The PA keeps losing its authority, through its own actions
By Ramona Wadi | MEMO | September 24, 2021
Recent statistics corroborate the growing resentment in the occupied Palestinian territories against the Palestinian Authority and its leader Mahmoud Abbas. The Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) carried out a poll at a time when the PA persisted in proving how unsynchronised it is with the Palestinian people’s needs, and to what lengths it would go to ensure its political survival over Palestinian liberation.
Against the backdrop of the latest Israeli aggression on Gaza, the extrajudicial killing of Palestinian activist Nizar Banat by the PA’s security services, as well as the PA’s repression of protests calling for justice for Banat, the PA fared badly, to the point that an unprecedented 80 per cent of Palestinians are now demanding Abbas’ resignation. Indeed, the PA would do well to heed the survey’s findings, because its reliance on Israel and security coordination to keep Palestinians under control might not be so effective, when considering Palestinian unification from the people’s perspective.
While Abbas is clearly failing to inspire Palestinians, as seen in the increasing calls for his resignation, 87 per cent of Palestinians stated that the escape of the six Palestinian prisoners from Gilboa served “as an inspiration to Palestinians outside the prison to take the initiative and actively work toward the ending of occupation.” Abbas has also fared badly in terms of the Israeli bombardment of Gaza when compared to Hamas – 45 per cent of Palestinians believe that Hamas would better represent the Palestinians people, while only 19 per cent advocated for Fatah under the leadership of Abbas.
For decades, security coordination has provided safety for Abbas with regard to his political leadership and the purported state-building funded by the international community. Diplomatically, security coordination was considered an integral component of state-building, so much so that it overrode the Palestinian people’s legitimate concerns and fears of repression.
If the PA wished for its violent tactics to cement silence among Palestinians, Banat’s murder heralded the opposite. The survey shows that 63 per cent of the Palestinian public believe that the PA or security leaders ordered his extrajudicial killing deliberately. Likewise, 63 per cent supported the demonstrations demanding Abbas’ resignation, while 69 per cent are not satisfied with the steps taken by the PA in terms of seeking justice for Banat’s murder. And if the PA expected that violence would suppress dissent, 74 per cent of Palestinians “believe the steps taken by the PA security services in arresting the demonstrators who demanded justice for Banat is a violation of liberties and human rights.”
A dire picture has been painted for the PA. Not only have the Palestinian people expressed their beliefs in the survey – their demands are being publicly articulated. There is no turning back for the Palestinian people – Abbas and the PA proved themselves unworthy of leadership not only by clinging to illegitimate rule, but also through the “sacred” security coordination. The only option remaining is to turn to the people, and Abbas will soon realise that even turning to the people will not suffice, because Palestinians are no longer waiting for the leadership to spell out their political demands.
Chris Whitty Wants To Add Fluoride To UK Drinking Water
By Richie Allen | September 24, 2021
England’s Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty wants to add fluoride to the nations’s water supply. Whitty is a prominent member of SAGE, the group of scientists that has been advising the government since the beginning of the scamdemic.
Whitty recently overruled the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) on jabbing 12 to 15 year-olds. The JCVI said there was little benefit to the kids being jabbed. Whitty and his mates said, “We’ll just see about that.”
On Wednesday, Dr. Caroline Johnson asked Whitty why he was so hellbent on jabbing kiddies. She asked him to explain why he wasn’t testing youngsters first, to see if they’d had covid-19. Her logic being, that if they’d had the virus, they’d hardly need the jab.
Whitty floundered. He had no answer. He was also at a loss to explain why half the literature being presented to the parents of children, made no mention of the risk (1 in 6,000) of myocarditis. Whitty is desperately keen to jab the UK’s children. Whitty is one sinister and creepy little dude.
The Guardian is reporting this morning, that Whitty intends to fluoridate the UK’s drinking water. Apparently, he’s concerned about tooth decay. The Guardian reports:
Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer for England, and his counterparts in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland cited estimates by Public Health England that adding more fluoride to water supplies would reduce cavities by 17% among the richest children and 28% among the poorest.
They also dismissed safety concerns saying there is no evidence that ionised form of the element fluorine causes cancer and condemned “exaggerated and unevidenced” suggestions about health risks.
Chris Whitty and the UK’s chief medical officers represent a clear and present danger to the country’s children. Fluoride can be devastating for the neurodevelopment of youngsters. Whitty and his pals know this. They know it.
In 2012, Harvard University’s Department of Environmental Health, led by Anna Choi, published a study that claimed fluoride exposure led to lower IQ’s in children. Harvard found that on average, children with higher fluoride exposure performed poorer in IQ tests.
Nutritional psychologist Tetsuo Nakamoto published a paper in 2018, that investigated how fluoride exposure in the young can lead to disease in later life. Nakamoto’s team collated all the existing studies on fluoride and reviewed them.
He concluded that there is evidence that fluoride exposure can lead to lower IQ’s in children. He also acknowledged that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland which can lead to calcification. The pineal gland produces melatonin, a hormone which regulates sleep.
Two years ago, a Canadian study of prenatal fluoride exposure found that there is a link between fluoride exposure during pregnancy and IQ. Expecting mothers exposed to the chemical were more likely to have children with lower than average IQ’s.
The UK’s chief medical officers know all of this. They KNOW. So why are they calling for fluoride to be added to the nation’s water supply? I think the answer is obvious. I’ll be getting into this in more detail on The Richie Allen Show next week.
WHO Published Guidelines for Governments to Implement Vaccine Passports
21st Century Wire | September 23, 2021
This flew under the radar at the time, but it’s important to shine a light on it now.
Back on August 27, 2021, the World Health Organization (WHO) quietly published a detailed directive which instructs governments around the world how to standardise and implement the digital segregation system which they are calling a ‘digital COVID-19 certificate’ aka vaccine passport, immunity passport, health pass, green pass, or digital wallet (as the EU has since renamed it).
By positioning itself in this way, the WHO has elevated itself to de facto global government status, with little or no interest in the democratic processes of individual sovereign nations and their people. Instead, they are simply pushing forward with their own globalist agenda – clearly run on behalf of the transnational pharmaceutical cartel – in concert with a cadre of billionaire elites (led by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation which funds the WHO to the tune of $265 million per annum) and another key unelected non-state actor, the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland.
It clearly states its primary function in guiding governments:
“The primary target audience of this document is national authorities tasked with creating or overseeing the development of a digital vaccination certificate solution for COVID-19. The document may also be useful to government partners such as local businesses, international organizations, non- governmental organizations and trade associations, that may be required to support Member States in developing or deploying a DDCC:VS solution.”
The following is taken directly from the WHO’s own website:

Digital documentation of COVID-19 certificates: vaccination status: technical specifications and implementation guidance, 27 August 2021
Overview
This is a guidance document for countries and implementing partners on the technical requirements for developing digital information systems for issuing standards-based interoperable WHO-2019-nCoV-Digital-certificates-vaccination-2021.1-eng digital certificates for COVID-19 vaccination status, and considerations for implementation of such systems, for the purposes of continuity of care, and proof of vaccination.
- Digital documentation of COVID-19 certificates: vaccination status: web annex A: DDCC:VS core data dictionary, 27 August 2021
- Digital documentation of COVID-19 certificates: vaccination status: technical specifications and implementation guidance, web annex B: technical briefing, 27 August 2021
Download the full PDF document here.
Here’s the skinny on what happened yesterday and today regarding the booster dose
By Meryl Nass, MD | September 23, 2021
Last Friday, FDA’s advisory committee (VRBPAC) voted 16 to 2 against giving a license to a third Pfizer booster shot for everyone age 16 and up.
Although a second vote at Friday’s meeting had not been planned, another question was hastily developed. That question asked whether the vaccine could be licensed for a third booster dose for high risk people under the age of 65. That vote got a unanimous yes.
The panels decisions are not final. The FDA is obliged to take the panels advice into consideration, but it is not required to adopt it. So yesterday, the FDA issued a license for the Pfizer vaccine for the booster dose.
But in doing so, FDA added an additional category of people for the booster dose, a category that had not been included in the Advisory Committee’s vote:
- “individuals 18 through 64 years of age whose frequent institutional or occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2 puts them at high risk of serious complications of COVID-19 including severe COVID-19.”
This is what I call weasel wording. This statement does not make sense. People whose occupation puts them at high risk of exposure to COVID are no more likely to be at high risk of serious complications or severe COVID-19 than anyone else. They are at higher risk of developing COVID, but not at higher risk of serious COVID.
What FDA did (and you know who did this: Peter Marks, head of CBER and Janet Woodcock, acting Commissioner, are the only people with the authority to come up with this BS) was to take the VRBPAC approval for people with underlying conditions that put them at high risk for severe COVID, and twist it into an approval for all health care workers, staff at schools and colleges, grocery store workers, big box employees, etc.
Why? Because a license is necessary to impose a mandate, that’s why.
It looked like the weasels had won again. However, there was a small hoop left to jump through before any mandates came down.
While FDA determines how a drug or vaccine should be licensed or authorized for use, the CDC’s ACIP committee is the group responsible for creating the recommendations for use of the vaccine in different demographic groups.
And so ACIP did what it never does. It rejected the CDC’s proposal to widen the license for the third dose to all with potential occupational exposures. the ACIP limited their approval to what the FDA advisory committee had voted for last Friday. As CNBC noted,
… Dr. Leana Wen [member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the World Economic Forum], an emergency physician and former Baltimore health commissioner, on Twitter called the CDC panel’s vote to reject boosters more widely a “mistake.”
“Really, we are not allowing healthcare workers, many of whom got vaccinated in back in December, to get a booster? What about teachers in cramped classrooms where masks aren’t required?” she tweeted, adding CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky should overrule the recommendation.
… In a paper published days before an FDA advisory meeting last week, a leading group of scientists said available data showed vaccine protection against severe disease persists, even as the effectiveness against mild disease wanes over time. The authors, including two high-ranking FDA officials and multiple scientists from the World Health Organization, contended in the medical journal The Lancet that widely distributing booster shots to the general public is not appropriate at this time.
I think 2 things happened. The propaganda that the vaccines still prevent serious disease while perhaps not preventing mild disease stood in the way of approving boosters to prevent mild disease. Why give a potentially dangerous booster to prevent a cold? It doesn’t make sense.
Second, everyone on those committees knew that if the vaccine’s third dose did get approved for a huge swath of the general public, it would be mandated for themselves in no time. A third dose would have been required for every member of both FDA’s and CDC’s advisory committees. I don’t think they were ready for that. And maybe they weren’t ready for the resistance from those who took the 2 shots thinking they were done… and now, it seems they could get into a situation where they could be fired for not having a third dose. What about more and more doses?
Or maybe the large demonstrations in Australia and Europe were influencing those advisory committee members…
New York’s New Gov Threatens To Replace Unvaccinated Hospital Workers With ‘Foreigners’
By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | September 23, 2021
New York’s first female governor Kathy Hochul, who took the reins in the Empire State after her predecessor and former boss, Andrew Cuomo, finally resigned, is showing the state’s recalcitrant healthcare workers just how understanding and progressive she can be.
During a press briefing with reporters in Rochester Wednesday, Hochul told a group of reporters that she hoped all unvaccinated workers would meet Monday’s deadline to get the jab, or lose their jobs.
For those who continue to resist – including nearly 20% of the state’s hospital and nursing-home workers – they will be replaced. Possibly by foreign workers.
Faced with this, it makes sense to wonder how NY State, which has no immigration-related authority, could even credibly make such a threat? But Hochul says there have been conversations with the Department of State (albeit on a “limited basis”) about the possibility of doling out emergency visas to foreign workers.
“To those who won’t, we’ll be replacing people. And I have a plan that’s going to be announced very shortly,” she said.
“We’ve identified a whole range of opportunities we have to help supplement them.”
Hochul said state officials were “working closely with various hospital systems to find out where we can get other individuals to come in and supplement places like nursing homes.”
“We’re also reaching out to the Department of State to find out about visas for foreign workers, on a limited basis, to bring more nurses over here,” she said.
Per the Department of Health’s records, 19% of the state’s hospital workers remained unvaccinated as of Sept. 15, and 18% of nursing home employees remained unvaccinated as of Wednesday.
Starting Monday, employers can fire unvaccinated workers who don’t have a “valid medical exemption” (though employees who claim religious exemption are also immune until Oct. 12 due to a temporary injunction issued by a federal judge in Utica).
The plaintiffs in that case, almost all of them Catholic, oppose vaccines because they “employ aborted fetus cell lines in their testing, development, or production.”
Though the US Conference of Bishops says it’s okay for Catholics to take these vaccines if no alternatives are available, and Pope Francis has of course spoken out in favor of vaccination.
Circling back to the situation in New York, while Hochul is probably reveling in her first opportunity to play “hardball” – a game for which her predecessor was famous – New York health workers can probably rest easy – at least when it comes to the foreign worker threat. The State Department couldn’t process all those SIVs for Afghan collaborators in a timely manner. What makes you think they’ll be able to dole them out to foreign workers, who probably also haven’t been vaccinated. Where does Hochul think these foreign workers are going to come from? Europe?
Pending International Treaty Empowering The WHO
By Dr Urmie Ray B.A., M.A., Mmath, Ph.d. | Principia Scientific | September 23, 2021
Between 29 November and 1 December 2021, member states are meeting in a special session with the World Health Organisation to discuss, possibly sign, a new treaty on pandemic preparedness and response.
This decision was taken in March 2021 and backed by 26 nations, among which Australia, Canada, Iceland, Norway, Republic of Korea, South Africa, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay and Member States of the European Union.1
To be noted is the absence of Russia, China, and India among these 26.
The International Health Regulations (2005)[i] signed by 196 countries already provide States the legal right to:
“– review travel history in affected areas;
– review proof of medical examination and any laboratory analysis;
– require medical examinations;
– review proof of vaccination or other prophylaxis;
– require vaccination or other prophylaxis;
– place suspect persons under public health observation;
– implement quarantine or other health measures for suspect persons;
– implement isolation and treatment where necessary of affected persons;
– implement tracing of contacts of suspect or affected persons;
– refuse entry of suspect and affected persons;
– refuse entry of unaffected persons to affected areas; and
– implement exit screening and/or restrictions on persons from affected areas.”
In other words, all the measures applied round the world since 2020, including mandatory vaccination, are in effect legal under this former treaty.
In particular, it critically changes the definition of “quarantine” from that in the 1969 IHR. There, it is used only in the expression “in quarantine” defined to be a “state or condition during which measures are applied by a health authority to a … means of transport or container, to prevent the spread of disease, reservoirs of disease or vectors of disease from the object of quarantine”.[i]
The 2005 revised IHR use the term by itself, and define it as “the restriction of activities and/or separation from others of suspect persons who are not ill or of suspect baggage, containers, conveyances or goods in such a manner as to prevent the possible spread of infection or contamination”.
This represents a subtle but critical shift from protection of the community to restriction of individual liberties.
The implementation of quarantine and other coercive measures on all, including surveillance and vaccination, is legalized: the expression “suspect persons” criminalizes every individual, both healthy and unhealthy.
Indeed, it covers anyone “considered by a State Party as having been exposed, or possibly exposed, to a public health risk and that could be a possible source of spread of disease”. Of significance is the use of “possibly” and “possible”, hence not just anyone definitely known to be a risk factor.
So Why The Need For A New Treaty?
The answer was given by WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. “It’s the one major change, Tedros said, that would do the most to boost global health security and also empower the World Health Organization.”[i]
The 2005 revised IHR still leave some authority to States and require certain conditions for a health event in a particular State to be considered sufficiently serious globally for the State to be forced to communicate it to WHO. Once communicated, it becomes the prerogative of the director general of WHO to determine whether it “constitutes a public health emergency”, but in collaboration with that particular State.
Although it should be added that in case of disagreement, the director general decides after consultation with the emergency committee of WHO, and passed a certain period no State can reject or emit reservations about the IHR or any later amendments. Still, to some extent, measures implemented remain the result of a dialogue between “IHR focal points” in each country and “WHO IHR contact points”.
What is particularly important is that the above listed measures, although rendered legal by the IHR, can under this treaty, only be recommended by the WHO, not imposed, and that it is up to the States to proceed towards their imposition, and to verify they are followed by means already existing in their respective countries.[ii]
The new treaty would address the above “weaknesses” of the IHR as they are considered to be, by ensuring “independent verification, monitoring, and compliance”. Given the clearly expressed end of empowering the WHO, should one conclude that “independent” means under the authority of WHO rather than the States themselves?[i]
Further the IHR cover “public health hazards and public health emergencies of international concern”, whereas the treaty will concern “all hazards”, not just pandemics. In the latter case, it would take over from the IHR once a pandemic is officially declared by the WHO.[ii]
This said, the treaty would presumably also make clear the idea expressed in the 2007 CDC “Interim Pre-pandemic planning guidance”,[i] namely overruling the need of a pandemic to implement restrictive measures. All that would be needed would be for an event to be declared a “public health emergency of pandemic potential”.
Given that any future event is always hypothetical, does this enable the maintenance of the measures for an indeterminate period? For it can always be claimed that a pandemic will occur especially were the measures lifted. This raises many questions, all the more so as the event would no long need to be of “international concern as in the current IHR”. “Measures”, as advised, should also go beyond the current scope of IHR”, in particular to cover the production and supply of vaccines, diagnostics, and treatments”.[ii]
The treaty would unlike the IHR also go beyond sanitary issues and allow the implementation of measures against “social and economic disruptions” as well as “broader disaster risk”.[i]
Would this in effect not only make it legal to put an end to criticisms, and thus to the freedom of expression, and make it possible to control any public antagonism against restrictive measures through “urgent international assistance”,[ii] namely not just by national police or military forces, but international ones?
In short, would the treaty not provide the international legal framework for derogation from the civil and political rights guaranteed “even in time of emergency threatening the life of the nation” by The Syracuse Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights drafted in 1984,[iii] namely:
“the right to life; freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and from medical or scientific experimentation without free consent; freedom from slavery or involuntary servitude; the right not be be imprisoned for contractual debt; the right not to be convicted or sentenced to a heavier penalty by virtue of retroactive criminal legislation; the right to recognition as a person before the law; and freedom of thought, conscience and religion. These rights are not derogable under any conditions even for the asserted purpose of preserving the life of the nation”?
For the Syracuse Principles only ensure that “No state party shall” in any circumstance “derogate from the Covenant’s” above guarantees”. However, according to the new treaty, would the WHO, possibly together with the help of other international bodies, not become an occupying planetary power, with each State a collaborating subservient unit, like France in 1940, and hence without any power to ensure that non-derogable rights are protected?
Last but not least, “[t]rying to revise the IHR would be a long process and take several years. … In addition, any amendment made to the IHR will enter into force only two years after its adoption. A world in crisis cannot afford to wait this long.”[i] Why such a rush to get the treaty ratified?
It should not be forgotten that among the main contributors of WHO are the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and the vaccine alliance (GAVI). It established in 2000 and whose initial funding it essentially provided – a “unique public-private partnership … bring[ing] together key UN agencies, governments, the vaccine industry, private sector and civil society”.[i]
References
[1] https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA74/A74_ACONF7-en.pdf
[1] https://www.who.int/health-topics/international-health-regulations#tab=tab_1
[1] https://www.who.int/csr/ihr/WHA58-en.pdf
[1] https://www.who.int/csr/ihr/WHA58-en.pdf
[1] Ibid.
[1] https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/cbn/2007/cbnreport_02072007.html
[1] Ibid.
[1] Ibid.
Fighting Vaccine Mandates – #SolutionsWatch
•
Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
While the UK is supposedly dropping their vaccine passport idea (for now), things are looking bleak in country after country as people all around the world are facing the threat of vaccine mandates. Today on #SolutionsWatch James explores the array of solutions that are on the table to thwart this threat.
Watch on Archive / BitChute / Minds / Odysee or Download the mp4
SHOW NOTES:
What’s Going on in Japan? – Questions For Corbett #078
Japan’s vaccine passports: Here’s what you need to know
Suga challenger in LDP leadership race vows huge COVID relief package (Kishida calls for vaccine passport)
UK Government drops plans for domestic vaccine passports
Did Ayn Rand defeat vaccine passports?
President Biden Announces Vaccination Mandate for Employers
Australian Premier Dan Andrews: “we are going to lock out the unvaccinated”
Italy makes COVID-19 pass mandatory for all workers | DW News
Surging Delta variant: France and Greece introduce mandatory vaccinations for healthcare workers
Alberta to launch proof-of-vaccination program, declares health emergency
Form for Employees Whose Employers Are Requiring Covid-19 Injections
HomeRemedySupply comment on September Open Thread
America’s Frontline Doctor’s Legal Team’s “Vaccines and the Law” page
Vaccine religious exemption template downloads from Gab.com
Doctors for COVID Ethics example forms, templates, letters and other resources
Legal principle of non discrimination
The COVID-19 “Vaccine” and the Nuremberg Code. Crimes Against Humanity, Genocide
No, COVID-19 vaccines do not violate the Nuremberg Code
Bioethics and the New Eugenics
United Airlines warns of unpaid leave for staff given religious vaccine exemptions
Religious exemption to vaccine mandates may be difficult to obtain, as Amish case shows
How To Meet Like-Minded People
Here’s How To Still Dine At A Restaurant UNVAXXED!! Suss Them Out & Find Out Who’s Cool!!
1000s take over Time Square in NYC for the protest against the mandatory shot
Beware of Fake “Resistance” to Mandates
Executive Orders and How to Stop Them
James Corbett – Ernest Hancock with Arizona Dara (Solutions; BlackMarketFridays.com)
“THESE PATIENTS DESERVE TO BE HEARD” – VAERS WHISTLEBLOWER
The Highwire with Del Bigtree | September 18, 2021
In a Highwire exclusive, Deborah Conrad, a hospitalist physician’s assistant on the frontlines of the pandemic, pulls back the curtain on the complete lack and disregard in her hospital for reporting Covid vaccine injury to VAERS, this country’s only mechanism to track the safety of these rushed-to-market, mandated products.
In riveting detail, including emails & recorded phone conversations, Conrad exposes the internal push to turn a blind eye to injuries and “tow the company line” that this vaccine is safe.
IMF report suggests credit scores could soon be based on web browsing history
Dystopian future
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | September 21, 2021
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has published the results of research conducted into how lenders are likely to be doing their business in the future, and what new information and personal data these companies plan to start asking from borrowers in order to determine their credit score.
The biggest takeaway is the seemingly inevitable shift from merely accessing credit information to also incorporating people’s online behavior into the process of deciding whether to lend them money necessary, for example, to buy a house.
Compared to the way the system now works in most countries – these changes, which are expected to be coming soon, look fairly invasive privacy-wise, and with no “vision” of proper safeguards. Banks and others will go as far as to access personal browsing and shopping history. This would be done by allowing automated systems, powered by algorithms, to harvest the data and turn it into credit reports.
From the report:
“The use of non-financial data will have large effects on the provision of financial services. Traditionally, banks rely on the analysis of customer financial information from payment flows and accounting records. The rise of the internet permits the use of new types of nonfinancial customer data, such as browsing histories and online shopping behavior of individuals, or customer ratings for online vendors.”
Currently, those hoping to take out a loan can expect to have their repayment and credit history length, as well as total debt checked, but going forward, the IMF study suggests, this will be expanded to include what’s known as people’s digital footprint – either collected from data already publicly available, or that obtained by credit bureaus.
The stated goal is to improve “loan default predictions” – and the upcoming trend is sold as a way to give access to money to people who have previously been unable to use loans because their status is “unscorable.” Also known as “credit invisibles,” these are mostly low-income minorities and immigrants, and having access to their personal habits and behavior as exhibited on the internet is supposed to help banks and other lenders “profile” them precisely enough to determine if they should be given a loan.
On the other hand, citizens who are “scorable” but whose score is low might suffer in the new system now in the making, as their online activity could persuade lenders to cut them off from access to money.
Although the move in this direction looks inevitable, some key answers are missing: what data scraped from the internet will be used to determine someone’s credit rating, and how it will be secured.
IMF’s post warns, however, to expect an “efficiency-privacy trade-off.”
Alabama Hospital Defies Biden Administration, Ends COVID Vaccine Requirement for Staff
By Jack Davis | Western Journal | September 20, 2021
Bowing to the threat of legal action against it, one Alabama hospital has rescinded its requirement that all staff be vaccinated against the coronavirus.
UAB Hospital in Birmingham said it will wait to learn how the federal vaccine mandates announced by President Joe Biden play out before imposing any requirement, according to WBRC-TV.
Last week, the Alabama Center for Law and Liberty said the hospital was violating state law, according to Al.com.
The letter said the state’s ban on vaccine passports means government entities cannot require anyone to disclose vaccine information.
“As the Supreme Court of Alabama has recognized, UAB Hospital is a state-run hospital,” the letter said.
“Consequently, UAB Hospital may not require its employees to disclose whether they have been vaccinated or not. Likewise, the Alabama Attorney General has examined the law and concluded that ‘no government, school, or business in Alabama may demand that a constituent, or customer, respectively, be vaccinated for COVID-19 or show proof of his or her vaccination for COVID-19,’” the letter said.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall also questioned the legality of the Biden administration mandate, saying he had received complaints about privacy violations, according to the Alabama Political Reporter.
“The Attorney General’s Office has received complaints from healthcare employees who believe their COVID-19 immunization status was obtained by their employers through the ImmPRINT registry for the purpose of verifying compliance with the employer’s immunization requirement,” Marshall said, referring to a statewide immunization database.
“In several of those cases, a shared employer specifically acknowledged accessing the state immunization database for this purpose. This privacy violation is unlawful,” he said.
Marshall said other health care providers should also take note and not be asking employees about their immunization status.
He has said that when the vaccine mandate takes place, Alabama will file a lawsuit against it, according to Al.com.
“The vaccine mandate is unprecedented in its audacity and unlawful in its application,” Marshall said. “The Biden administration knows this full well. The State of Alabama will not allow such an authoritarian power grab to go unchecked.”
Dr. Don Williamson, president of the Alabama Hospital Association, said voluntary efforts have produced vaccination rates of 50 percent to 80 percent depending upon the facility.
“It’s not a small issue if we have unvaccinated employees,” Williamson said. “Hospitals have successfully navigated the waters of getting people vaccinated and for the most part, they have been able to do it without mandates.”
The UAB Hospital in Birmingham issued a statement explaining why a mandate imposed one month was scrapped the next.
“The UAB Health System’s policy requiring COVID vaccines for its workers was implemented in August prior to the announcement of forthcoming federal directives,” it said.
“President Biden issued an executive order Sept. 9 indicating that federal rules and regulations will be issued in the coming weeks that will require COVID vaccines for workers at health care facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid dollars.
“Because UAB Health System must follow federal law, UAB Health System will remove its vaccine policy at this time. UAB Health System will wait for the detailed federal guidance to develop a replacement vaccine policy in order to ensure full compliance with federal law.”
The statement noted that a voluntary incentive that rewards employees who get vaccinated with $400 remains in place.

