Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

School Jabs are an Illegal Act of State Coercion, Despotic Quackery

By Tom Penn | TCW Defending Freedom | September 9, 2021

THE UK’s four chief medical officers seem likely to override the advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation not to vaccinate under-16s – simultaneously rejecting Public Health England’s stance that ‘children under 16, even if they are clinically extremely vulnerable, are at low risk of serious morbidity and mortality, and, given the absence of safety and efficacy data on the vaccine, are not recommended for vaccination’.

Terrifyingly, we are now officially following nothing but perverted political impulse. Chief medical officer for England Chris Whitty is acting in direct contravention of the Covid-19-specific guidance contained within chapter 14a of PHE’s Green Book – its guide to vaccines and vaccination protocol – as cited above.

In ruthlessly pursuing the vaccination of children against Covid-19 – not on health grounds but in an effort to avert disruption to education – whilst singularly failing to address safety concerns such as the 1,609 vaccination fatalities reported to the MHRA’s Yellow Card Scheme, Whitty has shamelessly twisted the law of ‘Gillick competence’. Not because he and his foot-soldiers have been granted unchallenged authority to overrule a withdrawal of consent to immunisation, but because they are corrupting the ability of both parents and children to make an informed choice on the matter in the first place.

Chapter 2 of the Green Book opens with the statement: ‘It is a legal and ethical principle that valid consent must be obtained before treatment’, followed shortly by: ‘For consent to immunisation to be valid, it must be given freely, voluntarily and without coercion’ (my emphases).

If children and parents are being informed that the purpose of vaccination is to protect educational stability, then by paying heed only to the potential socio-domestic consequences of vaccination refusal, the CMOs are committing an act of medical coercion; thus surely breaking the legal principles involved in obtaining valid consent.

As if such a threat wasn’t intimidating enough, there is left hanging the veiled warning that household income may likewise suffer, as inevitably many parents will have to take time off work to remain home with self-isolating children.

There is no provision in the Green Book that says any immunisation protocol or safety guidance may be bypassed during an epidemic, pandemic or any other type of public health emergency – let alone a supposed educational one.

In fact, the JCVI’s report published on August 4 clearly states that: ‘Delivery of a Covid-19 vaccine programme for children and young people is likely to be disruptive to education in the short term, particularly if school premises are used for vaccination. Adverse reactions to vaccination (such as fevers) may also lead to time away from education for some individuals.’  

So why are the four chief medical officers actively seeking to precipitate the very educational disruption they purport to be averting by vaccinating a demographic who simply do not require it?

There is further weight behind the JCVI’s stance that children are not recommended for vaccination, evidenced in a blunder of their own that merely adds emphasis to the low risk to young people from the virus: ‘In England, between February 2020 and March 2021 inclusive, fewer than 30 persons aged less than 18 years died because of Covid-19, corresponding to a mortality rate of 2 deaths per million.’

They neglect to mention the more detailed findings of the non-peer-reviewed study referenced: ‘Our findings emphasise the importance of underlying comorbidities as the main risk factor for death, as 76 per cent had chronic conditions, 64 per cent had multiple comorbidities, and 60 per cent had life-limiting conditions.’

The study concludes with an admission that six of the 25 children and young people (CYP) had no underlying health condition, but that owing to their hospital data being available only for the past five years, they may have had a comorbidity that could not be identified in the study.

An inconclusive verdict on these six with no apparent comorbidities essentially equates to zero healthy children having died from Covid-19 during the period in question.

By comparison, there were 158 recorded suicides in the age group 10-19 in England in 2020, according to Office for National Statistics provisional figures. 

Although hard to believe considering the havoc he has helped wreak upon us all, Chris Whitty, a qualified physician, is apparently a ‘healthcare professional’. And in Broken Britain – a nation still in the grip, it seems, of a fraudulent medical emergency whose government are seeking extension to the exaggerated powers that sustain the entire scandal – this appears to mean that Whitty has clearance to circumvent the usual codes involved in lawful assessment.

That is, by psychologically swaying the demographic in question and coercing them into a medical procedure under the pretext of non-medical threats in the form of blighted educations and potentially unhappy homes.

Our Chief Medical Officer is asking parents and children to project themselves into the future, imagine the social and economic fallout of a shattered education, and then immunise themselves biologically against that mental construct in the here and now.

This is national-scale emotional and psychological manipulation – aka state coercion – and constitutes the unauthorised re-working of the lawful procedures involved in allowing parents and children to make a fully informed decision about an already reprehensible medical procedure. That is called breaking the law, and is the behaviour of a despotic quack.

Whitty is on the very brink of sanctioning grievous bodily harm, even death in some cases, to be inflicted upon the nation’s children in exchange for access to education.

Likewise he is verging on condemning vaccine-refusing children to a gruelling academic year of harassment and shaming from their peers, and has cruelly designated them the latest face of a virus politicised. As the headlines inevitably begin screaming of the post school-return casedemic, they will be the mainstream media’s whipping-boys and girls this time.

The virus will pass through the majority of children without them even knowing: ‘Fewer than 5 per cent of Covid-19 cases are amongst children and in general they appear to exhibit mild disease . . . and so Covid-19 vaccines are not routinely recommended for children and young people under 16,’ says the Green Book.

So remind us again, Professor Whitty, was it the Hippocratic or the Hypocritical Oath to which you solemnly pledged adherence  for the good of humankind?

September 9, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Oxford Scientist “It’s Illogical & Unethical To Force Jab On NHS Staff”

By Richie Allen | September 9, 2021

Speaking to SKY News this morning, Professor Sunetra Gupta, a theoretical epidemiologist at Oxford University, said that it is illogical and unethical to “foist a vaccine upon people in the hope that you can reduce transmission of a disease.”

Speaking about the functionality of the jabs, Professor Gupta told Kay Burley:

“They were never meant to be used to stop transmission or to allow people in particular settings to make them risk free. So it is really not logical to use vaccines to protect other people. The vaccine protects you, which if you are vulnerable is a very valuable thing.”

Burley interrupted and asked Gupta to clarify that she does not believe that NHS staff should be forced to have the jab. Professor Gupta replied:

“I don’t think they should be forced to on the understanding simply because this vaccine does not prevent transmission. So if you just think of the logic of it, what is the point of requiring a vaccine to protect others if that vaccine does not durably prevent onward transmission of a virus?

Obviously there are all sorts of ethical and political issues surrounding this. It’s illogical to foist a vaccine upon people in the hope that you can reduce transmission of a disease.”

Burley asked her for her thoughts on jabbing 12 year-olds. Sunetra Gupta pulled no punches saying:

“I absolutely do not think that is logical at any level I mean leave alone the ethics of using 12 year-olds as barriers for infection for the community. The bottom line is that these vaccines do not prevent transmission.

In the case of the 12 year-old it benefits neither the individual who is not at risk of severe disease and death, nor does it benefit the community. To ask children to bear that risk is for me, simply unacceptable.”

September 9, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Anti-Tyrany Protests Growing Worldwide, Truckie Victory In Australia

By Brian Shilhavy | Health Impact News | September 8, 2021

All across the world there were massive protests against medical tyranny and COVID vaccine passports this past week, but most of these are not being reported by the corporate media.

In Australia, people are reporting that the cell phones of truckers were blocked so that they could not communicate and take photos and videos of their nationwide strike, which is apparently still in effect. There have been videos of empty shelves in some grocery stores, but the corporate media is reporting that it has nothing to do with the trucker strike.

South Australia, however, did drop their COVID-19 vaccine mandate for truck drivers.

In France, the reports are that the demonstrations against the vaccine passports are getting larger and larger every weekend.

I have put together a short video update, which also includes massive protests in Brazil, allegedly against pharmaceutical companies.

The corporate media in Brazil has reported that at least 32,000 people have now died after taking one of the COVID shots. See:

Over 32,000 People DEAD in Brazil Following COVID-19 Vaccines According to Official Media Report

We are also now seeing video clips of local protests in the U.S. One in New York City over the Labor Day weekend, and one in Waikiki, Hawaii.

This is from our Bitchute channel, and it will also be on our Rumble channel shortly.

September 8, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, Solidarity and Activism, Video | | Leave a comment

The ACLU, Prior to COVID, Denounced Mandates and Coercive Measures to Fight Pandemics

By Glenn Greenwald | September 7, 2021

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) surprised even many of its harshest critics this week when it strongly defended coercive programs and other mandates from the state in the name of fighting COVID. “Far from compromising them, vaccine mandates actually further civil liberties,” its Twitter account announced, adding that “vaccine requirements also safeguard those whose work involves regular exposure to the public.”

If you were surprised to see the ACLU heralding the civil liberties imperatives of “vaccine mandates” and “vaccine requirements” — whereby the government coerces adults to inject medicine into their own bodies that they do not want — the New York Times op-ed which the group promoted, written by two of its senior lawyers, was even more extreme. The article begins with this rhetorical question: “Do vaccine mandates violate civil liberties?” Noting that “some who have refused vaccination claim as much,” the ACLU lawyers say: “we disagree.” The op-ed then examines various civil liberties objections to mandates and state coercion — little things like, you know, bodily autonomy and freedom to choose — and the ACLU officials then invoke one authoritarian cliche after the next (“these rights are not absolute”) to sweep aside such civil liberties concerns:

[W]hen it comes to Covid-19, all considerations point in the same direction. . . . In fact, far from compromising civil liberties, vaccine mandates actually further civil liberties. . . . .

[Many claim that] vaccines are a justifiable intrusion on autonomy and bodily integrity. That may sound ominous, because we all have the fundamental right to bodily integrity and to make our own health care decisions. But these rights are not absolute. They do not include the right to inflict harm on others. . . . While vaccine mandates are not always permissible, they rarely run afoul of civil liberties when they involve highly infectious and devastating diseases like Covid-19. . . .

While limited exceptions are necessary, most people can be required to be vaccinated. . . . . Where a vaccine is not medically contraindicated, however, avoiding a deadly threat to the public health typically outweighs personal autonomy and individual freedom.

The op-ed sounds like it was written by an NSA official justifying the need for mass surveillance (yes, fine, your privacy is important but it is not absolute; your privacy rights are outweighed by public safety; we are spying on you for your own good). And the op-ed appropriately ends with this perfect Orwellian flourish: “We care deeply about civil liberties and civil rights for all — which is precisely why we support vaccine mandates.”

What makes the ACLU’s position so remarkable — besides the inherent shock of a civil liberties organization championing state mandates overriding individual choice — is that, very recently, the same group warned of the grave dangers of the very mindset it is now pushing. In 2008, the ACLU published a comprehensive report on pandemics which had one primary purpose: to denounce as dangerous and unnecessary attempts by the state to mandate, coerce, and control in the name of protecting the public from pandemics.

The title of the ACLU report, resurfaced by David Shane, reveals its primary point: “Pandemic Preparedness: The Need for a Public Health – Not a Law Enforcement/National Security – Approach.” To read this report is to feel that one is reading the anti-ACLU — or at least the actual ACLU prior to its Trump-era transformation. From start to finish, it reads as a warning of the perils of precisely the mindset which today’s ACLU is now advocating for COVID.

In 2008, the group explained its purpose this way: “the following report examines the relationship between civil liberties and public health in contemporary U.S. pandemic planning and makes a series of recommendations for developing a more effective, civil liberties-friendly approach.” Its key warning: “Not all public health interventions have been benign or beneficial, however. Too often, fears aroused by disease and epidemics have encouraged abuses of state power. Atrocities, large and small, have been committed in the name of protecting the public’s health.”

2008 report of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

The immediate impetus for the ACLU’s 2008 report was two-fold: 1) the 2008 emergence of the avian bird flu pandemic, which produced highly alarmist and ultimately false headlines around the world about millions dying; and 2) new pandemic legislation and regulatory frameworks, enacted in the wake of 9/11, premised on the view, as the ACLU put it, “that every outbreak of disease could be the beginning of some horrific epidemic, requiring the suspension of civil liberties.”

The ACLU issued its 2008 report to warn that the worst possible way to respond to a deadly pandemic was through coercion and mandates. Instead, the group argued — as one would expect from a civil liberties organization — persuasion and voluntary compliance were both more effective and less likely to erode core liberties. As they put it:

The lessons from history should be kept in mind whenever we are told by government officials that “tough,” liberty-limiting actions are needed to protect us from dangerous diseases. Specifically: coercion and brute force are rarely necessary. In fact they are generally counterproductive—they gratuitously breed public distrust and encourage the people who are most in need of care to evade public health authorities. On the other hand, effective, preventive strategies that rely on voluntary participation do work.

The key dichotomy emphasized by the 2008 version of the ACLU was the difference between constructive and persuasive messaging regarding public health versus the use of law enforcement and forced mandates. Starting with the report’s title (“The Need for a Public Health – Not a Law Enforcement/National Security – Approach”) through every section, the ACLU urges that mandates and coercion be dispensed with in favor of voluntary compliance and educational messages:

Government agencies have an essential role to play in helping to prevent and mitigate epidemics. Unfortunately, in recent years, our government’s approach to preparing the nation for a possible influenza pandemic has been highly misguided. Too often, policymakers are resorting to law enforcement and national security-oriented measures that not only suppress individual rights unnecessarily, but have proven to be ineffective in stopping the spread of disease and saving lives . . . .

This law enforcement/national security strategy shifts the focus of preparedness from preventing and mitigating an emergency to punishing people who fail to follow orders and stay healthy.

Much of the report is devoted to an examination of how the U.S. government has historically treated pandemics. As it reviews each pandemic — including horrifically lethal ones such as the plague and smallpox — the ACLU concludes over and over that American health authorities excessively relied on coercion rather than education and persuasion, fueled by media-aided fear porn and alarmist narratives:

Lessons from History: American history contains vivid reminders that grafting the values of law enforcement and national security onto public health is both ineffective and dangerous. Too often, fears aroused by disease and epidemics have justified abuses of state power. Highly discriminatory and forcible vaccination and quarantine measures adopted in response to outbreaks of the plague and smallpox over the past century have consistently accelerated rather than slowed the spread of disease, while fomenting public distrust and, in some cases, riots.

Amazingly, the model that the ACLU identifies as the one that must be avoided is precisely the one that it is now urging be used for COVID. Compare, for instance, the ACLU’s defense of coercive mandates in its New York Times op-ed this week (vaccine mandates “rarely run afoul of civil liberties”) with this ringing endorsement of the need to preserve freedom of choice in its 2008 report:

This model assumes that we must “trade liberty for security.” As a result, instead of helping individuals and communities through education and provision of health care, today’s pandemic prevention focuses on taking aggressive, coercive actions against those who are sick. People, rather than the disease, become the enemy.

What most worried the 2008 version of the ACLU was that authoritarian power vested in the hands of public health officials in the form of mandates and coercion will become permanent given that we will always live with such threats and endless pandemics. That was why, urged that iteration of the ACLU, we must opt for an approach that relies on education programs and voluntary compliance rather than state mandates.

“The law enforcement approach to public health offers a rationale for the endless suspension of civil liberties,” they explained. Using post-9/11 expansions of state power as its framework, the group explained that “the ‘Global War on Terror’ may go on for a generation, but the war on disease will continue until the end of the human race. There will always be a new disease, always the threat of a new pandemic. If that fear justifies the suspension of liberties and the institution of an emergency state, then freedom and the rule of law will be permanently suspended.”

The ACLU’s New York Times op-ed this week repeatedly stressed that coercive mandates are justified whenever “the disease is highly transmissible, serious and lethal.” But its 2008 report argued exactly the opposite. The report was critical of forced vaccinations and other mandates in prior outbreaks of smallpox — certainly a highly contagious and lethal disease — but then argued that when the disease reappeared in the late 1940s, New York City handled it much better by offering voluntary vaccines and education programs rather than coercive measures:

In contrast, New York City relied on a different approach in 1947, one that viewed the public as the client rather than the enemy of public health. When smallpox reappeared in the city after a long absence, the city educated the public about the problem and instituted a massive voluntary vaccination campaign. Not surprisingly, no coercion was needed. Provided with information about the need for and benefits of vaccination, and reassurance that the city was helping rather than attacking them, the citizens of the New York turned out en masse for one of the world’s largest voluntary vaccination campaigns. The campaign was successful, and the epidemic was quashed before it had a chance to spread broadly in the city or beyond.

In the scheme of repressive measures that worried the 2008 ACLU, “compulsory isolation and quarantine are among the most coercive non-pharmaceutical interventions that may be employed during a pandemic.” They minced no words about such policies: “civil liberties concerns arise when these interventions are imposed by law.”

The ACLU did not merely warn with words of the dangers of excessive pandemic coercion. They also legally represented at least one client who they viewed as the victim of public health hysteria and tyranny. In 2006, “a 27-year-old tuberculosis patient named Robert Daniels was involuntarily quarantined in Phoenix, Arizona for disobeying an order by Maricopa County health officials to wear a face mask in public at all times.” Even once Daniels was released and it turned out he had a less severe case of TB than originally assumed, “Sheriff Joe Arpaio publicly threatened him with prosecution for the pre-quarantine events.”

The ACLU’s lesson from that case, and similar ones it had handled, was clear: these cases “are cautionary tales that illustrate the counterproductive nature of a punitive, law enforcement approach to preventing the spread of disease.” Most important of all, said the civil liberties group, coercive steps — such as mandates and quarantines — not only endanger civil liberties but are less effective in improving the public health, because they convert the public from cooperative allies into enemies that must be controlled and punished:

These efforts require working with rather than against communities, providing communities with as healthy an environment as possible, health care if they need it, and the means to help themselves and their neighbors. Most importantly, to protect public health, public health policies must aim to help, rather than to suppress, the public.

A separate ACLU report from 2015, issued during the ebola epidemic, contained a similar message. It warned “against politically motivated and scientifically unwarranted quarantines, which the report found violated individuals’ rights and hampered efforts to end the outbreak.” Hysteria over ebola became so intense that the ACLU “found that people were illegally deprived of their right to due process under the 14th Amendment because the quarantines and movement restrictions were not scientifically justified.”

While both reports acknowledge that more restrictive measures can be justified under extreme circumstances, the crux of each is that voluntary compliance is better than coercion, that state mandates typically fail, and that the far greater danger is vesting too much power in the hands of the state, which it will never relinquish given the permanence of pandemics.

How the ACLU fell from those traditional and vital civil liberties positions to urging this week in The New York Times that “far from compromising civil liberties, vaccine mandates actually further civil liberties,” is anyone’s guess. But what is beyond doubt is that it is a far fall indeed. And most of all, hearing the ACLU invoke the standard rationale of authoritarians — we all have the fundamental right to bodily integrity and to make our own health care decisions, but these rights are not absolute — is nothing short of jarring.

Update, Sept. 7, 2021, 6:58 p.m.: Shortly after publication of this article, a former ACLU lawyer, Margaret Winter, noted in response: “It was NOT just ‘prior to covid’ that ACLU denounced vaccine mandates: Read ACLU’s 2020 position paper passionately and correctly arguing that vaccine mandates ‘exacerbate racial disparities and harm the civil liberties of all.’” Winter was referencing this ACLU report, from May of 2020, that warned of the serious dangers of “immunity passports,” under which citizens who already got COVID and thus had immunity would enjoy rights not available to others:

We at the ACLU have serious concerns about the adoption of any such proposal, because of its potential to harm public health, incentivize economically-vulnerable people to risk their health by contracting COVID-19, exacerbate racial and economic disparities, and lead to a new health surveillance infrastructure that endangers privacy rights. . . . This division would likely worsen existing racial, disability, and economic disparities in America and lead people struggling to afford basic necessities to deliberately risk their health.

While such a scheme is different in degree from vaccine passports let alone vaccine mandates — which the ACLU is now championing — its rationale for opposing such a system is fully applicable: “there are serious civil liberties and civil rights harms from making workplace decisions on that basis,” adding: “any immunity passport system endangers privacy rights by creating a new surveillance infrastructure to collect health data.”

September 8, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Progressive Hypocrite, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Medical chiefs, take a stand! Tell the politicians you won’t give children jabs

By Patrick McGinnity | TCW Defending Freedom | September 8, 2021

As concern grows over the proposal to give children the Covid vaccine, this is an edited version of an open letter I have written to the Chief Medical Officers of the UK – Dr Chris Whitty (England) Dr Michael McBride (Northern Ireland), Dr Gregor Smith (Scotland) and Dr Frank Atherton (Wales).  

I WRITE to you concerning the gravest of matters – the safety of this nation’s children.

The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has advised against vaccinating 12 to 15 year-olds. You have always advocated ‘following the science’ and, if you follow the science on this occasion, you will agree with this JCVI advice.

The JCVI simply must not be overruled by government on this decision regarding the safety of children. The JCVI Green Book is the bible for all vaccinations in this country and it would be totally inconsistent of government to follow the science only when it suits them.

Interviewed on Channel Four News, Professor Anthony Harnden, Deputy Chair of the JCVI, stated: ‘My responsibility is to the children of this country and my responsibility is not to government.’

This is clearly your responsibility too and, although government is pressurising medical advisers to give the go-ahead for vaccination of 12 to 15 year-olds, it is essential that you stay firm and do the right thing by refusing to bow to political interference in what is essentially a matter of medical ethics.

Professor Adam Finn of the JCVI told Sky News: ‘We’ve been able to get really up-to-date information from paediatric cardiologists in the United States who are managing children who’ve experienced this myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) side-effect.

‘Admittedly small numbers, but still some early concerns that this might be a problem in the longer term and that very up-to-date information is why we’ve kept to our line actually over the last two months that we should be cautious about this.’

In a letter to the US Food and Drug Administration on December 8, 2020, Dr Patrick Whelan, from the Department of Paediatrics, David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, wrote:  ‘I am a paediatric specialist caring for children with the multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C).

‘I am concerned about the possibility that the new vaccines aimed at creating immunity against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (including the mRNA vaccines of Moderna and Pfizer) have the potential to cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver, and kidneys in a way that is not currently being assessed in safety trials of these potential drugs.’

Dr Whelan concluded: ‘In caring for children with MIS-C, I have been impressed with how widespread the organ involvement is, particularly given the absence of actively replicating virus in virtually all patients.

‘Particular caution will be required with regard to the potential widespread vaccination of children before there are any real data on the safety or effectiveness of these vaccines in paediatric trials that are only now beginning.’

It is nonsensical and disingenuous for anyone to claim that we need to vaccinate children in order to keep schools open and ensure no further interruptions to education. The only reason to vaccinate anyone is to protect them from a dangerous pathogen and children are at minimal risk from Covid.

Sweden kept schools open and mask-free all the way through and did not suffer any ill effects at all. Sweden’s Covid death rate has been minimal in the past six weeks and overall they have had a lower death rate per million than the UK.

It has been flawed UK government policy that has disrupted children’s learning. The way to solve this problem is to do exactly as Sweden did and then there will be no more disruption to lessons. Sweden kept schools open all last year when there was no vaccine, so to claim a vaccine is needed to keep schools open now is completely false.

Forcing a risky vaccine on innocent children as an excuse for keeping schools open when they should never have been closed in the first place would be morally and ethically repugnant.

It is the same Covid in Sweden as it is here, so if Swedish schools could stay open with no masks, no vaccine and no resultant problems, our schools should all have stayed open too.

Did the UK government purposely close schools and intentionally cause huge disruption to education in order to use this as an excuse now for vaccinating children when there is no other legitimate reason for doing so?

The argument that vaccinating children will reduce transmission is without foundation. The vaccines do not prevent transmission and it is now clearly in the public domain that vaccinated people can carry as much virus in their nasal tracts as unvaccinated.

So arguing that child vaccinations will reduce overall transmission is not true. This is also the opinion of the JCVI, who stated: ‘The committee is of the view that any impact on transmission may be relatively small, given the lower effectiveness of the vaccine against infection with the Delta variant.’

At least half of 12 to 15 year-olds have already been infected, so they will have natural immunity. As the recent large study in Israel showed, natural immunity is more robust and longer-lasting than the narrower, transient immunity afforded by the vaccine.

When a child develops natural immunity, it is to the entire virus while the immunity produced by the vaccine is only to the spike protein. There has never been a vaccine in the history of medicine that produced better immunity than natural infection. Therefore there is no clinical medical case for vaccinating 12 to 15 year-olds.

The fact that government has asked the chief medical officers to consider the wider societal and educational impacts of vaccinating children shows clearly that no medical case can be made for doing so and they are trying to cobble together some other excuses for going ahead.

It is ethically and morally wrong to suggest that children’s health should be put at risk in order to supposedly protect adults. Adults are supposed to protect children, not the other way round.

Former Health Secretary Matt Hancock told the House of Commons last November: ‘This vaccine will not be used for children. It hasn’t been tested on children. And the reason is that the likelihood of children having significant detriment if they catch Covid-19 is very, very low. So, this is an adult vaccine, for the adult population.’

No children without underlying conditions have died in the UK due to Covid. Therefore if even one child were to die or suffer serious injury due to being vaccinated, it would be one child too many.

In the NHS document Covid-19 Vaccination Programme, Vaccinating Children and Young People: Frequently Asked Questions, we are told that, in addition to the £12.58 item-of-service fee, there is a further supplement of £10 per vaccination dose to eligible children.

Seeing that an extra £10 bounty is going into the pocket of anyone willing to vaccinate a 12 to 15 year-old, is the NHS encouraging doctors to follow the science, or follow the money?

I send you this letter in very good faith and recognise the onerous responsibility placed on all your shoulders in decision-making. I pray that your guide will be the wisdom of Primum Non Nocere (first, do no harm).

September 8, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Over 100 Youths in Ontario End Up in Hospital After COVID Vax

Dr. Joseph Mercola | September 7, 2021

A slew of younger persons in Canada are experiencing heart problems following their mRNA vaccinations, with 106 reports of myocarditis / pericarditis under the age of 25 so far, according to the Toronto Sun. In total, 202 persons showed up in emergency rooms with heart complaints after vaccination; 146 were hospitalized, with three of those ending up in an ICU.

The report was “quietly” released by Public Health Ontario, the Sun said, and covers administration of the mRNA vaccines from December 13, 2020, to August 7, 2021. It also advises public health practitioners to be on the lookout for cardiac side effects.

Compared with Pfizer’s jab, reports of heart inflammation were seven times higher for Moderna’s jab when administered to those aged 18 to 24.

SOURCES:

Toronto Sun September 3, 2021

Public Health Ontario

September 8, 2021 Posted by | Aletho News | | Leave a comment

DR. PETER MCCULLOUGH: ATTENTION NZ! COVID-19 & THE DANGEROUS JAB THAT’S DRIVING DELTA

Coronavirus Plushie | August 31, 2021

Dr. Peter McCullough’s zoom call with Voices for Freedom, condensed down from 1 hour 45 minutes to 30 minutes. I’ve also added other video footage, screenshots, etc. Now, more than ever, we really need to open as many eyes as possible to what’s going on, so please share this video.

“As we sit here today, the vaccinated are, it appears, super spreaders. They are carrying large amounts of virus and then passing it to the unvaccinated, creating the delta pandemic”

Full Zoom call on Voices for Freedom Odysee channel:

https://odysee.com/@voicesforfreedom:6/Dr-Peter-McCullough:b

This video in Bitchute:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/95lJP00jEZhu/

September 8, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | Leave a comment

Rutgers bans unvaccinated online-only student from virtual classes

RT | September 7, 2021

A US university student who chose to take classes remotely rather than be forced to get vaccinated against Covid-19 for on-campus learning has reportedly been barred from school despite doing his studies 70 miles (100km) away.

Logan Hollar, a 22-year-old psychology major, told NJ.com in an article published on Sunday that he was locked out of his Rutgers University email and related accounts when he tried to pay his tuition fees on August 27. He said he knows another student in the same situation.

As a result, Hollar has been blocked from participating since the first semester of what was supposed to be his senior year began on September 1. He transferred to the school last year and decided to take all his classes online because he didn’t want to be subject to the Rutgers vaccine mandate.

“I’m not in an at-risk age group,” Hollar said. “I’m healthy, and I work out. I don’t find Covid to be scary. If someone wants to be vaccinated, that’s fine with me, but I don’t think they should be pushed.”

The student’s ouster is an apparent contradiction to how jab mandates have been justified by US colleges. A legal ruling that upheld compulsory vaccines at Indiana University – which became a key precedent for inoculation mandates when the US Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal – argued that students who didn’t want to get the shots had other options. One of the options specifically mentioned was taking courses online.

A Rutgers spokeswoman told NJ.com the university’s vaccination policies differed between a “fully online, degree-granting program” and fully remote classes in which other students might be on campus for part of a course. It’s not clear how Hollar’s participation from his home in Sandyston, New Jersey, might spread Covid-19 to classmates or staff on campus in New Brunswick, halfway across the state.

The spokeswoman, Dory Devlin, noted that students can apply for medical or religious exemptions from the vaccine mandate – a process that takes two to four weeks, during which they are locked out of their accounts. However, Hollar didn’t claim a medical or religious reason; rather, he didn’t want to be forced to take a vaccine that he considered unnecessary, and opted to stay off campus to avoid having to comply.

Hollar said he sought answers from Rutgers as to why he had to be vaccinated to take online classes. One representative told him he could apply for an exemption to get reinstated, which he did. But with the clock ticking on the start of classes, he called back days later and was told the administration had decided not to grant waivers for anyone who requested them after August 23.

“I find it concerning for the vaccine to be pushed by the university rather than my doctor,” Hollar said. “I’ll probably have to transfer to a different university.” He added that he was content to be barred from campus while doing his coursework online.

I don’t need to be there. They could ban me. I just want to be left alone.

Last March, Rutgers became the first university in the country to mandate that students be vaccinated at all of its campuses. Hundreds of other US colleges and universities have imposed such orders, some of which waited for the Indiana ruling to establish a firm legal footing.

Hollar’s stepfather, Keith Williams, called the Rutgers decision “crazy,” adding, “I believe in science. I believe in vaccines. But I am highly confident that Covid-19 and variants do not travel through computer monitors by taking online classes.”

Social media users were similarly astonished, suggesting that the ban showed vaccine mandates weren’t motivated by safety concerns. “It’s not about science and health, it’s about control,” video producer Damon Salvadore said. Conservative pundit Blaire White mocked the university’s policy, saying, “I see we’re still following the science.”

September 7, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

The Vaccine Liability Issue Hinges on Whether the Vaccine is a Covered Countermeasure

By Meryl Nass, MD |  September 6, 2021

Only companies and individuals dealing with “Covered Countermeasures” have their liability waived. Below is the definition of a covered countermeasure. For a drug or vaccine to be a covered countermeasure, it has to be designated as an Emergency Use Authorized product. Licensed products, being used for their licensed indication, are not permitted to be authorized for emergency use, since they have a license to be used for that purpose.

This is the conundrum that Pfizer, FDA, DOD and the rest of the agencies that overplayed their hand, including my Governor, Janet Mills, find themselves in. If it is an EUA, there is no liability, BUT it is experimental, so cannot be mandated. If it is licensed for the same purpose, it cannot be an EUA. While it is no longer experimental, it will have attendant liability until (in a matter of weeks) it is moved into the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Program.

Here is the info on who gets their liability waived. And below is a description of the products.

covered countermeasure

(1) Covered countermeasure The term “covered countermeasure” means— (A) a qualified pandemic or epidemic product (as defined in paragraph (7)); (B) a security countermeasure (as defined in section 247d–6b(c)(1)(B) of this title ); (C) a drug (as such term is defined in section 201(g)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( 21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1) ), biological product (as such term is defined by section 262(i) of this title ), or device (as such term is defined by section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act ( 21 U.S.C. 321(h) ) that is authorized for emergency use in accordance with section 564, 564A, or 564B of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [ 21 U.S.C. 360bbb–3 , 360bbb–3a, 360bbb–3b]; or (D) a respiratory protective device that is approved by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health under part 84 of title 42, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulations), and that the Secretary determines to be a priority for use during a public health emergency declared under section 247d of this title.

September 7, 2021 Posted by | Deception | | Leave a comment

The Great Reset Demands Firing All Unvaccinated Employees

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | September 7, 2021

Over the past year and a half, I’ve written many articles detailing the evidence supporting the claim that the COVID pandemic is a ruse to usher in a new system of global centralized governance by unelected leaders, the so-called Great Reset.

The recent release of the House Foreign Affairs Committee report1 entitled, “The Origins of COVID-19: An Investigation of the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” presented solid evidence that many of the “conspiracy theories” about the virus were in fact true. For example, using some intelligence reports and other public documents, the committee found that:2

“… we now believe it’s time to completely dismiss the wet market as the source of the outbreak. We also believe the preponderance of the evidence proves the virus did leak from the WIV and that it did so sometime before September 12, 2019.”

They presented evidence of genetic modification and wrote this:3

“This report also lays out ample evidence that researchers at the WIV, in conjunction with U.S. scientists and funded by both the PRC [People’s Republic of China] government and the U.S. government, were conducting gain of-function research on coronaviruses at the WIV …

In many instances, the scientists were successful in creating ‘chimeric viruses’ — or viruses created from the pieces of other viruses — that could infect human immune systems.

With dangerous research like this conducted at safety levels similar to a dentist’s office, a natural or genetically modified virus could have easily escaped the lab and infected the community.”

The idea of the Great Reset may feel like a conspiracy theory, especially if life as you know it where you live has not dramatically changed. You still go to work, buy food, go to the gym, go out to eat and attend events. There may be people wearing masks, and you may see or hear news reports about vaccine mandates and vaccine passports, but it hasn’t reached your employer and you may not be personally affected … yet.

But, make no mistake, unless we all do our part to peacefully protest the changes being planned, write to our legislatures, and talk to our neighbors and friends, what is happening in New York,4 France,5 Germany6 and Israel,7 will soon be knocking on your front door.

Does ‘Great Reset’ Sound Like a Conspiracy? It May Be Worse

An article titled, “Welcome To 2030: I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy and Life Has Never Been Better” appeared in Forbes Magazine8 in November 2016. It was written by Ida Auken, a member of the Denmark Parliament9 and agenda contributor at the World Economic Forum (WEF).10

The article was frightening in the simplistic way it describes the dissolution of society as we know it. And, as time marches forward, we see more evidence of what the WEF has proposed as “perfect sense”11 coming true.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau suggested in September 2020 what other world leaders have also promoted12 — that the COVID-19 virus, that has killed and devastated the health of many people, provided the world is an:13

“… opportunity for a reset … our chance to accelerate our pre-pandemic efforts to re-imagine economic systems that actually address global challenges like extreme poverty, inequality and climate change.”

More than 20 world leaders came together to suggest, “At a time when COVID-19 has exploited our weaknesses and divisions, we must seize this opportunity and come together as a global community for peaceful cooperation that extends beyond this crisis.”14 And while that sounds noble, altruistic and humanitarian, it is the plan for the future that is in stark contrast to the statement.

Ivan Wecke, a journalist from Open Democracy, did a deep dive into some of what lies behind the WEF’s Great Reset plan and found what he called something “almost as sinister hiding in plain sight. In fact, more sinister because it’s real and it’s happening now. And it involves things as fundamental as our food, our data and our vaccines.”15

Although Wecke discounts the plans of the Great Reset to abolish private property, use the virus to solve overpopulation and enslave the remainder of humanity as “nebulous and hard to pin down,” he goes on to illustrate in detail how the fundamental structure of the world that controls food and data, and ultimately humanity, is being upended and restructured so that private corporations have more control and influence than governments.

WEF Calls It ‘Stakeholder Capitalism’

It comes down to “stakeholder capitalism,” which are the magic words that Klaus Schwab, WEF chairman, has been promoting for decades, and is a central theme in the organization’s Great Reset plan.16 The concept as Wecke describes it is to transform global capitalism, so corporations create value for stakeholders.17

These stakeholders can be consumers, employees, communities and others. This will be carried out through multi-stakeholder partnerships of governments and private-sector businesses across the globe. As he dug deeper into the concept, it became more apparent that this means giving corporations more power and taking that influence away from democratically elected institutions.

The initial plan was drafted after the 2008 economic crisis and included the vision that governments around the world would be only one influencer in a multi-stakeholder model. When he asked himself who would be the other nongovernmental stakeholders, Wecke only had to look at the WEF partners that meet each year in Davos, Switzerland.

These partners are some of the biggest companies in oil, food, technology and pharmaceuticals. In other words, the companies that could ultimately restructure society and control the supply chain are those that provide everyday necessities. These proposed concepts appear to have started taking shape in a strategic partnership agreement which the WEF signed with the United Nations in 2019.

Harris Gleckman, senior fellow at the Center for Governance and Sustainability from the University of Massachusetts18 calls this move an inroad to creating a place for corporations inside the United Nations.19

The WEF is using the concept of multi-stakeholders to change the current system that countries use today to work together. This multilateral system may not always be effective and may have too many layers of bureaucracy, but Wecke says it is “theoretically democratic because it brings together democratically elected leaders of countries to make decisions in the global arena.”20

Big Tech May Run the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation

What’s really happening here, though, is the move toward placing unelected stakeholders in positions of power does not deepen democracy but, rather, puts decision making in the hands of financially focused corporations. As Wecke points out, this will have real-world implications for how medications are distributed, food systems are organized and how Big Tech is governed.

Under a democratic rule of law, six corporations already control 90% of the news media consumed by Americans. Tech Startups calls this an “illusion of choice and objectivity.”21 How much more propaganda will be thrown in the face of consumers when Big Tech is monitoring and controlling Big Tech?

The year 2030 holds significance for the WEF’s vision22 which is to scale technology and facilitate “inclusive growth.” In the fall of 2021, the UN will bring together the Food Systems Summit to achieve sustainable development goals by 2030.23 Yet, Sofia Monsalve of FIAN International, a human rights organization focused on food and nutrition, told Wecke:24

“’Abandoning pesticides is not on the table. How come?’ asks Sofia Monsalve of FIAN International, a human rights organisation focused on food and nutrition.

‘There is no discussion on land concentration or holding companies accountable for their environmental and labour abuses.’ This fits into a bigger picture Monsalve sees of large corporations, which dominate the food sector, being reluctant to fix the production system. ‘They just want to come up with new investment opportunities.’”

Wecke also dug into a long list of participants in the 2020 Roadmap For Digital Cooperation25 and found influencers included Microsoft, Google, Facebook and the WEF.26 The functions for the group appear to be vague, but if the group comes to fruition, it will be a decisive victory for those Big Tech companies that have been pushing to expand their power,27 are fighting antitrust rules28 and are facing accusations of tax evasion.29

The move by the UN and WEF has not gone unnoticed. A group of more than 170 civil organizations have signed an open letter30 detailing why they oppose the plan. At a time when stronger regulations are needed to protect consumers, it appears that the new UN digital roadmap may be seeking less.

Firing the Unvaccinated Is the Start of the Great Job Reset

Finally, Wecke addresses the issue of global vaccine distribution.31 Instead of the World Health Organization, which is “the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations system,”32 being responsible for vaccine access, another initiative was created called COVAX. According to the WHO, COVAX is co-led by the WHO, UNICEF, CEPI and GAVI.33

As a quick reminder, GAVI (the Vaccine Alliance) and CEPI (Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations) have strong ties with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the WEF and are connected with large pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer, AstraZeneca and more.34

The influence these groups have on the global distribution of the COVID vaccine may have been best illustrated when South Africa and India requested a temporary lift on the rules governing intellectual property to increase manufacturing and distribution to developing countries. Wecke reports35 that although the WHO director-general publicly said that he backed a proposal, others in the COVAX initiative strongly opposed it, and it didn’t happen.

There appears to be enough vaccines available in industrialized nations for the WEF to support any and all employees being fired if they choose not to take the vaccine. The National File 36 published a tweet the WEF made in May 2021 which said, “Get your COVID-19 jab — or you could face consequences from your employer #COVID19 #JobsReset21.”

Additionally, the WEF had posted an article37 on their website that made a variety of claims about the percentage of companies that would require employees to be vaccinated and juxtaposed mental health concerns and burnout through the pandemic with being unvaccinated in the article.

After intense backlash, the tweet was deleted and replaced with a question, “Will employees be required to get the COVID-19 vaccination?”38 The new post quickly filled with screen shots of the original post.

Two Cities Promising to Fire Employees

Even before the FDA announced their approval of the Pfizer vaccine,39 Cincinnati, Ohio, area hospital systems had announced that starting October 1, 2021, all health care workers and volunteers are required to be vaccinated. Among those participating in the vaccine mandate are the University of Cincinnati Health, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and the Christ Hospital Health Network.40

Health care workers in Cincinnati have now filed a lawsuit against six of the hospital systems saying requiring vaccines for employment is unlawful and violates workers’ Constitutional rights. The lawsuit says, “When there was no vaccine, the workers had to go to work. They were heroes. Now that there is a vaccine, they have to get the vaccine or be fired. Now they are ‘zeros.’”41

April Hoskins is a lab assistant at St. Elizabeth Edgewood who has worked for 20 years in family practice and hospital oncology. She told a reporter from WLWT5,42 “You’ve trusted us this whole time to take care of these patients, unvaccinated, without the proper PPE. And now out of nowhere, you have to get it or you’re going to be terminated? Like, something is wrong with that picture.”

August 23, 2021, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that all public school teachers and staff would be required to have at least one dose of the vaccine by September 27, 2021, or they would no longer have a job. Not soon afterward, the United Federation of Teachers union issued a statement from union president Michael Mulgrew reiterating their desire and priority to keep the students and teachers safe. He went on to say:43

“While the city is asserting its legal authority to establish this mandate, there are many implementation details, including provisions for medical exceptions, that by law must be negotiated with the UFT and other unions, and if necessary, resolved by arbitration.”

It Is Important to Point Out the Inconsistencies

This was the second announcement from de Blasio, who first mandated vaccinations for approximately 400,000 employees in the Department of Education, New York Police Department and the Fire Department of New York.44 In tandem with New York, California Long Beach Unified School District also announced mandatory vaccinations, as has Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot for all Chicago Public School employees by October 15, 2021.

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy also announced mandatory vaccinations or twice-weekly testing requirements for all state employees, effective October 18. It is clear that as different states and municipalities add their own mandates, it’s essential to be aware of what is happening in your local and regional areas, as well as to speak up at public meetings and demand public hearings on the matter.

The mayor of Orland Park, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago, describes an example of how decisions behind closed doors can have a different outcome than those in public.45 He also says what is happening now is about “our processes, Constitutionality and the rule of law.”

The inconsistencies from health experts are deafening. Even the World Health Organization advises people who are vaccinated to continue wearing masks due to the Delta variant because “vaccine alone won’t stop community transmission.”46 Simultaneously, the public is told that everyone needs the vaccine to prevent spread of the infection47 and if you have the vaccine, you can still spread the virus and put others at risk.48

Each person has a responsibility to speak up, share information and ensure that as people make up their minds about vaccination, vaccine passports, civil liberties and the right to free speech, they have all the information they need and not just what’s shared in mainstream media.

To that end, I encourage you to share my articles with your friends and family. As you know, they are removed from the website 48 hours after publication. Please copy and paste the information, with the sources, and share it!

Sources and References

September 7, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Doctor: Jabbing Children Is “Contravention Of International Law”

By Richie Allen | September 7, 2021

Retired paediatrician Dr. Ros Jones has suggested that the UK government may be contravening international law if they offer covid jabs to healthy 12 to 15 year-olds. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) is not recommending jabs for healthy children, but the government has indicated that it will do so anyway.

Dr. Jones, who is a member of the Health Advisory Recovery Team, said that it would be unprecedented for the government to ignore the JCVI and go to the country’s Chief Medical Officer for his backing to begin jabbing healthy children.

Speaking to Talk Radio’s Kevin O’Sullivan last night, Dr. Jones said:

“So we’re talking about giving it to children where definitely there isn’t a balance for benefit. Absolutely not. That is actually in contravention of international law. We are signed up to Nuremberg code, Helsinki agreement, all of these international treaties, UNESCO, which specify that you cannot do research on children unless it’s for their benefit.

And these vaccines, whether we like it or not, are still in phase three trials. And you quoted Matt Hancock (former Health Secretary) saying that “oh you know they haven’t been studied in children because we know they don’t need them.”

And that is true and I don’t think many of your listeners would know that when the JCVI approved 16 and 17 year-olds last month, only 138 children aged 16 to 17 were in the Pfizer vaccination trials.”

She’s right. The JCVI approved the Pfizer jab for 16 to 17 year-olds despite there being next to no data on how the jab would affect them. I wonder how many parents whose children received the Pfizer jab were even aware of that?

 

September 7, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Challenging Vaccination Policies At Work

UK Freedom Project | August 31, 2021

The UK Government has played a duplicitous game over recent months regarding COVID-19 vaccines and proof of vaccination status.

Background

Early in 2021, in response to a petition calling for the government to commit to not implementing COVID-19 vaccine passports that received over 375,000 signatures, the Vaccines Minister repeatedly stated that mandating vaccines and implementing a passport system would be discriminatory and a dangerous first step onto a very slippery slope.

Yet here we are at the end of August with a vaccine mandate in place for care home workers and the government allowing, and indeed enabling, private businesses to set their own policies regarding vaccination and vaccine status for both employees and customers.

While many employers are jumping on the bandwagon and are either making COVID-19 vaccination a condition of continued employment or are implementing various discrimination measures such as segregating non-vaccinated staff from the rest of the workforce, most have failed to appreciate that there is already well established law in effect that protects the rights of employees (and human beings in general) and prevents employers enacting such policies.

Action Needed

If you are faced with loss of employment, change of duties or are being treated differently as a result of your choice not to have a COVID-19 vaccine, then the law is on your side.

We have collaborated with a solicitor to put together a letter that you can send to your immediate line manager (and your HR department and employer) that states your position, your rights and the law.

It is important that all employees take a stand.  Employers will only get away with this if employees cave in and either accept changes to their employment or leave of their own volition to find alternative work.

As well as the letter, we have compiled a set of explanatory notes to give to your employer, so that they (and you) fully understand the various pieces of domestic and international legislation that their actions and attitudes are breaching. […]

To see more, and to access the documents, see here: ukfreedomproject.org

September 7, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »