expand their power,27 are fighting antitrust rules28 and are facing accusations of tax evasion.29
The move by the UN and WEF has not gone unnoticed. A group of more than 170 civil organizations have signed an open letter30 detailing why they oppose the plan. At a time when stronger regulations are needed to protect consumers, it appears that the new UN digital roadmap may be seeking less.
Firing the Unvaccinated Is the Start of the Great Job Reset
Finally, Wecke addresses the issue of global vaccine distribution.31 Instead of the World Health Organization, which is “the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations system,”32 being responsible for vaccine access, another initiative was created called COVAX. According to the WHO, COVAX is co-led by the WHO, UNICEF, CEPI and GAVI.33
As a quick reminder, GAVI (the Vaccine Alliance) and CEPI (Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations) have strong ties with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the WEF and are connected with large pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer, AstraZeneca and more.34
The influence these groups have on the global distribution of the COVID vaccine may have been best illustrated when South Africa and India requested a temporary lift on the rules governing intellectual property to increase manufacturing and distribution to developing countries. Wecke reports35 that although the WHO director-general publicly said that he backed a proposal, others in the COVAX initiative strongly opposed it, and it didn’t happen.
There appears to be enough vaccines available in industrialized nations for the WEF to support any and all employees being fired if they choose not to take the vaccine. The National File 36 published a tweet the WEF made in May 2021 which said, “Get your COVID-19 jab — or you could face consequences from your employer #COVID19 #JobsReset21.”
Additionally, the WEF had posted an article37 on their website that made a variety of claims about the percentage of companies that would require employees to be vaccinated and juxtaposed mental health concerns and burnout through the pandemic with being unvaccinated in the article.
After intense backlash, the tweet was deleted and replaced with a question, “Will employees be required to get the COVID-19 vaccination?”38 The new post quickly filled with screen shots of the original post.
Two Cities Promising to Fire Employees
Even before the FDA announced their approval of the Pfizer vaccine,39 Cincinnati, Ohio, area hospital systems had announced that starting October 1, 2021, all health care workers and volunteers are required to be vaccinated. Among those participating in the vaccine mandate are the University of Cincinnati Health, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and the Christ Hospital Health Network.40
Health care workers in Cincinnati have now filed a lawsuit against six of the hospital systems saying requiring vaccines for employment is unlawful and violates workers’ Constitutional rights. The lawsuit says, “When there was no vaccine, the workers had to go to work. They were heroes. Now that there is a vaccine, they have to get the vaccine or be fired. Now they are ‘zeros.’”41
April Hoskins is a lab assistant at St. Elizabeth Edgewood who has worked for 20 years in family practice and hospital oncology. She told a reporter from WLWT5,42 “You’ve trusted us this whole time to take care of these patients, unvaccinated, without the proper PPE. And now out of nowhere, you have to get it or you’re going to be terminated? Like, something is wrong with that picture.”
August 23, 2021, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that all public school teachers and staff would be required to have at least one dose of the vaccine by September 27, 2021, or they would no longer have a job. Not soon afterward, the United Federation of Teachers union issued a statement from union president Michael Mulgrew reiterating their desire and priority to keep the students and teachers safe. He went on to say:43
“While the city is asserting its legal authority to establish this mandate, there are many implementation details, including provisions for medical exceptions, that by law must be negotiated with the UFT and other unions, and if necessary, resolved by arbitration.”
It Is Important to Point Out the Inconsistencies
This was the second announcement from de Blasio, who first mandated vaccinations for approximately 400,000 employees in the Department of Education, New York Police Department and the Fire Department of New York.44 In tandem with New York, California Long Beach Unified School District also announced mandatory vaccinations, as has Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot for all Chicago Public School employees by October 15, 2021.
New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy also announced mandatory vaccinations or twice-weekly testing requirements for all state employees, effective October 18. It is clear that as different states and municipalities add their own mandates, it’s essential to be aware of what is happening in your local and regional areas, as well as to speak up at public meetings and demand public hearings on the matter.
The mayor of Orland Park, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago, describes an example of how decisions behind closed doors can have a different outcome than those in public.45 He also says what is happening now is about “our processes, Constitutionality and the rule of law.”
The inconsistencies from health experts are deafening. Even the World Health Organization advises people who are vaccinated to continue wearing masks due to the Delta variant because “vaccine alone won’t stop community transmission.”46 Simultaneously, the public is told that everyone needs the vaccine to prevent spread of the infection47 and if you have the vaccine, you can still spread the virus and put others at risk.48
Each person has a responsibility to speak up, share information and ensure that as people make up their minds about vaccination, vaccine passports, civil liberties and the right to free speech, they have all the information they need and not just what’s shared in mainstream media.
To that end, I encourage you to share my articles with your friends and family. As you know, they are removed from the website 48 hours after publication. Please copy and paste the information, with the sources, and share it!
Sources and References
- 1, 2, 3 House Foreign Affairs Committee, August 2021
- 4 Spectrum News NY1, August 13, 2021
- 5 Schengenvisainfo, August 10, 2021
- 6 AP News, June 10, 2021
- 7 BBC, July 26, 2021
- 8, 11 Forbes Magazine, November 10, 2016
- 9 National File, November 16, 2020 image
- 10 World Economic Forum, Ida Auken
- 12 The Hill, June 25, 2020
- 13 YouTube, September 20, 2020, Minute 1:55
- 14 BBC, March 30, 2020, para 6 under the bullets
- 15, 17, 19, 20, 24, 26, 31, 34, 35 Open Democracy, August 16, 2021
- 16 World Economic Forum, June 3, 2020
- 18 Transnational Institute, Harris Gleckman
- 21 Tech Startups, September 18, 2020
- 22 World Economic Forum, 2030Vision
- 23 United Nations Food Systems Summit 2021
- 25 United Nations Secretary-General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation
- 27 The Guardian, August 1, 2021
- 28 Politico, July 30, 2021
- 29 The Guardian, May 31, 2021
- 30 Just Net Coalition
- 32 United Nations, World Health Organization
- 33 World Health Organization, COVAX
- 36, 38 National File, May 18, 2021
- 37 World Economic Forum, May 17, 2021
- 39 U.S. Food and Drug Administration, August 23, 2021
- 40 Cincinnati Enquirer, August 5, 2021
- 41, 42 WLWT5, August 25, 2021
- 43 United Federation of Teachers, August 23, 2021
- 44 CBS, August 24, 2021
- 45 Facebook, Keith Pekau, Bullying, Shaming and Intimidation of Illinois Families
- 46 CNBC June 25, 2021
- 47 Infection Control Today, July 27, 2021
- 48 U.S. News, April 12, 2021
Doctor: Jabbing Children Is “Contravention Of International Law”
By Richie Allen | September 7, 2021
Retired paediatrician Dr. Ros Jones has suggested that the UK government may be contravening international law if they offer covid jabs to healthy 12 to 15 year-olds. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) is not recommending jabs for healthy children, but the government has indicated that it will do so anyway.
Dr. Jones, who is a member of the Health Advisory Recovery Team, said that it would be unprecedented for the government to ignore the JCVI and go to the country’s Chief Medical Officer for his backing to begin jabbing healthy children.
Speaking to Talk Radio’s Kevin O’Sullivan last night, Dr. Jones said:
“So we’re talking about giving it to children where definitely there isn’t a balance for benefit. Absolutely not. That is actually in contravention of international law. We are signed up to Nuremberg code, Helsinki agreement, all of these international treaties, UNESCO, which specify that you cannot do research on children unless it’s for their benefit.
And these vaccines, whether we like it or not, are still in phase three trials. And you quoted Matt Hancock (former Health Secretary) saying that “oh you know they haven’t been studied in children because we know they don’t need them.”
And that is true and I don’t think many of your listeners would know that when the JCVI approved 16 and 17 year-olds last month, only 138 children aged 16 to 17 were in the Pfizer vaccination trials.”
She’s right. The JCVI approved the Pfizer jab for 16 to 17 year-olds despite there being next to no data on how the jab would affect them. I wonder how many parents whose children received the Pfizer jab were even aware of that?
Challenging Vaccination Policies At Work
UK Freedom Project | August 31, 2021
The UK Government has played a duplicitous game over recent months regarding COVID-19 vaccines and proof of vaccination status.