Indonesia cut Covid by 98% with Ivermectin while Australia grew cases 500% with Lock-n-Vax
JoNova | October 22, 2021
When we last looked at Indonesia their massive wave in Covid cases had just peaked after ivermectin was approved again on July 15th. Since then the cases have dropped from 50,000 a day to about 900. On a per capita basis today Indonesia is managing Covid about ten times better than Australia. Think about that.
Remember the reason for the Indonesian surge. In June, they had a controlled rolling caseload of 5,000 a day. It was not rising thanks to a philanthropist called Haryoseno who had been arranging for ivermectin supplies at low cost to help people. But in a fit of modern-medicine, in line with the deadly WHO recommendations, the Indonesian government banned ivermectin on June 12th. Cases took off. Mayhem ensued. And about 90,000 people died in the following surge.
By early July the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin was hot property in Indonesia, even if it was banned. A number of high-ranking politicians championed it, and people were flocking to buy it.
“Indonesians have ignored health warnings to stock up on a “miracle cure” for COVID-19 backed by leading politicians and social media influencers, as an out-of-control virus surge sweeps the country.”
By July 15th the Indonesian government relented, and BPOM approved Ivermectin as Covid-19 Therapeutic Drug. By July 18th new daily cases peaked across Indonesia and now they are lower than they were before. During the surge, at least two million Indonesians were infected.
Perhaps Governments shouldn’t run around banning a wonder drug so safe that researchers in Australia feed it to small children to kill head lice.
All bell curves look the same, but some are bigger than others. Timing is everything. OWID
Google Trends show Indonesians were searching for ivermectin in early July. The average Indonesian apparently knows more about treating Covid than our Minister of Health. More even than our Chief Medical Officer.
There was one popular search in Indonesia as cases rocketed.
Greg Hunt could have managed the Covid debacle so much better if he’d just phoned up a pharmacist in Bali.
Compare the Rich-mans Vax plan
Australia, on the other hand, decided to vaccinate 15 million people or 70% of the entire population and still has twice as many cases as Indonesia does — even though Indonesia has ten times as many people and only on third of the government revenue.
The Australian TGA committee banned ivermectin on Sept 11th, by the way, possibly to make sure we didn’t accidentally eliminate Covid, or Pfizer’s third quarter profits. Who can tell?
That lockdown-and-vax plan and the roadmap to freedom doesn’t seem to be working too well. In Australia billions of dollars were burnt at the stake, not to mention the health risks of using experimental prophylactics, while Indonesia reduced Covid cases by 98% for about point-one percent of the cost and the main side effects were the deaths of worms, lice and bed bugs.
If Gladys had just dished out the Ivermectin — Uttar Pradesh style — on July 5th, the outbreak would have been over in a few weeks.
Australia vaccinated 70% of the population and locked down its two largest states to control Covid and still hasn’t succeeded. Source: OWID
Since July 18th when Indonesia cases peaked, Australian cases have grown from 31,000 to 150,000.
The only thing more scary than the Ministry of Health’s incompetence is that politicians and philanthropists in the third world have more freedom than Australian ones do. The Indonesian media is more worth watching than the Australian ABC.
At this point people are still dying who could be saved.
As David Archibald says “It means that Australia could end its covid problem anytime it wanted to at hardly any expense at all. Our government would be aware of what the Indonesians have achieved. It also means that any covid deaths from here on are state-sanctioned murder. “
___________________________________________________________
The wonder drug that disappeared
My summary of Ivermectin
If you only email friends one link — make it this story. It’s the biggest medical scandal since 1850— Why is a cheap safe drug being ignored? Could it be that there would be no medical emergency and no need to rush out other riskier new treatments which are still classed as “experimental” if there was a safe alternative? There are billions of reasons to ask this question but newspapers wouldn’t publish the story. In desperation, some Americans are going to court to get rulings to order doctors to use Ivermectin on their loved ones. Even if they win, sometimes hospitals still refuse to use it on patients with few options left. One family hired a helicopter to take their mother away from intensive care in a hospital that refused to give Ivermectin (and had a happy ending). The debate is so suppressed, there are rumours the US President was treated with it in secret last year.
For peer reviewed studies read: The BIG Ivermectin Review: It may prevent 86% of Covid cases.
Ivermectin has also been used, with apparent success in India, Peru and Mexico (and so many other places). Covid cases fell in the states of India that approved Ivermectin use but rose in Tamil Nadu where it wasn’t permitted. Despite the success, India’s Health dept suddenly stopped Ivermectin use again and people in India are suing the WHO in disgust. In Peru, Ivermectin cut covid deaths by 75% in 6 weeks.
The FDA and others will say there is little evidence of success so far, but that’s a scandal in itself. Why are there no large trials? And why are other drugs like Remdesivir approved with only one trial? Ivermectin is so safe some 3.7 billion doses have already been used around the world. The inventors won a Nobel Prize for its discovery in 2015. We’ve known it might be useful since April last year, when an Australian group searched through many cheap safe drugs looking for any that might help against Covid. The news then was “Another possible cure for coronavirus, found in sheep dip: Ivermectin”. This was just a lab study, and it suggested doses would need to be too high. Even so, successes keep turning up in the real world? By July last year there were already signs Ivermectin could save as many as 50%. Why were large trials not started then? The UK trial is hobbled from the start.
Vermont parents threatened with arrest, child custody loss over mask dispute
By Guy Page | Vermont Daily Chronicle | November 8, 2021
Two Lowell Graded School parents demanding their second-grade daughter be taught in the classroom without a mask were warned by a state trooper Thursday, Nov. 4 to take her home or risk arrest for trespass or loss of custody of their child.
The live Facebook video was recorded by the girl’s father, Andre “Mike” Desautels. In March, a Vermont judge sided with Vermont Attorney General TJ Donovan and ordered Desautels to require his employees to wear masks.
As the video opens, Desautels explains he and wife Amy have a note from a doctor exempting his daughter from wearing a mask. However, the parents have been told that a doctor’s note isn’t enough and that the school needs to see a formal medical diagnosis in order to develop a 504 plan. Such plans are intended to ensure that a child who has a disability identified under the law and is attending an elementary or secondary educational institution receives the necessary accommodations.
“We did not agree to this as she did not need any special accommodations from anyone,” Amy Desautels explained via social media. “We had provided the doctor’s note which is what was stated on the NCSU guidelines for what they required and it did not specify what needed to be on the note.”
As seen on the video, Vermont State Trooper Andrew Jensen talked briefly with the couple, took a phone call, and then returned and then politely but firmly gave them three options.
“Your options are: Take your child, go home, fight this through the courts, through your lawyer, whatever,” Jensen said. “Option B: We escort your child out here, you refuse to take her home, and you refuse to leave. Therefore we place both of you under arrest for trespassing. Option C: you leave, but leave your child here, we contact DCF, possibly placing her in state custody for abandonment.”
“I cannot believe that you guys would get involved, especially because we have done everything required with our paperwork. And you’re going by what he (Castle) is telling you,” Desautels responded. He also said a child in Walden – another Northeast Kingdom town – is attending mask-free.
The school has the right to make the rules,” Jensen said.
“But we’re following the rules,” Desautels said.
“But not exactly,” Jensen said.
Given those options, the couple elected to take their child home that day.
* * * * * *
Earlier in the day, Castle answered Vermont Daily Chronicle questions about school policies on masking.
Chronicle: What are the options for parents who do not want their children to wear masks in school?
Castle: “A parent may obtain an exemption to having their child wear a mask if they have a certified diagnosis from a physician of a medical reason for not wearing a mask or from a physician or mental health provider for a psychological reason. The school would need to review the medical information within a formal IEP or 504 process to determine if the accommodation is necessary to ensure the child is able to access their education.”
Chronicle: Please describe the reasoning behind removing a child from school for not wearing a mask.
Castle: “Schools that have established a mask requirement are doing so to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19 in the interest of public health for students and staff. Allowing staff or students without a legitimate exemption to not wear a mask would result in many individuals opting out and thus increasing the risk of transmission. A student’s non-compliance with a mask requirement is considered unsafe and in violation of school procedures.”
Top NIH Unvaxxed Scientist Willing to Lose Job and License, Will Argue Against Vaccine Mandates in Livestreamed Ethics Review
By Megan Redshaw | The Defender | November 9, 2021
A senior bioethicist who heads a research team at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) is taking the lead at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the debate over the ethics of COVID vaccine mandates.
Dr. Matthew Memoli, director of the Laboratory of Infectious Diseases at NIH, will argue against vaccine mandates during a Dec. 1 livestreamed roundtable session, which will be open to the public.
“There’s a lot of debate within the NIH about whether [a vaccine mandate] is appropriate,” David Wendler, a senior NIH bioethicist in charge of planning the session, told the WSJ. “It’s an important, hot topic.”
Memoli opposes mandates for the COVID vaccines authorized for emergency use in the U.S., and has chosen not to be vaccinated.
Memoli sought a religious exemption from the mandatory vaccine requirements imposed by health authorities in the District of Columbia, where he is licensed to practice medicine.
Memoli said he is willing to risk his job and his license for the right not to receive a COVID vaccine. During the scheduled roundtable early next month, he will make the case against mandates.
“I think the way we are using the vaccines is wrong,” Memoli said in a July 30 email to Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the NIAID, and two of his lieutenants. Memoli called mandated vaccination “extraordinarily problematic.”
Memoli told the WSJ one of Fauci’s colleagues thanked him for his email. Memoli said he supports COVID vaccines for high-risk populations including the elderly and obese, but said, “blanket vaccination of people at low risk of severe illness could hamper the development of more-robust immunity gained across a population from infection.”
Memoli, a 16-year veteran at the NIH was selected this month for a 2021 NIH director’s award — a top recognition from the head of the agency, for his supervision of a national study into undiagnosed COVID cases early in the pandemic.
Memoli said his children have received their childhood vaccines, and he will support the results of the ethics discussion regardless of the outcome.
“I do vaccine trials. I, in fact, help create vaccines,” Memoli told the WSJ. “Part of my career is to share my expert opinions, right or wrong … I mean, if they all end up saying I’m wrong, that’s fine. I want to have the discussion.”
Christine Grady, head of NIH’s Clinical Center bioethics department and Fauci’s wife, approved the Dec. 1 seminar — a session called “Grand Rounds.”
Grady said in an email she believes there is interest in the topic across the agency.
“Our hope is that the December Grand Rounds will be relevant to the debates that are going on around the country regarding vaccine mandates,” an agency spokeswoman said on Grady’s behalf.
Federal appeals court temporarily halts Biden’s COVID vaccine mandate for private employers
A federal appeals court on Saturday issued a stay temporarily halting the Biden administration’s private-employer COVID vaccine mandate, citing, “grave statutory and constitutional” issues with the requirement.
“Because the petitions give cause to believe there are grave statutory and constitutional issues with the mandate, the mandate is hereby stayed pending further action by this court,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said in the order.
The case was brought by multiple businesses and several states, including Texas, Utah, Louisiana, South Carolina and Mississippi. They argued the requirements exceed the authority of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which will enforce the mandates, and amount to an unconstitutional delegation of power to the executive branch by Congress.
The Biden administration on Monday asked the federal court to lift the order blocking the mandate for large private employers. The administration said the petitioners were not claiming a “major prospect of harm” from the rule, so the court should allow the mandate to proceed while the case makes its way through the system.
“Accordingly, there is no need to address petitioners’ stay motions now, and the court should lift its administrative stay and allow this matter to proceed under the process that Congress set forth for judicial review of OSHA standards,” lawyers for the administration argued.
The White House on Monday said businesses should move forward with Biden’s vaccine mandate for private businesses, despite a federal court order temporarily halting the rules, CNBC reported.
“People should not wait,” White House Deputy Press Sec. Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters during a press briefing. “They should continue to move forward and make sure they’re getting their workplace vaccinated.”
The OSHA regulation applies to employers with at least 100 workers, creating an emergency temporary rule that will require employers to mandate workers be vaccinated against COVID or submit to regular testing. A deadline for companies to comply with the regulation was set for Jan. 4.
Petitioners said the mandate, publicized as an emergency temporary standard by OSHA, should be struck down because it exceeds OSHA’s authority under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
More than two dozen states have filed lawsuits against the Biden administration over the vaccine mandate for large private employers in the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 11th and D.C. Circuits. Federal law dictates cases be consolidated and heard by one federal appeals court chosen by a lottery.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the lottery could take place on or around Nov. 16, and the case could make its way to the Supreme Court.
Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.
© 2021 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.
Thousands of Australians with unpaid fines for Covid rules to have bank accounts raided and property siezed
Dystopia Down Under
Women System | November 7, 2021
As if the dystopian hell Australians are dealing with wasn’t bad enough already, residents of the country’s 2nd largest state are now at risk of losing the money in their bank accounts, their homes or other property, and even their driving privileges, if they do not pay their fines from breaking any of the tyrannical government’s draconian Covid rules in a timely manner.
Since at least September, Queensland Health has employed the services of the State’s Penalties Enforcement Register (SPER) to collect a total of 3046 unpaid fines totaling around $5.2 million, which includes 2755 separate individuals and businesses who were issued citations for not following the public health dictatorship’s unjustifiable orders during Covid lockdowns.
The extreme measures are expected to be implemented in other areas of the country, which could bring in close to $100 million in total. In just New South Wales alone, there are over 56 million in unpaid Covid fines that would be subject to collection, according to 9News Australia.
Keep in mind, throughout the lengthy lockdowns, a huge number of citizens were not permitted to work or make a living in any way. Residents of Queensland could not even leave the house without being harassed by police or military officials, and if they dared stray too far from their house they were issued a ticket and a fine.
According to the latest data from Queensland Health, 18.4% of all fines are outstanding and would be subject to the extreme recovery options laid out above. Another 25% are also under investigation or pending and could potentially be sent into collections.
Just 56.4 percent of fines have been paid in full or are currently on a payment plan.
From the Brisbane Times :
SPER was undertaking “active enforcement” on another 18.4 percent of fines, worth about $1 million, which a spokesman said “may include garnishing bank accounts or wages, registering charges over property, or suspending driver licences.”
The unpaid fines are not the only big-ticket that Queensland’s public health dictators are looking to cash in on. They are also looking to chase down 5.7 million in “significantly overdue invoices” from the government’s mandatory quarantine facilities.
Unbelievably, Not only are Australian travelers forced into mandatory quarantine centers for 2 weeks upon arrival, but they are also sent a bill for their stay totaling a few thousand dollars.
In order to collect these payments, Queensland Health went outside the usual channels, calling in private debt collectors to chase down the money on 2045 invoices for hotel quarantine.
“Queenslanders rightly expect travellers will pay for their hotel quarantine stays and not leave taxpayers to foot the bill.” – Queensland Health official on agency hiring outside debt collectors.
The commission debt collectors will make from recovering the unpaid fines is not yet known.
There have been over 44,000 hotel quarantine stays that are not paid for as of right now. Only about 11% are considered eligible for collections, but many more are expected to default over the coming months.
Postcard from Genoa
By Roger Watson | Reflections on life and religion | November 9, 2021
If anyone who is unvaccinated is considering visiting Italy soon, I would strongly advise against it. Britain seems very civilised in comparison, despite having a run in with a BA official who questioned me about my lack of a mask on leaving the first class lounge in Heathrow, seemingly unaware that we were still on British soil. But, as reported in a Postcard From Istanbul, once the curtain was drawn behind us in BA Club Class, the masks were off and not donned again until arrival in Milan. From Milan I took the train to Genoa to work at the University of Genoa, where I teach regularly, for a week. It is worth noting that I completed the European Passenger Location Form using details from my British passport but, to avoid the queue at the border, I used my Irish passport to enter Italy. I expected to be questioned about the lack of congruence between this passport and the one used to complete the online form which, I assumed, would have to match at immigration. I was through like the proverbial dose of pesto thus indicating, beyond reasonable doubt, that the completion and submission of passenger location forms is a complete waste of time.
You may enter Italy unvaccinated after the requisite Covid tests and then a period of quarantine. But, thereafter, freedom does not beckon as, wherever you step out of quarantine, you will remain… indefinitely. No form of public transport such as trains, buses and internal flights is permitted without displaying a euphemistically named ‘Green Pass’ (Italy’s vaccine passport). If anyone from the U.K. wants to see what the introduction of vaccine passports will be like, then Italy is already there. Mask wearing is strongly enforced on public transport with repeated ‘mascherina’ messages over the PA system.
Social distancing is requested too but the one exception was taxis where, ironically, you can be squeezed into very close proximity with your fellow passengers without the benefit of any social distancing. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that passengers are not allowed to travel in the front of the taxi beside the driver, so it was common for three people to be arse cheek by jowl in the back. On one journey I was asked to mask up in a taxi that had no functioning seat belt.
To be fair to most restaurateurs and bar owners, who are supposed to demand your vaccine passport, they were not doing this. I was never once asked to don a mask. In typical Italian fashion, the rules are selectively applied. But the Italians have bought into the mask mandate to an incredible degree. Mask wearing is not required outside but no self-respecting Genovese would be seen without a mask at the ready, mainly under the chin at all times, or draped on the wrist like an adornment.
Of course, being Italian, the men can look stylish in a mask and the women still look elegant, but it is the sheer mass scale anticipatory obedience on entering public buildings, bars and restaurants and the 100% compliance that is shocking – and all without any apparent enforcement. In some ways compliance is worse when it is self-imposed.
My small class of doctoral students always insisted on remaining masked when meeting with me but made no comment about my facial nudity. They refused to remove their masks at my request and when challenged, could only refer to “the rules”. Despite attending my class on systematic reviewing and evidence assessment, not one had ever considered the evidence regarding masks and, even more distressing, was their complete lack of interest. I had to wonder, Godwin-like, whether this is how Mussolini started? Or am I just a bad teacher?
Roger Watson is a Professor of Nursing at Hull University.
Anti-Covid pass campaigners’ message – Welsh defeat won’t stop us
TCW Defending Freedom – November 10, 2021
YESTERDAY was a dark day for Wales as plans to extend the use of Covid passes were agreed by the Welsh Parliament, the Senedd – no thanks to Plaid Cymru who shamefully backed the government – and set to start next Monday.
So no more cinemas, theatres, or concert halls for the new pariahs of Welsh society, no freedom for anyone who chooses not to have the experimental covid ‘vaccine’.
How very nasty, how very irrational.
The group Together, who have been co-ordinating a national campaign and who were in Cardiff lobbying yesterday, rightly refuse to be set back. They will keep on fighting this injustice. We all must. As they pointed out in their supporters’ email today, there has been no attempt by the Welsh Government to provide any evidence whatsoever (which they can’t, since the evidence does not stack up) to justify this egregious theft of individual liberty. They also report on the bad faith of the Senedd who refused to let its members speak to them. So much for any vestige of a free society in Wales.
That said, the Together team reported how inspiring it was to see so many people come from various parts of the UK to Cardiff to have their voices heard together. What is needed now, they say, is to get as many people who want to enjoy life normally and see friends without restrictions in a discriminatory two-tier society, engaging with Together’s events around the country.
The next of these is tomorrow, Thursday November 11, in New Brighton, Merseyside for a panel event: Can there be Science without Free Speech? It is to be held at Hope, the anti-supermarket, Victoria Road, New Brighton, Merseyside. Speakers include @DrHoenderkamp @jadenozzz @danieldaviesRPL @alanvibe.
They also invite us to ‘Stand with Health care Workers’ tomorrow in London at 3pm at Parliament Square. As we’ve already reported 60,000 care workers face loss of jobs because of the introduction of mandatory vaccinations. Choice is a fundamental right for all, and we need to uphold it.
No Booster Jabs No Train Travel For France’s Over-65’s
By Richie Allen | November 10, 2021
France has become the first European country to mandate the third covid jab. From December 15th, over-65’s will need to have had a booster jab to travel by train or eat in restaurants.
The rule will apply to expats and tourists too.
Speaking last night, French President Emmanuel Macron said:
“Faced with the resurgence of the epidemic, the solution is an extra dose. If you have been vaccinated for more than six months, I ask you to book an appointment. To those not yet vaccinated: Get vaccinated. Get vaccinated to protect yourselves. Get vaccinated to live normally.”
France introduced a “health pass” which allows those who have been double-jabbed, had a negative coronavirus test or who have recently recovered from the virus access to bars, restaurants, venues, trains and planes.
From December 15th, if you are over-65, being double-jabbed won’t be enough. Your health pass will be invalid until you have booster shot.
“Get vaccinated to live normally,” said Macron.
It’s open tyranny now.
IRELAND CONTINUES TO SLOUCH TOWARDS TOTALITARIANISM
Computing Forever | October 21, 2021
Support my work here: https://computingforever.com/donate/
Support my work on Subscribe Star: https://www.subscribestar.com/dave-cullen
Follow me on Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/hybM74uIHJKf/
Buy How is This a Thing Mugs here: https://teespring.com/stores/computing-forever-store
Sources: https://computingforever.com/2021/10/21/ireland-continues-to-slouch-towards-totalitarianism/
http://www.computingforever.com
KEEP UP ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
Gab: https://gab.ai/DaveCullen
Subscribe on Gab TV: https://tv.gab.com/channel/DaveCullen
Minds.com: https://www.minds.com/davecullen
Subscribe on Odysee: https://odysee.com/@ComputingForever
This video contains some videos and images sourced from pixabay.com below:
https://pixabay.com/photos/injection-vaccination-vaccine-serum-5917297/
https://pixabay.com/videos/background-dots-blue-green-violet-4422/
https://pixabay.com/videos/ink-paint-smoke-water-underwater-64630/
https://pixabay.com/videos/space-earth-universe-planet-51560/
https://pixabay.com/videos/earth-rotation-planet-space-44350/
https://pixabay.com/videos/lights-blur-abstract-particle-form-5201/
https://pixabay.com/videos/matrix-code-thematrix-glitch-27693/
https://pixabay.com/videos/network-connect-internet-abstract-45961/
https://pixabay.com/videos/background-abstract-grid-computer-45949/
https://pixabay.com/videos/matrix-red-orange-digital-data-5203/
https://pixabay.com/photos/vaccination-syringe-mask-vaccine-6576827/
https://pixabay.com/videos/particle-lines-abstract-lights-5189/
https://pixabay.com/videos/particles-space-blue-lights-4978/
https://pixabay.com/videos/background-particles-gold-glitter-25727/
https://pixabay.com/videos/earth-cosmos-planet-globus-28531/
Silencing criticism of Israel
PSA vs. Nazim Ali—What it means for the pro-Palestine Activists
By Massoud Shajareh | MEMO | November 9, 2021
Many of you will have seen the recent news about Nazim Ali’s loss at the High Court. A detailed timeline can be found elsewhere. I want to discuss the three main consequences of this judgment.
First, a quick summary of the case itself. In June 2017, Ali took part in the annual Al-Quds Day parade, during which he made several ill-advised comments about Zionists and Zionism. The Campaign against Antisemitism (CAA) complained to the police and to the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC). The police complaint was passed to the CPS, who decided not to press charges; this was appealed and, again, the CPS declined to prosecute Ali. So, the CAA brought a private prosecution against Ali, which the CPS took over and discontinued. This decision was challenged by way of judicial review, which the CAA lost, as the court agreed with the CPS that Ali’s comments were anti-Israel -Zionist in nature and not anti-Semitic.
The GPhC complaints team subsequently decided that Ali’s words were anti-Israel political speech, that they were not anti-Semitic or racist, and dismissed the CAA’s complaint. Ali was notified that the complaint was closed. However, in the summer of 2019, the GPhC reopened the case, justifying its decision on the basis that it had to evaluate Ali’s comments based on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism.
Late last year, those proceedings culminated in the GPhC finding the comments made by Mr Ali to be offensive but not anti-Semitic. They held that, a reasonable bystander who was apprised of all the facts would not consider his speech in their context (a pro-Palestine rally) to be anti-Semitic. They took account of the context, Ali’s explanation of his words and his upstanding character. It issued him with a warning, on the grounds that his words were offensive and his behaviour amounted to misconduct.
Pro-Israel campaigners prevailed upon the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care (PSA) to appeal the GPhC decision to the High Court, which has now decided the GPhC reconsider afresh the allegations of anti-Semitism against Mr Ali, on the grounds that the body had erred by taking into account Ali’s explanation for, and intention behind, the words. The High Court held that Ali’s intention and explanation could not form part of the analysis of whether his words were anti-Semitic. Instead, an “objective” test should be used—something the learned judge does not define; he only elaborates on what it cannot include, i.e., the intention of the speaker.
So why is this dangerous?
- Once you remove intention, all criticism of Israel and Zionism is potentially anti-Semitic: Intention behind words is important. They tell us what the speaker intended, or meant, to say. In the context of controversial subjects, such as Israel/Palestine, they become crucial to understanding what the speaker means. The CAA/UKLFI and others want the courts and tribunals to adopt the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism as the “objective” definition. This is a controversial definition, one which puts substantial emphasis on criticism of Israel. Once an “objective” definition is accepted, where intention is not relevant, pro-Palestine activists will find there is little they can say about Israel without being labelled anti-Semitic.
- The “objective” definition will be wielded as a weapon to harass and silence professionals who criticise Israel. Pro-Israel groups will target any and every one they can identify as a regulated professional who has the temerity to criticise Israel in public. As the definition is “objective”, pro-Israel groups will simply start framing their complaints as the “person’s words are objectively anti-Semitic” in each case, thereby, avoiding the need to discuss the speaker’s intention. The regulators themselves seem uninterested in the politicised nature of the complaints and will bring to bear their full regulatory weight on the individual— involving a complaints process, a tribunal, lawyers’ fees, appeals and counter appeals. The thought of such an overwhelming process will be enough to stop any regulated professional from publicly criticising Israel or Zionism.
- Regulated professionals are just the start— this will set a chilling benchmark that can be replicated in many other regulatory and disciplinary settings. Labour party members accused of anti-Semitism, university disciplinary proceedings, employment tribunals and others will find this case being cited as a precedent. Suddenly, union members are accused of “objective” anti-Semitism as they believe Israel is an apartheid state. Their intent is irrelevant, as the complaint will be framed as the meaning of their words is anti-Semitic— and it is according to the “objective” IHRA definition: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.” Teachers, students, employees of any major company, anyone who criticises Israel in public, will find complaints being made against them by pro-Israel groups. These groups know most people do not want their livelihood taken from them; they calculate most people will just remain silent about Israel’s crimes rather than face being disciplined and being removed from employment.
Ali’s words were inappropriate and, on occasion, factually inaccurate (Israel and Zionism are guilty of a lot, but they did not set fire to Grenfell), but they were not anti-Semitic. Our purpose in fighting this judgment is not to defend Ali’s words. Rather, it is to stop the creation of a precedent that will silence virtually all criticism of Israel. Pro-Israel groups wish to proscribe all criticism of Israel; this judgment gives them the tools with which to achieve their goals. Free speech on Israel will be eroded if we do not fight back now.
The courts are backing the Covid vaccine madness
By Sally Beck | TCW Defending Freedom | November 9, 2021
IN THE last few weeks the High Court has thrown out two big Covid vaccine legal challenges. Last Tuesday they said No to a judicial review to stop mandatory vaccination for health care workers, and in September they threw out a bid to injunct and pause the vaccination of children and teenagers aged 12 to 17.
I was in court for both cases, and heard the judges put intelligent and insightful questions to the claimants’ legal teams. Both justices clearly found their well-constructed arguments on the vaccines’ questionable efficacy, and arguments about bodily autonomy, compelling and unsettling. Despite this, they sided with the government using the pandemic as a get-out clause.
Solicitor Stephen Jackson, whose firm Jackson Osborne brought both cases, said: ‘The court absolved itself from any need to consider the extent of the investigation made by the government into Covid vaccines and the analysis they’ve made. So basically, what they are saying is that the government have consulted experts and are not going to look at it any further.
‘The court’s position is that there’s a particularly wide margin of discretion where the government is considering complex data and science. They say that the Secretary of State for Health, Sajid Javid, is entitled to rely upon the advice of the experts he goes to.
‘It gives the government a blank cheque. As long as they have taken advice from an expert body, the court assumes their advice is correct. If you turn up to court and seek to challenge that advice, they say you are simply presenting an alternative expert view, but you cannot establish that the expert advice seen by the government is unreasonable or irrational.’
It seems that the vaccine juggernaut is unstoppable, despite growing evidence of irreparable harms and even death, with more than 1,700 fatalities reported. The argument is that this is a minuscule number considering that 55.6million doses have been given.
The government is fully aware of vaccine harm and has known about it since the 20th century childhood vaccination schedule was introduced in 1959. It considers that collateral damage, however severe, serves the common good. We should just shut up and take one for the team.
Each vaccine can leave its own deadly calling card and Covid jabs are no different. The ones used in the UK are produced by Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson. Their particular signature is blood clots and low platelets (VITT), inflammation of the heart in the form of myocarditis and pericarditis (particularly affecting young men), Guillain-Barré syndrome (an autoimmune disorder that attacks the nerves and can cause paralysis), and Bell’s palsy (temporary paralysis affecting one side of the face).
None of these horrors concern the judiciary yet, which is endlessly frustrating for Stephen Jackson and barrister Francis Hoar QC, who was involved in both cases.
Jackson said: ‘The courts are very reluctant to interfere with government decisions. If they feel they might be treading on political ground, then they steer a wide course.
‘The way they avoid interference is to cite the pandemic. The pandemic trumps everything.’
Millionaire entrepreneur Simon Dolan failed in his bid to obtain a judicial review earlier this year. He planned to challenge the government over lockdowns and mask wearing, claiming that Boris Johnson and Co had acted illegally and disproportionately. His defeat set the tone.
‘In the Simon Dolan case they basically said that there’s a two-stage process; first stage: it’s a pandemic, next stage is that the government has a very wide discretion as to their response,’ Jackson said.
‘In the care home case, they went further and said they had looked at a European Court of Human Rights case, heard in April, where Czech parents challenged the state’s mandatory vaccine schedule for nursery school children. It was a case where children were excluded from premises of education unless they had their vaccines. The judge who heard the care workers case said that what the government is doing now is nothing very different.
‘What the court doesn’t recognise in that analogy is that in the Czech case you are talking about very well-established vaccines with long safety records. By comparison we’re still looking at experimental technology with Pfizer and Moderna’s mRNA vaccines, which remain under trial until 2023. We still don’t know the long-term effects.’
The same applies to children. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) said covid vaccines offer very little benefit to the under-18s and recognised that they have the potential to harm. They recommended against routine vaccination for this age group, but the UK’s four chief medical officers (CMOs) overruled them saying that the JCVI hadn’t taken into account the school days they might lose, and the effect that being locked out of education would have on their mental health. In contrast, the CMOs did not take into account potential vaccine damage, days off school because of adverse reactions and time spent away from class to receive the jabs.
A judicial review is where the courts are asked by citizens adversely affected by government rules to review the decisions made by them. In 2018 there were 3,597 claims lodged but only 184, or 5 per cent, proceeded to a full hearing. Of the cases heard, 50 per cent were won, so there are chances at victory. The government knows this, abhors challenge and feels that the judicial review process is being used to excess, having lost two high profile cases, one on Brexit and the other on the prorogation of Parliament.
Bloodied, battered and humiliated, the Conservatives now want to change the law to restrict judicial reviews. In July, Johnson introduced the Judicial Review and Courts Bill which former Secretary of State David Davis called ‘a worrying assault on the legal system and an attempt to avoid accountability’.
Covid cases are challenging, based on complex science which judges do not necessarily have the skills to weigh up. Both Justice Robert Jay, who heard arguments in the child vaccination hearing, and Justice Philippa Whipple, appointed to rule in the care home challenge, indicated this. Jay almost threw up his hands at one point saying in effect, I don’t understand this, this is all science. Whipple modestly asked for the arguments to be kept simple saying: ‘I am a bear of very little brain. These are matters of complex data and science.’
Listening, it felt both were looking for a back door escape route.
The care home case was brought by two care home workers. One, Julie Peters, from Poole, a former programme director of Barchester Healthcare, a large provider with over 200 locations, was sacked for refusing the jab. She said: ‘I’ve lost my job, the government has changed the law so that although technically, I can fight for unfair dismissal, it’s likely I would lose. I also lost the challenge to overturn the legislation making vaccination mandatory for care home workers. So, any hairdresser, electrician, cleaner, occupational health care worker, or care home staff now has to have a vaccine to enter a care home. I’m pretty devastated.’
Featured Video
Ukraine Already Carved Up… Before Talks Begin? /Prof. Richard Sakwa
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
New Book
The Vaccine Mafia: Pfizer’s Former Chief Toxicologist Proves How Toxic Substances Were Unlawfully Sold to Us as a Solution for COVID-19
By Helmut Sterz
Former Pfizer chief toxicologist Helmut Sterz presents a critical examination of the development, approval, and global rollout of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines—particularly those produced by Pfizer/BioNTech. The Vaccine Mafia details the failure of pharmaceutical companies, regulatory authorities, politicians, and international organizations to follow established scientific and ethical standards during the pandemic. Drawing on the author’s decades of experience in pharmaceutical toxicology, Sterz reveals the many ways the vaccines’ inadequate or omitted preclinical safety testing put the world’s population at risk.
Sterz demonstrates how “emergency” approvals allowed manufacturers to bypass long-standing international guidelines governing toxicity testing, especially with regard to reproductive and cancer risks. They also allowed governments and health authorities to ignore or conceal evidence of serious adverse effects that occurred, including myocarditis, reproductive harm, and other long-term health risks.
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Ukraine Already Carved Up… Before Talks Begin? /Prof. Richard Sakwa
- The vindication of Marjorie Taylor Greene
- Nearly 80% of Britons consider Israel a threat to world peace and security: Survey
- Rhode Island Staffer Could Be Reinstated After Firing Over Ceasefire Post
- Will Republicans Learn Their Lesson from the ‘Disastrous’ Midterms?
- Wrong, Newswise, Irresponsible Climate Messaging, Not Climate Change Itself, Is Fueling Student Anxiety
- Zelensky’s Critics Vanish Into Ukrainian Secret Prisons – Source
- Nima R. Alkhorshid: U.S. Military Bombs Multiple Targets on Iran’s Qeshm Island
- Iran-Linked Ships Spotted Hovering over Subsea Cables: Report
- New attack on Iran could devastate ‘Israel’, IOF general warns
- If Americans Knew
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- No Tricks Zone
- Zonal Asymmetry of Temperature Change in the Antarctic Circumpolar Current
- New Study: The Net Fossil Fuel Contribution To Rising Atmospheric CO2 Has Been Zero For 500 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Transition Becoming Increasingly Expensive…Another 6 Trillion Euros!
- Sudden Stratospheric Warming, Powerful El Niño Combination May Lead To Extreme Europe Cold, Energy Crisis!
- Two New Studies Find Thwaites Glacier Melt Cannot Be Driven By Human Activity Or A Warming Ocean
- E-Cars Reduce CO2 Emissions By Only 41% Compared To Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles
- Predictions Made By Renowned Climate Professor Over Past Decades Have Been Proven To Be Poor
- New Study Suggests Large Regions Of The Pacific Ocean Have Been Cooling For The Last 80 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Debacle: High Energy Costs Force Kahla Porzellan to Close After 182 Years!
- New Study: 50 Years Of The Most Aggressive ‘Net Zero’ Policies Can Only Affect The Global Climate By 0.03°C
