Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Advice for Parents Concerned About the Vaccination of Their Healthy Children

By Michael Curzon | The Daily Sceptic | September 2021

The Covid vaccine roll-out for healthy 12-15 year-olds is due to begin this week, but scientists remain concerned about the likely side effects. Some teachers tell me their schools still aren’t fully aware of the role they are supposed to play – “I can see it becoming a minefield”, said one teacher at a school in Yorkshire – and there seems to be some confusion among parents about the power they hold. Can they withhold their consent for the vaccination of their children or not?

Parents will be sent consent forms but only, it seems, as a formality since children who are deemed ‘competent’ (the assessment of which contains no set of defined questions) will be able to overrule the decisions of their parents anyway. This is of a piece with the Government’s decision to push ahead with its roll-out despite being told by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) that “there is considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the potential harms” of Covid vaccination in healthy teenagers and that – given the small risk Covid poses to healthy 12-15 year-olds – the “margin of benefit… is considered too small”.

The JCVI is “generous” in its assessment, according to an executive at a pharmaceutical company writing for the Daily Sceptic. (He, by the way, believes vaccines are among the “three greatest medical innovations”, so could hardly be labelled “anti-vax”!) Responding to the data, he says there is a “serious enough” risk of children developing myocarditis after vaccination (inflammation of the heart muscle, the long-term consequences of which aren’t fully understood) whereas the benefits of vaccination are “not well quantified” by the JCVI. The body also fails to properly consider the risk of other conditions following vaccination.

Professor Adam Finn sums up the situation by saying the vaccination of children would not – in normal times – have been approved because of the possible risks. He believes that parents are justified in waiting to allow their children to get ‘jabbed’ until these risks are better understood. But therein lies the problem. What – if anything – can parents do to delay the vaccination of their children?

I’ve been trying to find the answer to this question over the past week – and the prospects for concerned parents are fairly bleak.

It’s probably best to start by ruling out protesting, given that schools have been told to call the police if “anti-vaxxers” plan demonstrations outside their gates. (I’m not sure that seeing their parents being dragged away by the police will be great for children’s mental health, which the vaccine roll-out is supposed to protect, but that’s a matter for another article.) One also has to question whether protesting would be worth it even if there wasn’t the risk of arrest.

The main tool in the parent’s armoury seems to be the written – or, perhaps, the spoken – word. You can’t be arrested for telling your local headteacher (either in a letter or at a meeting) that you disagree with your child being vaccinated without your consent (though you might be removed from their Christmas card list). The Yorkshire teacher mentioned above tells me that he gets the impression his school will do all it can to wash its hands of responsibility on this matter, preferring to say that the important decisions (i.e., “who should be vaccinated at school”) will be made by health professionals who use the school site (School Age Immunisation Service (SAIS) officials), not by the school itself. The school would, in this case, be wrong. Lawyers For Liberty (LFL), a group of non-partisan lawyers, made this point quite clear in its recent letter to the heads of regulatory bodies concerned with the protection of children and safety in schools:

If schools are intended to be the ultimate setting for the child vaccination programme, then school leaders will be deemed to have approved the Vaccination against the JCVI Advice. This has a variety of potential legal ramifications for school staff. Certainly many are concerned that there may be a serious safeguarding concern that would not align with the legal duties of schools, as outlined in the Department for Education document “Keeping Children Safe in Education”.

In another letter that LFL has drafted for parents to send to schools (see more details here), heads are given notice of their (and their school’s) potential legal liability on the matter of Covid vaccination.

If a parent communicates to you that their child will not to be included in the vaccination programme or does not provide consent, then that decision must be respected, without any further consequences for the child, including direct or indirect discrimination or coercion. Failure to do so may result in possible legal claims against you personally and for your School.

(It is worth noting here that Government guidelines say if a child gets ill following vaccination and the SAIS team has left the school, the situation should be managed “according to existing policies for pupil sickness in school”. In other words, it will be the responsibility of the school.)

Given the likelihood that schools would sooner “wash their hands” of responsibility on this tricky and confusing matter than face an array of expensive legal challenges (schools could be “vicariously liable for any harm which may come to any child receiving the vaccination whilst in your care leading to financial sanctions between £180,000 to £20 million”, according to LFL), simply presenting (personally or through the LFL letter) the head of your child’s school with the above information could be enough to prevent your child from being vaccinated without your consent. Imagine raising a question about the school’s insurance policy coverage for vaccination on school sites in the case of side effects. Staff are likely to respect your wishes, but it goes without saying that responses will differ from one school to the next.

Perhaps concerned that their words won’t be enough to block the vaccination of their children, some parents have decided to go one step further and keep their children away from school to stop them from being peer-pressured to accept the vaccination, according to the Telegraph. If you do decide to do that, it’s worth bearing in mind that the SAIS providers will likely only set up in your local school for one to two days, depending on the number of students, and that parents will [allegedly] be notified of the specific date(s) beforehand.

September 19, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

Elderly Australian woman knocked down & Pepper-Sprayed by police during protest against lockdowns

RT | September 19, 2021

An elderly woman believed to be in her 70s was attacked by Melbourne police and pepper-sprayed while she was on the ground during a protest against Covid-19 lockdowns on Saturday.

As she held an Australian flag and stood on the road facing toward a group of approaching police, one officer shoved the woman, sending her tumbling to the ground. Another officer then pepper-sprayed the woman as she laid motionless and unable to protect herself.

Seconds after the attack – with the offending officers having already moved on – another group of police officers came to the woman’s aid and attempted to help her up.

Videos of the attack from multiple angles went viral on social media this weekend, with many Australians accusing the Melbourne officers of police brutality.

Australian MP Craig Kelly called the attack “despicable,” “disgusting,” and “ILLEGAL,” and tweeted, “This is not my Australia… We cannot accept Police in Australia pushing to the ground an unarmed 70 yr old woman (or anyone) who presents no threat & then have 2 officers pepper spray the unarmed, defenceless person in the face while on the ground.”

Former New South Wales Senator David Leyonhjelm also condemned the attack, calling the officers “gutless,” while journalist Ky Chow wrote, “I’ve watched several videos of this, and it’s hard to see how the Vic cops defend this.”

Several other incidents of violence between police and protesters broke out during the protest in Melbourne on Saturday and 235 people were reportedly arrested.

Melbourne police were also caught on camera pepper-spraying dozens of other Australians who were involved with the “unauthorized protest.”

Both Melbourne and Sydney have experienced repeated protests over the past few months in response to Covid-19 lockdown restrictions in the two cities. In August, a man from the state of Victoria was sentenced to a maximum of eight months in prison for helping to organize a protest in Sydney, New South Wales.

September 19, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Subjugation - Torture, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | 1 Comment

ROBERT MALONE INTERVIEWED BY JIMMY DORE

anti_republocrat | September 15, 2021

Robert Malone, inventor of mRNA technology, is interviewed by Jimmy Dore. Malone is not “anti-vax,” but he is “pro-ethics” and believes that all medical procedures require truly informed consent, with absolutely no coercion. He shares the view of Geert Vanden Bossche, whom he mentions in the interview, that the vaccines help to generate the variants because they are non-sterilizing. He says they should be targeted toward those who are at highest risk from the virus, seniors and those with multiple co-morbidities. I personally disagree with that. I think they should be taken off the market altogether, but at least he is adamantly against mandates.

September 19, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | , , , , | Leave a comment

A Sad and Shameful Day for Australian Medicine

By Professor Robert Clancy | Quadrant | September 13, 2021

September 10, 2021, was a black day,  the day a group of faceless bureaucrats known as the “Advisory Committee for Medicines Scheduling”, through its effector arm, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), compromised medical practise and the health of their fellow Australians. The TGA used its regulatory muscle to prevent doctors at the COVID-19 pandemic’s coalface from prescribing ivermectin (IVM), the one therapy available that is safe, cheap and which reduces mortality in the order of 60 per cent. This poorly conceived action threatens the high standards of medical practise we have achieved in Australia, and the credibility of the administrative structure within which medicine operates.

The immediate consequence of the TGA Notice means patients contracting COVID-19 are left to hear, “Sorry, no treatment for COVID-19 is legally available. Just go to hospital when you get very sick.” In the longer term it means that bureaucrats can change the way medicine is practised for whatever reason without review by, or discussion with, the medical community. It is important for Australians to consider two issues that follow the TGA’s decision: first, it adds risk to those exposed to COVID-19, putting additional pressures on health-care facilities; second, it drives a wedge into the fault lines that have appeared in medical practise during the course of the COVID-19 saga.

Looking at the first issue, the decision by the TGA to prevent general practitioners from prescribing IVM to manage COVID-19, the Notice is flawed and misleading, although giving clues to its political motivation. The evidence that IVM is safe and effective in both preventing and treating early (pre-hospital) COVID-19 is overwhelming, as has been  laid out in four Quadrant articles published through 2021. Despite this evidence, every artifice has been used to quash IVM’s use and to do so in unprecedented fashion. The causes for the suppression include political agendas, pressures from pharmaceutical companies, ideology and breakdown in medical communication. This latest blow by the TGA follows its previous form in shutting down use of hydroxychloroquine, another safe, effective and cheap COVID-19 therapy. Every experienced doctor prescribes drugs for “off-label” indications. It is anathema and dangerous that the doctor-patient relationship can now be over-ridden by government agendas.

The driving source of “evidence” that IVM has unproven therapeutic value is the Cochrane Review, which concluded from a single meta-analysis that the benefit in treating COVID-19 was “unproven”. This was out of line with a series of supportive meta-analyses by non-conflicted competent epidemiologists. Yet results from Cochrane have singularly been adopted without criticism or discussion, initially by the National COVID Clinical Evidence Taskforce (NCCET), then by diffusion via various professional and regulatory bodies while being fanned by an even less critical mainstream press. Thus IVM is seen by many, including some medical professionals, as the snake-oil of our age. What is not discussed is the validity of the Cochrane Review and the advisory messages from the NCCET. The influence of vested interest parties on Cochrane has been previously raised. The circumstances of generating the review by an unknown German group when experienced epidemiologists were available needs explanation. More immediately, critiques of the Cochrane analysis and the NCCET by unaligned British epidemiologists show defective methodology, cherry-picked data and exclusion of a raft of supportive data.

The information source used to formulate policy in Australia is both out of kilter with conclusions from over 60 controlled clinical trials and the positive experience recorded when IVM was used in  national and regional programmes. Cochrane is an incomplete and unreliable basis for decision making on COVID-19 management in an Australian context. The views of international experts are trumped by unknown local bureaucrats.

Surprisingly, the reasons given by the TGA for their decision on IVM are not the usual mantra of “unproven”, based on Cochrane, although that is left hanging as a “given”. The reasons are even less defensible: “supply may become limited” (incorrect, but this nevertheless demonstrates there is a need for the drug); “concerns re toxicity due to dosage determined by social media” (this concern is easily remedied by controlling usage through front-line doctors), and, lastly, the real reason: “It may interfere with the vaccination programme”. What an extraordinary statement!

The reason for “vaccine hesitancy” has nothing to do with IVM use. Doctors promote IVM as complementing the vaccine programme, which, given concerns regarding vaccine resistance caused by Delta strain of the virus and waning of post-vaccine immunity, makes early drug treatment more needed than ever. It is irresponsible to exclude IVM as a drug to control high numbers of infections that will be encountered as Australia moves out of its “bubble”, irrespective of the level of vaccination. The only parts of the world not experiencing a “third wave” of infection are those where lockdowns have been avoided, such as Sweden, or where IVM is used throughout the community, as is seen in parts of South America, Mexico and India.

The real cause of “vaccine hesitancy” is lack of transparency and discussion. Where is the discussion that death from COVID-19 is one thousand times greater than reported deaths linked to the vaccine? That is a fact easily understood. There are genuine concerns about experimental genetic vaccines, yet discussion is suppressed, and these issues are treated as “best kept secrets” by authorities. Failure to openly discuss these concerns in the context of a plan for a safe future vaccine strategy is reason in itself for uncertainty and conspiracy theories. It is unacceptable to shift blame onto IVM for “hesitancy”. Both vaccines and IVM are urgently needed, and suppression of IVM simply leads to unnecessary deaths and a postponed public reaction when evidence supporting the value of both becomes more widely known. Have we learnt nothing from the preventable thousand deaths that followed refusal in the US to allow cheap, safe prophylaxis against Pneumocystis infection in AIDS patients until a randomised clinical trial (RCT) was completed in the 1990s?

What is the influence of pharmaceutical companies? They have actively conspired against IVM while accepting hundreds of millions of government dollars to develop their versions of “early treatments”; in this they have been supported by the TGA that has now regulated against IVM. Meanwhile, the TGA recently registered a monoclonal antibody, Sotrovimab, based on a single small trial. This drug has a similar protection profile to IVM but costs $4,000 a dose (I support its registration, although it is hard to see how it could be superior to IVM). The TGA approved Remdesivir following one study showing its only benefit was four days less hospitalisation. Three subsequent RCTs failed to confirm benefit, yet the TGA allows the drug’s continued use in Australian hospitals. Just a week ago, the TGA reported with enthusiasm discussions with Merck about “son-of Remdesivir”, Molnupiravir, which comes with no clear clinical benefit noted from what are incomplete  studies. The US government has bought millions of doses at $1000 per dose. Whose interests are being protected?

Second, the implications for medical practise are a more sinister and subtle consequence of the TGA decision. Preventing general practitioners prescribing IVM for early COVID-19, when there is evidence of safety and benefit, sends a concerning message to community-based doctors. It threatens the “doctor-patient relationship”, as patients with COVID-19 are also aware that drugs are available which could save their lives. It also challenges the traditional role of senior medical advisers, most of whom are hospital-based with no experience of early COVID-19, and are influenced by expert bodies such as the NCCET, and of course Cochrane reports.

Cochrane is promoted as the foundation stone of Evidenced Based Medicine (EBM), the holy grail of contemporary medical practice. Dr. Dave Sackett was the “father of EBM” at Canada’s McMaster University, where he and I led medical-admission teams for five years. We had numerous discussions of EBM, then in its formative stage, anticipating it would have an integrating role in medical practise. Dave died in 2015, which saved him the disappointment of seeing what has happened during COVID-19, where a limited Cochrane review is used as a lever to achieve political outcomes to the disadvantage of patients. The unravelling of well-established professional relationships between community doctors, their medical advisory structures and government bodies has not been helped by the confusion, the lack of organised education activities and the isolation enforced by the pandemic.

The authoritarian and poorly conceived interference by the TGA in the effective running of clinical medicine, and its broader implications, is a further splintering event. This is a time when everyone needs to be on message to counter a devastating pandemic. The use of blunt legal tools to threaten and bully doctors with de-registration, legal action for “advertising” and even with jail terms for striving for the transparency and common sense that has served medicine so well compromises the rules of science and the doctor-patient relationship upon which our profession is built. The answer is transparency and communication around agreed goals based on science.  We should again involve all levels of health care and the public we serve. The decision-making process should include clinicians familiar with the problem to ensure the pragmatic and common-sense approach needed to get us through this pandemic with minimum damage.

Rather than create the chaos and loss of respect for an important institution that will follow continued enforcement of the current Notice, the TGA should initiate a working party that includes frontline doctors to establish an agreed treatment protocol that includes dosage, with monitoring of the outcomes. We live in dangerous times that call for new ideas able to address a real world crisis that is out of control and will only get worse without a different way of thinking.


Emeritus Professor Robert Clancy AM MB BS PhD DSc FRACP FRCP(A) RS(N) is Foundation Professor Pathology, Medical School University Newcastle, Clinical  Immunologist and (Previous) Head of the Newcastle Mucosal Immunology Group, with special interest in airways infection and vaccine development.

September 18, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | 3 Comments

Reflections on the 39th anniversary of the Sabra and Shatila massacre

Memorial posters in the Sabra and Shatila massacre graveyard.

Memorial posters in the Sabra and Shatila massacre graveyard [Ferdous Al-Audhali/Middle East Monitor]
Dr Swee Chai Ang | MEMO | September 18, 2021

The steadfastness and courage of Sabra and Shatila are in all of our hearts. Today, we commemorate the cruel injustice inflicted on the Palestinians in the massacre of 1982, knowing that this is just one of the continuous assaults on Palestinians since 1948. We resolve to continue to be with you all in your difficult journey in solidarity, hope and love, knowing that one day, the freedom and peace stolen from the Palestinian people for all these years will be won back through your struggle. We commemorate with tears, but pledge our commitment to this struggle with all our strength and lives. We know that the day will come when our children’s laughter will be the reward of years of sacrifice and endurance.

In June 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon. It bombed Lebanon by land, air and sea, and laid siege to Beirut. Israel killed and wounded thousands of innocent people and made at least 100,000 homeless within a few weeks. Beirut city was denied electricity, medicine, food and water.

I resigned from my job at a hospital in London to help the victims in Lebanon. At that time, my sympathies were with Israel, and I had not known that Palestinians existed. But I could no longer stand by and watch the wounding and killings of women, children and unarmed civilians – or watch them being made homeless as the bombs continuously fell on Lebanon.

I arrived in Beirut in August 1982, and was seconded to Gaza Hospital in Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camp in Beirut. It was one of nine hospitals and 13 clinics of the Palestine Red Crescent Society and the only one that was not flattened by the bombs.

The people of Sabra and Shatila told me about their suffering ever since they were driven out of Palestine to become refugees in 1948. Many of the residents of Sabra and Shatila were third and fourth-time refugees being driven from camp to camp when their families were killed and homes destroyed by Israeli planes. That was the first time I heard about their terrible suffering. That was also the first time I met Palestinians.

After resisting the continuous bombardment for ten weeks, the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) evacuated in exchange for peace. The US promised that it would protect the 300,000 Palestinian refugees left behind in Lebanon. They were encouraged to return from the shelters to the refugee camps to rebuild their homes and lives. But this did not happen.

Three weeks later, on 15 September, 1982, Israeli tanks were allowed to overrun Beirut. A large number surrounded and sealed Sabra and Shatila refugee camp so that no one could leave nor enter the camp.

Sniping started once the camp was sealed. Initially, the wounded and dead brought into the hospital were mainly women gathering water and food for their families. By the afternoon of the next day, men, women, children and babies were shot in their homes. Many were brought in dead and filled the mortuary.

More than 2,000 frightened people fled into our hospital with stories that the Haddads, Kataebs and Israelis were killing defenceless families in the camp. They feared for their lives.

They could not escape, and no one protected them.

The hospital ran out of blood, medication and food. Our medical and surgical team worked non-stop. I wanted the nurses to give the last packet of blood to a wounded mother, but she pleaded for it to be given to her child, and she died shortly afterwards.

At night, the skies of Sabra and Shatila were lit with Israeli military flares. We heard explosions and machine gun noises throughout, and the wounded continued to be brought into Gaza Hospital.

It was especially painful to operate on a little boy who was shot along with 27 members of his family. As the bodies fell on him, he passed out and was mistaken for dead by the murderers. When he awoke, he was in great pain. Years later, he told of how he heard women being rounded up and raped. His physical wounds may have healed, but his emotional scars are still with him today. It took my American colleagues four years to get him out of living in the house where his family was murdered. He was not the only child who suffered in this way.

At dawn on 18 September, 1982, soldiers with machine guns forced the entire international medical volunteer team out of the hospital.

When we were marched into Rue Sabra, we saw groups of old men, women and children rounded up by militia. A frightened, desperate young mother tried to give me her baby, but was forced to take it back. She begged them to spare her baby. They were all subsequently executed, including the mother and baby.

There were dead bodies piled up in the camp alleys and bulldozers destroying camp homes. We had struggled for 72 hours non-stop without food and sleep to save dozens of lives. But within the same 72 hours, at least 3,000 were killed.

I was 33 years old then. I grew up a Zionist Christian and never knew Palestinians existed until I stepped foot in Sabra and Shatila. I knew then that it was my human responsibility never to walk away from this horrendous injustice. I also realised that I must speak up on behalf of the victims. The dead could not speak up, and the survivors needed my voice.

After testifying to five Commissions of Inquiry on Sabra and Shatila, including travelling to Israel with Ellen Siegel to give evidence to the Israeli Kahan Commission of Inquiry into the conduct of the Israeli Army in Sabra and Shatila, I returned to the UK. The Palestinians in Lebanon continued to be destitute, homeless and hungry. Justice seemed not to be in sight. The situation was dire for them, and indeed, they continued to suffer and become more desperate. Children were born and grew up in the long, dark shadow of the massacre, and there was no hope of returning to Palestine. Could we make their lives just a little bit easier?

Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP) was founded in the aftermath of the Sabra and Shatila massacre, under those circumstances. We wanted to support the Palestinians in any small way that we could. The founders of MAP formed the organisation so that the horrors of the massacre could be turned into a bridge – a positive channel of friendship and solidarity between people in the UK and the Palestinians – not only in Lebanon, but also in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and in the diaspora.

Since then, MAP has not only worked with the Palestinians in Lebanon, but also in Gaza and the West Bank. The existence of MAP is also our way to let them know we will never forsake or forget them. What MAP is doing is minuscule, a drop in the ocean, but we are part of the tide moving towards justice for the Palestinians.

As for me, I count myself privileged and honoured to be able to journey alongside the Palestinians, to be accepted as their family. Whether in Shatila, in Gaza, onboard the Freedom Flotilla Al-Awda to Gaza, in Israeli prison or being deported, I want my life to be an acceptable tribute to the Palestinians. They welcomed me into their broken lives and homes and made me one of their own, offering me Arabic coffee in the midst of the rubble they call home. For this, I will thank God every day of my life, until death do us part.

September 18, 2021 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | 1 Comment

Israel soldiers break Palestinian physician’s arm

Israeli soldiers broke Nidal Arda’s arm following his detention. (Photo: via Social Media)
MEMO | September 17, 2021

Israeli soldiers assaulted a 46-year-old Palestinian physician from the town of Arraba southwest of Jenin following his detention last week and broke his arm.

According to the Wafa news agency, Nidal Arda found Israeli occupation forces in army jeeps surrounding his home after he returned from the mosque following dawn prayers.

“They were waiting at my house and apparently wanted to ambush me. The jeeps turned their lights on in my direction and then ordered me to come out of the car,” he said.

There were around 40 soldiers accompanied with dogs, he said, who had broken into and raided his house before he got there.

“The soldiers destroyed my house,” he explained. “They broke the doors and windows and ransacked the entire house. They terrorised my family and children, who were separated from their mother and put in another room.”

Nidal was interrogated about the Palestinian escapees from Israel’s Gilboa Prison as two members were from Arraba.

“They threatened me with my son and said they would not allow him to travel to finish his higher education abroad if I do not cooperate with them,” he said.

He was blindfolded and forced into a jeep with other members of the family and neighbourhood and taken away to a military base.

“We were blindfolded and handcuffed,” he said. “One soldier pushed me and I fell to the ground. My right arm hit something and I felt great pain. I knew it was broken since I am a doctor,” he added.

The soldiers then removed his handcuffs and only left him with sedatives to ease the pain, before taking him to a detention centre.

Due to the noticeable pain, he was taken to a nearby hospital where doctors confirmed he had a broken bone and placed it in a cast. He was then forced back to the detention centre and interrogated about the Palestinian escapees.

A military court ordered his release a week later, reported Wafa. The two Palestinians from Arraba who escaped from prison were caught by the Israeli army before his release.

Israel launched its largest-ever manhunt in the bid to recapture the six men, whose escape was a huge embarrassment for the occupation state.

September 17, 2021 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Subjugation - Torture | , , , | 3 Comments

Why the Biden COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate is Unconstitutional

Techno Fog | September 14, 2021

On September 9, President Biden announced he would circumvent the democratic process, ordering the Secretary of the Department of Labor to require employers with over 100 workers to “ensure their workforces are fully vaccinated or show a negative test at least once a week.”

This was essential, as Biden said, “to protect vaccinated workers from unvaccinated workers.”

As we have explained, the Secretary of Labor will issue these regulations through OSHA by way of an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS). The ETS would allow the Secretary of Labor to issue the vaccine mandate without the normal administrative rulemaking requirements (like notice and public comment periods).

While the Biden Administration tells the public that there’s no time to waste in issuing the mandate, the truth is that OSHA/Labor failed to argue the necessity of a vaccine mandate since the vaccines have been available – a time period approaching one year. Moreover, the Biden Department of Labor is secretly meeting with the US Chamber of Commerce and business lobbyists to gather support for the mandate. As Bloomberg Law reports:

Solicitor of Labor Seema Nanda held a virtual meeting with Neil Bradley, the Chamber’s chief policy officer, and other business lobbyists. The Chamber, the largest business lobbying group in the U.S., has yet to publicly declare a position on the coming Occupational Safety and Health Administration emergency rulemaking.

It was one of at least three briefings the department held Friday for labor union leaders and employer associations—constituencies the White House hopes to forge partnerships with to lift the vaccination rate nationwide. Information from the calls was disclosed to Bloomberg Law by eight sources who took part, all of whom requested anonymity because they didn’t have approval to speak publicly.

Why the Vaccine Mandate is Unconstitutional

As you can imagine, the constitutionality of the vaccine mandate will be litigated as soon as OSHA issues the rules. The media is running interference, telling the public that challenges to the mandate are “unlikely to succeed.”

Do not believe them.

The legality of the vaccine mandate will be assessed under what is called the major rules doctrine (also known as the major questions doctrine). Under this doctrine, the courts look to (1) whether the agency action is a major rule; and (2) whether Congress has clearly authorized the agency action.

As Justice Scalia stated in 2014, “We expect congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast ‘economic and political significance.’”

From here we turn to the first question of the major rules doctrine: there is zero doubt that it is a major rule. It would affect the healthcare decisions – and implicate the personal autonomy – of “some 80 million private sector workers.” It is an action never before taken by OSHA, the Department of Labor, and any other federal agency. It would affect the entire US economy.

In support of my position, we have seen lesser invasive agency rules be determined to be major rules. For example, “rate-regulations” of telephone companies has been held to be a major rule. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 512 U.S. 218 (1994).

From there we get to the second question: whether Congress has clearly authorized the Department of Labor/OSHA to mandate vaccines. The answer is no.

If Congress clearly authorized (not just authorized, but clearly authorized) Labor/OSHA to mandate vaccines, then we would have seen such authority in the OSH Act of 1970. Look for yourself – the language isn’t there. Instead, there are general grants of authority to “set mandatory occupational safety and health standards.”

Looking to the history of OSHA, this authority has been understood to regulate employer actions to provide a safe workplace (Benzene limits) or employee actions at work (operation of heavy equipment). The OSH Act has never been understood historically to include mandatory vaccinations. This is significant because the Supreme Court recently looked to agency history to determine the CDC lacked the authority to issue its latest eviction mandate.

For an example of “clear authority” relating to public health, look to the authority Congress gave HHS to take action in case of “significant outbreaks of infectious diseases.” Going further, to allow the mandate would be to allow OSHA to require vaccination as a condition of employment. The OSH Act contains no such language or authority.

So there we have it. This is a “major rule” and Congress has not “clearly authorized” Labor/OSHA to issue a vaccine mandate. It is an unlawful – and unconstitutional – seizure of authority by the Executive. Expect further challenges on whether the ETS itself (and the finding of “grave danger”) is legal.

We also observe that we by no means concede Congressional authority to mandate vaccines. (In other words, Congress could not give OSHA/Labor this authority because Congress has no such authority to give.) You may have seen some pundits argue that the 1905 case of Jacobsen v. Massachusetts gives this authority. These arguments are misplaced, as that was the Supreme Court over 100 years ago considering state, and not federal, authority.

One Final Point – Why Justice Kavanaugh Matters

In 2017, when Justice Kavanaugh was sitting on the DC Circuit, he wrote a dissent from a denial of rehearing en banc, in which he thoroughly summarized the major rules doctrine. He argued that the FCC’s net neutrality rule was unlawful, in that it was a “major rule” that was not clearly authorized by Congress.

Kavanaugh’s 2017 dissent was one of the most (or perhaps the most) comprehensive discussions of the major rules doctrine ever written in the DC Circuit. Kavanaugh went through a number of Supreme Court cases in support of his position and argued the doctrine essential to uphold the separation of powers. To this author, it reveals Kavanaugh values this doctrine and believes it should be applied with vigor.

We see an example of this in Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion in the original application to vacate the stay of the CDC eviction moratorium (June 29, 2021), where Kavanaugh wrote “clear and specific congressional authorization (via new legislation) would be necessary for the CDC to extend the moratorium.”

Whether Kavanaugh has the courage to apply his convictions is another matter.

September 17, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | 1 Comment

This Den of Thieves is Full of Corrupted Government Officials

By Susan Price | America Out Loud | September 16, 2021

We are in the fight against the greatest evil forces ever known, as the Coronavirus is much more than a weaponized guise by the elite, for this sinister agenda is to entrap the masses by mandated and forced vaccination genocide.

Is the CDC playing global political and military chess with the nation and the world because we question the fact-gathering of how an American Congress could have the power and leverage to “mobilize philanthropic and private-sector health challenges to more than 140 countries from 1,200 health protection programs?”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is known as the national public health agency of the United States; it’s a federal agency under the Department of Health and Human Services located in Atlanta, Georgia. They were founded July 1, 1946, and interesting to note that as the successor to the WWII Malaria Control in War Areas program of the Office of National Defense Malaria Control Activities.

Proceeding its founding and the fox guarding the henhouse, there was a global influence of the Malaria Commission of the League of Nations and the Rockefeller Foundation, which sought government takeovers through collaborative efforts with the agency; which only grew more powerful through the decades against the ignorance of Americans and those global entities.

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) believes they can amplify, impact and improve the safety of America and the world; their narrative states they are an independent nonprofit and the sole entity created by Congress to mobilize philanthropic and private-sector health challenges.

They claim they “are a catalyst for unleashing the power of collaboration between CDC and philanthropies, private entities and individuals to protect the health, safety, and security of America and the world.”

They are a strategy for implementing philanthropy as an opportunity in contributing to breakthrough collaborations and innovations when addressing complex health challenges.

Collectively they align themselves with partnerships of diverse interests and resources, government agencies, corporations, and foundations; they use the narrative “that our support saves and improves lives-right now and in the future,” through donors, and more than 1,200 health protection programs that have raised over 1.2 billion dollars which support the CDC’s work over two decades.

Their bragging rights proclaim that they’ve managed to enlist hundreds of programs in the United States and more than 140 countries through their capability of keeping people healthy, safe and secure, through world-class scientific expertise, and networks of extended philanthropic reach, collaborating with supposed experts to focus on science.

But how do we know this isn’t a TROJAN HORSE, and these mechanisms weren’t created to capture the trust of innocent Americans and more than 140 countries through false narratives pushing an agenda against the hearts and minds of humanity? After all, the most awakened souls can connect the dots and see the weaponization of health is taking root through some form of mass genocide.

Many top medical experts are speaking out against the vaccines and note that the ramifications of this experimental COVID-19 vaccine are imposing serious health problems onto the population as a potential biohazard.

This den of thieves is made up of the corrupted governments and corporations who strategically push mandates while they target 100% of the American population unlawfully, and against the U.S. Constitutional rights of all Americans.

According to the Worldometer, as of September 14, 2021, the American population totals about 333 million-plus souls, out of which two-thirds of this population have been vaccinated, one-third of the population totaling about 100 million people remain unvaccinated for many personal and Constitutional reasons.

Out of the majority of 52% or two-thirds of the population that have been fully vaccinated, this leaves 48% who have experienced receiving at least one jab, and many of these people will not take another shot as they have experienced some measure of health problems or changed their mind against a 2nd dose.

The power of networking should never be underestimated, whether good, bad or indifferent, so if you’re wondering what affiliations are connected with the CDC through partnerships of Corporations, Foundations & Organizations, look no further, you will see a pattern emerge, and why the push for vaccinations is everywhere we go, there are so many groups doing business with the CDC.

Corporations: Our Partners: Corporations | CDC Foundation
Foundations: Our Partners: Foundations | CDC Foundation
Organizations: Our Partners: Organizations | CDC Foundation

The CDC is facing some legal issues regarding false reporting on vaccines, and yet we are supposed to trust them with safeguarding the protection of our personal wellness?

>  CDC Gets Called Out In Federal Court Over Lack Of Scientific Studies

There’s a silent rage building across the country over the hot subject of mandatory vaccinations; depending on where you reside within the U.S., you will get a quick lesson on the politics involved in the economics of the American workforce and various corporations, schools, and other institutions, organizations, and business that try to create UNCONSTITUTIONAL mandates against those not complying with the questionable vaccinations.

One state that doesn’t play politics with the lives of its citizens is Florida. It’s the reason why so many northerners from democratic cities are relocating to the sunshine state and be mindful that the governor of Florida has protected the state’s citizens against the obtuse mandates of the CDC and other rogue agencies who seek to go against the sovereign rights of Americans.

Governor, Ron DeSantis of Tallahassee, Florida, signed a bill earlier in the year protecting Floridians by banning vaccine passports. DeSantis states for the record that starting September 16, 2021, the great state of Florida will start issuing $5,000 fines to businesses, schools, and government agencies that require people to show proof of a COVID-19 vaccination.

As part of “promises made, promises kept,” the statute reads that a business entity….may not require patrons or customers to provide any documentation certifying COVID-19 vaccination or postinfection recovery to gain access to, entry upon, or service from the business operations in this state.” The same rules apply to governmental entities and educational institutions.

The statute continues by stating that it does not otherwise restrict businesses, government entities, or educational institutions “from instituting screening protocols consistent with authoritative or controlling government-issued guidance to protect public health.”

Humanity is going through a major transformation regarding every aspect of the human experience here on earth; breakdowns become breakthroughs and revelations trigger revolutions as the collective consciousness awakens from its deep state of slumber, we are recognizing a clearer lens into who the monsters are that have been hiding in the shadows.

As mankind awakens, we connect the dots into the nefarious agendas created by the three-letter government agencies and challenge their unethical policies and procedures created by the morally corrupt working deep within the political and military systems.

It is up to every individual to do their own research, question everything, get involved in making a difference in the world, as it’s ordinary people who make extraordinary differences in the world.

Sources:

DeSantis Warns Businesses Who Follow Biden’s Vaccine Mandate Will Be Fined $5K Per Employee (newsweek.com)

The Coronavirus: A Global Pandemonium & 2nd American Revolution – America Out Loud 

Coincidence or More Deep State Interference Concerning Coronavirus – America Out Loud

September 17, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Constitution Day 2021: It’s Time to Make America Free Again

By John W. Whitehead & Nisha Whitehead | The Rutherford Institute | September 17, 2021

The Constitution of the United States represents the classic solution to one of humankind’s greatest political problems: that is, how does a small group of states combine into a strong union without the states losing their individual powers and surrendering their control over local affairs?

Although the Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, a “bill of rights” was demanded and became an eventuality in order to protect the citizenry’s fundamental rights or “first liberties” against usurpation by the newly created federal government.

Unfortunately, although the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments of the Constitution—was adopted as a means of protecting the people against government tyranny, in America today, the government does whatever it wants, freedom be damned.

Here is what it means to live under the Constitution, post-9/11 and in the midst of a COVID-19 pandemic.

The First Amendment is supposed to protect the freedom to speak your mind, assemble and protest nonviolently without being bridled by the government. It also protects the freedom of the media, as well as the right to worship and pray without interference. In other words, Americans should not be silenced by the government. To the founders, all of America was a free speech zone. Despite the clear protections found in the First Amendment, the freedoms described therein are under constant assault.

The Second Amendment was intended to guarantee “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Essentially, this amendment was intended to give the citizenry the means to resist tyrannical government. Yet while gun ownership has been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court as an individual citizen right, Americans remain powerless to defend themselves against SWAT team raids and government agents armed to the teeth with military weapons better suited to the battlefield.

The Third Amendment reinforces the principle that civilian-elected officials are superior to the military by prohibiting the military from entering any citizen’s home without “the consent of the owner.” With the police increasingly training like the military, acting like the military, and posing as military forces—complete with heavily armed SWAT teams, military weapons, assault vehicles, etc.—it is clear that we now have what the founders feared most—a standing army on American soil.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits government agents from conducting surveillance on you or touching you or invading you, unless they have some evidence that you’re up to something criminal. In other words, the Fourth Amendment ensures privacy and bodily integrity. Unfortunately, the Fourth Amendment has suffered the greatest damage in recent years and has been all but eviscerated by an unwarranted expansion of police powers that include strip searches and even anal and vaginal searches of citizens, surveillance (corporate and otherwise) and intrusions justified in the name of fighting terrorism, as well as the outsourcing of otherwise illegal activities to private contractors.

The Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment work in tandem. These amendments supposedly ensure that you are innocent until proven guilty, and government authorities cannot deprive you of your life, your liberty or your property without the right to an attorney and a fair trial before a civilian judge. However, in the new suspect society in which we live, where surveillance is the norm, these fundamental principles have been upended. Certainly, if the government can arbitrarily freeze, seize or lay claim to your property (money, land or possessions) under government asset forfeiture schemes, you have no true rights.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees citizens the right to a jury trial. Yet when the populace has no idea of what’s in the Constitution—civic education has virtually disappeared from most school curriculums—that inevitably translates to an ignorant jury incapable of distinguishing justice and the law from their own preconceived notions and fears.

The Eighth Amendment is similar to the Sixth in that it is supposed to protect the rights of the accused and forbid the use of cruel and unusual punishment. However, the Supreme Court’s determination that what constitutes “cruel and unusual” should be dependent on the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” leaves us with little protection in the face of a society lacking in morals altogether.

The Ninth Amendment provides that other rights not enumerated in the Constitution are nonetheless retained by the people. Popular sovereignty—the belief that the power to govern flows upward from the people rather than downward from the rulers—is clearly evident in this amendment. However, it has since been turned on its head by a centralized federal government that sees itself as supreme and which continues to pass more and more laws that restrict our freedoms under the pretext that it has an “important government interest” in doing so.

As for the Tenth Amendment’s reminder that the people and the states retain every authority that is not otherwise mentioned in the Constitution, that assurance of a system of government in which power is divided among local, state and national entities has long since been rendered moot by the centralized Washington, DC, power elite—the president, Congress and the courts.

If there is any sense to be made from this recitation of freedoms lost, it is simply this: our individual freedoms have been eviscerated so that the government’s powers could be expanded.

Yet those who gave us the Constitution and the Bill of Rights believed that the government exists at the behest of its citizens. It is there to protect, defend and even enhance our freedoms, not violate them.

It was no idle happenstance that the Constitution opens with these three powerful words: “We the people.”

In other words, we have the power to make and break the government. We are the masters and they are the servants. We the American people—the citizenry—are the arbiters and ultimate guardians of America’s welfare, defense, liberty, laws and prosperity.

Still, it’s hard to be a good citizen if you don’t know anything about your rights or how the government is supposed to operate.

Here’s an idea to get educated and take a stand for freedom: anyone who signs up to become a member of The Rutherford Institute gets a wallet-sized Bill of Rights card and a Know Your Rights card. Use this card to teach your children the freedoms found in the Bill of Rights.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, our national priorities need to be re-prioritized.

For instance, some argue that we need to make America great again. I, for one, would prefer to make America free again.

September 17, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

AUSTRALIAN TOURISM AD IN 2021

September 12, 2021

September 17, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | 2 Comments

Facebook censors German anti-lockdown movement under new rules to prevent users from organizing & amplifying ‘harmful’ ideas

RT | September 17, 2021

No longer content to go just after bots and trolls, Facebook has established a new category of “social harm” posted by genuine users, starting with purging pages and Instagram accounts of a German anti-lockdown group Querdenken.

Facebook’s head of security policy Nathaniel Gleicher announced the action on Thursday, saying that his team has been working for months to “expand our network disruption efforts so we can address threats that come from groups of authentic accounts coordinating on our platform to cause social harm.”

The closest his post comes to defining “social harm” is content that “calls for violence or to discredit medical science.”

Gleicher says his group has removed a network of Facebook and Instagram accounts, pages and groups “for engaging in coordinated efforts to repeatedly violate our Community Standards, including posting harmful health misinformation, hate speech and incitement to violence.”

Sharing their domains on Facebook and Instagram has been blocked as well, he added, but noted that “we aren’t banning all Querdenken content.”

The Querdenken – German for “lateral thinking” – movement is “linked to off-platform violence and other social harms,” Gleicher wrote, adding that the content posted on the banned pages “primarily focused on promoting the conspiracy that the German government’s [Covid-19] restrictions are part of a larger plan to strip citizens of their freedoms and basic rights.”

According to Facebook, the group “typically portrayed violence as the way to overturn the pandemic-related government measures limiting personal freedoms.” The group “engaged in physical violence against journalists, police and medical practitioners in Germany,” Gleicher claimed citing “public reporting.”

Police officers scuffle with a demonstrator during a protest in Berlin, Germany, on August 1, 2021. © Reuters / Christian Mang

There have been multiple mass protests against coronavirus lockdowns in Germany, with the authorities denouncing them as the work of the “far-right,” neo-Nazis and other extremists. While the UN special rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer raised concerns about police brutality in dispersing the demonstrations, last month, Berlin police responded that violence is “still part of our legal system.”

“Direct enforcement is violence. Violence harms. Violence hurts. Violence looks violent,” Berlin police spokesperson Thilo Cablitz told DPA last month.

Facebook has cracked down hard on “debunked” and “false” claims about the Covid-19 pandemic, loosely defined as anything that contradicts the guidance by the World Health Organization or national health authorities. It stopped censoring the claim that the SARS-CoV-2 virus may have escaped from a lab in Wuhan, China back in May, however, citing “new facts and trends” that emerged.

September 16, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | 1 Comment