Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Who will carry the can?

Health Advisory & Recovery Team | February 9, 2022

Attention has increasingly begun to turn towards vaccine efficacy and vaccine damage now that we have collated some twelve months of data. HART has recently focused on the issue of the appropriateness and efficacy, as well as safety, of vaccinating children. One of the issues that has not been explored by anyone is liability for vaccine-induced damage; by this is meant liability to those not covered by the blanket government indemnity given to the vaccine manufacturers, but the potential liability of those pushing the vaccines, be that the personal liability of government officials, NHS employees, schools as well as public and private sector employers (or potentially the officials and employees of these organisations themselves). This is  a real issue given that none of the individuals encouraging, administering or in other ways nudging or coercing the acceptance of these procedures has any idea of the content of the vaccines, nor of the medium or long term side effects that these might produce.

This article was prompted by an unconfirmed report (court papers have not been published so as far as we are concerned this remains anecdotal) from France that a life insurance company had refused a claim under its policy against the death of an insured individual who died of the vaccine. The refusal was justified on the basis that damage from experimental voluntary medical procedures are not covered (the vaccines are currently still of course only approved under an emergency protocol) and that such a death would therefore be classified as suicide. It went on to say that suicide from this cause was also not covered under its policy. The case was taken to the highest court in France and the claimants lost. It is not clear that an English court, for a similar situation in England and Wales under English law, would come to the same conclusion. The view from discussions in the insurance market is that it would not, but this is also anecdotal at this stage. Suicide would almost invariably be covered under an English law life insurance policy. However, the French case does begin to put this issue into sharper relief.

There have also been reports from an insurer in the United States (OneAmerica) that deaths of 16-64 year olds have increased by 40%, based on its numbers in comparable quarters year on year. Similar increases have been reported by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India. This is a catastrophic increase, given that a 1-in-200-year event would correspond to a 10% increase and would in itself be categorised as a catastrophe event by insurers if it were widely experienced. While one or two swallows does not make a summer, this is an unfolding event that insurers and regulators will be watching closely. The time to watch is this month as insurers begin to report on their Q4/21 numbers, but the picture is not likely to improve throughout the year. Swiss Re and Munich Re, the world’s most prolific reinsurers, will be worth keeping an eye on, as a key market bellwether. If the numbers are half or even a quarter as bad as OneAmerica’s data, there will have been some actuarial deep dives and the focus will soon turn to begin investigation of  the vaccine as one of the only materially different exogenous factors that could have influenced the data.

Furthermore, one of the states of the USA is in the early stages of introducing primary legislation to make employers liable for just this sort of event. The US is notoriously litigious, though Canada and Australia are very close behind. The principle of requiring the manufacturer and in some cases distributor as well as in this instance the administrator of a product to be liable if it causes harm is a perfectly sound one. This ultimately would be for the courts to decide, but in a liability policy, all parties involved with the drug that does harm would be in the chain of people to sue. However, in the case of vaccinations, a key part of that principle has long been abandoned, in that for decades now, since the first Reagan administration and Thatcher’s era in the UK, governments have given full indemnities to the pharmaceutical industry for vaccine-related liabilities. Yet governments themselves offer only paltry and complex compensation schemes that can take years to pay out at huge actual, as well as emotional cost to the victims, for sums that come nowhere close to being real compensation. This is and always has been unjust, legally unwise and morally wrong. It effectively encourages the wrong priorities for pharma, giving profit an easy priority over safety. And worst of all, it leaves victims powerless, jobless, and of course injured. It puts them and their wider families into crippling financial difficulties and does nothing to curb the behaviour of pharma. The family speaking here describe the huge financial impact in addition to the impact of the injury itself on an 18-year-old girl and her parents. Add to that, cooperative governments that then mandate vaccines and encourage or coerce employers to do so. This is disproportionate given the risk from the virus in most younger people and we witness a healthcare system that seems to have become prone to forget — or even relegate — what should be a sacrosanct principle of First Do No Harm. The result is a toxic mix in which the only beneficiaries are the balance sheets of pharma and their shareholders.

One sure-fire way of stopping vaccine mandates in their tracks is for primary legislation to ensure that employers are liable if they go along with government mandates or nudges. Insurers are likely to react by reviewing coverage for such scenarios, where under legislation they can. Employers will not wish to assume such liabilities without adequate insurance. And should they fall foul of this obvious pitfall, shareholders may resort to Director’s and Officer’s liability insurance lawsuits before which Workers’ Compensation (and their European and other-world equivalents) actions are likely to play out.

Let us hope that such legislation passes and spreads swiftly around the world.

February 9, 2022 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Narrative collapse quickens pace

The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | February 9, 2022

Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister of the UK, has, today announced that all coronavirus restrictions will be lifted in less than two weeks. This is a month earlier than initially proposed, showing the accelerating change in the narrative.

He said he plans to abolish the remaining restrictions in the UK, including the self-isolation rules after testing positive. It is not clear, however, whether this will also apply to the unvaccinated.

Mr Johnson said “I can tell the house today, that it is my intention to return on the first day after the half term recess to present our strategy for living with Covid”. What is this new normal that the Prime Minister has in plan? Surely living with Covid means going back to the old normal, not even thinking about Covid anymore?

In other parts of the world, Portugal, Greece and France are to ease travel restrictions and Italy is changing its mask mandate for outdoor areas. The EU is removing testing regimes for fully vaccinated travellers, again leaving the nasty after taste that the new narrative is to go back to normal whilst leaving restrictions on the unvaccinated.

Across the pond, in Canada, Saskatchewan Premier, Scott Moe, announced the end to Covid passes and masks, signalling a victory for the protesting Truckers. Will Trudeau realise which way the wind is blowing and cave in but try to spin a victory or will he double down?

Fauci has said that America is almost past the ‘full blown’ pandemic phase and will be winding down restrictions and masks ‘soon’.

Although Scottish First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, admitted that Scotland is entering a ‘calmer’ stage of the pandemic, she still decided that masks and Covid certification will remain.

The Scottish public, on the other hand, are saying enough is enough. Data from their Test AND Protect system shows that 91.5% of incomplete cases (purple), in the recent few weeks, are due to the public not responding to the surveillance calls.

It seems the narrative is collapsing and faster and faster each day. However, whilst this may be due to Omicron being more mild, I remain sceptical. The reasons being given are the same reasons many of us said restrictions were unnecessary in the first place. Now, all of a sudden, the corona fog is receding and everyone, in multiple countries and along similar time scales, is seeing the light. Or are they? Will all restrictions be removed or will they remain all but in name for the unvaccinated?

Will they remove all legislation to ensure none of these measures will never return again? If the legislation stays then it will be all too easy for restrictions to return when vaccines wane and seasonal illnesses return in the winter.

Will they remove all restrictions for everybody, including the unvaccinated? That means no additional testing regimes for the unvaccinated and no back-door use of Covid passes.

Or are we truly seeing the end of the pandemic? Some of the pharma documentation that I am about to write an article on may suggest that they see the writing is on the wall.

The next few weeks will certainly be interesting and the key will be to keep an eye on the small print.

February 9, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , , , | Leave a comment

The Limited Hangout of the Mandaters

BY THOMAS HARRINGTON | BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE | FEBRUARY 8, 2022

Yesterday, a number of important Democratic governors lifted mask mandates in their states. Almost to a one, they cited the changes wrought by the fast moving and relatively mild omicron variant of the SARS-CV2 virus as the prime reason for the change.

What none of them did was admit what “the Science” has shown for at least two decades, and has been clear through the last two years to anyone doing a modicum of independent research on the subject: masks have never been shown to fundamentally alter the spread of respiratory viruses within the general population.

What they did say almost to a one, like their counterparts in Great Britain, Denmark and other countries now dismantling previous Covid restrictions, was that the return to normality was greatly facilitated by the uptake of vaccines in the populations they currently govern.

Nearly a half century ago, a man named Ron Ziegler held the position now occupied by Jen Psaki. Like all presidential spokespeople before and since he was a serial dissembler.

But back then there were still a few journalists at the presidential court and beyond willing to do their jobs. And when one day in the midst of the Watergate scandal he used the passive voice construction “mistakes were made” in an attempt to explain away obvious breaches of honesty and ethics committed quite actively by the Nixon Administration, he was roundly mocked by the press corps.

Sadly, however, as I have argued elsewhere, this type of non-apology apology, which caused a scandal then, has become ubiquitous across our social landscape. And that’s a shame.

Why?

Because real apologies and expressions of accountability are important. Without them, neither the apologizer nor the aggrieved party ever experiences what the ancient Greeks considered a cardinal element in human development and human relations: catharsis.

This is especially so in the case of government entities. Without admissions of guilt, the assumptions and premises undergirding failed policies remain intact, lying fallow until such time as the government entity in question feels it opportune to deploy them again in the service of another misguided crusade.

This is what is currently occurring with the Covid hawks who have violated our fundamental rights time and again over the last two years.

These enemies of human dignity and freedom now realize that many of their former supporters among the citizenry feel exhausted, and in many cases, flat out deceived.

At the same time, however, they do not want to permanently relinquish the powerful repressive tools they have acquired during the two-year state of exception.

The answer?

One part of it, already mentioned, is the moderated limited hangout operation now being conducted regarding the use of masks in public. By relaxing these strictures while in no way addressing the fundamental fallacies upon which the masking policies were based, they ensure that mask mandates can be brought back when and if they deem it necessary to do so.

The second part, which is far more pernicious and consequential, is the effort to push a proposition that is at best quite tenuous in light of what actual scientific studies are currently revealing about vaccine efficacy: that without widespread injection uptake the virus would have never receded, and we would have thus never have gotten into a position to recover our freedoms.

Note the underlying logic here. We are not getting our freedoms back because they intrinsically belong to us and were unjustly stolen. We are getting them back because an important plurality of us have done what the “experts” and the “authorities” coerced us into doing.

With this approach there is no catharsis or healing, and certainly no acquisition of new wisdom and knowledge. What there is, is a sly reification of the infantilizing and anti-democratic ways of thinking that have predominated in our policy-making class throughout the pandemic.

Though many people, laboring under the mortal fear of being branded with the weaponized term of “conspiracy theorist,” are reluctant to admit it, the central concern of policy-makers throughout the pandemic has not been the health of our communities, but rather gaining enhanced control over where we go and what we put into our bodies.

There is nothing more central to the idea and practice of freedom than bodily autonomy. It is the basal freedom from which all others are derived. Without it—as the history of slavery starkly reminds us—all other liberties are comparatively ornamental.

For this reason, we must vigorously oppose this organized attempt to present the vaccines, which have been delivered to millions under rather severe coercion, as a great, if not the greatest, hero of the pandemic film.

Thomas Harrington, Senior Scholar at the Brownstone Institute, is an essayist and Professor Emeritus of Hispanic Studies at Trinity College in Hartford (USA) where he taught for 24 years. He specializes in Iberian movements of national identity Contemporary Catalan culture. His writings are at Thomassharrington.com.

February 9, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

UK “reforming” human rights law… compulsory vaccines on the horizon?

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | February 8, 2022

The UK government is planning to re-work its human rights law to put an increased emphasis on “personal responsibility” and “duties to the wider society”, as well as preventing people “abusing” their rights.

Sounds pretty awful, doesn’t it? But let’s go back to the beginning.

In December 2020 the UK government announced they would be looking into Human Rights reform in the near future.

These announcements became more concrete a year later on December 14th 2021, when the government began a “consultation” on restructuring the Human Rights Act.

The plan is to replace current rights legislation with a so-called “UK Bill of Rights”, a policy dating from the Cameron administration. The new “bill of rights” would update and replace the Human Rights Act.

As a brief summary of UK human rights law:

Some rights are enshrined in common law from the days of Magna Carta, but the vast majority of the time when we talk about “human rights” in the UK we’re referring to the Human Rights Act 1998.

This act was written into law as essentially a verbatim copy of the European Convention on Human Rights passed by the Council of Europe in the 1950s.

The purpose of writing the international treaty into domestic law was so British citizens could take human rights cases to domestic courts, instead of having to go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

As with most human rights laws, from the UN Declaration of Human Rights to the US Constitution, a lot of the time the Human Rights Act is flat-out ignored, or at best worked around. But it does exist, and it does offer some protection of the individual from the power of the state.

Will that continue to be the case after these “reforms”?

The UK’s current “consultation” on Human Rights “reform” is set to end next month (March 2022), & whatever its final recommendations are will likely not be published for several months after that. But, while we can’t yet be certain exactly what they will say…we can get some rough ideas from what they have released so far.

Dominic Raab, the Justice Secretary who commissioned the consultation, recently said in an interview on LBC:

Our plans for a Bill of Rights will strengthen typically British rights like freedom of speech and trial by jury, while preventing abuses of the system and adding a healthy dose of common sense.”

If you’re anything like me, the phrases “abuses of the system” and “common sense” just made your inner cynic twitch, but there’s no real detail there.

Perhaps you’re thinking, at this point, that if you read the whole briefing document there will be nothing there to justify any paranoia.

… except I have, and there is.

If you drill down through the filler, and can read through the bureaucratic language, there are some pretty concerning red flags waving around, especially in their stated aims [emphasis added]:

Our reforms will be a check on the expansion and inflation of rights without democratic oversight and consent, and will provide greater legal certainty.

[The Bill of Rights will] provide greater clarity regarding the interpretation of certain rights, such as the right to respect for private and family life, by guiding the UK courts in interpreting the rights and balancing them with the interests of our society as a whole

[The Bill of Rights will] provide more certainty for public authorities to discharge the functions Parliament has given them, without the fear that this will expose them to costly human rights litigation

The government is committed to ensuring that the biggest social media companies protect users from abuse and harm, and in doing so ensuring that everyone can enjoy their right to freedom of expression free from the fear of abuse.

Protecting authorities from legal consequences, stamping out “abuse” online, subordinating privacy to national security… these are pretty routine aims of new legislation these days. They are expected, almost cliche.

The biggest and freshest warning sign is the sheer number of mentions of “duty” or “responsibility” or “the wider society”.

For example, this sentence from the forward written by Raab himself:

our system must strike the proper balance of rights and responsibilities, individual liberty and the public interest,

And in point 6 of the Executive Summary…

The Bill of Rights will make sure a proper balance is struck between individuals’ rights, personal responsibility, and the wider public interest.

… and then point 9 too:

[The Bill of rights will] recognise that responsibilities exist alongside rights, and that these should be reflected in the approach to balancing qualified rights and the remedies available for human rights claims

The header at the top of Chapter 3, “The Case for Reforming UK Human Rights Law”, bemoans:

the growth of a ‘rights culture’ that has displaced due focus on personal responsibility and the public interest […] public protection [is] put at risk by the exponential expansion of rights

Going into greater detail further down:

The international human rights framework recognises that not all rights are absolute and that an individual’s rights may need to be balanced, either against the rights of others or against the wider public interest. Many of the rights in the Convention are ‘qualified’, recognising explicitly the need to respect the rights of others and the broader needs of society […] The idea that rights come alongside duties and responsibilities is steeped in the UK tradition of liberty

And then again, in the first paragraph from section IV “Emphasising the role of responsibilities within the human rights framework” [emphasis added]:

We all have responsibilities in our society: to society (such as to obey the law and pay taxes), to our families, and to people around us. Everyone holds human rights whether or not they undertake their responsibilities, particularly the absolute rights in the Convention such as the prohibition on torture. Nonetheless, the government believes that our new human rights framework should reflect the importance of responsibilities.

It carries on in equally concerning fashion…

when a court is considering the proportionality of an interference with a person’s qualified rights, it will consider the extent to which the person has fulfilled their own relevant responsibilities.

The overall message is clear: Human rights can be tempered with “responsibilities” & anyone who does not fulfil their “responsibilities” is less deserving of the legal protection of their rights.

This is neither new thinking nor new language. Throughout “Covid times” we have seen talk of liberty parried with talk of duty, but it predates Covid too.

For years free speech has been tempered with talk of “being offensive” or “spreading misinformation”. The right to privacy has long been secondary to “national security” and “keeping people safe”.

Human Rights law is regularly trumped by The Patriot Act or Investigatory Powers Act or a dozen equally appalling pieces of legislation from both sides of the Atlantic.

But now, rather than bypassing human rights laws, this government is going to – to quote Raab – “rebuild them”. Meaning shred the existing ones and write all new ones. Ones that use “common sense” to make sure people are “responsible” and don’t “abuse” their rights.

Within the scope of this so-called “reform” is the desire to add conditions to basic human liberties. Exchanging “self-evident” truths, “endowed upon men at their creation”, for a quid-pro-quo agreement with the state.

This is a seismic shift in the very definition of “rights”.

The entire point of human rights is that they are innate and inalienable, they exist for everyone everywhere, and are not in the gift of any authority.

But now, rather, the UK government is arguing your rights are given to you at their behest, and that they come at the cost of expected duty.

And given all the talk during the “pandemic” regarding “protecting others” and being “responsible” – with masks, lockdowns and most especially vaccines – it’s not hard to see how these new “duties” could be applied in the future.

There’s no direct talk of compulsory vaccination, yet, but if these new “human rights” laws are made a reality, the next pandemic could be much harder to navigate.

You can read the complete consultation on human rights reform here.

February 8, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

No One Can Tolerate Permanent Fever, High Antibodies

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | February 8, 2022

Endless COVID-19 booster shots are being presented as the solution to the pandemic, as repeated injections increase the level of antibodies in your body.1 In December 2021, for instance, Moderna reported that their COVID-19 booster shot increased the level of antibodies by 37-fold, and when a full dose was given — the same amount used for the initial shots — antibody levels rose 83-fold.2

Pfizer and BioNTech have also announced that their booster shots increase antibody levels, but to what end? Artificially inflated antibodies signal to your body that you’re always infected, and the resulting immune response could prove to be detrimental to your health.

Such a condition can only lead to a “death zone,” accelerating the development of autoimmune conditions such as Parkinson’s, Kawasaki disease and multiple sclerosis, according to tech leader and COVID analyst Marc Girardot, who urges a retreat from the vaccination “death zone” before it’s too late.3

Are Boosters Taking Humans to the Death Zone?

Mountaineers are familiar with the “death zone,” which describes the top portion of the world’s tallest mountains — areas of such high altitude that oxygen is scarce, where humans can only survive for a matter of hours. “The same principle applies to our immune system,” Girardot explains, referring to the intense response our bodies mount in response to infection.

The response includes a high fever to damage virions, T-cell elevations and increased antibody production to rid your body of “viral debris.” This is designed to be a temporary response; after the threat is neutralized, your body tamps down its immune response. Girardot states:4

“Once the infection is gone, a regiment of sentinels is left in the mucus to guard the entrance for the remainder of the epidemic, a few roaming sentinels with lifelong memory are set, and the rest wanes back down to bring peace and balance. It’s called homeostasis. The fever dissipates. T-cells self-destruct rapidly. And antibodies wane progressively.”

This is by design, as a perpetual fever and high levels of antibodies keep your body in a dangerous state. Just as chronic stress — keeping your body in an extended state of “fight or flight mode” — increases disease risks, so, too, do permanently elevated levels of antibodies. Girardot details three reasons why:5

“1. Too long a fever would end up breaking down all healthy cells, and so the remedy would be worse than the illness.

2. Perpetual specialized T-cells are also dangerous as they can start off-target attacks of healthy cells (as often occurs with immune checkpoint blockade treatments against cancer), and would be like leaving your home filled with a battalion of armed soldiers with their guns loaded and pin-less hand-grenades.

3. Finally, very high levels of antibodies with nowhere to go are also extremely dangerous. They can passively bind to receptors of healthy cells, and kickstart a cascade of autoimmune diseases. Land mining where you live.”

Decreased Antibodies Isn’t a Measure of Waning Immunity

Remember, your immune system is designed to work in response to exposure to an infectious agent. Your adaptive immune system, specifically, generates antibodies that are used to fight pathogens that your body has previously encountered.6 During normal infections, high fever and temporary T-cell elevations, along with elevated antibodies to the infection, gradually dissipate.

However, declining antibodies shouldn’t be confused with declining immunity. Early data on SARS-CoV-2 also found that antibody titers declined rapidly in the first months after recovery from COVID-19, leading some to speculate — incorrectly — that protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2 may also be short-lived.7

Senior author of the study, Ali Ellebedy, Ph.D., an associate professor of pathology & immunology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, explained, “It’s normal for antibody levels to go down after acute infection, but they don’t go down to zero; they plateau.”8

A biphasic pattern of antibody concentrations against SARS-CoV-2 was uncovered,9 in which high antibody concentrations were found in the acute immune response that occurred at the time of initial infection. The antibodies declined in the first months after infection, as should be expected, then leveled off to about 10% to 20% of the maximum concentration detected.

When a new infection occurs, cells called plasmablasts provide antibodies, but when the virus is cleared, longer lasting memory B cells move in to monitor blood for signs of reinfection.10 Bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) also exist in bones, acting as “persistent and essential sources of protective antibodies.”11

According to Ellebedy, “A plasma cell is our life history, in terms of the pathogens we’ve been exposed to,”12 and it’s in these long-lived BMPCs were immunity to SARS-CoV-2 resides.

Among people who have recovered from COVID-19, most of the participants had BMPCs that secreted antibodies specific for the spike protein encoded by SARS-CoV-2 at both seven months and 11 months after infection.13 This is evidence of long-lasting immunity,14 even if levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (S) antibodies decline rapidly in the first four months after infection.

There’s a Cost to Massive, Artificially Elevated Antibodies

COVID-19 shots are poised for a perpetual cycle of ongoing booster shots every few months. After up to two doses of the initial shot, and a third booster already on the roster, a fourth booster is already being discussed, including by Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel, who said that the efficacy of the third shot is likely to decline over several months, necessitating another shot soon thereafter.15

“Many politicians and vaccine manufacturers adamantly propose repeated injections, boosters every 3 or 4 months, as if waning antibodies were a sign of lost immunity,” Girardot said. “In reality, they are scapegoating the natural drop in antibodies. It is a smokescreen to hide their failure and the ineffectiveness of these intramuscular vaccines.”16

The reality is, repeatedly, artificially inflating antibodies comes with a cost. It’s known, for instance, that certain autoimmune diseases are seen alongside high levels of antibodies.17 Vaccine-induced autoimmunity is a well-known phenomenon, and molecular mimicry may be to blame.18

It occurs when similarities between different antigens confuse the immune system.19 There are often significant similarities between elements in the vaccine and human proteins, which can lead to immune cross-reactivity. When this occurs, researchers explained in Cellular & Molecular Immunology, “the reaction of the immune system towards the pathogenic antigens may harm the similar human proteins, essentially causing autoimmune disease.”20

In relation to COVID-19 shots, specifically, researchers wrote in the Journal of Autoimmunity, “Indeed, antibodies against the spike protein S1 of SARS-CoV-2 had a high affinity against some human tissue proteins. As vaccine mRNA codes the same viral protein, they can trigger autoimmune diseases in predisposed patients.”21

Already, case reports suggest that COVID-19 shots may trigger vaccine-induced immune-mediated and autoimmune hepatitis,22 and Girardot is concerned that repeated booster shots will only worsen outcomes:23

“In the case of an infection, the risk is relatively limited as the bulk of antibodies ends up binding to viral material circulating in large numbers. However, in the case of repeated doses, it’s very different.

After the second shot, it is likely that limited amounts of spike are produced as T-cells rapidly destroy production capacity. Thus, for most of us, large quantities of antibodies will inevitably be left idle circulating aimlessly, expanding exponentially (time x quantity) the risk of an accidental binding with catastrophic consequences.”

Natural Infection Produces Broad Immunity

Training your body to produce singular antibodies for one spike protein cannot compare to the protection provided by natural immunity, which occurs after recovery from an illness. Speaking with Daniel Horowitz, pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole explained that natural infection produces broad immunity that can’t be matched by vaccination:24

“A natural infection induces hundreds upon hundreds of antibodies against all proteins of the virus, including the envelope, the membrane, the nucleocapsid, and the spike. Dozens upon dozens of these antibodies neutralize the virus when encountered again.

Additionally, because of the immune system exposure to these numerous proteins (epitomes), our T cells mount a robust memory, as well. Our T cells are the ‘marines’ of the immune system and the first line of defense against pathogens. T cell memory to those infected with SARSCOV1 is at 17 years and running still.”

This may explain why a retrospective observational study published August 25, 2021, found that natural immunity is superior to immunity from COVID-19 shots, with researchers stating, “This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.”25

Pharmaceutical companies and health officials are making plans for ongoing boosters, including combination shots that include, for example, a COVID-19 shot, a flu shot and a respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) shot, in one injection — coming in 2023 — to avoid “compliance issues.”26

Nearly two dozen pathogens are currently being targeted for the development of new shots,27,28 and it’s likely that you’re going to see a continued push for more jabs and boosters. Will humans’ immune systems, and overall health, be able to withstand such an assault? Girardot doesn’t think so:29

“Today, I would like to underscore the absolute lunacy of delivering these products to an entire population every 3-4 months. It’s nothing short of criminal. In my earnest opinion, repeated vaccine injections can only lead to one outcome: generalized illness and death …

The vaccination ‘Death Zone’ exists, and we need to urgently go back down in the valley, we need to stop vaccinating, stop boosting aimless antibodies and trust our immune systems.”

Sources and References

February 8, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Mandatory Vaccination via the Back Door

The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | February 8, 2022

There has been a lot of fanfare about the recent decision to abandon mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations for National Health Service (NHS) staff in England. However, the pressure is still on.

The welcome U-turn was announced on 31 January, when Sajid Javid (the health secretary) said that whilst looking at the risks and opportunities of the vaccination as a condition of deployment policy, there were 2 new factors to consider. Firstly, the population as a whole is better protected against hospitalisation and secondly, Omicron is intrinsically less severe. He then concluded that while vaccination remains our very best line of defence, he no longer believes it is proportionate to require vaccination through statute.

All reasonably sensible stuff so far and this is what the majority of the media picked up on. However, he wasn’t finished yet. He continued with the following statement (emphasis my own):

Some basic facts remain: vaccines save lives, and everyone working in health and social care has a professional duty to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

So, while we will seek to end vaccination as a condition of deployment in health and social care settings using statute, I am taking the following steps:

First, I have written to professional regulators operating across health to ask them to urgently review current guidance to registrants on vaccinations, including COVID-19, to emphasise their professional responsibilities in this area.

Second, I have asked the NHS to review its policies on the hiring of new staff and the deployment of existing staff, taking into account their vaccination status.

And third, I’ve asked my officials to consult on updating my department’s code of practice, which applies to all CQC registered providers of all healthcare and social care in England.

They will consult on strengthening requirements in relation to COVID-19 including reflecting the latest advice on infection prevention control.

So it seems that, as suspected, the U-turn didn’t occur because it was the sensible path to follow but because of political motives. Too much pressure was building up in support of the unvaccinated health care workers. Furthermore, there would have been nowhere to hide politically, when 10 percent of the health care staff were sacked, causing massive chaos in an already overstretched service.

However, the pressure is still on for the staff who have chosen not to be vaccinated. Firstly, the regulations have not been revoked yet, they will be subject to a consultation and parliamentary approval. Secondly, similar to my article on the removal of human rights, there will be professional pressure applied to staff in the interests of the greater good. Thirdly, policies will be changed making it very difficult for unvaccinated workers. As one nurse put it:

No vaccine mandate but; you can’t change jobs, take a promotion, progress in your career, and you will forever be coerced into taking a jab and live with constant fear that one day you could be sacked for not taking it.

This is not over!

Yesterday, a Times article reported that Sajid Javid has told medical regulators to insist staff get jabs. It says the health secretary has said that “medical regulators must crack down on unvaccinated staff”. The article reports that “he has written to nine regulators, including the General Medical Council (GMC) and Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC). Abandoning compulsory vaccines ‘in no way diminished the importance that health and care workers are vaccinated. Indeed, it is the responsibility of all health care professionals to take steps to ensure the safety of patients’. [Sajid is] ‘concerned that the guidance from the professional regulators on this issue is currently limited to a statement about vaccination in general’ rather than about Covid-19 in particular”. Javid told the regulators “that they should ‘urgently’ work with senior health leaders ‘to ensure yourself that your current guidance on vaccination for Covid, sends a clear message to registrants’.”

I don’t think there will be much opposition at management level in the NHS, when individuals such as Chris Hopson (CEO of NHS Providers) and Matthew Taylor (CEO of NHS Confederation) issued a joint statement saying “NHS leaders are frustrated to have such a significant change in policy at the 11th hour, given all the hard and complex work that has gone into meeting the deadline set by the government. They recognise the reasons . . . but there will be concern at what this means for wider messaging about the importance of vaccination for the population as a whole.”

Also yesterday, England’s Chief Medical Officer (Chris Whitty), together with the Chief Nursing Officer, Chief Midwifery Officer, Medical Directors and others wrote to NHS colleagues about their professional responsibility to get vaccinated.

In the letter they say “COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective because there have been over 10 billion doses given worldwide”. They also say that the vaccines “provide protection from becoming infected”. I don’t know how they can claim that when data from the UK Health Security Agency itself, shows infection rates to be higher in the majority of vaccinated age groups.

The main gist of the letter is to guilt health care workers into getting vaccinated. They use words such as “professional responsibility”, “the public reasonably expect” and “to protect our patients”. The letter ends by saying “the great majority of heathcare workers have already done so [been vaccinated]. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now.

The level of coercion to get vaccinated, particular with health care workers, is unacceptable and is not dying down. For a novel vaccine, with no medium to long term studies on side effects, the choice is down to the individual. The data suggests that the vaccinated are more likely to be infected, not less. So, even if the vaccine does protect someone on an individual basis, they are more likely to be infectious around patients, not less. Especially, if the vaccine masks any symptoms meaning a vaccinated individual is more likely to be infected and not realise they are.

Mandatory vaccinations for healthcare workers has been abolished for now, but the pressure is still being placed on them. Will new workers have to be vaccinated, will vaccination be necessary for certain roles or to progress careers. Or will the constant shaming or being made to feel guilty be too much for the individuals who have chosen not to be vaccinated and will they have to leave anyway but this time, without any legal redress or compensation?

The crescendoing chatter that this is for some greater good is also deeply concerning. The majority of individuals, when left to their own devices, will choose the correct path when deciding on the finely balanced risks between what is good for themselves and the public. Most people will always want to do the right thing and very often choose to help others over themselves. The only danger in society right now is the thought that public health officials or ministers can decide what is good for an individual based on a perceived threat to society. This top-down policy is not only dangerous but won’t achieve the results they are looking for.

I will conclude with a comment made by a reader on one of my previous articles:

“As a Human Geneticist in a profession that was responsible for the horrors of the Eugenics movement, I have been deeply steeped in ethics and the importance of abiding by codes of conduct especially those created after WW2 such as the Nuremberg Codes. As soon as one strays from these codes, one immediately falls into the danger of recreating the past horrors. Individual rights must always be respected over any other consideration and any abrogation of those rights no matter what the rationale must always be challenged and justified and as temporary and minimal as possible. One thing I learned taking courses in the mathematics of epidemiology is that public health are not trained in ethics in the same way. In fact they are almost trained in the opposite to always think of the good of the whole of society over the rights of individuals. Of all branches of medical health out there, it does not surprise me that tyranny came from public health.”

February 8, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Joe Rogan shows us the real purpose of cancel culture

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | February 7, 2022

Joe Rogan has just been cancelled. Again. It’s not about covid “misinformation” this time.

No, now he’s a racist.

Some enterprising young mind combed through 13 years and hundreds of episodes of The Joe Rogan Experience, and cut together around twenty instances of Rogan using “the n-word”.

This video was shared by award-winning musician India Arie, and used to explain her pulling her music from Spotify’s platform in protest of Rogan’s continued presence there.

Rogan claims that these clips are all taken out of context in his recent apology video, and none were ever intended to be racist. This may well be true… we can’t check for ourselves, because Spotify removed all the episodes.

These important bits of context were, naturally, removed from the viral video. Besides, it has since been said that context doesn’t even matter.

And you know what, they’re right. The context doesn’t matter, perhaps the intention doesn’t even matter, what matters is “Why now?”

Some of these clips are over twelve years old, and yet there have never been any calls to boycott Spotify or cancel his show until just the last couple of days.

Were they not racist before? Or was everyone just OK with the racism? Could there be something else behind this?

… but why bother pausing the hate-fest to ask questions, right?

The only message that matters is – Joe Rogan is a racist now, and streaming giant Spotify have pulled over seventy episodes of his show from their platform as a result.

Of course the cyber-torches and internet-pitchforks coming for Joe Rogan is nothing new. Having preached the tenets of a healthy lifestyle, promoted alternate Covid treatments, and invited dissenting experts onto his show, Rogan has obviously been on the establishment’s hit list for a while.

This reached a peak in January when ageing rock royalty Neil Young gave Spotify an ultimatum: Remove Joe Rogan’s “misinformation”, or take my music down.

Despite adding a weasely disclaimer to the beginning of the podcast’s episodes, Spotify essentially sided with Rogan, probably because they couldn’t be seen to bow to that kind of pressure, and because they figured most people had forgotten Neil Young was still alive.

In short, and despite other musicians like Joni Mitchell adding their voices to Young’s, the gambit failed and Rogan remained on the air.

Then, just last week, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki added fuel to the fire by announcing the President would like to see “more done” by tech companies to “limit the amount of misinformation” on their platforms.

Within days of that press conference, the viral video compilation of racial slurs had appeared, and Rogan is now a racist as well as an “anti-vax covidiot” or whatever they are calling us these days.

He’s also an object lesson in the entire purpose of cancel culture, and extreme identity politics in general.

I don’t know how many of our readers are gamers, or remember Half Life 2, but go with me here…

Around two-thirds of the way through the game you encounter giant insect-like aliens called Ant Lions, and soon afterwards get a special attack: The ability to “paint” enemies with pheromones which cause an unending swarm of Ant Lions to attack them.

Of course, the giant insects don’t know WHY they are attacking your enemies, they don’t sympathise with your aims and are not capable of understanding your plans, all they know is the chemical signals driving them to fits of rage.

You probably don’t need me to explain the metaphor.

This is the purpose of rampant, hysterical identity politics. You can paint your enemies as a target and watch the mindless swarm do its work.

As much as “cancel culture” is portrayed as a totally organic process, without any top-down control, this is simply not the case.

It is almost NEVER organic, and seemingly ALWAYS contrived.

If you need to be persuaded of that, simply look at who is immune to it.

Both Joe Biden and Justin Trudeau have got enough racist (or at least racist-seeming) scandals to get them cancelled if the process really was anything but a covert tool of maintaining the status quo. And yet still they stand.

To show how selective it is, we have examples of the same exact behaviour eliciting complete opposite responses depending on the person involved.

When Gina Carano compared the hatred of the unmasked and unvaccinated to the way Jews were treated in Nazi Germany, she lost her job and her agent.

When Margaret Hodge made similar comments about Corbyn’s Labour party, there was no rebuke at all.

It seems only people outside the establishment, or promoting the ‘wrong’ opinions, are ever in real danger of falling victim to ‘organic’ cancellation.

Indeed, one can be a totally white-bread member of the entertainment industry for years and be safe in the knowledge your racism/homophobia/misogyny etc will never really come to light, but step out of line on the wrong subject at the wrong time, and you will suddenly find yourself facing a tidal wave of past “sins” about to wash over you.

Look at Donald Trump, an insider to the bone when he was just a billionaire reality TV host, but then he ran against Hillary and became “literally Hitler” overnight.

Rogan is a perfect examplar of this phenomenon. Spend ten years going on about legalising weed, taking DMT and talking about martial arts and you can say “the n-word” as much as you want and nobody notices or cares. But the minute you even mildly interrogate an important media narrative, then the mob ‘organically’ remembers you were a racist the whole time.

The evidence of contrivance is obvious. Simply ask yourself: where did this video compilation of racial slurs actually come from? Who made it?

Rogan’s uses of “the n-word” are not new. They are all several years old and from 23 separate episodes, all multiple hours long. And there are almost 1800 episodes of the show to plough through if you decide to go searching. So making this video is at least two days’ work of simply watching the episodes – and that’s assuming you know where to start looking.

And that’s before editing or trying to make it “go viral”.

Was all this done on a whim by some bored pro-vaxxer?

Does that sound likely?

Far more likely is that it was created and deployed to discredit Rogan’s COVID-questioning without having to engage with the Covid sceptic evidence or arguments.

It’s even possible the video may even have already existed before the current controversy. After all, why create this climate of stifling sensitivity if you don’t have the tools to use it?

Perhaps most authors, actors, comedians etc. have a “tape” in the vault somewhere. A database of racism, homophobia or transphobia just waiting to be released when needed. A collection of neo-kompromat that works best as a deterrent, but is always ready to be loosed if needed.

Those people who do step too far out of their box are taken down, and act as an example to others. Ensuring everyone on the public stage is singing from the same hymn sheet.

Because that, it seems, is what cancel culture is for.

February 8, 2022 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Canada’s Justice Center on Constitutional Rights Represents Freedom Truckers

By Stephen Lendman | February 8, 2022

The nation’s Justice Center is a “legal organization and federally registered charity that defends citizens’ fundamental freedoms under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, through pro bono legal representation and through educating Canadians about the free society.”

Expressing support for anti-mandate protesters, Justice Center attorney Samuel Bachand said the organization is involved “to help defend political freedoms of these people of good will” — in Ottawa and other Canadian cities.

Over the weekend, the Center warned Ottawa authorities that intimidation and/or arrests of individuals involved in bringing food, fuel and/or other supplies are in flagrant breach of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Section 2(b) states:

“Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.”

Article 7 assures that “(e)veryone has the right to life, liberty and security of person and the right not to be deprived thereof in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”

Representing Freedom Convoy truckers, Justice Center attorney Nicholas Wansbutter stressed the following:

“People who bring food, water, gasoline or other supplies to peacefully protesting truckers are not breaking any law.”

“There is no basis for this police threat…”

“In a free and democratic society that is governed by the rule of law, citizens can freely associate with each other, including the giving and receiving of goods and gifts.”

“There is no law that would allow the Ottawa Police to arrest people for giving fuel or food to another Canadian.”

“The truckers themselves are exercising their Charter freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly, as they are legally entitled to do.”

The Justice Center challenged the state of emergency declared by Ottawa mayor Jim Watson, Wansbutter saying:

He presented no evidence to legally prove that peaceful actions by freedom truckers pose “a danger of major proportions” that doesn’t exist.

Under Canada’s Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, an “emergency (is) a situation or an impending situation that constitutes a danger of major proportions that could result in serious harm to persons or substantial damage to property and that is caused by the forces of nature, a disease or other health risk, an accident or an act whether intentional or otherwise.”

Nothing of the sort exists in Ottawa or other Canadian cities where similar anti-mandates activism is ongoing.

Watson’s declaration amounts to a “disturbing overreach and misuse of emergency powers,” Wansbutter added.

An affidavit filed in Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice states that Freedom Convoy organizers and truckers involved are working closely with Ottawa police, the RCMP and Parliament’s Protective Service to maintain order according to the rule of law.

On Monday, the Justice Center represented Freedom Convoy organizers and leaders in court.

They challenged a hostile $10 million lawsuit for nonexistent damages from horn-honking.

Along with honking for justice, video and photographic evidence showed the following, according to the Justice Center:

“Bouncy castles for the kids, farmers with their tractors, cowboys on their horses, impromptu street hockey, protestors shoveling snow and feeding the homeless, live music, and flags from all nations and protests,” adding:

“A more realistic picture of what is happening in Ottawa will soon be revealed by sworn affidavits filed in this court application.”

“Convoy leaders asked truckers to refrain from honking horns between 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.” They obliged.

On Monday, an eyewitness in court said the following under oath:

The individual saw truckers and supporters “feeding the homeless on Wellington Street and filling their backpacks with food.”

“Truckers have taken a whole trailer full of food to the homeless shelter.”

“Truckers are maintaining cleanliness of city streets, including picking up discarded masks on the ground, centralized garbage collection, shoveling snow at the War Memorial and the Terry Fox statue, and decorating and providing security for the War Memorial and Terry Fox statue.”

The above sworn testimony is polar opposite fabricated accusations against truckers and supporters by Ottawa authorities, city police and MSM co-conspirators.

Another witness said the following:

“(T)ruckers I have interacted with have, at all times, been friendly, courteous, humble, considerate and peaceful.”

“I have not observed any aggressive or inappropriate behavior.”

Truckers are diverse. They include Sikhs, Blacks, Aboriginals and others.

The witness “observed truckers decorating the tomb of the unknown soldier with flowers and guarding it.”

He saw no “violent or threatening behavior.”

“Truckers are not honk(ing) their horns at night.”

“My everyday life has not been disrupted by any noise related to the Freedom Convoy during the day.”

“My ability to park and travel in downtown Ottawa, or to and from Parliament Hill has not been impeded by the presence of the truckers.”

Still another witness said the following:

“(P)rotesters were peaceful and respectful.”

“I saw no violence or harassment.”

“I was not impeded in any way, and could walk about freely and safely.”

“I did not see any hateful symbols.”

“I saw an abundance of Canada flags and Quebec flags as well as countless signs calling for freedom and the end of (flu/covid) related mandates.”

“I would describe the scene as a peaceful, pro-freedom demonstration.”

“Many people walked the streets peacefully protesting.”

“Many of them carried Canada flags and signs.”

“It was a peaceful and fun atmosphere with dancing and public speakers taking turns at a microphone while people listened on.”

“I did not observe anyone being harassed or intimidated. I felt totally safe.”

“Contrary to what I have seen in the media, I did not see that the Terry Fox statue was desecrated or defaced in any way.”

“I saw flowers at the feet of the statue as demonstrators walked by.”

“My everyday life has not been disrupted by any noise related to the downtown demonstrations.”

“I do not hear any honking near my home.”

“The only honking I have heard is on Wellington Street, particularly across from Parliament Hill.”

Justice Center Litigation Director Jay Cameron stressed the following on Monday:

“The right to peacefully protest is a fundamental right protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

“Governments across Canada have ignored Canadians, and bypassed their elected representatives in the passage of health and (jabbing) mandates which strip people of their jobs and civil liberties.”

“People are tired of being ignored by the indifferent elite.”

“The lack of meaningful democracy means citizens have no voice regarding health mandates.”

“They have a right to peacefully protest and have their voices heard.”

Nationwide protests in Canada have the Trudeau regime and local authorities on the back foot.

Staying the course to keep them there is crucial while pursuing restoration of lost rights until draconian mandates are rescinded.

February 8, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Solidarity and Activism | , , | Leave a comment

16 States File New Lawsuit Challenging Vaccine Mandates for U.S. Healthcare Workers

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | February 7, 2022

Attorneys general from 16 states, led by Louisiana, filed a new legal challenge to COVID-19 vaccine mandates for U.S. healthcare workers.

The amended lawsuit was filed Feb. 4 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and Chiquita Brooks-Lasure, administrator of CMS.

The suit seeks to block the mandate for healthcare workers in the 25 states that previously challenged it and where it is set to take effect beginning this month.

The revised lawsuit puts forth a series of new arguments, including that the CMS mandate was designed in response to the Delta variant and is therefore now obsolete.

Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia and West Virginia joined Louisiana in the lawsuit.

The amended lawsuit comes in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Jan. 13 decision, which lifted injunctions that had been in effect in 25 states. The Supreme Court said mandates could go into effect while lawsuits challenging it continue to weave their way through the judicial system.

This decision came following a circuitous legal process, where U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty initially blocked the mandate nationwide, on Nov. 30, 2021. (Judge Doughty is overseeing the case involving the amended lawsuit.)

An appeals court later lifted the injunction in 26 states on Dec. 15, 2021, but the mandate was then separately blocked in Texas that same day by another judge.

These developments prompted the Biden administration in late December 2021 to file an emergency request with the Supreme Court, asking the court to lift the various injunctions barring implementation of the CMS mandate.

The mandate, as originally issued by the CMS, specifically applies to healthcare workers at hospitals and facilities that receive federal funding — namely, those that accept Medicare and Medicaid payments.

Following the Supreme Court decision, healthcare workers in 24 states (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming) will be required to furnish proof of having received at least one COVID vaccine dose by Feb. 14, and must complete their primary series of vaccines by March 15.

Healthcare workers in Texas have until Feb. 22 to receive their first dose, and March 21 to complete their primary series of vaccinations, while in states where the mandate had not previously been blocked, the respective deadlines are Jan. 27 and Feb. 28.

Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry described the CMS vaccine requirement as a “job-killing directive” that is ineffective as a measure to stop the spread of COVID or protect public health.

Landry argued the mandates violate states’ rights:

“The CMS vaccination rule remains a misguided, one-size-fits-all, job-killing directive that does not account for any change in circumstances — including how the vaccines do not stop the transmission of the Omicron variant.

“What’s more, the federal government has now made clear that it expects the states to implement this flawed policy with state employees. So I will continue fighting this ill-advised invasion of individual autonomy and my state’s rights.”

Landry said the mandate is “causing havoc in the healthcare labor market across the nation — especially in rural communities.”

The lawsuit addresses a notable discrepancy: The mandate, signed by Becerra, specifically references the danger the Delta variant poses to the unvaccinated, adding that vaccines “continue to be effective in preventing COVID-19 associated with the now-dominant Delta variant.”

The Supreme Court agreed with Becerra’s reasoning, stating he had “good cause” to impose the mandate without the typically mandated comment period, because of his belief that any additional delay would pose a danger to patient health and safety in light of the spread of the Delta variant.

The lawsuit argues that as of mid-December 2021 and based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Delta was no longer the prevalent strain of COVID, having been replaced by Omicron:

“[T]he Secretary’s rationale for the rule and for avoiding public comment no longer exists. The Delta variant has run its full course.

“… It is now established beyond any serious question that the secretary’s speculation was wrong. The Delta variant effectively disappeared from the scene within weeks of the issuance of the rule.”

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall also questioned the efficacy of the COVID vaccines against Omicron:

“The mandate was promulgated in response to the Delta variant, which now accounts for only 0.1 percent of all COVID-19 cases in the United States.

“But research suggests that COVID-19 vaccines do little to stop the transmission of the predominant strain today — the Omicron variant, which accounts for 99.9 percent of all cases — which undermines the premise for forcing people to submit to them.”

The amended lawsuit states, “Omicron’s transmission is largely undeterred by the vaccines.”

The lawsuit also references findings by the American Association of Retired Persons Public Policy Institute, which indicates nursing homes and long-term care facilities are already facing a severe shortage of nurses and aides, without the mandate having yet gone into effect.

The lawsuit argues these low staffing levels place patients at greater risk, including a higher likelihood of contracting COVID:

“By forcing healthcare workers to choose between their jobs or an experimental vaccine they do not want, CMS is affirmatively pinching an already strained workforce — and particularly so in rural areas within the States.”

The lawsuit also notes the shifting and contradictory position of the federal government, which, for instance, recently issued guidance permitting healthcare workers who have tested positive for COVID to go to work, which undercuts the policy that prohibits unvaccinated healthcare workers from going to work even with a negative test result.

The lawsuit further argues the CMS vaccine mandate violates the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution concerning states’ rights; the Spending Clause of the Constitution; the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine, which stems from two Supreme Court decisions prohibiting the federal government from commandeering state governments; and the Nondelegation Doctrine, a principle in administrative law that stipulates Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to other entities.

In contrast, government lawyers told the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana in January that following the Jan. 13 Supreme Court decision striking down the previous injunctions, the case was “effectively concluded,” and they submitted a motion for its dismissal.

The CMS on Jan. 25 issued new guidance that broadened the mandate, extending the vaccine requirement to surveyors who enter the healthcare facilities covered by the rule.

In turn, the lawsuit argues the latest CMS guidance clashes with laws in the states participating in the lawsuit, including an Indiana law that bars government entities from requiring any individual to furnish proof of vaccination, and a Montana law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of vaccination status.

© 2022 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.

February 8, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Negative vaccine efficacy example in the UK

By Steve Kirsch | February 8, 2022

Summary

This example shows that triple vaccinated people in the UK are more likely to be hospitalized, not less likely. In other words, the vaccines are doing the opposite of what the health authorities claimed. Mandating vaccination is actually making the problem worse, not better.

The FOIA request

Consider the following FOIA request from Feb 3, 2022:

Now consider the following stats:

So we have 130/182 = 71% of the patients in the hospital are triple vaccinated.

But only 45% of the public is triple vaccinated.

Negative efficacy

If the vaccines worked, we’d see that fewer than 45% of the patients are triple vaccinated. Instead, we see the opposite.

In other words, not only are the vaccines not working, but they are actually making it more likely you will be infected. Whoops.

UK Government data confirms negative efficacy

Reminds me of this chart showing similar negative vaccine efficacy.

The only question remains: when will people wake up?

February 8, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

THE FIRST TO PREDICT COVID VAX FAILURES

The Highwire with Del Bigtree | February 3, 2022

February 8, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | | Leave a comment

Students should not be coerced into Covid vaccination

TCW Defending Freedom – February 8, 2022

A COUPLE of weeks ago we published a letter from Queen’s University Medical School in Belfast to its medical students which all but made it a requirement for students to get vaccinated to complete all aspects of their course. Since then we have heard from a number of distressed parents and students at various institutions revealing a much wider problem of coercive vaccination for students. It’s not just prospective doctors, but nurses and physios who are being subjected to this coercive pressure and being told they can’t take or complete their course unless they get jabbed.

This is despite the recent rollback of several Covid restrictions including Covid passes. Universities and students continue to be put under enormous pressure from their higher education bosses to see to it that students are vaccinated and told that is both a public safety and ‘duty’ requirement. See below, for example, how the Welsh Government frame both question and answer in their guidance to students, omitting any mention of the fact that at their age students are at no serious risk from Covid-19 let alone the Omicron variant.

Q: How can I feel safe at university with the Omicron variant?

A: The most effective way to manage personal risk is to take up the offer of vaccination. All those eligible should get two doses of the vaccine and when invited, get their booster as a priority to have increased protection. Taking this responsibility and becoming vaccinated means that as well as protecting ourselves we are considerate of others. This will help us all to get back to doing the things we’ve missed the most. It is never too late to get the vaccine and walk-in centres are open to all, including international students. 

There you have it. The official narrative, the official perspective.

The Department for Education likewise in its most recent ‘Guidance’ is still pressuring higher education providers to encourage student vaccination. It tells them that they should have ‘communications strategies for students and staff, which will include principles such as [encouraging] students to take up the offer of both doses of the coronavirus vaccine, and the booster jab as soon as they are eligible’. 

They inform the universities of the checklist of ‘communications’ they must prepare. This includes making sure that ‘Students are strongly encouraged to get vaccinated and know how to get a Covid-19 vaccine.’ Covid-related ‘behavioural expectations’ for students are clearly set out, including ‘continuing to behave responsibly’. This pressure comes down the line, directed first at the universities and then from the universities (in order, no doubt, to tick their own compliance boxes) to the student body. It is not difficult to see how parents and students come to succumb to it, even against their better judgment, in fear of wasted investment and blighted careers before they start.

Not one of these official publications sets out the balance of risk for students between taking and not taking the jab. Not one explains the vaccine’s limited efficacy against infection or transmission. Appallingly, that the vaccine may not be in students’ short-term or long-term health interests is not even considered.

That is why the Together Declaration’s latest campaign in support of university students to stop this vaccination coercion in order to continue their education is so welcome. What they ask us all to do is to write to the vice chancellors of the main universities. You can copy the text from this letter into an email and then BCC (important that you BCC, not CC) this list of names and send it. If you want to be more personal and diligent you can contact the vice chancellors separately and by name, which you can find here.

If you are on Twitter and any other social media, please tweet this graphic.

‘I contacted all vice chancellors at the main universities today. We hope they will do the right thing and will not be insisting on vaccination as a condition of education.

@UniversitiesUK we hope you will also be pushing institutions to allow freedom of choice’.

Government and universities have no business either to be encouraging students (many of whom will have had and recovered from Covid) to be guinea pigs or to be making vaccination a condition of education. You can tweet that too!

February 7, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Solidarity and Activism | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »