[Premier of Ontario, Doug Ford] spent 82 TIMES MORE locking down the province "responding" to C-19 than the cost to treat C-19

Ontario Government Covid-19 Response:
$51 BILLION (as of March '21)

Cost to treat Ontario's C-19 hospitalizations:
~$620 MILLION (~28.5k x $21.6k per)

In other words, @fordnation spent 82 TIMES MORE locking down the province "responding" to C-19 than the cost to treat C-19. pic.twitter.com/7rpJNFWJHb

— Kelly Brown (@rubiconcapital_) August 24, 2021

Anti-vaccine passport protesters trying to enter Google HQ in London

HAPPENING NOW 🚨 Anti vaccine passport protesters trying to enter Google HQ in London - LIVE: https://t.co/qQiL74bz7M pic.twitter.com/7IyyEgy1Ax

— Insider Paper (@TheInsiderPaper) August 23, 2021

Then this from Martin Armstrong, "People Storm the London Press Over Fake News":

Resistance is not futile. A group of protestors has stormed the entrance of the headquarters of ITV News (Independent Television News) and Channel 4 News in London. They are protesting the misinformation and fakes news about COVID that the media [broadcasts] concerning the vaccines and the pandemic. Europe is up in arms more so than the United States because there the head of state can shut down the entire country. In the USA, President Biden has no such power. That belongs to the state governor.

I am WARNING all journalists, if you do NOT start rebelling against your own editorial management which has been bought off, the mob will start dragging journalists out and hanging you. This is how ALL revolutions unfold and you better wake up to what history tells you. When you are in the pocket of the government, you become the enemy of the people. It is time to boycott your editors to save humanity.

 

 

Pro-Vaccine Trump Loses % of Alabama Base

🤔 pic.twitter.com/sYBQ7ncAoI

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) August 24, 2021

"the man who keeps the vital Vaccine Safety Datalink, and all the medical information it leads to, shut down and away from independent investigators, is . . . Anthony Fauci"

by Jon Rappoport

August 23, 2021

In this explosive 12 minute Theo Von video interview with Robert Kennedy Jr. [1], we get details of the 2016 Trump-Kennedy meeting, at which Trump gave Kennedy the go-ahead to investigate vaccine dangers.

This isn’t simply “setting the record straight” on what went down. The latest official figures on autism? 1 in 54 American children are autistic. So we are talking about the MASSIVE destruction of life, and the ongoing internal destruction of the country.

Investigating and detailing the role vaccines play in this horrific reality should be the highest priority.

Robert Kennedy, in the video interview, explains that shortly after Trump was elected in November of 2016, the new president contacted him (Kennedy) and invited him for a meeting at Trump Tower in New York.

During the two-hour sit-down with Trump, Kennedy explained that a comprehensive investigation of vaccines could be done without any heavy lifting by government. There was a well-known Vaccine Safety Datalink [2] [2b] [2c] [2d] which, when opened, would give independent researchers access to a vast trove of US medical records. From those records, a convincing case could be made about vaccine safety/dangers.

Trump gave Kennedy the green light to move ahead.

However, roadblocks then appeared.

Access to the Vaccine Safety Datalink and the medical records was severely limited. Two independent investigators were confined to one room—with only pencil and paper—to study medical records. The room was intentionally overheated to a temperature of 105. No copying-machine use was permitted.

Then Pfizer made a million-dollar contribution to Trump’s inauguration.

Then Trump made two grotesque appointments to his new administration—Scott Gottlieb as FDA commissioner, and Alex Azar as head of Health and Human Services. Both men had heavy pharmaceutical industry connections. Azar had served as chief of US Eli Lilly and had sat on the board of the pharma trade group, the Biotechnology Innovation Organization. Scott Gottlieb was a director at Tolero Pharmaceuticals [acquired by Sumitomo] and the giant drug company, Daiichi Sankyo. He also worked for Glaxo; and now, in 2021, after his stint as FDA commissioner, Gottlieb sits on the board of Pfizer.

Robert Kennedy’s vaccine investigation was shut down.

Did Kennedy then reach out directly to President Trump, to try to reignite the vaccine probe? The video interview doesn’t address this.

Did Trump ever explain why he allowed Kennedy’s investigation to crash and burn? Or why, at the 2016 New York meeting, he told Kennedy to announce the formation of the vaccine investigation, instead of announcing it himself, as the new President? Not to my knowledge.

One other thing. In this video interview, Kennedy says the man who keeps the vital Vaccine Safety Datalink, and all the medical information it leads to, shut down and away from independent investigators, is . . .

Anthony Fauci.

Once upon a time in the Empire, all roads led to Rome. Now they lead to the Good Doctor, and onward to Bill Gates.

Vaccine Mandate Objection Letter via Robert Barnes

Employer Letter Example: Vaccine Mandate Objection

No authorship claim or copyright asserted . . . A letter that also came to me via a route like a letter in a bottle.

Dear Boss,

First, I request a religious exemption. "Each of the manufactures of the Covid vaccines currently available developed and confirmed their vaccines using fetal cell lines, which originated from aborted fetuses. (https://lozierinstitute.org/an-ethics-assessment-of-covid-19-vaccine-programs/) For example, each of the currently available Covid vaccines confirmed their vaccine by protein testing using the abortion-derived cell line HEK-293. (https://lozierinstitute.org/an-ethics-assessment-of-covid-19-vaccine-programs/) Partaking in a vaccine made from aborted fetuses makes me complicit in an action that offends my religious faith. As such, I cannot, in good conscience and in accord with my religious faith, take any such Covid vaccine at this time. In addition, any coerced medical treatment goes against my religious faith and the right of conscience to control one’s own medical treatment, free of coercion or force. Please provide reasonable accommodation to my belief, as I wish to continue to be a good employee, helpful to the team.

Equally, compelling any employee to take any current Covid-19 vaccine violates federal and state law, and subjects the employer to substantial liability risk, including liability for any injury the employee may suffer from the vaccine. Many employers have reconsidered issuing such a mandate after more fruitful review with legal counsel, insurance providers, and public opinion advisors of the desires of employees and the consuming public. Even the Kaiser Foundation warned of the legal risk in this respect. (https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/key-questions-about-covid-19-vaccine-mandates/)

Three key concerns: first, informed consent is the guiding light of all medicine, in accord with the Nuremberg Code of 1947; second, the Americans with Disabilities Act proscribes, punishes, and penalizes employers who invasively inquire into their employees' medical status and then treat those employees differently based on their perceived medical status, as the many AIDS-related cases of decades ago fully attest; and third, international law, Constitutional law, specific statutes, and the common law of torts all forbid conditioning access to employment, education, or public accommodations upon coerced, invasive medical examinations and treatment, unless the employer can fully provide objective, scientifically validated evidence of the threat from the employee and how no practicable alternative could possibly suffice to mitigate such supposed public health threat and still perform the necessary essentials of employment. As one federal court just recently held, the availability of reasonable accommodations like accounting for prior infection, antibody testing, temperature checks, remote work, other forms of testing, and the like suffice to meet any institution’s needs in lieu of masks, public shaming and forced injections of foreign substances into the body that the FDA admits we do not know the long-term effects of.

For instance, the symptomatic can be self-isolated. Hence, requiring vaccinations only addresses one risk: dangerous or deadly transmission, by the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic employee, in the employment setting. Yet even government official Mr. Fauci admits, as scientific studies affirm, asymptomatic transmission is exceedingly and "very rare." Indeed, initial data suggests the vaccinated are just as, or even much more, likely to transmit the virus as asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic. Hence, the vaccine solves nothing. This evidentiary limitation on any employer's decision-making, aside from the legal and insurance risks of forcing vaccinations as a term of employment without any accommodation or even exception for the previously infected (and thus better protected), is the reason most employers wisely refuse to mandate the vaccine. This doesn't even address the arbitrary self-limitation of the pool of talent for the employer: why reduce your own talent pool, when many who refuse invasive inquiries or risky treatment may be amongst your most effective, efficient, and profitable employees?

This right to refuse forced injections, such as the Covid-19 vaccine, implements the internationally agreed legal requirement of Informed Consent established in the Nuremberg Code of 1947. (http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/nuremberg/). As the Nuremberg Code established, every person must "be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior forms of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision" for any medical experimental drug, as the Covid-19 vaccine currently is.

Second, demanding employees divulge their personal medical information invades their protected right to privacy and discriminates against them based on their perceived medical status, in contravention of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (42 USC §12112(a).) Indeed, the ADA prohibits employers from invasive inquiries about their medical status, and that includes questions about diseases and treatments for those diseases, such as vaccines. As the EEOC makes clear, an employer can only ask for medical information if the employer can prove the medical information is both job-related and necessary for the business. 

(https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/questions-and-answers-enforcement-guidance-disability-related-inquiries-and-medical). An employer that treats an individual employee differently based on that employer’s belief the employee’s medical condition impairs the employee is discriminating against that employee based on perceived medical status disability, in contravention of the ADA. The employer must have proof that the employer cannot keep the employee, even with reasonable accommodations, before any adverse action can be taken against the employee. If the employer asserts the employee’s medical status (such as being unvaccinated against a particular disease) precludes employment, then the employer must prove that the employee poses a “safety hazard” that cannot be reduced with reasonable accommodation. The employer must prove, with objective, scientifically validated evidence, that the employee poses a materially enhanced risk of serious harm that no reasonable accommodation could mitigate. This requires the employee's medical status to cause a substantial risk of serious harm, a risk that cannot be reduced by any other means. This is a high, and difficult burden, for employers to meet. Just look at all prior cases concerning HIV and AIDS, when employers discriminated against employees based on their perceived dangerousness and ended up paying millions in legal fees, damages, and fines.

Third, conditioning continued employment upon participating in a medical experiment and demanding disclosure of private, personal medical information, may also create employer liability under other federal and state laws, including HIPAA, FMLA, and applicable state tort law principles, including torts prohibiting and proscribing invasions of privacy and battery. Indeed, any employer mandating a vaccine is liable to their employee for any adverse event suffered by that employee. The CDC records reports of the adverse events already reported to date concerning the current Covid-19 vaccine.   (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/vaers.html)

Finally, forced vaccines constitute a form of battery, and the Supreme Court long made clear "no right is more sacred than the right of every individual to the control of their own person, free from all restraint or interference of others."   (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/141/250)

With Regards,

Employee of the Year,
Thomas Paine