Dr. Yeadon is an important contributor to understanding of the covid situation. Many of you will know of him.
Dr. Yeadon is an important contributor to understanding of the covid situation. Many of you will know of him.
A two minute video.
You may want to go directly to the last part of the video. The first part is intentionally “babbled”, I would say.
The last part, the parroting by the newscasters is remarkable. /S
– – – – – – – – –
The Washington DC Rally is on Sunday, January 23rd.
The Vancouver Rally is on Saturday, January 22nd.
Victoria, BC is also on the 22nd of January.
The Supreme Court on Jan. 7 heard oral arguments pertaining to both of the Biden administration’s COVID vaccine mandates. The focus of the hearing was whether to stay or to grant temporary injunctions requested by plaintiffs in a number of lawsuits challenging the emergency mandates for millions of Americans.
At the time, the rule issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), was stayed for 24 states that initiated lawsuits, but the OSHA stay was lifted by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court’s decision today reversed the lower court rulings, imposing a stay on the OSHA mandate and allowing the CMS rule to proceed.
The U.S. Supreme Court today rejected the Biden administration’s mandate requiring employees of large businesses to be vaccinated against COVID or undergo weekly testing and wear a mask indoors while working.
The court’s conservative majority said the administration overstepped its authority by imposing the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) vaccine-or-test rule on U.S. businesses with at least 100 employees.
At the same time, the court allowed to move forward a separate rule mandating COVID vaccines for workers in healthcare facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid.
Today’s rulings came three days after the OSHA’s Emergency Temporary Standard went into effect, targeting more than 84 million workers and two-thirds of the nation’s private-sector workforce.
The conservative justices wrote in an unsigned opinion:
“OSHA has never before imposed such a mandate. Nor has Congress. Indeed, although Congress has enacted significant legislation addressing the COVID–19 pandemic, it has declined to enact any measure similar to what OSHA has promulgated here.”
The conservative majority also expressed concerns over the implications of allowing OSHA to implement a widespread mandate without congressional authorization.
“Permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life — simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while on the clock — would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization,” the opinion stated.
A majority of the Supreme Court’s justices concluded the applicants challenging OSHA’s mandate were likely to succeed in the merits of their claim and the secretary of labor lacked authority to impose the mandate, resulting in a stay while the case works its way through the 6th Circuit Court.
“Administrative agencies are creatures of statute,” the justices wrote. “They accordingly possess only the authority that Congress has provided.”
In a joint dissent of the OSHA ruling, the court’s three liberal justices argued the court was overreaching by substituting its judgment for that of health experts.
“Acting outside of its competence and without legal basis, the Court displaces the judgments of the Government officials given the responsibility to respond to workplace health emergencies,” Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a joint dissent.
The justices contended OSHA’s mandate is comparable to a fire or sanitation regulation imposed by the agency, while the majority said a vaccine mandate is strikingly unlike the workplace regulations that OSHA has typically imposed as a vaccination “cannot be undone at the end of the workday.”
SCOTUS allows CMS rule to move forward
In a separate opinion, the court allowed a rule issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, to take effect.
The mandate is estimated to affect 10.3 million healthcare workers in the U.S., but allows for religious and medical exemptions. The rule was previously blocked by two lower courts for the 24 states that challenged the rule.
The opinion stated:
“Vaccination requirements are a common feature of the provision of healthcare in America: Healthcare workers around the country are ordinarily required to be vaccinated for diseases such as hepatitis B, influenza, and measles, mumps, and rubella. As the Secretary explained, these pre-existing state requirements are a major reason the agency has not previously adopted vaccine mandates as a condition of participation.”
The opinion went on to suggest healthcare workers and public health organizations “overwhelmingly support” the CMS rule.
“Indeed, their support suggests that a vaccination requirement under these circumstances is a straightforward and predictable example of the […] regulations that Congress has authorized the Secretary to impose,” the opinion states.
Justice Samuel Alito, joined by conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, dissented.
“Neither CMS nor the Court articulates a limiting principle for why, after an unexplained and unjustified delay, an agency can regulate first and listen later, and then put more than 10 million healthcare workers to the choice of their jobs or an irreversible medical treatment,” Justice Alito wrote.
“The challenges posed by a global pandemic do not allow a federal agency to exercise power that Congress has not conferred upon it. At the same time, such unprecedented circumstances provide no grounds for limiting the exercise of authorities the agency has long been recognized to have,” Justices Alito and Thomas wrote, stating the “latter principle governs” in the healthcare cases.
Mary Holland, president of Children’s Health Defense (CHD) said in an email to The Defender:
“CHD is delighted to see that the Supreme Court, 6-3, has upheld the preliminary injunction in the OSHA case, deciding that the administration lacked the authority to impose a COVID injection mandate on corporations with more than 100 employees.
“We are concerned, however, that the Supreme Court upheld the administration’s CMS mandate for healthcare workers. This mandate of an experimental, unapproved pharmaceutical product with only an ‘Emergency Use Authorization’ designation violates federal law and the Nuremberg Code, prohibiting coercion for participation in experimental medicine. We will continue to fight for true informed consent for all people.”
Scientists submit brief to SCOTUS on ineffectiveness of COVID vaccines
Drs. Luc Montagnier, co-winner of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Medicine, Harvey Risch, a Yale Professor of Epidemiology and Robert Malone, co-inventor of mRNA concepts and processes used in the existing COVID vaccines filed two briefs (first brief, second brief) as amici curiae in support of the applicants’ application for a stay or preliminary injunction of the OSHA and CMS mandates.
The briefs were designed to “highlight critical facts concerning Omicron — facts not addressed in the administrative record,” while “correcting an important false statement of fact in an amicus brief submitted by the American Medical Association et al. so that the court is not led into error.”
In their briefs, Montagnier, Rische and Malone argued neither OSHA nor CMS did any analysis of vaccine effectiveness against the COVID virus as it now exists and there is no evidence to suggest vaccination “will curb the spread of the virus we now face.”
I believe Fuellmich is referring to a trial along the lines of
Or, along a similar vein:
As I see it, the advantages of going ahead with such trials:
In an exclusive interview with The Defender, Joseph Keating’s mother said her son’s only warning signs were fatigue, muscle soreness and an increased heart rate, yet an autopsy confirmed he died of myocarditis directly caused by Pfizer’s COVID vaccine.
A 26-year-old South Dakota man who died Nov. 12, 2021, of myocarditis — four days after his booster dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine — had no idea he was experiencing a rare and supposedly “mild” heart problem after the shot.
Joseph Keating’s only warning signs were fatigue, muscle soreness and an increased heart rate, family members said.
In an exclusive interview with The Defender, Joseph’s father, mother and sister said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has not investigated Joseph’s death,.
The CDC also did not contact the pathologist who performed the autopsy or request the documents which confirmed Joseph’s death was caused by the Pfizer vaccine.
According to the autopsy report and certificate of death, Joseph died from severe heart damage from “myocarditis in the left ventricle due to the recent Pfizer COVID-19 booster vaccine.”
Joseph’s mother, Cayleen, said her son was pro-vaccine and worked in an environment where he needed to be vaccinated. According to Joseph’s vaccination cards, he received his first Pfizer shot on March 26, 2021, and the second dose on April 16.
Cayleen said her son, who didn’t experience any negative adverse events after the first two doses, received a third booster dose on Nov. 8, 2021.
“This was on a Monday,” Cayleen said. “Tuesday and Wednesday he was fine, but Thursday morning — 72 hours after the booster — he called and said he had a sore throat.”
Cayleen made her son some hot apple cider and he took throat lozenges and went to work, but within two hours he called her to pick him up because he was so fatigued he couldn’t work.
When Cayleen asked him what was wrong, Joseph told her he had some muscle soreness, exhaustion and a sore throat.
“When we googled, ‘what are your reactions to having the Pfizer vaccine,’ a lot of the results say people deal with fatigue, muscle soreness and everything, so we both just brushed it off as reactions to the vaccine and it was no big deal,” Cayleen said.
Joseph slept through Thursday. On Friday morning, he told his mother he would have to call into work again because he was too exhausted to go in. Cayleen visited Joseph and said he appeared to be normal, other than fatigue and muscle soreness.
“He wasn’t really acting sick, just exhausted,” she said.
Cayleen, a critical care nurse of 35 years, took her son’s vitals and noted his temperature was up to 100.2 and his heart rate was elevated to 112. She thought it was related to the fever, so she gave him Tylenol.
Later that day, Joseph texted his mother that his fever was down. By 4:30 p.m., his oxygen was at 100%, but his heart rate was still elevated.
Joseph’s father, William, visited his son around 5 p.m. and they had dinner. William left at 6 p.m. Two hours later their son was dead.
The family knows when Joseph died because of the Apple Watch data they retrieved from his phone. Joseph had an app enabled that measured his heart rate up to the time of his death.
Cayleen said:
“He went to sit down in his recliner and when we [the family] came the next day we were able to pull up the data from his Apple Watch showing the exact time of his death and exactly what his heart rate was doing the past two hours.
“It showed he was beating at 100s all during the day and after 6 p.m., when he sat in the recliner, his heart rate dropped into the 60s, which was low for Joseph, who always had a resting heart rate in the 80s and 90s — and then it just stopped.”
Cayleen said when they found Joseph the next morning, there were no signs he knew he was going to die.
“He was even having a two-way conversation with several of his friends before his death. The phone and remote control were on his lap,” his mother said.
The family called 911 and detectives came to make sure it wasn’t a crime scene because “26-year-olds don’t just die,” Cayleen said.
When detectives separated Cayleen and her husband for questioning, she told the detectives the only thing she knew was that four days prior her son had received Pfizer’s vaccine and he was having adverse reactions. Four days later he was dead.
Autopsy confirms Joseph died of myocarditis
After Joseph died, an autopsy had to be performed to confirm the cause of death.
“When they first did the preliminaries they couldn’t find anything — his heart looked normal,” Cayleen said. But “the pathologist said he was going to do 22 different slides to see what he could find.”
Meanwhile, Cayleen said she started hearing stories about young males getting myocarditis from COVID vaccines.
“I knew COVID could cause MIS-C [multisystem inflammatory syndrome], but nobody told me the vaccine was giving people myocarditis,” Cayleen said. “There’s a big difference between COVID giving you myocarditis and a vaccine giving you myocarditis and actually killing you.”
Cayleen said:
“When the pathologist looked at the 22 segments of Joseph’s heart, it showed the vaccine inflamed and attacked his entire heart. There was so much damage … to the heart. It was full multi-focal myocarditis, and it wasn’t just affecting one part of his heart, it was attacking his whole septum and ventricles.”
Cayleen thinks her son developed so much inflammation from the booster that his heart developed a fatal arrhythmia that killed him instantly.
She spoke with several cardiologists who were surprised her son never experienced any type of chest pain.
“The hallmark signs as a parent that would prompt you to seek medical help were not given to me,” Cayleen said. “He didn’t know his heart was racing, or fluttering or becoming A-fib. All he complained about was the muscle soreness and fatigue.”
Joseph’s private physician called the family after his autopsy results were back and told Cayleen if she would have called him and informed him of Joseph’s symptoms, he would have said it was just a side effect of the vaccine.
“If we would have brought him in Thursday or Friday, nobody would have discovered it,” Cayleen said.
Joseph’s sister, Kaylee, said, “My brother felt he wasn’t bad enough to seek medical attention because he wasn’t having any symptoms, it just came out of nowhere.”
“That’s what is so amazing that he didn’t have any chest pain, he didn’t feel his heart flutter, he didn’t have any shortness of breath,” Cayleen said. “I mean two hours before he died he has 100 percent oxygen concentration. It just didn’t show anything outside of an elevated heart rate.”
Cayleen said she took a full set of vitals and her son just didn’t feel sick. “When you’re sick, you’re in bed, but he just never felt that way. He just got into a rate the heart couldn’t keep up with and he died.”
Cayleen said she is thankful an autopsy was performed because it revealed her son died directly from the vaccine and the myocarditis he suffered was from the vaccine.
“It’s documented proof,” Cayleen said. “He died directly from the Pfizer booster.”
CDC ignores reports of death caused by myocarditis
Both Joseph’s family and the pathologist submitted a report to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), but to this day, neither have been contacted by the CDC about Joseph’s death.
“You would think the death of a child from a reaction to a COVID vaccine that’s documented on the death certificate and autopsy, the CDC would have reached out to us immediately,” Cayleen said. “You would think the CDC would have called the pathologist.”
According to the CDC website, the agency contacts people who meet the case definition for myocarditis following mRNA COVID vaccine and have submitted a report to VAERS.
To meet the case definition, people must have had “symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath and feelings of having a fast-beating, fluttering or pounding heart, and medical tests to support the diagnosis of myocarditis and rule out other causes.”
This rules out deaths like Joseph’s, who wasn’t diagnosed with myocarditis prior to death and did not experience the symptoms that would normally fall under the CDC’s case definition.
The CDC website does not state what happens to these cases, but there is no indication they are tracked or included in the CDC’s myocarditis numbers.
Cayleen said the state’s health department also has not investigated her son’s death, as they said they first needed to be contacted by the CDC.
“Nobody wants to touch it,” William said. “I’ve been calling the state health department the last few days and they keep saying they have to wait for the CDC and the facts. I told them the facts are in the autopsy, but they said they had to wait longer.“
– – – – – – –
As The Defender reported Jan. 6, emails obtained by Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Request show the CDC is leaving it up to state health departments to investigate deaths following COVID vaccines, including the death of a 13-year-old boy who died from myocarditis three days after his second Pfizer shot.
From Children’s Health Defense
In an interview with Joe Rogan, Dr. Robert Malone, mRNA vaccine expert and outspoken critic of our pandemic response, delivered a powerful message to the world. Yes, it’s three hours long, and yes, it’s worth every minute.
Something monumentally important happened in the closing days of 2021.
Joe Rogan, host of the widely viewed “Joe Rogan Experience” podcast, interviewed one of the world’s most qualified and unbiased individuals about the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines now deployed upon nearly 4 billion human beings.
Dr. Robert Malone, originally an academic pathologist, has run more than 100 clinical trials mostly in the vaccine and drug repurposing spaces.
He has been involved in nearly every infectious disease outbreak since the AIDS epidemic, has worked for the National Institutes of Health awarding millions of dollars in contracts for vaccines and biodefense, and spent “countless hours” at Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices meetings.
Malone works closely with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, knows Dr. Anthony Fauci personally and is possibly best known for his instrumental work in developing the platform for mRNA-based vaccine technologies more than 30 years ago.
On Dec. 30, 2021, Malone and Rogan sat down in Rogan’s studio in Austin, Texas, and recorded a riveting three-hour conversation.
Rogan stands alone as an independent voice outside of corporate media that is able to reach a politically and ideologically diverse audience of 11 million or more per episode.
Similarly, Malone is an outspoken critic of vaccine mandates who represents the opinion of a large and growing number of researchers and clinicians who believe our approach to the pandemic has been poorly conceived and stands in opposition to basic tenets of immunology, epidemiology and emerging real-world data.
It was clear both were prepared for the encounter. Rogan reported he had been following the doctor’s tweets, has been reading everything Malone has been writing and was clearly versed in the latest and most salient scientific findings.
Malone, though honed by countless appearances on various platforms, admitted this interview was special because of its potential impact on public opinion.
The conversation opened with Malone summarizing his bonafides and then describing his approach to engaging his audiences.
“I try really hard to get people the information and help them to think, not tell them what to think,” Malone said.
Malone was true to his method throughout, being careful to identify fact from speculation, noting what is observed without assuming intent while helping Rogan explore the rabbit holes that we inevitably encounter when choosing to look just a bit further beyond what has become socially acceptable.
The two spoke of Malone’s recent loss of his Twitter account. The doctor was banned from the platform without warning or explanation. He speculated it may have been due to one or both of his final two tweets, one which brought attention to the Canadian COVID Care Alliance’s summary of the Pfizer trial, the other to the World Economic Forum’s strategy for managing media around COVID.
Rogan repeatedly voiced his concern around the silencing of opinions from legitimate experts.
Malone responded:
“If it’s not okay for me to be a part of the conversation … even though I’m pointing out facts that may be inconvenient, then who can be allowed? Virtually all others that have [my] background have conflicts of interest…I am not getting any money out of this…”
Over the next two-and-a-half hours the two demonstrated how we can make sense of conflicting messaging and complex data by asking the right questions and being open to the answers, if they exist.
The vaccinologist, inventor and staunch advocate for informed consent told his personal story of getting COVID, suffering from long-COVID, getting the Moderna vaccination and suffering adverse events (stage III hypertension, heart arrhythmias, restless leg syndrome and narcolepsy) after the second jab.
Rogan took full advantage of his time with Malone, asking the questions media refuse to pose to their own identified “experts.”
The result was a full-scale repudiation of our pandemic response from its inception to the vaccine mandates that are in violation of the Nuremberg Code.
Malone and Rogan thoroughly probed many angles of our present situation from, T-cell dysfunction to the Trusted News Initiative.
Here are some of the key points discussed with time codes:
Conclusion
Malone concludes, “There are two hills that I am willing to die on. The first is stopping the jabs on the children. [The other] is resisting the erosion of free speech …”
It is clear the former can only be accomplished if the latter is as well. Though this three-hour exchange sheds light on the numerous challenges we face as a society, it can only result in real transformation if people are willing and able to listen.
Four days after this content was released, YouTube removed the video from its platform. It can still be seen here on Bitchute.
As Malone repeatedly pointed out, Big Tech, Big Pharma and governmental authorities are concerted in their efforts to suppress any dissenting opinion at any cost, including the health of our children.
Clarity, it seems, will only emerge from sources untrammeled by corporate interests.
Thankfully the magnitude of the problem was not lost on Rogan who stated, “I am compelled to have people like you on because I don’t know where else this is going to get out.”
He’s right.
Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas) submitted the full transcript of Rogan’s interview with Malone to the Congressional Record, where it cannot be cnesored.
Watch the full interview with Malone on the “Joe Rogan Experience” podcast:
by Edda West
On December 8th, 2021 Dr. Mel Bruchet, a much beloved family physician of over 50 years, was arrested by several RCMP officers and taken from his home in handcuffs to the psychiatric ward of a Vancouver area hospital where he was incarcerated against his will for over 3 weeks. In a scene straight out of ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest’, he was forcibly administered highly toxic psychiatric drugs contraindicated for seniors because of the high risk of inducing stroke in the elderly. Dr. Bruchet is one of growing number of courageous doctors speaking out against the dangers of mRNA gene therapy shots and in particular the risks to children and pregnant mothers. He and Dr. Daniel Nagase had been speaking out about the recent 13 ‘stillborn’ deaths in a 24 hour period at a Vancouver hospital and have shed light on the background reports of miscarriages in Canadian women who have received covid shots. They had also filed charges against Dr. Bonnie Henry, BC’s chief medical tyrant. Canadian science researcher Dr. Jessica Rose offers this powerful overview of the events.
A BIT OF BACKGROUND
Dr. Mel Bruchet, a family doctor in North Vancouver, 81 years old, retired 3 years ago. He has been involved in the fight to prevent wholesale vaccination of kids. The science and unnecessary risks from covid vaccination make it clear that there are no bases for vaccinating kids for covid. To the contrary.
My introduction to Mel Bruchet was through a video: a crowd of protestors assembled outside an RCMP building. Dr. Bruchet was a tactful intermediary between the crowd and the RCMP.
Dr. Nagase is working with Dr. Bruchet.
Dr. Nagase is the one who was doing locums for Alberta doctor(s). He treated 3 or 4 covid patients with ivermictin in the rural hospital in Rimbey. The patients all recovered, but Dr. Nagase was fired for using ivermectin.
Dr. Nagase has become, I would say, a full-time activist.
His data analysis from documents used by Pfizer to obtain licensing from the FDA for their covid vaccines has been picked up by doctors in the U.S..
Many of the statements made by U.S. Supreme Court Justices in today’s hearing were shockingly not-true. Justice Sotomayer takes the cake.
Out of all the possibilities in the U.S. for a Supreme Court Justice, how in hell did she end up on that bench? . . . I just looked it up: Barack Obama appointed her.
= = = = = = = = =
From Children’s Defense Fund
The U.S. Supreme Court today heard oral arguments pertaining to two of the Biden administration’s COVID vaccine mandates. Twitter followers called out some of the statements made by Justices, alleging the statements didn’t align with the facts.
The Supreme Court of the United States today heard oral arguments pertaining to two of the Biden administration’s COVID vaccine mandates.
The focus of the hearing was whether to stay or to grant temporary injunctions requested by plaintiffs in a number of lawsuits challenging the emergency mandates for millions of Americans.
The two mandates in question include one imposed on private businesses with 100 or more employees, and the one for healthcare facilities participating in the Medicare or Medicaid programs.
The judges did not rule today and gave no indication as to how quickly the court will issue orders.
Mandate penalties enforced by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) are scheduled to begin next week for large private employers.
According to The New York Times, members of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared skeptical that the Biden administration had the legal power to impose a mandate requiring the nation’s large employers to require workers to be vaccinated against COVID or to undergo frequent testing.
But in a separate challenge regarding the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) mandate for healthcare workers and facilities, some justices appeared more open to vaccine requirements for certain healthcare workers, CNN reported.
The more liberal justices defended the government’s ability to impose vaccine mandates, citing concerns over Omicron, which Justice Sonya Sotomayor claimed was more deadly to the unvaccinated than the Delta variant.
Sotomayor also expressed concern over the 100,000 children she said were hospitalized, many of whom are on ventilators.
“We have over 100,000 children,” Justice Sotomayor said, “which we’ve never had before, in serious condition and many on ventilators. So saying it’s a workplace variant just underscores the fact that without some workplace rules with respect to vaccines or encouraging vaccines because this is not a vaccine mandate.”
The liberal justices said vaccine mandates were a needed response to the public health crisis, which Justice Stephen Breyer said caused 750,000 million new COVID cases yesterday in the U.S. — more than double the U.S. population.
“We know the best way to prevent spread is for people to get vaccinated,” Justice Elena Kagan said.
Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr. and Justice Neil Gorsuch said the states and Congress, rather than a federal agency, were better equipped to address the pandemic in the nation’s workplaces.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett said the OSHA regulation appeared to reach too broadly in covering all large employers, while Justices Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested the governing statute had not authorized the agency to impose the mandate clearly, given what was at stake politically and economically.
“There’s no requirement here. It’s not a vaccine mandate,” Justice Sotomayor said during the oral arguments. “It’s something totally different.”
Justice Sotomayor appeared to be tapping into the idea that, because the mandate allows for mandatory vaccinations to be substituted by weekly testing, it is therefore not a mandate, Fox News reported.
According to OSHA, “The ETS requires covered employers to establish, implement and enforce a written mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy with an exception for employers that instead establish, implement and enforce a written policy that requires unvaccinated employees to undergo weekly COVID-19 testing and wear a face covering at the workplace instead of vaccination.”
Scott Keller, attorney for the National Federation of Independent Business, argued the OSHA regulations had originally been passed to protect workers from unvaccinated coworkers and were now obsolete due to “CDC guidance contradicting foundational assumptions” of the regulations.
“Yes, that may be true, but we are now having deaths at an unprecedented amount, catching COVID keeps people out of the workplace for extraordinary periods of time,” Justice Sotomayor responded.
Justice Elena Kagan suggested getting a COVID vaccine reduces the spread of COVID, a claim questioned by the rising number of breakthrough cases worldwide. Justice Kagan’s opinion is that “this is the policy that is most geared to stopping all this.”
“There’s nothing else that will perform that function better than incentivizing people strongly to vaccinate themselves,” Justice Kagan said. “So, you know, whatever necessary means, whatever grave means, why isn’t this necessary and grave?”
Justice Stephen Breyer suggested being vaccinated would stop people from transmitting the virus to others, and the idea that more people would leave the workforce due to the mandates was moot because “more may quit when they discover they have to work together with unvaccinated people because that means they may get the disease.”
Justice Breyer said he would find it “unbelievable that it would be in the public interest to stop these vaccinations.”
The second hearing addressed the CMS vaccine mandate. Justice Gorsuch asked a series of questions to Brian Fletcher, principal deputy solicitor general for the Biden administration, about the impact of the vaccine mandates and how it can be viewed as potentially controlling the employment of healthcare workers, which is not allowed by the law.
Justice Gorsuch asked:
“This regulation affects, we’re told,10 million healthcare workers and will cost over a billion dollars for employers to comply with. So what’s your reaction to that, why isn’t this a regulation that effectively controls the employment and tenure of healthcare workers at hospitals? An issue Congress said the agency didn’t have the authority and that should be left to the states to regulate.”
Fletcher said the government interprets the relevant statute to mean the secretary cannot dictate particular hiring decisions: “That’s what control and supervision means.”
Elizabeth Murrill, Louisiana solicitor general, reminded the court the case is not about whether “vaccines are effective, useful or a good idea. It’s about whether this federal executive branch agency has the power to force millions of people working for or with a Medicare or Medicaid provider to undergo an invasive, irrevocable forced medical treatment — a COVID shot.”
Twitter erupts over disinformation during SCOTUS hearing
Twitter erupted over what some considered to be disinformation perpetuated during the hearing and over concerns false information would influence the Supreme Court’s decision.
Mike Cernovich, producer and attorney tweeted:
Jenin Younis, a civil liberties attorney, tweeted:
Greg Price, a senior digital strategist, noted in a tweet that during oral arguments, Justice Sotomayor claimed:
Here is Justice Sotomayor saying that “hospitals are almost all full capacity” and there are “over 100,000 children” hospitalized with covid “many on ventilators,” Price tweeted:
As The Defender reported Jan. 3, the Supreme Court’s move to hold oral arguments in deciding whether or not to issue an emergency stay is considered unusual.
Typically, such cases are placed on the “shadow docket” and are decided without a full briefing or a presentation of oral arguments.
The decision by the Supreme Court on whether to stay the mandate will provide a strong indication for employers about what they will or won’t need to do to come into compliance.
The Biden administration’s ETS mandating employers with over 100 employees get vaccinated, or if unvaccinated, wear a mask and get tested weekly, has faced many court challenges.
The cases were consolidated and the 6th circuit recently lifted a stay on the mandate imposed by the 5th circuit, prompting the case to make its way to the Supreme Court.
CMS announced Dec. 29, 2021, it will begin enforcing its COVID vaccine mandate in the 26 states where it is not blocked. A modified enforcement timeline accompanied this announcement: Healthcare workers will now be required to receive the first dose of a COVID vaccine by Jan. 27, and the second dose by Feb. 28.
Those who revealed un-redacted cables have never been prosecuted nor requested to remove them from the internet, writes Dean Yates.
By Dean Yates
in Tasmania, Australia
I wrote a piece for Australian online publisher Crikey just before Julian Assange’s extradition hearings resumed in September 2020 in which I regurgitated a slur that has done enormous harm to his reputation.
Australian journalists should stop using the WikiLeaks treasure trove in their stories if they wouldn’t speak up for Assange, I’d written. Journalists like to think they’d go to jail to protect a source. Well, their source was suffering in London’s high-security Belmarsh prison, I said.
The problem was I also wrote that Assange dumped the Iraq and Afghan war logs on the internet without redacting names. I was wrong and lazy in repeating that slur which appeared whenever you Googled Assange’s name. That must make it true, right? Two of Assange’s well-known Australian supporters tried to correct me. To my shame, I brushed them off.
Their overtures nagging at the back of my mind, I recently did what I should have done at the time: read the submissions Assange’s legal team made at his extradition hearings and transcripts of witness testimony. I soon realized how mistaken I was.
Why should anyone listen to me?
In Baghdad
I was bureau chief for the Reuters news service in Baghdad when an Apache gunship with the call-sign Crazy Horse 1-8 killed 12 people including two of my staff, photographer Namir Noor Eldeen and driver Saeed Chmagh, on July 12, 2007. Namir and Saeed would have been forgotten statistics of that illegal war if not for Assange’s publication of footage he famously called Collateral Murder on April 2010. Thanks to Assange and Chelsea Manning, Namir and Saeed’s names will never be forgotten.
Wikileaks had hundreds of thousands of documents it had gotten from Manning – the war logs and State Department cables — for a considerable period in 2010 and went to “extraordinary lengths to publish them in a responsible and redacted manner,” the submissions to a lower U.K. court said. WikiLeaks held back information while it formed media partnerships with news organizations such as The Guardian, The New York Times and DER SPIEGEL to manage the release of the material. Assange’s legal team cited named witnesses, various journalists who worked with Assange on the process. Those witnesses testified to the rigor of the redaction effort.
The media partners’ work on the Afghan war logs included approaching the White House before releasing them. In July 2010, Wikileaks also entered dialogue with the White House about redacting names. On July 25, 2010, WikiLeaks held back publication of 15,000 documents on Afghanistan to safeguard its “harm minimization process” even after its media partners published stories.
Redaction of the Iraq War diaries was likewise “painstakingly approached” and involved the development of special redaction software. Publication was delayed in August 2010 despite this annoying some media partners because Assange didn’t want to rush.
Un-redacted publication of the State Department cables in September 2011 was undertaken by parties unconnected to WikiLeaks, and despite WikiLeaks’ efforts to prevent it, the legal submissions state. Those who revealed un-redacted cables have never been prosecuted nor requested to remove them from the internet.
[Ed.: John Young, founder of Cryptome, testified at Assange’s hearing that he published the unredacted cables before WikiLeaks but was never questioned by police. The password to the unredacted cables was published by Guardian journalists Luke Harding and David Leigh before Cryptome did.]
For an excellent account of the origins of the slur against Assange, watch this video of Australian investigative journalist Mark Davis, who was with Assange in 2010 during the collaboration with the media partners. (Mark wasn’t one of those who chided me over the Crikey piece):
Crikey piece):
So, Assange made every effort to redact and WikiLeaks in 2011 won Australia’s Walkley Award (our equivalent to the Pulitzer Prize) for its outstanding contribution to journalism.
Not a Single One
Further evidence Assange sought to protect individuals came at Chelsea’s court-martial in 2013. Brigadier-General Robert Carr testified that his team of 120 counter-intelligence officers couldn’t find a single person killed in Afghanistan and Iraq because of the disclosures. [Ed.: Nevertheless, U.S. prosecutors at the extradition hearing made harming U.S. informants the centerpiece of their case.]
Let’s talk about what is indisputable, who really was endangered and by whom.
The United States of America jeopardized the lives of Iraq’s entire 25 million people with an illegal and reckless invasion based on the lies that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and had direct ties to al Qaeda.
It’s indisputable that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi combatants and civilians were killed in the eight-year war because of violence and war-related causes. (Research in 2013 put the total at 400,000). It’s indisputable that four million Iraqis fled their country. Millions more were displaced internally.
It’s reasonable to say millions of Iraqis were wounded by violence or suffered illness from war-related causes. It’s fair to say millions of Iraqis will struggle with trauma and mental illness for life, that a countless number have already killed themselves.
American families suffered too: 4,431 U.S. soldiers were killed in the war and 31,994 wounded. Hundreds of thousands of American veterans have PTSD or moral injury, affecting millions of loved ones and friends. Same goes for any other foreigner who spent time in Iraq – soldier, security contractor, truck driver, cook, journalist.
And in case people think the Iraq War is over, Islamic State rose from its ashes. Yet no American government or military leader has ever been held to account for the lies and misrepresentations over Iraq. Meanwhile, the United States brazenly misrepresents the facts in its case against Assange with the blessing of successive Australian governments.
That’s why we need to make Assange’s freedom an election issue in Australia. It’s why we need to make noise on social media, in the mainstream media, to politicians, and on the streets. Because Assange is being tortured in a foreign country for telling the truth about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And he will be extradited to America where he will likely die in prison.
Remember — the Australian government eagerly took part in the invasion of Iraq. His case is the biggest test of press freedom in decades. Make some noise Australians! Bring Assange home.
Re-published from Facebook with permission from the author.
Dean Yates was Baghdad bureau chief for Reuters from January 2007 to October 2008. The U.S. military stonewalled Reuters’ attempt to get the cockpit video of the July 12, 2007 attack until WikiLeaks released it as “Collateral Murder.”