New York City public-sector workers who lost their jobs for refusing to comply with the city’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate on Thursday filed a $250 million lawsuit against the city and Mayor Eric Adams seeking to end the mandate.
The 72 fired workers are demanding the city overturn the mandate, reinstate their jobs and compensate them with punitive damages.
The workers argue the mandate should be found “arbitrary and capricious” given that “President Joe Biden, Governor Kathy Hochul and Senator Chuck Schumer have all declared that the pandemic is over,” and that it was already rescinded for private sector employees and students, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit, filed in the Bronx County Supreme Court of the State of New York, also alleges the plaintiffs were discriminated against with “willful or wanton negligence, or recklessness” and were mocked and ridiculed by their colleagues.
Many of the plaintiffs — formerly with the New York Police Department (NYPD), the New York Fire Department, the Department of Education, the Department of Health and other agencies — worked for the city for more than 20 years but now are unemployed, have lost their homes and their ability to support their families, the lawsuit states.
Attorney James Mermigis, who represents the plaintiffs, told The Defender :
“Anybody that goes into the city does not have to be vaccinated except for NYC public sector workers, including firemen, policemen, teachers.
“I just think it is absurd, especially once Mayor Adams lifted the mandate for private employees, that these people, who were heroes during COVID-19, still have the mandate.”
According to the lawsuit, Adams admitted, “I don’t think anything dealing with COVID is makes sense [sic], and there’s no logical pathway of what one can do[sic].”
The lawsuit also alleges the COVID-19 vaccines don’t prevent disease transmission and that it is well-established that the risks of vaccination outweigh the benefits.
It also argues the plaintiffs have immunity from prior infection that should exempt them from any mandate, because “the scientific community has conclusively established that natural immunity provides strong and durable protection.”
According to the lawsuit, the city used, “a discriminatory practice to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with Petitioners in their exercise or enjoyment of their closely held religious beliefs,” by failing to engage in “cooperative dialogue” with them regarding their petitions for religious exemption, which were denied.
The plaintiffs seek $250 million in punitive damages.
“[Punitive damages] punish the city for its behavior towards its employees in the hopes that they will establish policies in the future that will prevent this from happening again,” Mermigis said.
Landmark win for New York healthcare workers may help city workers
Alleging New York City lacked the authority to institute COVID-19 vaccine mandates, city workers cited the landmark ruling earlier this month by the New York Supreme court, which struck down the state’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare workers.
In that case, which Children’s Health Defense (CHD) financed, the court held that the state’s health department lacked the authority to impose the mandate.
In the ruling, Judge Gerard Neri declared the mandate “null, void, and of no effect.”
The court also ruled that the state’s mandate was “arbitrary and capricious” on the basis that COVID-19 vaccines do not stop transmission of the virus, thereby eliminating any rational basis for such a policy.
That lawsuit was filed Oct. 20, 2022, by Medical Professionals for Informed Consent and additional plaintiffs against NYSDOH, New York Gov. Kathleen C. Hochul and Mary T. Bassett, the state’s health commissioner.
Commenting on the Supreme Court ruling in favor of healthcare workers, Mermigis said he believes the decision will help the workers’ case against the city.
“It puts less pressure on the judge reading our lawsuit knowing that another judge in New York also eliminated a healthcare vaccine mandate,” Mermigis said.
“It’s historic what Sujata Gibson and CHD were able to do and it’s part of the cascading falling dominoes. It really feels like it’s just a matter of time.
“They will delay as much as they can, but public opinion has shifted. The courts are no longer afraid. Judges are no longer afraid to rule lawfully, and we are starting to see that.”
Court of public opinion is shifting
More than 1,750 city workers were fired for refusing vaccination, including 36 members of the NYPD and 950 Department of Education employees, The New York Post reported.
Many of them brought — and won — lawsuits against the city. But the city appealed all of the rulings challenging its vaccine mandate for public employees, The Defender reported.
On Sept. 13, 2022, a Manhattan Supreme Court ruled that unvaccinated NYPD officer Alexander Deletto could keep his job. The city appealed that ruling.
In a Sept. 23, 2022, ruling, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Lyle Frank reinstated the jobs of several unvaccinated members of the NYPD’s union, the Police Benevolent Association of the City of New York. The city also appealed that decision.
On Oct. 5, 2022, Staten Island Supreme Court Justice Ralph Porzio ruled New York City must reinstate a Staten Island firefighter. The city appealed that decision as well.
According to Kane, however, the tides are turning — and that could be significant for the lawsuit filed Thursday.
Kane said:
“We are now seven days into the [CHD] victory and there has been no appeal. This is the first case for New York employees that have been fired that has stood for even seven days …
“The most important thing now is that the court of public opinion is different. I really feel that we are winning the majority in the court of public opinion, and that influences what happens in all of these courts …
“We are definitely rooting for him [Attorney Mermigis] and hoping he is very successful with the case.”
The mask is slipping (pun fully intended), all over the place – regarding the Big Tech/Big Government collusion. Now it’s time to pay close attention to the role played by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
We’ve already been awed – just by the magnitude of the whole thing – if not exactly “shocked” by the Twitter Files.
But – what in the world was happening at Facebook, around the same time? After all, Facebook is an almost orders of magnitude bigger and more influential social network than Twitter.
For the time being, we don’t have the same “direct line” to internal documents as is the case with Twitter, which was made possible by the dedication to transparency by the new owner himself.
However, what could be dubbed as the “Facebook Files” are based on credible sources, too – Reason is coming out with a story based on confidential emails that emerged thanks to a court case – the state of Missouri suing the Biden administration.
The emails show that Facebook (and by extension Instagram) representatives and the CDC not only kept in touch at all times, but that the tech giant also “routinely asked government health officials to vet claims relating to the virus, mitigation efforts such as masks, and vaccines.”
In turn, the CDC kept a watchful eye on what speech was allowed on Facebook, what policies toward censorship of “inconvenient” Covid topics applied, and this government agency had no problem instructing the social network behemoth how to behave in these instances.
Robbie Soave, a senior editor for Reason, revealed some examples of what was happening in a series of tweets citing the emails and providing screenshots. One shows that in May 2021, CDC started to get involved in “vetting” content on Facebook that concerns Covid vaccines. And CDC had the last word on what was allowed to remain online as “accurate.”
Other emails show that Facebook (Meta) made sure the CDC was given de facto power to police Covid “misinformation,” while at the same time flagging content for the CDC, consulting with it on claims that could “contribute to vaccine refusals.”
At the same time, Reason is acknowledging that this was by no means the only federal agency to engage in similar activities, all aimed at pressuring some of the world’s biggest social platforms to allow only a certain narrative, and discredit any skepticism, even that coming from medical professionals and scientists.
Even President Biden made sure to “contribute” to this effort, when he in June 2021 bizarrely accused Facebook of “killing people.”
This was really meant to say that the giant had better not dare allow any Covid content the White House failed to “vet” behind the scenes – one way or another.
And the giant obliged, sometimes probably even exceeding the level of compliance expected from the administration. An internal email now reveals that Facebook went as far as to “snitch” on its own users making fun of Anthony Fauci, apparently in a bid to defend his reputation – again, at the expense of free speech.
“One email warned the CDC that Facebook users were mocking Fauci for changing his mind about masking and double-masking. The CDC replied that this information was ‘very helpful’,” Soave, the magazine’s senior editor and host on The Hill TV channel, tweeted.
The upcoming, March issue of Reason delves into how the CDC turned into the speech police when it came to pressuring social media to block content that the government agency decided was Covid “misinformation.”
And this was online speech that this, and other government agencies, have no constitutional way of directly suppressing without breaking the law.
“There is a word for government officials using the threat of punishment to extort desired behaviors from private actors. That word is: jawboning,” Soave remarked in one of the tweets.
And one can imagine – and the emails now show – just how gun-shy and ready to please those in power Facebook had become, after years of public vilification, and who knows what kind of pressure behind the scenes in the wake of the 2016 US election.
To paraphrase the Sound of Music song, “How do we solve a problem like Malhotra?” After receiving several complaints, the General Medical Council has decided not to investigate cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra, who has become a thorn in the side of the medical profession.
Professional regulators have been at the forefront of pandemic discipline, contributing to a culture of fear among practitioners. Severe action has been taken against registrants who criticise or do not comply with the official narrative. I know this from my experience as an officer of the Workers of England Union, representing members brought before the Nursing and Midwifery Council on charges of bringing the profession into disrepute. Apparently the public must be protected against nurses who don’t believe that masks stop airborne respiratory viruses, or who believe in informed consent for novel mRNA vaccines.
A significant strike against this censorial tyranny was by general practitioner Sam White last year. Dr. White was ordered, as a condition of maintaining his clinical licence, to delete his social media posts about COVID-19 and to refrain from making similar comments. Dr. White took the GMC to the High Court and won. The condition was overturned as a breach of his rights to freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Whereas White was an early critic of COVID-19 policy, Malhotra is a relatively recent convert. Initially he promoted the vaccine, but when his fit and healthy father died shortly after receiving the injections, Malhotra changed his mind and began speaking out against the mass vaccination programme. His personal loss came alongside his observation in clinical practice of a marked increase in myocarditis cases (as well as blood clots and other cardiac complications). Malhotra had a review paper published on this phenomenon, and his findings of iatrogenic harm are corroborated by other medical scientists.
Malhotra has repeatedly urged suspension of the vaccination programme until the risks are better understood. He became a darling of vaccine sceptics, with his charismatic and compassionate voice doing the rounds of alt media channels and independent-minded broadcasters working for more mainstream channels (such as Tucker Carlson’s show on Fox News, and Neil Oliver on GB News ). However, he was ignored by the legacy media, and it was not until two weeks ago, when he took the opportunity of a BBC interview on statins, that his call was more widely heard.
The context for Malhotra’s BBC appearance was a claim by Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty that cardiac morbidity had increased as a result of limited access to statins during lockdown. Malhotra disagreed, explaining that myocarditis is unrelated to cholesterol level, which statins are meant to control. He instead blamed the vaccines, telling the BBC presenter that this radical medical intervention should be halted. Cue outrage.
The Guardian did a particularly nasty report on Malhotra, smearing him as a peddler of an ‘anti-vax’ conspiracy theory. Numerous doctors expressed their outrage on social media, angered by the BBC giving a platform to this known sceptic, who they accused of hijacking an interview on a different topic. Some reported Malhotra to the GMC.
The GMC’s decision not to act against Malhotra is a victory for science, ethics and common sense, but we should not get ahead of ourselves. This was a reluctant decision by the regulator, as the wording of their response to the referrals shows:
We recognise that Dr Malhotra has views on the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines that are at odds with the national and international scientific and medical communities. We also recognise that his words are strong and there is a question around the accuracy of his statements. There is currently no evidence that Dr. Malhotra has engaged in the type of Covid conspiracy related conduct that has to date justified regulatory action.
Note here the emphasis on consensus, as if that amounts to truth. It seems that if Malhotra had followed the likes of James Delingpole or Maajid Nawaz down the rabbit hole of globalist conspiracy, he would have been in big trouble. The GMC continued:
We also feel it is relevant that Dr. Malhotra started expressing his concerns about the vaccines in late 2021 and by this time the vaccine programme was well underway with the vast majority of vaccines delivered before this time. We would suggest that Dr. Malhotra’s impact on the COVID-19 vaccination programme in the U.K. could only have been negligible.
This is the most worrying line in the GMC response. If Malhotra is right about the risks of these vaccines, the GMC should be concerned that doctors were inhibited from speaking out earlier, thereby potentially saving lives. Instead, the GMC assumes that Malhotra is wrong, and that his remarks have not stopped the biggest vaccination drive in history.
The GMC acknowledged that Malhotra has a right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, although that is not an absolute right for a medical practitioner. His outspoken opinions on the vaccines, according to the GMC, are “not so egregious as to justify a public hearing and a forum for further scepticism to be aired as to aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic and response”.
This, I believe, is the real reason why the GMC has decided not to take any further action. Any proceedings would inevitably attract publicity and give Dr. Malhotra a platform to air his sceptical views. Ultimately, the truth will get out, and those who tried to hide it will be judged by history.
Dr. Niall McCrae is a former university lecturer who now works for the Workers of England Union.
On a Friday in August 2021, Dr Sally Price received a phone call from the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA). There had been an anonymous complaint against her, and AHPRA was to follow up with an investigation.
“So of course, I was checking my email all afternoon,” says Dr Price, who describes the ensuing investigation as, “destructive” and “very stressful.”
At the time, Dr Price was a practicing GP in Perth, with additional qualifications in nutritional medicine and Ayurveda. In over 30 years of practice, Dr Price had never received a complaint, and she was mystified as to which of her patients could possibly have complained to AHPRA.
When the email from AHPRA finally arrived in her inbox, Dr Price was surprised to find that the complaint was not from a patient, but from a social media follower who, to the best of her knowledge, she has never met or had any contact with.
The complaint centred around five Facebook story posts, four of which were reposted content from a non-partisan, pro-choice activist group called Reignite Democracy Australia (RDA). Two of the posts referenced efforts of politicians (in Australia and Italy) to resist vaccination mandates. Another story was a repost offering insight into the physiological effects of the fear response.
The complainant characterised the reposts as “anti-vaccination,” though none of the posts gave advice on vaccination or stated any opinion on the Covid vaccines. This was all that was required for AHPRA to launch an official investigation into Dr Price’s conduct.
AHPRA’s position statement on the Covid vaccination rollout (March 2021) set the bar for such vague complaints to trigger investigations, when they specifically barred doctors from expressing messages that could be construed as anti-vaccination on their social media:
”There is no place for anti-vaccination messages in professional health practice, and any promotion of anti-vaccination claims including on social media, and advertising may be subject to regulatory action.”
Dr Price was given two weeks to respond, during which time she engaged with her indemnity organisation in a highly stressful back-and-forth, knowing that her reputation, and maybe even her licence were on the line. Dr Price was strongly advised to offer to undergo ‘re-education’ at her own cost, so as to avoid more serious consequences, such as suspension, or having conditions imposed.
AHPRA agreed that Dr Price should undergo 10 hours of re-education and submit a letter of reflection detailing what she had learned from the process. “What you have to do is pull your forelock and tell AHPRA that you’ve been a very naughty girl,” says Dr Price.
As part of her re-education, Dr Price was required to study the Australian Medical Association’s (AMA) Code of Ethics (2017). Ironically, this firmly established in Dr Price’s mind that the AMA’s Code of tehics and AHPRA’s position statement on the Covid vaccination rollout were at odds with each other. “As I studied the AMA Code of Ethics, I was struck by how AHPRA’s position statement overrode our professional ethics, and that had me more deeply concerned,” says Dr Price. “It highlighted to me that none of this was ok.”
The AMA’s Code of Ethics states that doctors must, “consider first the well-being of the patient,” (Article 2.1.1) and that they must provide full informed consent before undertaking any tests, treatments or procedures (Article 2.1.4). Dr Price says that AHPRA’s position statement and hawkish regulatory behaviour put the public health agenda before the patient and made it “impossible” for doctors to provide valid informed consent to patients.
AHPRA’s unilateral decision that all doctors must fall in line with the vaccination rollout was also in conflict with the AMA Code’s provision that doctors may conscientiously object to providing certain treatments or procedures (Article 2.1.13), and that they may publicly state opinions contrary to the status quo (Article 4.3.3). Further, the Code requires that doctors “practise effective stewardship, the avoidance or elimination of wasteful expenditure in health care…” (Article 4.4.1), and that they use their “knowledge and skills to assist those responsible for allocating health care resources, advocating for their transparent and equitable allocation.” (Article 4.4.3) These articles imply a responsibility for doctors to speak out and take action when they believe that public health policy could be improved upon.
Feeling conflicted about how to practice good medicine under these conditions, Dr Price decided to take some leave to reflect and regroup. She lodged a complaint with Ahpra and the Ombudsman, requesting either a waiver to excuse her from the requirements of AHPRA’s position statement, or that AHPRA explain how she might be able to practice under their conditions whilst also keeping to the AMA’s Code of Ethics. No waiver or explanation was provided, and so Dr Price determined that continuing to practice as a GP was untenable. Her registration has since lapsed.
Dr Price says that, as it stands, the system has strayed from its primary purpose of letting doctors be doctors, and putting patients first. She speaks to a culture of fear within the medical profession. “The thing to understand is that doctors feel like someone is always behind them waiting to stab them in the back or put a bag over their head. That’s how it feels being under AHPRA,” she says.
The censorial nature of AHPRA’s regulatory practices was brought into the national spotlight several weeks ago by former AMA president Dr Kerryn Phelps, who recently revealed that she is Covid vaccine injured. In a submission to the federal government’s Long Covid Inquiry (Submission #510), Phelps wrote, in reference to the aforementioned AHPRA position statement,
“Regulators of the medical profession have censored public discussion about adverse events following immunisation, with threats to doctors not to make any public statements about anything that ‘might undermine the government’s vaccine rollout’ or risk suspension or loss of their registration.”
This is a view also held by cardiologist and Australian Medical Professionals’ Society (AMPS) founder, Dr Chris Neil, who warned in a recent article for Spectator Australia, that many medical professionals believe that not only is the AHPRA position statement unlawful, but that “it is at the root of a dangerous shift in Australian Medicine.” Neil points to the changes to the National Law for Health Practitioner Regulation introduced last October in the Queensland Parliament.
The changes, which the AMA strongly opposed, will further compel doctors to fall in line with public policy decided by bureaucrats, and will create a culture of ‘guilty until proven innocent’ by way of publicly naming and shaming medical professionals who are under investigation. AMPS has gone on the defensive with a Stop Medical Censorship national tour, on which medical, legal and other professionals gather to speak to audiences about the implications of censorship in medicine.
Dr Price says she feels damaged by the experience of being investigated by AHPRA, and she may not return to the profession. “I’m not sure that I want to come back. If medicine were to return to its ethical code, I will reconsider.”
Florida’s Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis plans to introduce legislation that will, among other things, stop Florida from being a “biomedical security state.” The legislation will ban all vaccine passport mandates.
DeSantis said the purpose of the legislation is to “prescribe freedom.”
“When the world lost its mind, Florida was a refuge of sanity, serving strongly as freedom’s linchpin,” the Republican governor said on Tuesday. “These measures will ensure Florida remains this way and will provide landmark protections for free speech for medical practitioners.”
“It required us over the past few years to stand against major institutions in our society: The bureaucracy, the medical establishment, legacy media, and even the President of the United States who, together, were working to impose a biomedical security state on society,” he added.
DeSantis’ surgeon general Dr. Joseph Ladapo said he supports the bill because it would protect the free exchange of ideas between medical professionals.
“As a health sciences researcher and physician, I have personally witnessed accomplished scientists receive threats due to their unorthodox positions,” Ladapo said. “However, many of these positions have proven to be correct, as we’ve all seen over the past few years. All medical professionals should be encouraged to engage in scientific discourse without fearing for their livelihoods or their careers.”
The legislation would protect medical professionals’ freedom of speech by protecting their religious views and their right to disagree with the preferred narrative. The bill would also protect medical freedom of choice by banning discrimination based on vaccination status, testing, and mask-wearing.
I have just received a very interesting MHRA reply to an FOI request about whether the Healthy Secretary delegated Covid vaccine decisions to the MHRA.
MHRA said “All the Covid vaccines and therapeutics authorisation decisions were taken by the Licensing Minister and were not delegated.”
What makes this so interesting is the wider context. Under the Human Medicines Regulations, the Licensing Authority is the Secretary of State for Health. He or she delegates to MHRA all the work associated with that – licensing of medicines, pharmacovigilance, inspection of manufacturers, enforcement and so on.
But for the Covid vaccines, MHRA is saying that the Secretary of State personally took all the decisions.
I read that as the blame game having started. I’ll explain why.
Back in 2020, MHRA would have known only too well that the clinical trials had been rushed (10 months compared with typical time to market of 5-10 years), had not been comprehensive (e.g. limited pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics) and wouldn’t finish until 2024. There were many warnings from experts around the world. MHRA’s line about ‘rolling review’ was, and remains, bunkum.
MHRA scientists and officials would have known about the problems (with all medicines) of scaling up production from small-scale, laboratory-based production for trials purposes to full-scale production. For example, larger quantities of ingredients can be more difficult to mix. They wouldn’t therefore have been surprised to have seen batch problems with the Covid vaccines around the world. One batch resulted in the hospitalisation of 120 children in Vietnam. One batch caused ocular injury to nurses when a vial was broken. In Japan, 1.63 million doses were recalled due to metallic contamination. Probably just the tip of the iceberg.
MHRA then saw adverse event reporting starting to reveal serious safety issues in the U.K. and around the world. First, myocarditis and blood clots, in March 2021, a few weeks after approval of the AstraZeneca vaccine (now effectively withdrawn) and later other heart issues, neurological problems and immunosuppression with Pfizer and Moderna.
MHRA knew in 2020 that the risk to younger age groups from Covid was very low and after rollout it would have seen assessments of vaccine effectiveness falling month on month. It wriggled hard against the evidence in the UKHSA weekly surveillance reports that vaccine effectiveness was even negative for younger age groups.
Since then the Covid vaccine narrative has continued to take a pounding as more clinicians around the world speak up, the research evidence about cardiac, neurological and immunosuppression problems continues to pile up, and the 1,000 per week excess deaths have still not been explained.
MHRA might have been criticised by Baroness Cumberlege for being “unresponsive and defensive”, but its staff aren’t all deaf, blind or stupid. They knew.
So my inference is that the blame game has started.
Mind you, MHRA is on a sticky wicket in any blame game. There are serious shortfalls in its own safety management:
It doesn’t have a process for investigating individual Yellow Card reports. It says it tries to investigate individual fatal and serious Yellow Card reports but it doesn’t have a process so it doesn’t know how many it has investigated (FOI 21/1109);
It doesn’t actively seek out real-world data – for example, real-world population-level data such as hospitalisation for ‘adverse events of special interest’ segmented by vaccination status and age. In January 2022, MHRA did not hold such data (CSC 88243) and in August 2022, UKHSA (FOI 22/472) only held population level info on thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS). Instead, it waits for signal detection from Yellow Card reports of adverse events, which are massively under-reported;
It doesn’t (or can’t) define the quantitative level of risk which is ‘acceptable’ as the basis of “acceptably safe” (FOI 22/390);
It lost 20% of posts in 2021 due to funding cuts and has 20% vacancies below that new baseline (FOI 22/1007);
It doesn’t have a process for delegating the authority to approve medicines for public use (FOI 22/1002) or governance of individuals competence (qualification, experience and training) (FOI 22/1007) to MHRA officers;
It has hidden safety data (FOI 22/1083), redacting numbers in tables on the pretext of maintaining patient confidentiality;
It appears quietly to have dropped a key strand of its Covid vaccine surveillance: Targeted Active Monitoring. FOI 22/1083 asked for a copy of the latest report but it was 15 months old (August 2021).
But back to “All the Covid vaccines and therapeutics authorisation decisions were taken by the Licensing Minister and were not delegated.” I’m left wondering what safety advice MHRA gave to Chris Whitty and ministers about the Covid vaccines back in late 2020 and early 2021 and subsequently as the serious safety issues started to emerge. And I wonder what briefings MHRA gave to the Commission on Human Medicines Expert Working Group on Covid Vaccine Benefits and Risks and to the COVID-19 Vaccines Safety Surveillance Methodologies Expert Working Group – neither publishes minutes.
It’s high time MPs and the Covid Inquiry started to ask some searching questions.
Until Nick retired a few years ago, he was a Senior Civil Servant in a Government Department.
Former United Kingdom (UK) Prime Minister Tony Blair has called for global organizations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and World Economic Forum (WEF) to push national governments to introduce “digital infrastructure” that monitors who has been vaccinated and who hasn’t.
Blair pushed for this government-controlled digital vaccine database during an appearance at the World Economic Forum’s 2023 annual meeting — a yearly event where powerful business leaders, politicians, and other influential figures meet in Davos, Switzerland to discuss the agendas they want to advance.
The former Prime Minister emphasized the importance of “technology and digital infrastructure” and data collection for surveilling the status of the vaccinated and unvaccinated.
“You need the data,” Blair said. “You need to know who’s been vaccinated and who hasn’t been. Some of the vaccines that will come on down the line will be multiple, there’ll be multiple shots. So you’ve got to have, the reasons to do with the healthcare more generally, but certainly, for a pandemic or for…vaccines, you’ve got to have a proper digital infrastructure, and many countries don’t have that. In fact, most countries don’t have that.”
Blair continued by suggesting that his digital vaccination status surveillance dragnet should be pushed through by the WTO (an intergovernmental organization that regulates international trade), the WEF (an unelected global organization that seeks to “shape global, regional and industry agendas”), and intergovernmental forums such as the Group of Twenty (G20) and the Group of Seven (G7).
“Who are the people that can make this happen?” Blair said. “How do you get the right partnerships in place?…That should happen in the G20 particularly, I think, which is… G7 is an important forum, but the G20 is the broader forum… You’ve got to work out what is it that you want to achieve in order to make sure that any future pandemic is properly handled and what are the partnerships that you’re going to create in order to ensure that the answers you get are the right answers. And then you’re going to have the mechanisms of implementation. And those mechanisms will be partly through the formal institutions that you have, like the WTO, and they’ll also be through organizations like yours [the WEF] which… I think… have many advantages because they don’t get landed with the same bureaucracy and frankly small pea politics around them.”
Blair’s call is the latest of several that he and his nonprofit, The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, have made for an expansion of mandatory digital surveillance infrastructure.
And two of the global groups that Blair wants to help push through this digital surveillance system, the WTO and the WEF, are also huge advocates of digital surveillance systems.
New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern resigned last night after months of rumours. Ardern, whose popularity has plummeted during the last six months, told us she ‘had nothing left in the tank’.
The backstory to this resignation is a tale of woe. Ardern said she wants to be remembered as someone who tried to be kind. The subtext is: the country is in an unprecedented mess but don’t blame me. School attendance is running at just 67 per cent on any given day. Machete-wielding teenagers are ram-raiding liquor, tobacco and luxury stores daily in an unprecedented crime wave. The health system is overwhelmed. Ardern’s government promised to build 100,000 new homes over three years. It has delivered 1,500.
Our tourist, farming and hospitality industries have never recovered from lockdowns and border closures. It takes months to get a visa to visit NZ and the government says it only wants rich people to come. Ardern insisted on universal Covid vaccination mandates. There is a suspicion that our 90 per cent vaccination rate has left most people in a lethargic fog. Excess all-cause deaths are still running 15 per cent above the long-term trends, and it is not Covid.
History will judge Ardern harshly, but don’t blame her alone. This was a Parliament who woke up on all sides of the house to the weakness of our constitutional arrangements (there are none). The Bill of Rights was tossed aside and no one in Parliament cared.
The leader of the National opposition Chris Luxon said if he was in power, he would withdraw benefits from unvaccinated single mothers. David Seymour, leader of the ACT party, said those losing their jobs through vaccine mandates only had themselves to blame. Labour’s coalition partner, the Greens, led by example. They encouraged mothers in labour to ride to hospital on a bicycle.
Revelations this week (here and here) that Ardern personally overruled her scientific advisers who were expressing doubts about the safety of Covid vaccines for young people and the wisdom of mandates have circulated very widely and no doubt this further undermined confidence in the government.
Political insider and right-wing commentator Cameron Slater published an article ten days ago saying that out of all the politicians he has known (and he has known most since Muldoon in the 70s) Ardern is the only one he rates as truly evil.
Ardern introduced ‘rule by regulation’. Adopting the enabling model favoured by fascists in the 1930s, her government has empowered authorities to tell us all what to do, when to stay at home, and where not to go. The courts, the Human Rights Commission and the broadcast regulators have all followed the government line meticulously which has had a devastating effect on business, families, communities and professions. To cement her policies, Ardern introduced massive government funding of our media and broadcasters.
Ardern’s government, in an absurd overreach, funded a nationwide effort to discredit critics of policy, labelling them terrorists. This has divided a formerly egalitarian society, instituting a Stasi-like snitch culture that encourages us to report a neighbour. Government Disinformation Project employees appeared on funded films aired on television labelling knitting, blond hair, braids, vaccine hesitancy, love of natural foods, yoga and motherhood as signs of terrorism that should be reported to the intelligence services (view it here if you can stand watching this nasty piece of propaganda and hate).
Why did Ardern suddenly change overnight in August 2021 from being a kindly figure saying she would never mandate vaccines, to being one of the world’s most draconian proponents? We can only speculate. NZ is a member of the Five Eyes intelligence network. Given the Pentagon’s recently revealed massive involvement in US Covid policy and gain of function research funding, was she fed information that a bioweapon was in play?
For a couple of weeks now government announcements and advertisements encouraging vaccination and boosters have been conspicuously absent. Has the penny finally dropped? We doubt it. It will take an honest, intelligent politician (are there any?) to roll back Ardern’s dictatorial powers and kickstart New Zealand. Why would any aspiring newby give up that much power? The prospect will be too intoxicating.
Ardern was a protege of Tony Blair and Klaus Schwab of WEF. They must bear some blame too. What fantasies of global power did they offer to a young person who was given to idealistic dreaming that segued into fanaticism?
Our final verdict: It is not Ardern but the whole NZ Parliament elected in 2020 that will be judged as the worst in our short history as an independent island nation, formerly famous for championing the underdog and offering opportunity to all. Ardern’s resignation has lit the bonfire of modern democracy.
What is Davos? The World Economic Forum’s (WEF) annual meeting happens each year in the alpine Swiss ski resort town. Each year global leaders, elected and unelected, gather to collude on policy initiatives and hot button topics concerning humanity overwhelmingly without the consent of the people.
Intel coming out of this year’s meeting has had a more pressing, alarmist nature from the self-proclaimed global elite minders. Don’t worry, the meeting was still filled with the annual hypocrisy we are used to. Squadrons of ‘unsustainable,’ carbon-emitting private jets still flew in at will. Fleets of non-electric cars openly chauffeured the climate alarmist around while they preached about the end of gas vehicles and individual car ownership… for the planet of course. But lets turn to moves by the medical–industrial complex.
Coming off the back of a rushed Covid shot that failed to stop transmission and whose harms and shortcomings are still unraveling in the public conversation, the ‘global leaders’ of Davos used the forum to do what they always do in the uncomfortable spotlight – double down on agendas.
After some of the biggest, concerted global protests in a century against lockdowns and the digital Covid vaccine passports used by governments to enforce them, a call was made to expand such tools of restriction.
For ‘the vaccines coming down the line [that] will be multiple shots,’ for ‘vaccines [in general]’ and for ‘a pandemic’ Blair stated you need a proper digital infrastructure to know ‘who’s been vaccinated and who hasn’t.’
Founded in Davos by the Gates Foundation, the UK-based Wellcome Trust, the WEF and other governments, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations or CEPI was a central player in global Covid vaccine development efforts.
They now have a new ‘100 day goal’ which has been embraced by the G7 and G20 nations according to a Davos speech attended by Pfizer’s CEO Bourla, Blair and others.
To ‘accelerate vaccine development over and above what was achieved in 2020’ and to be able to deliver vaccines for new threats within 100 days.
So the idea again would be to sidestep proper safety testing to put massive mutation pressure on a new circulating virus or pathogen by vaccinating in a middle of an ongoing pandemic – something Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche has continually warned against.
CEPI’s goal to take Covid’s fast tracking vaccine development precedent and fast track it further has been aided, intentionally or unintentionally, by the newly enacted FDA Modernization Act 2.0 which allows drug and vaccine developers to rely upon computer modeling and testing with virtual patients in their safety assessments of new products to convince regulators they’ve been ‘de-risked.’
While the Davos crowd, along with many others in the public, like Neil DeGrasse Tyson, still believe the official narrative that the rushed Covid shot was a wild, safe and effective success, a growing critical mass continues to expose the truth.
Meanwhile, the FDA still doesn’t have ‘robust’ data from Pfizer or Moderna on their mRNA Covid shot product’s ability to cause potentially deadly heart inflammation.
A 2021 letter by the FDA to Pfizer gave the company until October 2025 to turn in their study looking at that piece which public health leaders and agencies will take, at face value, as the final word on the subject. Despite the foot-dragging by regulators, members of the public and medical community have filled the vacuum with actual data and warnings.
Top UK cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra made history becoming one of the BBC’s most watched segments of the last two years [27.1M view on Twitter] warning about the myocarditis risk live on-air along with its role in the soaring number of excess deaths – the highest in 50 years according to the BBC.
Will the public accept digital restrictions on their life again in the form of vaccine passports?
Will the public accept new, multi-dose vaccines unpinned by even less safety testing and transparency than the mRNA Covid shots?
▪︎ Dr. James Lyons-Weiler, USA, research scientist and CEO of the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge:
▫️The smoking gun in the genes: Traces of toxic “medicines” used in the course of past “epidemics”.
A new Covid-19 variant has appeared: XBB.1.5 (or ‘Kraken’, for the fear factor). This could explain why deaths are surging again, with Japan recording about 400 daily, and Australia (despite being in the height of summer) in the dozens. But are people really dying from the latest strain of coronavirus?
Excess mortality is highest in countries with the highest rates of Covid-19 vaccination. Correlation is not causation, but only the wilfully blind are describing this human toll as ‘baffling’. Ordinary people do not need scientific expertise to join the dots. At the very least, the authorities should be investigating this unprecedented rise in mortality as a possible iatrogenic disaster (ie caused by medical treatment, like thalidomide).
While there is growing public awareness of the lethality of the mRNA injections, the scientific orthodoxy is continuing to suppress the truth. In reports showing an increased incidence of cardiovascular disease after vaccination, researchers always moderate the message by stating that the benefits overwhelmingly outweigh the risks. However, many publications do not even consider the vaccines as a cause of illness or death.
The report claims that in the past year 70 officers died in the line of duty of causes related to Covid-19. The good news is that this is ‘down dramatically from 2021, when 405 officer deaths were attributed to Covid’, but this was still a significant loss of front-line personnel, surpassing the number of deaths from firearms-related incidents.
The authors of the original report attribute the decline in deaths to ‘reduced infection rates and the broad availability and use of vaccinations’. However, this putative triumph of the Covid-19 vaccine needs more scrutiny than afforded by Medscape writer Lisa O’Mary.
In the original report we were keen to know how many law enforcement officers had died of other deadly infections. We anticipated influenza, meningitis, gastroenteritis and septicaemia among other potential killers, but none of these are mentioned in the report despite exposure on duty. We also wondered what the ‘background noise’ was in terms of how many law enforcement officers had died in total during the preceding years whether in the line of duty or not. Sadly, this figure was not reported either.
Covid-19, uniquely amongst infectious diseases, is being recorded as a cause of death in the line of duty but it is not clear why. We do not have any doubts about the bona fides of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund and we do not, at face value, question their use of the numbers with which they have been provided. What is clear is that, like most of the public sector in the US (and the UK) they have fallen for the Covid-19 narrative and been willing participants in the ‘fear porn’ that has gripped so many otherwise well-meaning organisations.
We see several problems with the researchers’ claim that low Covid-19 mortality in officers was due to the vaccine. The first problem is the distinction between the definition of deaths ‘with’ as opposed to ‘of’ Covid-19 and the possible attenuation of the Covid-19 virus over time. Then, we are not informed in the report, and data seem unavailable, about the extent to which Covid-19 testing was or is still being carried out. If there was a significant reduction in Covid-19 testing between 2021 and 2022 that would be a significant confounding factor.
A bold claim about the success of the vaccine rollout would need, at least, to show how many law enforcement officers were vaccinated. Even then the outcome would not provide much insight into cause (vaccination) and effect (death from Covid-19).
It is not clear how many US law enforcement officers are vaccinated. There were indications that compulsory vaccination was going to be introduced for law enforcement officers. But there was also evidence that the law enforcement unions ‘pushed back’ against the idea. In fact, uptake of Covid-19 vaccines was so low amongst law enforcement officers that hundreds were reported to be dying and that, according to the Washington Post, they were a danger to the public. Therefore, it seems incongruous that, on the one hand, law enforcement officers are a public hazard due to their low Covid-19 vaccination status, and on the other hand have their own lives saved ‘dramatically’ as a result of the Covid-19 vaccines.
There is a more serious question that the researchers failed to ask themselves. Is it possible that some of the 70 officers dying in 2022, and some of the 405 in the year of the initial vaccine rollout, were victims of the Covid-19 vaccine? Consider, for example, an officer who is hospitalised for breathlessness, and is discovered to have dangerous blood clots. On admission he tests positively on a PCR test, which is notoriously prone to false positives. If this officer were to die, he would be added to the Covid-19 mortality figures. This is not fantasy, but the reality of how the pandemic has been perpetuated over the last three years – with the collusion of the scientific community.
From population bomb to false prophet, Ehrlich, and his protege John Holdren’s, book Ecoscience has a concerning passage about a bioweapon as a “solution” to overpopulation. Meanwhile, history shows Holdren lifted the moratorium on gain-of-function research less than two weeks before Trump’s inauguration in 2017. Another data point to a troubling, ongoing investigation.
When it comes to the COVID-19 vaccine, world-renowned doctors and scientists are jumping ship. Many of those same experts, however, are pivoting sharply, insisting the same skepticism should not be applied to ‘safe and effective’ childhood vaccines. The HighWire host, Del Bigtree, whose 7-year investigation into Vaccine Safety and Policy in America inspired the launch of ICAN (icandecide.org) and The HighWire, explains why ‘it ain’t Just the Covid Vax’ that you should be worried about.
Internment of civilian nationals belonging to opposing sides was carried out in varying degrees by all belligerent powers in World War Two. It was also the fate of those servicemen who found themselves in a neutral country.
At the outbreak of war there were around 80,000 potential enemy aliens in Britain who, it was feared, could be spies, or willing to assist Britain’s enemies in the event of an invasion. All Germans and Austrians over the age of 16 were called before special tribunals and were divided into one of three groups… continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 