Covidian migration patterns
el gato malo – bad cattitude – december 24, 2021
these graphics are from longtime gatopal™ kbirb who has done so much excellent analysis lo these 21 months.
these are especially great.
let’s look:
(note this is only thru july 2021 and seems to be ongoing and is likely larger by now)

well, that’s not terribly ambiguous, is it? (though based on everything i’ve seen in the mountain west, net migration there looks strongly positive)
we can see that if we get more granular:

big winners: the free states of florida, texas, arizona
big losers: the karentopias of california, new york, illinois
this really speaks volumes.
red v blue gets extreme:
and it sure looks like “access to education” is a major driver.

though this graphic (from NYT ) has interesting overlay too.
speaking as one who spent the summer in a free state only to return to the assault and dingbattery of a masked up, restricted, and vaxxpassed puerto rico, it is JARRING.
once you see that this is not really a thing, that life is normal in half the country, and that continuing to play this game or even care about it is utterly optional, there is no closing your eyes again.
you cannot go back to a mask mandate grocery store and not see all these people as having mental health issues (or at the very least some sort of societal spinal atrophy that renders them unable to support a republic.)
half the people i know are talking about leaving PR. it’s become intolerable, especially once you have seen the options firsthand. hearing the same about new york, SF, LA, etc.
it’s just endless and capricious and increasingly aimed at deliberately making life miserable for any who refuse to comply. this round feels personal. “all you have to do to make the persecution end is comply!” it’s an oppressively ubiquitous mantra and the “jim covid” laws are entering every phase of life.
but one trip to florida and the spell breaks.
you realize you’re being conned because you see it first hand and remember.
maybe you moved there because you wanted your kids to see the inside of a classroom at some point before 2024.
this derangement is going to seriously redraw some american maps.
the damage is not the pandemic, it’s the policy. that’s why this is divided so starkly by donkey vs elephant. covid has been a political, not an epidemiological crisis and remains one.
and the more we can support state’s rights and thereby create more and more varied choice for people to pursue their happiness, the more this flow will become a torrent.
hopefully the last people out of the karen-capitals will remember to turn off the lights when they leave…
Delicensing Doctors for ‘Harmful Misinformation’
By Jane M. Orient, M.D. | Assosiation of American Physicians and Surgeons | December 17, 2021
In addition to being subjected to various forms of censorship, for the first time in living memory American doctors are getting threat letters from licensure boards warning them against distributing “harmful misinformation.” Medical boards in 12 states have disciplined doctors because of this allegation. While it is claimed that there’s an epidemic of misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic, the warnings don’t spell out what that means.
We don’t have an epidemic of patients dying because doctors told them to refuse treatment or to drink Clorox or aquarium cleaner.
In fact, no patients need to have suffered any harm at all for the medical board to investigate a doctor’s no-longer-free speech. All it takes is an anonymous complaint.
Pharmacists who were converted into the overseers of physicians’ prescribing practices will complain that a doctor had prescribed ivermectin for COVID-19.
Or an employer might complain that a doctor supported a worker’s request for a medical exemption that wasn’t on the CDC’s list of acceptable reasons.
Or the doctor might have spoken at a political meeting at which mask mandates were being challenged.
Or a patient might complain that a doctor wasn’t wearing a mask in his private consulting room, even when no COVID-19 patients were anywhere near and the doctor had demonstrated immunity.
Or a pathologist might have stated publicly that his busy lab was seeing a higher percentage of cancers in vaccinated patients.
“Harmful misinformation” appears to mean anything that contradicts or asks questions or raises doubt about the dogma that “vaccines are safe and effective,” or suggests a treatment not endorsed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and their corporate sponsors.
One source of the allegedly “harmful misinformation” is a database created and maintained by the CDC, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Anybody can enter a suspected vaccine adverse reaction, and the public can access it. So, “it can be abused by people trying to sow fear,” write Shayla Love and Anna Merlan in VICE News. One person filed a fraudulent report, promptly removed, claiming that an influenza vaccination had turned him into the “Incredible Hulk.”
Flawed as it is, VAERS is the best CDC has to offer for looking for “danger signals.” Of course, correlation doesn’t prove causality. As Lindy McGee from Texas Children’s Hospital correctly pointed out, “I can report if I get hit by a truck after I’ve gotten a vaccine and that would be reported as associated with a vaccine. It does not make any implication of causality.” However, there is a double standard. If you get hit by a truck, but test positive for COVID-19, the hospital will get paid for counting you as a COVID death.
Adverse reports to VAERS are many times higher for COVID-19 vaccines than for all other vaccines combined since the database was established in 1988. The website vaers.hhs.gov clearly states: “Knowingly filing a false VAERS report is a violation of Federal law (18 U.S. Code § 1001) punishable by fine and imprisonment.” So, presumably most of the approximately 20,000 reports of death concern people who really did die soon after getting the jab, most within a few days. It could be 20,000 coincidences, but the count is not “misinformation.”
Love and Merlan call the compilers of VAERS information at openvaers.com/covid-data “dumpster divers.” Matt Motta of Oklahoma State University and Dominik Stecuła of Colorado State University refer to that January article favorably in their Aug 25 essay that says VAERS is only good for researching “vaccine hesitancy.” They don’t mention that the featured VAERS death count of 329 from Jan 22, 2021, has steadily increased.
Also viewed as “misinformation” is the opinion of physicians and researchers that hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and other “repurposed” drugs are beneficial in COVID-19, as shown in more than 1,000 studies. Reports of dying patients who recovered when hospitals were legally forced to step aside and allow off-protocol treatment are ignored.
The safe option for doctors is to promote the jab or keep silent, and not to suggest anything different from what Anthony Fauci approves. By silencing doctors who are ethical professionals, one opens the gates for the reckless charlatans.
Recall that in Orwell’s Newspeak, the meaning of words is inverted. The Ministry of Love is in charge of torture; the Ministry of Plenty, of starvation; and the Ministry of Truth, of propaganda.
Is the Minitrue defining “misinformation” today?
COVID-19 vaccine mandate for San Diego students struck down by the Court in a final decision on the merits
A court recognizes an unauthorized power grab – we need more of that
By Aaron Siri | December 22, 2021
The San Diego Unified School District took it upon itself to mandate a COVID-19 vaccine for students. In-person school for certain ages was conditioned upon receipt of this vaccine. Those who chose to decline the vaccine would be automatically forced into an “independent study program” with no in-person learning as of January 2022.
Because school districts do not have the authority to mandate a vaccine not already required by the state legislature, we filed an ICAN-funded lawsuit on behalf of a San Diego student and their family to challenge the mandate. We, along with counsel for Let Them Choose which also challenged the mandate on behalf of another petitioner, asked the Court to strike down the mandate and, this week, the Court did just that. You can read the papers below.
In a long-awaited victory by those seeking to retain the right to informed consent and medical decision-making free from coercion, the Court found that it was “compelled” to invalidate the mandate as the school district had no authority to implement or enforce such a requirement.
The Court held, in a tentative ruling issued prior to oral argument and confirmed afterwards, that:
The sole function of this Court is to determine whether the [mandate] is preempted by state law. SDUSD’s [mandate] appears to be necessary and rational, and the district’s desire to protect its students from COVID-19 is commendable. Unfortunately, the field of school vaccine mandates has been fully occupied by the State, and the [mandate] directly conflicts with state law. The addition of a COVID-19 vaccine mandate without a personal belief exemption must be imposed by the Legislature. Accordingly, this Court is compelled to GRANT the petitions for writ of mandate.
This is the true role of the Courts: to assess the facts and the law and to make a determination based on only those facts and the relevant law. No other outside influences. Even if a Court “believes” something is necessary, rational, well-intentioned, or commendable, it still must do what it is compelled to do: follow the law. This role has been seemingly absent or forgotten over the past year when it comes to vaccine mandates, and so it is encouraging to see things working as they were intended.
The basis for this decision, that school boards in California do not have the authority to require a COVID-19 vaccine, would apply to all school boards across California that are seeking to mandate a COVID-19 vaccine. We are prepared to file lawsuits against any other school board in California that seeks to mandate a COVID-19 vaccine. Congratulations to all the parents in San Diego, California and beyond who no longer need to inject their children with a liability-free, novel medical product in order for their child to attend school.
For those interested in the details, our opening brief can be found here, the Defendant’s opposition brief can be found here, and our reply brief can be found here.
Carrying our baggage into the apocalypse
By Richard Hugus | December 23, 2021
Almost two years in, the “Great Reset” has reached a certain stage of maturity. Years of planning, infiltration, manipulation, and social engineering have come to fruition. The many simulations are now being tested in the real world. The actors who trained and rehearsed for their parts as presidents, prime ministers, health officials, trusted doctors, and media personalities have taken their place on stage, miraculously prepared to save humanity from a catastrophe never experienced by mankind. The operation was always too big to go on covertly, so eventually the perpetrators had to announce their plans, the war had to be declared, and troops assembled on the field of battle.
We know more or less who the perpetrators are — the globalists, the central bankers, a certain megalomaniac software developer, eugenicists, pharmaceutical companies, Vanguard, Blackrock, the CIA, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Illuminati, the Freemasons, Satanists, aliens working on other wavelengths, and so on.
But what about the other side? Here we see people across the spectrum, very few wealthy or holding power, often oriented toward nation, home, family, personal responsibility, and religion — in other words, conservatives. Conspicuously absent from any resistance to the Reset are liberals and leftists, the anti-war and anti-imperialist left, so-called “progressives”, socialists, anarchists, and union leaders — the very people one thought would be the first to stand up against corporate tyranny and totalitarian control. Leftists opposing the Reset quickly became former leftists. This group spent the past two years dealing with what seemed the betrayal of a lifetime, as they watched their ideals of liberation from oppression carried to the point of absurdity. They watched anti-racism turn into racism, sexual liberation into gender chaos, anti-fascism into fascism. Opposition to all forms of discrimination gave way to support for discrimination . . . against the “unvaccinated.” Belief in “my body, my choice” somehow turned into support for no-choice medical mandates. The new radicals came like puppets of the state to disrupt medical freedom rallies, wearing face masks and calling people “Nazis” for not wearing them.

November 7, 2021, Boston Common.”Anarchists” protesting against a rally for medical freedom.
But then the disillusioned leftist realized that all this was actually consistent with socialism, in which the needs of the collective come before individual rights, and that the left actually has more in common with the utopian leaders of the World Economic Forum than it does with the virus-spreading working class who, afterall, were always too thick to understand the higher goals of socialism. In the surprise ending of the Great Reset, Act I the left revealed its true identity — they were the real authoritarians all along! But even with this revelation, the left lost none of its insufferable self-righteousness.
As devastating as the Great Reset operation could be for the future of humanity, it’s a wonder that we still carry our old grievances and prejudices with us. Millions of people have already been killed or injured by mRNA injections, yet different sides in the freedom movement can’t seem to get over their differences. The left has to come to terms with its delusions, but so does the right.
First of all, let’s acknowledge that with all the power the globalists have, it is inconceivable that both sides would not already be heavily infiltrated. The oligarchs would no doubt agree with their former client Vladimir Lenin when he said, “the best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” We can assume that many in the ranks of Antifa, for example, are undercover cops, FBI agents, informants, and temp work thugs. From Charlottesville in 2017 to the Black Lives Matter riots in 2020 to Boston Common in 2021, we saw them all in action, working in silent agreement with their supposed sworn enemy, the police.
We can also assume that people who look and talk just like Trump-supporting MAGA conservatives are also on the job, as witnessed in the obvious manipulation by agents working with police to entrap protesters in Washington D.C. on January 6, 2021. The left has been familiar with FBI infiltration since the COINTELPRO days of the ’60s. Conservatives becoming active in politics today may not have this experience. They could maybe learn a few things about agents provocateurs and, for that matter, be cautious about “backing the blue”, until they find out just which side “the blue” are actually on. Cops are generally known to serve the powerful. But conservatives don’t consult the left about their experience with the police. Nor is the left talking to conservatives about why wokeness isn’t providing any solutions. The two sides are not talking.
Anti-imperialists have been opposing US foreign wars since the Mexican War in 1846. The list of wars initiated by the US from then to now — criminal wars that had nothing to do with self-defense — is too long to list. Conservatives have generally supported US warmaking and, because of their patriotism, they honor and support the soldiers who fight the wars. But where was the honor in decimating Afghanistan and Iraq, to mention just two? Love of one’s country does not justify starving and bombing people in another country who never harmed the US. Anti-imperialists would not be surprised that the American empire may be about to pay a moral debt for its wars of aggression. They opposed the wars while patriots supported them, and there are some hard feelings there. The reckoning that seems to be coming to America will be hard for the patriots. But it will also be hard for the left when they realize that all along they have been the shameless dupes of the ruling class, who seduced them with high-sounding goals only to put them and everyone else into a prison where they the guards will have control of not only our bodies but our minds. If there was ever a time to fight fascism, this is it. But the left has been AWOL in this struggle, and that is a shame they may never live down.
The control of most of humanity by machines projected by the Great Reset will, if it comes true, make the disputes between left and right seem quaint. We’re going to have much worse problems if we don’t end this soon.
Pfizer, FDA Dodge Media Questions About Pfizer Comirnaty Vaccine
By Seth Hancock | The Defender | December 22, 2021
Two media outlets last week requested, but failed to obtain, clarity from Pfizer on whether its fully licensed Comirnaty COVID vaccine is available in the U.S.
Reporting by The Ohio Star and National File highlighted the ongoing debate over whether the vaccine can legally be mandated, and whether Pfizer can be held liable for injuries related to the vaccine.
The Star reported that despite asking multiple times whether the Comirnaty vaccine is in use, Pfizer would not answer the question.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in August granted full approval, or Biological License Application Approval (BLA) — for the Comirnaty vaccine for individuals age 16 and older.
The approval, granted without a formal advisory committee meeting or public comments, prompted a number of questions including:
- What, if any, differences exist between the formulations used in the fully licensed Comirnaty vaccine and the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine being distributed under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).
- If/when the fully licensed vaccine would be available in the U.S.
Seeking an answer to the latter question, The Star reached out to Pfizer, the FDA and to Ohio’s largest health system, OhioHealth.
A spokeswoman for OhioHealth confirmed the system’s 12 hospitals “are currently distributing the Pfizer vaccine that does not have the Comirnaty branding label.”
In response to whether the Comirnaty vaccine is being used elsewhere in the U.S., Pfizer told The Star in an email:
“The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine (EUA labeled product) is currently being shipped; however, please be advised that the COMIRNATY and the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine have the same formulation and can be used interchangeably. They are made using the same processes, and there are no differences between them in safety or effectiveness.”
Pfizer’s claim that the two vaccines can “be used interchangeably” is inconsistent with FDA statements, The Star said, citing an FDA Q&A page that states the two vaccines are “legally distinct.”
The FDA reaffirmed that distinction, telling The Star the “statutory authorities governing BLAs and EUAs are distinct and provide different legal requirements.”
The FDA “did not directly address” The Star’s initial question about the specific difference between Comirnaty and the EUA vaccine, or why Pfizer is not shipping Comirnaty if the formulas are “interchangeable.”
However, in a Dec. 9 notice of reissuance of the EUA for the original Pfizer vaccine to give booster shots to 16 and 17-year-olds, the FDA said:
“[a]lthough COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) is approved to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 16 years of age and older, there is not sufficient approved vaccine available for distribution to this population in its entirety at the time of reissuance of this EUA.”
The Star also reached out to Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, asking if Ohio’s public universities are following the state’s law, HB 244, which prohibits public institutions from mandating a vaccine that is not fully approved.
Bethany McCorkle, Yost’s communications director, responded that HB 244 does not apply because “the FDA fully approved the vaccines.”
National File, following up on The Star’s reporting, also contacted Pfizer to ask if Comirnaty is in use. Pfizer told National File the “EUA-labeled product will still be shipped and usable until its expiry date.”
Pfizer did not respond to National File’s follow-up requests for additional clarification.
Comirnaty ‘not available at this time’
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a chart showing the current procedural terminology description for the Comirnaty BLA-licensed vaccine states Comirnaty is “not orderable at this time.”
The current procedural terminology description includes a statement from Pfizer:
“At present, Pfizer does not plan to produce any product with these new NDCs (National Drug Code) and labels over the next few months while EUA authorized product is still available and being made available for U.S. distribution. As such, the CDC, AMA (American Medical Association), and drug compendia may not publish these new codes until Pfizer has determined when the product will be produced with the BLA labels.”
According to a Dec.16 letter from the FDA’s acting chief scientist, Jacqueline A. O’Shaughnessy, Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines exported from the U.S. are allowed only if “the regulatory authorities of the country in which the vaccine will be used are fully informed that this vaccine is subject to an EUA and is not approved or licensed by FDA.”
O’Shaughnessy’s letter states there is “a significant amount of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine that was manufactured and labeled in accordance with this emergency use authorization. The authorization remains in place with respect to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for this population.”
In a Twitter exchange last weekend, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) cited O’Shaughessy’s letter to refute a tweet by Joe Gerth, a columnist for the Louisville Courier-Journal, who claimed Comirnaty is available.
Can vaccines be ‘interchangeable’ and ‘legally distinct’ at the same time?
Misrepresentations by media and public officials — like those of the Louisville Courier-Journal and Ohio attorney general claiming the Pfizer vaccines in use in the U.S. are FDA-approved — coupled with the FDA’s own ambiguous documents and public statements have given rise to public confusion and legal questions.
Pfizer’s refusal to directly address questions posed by The Ohio Star and National File only adds to the lack of clarity. As political commentator and attorney Robert Barnes told The Star :
“It is an illicit bait and switch. There is no FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine available in the U.S. The unavailable FDA biologic license approved drug is not medically identical and has to abide different manufacturing standards. As important, you have fewer legal rights and fewer legal remedies when you take an EUA drug than a biologic licensed drug. This directly impacts the legal rights of all Americans.”
The FDA’s assertion that the Comirnaty and Pfizer vaccines are “legally distinct” yet “interchangeable” is at the center of legal arguments around whether one, both — or neither — of the two vaccines can be mandated.
A lawsuit brought by members of the military against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) challenging the DOJ’s COVID vaccine mandate for all service members highlights some of the arguments.
A federal judge on Nov. 12 denied plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction against the DOJ mandates.
However, in his ruling, the judge stated — contrary to claims by Pfizer and the FDA — that the FDA-licensed Comirnaty vaccine is not interchangeable with Pfizer-BioNTech’s EUA-labeled vaccine.
Judge Allen Winsor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida said the service members showed the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) is requiring them to submit to EUA-labeled vaccines, yet “defense counsel could not even say whether vaccines labeled ‘Comirnaty’ exist at all.”
Judge Winsor wrote:
“In the DOD’s view, this is fine because the contents of EUA-labeled vials are chemically identical to the contents of vials labeled ‘Comirnaty’ (if there are any such vials). According to the DOD’s argument, this means servicemembers are not required to accept ‘a product authorized for emergency use.’ …
“Rather, the DOD argues that once the FDA licensed Comirnaty, all EUA-labeled vials essentially became Comirnaty, even if not so labeled. Thus, the DOD argues, the ‘product’ injected is a chemical formulation that has received full FDA licensure — not merely an EUA.”
Judge Winsor called that argument “unconvincing.”
The distinction between an EUA product and one that is fully licensed raises other legal questions. For instance, the FDA fact sheet on the Comirnaty vaccine states:
“This EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and COMIRNATY will end when the Secretary of HHS determines that the circumstances justifying the EUA no longer exist or when there is a change in the approval status of the product such that an EUA is no longer needed.”
The statement appears to suggest the Pfizer-BioNTech and Comirnaty vaccines are EUA, and that both EUAs will end under the conditions noted.
Another key difference between fully licensed and EUA vaccines relates to the issue of liability. Under the 2005 Public Readiness and Preparedness Act (PREP Act), EUA vaccines are accompanied by a far-reaching liability shield that protects all parties involved with the product from lawsuits.
Specifically, if one is injured by an EUA vaccine, the only way to claim damages and receive compensation is to apply to the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, an administrative process under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which authorized the vaccines.
At this time, the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine may have no liability shield, making it subject to product liability laws that allow those injured by it to potentially sue for damages, although Pfizer asserts the vaccine is protected under the PREP Act as well.
Children’s Health Defense, following the Comirnaty approval, sued the FDA arguing the approval was a “bait in switch” to provide cover for vaccine mandates.
Seth Hancock is a freelance reporter for The Defender.
© 2021 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.
Australia’s new Online Safety Act will fine platforms that don’t remove content when ordered
By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | December 22, 2021
Australia has passed a new law that will force Google and other search engines to remove content or risk huge fines.
The Online Safety Act will come into effect on January 23. Sites will have only 24 hours to remove harmful content. The penalty for non-compliance is $110,000 for individuals and $550,000 for companies.
The act also applies for apps on both Android and iOS devices.
The eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant also has the authority to name and shame platforms that do not comply with content takedown requests.
Speaking to The Daily Telegraph newspaper, Inman Grant Said: “There aren’t powers like these anywhere in the world. We will use them judiciously. But we feel emboldened to tackle the worst of the worst content.”
Enforcement will apply to both local and international sites.
The Commissioner said that the focus of the act is content with the potential to cause “serious psychological or physical harm.”
Insulting someone might not meet the threshold, unless it is something that will “do more than hurt a person’s feelings.”
Before eSafety can get involved, someone has to make a complaint to the platform hosting the content.
In 2020, eSafety received about 21,000 complaints, a 90% increase from 2019.
“With these new powers, we will now be able to take real action to disrupt the trade in this distressing material and if online service providers fail to comply with our removal notices, they will face very real and significant consequences,” Inman Grant said.
“Do Not Discriminate” Against the Unvaccinated, Japanese Government Tells Citizens
By Noah Carl | The Daily Sceptic | December 21, 2021
At this point, almost all Western countries have introduced some form of vaccine passport or vaccine mandate. Despite repeated assurances from the Vaccines Minister that this wouldn’t happen here, Britain is no exception.
Things may go further in some European countries. Austria is set to make vaccination mandatory from 1st February next year. And beginning in January, Greece will impose a monthly fine of €100 on all over 60s who remain unvaccinated.
Even the United States – supposedly the ‘land of the free’ – has not bucked the trend toward use of passports and mandates. Several states have introduced them, including some of the biggest like New York, California and Virginia. Healthcare workers with natural immunity have already been fired for refusing to comply.
You might conclude that introducing passports and mandates is just something that all advanced countries do. But that isn’t true, as there’s one major exception: Japan.
Nobody can doubt Japan’s credentials as an advanced country. It’s a member of the ‘Group of Seven’, along with the U.K., U.S., Canada, France, Italy and Germany. And it boasts the world’s third largest economy overall. Japan is known for its technologically advanced society, where the high-speed trains never run more than a few minutes late.
So what is the country’s stance on passports and mandates? So far, it’s completely eschewed them. Not only that, but the Government and Prime Minister have explicitly told citizens not to discriminate against the unvaccinated.
The following notice appears on the website for the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare:
Although we encourage all citizens to receive the COVID-19 vaccination, it is not compulsory or mandatory. Vaccination will be given only with the consent of the person to be vaccinated after the information provided. Please get vaccinated of your own decision, understanding both the effectiveness in preventing infectious diseases and the risk of side effects. No vaccination will be given without consent. Please do not force anyone in your workplace or those who around you to be vaccinated, and do not discriminate against those who have not been vaccinated.
And a similar notice appears on the website for the Prime Minister:
Vaccines will never be administered without the recipient’s consent. We urge the public never to coerce vaccinations at the workplace or upon others around them, and never to treat those who have not received the vaccine in a discriminatory manner.
Western countries still claim to be the foremost defenders of civil liberties. But in the era of Covid safetyism, it seems that mantle has passed to Japan. Perhaps the country will send a delegation of human rights experts to teach the West about individual freedom.
Debbie Hicks Cleared of Breaching UK Lockdown Restrictions

By Toby Young | The Daily Sceptic | December 20, 2021
Debbie Hicks, the anti-lockdown activist who is facing a number of attempts to prosecute her for protesting in various ways, was found not guilty earlier today in Cheltenham Magistrates Court. BBC News has more.
A woman who helped to organise a rally during lockdown has been found not guilty of breaching Covid regulations.
Debbie Hicks attended the Freedom Rally in Stroud, Gloucestershire, in November 2020.
The free speech activist was arrested on the day and faced two charges relating to lockdown regulations.
A district judge has found her not guilty and said police were incorrect to act as though there was a blanket ban on protests at the time.
Cheltenham Magistrates Court was told the Freedom Rally took place in Stratford Park on November 7th, two days after the latest round of lockdown regulations had come into effect.
Those regulations banned gatherings of more than two people.
More than 50 people attended the rally and police, who identified Ms. Hicks as an organiser – something she denied – approached her and told her she might be arrested if she did not leave.
Ms Hicks, who said she was not against vaccinations but wanted to take part in the rally to support “freedom to protest”, remained at the scene and was eventually arrested.
PC Tim Burch, from Gloucestershire Police, told the hearing that officers had been briefed that the rally was “not reasonable” because of the lockdown restrictions coming in.
Ms Hicks, of Stratford Road, Stroud, faced two charges; holding or being involved in a gathering of more than 30 people, and participating in a gathering of more than two people.
She said she was exercising her rights under the European Convention of Human Rights articles 10 and 11 – that deal with freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.
“I felt human rights superseded that [lockdown] and it was my right to be there to protest,” she told the court, adding that she was “shocked” by the level of policing on the day.
Clearing her of both charges, District Judge Nicholas Wattam said while the evidence proved she was one of the event organisers, he found the police response to the rally was “not proportionate”.
“I’m concerned that the understanding of police officers on the ground was flawed,” he said, adding that it was not the fault of the police at the event as they were taking their instructions from senior officers.
The judge added that a blanket ban on public gatherings was not in place at the time, and if it had been it would have been a breach of human rights.
Debbie was only able to fight this case because readers of the Daily Sceptic generously contributed to her crowdfunder, meaning she could afford a crack legal team from Murrays Partnership. Wish Debbie luck – she still has four more cases to fight.
Omicron: The Lockdowners’ Last Stand
By Ron Paul | December 20, 2021
Just as President Biden’s unconstitutional vaccination mandates were being ripped up by the courts, authoritarian politicians, public health bureaucrats, and the mainstream media, announced a new Covid variant to justify another round of lockdowns and restrictions. The things that didn’t work last time would be a good idea to do again this time, they claim.
For these authoritarians, the timing of omicron’s emergence was perfect.
The variant was first discovered in South Africa, with the US and European media running endless scare stories. Authoritarian politicians used the manufactured fear to justify another attack on liberty. Europe shut down and became a virtual prison camp. In Austria, Germany, and elsewhere, citizens became non-persons without a vaccine passport.
South African health officials reported that the variant seemed to be more contagious but far milder than previous variants, as usually happens with such viruses. But the lockdowners would not hear of it. From Boris Johnson in the UK to DeBlasio in New York City, the variant was perfect cover for them to put their boots back on the necks of terrorized citizens.
As to be expected, Fauci reveled in the emergence of the new variant, warning of “record deaths” for the unvaccinated. Similarly, President Biden warned that this would be a “winter of death” for the unvaccinated.
But here’s something the media isn’t reporting about the omicron outbreaks: they are taking place among the fully vaccinated. Cornell University, with 97 percent of the campus fully vaccinated and a mask mandate, has announced that it would return to online only instruction after a massive Covid outbreak. Likewise, the National Football League has postponed several games this weekend due to Covid outbreaks, even though the League is virtually 100 percent vaccinated. And the National Basketball Association, which is above 95 percent fully vaccinated, has just announced that due to a surge in Covid cases it too will postpone games.
The vaccine is not working to prevent infection or transmission of the virus: cases are raging in states with the highest vaccine levels. Yet the “experts” continue to maintain that the only thing that can stop the spread of omicron is vaccines! More people are catching on that this makes no sense. If vaccines don’t stop the spread, how can vaccines stop the spread?
Meanwhile, South Africa, with one of the lowest rates of vaccination, has just announced that they are only seeing a tiny fraction of hospitalizations with omicron compared to previous variants. South Africa’s Covid response authority has written to the health minister recommending an end to containment efforts, contact tracing, and quarantines.
Unvaccinated South Africa is ending Covid restrictions while the hyper-vaccinated North is locking down. Something doesn’t add up.
Fauci loves to say that to question him is to question science, but this has nothing to do with science. It’s about power. Fauci, the political authoritarians, and the corrupt Big Pharma billionaires are trying to make a last stand, desperate to push omicron as a justification for further tyranny and profits. But actual science is not cooperating.
Omicron is spreading and vaccines are not stopping it. Thus far nearly half of omicron infections are asymptomatic. Some experts are predicting that omicron will spell the end of Covid-19. But we know that as long as people like Fauci are around, Covid-19 will never end. Unless, of course, we repudiate the charlatans and profiteers and reclaim our liberty!

