Workers’ Compensation: A Pathway to Immediate Relief for COVID Vaccine Injury Victims?
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | November 16, 2022
Could employees injured by a COVID-19 vaccine that was mandated by their employer get relief under the U.S. workers’ compensation program?
Some lawyers think so — including three who spoke with The Defender about specific workers’ compensation strategies that may help private-sector employees who sustained COVID-19 vaccine injuries obtain financial relief.
The attorneys also suggested that the more people file claims for their COVID-19 vaccine injuries, the more employers — and their insurers — may feel pressure to reconsider employer-mandated vaccines in the future.
Noting that the number of workplace disability claims in the U.S. increased in early 2021 — the same time COVID-19 vaccines were rolling out — lawyers interviewed for this story detailed the steps involved, the benefits that may be available and the potential hurdles claimants may face, and how to overcome the challenges of locating a suitable attorney and doctor to assist with the claims.
In the U.S., the workers’ compensation program — available in all 50 states — provides an option for employees of companies and businesses that mandated COVID-19 vaccination.
Filing a workers’ compensation claim doesn’t preclude an employee from filing claims via other legal channels. But it does provide the potential to receive immediate financial relief and medical treatment and also, possibly, long-term support.
Workers’ compensation provides possible recourse for vaccine-injured workers
The three attorneys — Ben Carlisle, Ray L. Flores II and Patrick R. Hollingsworth — are experienced in legal areas of relevance to those injured by the COVID-19 vaccines. Carlisle and Hollingsworth’s firms specialize in workers’ compensation claims, while Flores is experienced in issues of health freedom rights.
Flores told The Defender that workers’ compensation is “a much easier system to navigate” than the PREP Act (Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act) of 2005 or the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which are the traditional avenues to submit claims related to vaccine injuries.
Flores said the PREP system is “impossible to get through,” which has led to a situation where “everybody thinks there’s nothing that can be done.” However, he said, “I’ve cited in several places [that] PREP does not preclude workers’ compensation.”
In an Aug. 24 interview with CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD,” Hollingsworth said this means that “if you were mandated to take the COVID vaccine as a condition of employment and you were injured, you are entitled to file a workers’ compensation claim.”
Carlisle noted that the two legal avenues are “not mutually exclusive, it’s not one or the other,” but that workers’ compensation claims are “an avenue that’s a lot easier right now.”
Carlisle also pointed out that workers’ compensation “is a no-fault system” in states like New York, where he is licensed, “so there are a lot fewer hurdles you have to jump through.”
Carlisle said “no-fault” means that employers can’t hide behind claims that the government compelled them to issue a mandate:
“That’s not a defense … It’s no-fault. I don’t have to prove it’s anyone’s fault. I don’t have to prove Pfizer was negligent. I don’t have to prove the employer was negligent.
“All I have to do [is] to prove that they were within the course and scope of their employment and they got injured and that their vaccination relates to that injury. That’s it.”
Hollingsworth, in a May 23 presentation, explained that employees also can file workers’ compensation claims in situations where, even without an explicit mandate, an employee faced “coercion, exclusion, discrimination,” where they were “ostracized by their co-workers or it was strongly suggested that they get the vaccine.”
“I believe you would be able to show … causation there, whether your employer requested you to have it, mandated or not,” Hollingsworth said.
Many different types of injuries can be considered work-related, as long as “employment is the main factor that exposes him or her to the situation that caused the injury,” Hollingsworth said, adding that some states, such as California, often liberally construe facts in favor of the injured worker.
Hollingsworth also said case law has often recognized compensation for aggravation of “pre-existing non-industrial issues related to … vaccination,” such as if the vaccine “aggravated a pre-existing autoimmune disorder or pre-existing heart condition.”
Employees also sometimes can make claims of psychological and emotional distress.
“You’re allowed treatment and in other cases, additional compensation for any psychological damage as a result of said injuries,” Hollingsworth said. “If you’re having any kind of physical reaction to a vaccination, like an anaphylactic shock or any other kind of subsequent injury, we could even go as far as to allege emotional distress.”
He added:
“Many [claimants] didn’t want to get the vaccination and were told they were going to be terminated. It caused severe emotional distress for them to have to choose between injecting themselves or not wanting to take the shot.”
Cumulative adverse health effects, such as “a large buildup of toxicity,” resulting from multiple vaccinations and boosters also could form the basis for a claim, said Hollingsworth in the May presentation, as could secondary injuries, such as falling and getting injured after fainting, if the vaccination caused the initial fainting.
Carlisle told The Defender, “This is a workers’ compensation claim … it’s not a lawsuit. It’s a claim for benefits that you’re entitled to. That’s why you don’t have to prove negligence. You don’t have to prove fault. Anything you do in workers’ compensation will not exclude you from pursuing other avenues of justice.”
Hollingsworth said such claims are “just starting to roll in” as “people are becoming aware of their rights under workers’ compensation.”
Carlisle, who filed two such cases, said soon after mandates were implemented, he had tweeted a warning to employers that they might be liable for workers’ compensation claims in the future. “At the time, I think 10 people saw [that tweet],” he said.
However, “a million people have viewed” his Nov. 4 tweet about his first workers’ compensation hearing against an employer-mandated vaccine: “The judge found sufficient evidence to proceed. Trial set for January.”
Conversely, navigating other avenues of justice has proven challenging for the overwhelming majority of claimants.
Describing it as “a dead end,” Flores told The Defender there have been only six claims approved for payment under the CICP, or Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program. All of them were for vaccine injuries, and payment in all cases is pending a review of eligible expenses.
Appearing on CHD.TV in August, Flores said, “Workers’ compensation is considered your primary avenue at the beginning of a work-related vaccine injury … the PREP Act is considered a last resort.”
The standard of evidence is much higher in PREP Act cases as compared to workers’ compensation cases, Flores said.
“PREP cases can only be filed in Washington, D.C., District Court in the event of serious injury or death and when willful misconduct can be alleged,” Flores said.
However, before you can file a lawsuit in district court, you have to first file a claim with the CICP, then wait 240 days. If you reject the CICP offer, or don’t hear back, then you can file in D.C. District court — but only if there is serious bodily injury or death and you can prove willful misconduct.
Flores said the PREP Act covers COVID-19 vaccine injury claims, as this act “is only for emergency medical countermeasures.” He added, “so everything falls under the PREP Act if there’s any injury.”
This makes a workers’ compensation claim more attractive for most vaccine injury victims, Flores said. “If you file a workers’ compensation claim, not only does the claim get started, there are initial payments that start being made right out of the gate.”
Hollingsworth said he and other workers’ compensation attorneys “work on contingency, so it doesn’t cost anything to file.” He told CHD.TV viewers in August that it’s a “no-lose situation” for applicants.
“The attorneys taking the case, at least here in California, charge anywhere between 15-18%, sometimes up to 20% at some firms if it’s a very complex case that drags on, but usually it’s 15%,” Hollingsworth said. “There’s no upfront fee, there’s no filing fee, there’s no cost deducted from your recovery. It’s all paid for by the insurance carrier. So there’s really no reason not to file [a claim] if you’re injured.”
File workers’ compensation claims as quickly as possible, attorneys say
Hollingsworth told The Defender that, in many states, such as California, potential applicants have one year from the date of knowledge of their injury to file a claim with their employer. In New York, however, the statute of limitations is two years, Carlisle said.
In his May presentation, Hollingsworth explained the importance of filing workers’ compensation claims early. “You want to file a claim immediately. Oftentimes, many issues come up as to communicating your injury to your supervisor or as a liability issue. If you don’t communicate the injury right away … it could be a basis for denial.”
This is applicable even in cases where the adverse effects following vaccination are minor, as this may still help a future claim.
“Most people suffer just soreness in the arm or swelling or redness,” Hollingsworth said. “If you’re having any of those, I would probably advise filing something just to get it acknowledged immediately that there was an issue, so that if there is a more significant injury further down the road, at least acknowledge that you had a reaction at the outset of any kind.”
According to Carlisle, this is because most states specify a shorter period of time to report injuries to an employer:
“In New York and … probably a lot of states, you’ve got 30 days to provide notice of the injury. That doesn’t mean you’re bringing a claim. It just means you’ve got to tell your employer, ‘I took this shot, you made me take it, and now I’m missing time from work.’ That satisfies your notice requirement.”
Carlisle said it’s best to provide notice in writing, and there are other advantages to promptly reporting an injury to employers.
“If the employer pays what we call an advance payment of compensation, if they pay for your lost time or they pay for your medical, then that tolls the statute,” meaning that the statute of limitations is frozen, Carlisle said.
According to Hollingsworth, employers are required to disclose information about workers’ compensation to employees when an injury is reported:
“If you bring it up to your employer … and the employer tells you to pound sand and they don’t provide you the requisite claim form that they’re required to under the law, that tolls the statute of limitations.
“It’s usually very easy to overcome the statute of limitations in workers’ compensation. That doesn’t mean you should sit on your rights forever. But it shouldn’t be a deterrent from at least attempting to bring a claim.”
Workers’ compensation cases move faster than civil litigation
Speaking to CHD.TV in August, Hollingsworth said the average workers’ compensation case lasts between one-and-a-half and two-and-a-half years. Cases sometimes run longer though, “especially if there’s a lengthy course of medical history.”
Cases can sometimes be processed quickly, however. Carlisle said his first COVID-19 vaccine injury client came to him in September, and the first hearing in that case was held a month later.
He described the typical process:
“If it’s controverted, you’re going to be in front of a judge within about a month. If you don’t show medical, the board’s not going to schedule a hearing until you have a medical report that says ‘this individual was injured and I think it’s related to X.’ It’s a pretty low standard. The standard is sufficient medical to proceed.
“If you have sufficient medical to proceed, you’re going to get in front of a judge. The judge will then direct the insurance carrier to get their own opinion [within 30-45 days]. If their doctor says that it’s related, then we’re done … But if their doctor says it’s not related, then we depose the doctors. That takes another couple of months. Then we get a decision from a judge.”
After this, said Carlisle, an appeals process may follow.
“If either side wants to appeal, you could be waiting up to a year for the board panel to give you a decision. And if either party wants to appeal that to a full board panel, you’re looking at another six months to get that second decision.”
Further appeals could add six months to a year.
“I’d say at the far end, you’re looking at about 18 months before you’re going to get a final decision from the full board. But oftentimes people stop even just at that, the regular board panel level.”
During this process, claimants are entitled to benefits, Hollingsworth told CHD.TV:
“Workers’ compensation is administrative law, so there’s no jury trial, it’s all bench trials. You litigate in front of an administrative law judge. You’re entitled to certain benefits, and they’re pretty much the same in every state: you can receive medical treatment to cure or relieve the illness or injury that you have.
“Once your claim is accepted, that’s paid for by the workers’ compensation insurance, you’re entitled to two years of temporary disability in California [but] that may vary by state.”
In his May presentation, Hollingsworth outlined the early stages of the legal process:
“[There’s a] claim form that gives employers legal notice that you are filing a work injury claim, which starts tolling some of the time limits for investigation, denial, delay … In California, we have a 90-day period to investigate the claim.
“Once the form is received, employers and insurance must provide initial treatment of up to $10,000 while the investigation takes place and/or until the claim is denied or delayed. Oftentimes, there’s an employer-level investigation … If their claim is denied or delayed, we have what’s called the agreed medical evaluation.”
Hollingsworth also described the medical process:
“There’s a medical-legal process whereby a doctor determines causation. If your case is denied, you can pick any treating physician you want to evaluate you and give a medical opinion as to whether the vaccination caused your injury or not.
“Then there’s … a qualifying medical evaluator process … where the parties select a state-appointed doctor in a particular specialty — we’re trying to use allergy medicine doctors here, internal medicine doctors — and they write a medical-legal report to establish what caused the injury, the nature of the injury.”
According to Carlisle, the compensation received during this period would cover any medical expenses related to the injury:
“Anything that’s a consequence of the initial injury would be covered medically. So those are the benefits that you receive in [workers’ compensation cases] … Any kind of treatment that’s related to your claim, the insurance carrier pays 100%. There’s no out-of-pocket expenses for the claimant.
“And if something develops down the road that’s a consequence of the original injury, like say you were on your way to a medical appointment and you got in a car accident, they consider that a consequential injury. Then anything that happened in that car accident is a consequence.”
Lost time from work is also covered during this period, said Carlisle.
“Any time you have to lose time from work because of your injury, you’re entitled to lost time,” he said. “There’s a formula to figure out how much you get paid, but it’s all based on what you were getting paid when you were working.”
Hollingsworth told The Defender that temporary disability payments are also made during this period:
“Most states have a temporary disability program for up to 104 weeks. So you get two years of temporary disability. So if you can’t work or if you had to retire or you’re so sick that you can’t work, you’re entitled to two years of temporary disability, which [in California] is two-thirds of your wages to a maximum of $1,500 a week … tax-free for up to two years while you’re dealing with your injury or until a doctor declares that you’ve reached your maximum medical improvement.”
In his May presentation, Hollingsworth said this period could be extended:
“You can’t get it longer than 104 weeks [unless] you have … a severe condition … we have passed exceptions for amputations, chronic or severe conditions, hepatitis B and C — which has been shown to possibly be caused by vaccination — severe burns, HIV, eye injuries, chemical burns and pulmonary fibrosis.”
Also, depending on the circumstances, temporary disability can ultimately lead to the issuance of a permanent disability benefit.
“Permanent disability is a percent of your whole-person impairment,” Hollingworth said. “If you have 70% permanent disability and above, this would possibly qualify you for a life pension. When you get a final report from all the doctors, you’re going to get a permanent disability rating for your injuries.”
These permanent disability benefits may cover new health issues that arise in the future. “If you need medication for your heart to continue working or you need a heart transplant down the road or something, this is something that they’re going to be on the hook for,” Hollingsworth said.
Carlisle noted that, in New York at least, there also is the possibility to settle the case, where both parties would then “look at the lifetime value of the claim” and then “either close out the indemnity, or just the medical or just the indemnity or both, and in that case, claimants would be looking at a lump sum recovery … by virtue of a settlement.”
Families who lost a loved one because of vaccine injury, where the vaccine was mandated by the employer, may apply for workers’ compensation death benefits, Hollingsworth said.
In California, the death benefit is $320,000 for an individual with two dependents, and $250,000 for an unmarried person with no dependents.
In his May presentation, Hollingsworth said that in California, this benefit is paid out as “two-thirds of your average weekly wage” but “oftentimes people want to settle for a lump sum, depending on the nature of the case, which is often discounted at present value.” He added that families would be “entitled to funeral and burial expenses.”
According to Hollingsworth, “Every state has workers’ compensation laws and employers are required by law in most states to have workers’ compensation insurance” and “it is illegal for employers to discriminate based on work injury.”
Claimants concerned that their employer will retaliate if they file a claim have protected status under the law, Hollingsworth told CHD.TV in August:
“Retaliation is oftentimes something we see that people are hesitant to file their workers’ compensation claims because they are afraid their employer is going to then terminate them. If they do that based on your workers’ compensation filing status as an injured worker, they would be subject to a wrongful termination lawsuit, a discrimination lawsuit as well on top of that, whereby you can get reinstated to your job if you get terminated.”
For federal employees, there is a separate federal worker’s compensation system. “The federal government is a little bit more difficult to navigate and less likely to be successful [because] they’re the ones mandating it all,” Hollingsworth said, “and finding an attorney for that unfortunately is going to be difficult.”
For state and local government employees, some localities may be self-insured and handle their own claims, in which case “they’re entitled to the same benefits you would get if you worked for a private entity,” he said.
How do you find a suitable attorney for your workers’ compensation claim?
Hollingsworth, speaking to CHD.TV in August 2022, emphasized the importance of hiring an attorney who specializes in workers’ compensation law, stating “You want to really make sure that they only specialize in workers’ compensation, as other attorneys aren’t really familiar with how workers’ compensation works.”
During the same broadcast, Flores said that such firms typically accept most cases. “One of the good things about finding a firm is that workers’ compensation — as opposed to other types of law — chances are the firm is going to take your case,” he said, “although with the vaccine injury, there may be a bit of a hurdle to jump over.”
In the same broadcast, Hollingsworth also advised the public to ensure that, during any workers’ compensation hearings, “an attorney is handling your case and not a hearing representative,” noting that vaccine-related cases are “contentious” and require “someone that knows the law, that’s experienced.”
Flores referred to legal resources compiled by Children’s Health Defense, including locating attorneys in their state who handle workers’ compensation cases (see attorney search engine, find legal help and find a lawyer by practice area and state), and also emphasized the importance of educating lawyers on such issues, telling The Defender :
“The more information that we have available to the injured party or to the attorneys, then that will reverberate so that they’re not going to turn away the business. That’s another benefit of what we’re trying to do, to educate the lawyers as well.”
What about finding a doctor to back up your claim?
A significant obstacle often reported by vaccine injury victims — including some interviewed by The Defender — is locating a doctor willing to draw a connection between their symptoms and their vaccination in their diagnosis.
Carlisle told The Defender, “That’s going to be the biggest hurdle, just finding those doctors.” The second “tricky part,” he said, is that “they have to be licensed by the Workers’ Compensation Board in order to get reimbursement from the insurance carrier.”
Hollingsworth also recognized this obstacle but said he believes the tide is changing. He told CHD.TV in August:
“In terms of workers’ compensation … there are a lot of doctors who are afraid to come forward who do believe in what we’re doing, but that’s changing. Even doctors that are skeptical, who were on the other side, are seeing such an influx of young injured people coming to their practices, especially the internal medicine doctors, the heart doctors … we’re seeing a changing of the tide.”
Statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis support Hollingsworth’s assertion that there is a growing number of vaccine injury victims. The data indicate a significant increase in disability claims in 2021 and 2022.
The number of disabled individuals in the U.S. hovered between 29.974 million in April 2016 and 30.612 million in April 2017, while the number of disabled persons in the workforce ranged between 5.811 million in October 2015 and 6.335 million in June 2017.
By October 2021, these figures increased to 31.195 million and 6.987 million, respectively. And by October 2022, the figures were 32.819 million and 7.797 million.
According to American Progress, quoting BLS data, the number of non-disabled people in the civilian population and in the workforce decreased in 2021.
American Progress and other media blamed the increase in disabled workers on “long COVID,” but previous analysis featured by The Defender demonstrated that disability claims in 2021 and 2022 corresponded with vaccination peaks one to two months prior.
Educating doctors about vaccine injuries is key, Hollingsworth said:
“We have to help educate them to the risks associated with the vaccines, and I think that is going to take a little time and could be a difficult hurdle to overcome … Physicians do not want to admit that’s a potential possibility, although I am starting to get more people telling me that they are starting to acknowledge it.”
Hollingsworth highlighted state medical boards as an obstacle for doctors who recognize that some of their patients are vaccine-injured:
“Part of the reason why [doctors are] having a hard time is because of the medical boards that have been coming down against doctors speaking out about the COVID vaccines.
“We have in California here a law that passed saying that doctors can be disciplined for ‘COVID misinformation,’ whatever that means. Doctors are worried that they’re going to lose their license or have some kind of disciplinary action taken if they say that the vaccine caused an injury.”
However, Hollingsworth said he believes there are doctors who would be cooperative with patients who seek to file workers’ compensation claims.
“I think that as things move forward, there are more and more doctors that have no choice but to acknowledge what’s happening and will be advocates,” he said.
During his May presentation, Hollingsworth also advised those seeking to file a claim to visit an independent doctor instead of working with a doctor in major medical systems, such as California’s Kaiser Permanente, who “more likely than not is going to look for a way not to find [a claim] work-related for whatever internal political reasons.”
Hollingsworth also advised claimants to pay particular attention to their medical records, because “medical reporting is something that is so poorly done and can often be fatal to your case because of such negligence,” adding that once a mistake enters one’s records, “it’s hard to get it changed.”
Carlisle is compiling a list of cooperative doctors and invites others to join. “Doctors, if you’re willing to give an honest causal relationship opinion, please let me know. I’ll add you to the list of doctors people can find.”
Pressuring employers and insurers to discourage future mandates
For Hollingsworth, workers’ compensation claims serve a dual purpose: not only do they represent an effort to get a degree of compensation and justice for those who were injured by mandated vaccines, but they also are intended to pressure employers and insurers.
He said:
“Through some strategy of a mass filing of injury claims for workers’ compensation, hopefully it will get the attention of insurance companies and therefore employers.
“Large employers specifically will take notice if people start filing these claims and then hopefully maybe rethink some of the mandatory vaccination policies they may have if it hits them in the pocketbook.”
He added his hope that this pressure would lead them to reconsider future mandates.
Carlisle told The Defender :
“I’d like to show people that there are consequences for fascism. The merger of state and corporate power is something we should all be very concerned about. If you just go along with what the state tells you to do and then all of a sudden you’re the one holding the bag for the liability, I sincerely hope it’s a wake-up call.
“That’s absolutely the strategy here, to get people to stand up and assert their rights and to get employers to realize, ‘if I go along with this, if I don’t stand up to the government, if I impose these mandates myself, I’m opening up myself to liability that the government’s not going to indemnify me for, and certainly not Pfizer and certainly not Moderna.’”
According to Flores, the added benefit, regardless of the outcome, is that the employer’s workers’ compensation premiums are going to go up,” likely compelling employers to reconsider mandatory vaccination in the future.
Remarking on the possibility that employers, once hit with workers’ compensation claims and higher insurance premiums, will then turn around and sue the government or the vaccine manufacturers, Carlisle said this might be a possibility, in addition to lobbying efforts to develop a compensation fund.
Carlisle told The Defender :
“I’m going to think that they’ll absolutely try … I would say their chances of success against Pfizer and Moderna are probably not so great, but against the government, I think if there are enough people … that say, ‘hey, you guys did this to us, you put us in this position, you’re going to have to set up some kind of fund’.
“I anticipate, honestly, that lobbyists are going to go to [the state] and they’re going to [lobby for] some kind of vaccine injury fund to compensate all these people that were required to take the jab by virtue of governmental mandates.”
Ultimately, we are in “uncharted waters” according to Hollingsworth, who said the workers’ compensation system has never been tested on a “vaccination that’s being forced en masse upon employees.”
He told CHD.TV that, as a result, “Especially at the outset, these are going to be hard-fought cases because the ramifications of a mass filing of workers’ compensation claims with severe injury is going to be devastating to these employers and insurers.”
Hollingsworth told The Defender that this process “is going to take time” but as “more people are communicating . . . , the more people start to suffer from injury, over time I think you’re going to see an increase in people filing.”
However, one of the most difficult obstacles to overcome, he said, is “human cognitive dissonance,” as “we have an idea of what vaccinations are … and that they’re safe and effective. The rhetoric has been pounded into people’s heads for so long where you’re having to overcome their own individual cognitive dissonance.”
He added:
“A lot of people aren’t sure if they were injured or not. They don’t know what’s causing it. The doctor gaslights them and tells them ‘it was something else’ … Don’t be afraid to second-guess the doctors or the information. Just keep reaching out until you find someone that knows what they’re talking about.”
The information provided does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice. All information, content and materials are for general informational purposes only. This may not constitute the most up-to-date legal information. Please contact a qualified workers’ compensation attorney in your state to obtain advice with respect to any work-related legal matter without delay.
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
White House disavows FBI probe into Shireen Abu Aqla murder to appease Israel
The Cradle | November 17, 2022
The White House and the US State Department have disowned an FBI investigation into the murder of Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Aqla in a last-ditch attempt to appease “furious” Israeli officials, according to US news outlet Axios.
Axios’ correspondent in Israel, Barak Ravid, claims senior Israeli officials were informed of the FBI probe three days after the 1 November elections, at which point they “urged” the White House to “fix the situation” before the investigation was leaked to the press.
Tel Aviv reportedly warned Washington that once news of the probe became public, the situation “would turn into a bilateral crisis.”
“We spoke to every Biden administration official we work with and made it clear how furious we were,” Ravid quotes a senior Israeli official as saying.
Outgoing Defense Minister Benny Gantz reportedly held a “difficult call with a very senior US official” before the probe was made public, telling them that Israel would not cooperate “in any way with the FBI investigation.”
Gantz reiterated this stance this week, calling the FBI probe a “mistake” and saying Israel “will not cooperate with an external investigation, and will not enable intervention to internal investigations.”
Outgoing Prime Minister Yair Lapid echoed the same sentiment, saying: “Our soldiers will not be investigated by the FBI or by any other foreign country or entity, however friendly it may be. We will not abandon our soldiers to foreign investigations.”
For their part, US officials told their irate Israeli counterparts that the White House and the State Department were not part of the decision-making process of the Department of Justice (DOJ), adding that the probe is “an independent decision … [not] motivated by a political decision.”
In May of this year, an Israeli sniper shot and killed Abu Aqla in the occupied West Bank city of Jenin. At the time, the Palestinian-American journalist was wearing body armor clearly labeled ‘PRESS.’
Independent investigations by the UN, human rights groups, and western media outlets have all concluded that Abu Aqla was deliberately shot by an Israeli soldier. Moreover, the investigations show that neither the journalist nor the occupation troops were in an active-fire zone at the time of the murder.
These findings are corroborated by the testimonies of the journalists who were accompanying the Al Jazeera reporter, as well as by the video footage of her murder.
Despite the mountains of evidence, both the US and Israel avoided placing any blame on the Israeli soldiers who fired at the group of Palestinian journalists.
In September, self-proclaimed ‘centrist’ Lapid said in no uncertain terms that he would “not allow an [Israeli] soldier … to be prosecuted just to receive applause from abroad,” before adding that “no one will dictate opening fire instructions to us.”
His statements were made on the heels of a squalid Israeli investigation into the events of 11 May, which concluded that “there is a high possibility that Ms. Abu Aqla was accidentally hit by [Israeli] gunfire fired toward suspects identified as armed Palestinian gunmen during an exchange of fire.”
In July, a US forensic investigation into the murder reached “no definitive conclusion” on the origin of the bullet that killed Abu Aqla, suggesting that gunfire from Israeli positions was “likely responsible.”
A mere two weeks after Abu Aqla’s death, an Israeli soldier shot and killed Palestinian journalist Ghufran Warasneh in Al-Arroub refugee camp, north of Hebron in the occupied West Bank. At the time, Warasneh was headed for her first day at work.
Israel, CENTCOM blame Iran for drone attack on oil tanker near Oman
The Cradle | November 16, 2022
The head of the US Central Command (CENTCOM) claims Iran is behind a suicide drone attack on a Liberian-flagged oil tanker off the coast of Oman.
“This unmanned aerial vehicle attack against a civilian vessel in this critical maritime strait demonstrates, once again, the destabilizing nature of Iranian malign activity in the region,” General Michael Erik Kurilla told the Wall Street Journal.
These remarks came during a visit to Tel Aviv, where he announced that the US and Israel are “developing joint military capabilities at an accelerated rate” against Iran and other threats in West Asia.
Similarly, an unnamed Israeli official told AP that “it appeared Iran carried out the attack with a Shahed-136 exploding drone.”
“It is an Iranian attack, there is a consensus on this in the Israeli intelligence and defense community,” the official added.
Neither official provided evidence to support their claims.
Late on 15 November, the ‘Pacific Zircon’ oil tanker was hit by an explosive-laden drone off the coast of Oman, creating a hole in the ship but causing no injuries or deaths.
The Pacific Zircon is owned by Idan Ofer, an Israeli billionaire who founded Singapore-based Eastern Pacific Shipping, the company tasked with operating the Pacific Zircon.
In a statement, Eastern Pacific Shipping said the Pacific Zircon had been “hit by a projectile” some 240 kilometers off the coast of Oman.
“We are in communication with the vessel and there are no reports of injuries or pollution. All crew are safe and accounted for,” the company said in a statement. “There is some minor damage to the vessel’s hull but no spillage of cargo or water ingress.”
In July of 2021, Israel, the US, and the UK blamed Iran for an attack against the Israeli-owned ‘Mercer Street’ oil tanker off the coast of Oman, which left two crew members dead.
At the time, Tehran strongly denied any involvement in the attack, and warned against any “adventurism” from western powers.
The attack on the Pacific Zircon, and ensuing accusations against Iran, come at a time when the Islamic Republic is being targeted by a far-reaching propaganda campaign from the west, as well as the growing threat of foreign-backed separatist groups being trained in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region (IKR).
Iran confirms it released Greek tankers after Athens did same
Press TV – November 16, 2022
Iran has confirmed reports it released two Greek-flagged tankers that had been confiscated in the country’s waters in the Persian Gulf in May after an Iranian-flagged tanker was allowed to leave Greece.
In a statement issued on Wednesday, the Iranian Foreign Ministry said the Greek tankers had left Iranian waters earlier in the day based on an understanding reached between maritime authorities of Iran and Greece.
The statement indicated that Iranian-flagged tanker Lana had set sail from Greece hours earlier and seven months after it was seized in the country because of US pressure.
Tanker tracking services said on Wednesday that Lana was underway from Greece and Istanbul was listed as its destination.
Data from those services showed Greek tankers Delta Poseidon and Prudent Warrior were underway from Iran and were sailing to ports in the United Arab Emirates for inspections before returning to Greece.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry said in its statement that Iranian and Greek maritime authorities had signed a memorandum of understanding to increase their cooperation in order to improve maritime security.
It said the agreement came following months of intensive negotiations between the two countries and allowed the confiscated vessels to leave on the same day.
The statement highlighted the fact that the United States had sought to confiscate an oil cargo on Lana under false accusations that it violated the unilateral American sanctions on Iran.
It described the move as a piracy and said it was in line with previous US attempts to confiscate Iranian oil in international or territorial waters.
Moscow Slams Dutch Court’s Politically-Motivated Verdict in MH17 Trial
Samizdat – 17.11.2022
The Russian Foreign Ministry has criticized The Hague District Court’s verdict in the MH17 case, stressing that the course and results of the trial in the Netherlands show that the proceedings were based on a political order to reinforce the version about Russia’s alleged involvement in the downing of the Malaysian plane.
Moscow expressed regret that the court in The Hague neglected the principles of impartial justice for the sake of political expediency and ignored the fact that all the conclusions of the prosecution are built upon anonymous testimonies.
The ministry pointed out that the court wasn’t even perturbed by the fact that the Ukrainian side refused to provide radar data or recordings of communication between air traffic controllers and the plane crew. The Dutch court also ignored documents that were declassified by the Russian Defense Ministry in 2018 concerning the missile, whose debris was found at the crash site.
The MoD declassified documents showing that the serial number found on debris from the Buk missile was cross-referenced with a log book, showing it was produced in 1986. The missile was then delivered to a military unit in Ukrainian SSR and had since not left Ukraine.
At the time, the ministry also stated that some of the videos provided to investigators showing the Buk system being transported from Russia to Donbass were manipulated.
Earlier on Thursday, The Hague District Court found three out of the four defendants in the case guilty. Two Russians, Igor Girkin and Sergei Dubinsky, as well as Ukrainian national Leonid Kharchenko were given a life sentence in absentia, while Oleg Pulatov was acquitted.
The trio was ordered to pay compensation to the relatives of the 298 victims of the plane crash.
What Happened to Flight MH17?
Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 was en route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur when it was downed over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014 as the region was mired in a conflict with the new government following a coup earlier that year. As a result, all 298 passengers – mostly Dutch – and crew on board were killed in the crash.
Following the tragedy, Kiev and the then-self-proclaimed republics in the Donbass region blamed each other for the downing, with the latter contending that they had no military equipment that would allow them to shoot down an aircraft at that altitude. The United States and a number of European nations, for their part, rushed to allege that Russia was responsible for the incident – a claim that was made even before an official investigation was launched.
Shortly thereafter, the Netherlands set up a Joint Investigative Team (JIT) to probe the MH17 case, but left Russia out of the process despite the latter’s consistent offers to assist in the investigation.
The JIT’s probe concluded that the aircraft was downed by a Buk missile, allegedly launched from a Russian anti-aircraft missile brigade ordinarily stationed in the city of Kursk, not far from the Ukrainian border. At the same time, the Dutch-led team refused to share concrete evidence to corroborate the claims that Russia was responsible for the downing.
In 2019, JIT announced that international arrest warrants would be issued for four suspects, Russians Igor Girkin, Sergei Dubinsky, Oleg Pulatov, and Ukrainian Leonid Kharchenko, on charges of murder, with a trial over the MH17 case beginning in the Netherlands in March 2020.
Moscow has repeatedly slammed JIT’s conclusions as “openly biased” and “one-sided” and emphasized that after being denied access to the formal probe, Russia had carried out its own investigation, which concluded that it was an older version of the missile made in 1986 and belonging to Ukraine that downed the ill-fated plane. Dutch investigators, however, ignored the information.
Dutch court passes sentence in MH17 trial
RT | November 17, 2022
The Hague District Court has found three people guilty in the high-profile case of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17, which was downed amid hostilities in the east of Ukraine in 2014. Russia criticized the Dutch-led investigation and prosecution as not fully objective.
One of the men accused was acquitted due to lack of evidence, but three were sentenced to life in prison, in partly due to their “detestable” attitude towards the trial, Judge Hendrik Steenhuis said. All four were tried in absentia.
The prosecutors had made a compelling case proving that the four defendants were involved in the downing of the aircraft, the court announced during proceedings at the Schiphol Judicial Complex (JCS) in the Dutch town of Badhoevedorp. The trial started in March 2020, with charges of murder and destruction of a civilian aircraft leveled against the defendants.
The court said it didn’t believe that the accused individuals had intended to shoot down a civilian aircraft, believing instead that they were firing at a military target, but that their actions were criminal nevertheless. Steenhuis noted that it was impossible to tell who actually gave the order to fire the missile.
The judge also said the three men found guilty will be liable for more than 16 million euros in compensatory damages to the victims’ families. This would be regulated by Ukrainian rather than Dutch law, except for the provision excluding same-sex partners from eligibility, he added.
The Malaysian Airlines flight was shot down as it flew over eastern Ukraine in July 2014. All 298 people on board were killed. The incident took place at a time when Ukrainian government forces were engaged in fierce battles against rebels who opposed the outcome of an armed coup in Kiev.
Two of the regions in eastern Ukraine eventually declared independence and formed the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, which, together with two other former Ukrainian regions, ended up being accepted into Russia after referendums earlier this year. The two nations are currently engaged in large-scale hostilities.
The four defendants in the trial were Russian nationals Igor Girkin, Sergey Dubinsky, and Oleg Pulatov, and Ukrainian Leonid Kharchenko, all of whom held leadership positions in the anti-Kiev militias. All four denied the allegations against them and were tried in absentia. Prosecutors requested life sentences for the defendants. Pulatov was the only person on trial who chose to be represented by a lawyer. He was found not guilty.
The Dutch case relied to a certain degree on materials provided by Ukraine’s security service, the SBU. The court acknowledged that the source of the evidence was not impartial, but said it found no proof of any tampering.
Kiev and its Western backers blamed the shooting down of MH17 on Russia, claiming that it provided air defense systems to the rebels, who mistook the civilian airliner for a Ukrainian military aircraft and fired from a Buk launcher at it.
Moscow said Ukraine possessed the same type of weapon system and could have fired at the Boeing airliner. It also stated that the probe neglected to include evidence that contradicted prosecutors’ claims and should have also taken into account Ukraine’s failure to provide raw radar data from the day of the tragedy. Kiev claimed the information was not available.
Alamaz Antey, the Russian producer of the Buk system, released its analysis of the incident. It concluded that the missile that downed flight MH17 likely came from a position held by Ukrainian troops and couldn’t have been fired from the rebel-held territory that was pinpointed by investigators. The company, which carried out a range of experiments in 2015, maintained that the plane was shot down by an older version of the Buk missile, which wasn’t used by Russia but remained in service in the Ukrainian military.
The court ruled that the assessment by Almaz Antey was not verifiable and thus not admissible. The company is owned by Russia and thus its opinion may not be reliable, the court believes. It stated that it had investigated alternative scenarios of the events on its own and found them implausible.
The Russian Defense Ministry claimed that serial numbers found on fragments of the missile found at the scene identified it as coming from Ukraine’s stockpile.
UKRAINE’S EPIC FAIL AT MANUFACTURING A FALSE FLAG
By Larry Johnson | Son Of The New American Revolution | November 16, 2022
I believe the evidence is overwhelming that Ukraine tried and failed to manufacture a “Russian” attack on Poland that would have justified NATO coming to Poland’s defense under Article 5 of the NATO Treaty and solved Kiev’s dilemma over how to replace the massive number of Ukrainian soldiers that were killed or wounded in combat during the past two months. It is a whopper of a number. And Ukraine is in desperate need of reinforcements that are not available if they rely on only drafting Ukrainians.
Here is the evidence that the S-300 missile that landed in Poland was a false flag.
- The missile was a S-300. Originally manufactured in the Soviet Union in the late 1970s.
- The S-300 only has a maximum range of 160 miles (that assumes it is a S-300VM).
- The missile landed in the Polish village of Przewodów in the east of the country, about four miles from the Ukrainian border. Przewodów is the red dot on the following map.
- The closest Russian ground forces, who in theory could have launched this missile, are located east of Kherson. The distance from Przewodow to Kherson is 613 miles. That distance exceeds the capability of the S-300 by a factor of 3.5.
The S-300 was fired by Ukrainian forces located somewhere to the west of Kiev. It is highly likely that U.S. and Russian satellites recorded this launch. In other words, both sides know where the S-300 originated.
It is highly unlikely — hell, impossible — that this was an “errant” missile that Ukraine fired in a moment of desperation trying to take down an in bound Russian missile. Why? The Russian missiles are flying from the south to the north or from the east to the west. That means if Ukraine is firing an anti-missile defense system at those inbound missiles the Ukrainian missile would travel from west to east.
But that is not what happened here. The S-300 traveled east to west. Unless the Ukrainian operator who launched the S-300 was drunk on his ass, it is impossible to “accidentally” fire this air defense missile in the wrong direction.
Then you have Zelensky’s adamant refusal to accept the evidence.
But repeating a lie does not make it true. You may insist that the Sun rises in the West, but no matter how loud you shout or how many times you repeat that nonsense, it is not true. Same principle applies here. An anti-air defense missile fired at missiles coming from the east and the south does not magically travel in the opposite direction.
I believe this is another indicator of Zelensky’s growing desperation. Think about it for a moment. If Ukraine really had Russia on its heels, why fabricate an easily disproved claim that Russia attacked Poland with a missile? This was sloppy trade-craft. If Ukraine had used another Russian missile capable of flying the distance from current Russian lines to that farm in Poland, then the circumstantial evidence might have ignited the desired fire among the NATO members.
I think one of the reasons the US Department of Defense was so quick to agree with the Russians about the origin of the missile is that the technical data from the National Reconnaissance Office pin pointed the launch location. It the NRO knows then the Russians, who have similar capabilities, would know.
I also think that Ukraine and Poland cooked up this plan without telling Demented Joey Biden. The incident was timed to coincide with the G-20 meeting in Bali. Hence, my title — Epic Fail.
Russia blasts efforts to drag it into conflict with NATO
RT | November 17, 2022
The reactions of Poland and Ukraine to a deadly blast on the border between the two states can only be seen as an attempt to trigger a direct clash between Russia and NATO, Russia’s permanent representative to the United Nations, Vassily Nebenzia, said on Wednesday.
Speaking at a session of the UN Security Council, the Russian envoy blasted what he called “irresponsible statements made by the leaders” of Poland and Ukraine over the missile strike.
He noted that it did not take long for Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky to blame the explosion in a Polish village on Moscow and to call for NATO to retaliate.
“I underscore that such claims are made by the person who cannot but be well aware that it had been Ukrainian air defense missiles that hit the territory of Poland,” Nebenzia stated. According to the diplomat, this was a “conscious attempt to drag NATO, which is waging ‘a war by proxy’ on Russia in Ukraine, into a direct confrontation with our country.”
He added that the response of the Polish government to the incident was not much better, as they “stated unapologetically from the very start that they had suffered an attack by Russia.”
Had it not been for evidence in the form of photos from the scene of the blast, “all facts would have been concealed from the public, and Russia would have been proclaimed the guilty side,” the diplomat said.
On Tuesday, two civilians were killed in a blast in the Polish village of Przewodow near the Ukrainian border. The Polish Foreign Ministry initially claimed that a “Russian-made missile” was behind the incident. Later, however, Polish President Andrzej Duda indicated that the projectile was probably a Ukrainian air defense missile.
The Russian Defense Ministry denied any involvement, saying its military experts had analyzed the photos from the scene and identified parts of the projectile “as elements of a missile from the S-300 air defense system used by the Air Force of Ukraine.”
While Western officials admitted that the missile was Ukraine’s, they claimed that ultimate responsibility rests with Russia, as the incident only took place due to Moscow’s military operation in Ukraine.
NATO Reaction to Explosion in Poland Shows Member States Can Act With Impunity – Expert
Samizdat – 16.11.2022
WASHINGTON – NATO’s reaction to the explosion on Polish territory near the border with Ukraine shows that member states can act with impunity, Washington-based Eurasia Center Executive Vice President Earl Rasmussen told Sputnik.
On Tuesday evening, Polish media reported that two missiles had fallen on the country’s territory, in the Lublin Voivodeship on the border with Ukraine. As a result of the incident, two people were reportedly killed. However, the Polish Foreign Ministry said that only one missile, allegedly Russian-made, had fallen on Poland’s territory.
At the time, Polish President Andrzej Duda said that Warsaw had no accurate information about the origin of the missile, but the next day he stated it most likely belonged to Ukraine.
The Russian Defense Ministry also said Russian forces had launched no strikes on targets near the Ukrainian-Polish border on Tuesday, and that the released photos of the missile’s debris indicated it was not Russian. According to Moscow, media reports of the alleged Russian origin of the missiles are a deliberate provocation aimed at escalating the situation around Ukraine.
“It does show that certain member states have specific privileges than others and can act with impunity. Hence, the reaction or non-action to the internal terrorist attack on the pipelines and most likely with any actions following this missile strike by Ukraine in Poland,” said Rasmussen, a retired Lieutenant Colonel with over 20 years in the US Army.
Rasmussen expressed his personal opinion, that despite accusations against Russia in this incident, the West knew about the origin of the missile.
“NATO, as a result of tracking systems, most likely knew immediately that the strike inside of Poland was not a Russian missile and most likely Ukrainian. This includes officials from Poland and the Baltic States who immediately blindly started screaming for Article 4 or Article 5 actions against Russia,” he said.
He also emphasized that the West, particularly mainstream media, and Ukraine will blame Russia in any case, saying that Kiev fired its defense missile because of Moscow’s attack.
“The explanation is entirely unjustified and merely shows the Russo-phobic nature of current western political leadership,” Rasmussen noted, adding that Russia clearly has no intent on attacking any NATO country.
On Wednesday morning, US President Joe Biden called an emergency meeting of the G7 and NATO leaders participating in the G20 summit in Bali. Based on preliminary information, the meeting concluded that the missile that fell in Poland was not fired from Russia.
The Pentagon announced its intention to rely on facts, not speculation, in examining the missile incident. Moreover, until the necessary information is received, Washington will not support invoking Article 5 of the NATO Charter, according to which an armed attack on one NATO member state is considered an attack on all, Pentagon spokesman Patrick Ryder said.
G20 Declares Vaccine Passports Will Be Adopted For International Travel
By Richie Allen | November 17, 2022
The leaders of the G20 have been meeting in Bali over the past two days.
The G20 is an intergovernmental forum made up of 19 countries and the EU.
It claims to work on the global economy, international financial stability, climate change, and sustainable development.
The White House has just published the declaration signed by each of the G20 leaders at the conclusion of the two day summit. It makes for very interesting reading.
Read the full declaration here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/11/16/g20-bali-leaders-declaration/
Pay attention to Paragraph 23.
It says:
We support the WHO mRNA Vaccine Technology Transfer hub as well as all as the spokes in all regions of the world with the objective of sharing technology and technical know-how on voluntary and mutually agreed terms. We welcome joint research and joint production of vaccines, including enhanced cooperation among developing countries. We acknowledge the importance of shared technical standards and verification methods, under the framework of the IHR (2005), to facilitate seamless international travel, interoperability, and recognizing digital solutions and non-digital solutions, including proof of vaccinations. We support continued international dialogue and collaboration on the establishment of trusted global digital health networks as part of the efforts to strengthen prevention and response to future pandemics, that should capitalize and build on the success of the existing standards and digital COVID-19 certificates.
Chilling, isn’t it?
Paragraph 24 addresses online safety and disinformation:
We acknowledge that affordable and high-quality digital connectivity is essential for digital inclusion and digital transformation, while a resilient, safe and secure online environment is necessary to enhance confidence and trust in the digital economy. We recognize the importance of policies to create an enabling, inclusive, open, fair and non-discriminatory digital economy that fosters the application of new technologies, allows businesses and entrepreneurs to thrive, and protects and empowers consumers, while addressing the challenges, related to digital divides, privacy, data protection, intellectual property rights, and online safety. We acknowledge the importance to counter disinformation campaigns, cyber threats, online abuse, and ensuring security in connectivity infrastructure.
Vaccine passports, digital inclusion, digital economy and censorship on steroids.
Tyranny reigns now.
The media is lost with all hands.
Not so much as a peep.
Featured Video
Ron Unz: 9/11 Conspiracy
For more videos go to the Aletho News – Video Category
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
2013: Arctic ice-free by 2015
The Guardian, July 24, 2013
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
Aletho News- UCSF orders their doctors to ignore COVID vaccine injuries March 21, 2023
- Indonesia to ditch Visa and Mastercard March 21, 2023
- Send in the Clowns March 21, 2023
- Greenland to Receive NATO Representation for First Time Ever March 21, 2023
- Putin: Russia Will be Forced to React if West Starts Using Weapons With Nuclear Components March 21, 2023
- Hungary gives Ukraine ultimatum on EU and NATO membership March 21, 2023
- US, EU agree on major weapons shipments to Ukraine March 21, 2023
- Polish diplomat believes Warsaw might join conflict in Ukraine March 21, 2023
- UK to Hand Depleted Uranium Ammunition to Kiev Alongside Challenger 2 Tanks: Deputy Defense Minister March 21, 2023
- Political West doubles down on ‘Russia kidnapping children’ propaganda narrative March 21, 2023
- Ron Unz: 9/11 Conspiracy March 21, 2023
- Report Linking Fluoride to Lower IQ in Children Made Public After CDC, HHS Tried to Block It March 21, 2023
- U.N. Is A Climate “Disinformation Threat Actor” March 21, 2023
- The depopulation agenda, Part 1 March 21, 2023
- Yemeni prisoner exchange deal reached March 20, 2023
- Multipolarity was triggered by the 2003 US invasion of Iraq March 20, 2023
- USA criticized globally over MQ-9 drone incident March 20, 2023
- US continues to use terrorists in Syria – Russia March 20, 2023
- If Americans Knew
- Joel Osteen’s startling interview with Bibi Netanyahu March 20, 2023
- Thursday-Friday: Israeli forces kill 5 Palestinians March 18, 2023
- ‘Angry’ Netanyahu Instructs Israeli Ministers, Do Not Visit Washington March 17, 2023
- Brownstone Institute
- Dr. Frieden’s Follies March 21, 2023
- Once More to the Lectern March 21, 2023
- The Devastation is Deeper and Wider than We Know March 21, 2023
- Your Daughter for a Rat? March 20, 2023
- The Tantric and the Terrible Tempest March 20, 2023
- Eye Protection Wasn’t Misdirection March 20, 2023
- Richie Allen
- UN: “Bring Forward Net Zero By Decade To Stop Climate Time Bomb” March 20, 2023
- India Switches Off Internet In Punjab Region In Sikh Separatist Hunt March 20, 2023
- Young People Are Being Terrorised By Climate Hoax Propaganda March 20, 2023
- Tory Councillor Suspended For Criticising Pride Flag March 20, 2023
- Not A Lot Of People Know That
- Climate change isn’t ‘particularly dangerous’: Richard Lindzen March 21, 2023
- The world is running out of time to avoid catastrophe, new UN report warns March 21, 2023
- No Wind Power In Summer? Solar Panels Won’t Save You! March 20, 2023
- Scratched EV battery? Your insurer may have to junk the whole car March 20, 2023
- No Tricks Zone
- Consent Factory
- The Censorship Industrial Complex March 10, 2023
Aletho News 