CNN ‘Doctor’: “The Science Has Changed” So Lift COVID Restrictions
By Steve Watson | Summit News | February 9, 2022
Despite nothing changing at all, CNN’s resident ‘doctor’ Leana Wen claimed this week that “the science has changed” and so COVID restrictions including mask mandates should now be rescinded.
Wen, who started to admit some weeks ago that masks don’t work in stopping the spread of COVID, stated that “the decision to wear a mask should shift from a government mandate to an individual choice.”
She added that kids in schools should not be forced to wear masks because it can be harmful and makes it harder for them to learn.
As recently as two months ago, Wen was advocating for the Biden administration to “further restrict the activities of the unvaccinated.”
Wen also previously entrenched a segregated society when she blamed people who hadn’t taken the jab for a COVID-19 “surge” while asserting “we can’t trust the unvaccinated.”
Wen also called for making it “hard for people to remain unvaccinated” by restricting their social freedoms.
She asserted that, “It needs to be hard for people to remain unvaccinated,” claiming that it wasn’t currently difficult (despite the group being demonized and discriminated against on a daily basis).
Wen also previously stated that children returning to school need to be forced to wear industrial grade face masks and should be subjected to weekly COVID tests until they are fully vaccinated.
Suddenly all of this has changed for Wen.
It just happens to coincide with the beginning of election season, and Democrats now moving away from lockdown policies they previously vehemently advocated over fears about being wiped out politically.
UK “reforming” human rights law… compulsory vaccines on the horizon?
By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | February 8, 2022
The UK government is planning to re-work its human rights law to put an increased emphasis on “personal responsibility” and “duties to the wider society”, as well as preventing people “abusing” their rights.
Sounds pretty awful, doesn’t it? But let’s go back to the beginning.
In December 2020 the UK government announced they would be looking into Human Rights reform in the near future.
These announcements became more concrete a year later on December 14th 2021, when the government began a “consultation” on restructuring the Human Rights Act.
The plan is to replace current rights legislation with a so-called “UK Bill of Rights”, a policy dating from the Cameron administration. The new “bill of rights” would update and replace the Human Rights Act.
As a brief summary of UK human rights law:
Some rights are enshrined in common law from the days of Magna Carta, but the vast majority of the time when we talk about “human rights” in the UK we’re referring to the Human Rights Act 1998.
This act was written into law as essentially a verbatim copy of the European Convention on Human Rights passed by the Council of Europe in the 1950s.
The purpose of writing the international treaty into domestic law was so British citizens could take human rights cases to domestic courts, instead of having to go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
As with most human rights laws, from the UN Declaration of Human Rights to the US Constitution, a lot of the time the Human Rights Act is flat-out ignored, or at best worked around. But it does exist, and it does offer some protection of the individual from the power of the state.
Will that continue to be the case after these “reforms”?
The UK’s current “consultation” on Human Rights “reform” is set to end next month (March 2022), & whatever its final recommendations are will likely not be published for several months after that. But, while we can’t yet be certain exactly what they will say…we can get some rough ideas from what they have released so far.
Dominic Raab, the Justice Secretary who commissioned the consultation, recently said in an interview on LBC:
Our plans for a Bill of Rights will strengthen typically British rights like freedom of speech and trial by jury, while preventing abuses of the system and adding a healthy dose of common sense.”
If you’re anything like me, the phrases “abuses of the system” and “common sense” just made your inner cynic twitch, but there’s no real detail there.
Perhaps you’re thinking, at this point, that if you read the whole briefing document there will be nothing there to justify any paranoia.
… except I have, and there is.
If you drill down through the filler, and can read through the bureaucratic language, there are some pretty concerning red flags waving around, especially in their stated aims [emphasis added]:
Our reforms will be a check on the expansion and inflation of rights without democratic oversight and consent, and will provide greater legal certainty.
[The Bill of Rights will] provide greater clarity regarding the interpretation of certain rights, such as the right to respect for private and family life, by guiding the UK courts in interpreting the rights and balancing them with the interests of our society as a whole
[The Bill of Rights will] provide more certainty for public authorities to discharge the functions Parliament has given them, without the fear that this will expose them to costly human rights litigation
The government is committed to ensuring that the biggest social media companies protect users from abuse and harm, and in doing so ensuring that everyone can enjoy their right to freedom of expression free from the fear of abuse.
Protecting authorities from legal consequences, stamping out “abuse” online, subordinating privacy to national security… these are pretty routine aims of new legislation these days. They are expected, almost cliche.
The biggest and freshest warning sign is the sheer number of mentions of “duty” or “responsibility” or “the wider society”.
For example, this sentence from the forward written by Raab himself:
our system must strike the proper balance of rights and responsibilities, individual liberty and the public interest,
And in point 6 of the Executive Summary…
The Bill of Rights will make sure a proper balance is struck between individuals’ rights, personal responsibility, and the wider public interest.
… and then point 9 too:
[The Bill of rights will] recognise that responsibilities exist alongside rights, and that these should be reflected in the approach to balancing qualified rights and the remedies available for human rights claims
The header at the top of Chapter 3, “The Case for Reforming UK Human Rights Law”, bemoans:
the growth of a ‘rights culture’ that has displaced due focus on personal responsibility and the public interest […] public protection [is] put at risk by the exponential expansion of rights
Going into greater detail further down:
The international human rights framework recognises that not all rights are absolute and that an individual’s rights may need to be balanced, either against the rights of others or against the wider public interest. Many of the rights in the Convention are ‘qualified’, recognising explicitly the need to respect the rights of others and the broader needs of society […] The idea that rights come alongside duties and responsibilities is steeped in the UK tradition of liberty
And then again, in the first paragraph from section IV “Emphasising the role of responsibilities within the human rights framework” [emphasis added]:
We all have responsibilities in our society: to society (such as to obey the law and pay taxes), to our families, and to people around us. Everyone holds human rights whether or not they undertake their responsibilities, particularly the absolute rights in the Convention such as the prohibition on torture. Nonetheless, the government believes that our new human rights framework should reflect the importance of responsibilities.
It carries on in equally concerning fashion…
when a court is considering the proportionality of an interference with a person’s qualified rights, it will consider the extent to which the person has fulfilled their own relevant responsibilities.
The overall message is clear: Human rights can be tempered with “responsibilities” & anyone who does not fulfil their “responsibilities” is less deserving of the legal protection of their rights.
This is neither new thinking nor new language. Throughout “Covid times” we have seen talk of liberty parried with talk of duty, but it predates Covid too.
For years free speech has been tempered with talk of “being offensive” or “spreading misinformation”. The right to privacy has long been secondary to “national security” and “keeping people safe”.
Human Rights law is regularly trumped by The Patriot Act or Investigatory Powers Act or a dozen equally appalling pieces of legislation from both sides of the Atlantic.
But now, rather than bypassing human rights laws, this government is going to – to quote Raab – “rebuild them”. Meaning shred the existing ones and write all new ones. Ones that use “common sense” to make sure people are “responsible” and don’t “abuse” their rights.
Within the scope of this so-called “reform” is the desire to add conditions to basic human liberties. Exchanging “self-evident” truths, “endowed upon men at their creation”, for a quid-pro-quo agreement with the state.
This is a seismic shift in the very definition of “rights”.
The entire point of human rights is that they are innate and inalienable, they exist for everyone everywhere, and are not in the gift of any authority.
But now, rather, the UK government is arguing your rights are given to you at their behest, and that they come at the cost of expected duty.
And given all the talk during the “pandemic” regarding “protecting others” and being “responsible” – with masks, lockdowns and most especially vaccines – it’s not hard to see how these new “duties” could be applied in the future.
There’s no direct talk of compulsory vaccination, yet, but if these new “human rights” laws are made a reality, the next pandemic could be much harder to navigate.
You can read the complete consultation on human rights reform here.
Mandatory Vaccination via the Back Door
The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | February 8, 2022
There has been a lot of fanfare about the recent decision to abandon mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations for National Health Service (NHS) staff in England. However, the pressure is still on.
The welcome U-turn was announced on 31 January, when Sajid Javid (the health secretary) said that whilst looking at the risks and opportunities of the vaccination as a condition of deployment policy, there were 2 new factors to consider. Firstly, the population as a whole is better protected against hospitalisation and secondly, Omicron is intrinsically less severe. He then concluded that while vaccination remains our very best line of defence, he no longer believes it is proportionate to require vaccination through statute.
All reasonably sensible stuff so far and this is what the majority of the media picked up on. However, he wasn’t finished yet. He continued with the following statement (emphasis my own):
Some basic facts remain: vaccines save lives, and everyone working in health and social care has a professional duty to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
So, while we will seek to end vaccination as a condition of deployment in health and social care settings using statute, I am taking the following steps:
First, I have written to professional regulators operating across health to ask them to urgently review current guidance to registrants on vaccinations, including COVID-19, to emphasise their professional responsibilities in this area.
Second, I have asked the NHS to review its policies on the hiring of new staff and the deployment of existing staff, taking into account their vaccination status.
And third, I’ve asked my officials to consult on updating my department’s code of practice, which applies to all CQC registered providers of all healthcare and social care in England.
They will consult on strengthening requirements in relation to COVID-19 including reflecting the latest advice on infection prevention control.
So it seems that, as suspected, the U-turn didn’t occur because it was the sensible path to follow but because of political motives. Too much pressure was building up in support of the unvaccinated health care workers. Furthermore, there would have been nowhere to hide politically, when 10 percent of the health care staff were sacked, causing massive chaos in an already overstretched service.
However, the pressure is still on for the staff who have chosen not to be vaccinated. Firstly, the regulations have not been revoked yet, they will be subject to a consultation and parliamentary approval. Secondly, similar to my article on the removal of human rights, there will be professional pressure applied to staff in the interests of the greater good. Thirdly, policies will be changed making it very difficult for unvaccinated workers. As one nurse put it:
No vaccine mandate but; you can’t change jobs, take a promotion, progress in your career, and you will forever be coerced into taking a jab and live with constant fear that one day you could be sacked for not taking it.
This is not over!
Yesterday, a Times article reported that Sajid Javid has told medical regulators to insist staff get jabs. It says the health secretary has said that “medical regulators must crack down on unvaccinated staff”. The article reports that “he has written to nine regulators, including the General Medical Council (GMC) and Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC). Abandoning compulsory vaccines ‘in no way diminished the importance that health and care workers are vaccinated. Indeed, it is the responsibility of all health care professionals to take steps to ensure the safety of patients’. [Sajid is] ‘concerned that the guidance from the professional regulators on this issue is currently limited to a statement about vaccination in general’ rather than about Covid-19 in particular”. Javid told the regulators “that they should ‘urgently’ work with senior health leaders ‘to ensure yourself that your current guidance on vaccination for Covid, sends a clear message to registrants’.”
I don’t think there will be much opposition at management level in the NHS, when individuals such as Chris Hopson (CEO of NHS Providers) and Matthew Taylor (CEO of NHS Confederation) issued a joint statement saying “NHS leaders are frustrated to have such a significant change in policy at the 11th hour, given all the hard and complex work that has gone into meeting the deadline set by the government. They recognise the reasons . . . but there will be concern at what this means for wider messaging about the importance of vaccination for the population as a whole.”
Also yesterday, England’s Chief Medical Officer (Chris Whitty), together with the Chief Nursing Officer, Chief Midwifery Officer, Medical Directors and others wrote to NHS colleagues about their professional responsibility to get vaccinated.
In the letter they say “COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective because there have been over 10 billion doses given worldwide”. They also say that the vaccines “provide protection from becoming infected”. I don’t know how they can claim that when data from the UK Health Security Agency itself, shows infection rates to be higher in the majority of vaccinated age groups.
The main gist of the letter is to guilt health care workers into getting vaccinated. They use words such as “professional responsibility”, “the public reasonably expect” and “to protect our patients”. The letter ends by saying “the great majority of heathcare workers have already done so [been vaccinated]. We hope those of you who have not will consider doing so now.
The level of coercion to get vaccinated, particular with health care workers, is unacceptable and is not dying down. For a novel vaccine, with no medium to long term studies on side effects, the choice is down to the individual. The data suggests that the vaccinated are more likely to be infected, not less. So, even if the vaccine does protect someone on an individual basis, they are more likely to be infectious around patients, not less. Especially, if the vaccine masks any symptoms meaning a vaccinated individual is more likely to be infected and not realise they are.
Mandatory vaccinations for healthcare workers has been abolished for now, but the pressure is still being placed on them. Will new workers have to be vaccinated, will vaccination be necessary for certain roles or to progress careers. Or will the constant shaming or being made to feel guilty be too much for the individuals who have chosen not to be vaccinated and will they have to leave anyway but this time, without any legal redress or compensation?
The crescendoing chatter that this is for some greater good is also deeply concerning. The majority of individuals, when left to their own devices, will choose the correct path when deciding on the finely balanced risks between what is good for themselves and the public. Most people will always want to do the right thing and very often choose to help others over themselves. The only danger in society right now is the thought that public health officials or ministers can decide what is good for an individual based on a perceived threat to society. This top-down policy is not only dangerous but won’t achieve the results they are looking for.
I will conclude with a comment made by a reader on one of my previous articles:
“As a Human Geneticist in a profession that was responsible for the horrors of the Eugenics movement, I have been deeply steeped in ethics and the importance of abiding by codes of conduct especially those created after WW2 such as the Nuremberg Codes. As soon as one strays from these codes, one immediately falls into the danger of recreating the past horrors. Individual rights must always be respected over any other consideration and any abrogation of those rights no matter what the rationale must always be challenged and justified and as temporary and minimal as possible. One thing I learned taking courses in the mathematics of epidemiology is that public health are not trained in ethics in the same way. In fact they are almost trained in the opposite to always think of the good of the whole of society over the rights of individuals. Of all branches of medical health out there, it does not surprise me that tyranny came from public health.”
Canada’s Justice Center on Constitutional Rights Represents Freedom Truckers
By Stephen Lendman | February 8, 2022
The nation’s Justice Center is a “legal organization and federally registered charity that defends citizens’ fundamental freedoms under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, through pro bono legal representation and through educating Canadians about the free society.”
Expressing support for anti-mandate protesters, Justice Center attorney Samuel Bachand said the organization is involved “to help defend political freedoms of these people of good will” — in Ottawa and other Canadian cities.
Over the weekend, the Center warned Ottawa authorities that intimidation and/or arrests of individuals involved in bringing food, fuel and/or other supplies are in flagrant breach of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Section 2(b) states:
“Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.”
Article 7 assures that “(e)veryone has the right to life, liberty and security of person and the right not to be deprived thereof in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”
Representing Freedom Convoy truckers, Justice Center attorney Nicholas Wansbutter stressed the following:
“People who bring food, water, gasoline or other supplies to peacefully protesting truckers are not breaking any law.”
“There is no basis for this police threat…”
“In a free and democratic society that is governed by the rule of law, citizens can freely associate with each other, including the giving and receiving of goods and gifts.”
“There is no law that would allow the Ottawa Police to arrest people for giving fuel or food to another Canadian.”
“The truckers themselves are exercising their Charter freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly, as they are legally entitled to do.”
The Justice Center challenged the state of emergency declared by Ottawa mayor Jim Watson, Wansbutter saying:
He presented no evidence to legally prove that peaceful actions by freedom truckers pose “a danger of major proportions” that doesn’t exist.
Under Canada’s Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, an “emergency (is) a situation or an impending situation that constitutes a danger of major proportions that could result in serious harm to persons or substantial damage to property and that is caused by the forces of nature, a disease or other health risk, an accident or an act whether intentional or otherwise.”
Nothing of the sort exists in Ottawa or other Canadian cities where similar anti-mandates activism is ongoing.
Watson’s declaration amounts to a “disturbing overreach and misuse of emergency powers,” Wansbutter added.
An affidavit filed in Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice states that Freedom Convoy organizers and truckers involved are working closely with Ottawa police, the RCMP and Parliament’s Protective Service to maintain order according to the rule of law.
On Monday, the Justice Center represented Freedom Convoy organizers and leaders in court.
They challenged a hostile $10 million lawsuit for nonexistent damages from horn-honking.
Along with honking for justice, video and photographic evidence showed the following, according to the Justice Center:
“Bouncy castles for the kids, farmers with their tractors, cowboys on their horses, impromptu street hockey, protestors shoveling snow and feeding the homeless, live music, and flags from all nations and protests,” adding:
“A more realistic picture of what is happening in Ottawa will soon be revealed by sworn affidavits filed in this court application.”
“Convoy leaders asked truckers to refrain from honking horns between 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.” They obliged.
On Monday, an eyewitness in court said the following under oath:
The individual saw truckers and supporters “feeding the homeless on Wellington Street and filling their backpacks with food.”
“Truckers have taken a whole trailer full of food to the homeless shelter.”
“Truckers are maintaining cleanliness of city streets, including picking up discarded masks on the ground, centralized garbage collection, shoveling snow at the War Memorial and the Terry Fox statue, and decorating and providing security for the War Memorial and Terry Fox statue.”
The above sworn testimony is polar opposite fabricated accusations against truckers and supporters by Ottawa authorities, city police and MSM co-conspirators.
Another witness said the following:
“(T)ruckers I have interacted with have, at all times, been friendly, courteous, humble, considerate and peaceful.”
“I have not observed any aggressive or inappropriate behavior.”
Truckers are diverse. They include Sikhs, Blacks, Aboriginals and others.
The witness “observed truckers decorating the tomb of the unknown soldier with flowers and guarding it.”
He saw no “violent or threatening behavior.”
“Truckers are not honk(ing) their horns at night.”
“My everyday life has not been disrupted by any noise related to the Freedom Convoy during the day.”
“My ability to park and travel in downtown Ottawa, or to and from Parliament Hill has not been impeded by the presence of the truckers.”
Still another witness said the following:
“(P)rotesters were peaceful and respectful.”
“I saw no violence or harassment.”
“I was not impeded in any way, and could walk about freely and safely.”
“I did not see any hateful symbols.”
“I saw an abundance of Canada flags and Quebec flags as well as countless signs calling for freedom and the end of (flu/covid) related mandates.”
“I would describe the scene as a peaceful, pro-freedom demonstration.”
“Many people walked the streets peacefully protesting.”
“Many of them carried Canada flags and signs.”
“It was a peaceful and fun atmosphere with dancing and public speakers taking turns at a microphone while people listened on.”
“I did not observe anyone being harassed or intimidated. I felt totally safe.”
“Contrary to what I have seen in the media, I did not see that the Terry Fox statue was desecrated or defaced in any way.”
“I saw flowers at the feet of the statue as demonstrators walked by.”
“My everyday life has not been disrupted by any noise related to the downtown demonstrations.”
“I do not hear any honking near my home.”
“The only honking I have heard is on Wellington Street, particularly across from Parliament Hill.”
Justice Center Litigation Director Jay Cameron stressed the following on Monday:
“The right to peacefully protest is a fundamental right protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
“Governments across Canada have ignored Canadians, and bypassed their elected representatives in the passage of health and (jabbing) mandates which strip people of their jobs and civil liberties.”
“People are tired of being ignored by the indifferent elite.”
“The lack of meaningful democracy means citizens have no voice regarding health mandates.”
“They have a right to peacefully protest and have their voices heard.”
Nationwide protests in Canada have the Trudeau regime and local authorities on the back foot.
Staying the course to keep them there is crucial while pursuing restoration of lost rights until draconian mandates are rescinded.
16 States File New Lawsuit Challenging Vaccine Mandates for U.S. Healthcare Workers
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | February 7, 2022
Attorneys general from 16 states, led by Louisiana, filed a new legal challenge to COVID-19 vaccine mandates for U.S. healthcare workers.
The amended lawsuit was filed Feb. 4 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and Chiquita Brooks-Lasure, administrator of CMS.
The suit seeks to block the mandate for healthcare workers in the 25 states that previously challenged it and where it is set to take effect beginning this month.
The revised lawsuit puts forth a series of new arguments, including that the CMS mandate was designed in response to the Delta variant and is therefore now obsolete.
Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia and West Virginia joined Louisiana in the lawsuit.
The amended lawsuit comes in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Jan. 13 decision, which lifted injunctions that had been in effect in 25 states. The Supreme Court said mandates could go into effect while lawsuits challenging it continue to weave their way through the judicial system.
This decision came following a circuitous legal process, where U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty initially blocked the mandate nationwide, on Nov. 30, 2021. (Judge Doughty is overseeing the case involving the amended lawsuit.)
An appeals court later lifted the injunction in 26 states on Dec. 15, 2021, but the mandate was then separately blocked in Texas that same day by another judge.
These developments prompted the Biden administration in late December 2021 to file an emergency request with the Supreme Court, asking the court to lift the various injunctions barring implementation of the CMS mandate.
The mandate, as originally issued by the CMS, specifically applies to healthcare workers at hospitals and facilities that receive federal funding — namely, those that accept Medicare and Medicaid payments.
Following the Supreme Court decision, healthcare workers in 24 states (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming) will be required to furnish proof of having received at least one COVID vaccine dose by Feb. 14, and must complete their primary series of vaccines by March 15.
Healthcare workers in Texas have until Feb. 22 to receive their first dose, and March 21 to complete their primary series of vaccinations, while in states where the mandate had not previously been blocked, the respective deadlines are Jan. 27 and Feb. 28.
Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry described the CMS vaccine requirement as a “job-killing directive” that is ineffective as a measure to stop the spread of COVID or protect public health.
Landry argued the mandates violate states’ rights:
“The CMS vaccination rule remains a misguided, one-size-fits-all, job-killing directive that does not account for any change in circumstances — including how the vaccines do not stop the transmission of the Omicron variant.
“What’s more, the federal government has now made clear that it expects the states to implement this flawed policy with state employees. So I will continue fighting this ill-advised invasion of individual autonomy and my state’s rights.”
Landry said the mandate is “causing havoc in the healthcare labor market across the nation — especially in rural communities.”
The lawsuit addresses a notable discrepancy: The mandate, signed by Becerra, specifically references the danger the Delta variant poses to the unvaccinated, adding that vaccines “continue to be effective in preventing COVID-19 associated with the now-dominant Delta variant.”
The Supreme Court agreed with Becerra’s reasoning, stating he had “good cause” to impose the mandate without the typically mandated comment period, because of his belief that any additional delay would pose a danger to patient health and safety in light of the spread of the Delta variant.
The lawsuit argues that as of mid-December 2021 and based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Delta was no longer the prevalent strain of COVID, having been replaced by Omicron:
“[T]he Secretary’s rationale for the rule and for avoiding public comment no longer exists. The Delta variant has run its full course.
“… It is now established beyond any serious question that the secretary’s speculation was wrong. The Delta variant effectively disappeared from the scene within weeks of the issuance of the rule.”
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall also questioned the efficacy of the COVID vaccines against Omicron:
“The mandate was promulgated in response to the Delta variant, which now accounts for only 0.1 percent of all COVID-19 cases in the United States.
“But research suggests that COVID-19 vaccines do little to stop the transmission of the predominant strain today — the Omicron variant, which accounts for 99.9 percent of all cases — which undermines the premise for forcing people to submit to them.”
The amended lawsuit states, “Omicron’s transmission is largely undeterred by the vaccines.”
The lawsuit also references findings by the American Association of Retired Persons Public Policy Institute, which indicates nursing homes and long-term care facilities are already facing a severe shortage of nurses and aides, without the mandate having yet gone into effect.
The lawsuit argues these low staffing levels place patients at greater risk, including a higher likelihood of contracting COVID:
“By forcing healthcare workers to choose between their jobs or an experimental vaccine they do not want, CMS is affirmatively pinching an already strained workforce — and particularly so in rural areas within the States.”
The lawsuit also notes the shifting and contradictory position of the federal government, which, for instance, recently issued guidance permitting healthcare workers who have tested positive for COVID to go to work, which undercuts the policy that prohibits unvaccinated healthcare workers from going to work even with a negative test result.
The lawsuit further argues the CMS vaccine mandate violates the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution concerning states’ rights; the Spending Clause of the Constitution; the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine, which stems from two Supreme Court decisions prohibiting the federal government from commandeering state governments; and the Nondelegation Doctrine, a principle in administrative law that stipulates Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to other entities.
In contrast, government lawyers told the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana in January that following the Jan. 13 Supreme Court decision striking down the previous injunctions, the case was “effectively concluded,” and they submitted a motion for its dismissal.
The CMS on Jan. 25 issued new guidance that broadened the mandate, extending the vaccine requirement to surveyors who enter the healthcare facilities covered by the rule.
In turn, the lawsuit argues the latest CMS guidance clashes with laws in the states participating in the lawsuit, including an Indiana law that bars government entities from requiring any individual to furnish proof of vaccination, and a Montana law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of vaccination status.
© 2022 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.
Students should not be coerced into Covid vaccination
TCW Defending Freedom – February 8, 2022
A COUPLE of weeks ago we published a letter from Queen’s University Medical School in Belfast to its medical students which all but made it a requirement for students to get vaccinated to complete all aspects of their course. Since then we have heard from a number of distressed parents and students at various institutions revealing a much wider problem of coercive vaccination for students. It’s not just prospective doctors, but nurses and physios who are being subjected to this coercive pressure and being told they can’t take or complete their course unless they get jabbed.
This is despite the recent rollback of several Covid restrictions including Covid passes. Universities and students continue to be put under enormous pressure from their higher education bosses to see to it that students are vaccinated and told that is both a public safety and ‘duty’ requirement. See below, for example, how the Welsh Government frame both question and answer in their guidance to students, omitting any mention of the fact that at their age students are at no serious risk from Covid-19 let alone the Omicron variant.
Q: How can I feel safe at university with the Omicron variant?
A: The most effective way to manage personal risk is to take up the offer of vaccination. All those eligible should get two doses of the vaccine and when invited, get their booster as a priority to have increased protection. Taking this responsibility and becoming vaccinated means that as well as protecting ourselves we are considerate of others. This will help us all to get back to doing the things we’ve missed the most. It is never too late to get the vaccine and walk-in centres are open to all, including international students.
There you have it. The official narrative, the official perspective.
The Department for Education likewise in its most recent ‘Guidance’ is still pressuring higher education providers to encourage student vaccination. It tells them that they should have ‘communications strategies for students and staff, which will include principles such as [encouraging] students to take up the offer of both doses of the coronavirus vaccine, and the booster jab as soon as they are eligible’.
They inform the universities of the checklist of ‘communications’ they must prepare. This includes making sure that ‘Students are strongly encouraged to get vaccinated and know how to get a Covid-19 vaccine.’ Covid-related ‘behavioural expectations’ for students are clearly set out, including ‘continuing to behave responsibly’. This pressure comes down the line, directed first at the universities and then from the universities (in order, no doubt, to tick their own compliance boxes) to the student body. It is not difficult to see how parents and students come to succumb to it, even against their better judgment, in fear of wasted investment and blighted careers before they start.
Not one of these official publications sets out the balance of risk for students between taking and not taking the jab. Not one explains the vaccine’s limited efficacy against infection or transmission. Appallingly, that the vaccine may not be in students’ short-term or long-term health interests is not even considered.
That is why the Together Declaration’s latest campaign in support of university students to stop this vaccination coercion in order to continue their education is so welcome. What they ask us all to do is to write to the vice chancellors of the main universities. You can copy the text from this letter into an email and then BCC (important that you BCC, not CC) this list of names and send it. If you want to be more personal and diligent you can contact the vice chancellors separately and by name, which you can find here.
If you are on Twitter and any other social media, please tweet this graphic.
‘I contacted all vice chancellors at the main universities today. We hope they will do the right thing and will not be insisting on vaccination as a condition of education.
@UniversitiesUK we hope you will also be pushing institutions to allow freedom of choice’.
Government and universities have no business either to be encouraging students (many of whom will have had and recovered from Covid) to be guinea pigs or to be making vaccination a condition of education. You can tweet that too!
UAE ‘directly benefiting’ from illegal Israeli settlement enterprise
MEMO | February 7, 2022
The UAE is directly benefitting from Illegal Israeli settlements and is in violation of international law according to recently signed bilateral trade agreements between Abu Dhabi and the occupation state, Hugh Lovatt, Senior Policy Fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, has pointed out in a series of tweets.
Lovatt has worked to advance the concept of EU Differentiation, which includes a variety of measures taken by the European bloc and its member states to exclude settlement-linked entities and activities from bilateral relations with Israel.
The EU has never recognised the legality of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories (including those in East Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan Heights that have been formally annexed by Israel). This means that the EU has an obligation to practically implement its non-recognition policy by fully and effectively implementing its own legislation against Israel’s incorporation of settlement entities and activities into its external relations with the EU.
In 2016, Lovatt worked to have this measure enshrined within UN Security Council Resolution 2334. It passed in a 14–0 vote, with the US notably abstaining. The Resolution states that Israel’s settlement activity constitutes a “flagrant violation” of international law and has “no legal validity”. It demands that Israel stop such activity and fulfil its obligations as an occupying power under the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Lovatt claims that recently released details of bilateral agreements between the UAE and Israel show that that the Gulf State is in violation of Resolution 2334 and the principal of differentiation which all UN member states are expected to abide by.
“Has the UAE respected international law and its obligations to differentiate between Israel and the settlements as per UNSCR 2334?” asked Lovatt in his tweet. “The answer: No.”
Lovatt explained that “to comply with UN Security Council Resolution 2334, every bilateral agreement signed with Israel should contain a ‘differentiation’ clause defining the territorial scope of its application to Israel’s pre-June 1967 borders. This is not the case in this UAE-Israel agreement”. He shared a screen shot of a clause from the bilateral agreement indicating that no such territorial distinction was made.
The definition of territory applied in the agreement includes all the land that is under “Israel’s jurisdiction”, which Lovatt explained include Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian territory.
Notably Japan’s trade agreement with Israel includes a definition of “Israeli territory” which upholds the differentiation principal and, therefore, does not fall foul of Resolution 2334, Lovatt said. The absence of this distinction in the bilateral agreement between Abu Dhabi and Tel Aviv means that the UAE is “directly” befitting from illegal settlements through its normalisation with Israel.
Lovatt admits that the UAE may have a different interpretation of the agreement than he does, in which case “it would be incumbent on the UAE government to clarify the agreement’s territorial applicability as soon as possible,” he added.
The Truckers vs The Government; We need to get out ahead of all this
By Jon Rappoport | No More Fake News | February 7, 2022
You can support the truckers at TruckerLawyer.ca.
As of this writing, I’m told the police are making arrests in Ottawa. I assume this means they’re arresting truckers.
The Ottawa city government has declared a state of emergency. It’s now a crime for anyone on the scene to give food, fuel, or aid of any kind to the truckers.
The truckers and people all over Canada want freedom and peace. The government wants peace without freedom.
The government wants vaccine mandates and passports, and the ability to declare lockdowns and other fascist measures at any time.
No debate on “the science,” no need to justify the COVID measures, no legal cases taking up Constitutional limits on government power. Just: OBEY.
So that’s what the government is. That’s who they are. That’s who Trudeau is.
We might feel shock at what the government is doing to the truckers, but we shouldn’t be surprised. No one should have expected the government of “obey us” to just sit back and let this convoy happen and proceed, with so many Canadians supporting it.
No one should be surprised that rebellion against “obey us” governments is breaking out across the world.
Let’s get out ahead of what could happen in the coming days and weeks—-
No one with a conscience should back away if governments and their media front men throw around words like “insurrection” and “incitement” and “terrorism.” THESE ARE CONTROL WORDS.
They’re meant to paralyze people. They’re crude smears. The implication would be, anyone who is “a trucker” or a “supporter” wants to overthrow the entire government—rather than replace the fascists.
“Overthrow” was the official characterization of the January 6 Capitol break-in, in the US. “Well, led by a guy wearing a helmet and horns, a mob was going to take over the Congress.”
I see. Sure. And Trump, wearing a military uniform, having gained control over the PENTAGON, was going to swagger into the Capitol, declare martial law, and run the US with his junta.
Thereafter, The Rebels, commanded by a cigar-smoking fatigues-wearing Tony Fauci, encamped in the Catskills, would valiantly try to win back The Republic and the Constitution.
The truckers want freedom and peace, and their own right to earn a living. The Canadian government wants peace without freedom for everyone, and they’re ready to use force to force the peace.
If serious violence breaks out in Ottawa, the government will be behind it.
Violence shouldn’t make people back away from supporting the truckers.
Perhaps you noticed that the George Floyd protests and riots and the looting and burning and violence in many US cities didn’t make anyone on the political Left back away from supporting the rioters.
Did the government call those supporters insurrectionists or terrorists?
You might hear this from people “who are really in the know”: “You see, the whole convoy was a PLAN to cause violence, and then anyone who’s against the mandates and supports the truckers would be labeled a terrorist…”
Without real evidence, that formulation could be used to reject ANY form of mass protest on ANY issue. You may as well say ALL OF LIFE IS A FALSE FLAG, and therefore, we should do nothing and support nothing.
If serious violence does break out in Ottawa, a typical shaming operation will launch: “You people who supported the truckers—you’re responsible for this. You thought the truckers were honorable. But they were always breaking the law. They were stirred up by a mob mentality, by you who won’t accept the reality of the pandemic and what we all have to do to return to normal life…”
Guilt by association, except it turns out the people we’re associated with—the truckers—did nothing wrong.
Again, if anyone has actual evidence to the contrary, evidence that shows there was a plan to launch a convoy that would dead-end in violence, and cause the world to shake its head and say, “THIS is what the protesters and the anti-vaxxers were about all along, they’re all crazy…”, then present that evidence.
I say this, because in the coming days, we could see and hear more of such talk.
What I see in this convoy is honor, justice, the struggle for freedom.
Remember: The convoy is a hell of a lot more than the truckers.
It’s all the Canadians who are supporting it. So if a trucker is there simply because he wants to make a living, but he can’t cross the border unless he shows a vaccine passport, and he doesn’t want to take the vaccine, and that’s the sum of his protest; fine.
And if some trucker turns out to be bad actor, so what?
GET OUT AHEAD OF ALL THIS.
Get all these things straight in your mind, because if the presence of many people and trucks in Ottawa endures, you’re going to be WORKED by some experienced PR pros; worked to change your thoughts and opinions and feelings.
That’s their job. That’s how they operate.
Stand firm. Stay strong.
Make your voice heard.
Violence is always a government’s hole card. They play it, and then they say the rebels caused it or made it necessary. They splash the violence on the news, because they know it scares many people, who then retreat.
Don’t retreat.
Violence serves another purpose. People want it to stop, so they look to the current political leadership to stop it. They join forces with the fascists who started or triggered the violence.
Don’t fall for that.
If among all the truckers, there are a few bad actors who are government agents, and they do initiate violence, the news will highlight them to the max. This is pure Orwell 1984 stuff. Put pictures of the faces of “the killers” on the screen, over and over, with anchor voiceover telling the public what to see and think and feel. With the goal of stimulating outrage.
Outrage against everyone who supports the truckers or won’t take the vaccine or is opposed to the mandates.
Don’t buy that op.
Stay strong. Stand firm.
Remember what this is. A fight for freedom.
Here’s something else that could happen. The government suddenly announces a new wave of COVID cases. And the blame is directed at the throngs of unmasked truckers and their supporters out in the streets. Super-spreaders. The news, of course, would play that up. By accusation and indirect suggestion, the public will be told THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICIALS FEARED.
The unmonitored numbers of irresponsible persons rebelling against common sense are responsible for KILLING ordinary law-abiding citizens.
That’s a straight con. During the past two years, it’s been played many times.
Don’t be fooled. Case numbers can be rigged at the drop of a hat. That’s been going on since the beginning of the “pandemic.”
Stand firm.
The pandemic story was planned with the sole purpose of canceling freedom.
Yours, mine, everybody’s.
Don’t give in.
Don’t allow yourself to be manipulated.
No matter what.
One more suggestion. Play out, in your mind, a worst-case scenario: The convoy WAS planned by bad actors with the intent to discredit actual freedom fighters and people who refuse the vaccine and oppose the COVID mandates and restrictions. Go ahead. Make a mind-movie of that.
Where does that lead you? What’s the bottom line?
It’s SO WHAT?
Because all the people on the streets and in the trucks ARE for freedom; and if the outcome is planned government-caused violence, that means NOTHING about what we’re fighting for. That discredits NOTHING.
If we stay strong.
If we stand up.
If we make our voices heard.
I could write 10,000 more words about a parallel event to the convoy, but I’ll keep it short. The parallel event was the January 6 rally in Washington after the Presidential election, the rally that had nothing to do with the Capitol break-in. Where hundreds of thousands of people gathered.
There were a number of ideas in the minds of all those people: a stolen election; freedom from lockdowns and other fascist COVID restrictions; opposition to the vaccine; opposition to the self-appointed thought-police of America…
In my opinion, Trump didn’t deserve that massive show of loyalty. Not at all. I’ve explained why in other articles. But the people who were there—they were the important ones. Regardless of who planned the break-in and for what reasons. THEY, the hundreds of thousands, wanted freedom. And still do.
The US government is trying to figure out every possible way to discredit and cancel them. Now.
This is the bigger picture.
Keep your eye on it.
I know. I’m not supposed to bring up the January 6 rally. People who want freedom are supposed to forget that. Hush hush. Because THAT event has been slammed mercilessly and discredited and made into a foul horror show.
But I don’t care. All over the world, the same pattern has been repeating. The people who want to live out in the open and throw off their chains are being painted as criminals. For whatever reasons can be cooked up.
And no, not all protests are the same or are launched for exactly the same reasons. But at the core, the impulse and the foundation are there: WE’RE TAKING IT BACK. FREEDOM.
This isn’t Qanon crap or Trumpism or racism or craziness or any hustle.
This is real.
The big smear, guilt by association, and all the other ops aren’t going to fool us.
If we don’t back down.
If we stand firm.
If we don’t quit.
If we make our voices heard.
No matter what.
Jon Rappoport is the author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX.
Featured Video
Dan Dicks with James Corbett on Solutions Watch
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
MMR (Measles, Mumps and Rubella) – Vaccine Risk Statement
MMR Vaccine (Measles, Mumps, and Rubella) Is It Safer Than Measles, Mumps and Rubella?
Physicians for Informed Consent | December 2024
… It has not been proven that the MMR vaccine is safer than measles, mumps, and rubella. The vaccine package insert raises questions about safety testing for cancer, genetic mutations, and impaired fertility. Although VAERS tracks some adverse events, it is too inaccurate to measure against the risk of measles, mumps, and rubella. Clinical trials do not have the ability to detect less common adverse reactions, and epidemiological studies are limited by the effects of chance and possible confounders. Safety studies of the MMR vaccine are particularly lacking in statistical power. A review of more than 60 MMR vaccine studies conducted for the Cochrane Library states, “The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate.”19 Because permanent sequelae (aftereffects) from measles, mumps, and rubella are so rare (especially in children with normal levels of vitamin A and infected after birth),6,15-17 the level of accuracy of the research studies available is insufficient to rule out the possibility that the MMR vaccine causes greater death or permanent disability than measles, mumps, and rubella. – Read full article
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Iraqi resistance group rejects disarmament, vows to maintain support for Lebanon
- Sheikh al-Asadi warns of Iraqi government compliance with US demands
- How to MAKE THE CONSPIRATORS PAY for their crimes! Dan Dicks with James Corbett on Solutions Watch
- There’s a drought in academia: A drought in honest research on the subject of drought and other weather extremes
- Department of War Awards $20.7 Billion Contract to Raytheon for Air-to-Air Missiles
- ‘Distance yourselves from Israel’: IRGC urges US population to question govt policies
- America’s Greenland deal has a radioactive backstory
- The RAF Fairford ‘terror plot’: Unpacking escalation in the UK echo-chamber
- EU Council Advances Chat Control 2.0 Scanning Proposal
- Ex-Greek MEP files complaint against Israeli spyware firm over alleged Pegasus surveillance
- If Americans Knew
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- No Tricks Zone
- Two More Paleo Reconstructions Affirm Meters-Higher Sea Levels Across Ireland, Brazil 7000-6000 Years Ago
- New Study: Earth And Venus Surface Warmth Largely Explained By Convection And Lapse Rate, Not CO2 Or Radiation
- 2025 Nature Paper Claiming Worsening Global Drought Gets RETRACTED …Heavily Flawed
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
