England Ends All COVID Passports, Mask Mandates, Work Restrictions

By Lily Zhou January 19, 2022 Updated: January 19, 2022

Restrictions including COVID-19 passes, mask mandates, and work-from-home guidance will be removed in England, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced on Wednesday.

Johnson also suggested that self-isolation rules may also be thrown out at the end of March as the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus pandemic becomes endemic.

Effective immediately, the UK government is no longer asking people to work from home.

The COVID pass mandate for nightclubs and large events won’t be renewed when it expires on Jan. 26.

Also from Jan. 27, indoor mask-wearing will no longer be compulsory anywhere in England.

The requirement for secondary school pupils to wear masks during class and in communal areas will be lifted on Jan. 20. The Department for Education is expected to update its national guidance soon.

Health Secretary Sajid Jajid will also announce plans to ease restrictions on care home visits in the coming days.

Roaring cheers from lawmakers could be heard in the House of Commons following Johnson’s announcements on masks.

Epoch Times Photo
Prime Minister Boris Johnson speaks during Prime Minister’s Questions in the House of Commons, London, on Jan. 19, 2022. (House of Commons/PA)

People who test positive for COVID-19 and their unvaccinated contacts are still required to self-isolate, but Johnson said he “very much expect[s] not to renew” the rule when the relevant regulations expire on March 24.

“As COVID becomes endemic, we will need to replace legal requirements with advice and guidance, urging people with the virus to be careful and considerate of others,” the prime minister said.

Asked to remove testing rules for vaccinated UK-bound travellers, Johnson said the government is reviewing the testing arrangements on travel and that an announcement can be expected in the coming days.

But he refused to reconsider the vaccination mandate for frontline health care workers, insisting “the evidence is clear that health care professionals should get vaccinated.”

Johnson told MPs that the Cabinet decided to remove its so-called “Plan B” measures on Wednesday morning as data suggest the Omicron wave has peaked nationally, and he attributed stabilising hospital admission numbers to “the extraordinary booster campaign” and the public’s compliance to the restriction measures.

The removal of the “Plan B” measures against the CCP virus came as the prime minister battles increasing pressure calling for him to resign over alleged lockdown-breaching parties in Number 10 Downing Street, the prime minister’s official residence, during the pandemic.

It also came after Number 10 received a petition on Monday signed by more than 200,000 people, calling for an end to vaccine passports and similar COVID certifications.

A separate petition calling on the reversal of vaccine mandates for health care workers, which was also delivered to Number 10 on Monday, received about 160,000 signatures.

Governments in Scotland and Wales have also announced the removal of Omicron curbs, but mandatory indoor mask-wearing and COVID passes will remain in place.

Correction: Mandatory indoor mask-wearing will be lifted on Jan. 27. The Epoch Times regrets the error.

Studies Find Natural Treatments for Coronavirus

Glycyrrhizin (Licorice) appears to be more effective during the early stages of coronavirus replication. (AP Photo/Patrick Sison)

Glycyrrhizin (Licorice) appears to be more effective during the early stages of coronavirus replication. (AP Photo/Patrick Sison)HEALTH NEWS

By Sophia Ruiz January 17, 2022 Updated: January 17, 2022biggersmallerPrint

Contrary to what mass mainstream media would have you assume, coronaviruses aren’t uncharted territory. In fact, human coronaviruses are responsible for 15-30% of common colds each year. More severe cases of coronavirus infections were observed during outbreaks of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome (MERS), two coronavirus infections that led to pneumonia in some individuals who were infected.

These outbreaks sparked interest from the complementary medicine community who began investigating natural solutions for treating SARS and MERS infections, the studies of which have been compiled in our comprehensive database on Coronavirus Infection and Coronavirus Disease.

These natural substances demonstrating viral inhibition of SARS-coronavirus are likely also effective against the 2019 coronavirus, considering the two are closely related and share the same angiotensin-converting enzyme II-mediated infection. In other words, SARS-coronavirus and the 2019 novel coronavirus are both structurally and mechanistically similar and can be targeted by the same substances.

In fact, one paper published in the Chinese Journal of Preventive Medicine states that the 2019 novel coronavirus is actually less pathogenic than the SARS-coronavirus, suggesting that these natural substances may be even more effective in their coronavirus-inhibiting properties.

Epoch Times Photo
Blueberries and strawberries contain plenty of flavonoids. (Jupiterimages/Photos.com)

These naturally-occurring, whole food-derived substances with proven coronavirus-inhibiting properties are discussed below:

  • Licorice root. Glycyrrhizin, an active constituent of licorice roots, has been shown to exhibit potent inhibitory activity against SARS-coronavirus replication. Additionally, glycyrrhizin appears to be more effective during the early stages of coronavirus replication.
  • Flavonoids. The activity of coronavirus proteases is a key factor in coronaviruses’ ability to propagate in cells. Flavonoids, however, directly inhibit coronavirus protease activity, resulting in decreased virus propagation (4). The flavonoids with the highest virus inhibitory power appear to be herbacetin, isobavachalcone, quercetin 3‐β‐d‐glucoside, and helichrysetin.
  • Chameleon plant (Houttuynia cordata). In one animal study, Chameleon plant aqueous extract demonstrated significant antiviral activity against the SARS-coronavirus in vivo. The study also found that the herb stimulated the proliferation of mouse splenic lymphocytes in a dose-dependent manner, suggesting it also functions as an immunomodulatory plant.
  • Chinese medicine preparations. Chinese medicine has been frequently used as an adjunct therapy to treat SARS patients, as evidenced by a Cochrane systematic review that concluded Chinese Medicine as an adjunct therapy “may improve symptoms, quality of life and absorption of pulmonary infiltration, and decrease the corticosteroid dosage for SARS patients”. Another study has also proposed ShuFengJieDu Capsules and Lianhuaqingwen Capsule as a potentially effective treatment for 2019 novel coronavirus, considering previous studies demonstrating their ability to both treat and prevent respiratory infectious viruses.

This article was originally published on GreenMedInfo.com

References

1. Mesel-Lemoine, M., Millet, J., Vidalain, P. O., Law, H., Vabret, A., Lorin, V., Escriou, N., Albert, M. L., Nal, B., & Tangy, F. (2012). A human coronavirus responsible for the common cold massively kills dendritic cells but not monocytes. Journal of virology86(14), 7577-7587. https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.00269-12

2. Tian H. Y. (2020). Zhonghua yu fang yi xue za zhi [Chinese journal of preventive medicine]54(0), E001. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-9624.2020.0001https://subs.youmaker.com/template/show?tid=cc3f343f-227c-4eec-8289-8d2fe30e4467&sid=www.theepochtimes.com&v=5&ck=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&pl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theepochtimes.com%2Fstudies-find-natural-treatments-for-coronavirus_4218452.html%3Futm_source%3DNews%26utm_campaign%3Dbreaking-2022-01-18-3%26utm_medium%3Demail%26est%3DqqkFSUvDGeJnHCPXAiUAVEk0DOvcoqxO5rHIzK3kOX7oumlRAuyLmbFfsh3%252Bxx0%253D&tn=newsletter_widget&dna=%7B%22u_s%22%3A%22News%22%2C%22u_c%22%3A%22breaking-2022-01-18-3%22%2C%22r%22%3A%22%22%2C%22pid%22%3A%22anon7b13-0693-4469-bc6b-bd3ba4ae5e75%22%2C%22x%22%3A%22820-953-922%22%2C%22vt%22%3A0%2C%22g1%22%3A%22us%22%2C%22g2%22%3A%22ny%22%2C%22irw%22%3A2%2C%22uid%22%3A%22user_d101e70a00c39653a893c5d822af122a39a42446%22%7D&inquiry=%7B%22status%22%3A%22ok%22%2C%22state%22%3A%22active%22%2C%22currentDate%22%3A%2220220118%22%2C%22inBillingRetry%22%3A%22false%22%2C%22autoRenewStatus%22%3A%22false%22%2C%22siteId%22%3A%22www.theepochtimes.com%22%7D&source=health&email=mike33650%40gmail.com

3. Cinatl, J., Morgenstern, B., Bauer, G., Chandra, P., Rabenau, H., & Doerr, H. W. (2003). Glycyrrhizin, an active component of liquorice roots, and replication of SARS-associated coronavirus. Lancet (London, England)361(9374), 2045-2046. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(03)13615-x

4. Jo, S., Kim, H., Kim, S., Shin, D. H., & Kim, M. S. (2019). Characteristics of flavonoids as potent MERS-CoV 3C-like protease inhibitors. Chemical biology & drug design94(6), 2023-2030. https://doi.org/10.1111/cbdd.13604

5. Lau, K. M., Lee, K. M., Koon, C. M., Cheung, C. S., Lau, C. P., Ho, H. M., Lee, M. Y., Au, S. W., Cheng, C. H., Lau, C. B., Tsui, S. K., Wan, D. C., Waye, M. M., Wong, K. B., Wong, C. K., Lam, C. W., Leung, P. C., & Fung, K. P. (2008). Immunomodulatory and anti-SARS activities of Houttuynia cordata. Journal of ethnopharmacology118(1), 79-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2008.03.018

6. Liu, X., Zhang, M., He, L., & Li, Y. (2012). Chinese herbs combined with Western medicine for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). The Cochrane database of systematic reviews10(10), CD004882. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004882.pub3

7. Lu H. (2020). Drug treatment options for the 2019-new coronavirus (2019-nCoV). Bioscience trends, 10.5582/bst.2020.01020. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.5582/bst.2020.01020

Doctor Suspended From Houston Methodist for Backing Ivermectin and Opposing Vaccine Mandates Sues Hospital

By Ivan Pentchoukov January 18, 2022 Updated: January 18, 2022biggersmaller

Texas doctor who had her privileges revoked by Houston Methodist hospital last year due to her support of ivermectin and opposition to vaccine mandates sued the hospital on Jan. 17.

Dr. Mary Bowden filed the lawsuit (pdf) on Monday in Harris County District Court seeking financial reports and data on adverse reactions from the hospital.

“Two months ago in November Houston Methodist launched me into the public spotlight by telling the world that they were suspending my privileges for supposedly spreading dangerous misinformation about COVID. The Houston Chronicle joined in in that effort. Since then I’ve had a lot of people comment publicly that I should lose my license,” Bowden said outside her clinic in Houston on Monday.

Houston Methodist declined a request for comment.

According to the lawsuit, Bowden embarked on a quest to obtain the records from Houston Methodist after the hospital accused her of “spreading dangerous misinformation which is not based in science” in a series of tweets in November last year.

“Dr. Mary Bowden, who recently joined the medical staff at Houston Methodist Hospital, is using her social media accounts to express her personal and political opinions about the COVID-19 vaccine and treatments,” one of the tweets said.

One day prior to the hospital’s tweets, Bowden shared a link to a meta-analysis of studies on the effectiveness of ivermectin as a treatment and prophylaxis for COVID-19.

Ivermectin might not be as deadly as everyone said it was. Speak up!” Bowden wrote.

Two days earlier, she wrote in another tweet that “vaccine mandates are wrong.”

After the hospital provided “unconvincing explanations” for why it targeted Bowden, she decided to “follow the money,” the lawsuit states. Under Texas law, non-profit corporations like the one which controls Houston Methodist must make their records available upon request from the public.

Flanked by staff from her clinic on Monday, Bowden spoke of her arduous journey to obtain a medical license and how it has taught her to not blindly trust pharmaceutical companies and to view new treatments and vaccines through a critical lens.

Bowden highlighted that her clinic has no financial ties to the government, hospitals, pharmaceutical corporations, or insurance companies.

“I do not contract with insurance companies. I don’t contract with the government. I don’t take Medicare. I have no financial ties with hospitals,” Bowden said. “The only people I work for are my patients and I treat them the way I would want to be treated.”

Bowden’s attorney, Steven Mitby, said the doctor is not pursuing the lawsuit for financial gain.

“She is not seeking a penny for any of this,” Mitby said. “She’s simply asking for transparency and following the law.”

Bowden sought the information from the hospital prior to filing the lawsuit but did not receive a response, Mitby said.

In a letter dated November 30, 2021, Bowden requested a series of records from Houston Methodist, including how much money the hospital made from its COVID-19 vaccination program and from treating COVID-19 patients. The doctor also requested financial records pertaining to any financial payments from pharmaceutical companies, non-profit tax returns, and the bonuses the hospital paid to employees.

Governments have been screwing up their supply chains for 2,000 years

January 18, 2022On the evening of March 16th in the year 37 AD, one of the most controversial emperors in Roman history appeared to be dying in his bed.Friends and family gathered to pay their final respects to Emperor Tiberius, who had ruled for more than two decades.
For some Romans, Tiberius was literally a god, and they worshipped him as a divinity. And many of Rome’s powerful politicians respected Tiberius for his numerous achievements.
Tiberius had managed to greatly strengthen the empire without waging costly wars. He improved civil services, cut taxes, reduced spending, and built up an astonishing surplus in the Treasury of nearly 700 million silver denarii, worth roughly $2 billion today.
Many Romans, however, including a number of prominent Senators, utterly despised Tiberius. They viewed him as a horrible tyrant who was a major threat to Rome’s republican democracy.
For most of his reign, in fact, several Roman Senators constantly plotted against him. Some even spread false rumors about Tiberius as a sexual deviant in an effort to discredit him.
So when the Emperor was finally on his deathbed, his enemies were relieved. Hours later, though, they panicked when Tiberius appeared to be recovering from his illness.
It was at that point that a Praetorian Guard commander named Quintus Macro, who had a sacred duty to protect the emperor, allegedly smothered Tiberius with a pillow, finally ending the political chaos.
Even in death Tiberius was controversial. Some Romans cried out for his body to be thrown in the Tiber River (a common ritual for criminals), while others demanded that his body receive divine rights of a god.
The Senate refused to provide divine honors, and wasted no time moving on from Tiberius. Two days later on March 18th, they appointed a young nobleman named Gaius Germanicus as the new Emperor.
Germanicus was better known by his nickname— Caligula.
Caligula was supposed to be the anti-Tiberius. And that was essentially the reason they appointed him—to simply NOT be Tiberius.
And at first many Romans, especially those who hated Tiberius, were overjoyed with their new emperor.
Even foreign leaders were happy; the writer Philo, who lived in Egypt at the time, said that “everyone in all the world, from the rising sun to the setting sun” respected Caligula.
And initially Caligula delivered on his reputation; he revoked the tax cuts that Tiberius had passed, increased welfare payments to the poor, and made efforts to reform the election process.
But it wouldn’t be long before Caligula proved to be an epic disaster.
Within a few years Caligula was spending money at an alarming rate. He had nearly blown through the massive, record surplus left to him by Tiberius, and soon began to confiscate the properties of wealthy Roman citizens in order to make ends meet.
Anyone who crossed him or questioned his methods was harassed, arrested, or even executed by the Praetorian Guard.
We also know now that Caligula suffered from a serious mental disorder, which historians today believe could have been encephalitis, temporal lobe epilepsy, or dementia.
That certainly accounts for his bizarre decision-making, like one of his more infamous exploits in AD 39.
Caligula came up with the genius idea of building a bridge between the coastal cities of Puteoli and Baiae.
Inspired by the Persian Emperor Xerxes’ approach of crossing the Hellespont in 480 BC while at war with the Greeks, Caligula commandeered nearly every merchant ship in the Roman Empire for his ambitious project.
He then had all the ships line up side-by-side, forming a continuous path across the bay between the two cities.
The ships were then mounted with planks and covered with dirt, essentially creating a floating, artificial land bridge.
Caligula’s bridge was certainly a marvel of Roman engineering. The problem, of course, is that there were virtually no remaining merchant ships left in the empire to transport goods.
Rome at the time was by far the world’s largest economy, and the largest consumer market. The city of Rome boasted a population of more than 1 million people—a record that would not be surpassed for more than 18 centuries.
And coupled with Rome’s significant engineering advances in roads and shipping, ancient Romans enjoyed a global supply chain that was unprecedented in its efficiency.
Roman markets boasted beef and wine from Sicily; oils from North Africa; ivory and spices from Ethiopia; fish and ham from Spain; clothing and cheese from Gaul (France); leather and oysters from Britain; goose liver from Belgium; amber and fur from Germany; silk and honey from Greece; wool and parchment from Turkey; figs and dates from Arabia…
The list goes on and on. As the ancient Greek author Aelius Aristides wrote, “Whoever wishes to see all the goods of the world must either journey throughout the world, or stay in Rome.”
Then Caligula decided to commandeer all the merchant vessels… and wouldn’t you know it? Poof. Supply chain disruption.
Suddenly there were no ships available to transport goods, including food, to the Empire. And as a result there was widespread famine in Rome.
Caligula, of course, refused to accept any responsibility for the famine. Instead he blamed several political opponents and had them killed. But the famine continued to rage.
History screams so many of these lessons at us, yet we continue to see the similar episodes repeat over and over again.
Today we have our own supply chain disruption.
The people in charge have forcibly shut down businesses and prevented workers from working. They have passed anti-competitive, anti-business regulations. They have created huge incentives for people to stay home and not work.
And yet they can’t seem to understand why companies are having such a hard time producing and shipping their products.
Like Caligula, they created the problem. And like Caligula they refuse to accept responsibility.
The leadership today is blaming “greed”, and they’re even sending their Praetorian Guard to harass productive businesses.
They are in no way looking at their own stupidity as the cause of the problems. And, similar to ancient Rome, it is for this reason that we should expect the supply chain dysfunction to continue.
Simon Black,
Founder, SovereignMan.com

Djokovic Actually the Big Winner in Australia—and So Are We

Roger L. Simon January 17, 2022 Updated: January 17, 2022

Commentary

Having lost his bid this time for that record-breaking 21st Grand Slam title and been ejected from Australia, Novak Djokovic was probably not feeling his best on the fourteen-hour flight from Sydney to Dubai, but in the long run he will emerge the big victor in his duel with the Australian government.

He is already something of a hero to many. According to the BBC, that flight was the most tracked on FlightRadar. “Thousands of people are watching the player’s journey across Australia towards Dubai.” How often does that happen?

I should really have titled this piece “Djokovic Defeats Australia Six-Love,” even though the Serb committed a few double faults himself along the way. Everyone does. “6-0 favor of Novak” will be history’s ultimate score for what just transpired in Melbourne.

The Australian Open without Djokovic—the record nine times winner of tournament—will have a gigantic asterisk next to it. If they persist in banning him for the supposedly required three years, the Open will have effectively been permanently tarnished as its country’s most important sporting event.

To a great extent, the idiotic (sorry to be so blunt, but it was hard to think of a more polite word that was remotely accurate) Australian officialdom have made a martyr out of Djokovic, escalating his importance beyond being number one tennis player in the world. Yes, many will still hate him, but the tide will turn inexorably because the tennis player is leading the inevitable anti-Covid curve.

Meanwhile, gripped by a Covid Hysteria second to none, at least on a national level, Australia’s (aka Oz’s) government has also literally destroyed the reputation of their country in the process, removing it from millions of vacation bucket lists.

Who would want to go there and risk who-knows-what? If they can do it to one of greatest athletes in the world, they can do it to anyone. And they do.

Ironically, while they are acting in this bizarre manner, the vaccines are facing more global skepticism than ever from scientists, doctors and, tellingly, frontline nurses who witness all manner of disasters. Reports on the Vaccine Adverse Reporting System (VAERS) are mounting and even the World Health Organization (WHO), normally communist China’s best friend, is advising against the booster.

The powers that be in Oz appear unaffected by this trend or, probably more exactly, terrified of it. The more it is shown to be true that the vaccines are more dangerous than they are helpful for most people (mRNA inventor Dr. Robert Malone says no one under 65 should take one), the more they look like fools, totalitarian fools at that, who incarcerate people in the most intolerable conditions for exercising what should be, in a democracy, their rights.

And those miserable conditions have been publicized world wide now from the ramshackle COVID quarantine constructs like Quonset huts out of World War II to the Park Hotel where Djokovic was housed with the other unvaccinated as if they were lepers.

In many ways these conditions resemble those in which our own alleged Jan. 6 “insurrectionists” are incarcerated.

Australia’s schizoid and sadistic treatment of Djokovic became just another symbol of this multi-national mess. But it could mark its opera bouffe apotheosis.

That is why I agree with Richard Fernandez of the Belmont Club, a Sydney resident and old friend of mine, that a tremendous backlash is brewing in Oz and, I would certainly add, here in the United States as well, once COVID is over.

And, as I wrote earlier and many others have surmised, the Omicron variant is heralding that end, behaving as most viruses do at the end of a pandemic, weakening as it becomes more communicative. Soon enough it will be another irritation we must face, but rarely a fatal one.

The problem engendered by this is that much of the leadership in Sydney and Washington will be very reluctant to let go of it.

We see that all around us, particularly in the Biden administration where they cling to COVID-19 just as Obama claimed conservatives clung to their guns and religion, only more so.

Resistance, however, is building. What will be its watchword? Who will be the first to say “Mr. Biden, tear off that mask!”

Fernandez put the situation this way: “Already the signs of political disillusion are plain to see, from Joe Biden’s collapse in the polls, the SCOTUS rejection of his vaccine mandate, Boris Johnson’s slipping hold on power to Novak Djokovic’s amazing one-man stand against Australia’s vaccine visa policy: a worldwide storm is brewing and it will break over the political scene in 2022.”

That last is hard to deny if you were watching the amazing crowd at the Trump Rally in Florence, Arizona the other night.

As for Novak Djokovic, I’m a bigger fan than I ever was.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.Roger L. Simon

Roger L. Simon is an award-winning novelist, Oscar-nominated screenwriter, co-founder of PJMedia, and now, editor-at-large for The Epoch Times. His most recent books are “The GOAT” (fiction) and “I Know Best: How Moral Narcissism Is Destroying Our Republic, If It Hasn’t Already” (nonfiction). He can be found on GETTR and Parler @rogerlsimon.

Australia’s Government Is From the Dark Ages

January 17, 2022On July 27, 1656, senior leaders of the Jewish community in Amsterdam issued a writ of cherem— the Hebrew term for expulsion and excommunication.Their target was a young, 23-year old Dutch/Portuguese intellectual named Baruch Spinoza, himself a Jew, whose dangerous crime was questioning the unquestionable teachings of the faith.The Jewish elders proclaimed that “The Lord will rage against this man and… blot out his name from under heaven” and ordered that no Jew should communicate with him, offer him shelter, give him money, or read any of his writings.A few years later, the Catholic Church followed suit and added all of Spinoza’s works to its Index of Banned Books. This makes Baruch Spinoza one of the few people in history to be banished from both the Jewish and Catholic religions.His philosophy was widely misunderstood at the time. Everyone accused him of being an atheist, which was one of the worst things you could call someone in the 1600s.But he wasn’t actually an atheist. Spinoza’s works were an attempt for him to reconcile his faith with certain religious teachings that were illogical, self-contradictory, or refuted by science.He wrote extensively about his “intellectual love of God”. But simply for expressing intellectual independence, Spinoza was expelled from his own Jewish community.Now, Novak Djokovic is hardly a Baruch Spinoza. But it is truly bizarre in the year 2022 to see someone be expelled from an advanced western democracy simply for expressing intellectual independence.Just to catch you up, Novak Djokovic is a professional tennis player from Serbia who is considered one of the all-time greats in the sport. He’s currently ranked #1 in the world and holds an incredible number of records in professional tennis.But Djokovic is unvaccinated against Covid-19, and that makes him a heretic.He recently attempted to travel to Melbourne, in the prison colony of Australia, to play in the Australian Open tennis tournament there. But upon arrival, Djokovic was immediately detained by immigration authorities.After a ridiculous nine days of legal back-and-forth, Djokovic was deported from the country. And under current law, he is barred from entering Australia for a minimum of three years.It’s worth noting that the Australian government had issued an entry visa to Djokovic as recently as mid-November, so it’s not like he tried to enter the country illegally.Plus they knew at the time that he was unvaccinated; Djokovic has been public about his stance.Yet the government only kicked up a fuss (and canceled his visa) once he had already arrived.In support of their decision to cancel his visa, the government claimed that Djokovic was a danger to society because his presence could incite civil unrest.Naturally they provided no evidence to support this assertion. It’s true because the government says it’s true.But even if it were true, this particular argument is a bizarre ‘pre-crime’ condemnation of Djokovic; the Australian government has peered into its crystal ball and concluded that other people will engage in civil unrest. Therefore their solution is to punish a tennis player who hasn’t done anything wrong.Makes perfect sense.Their next argument, naturally, is that Djokovic is a danger to public health. Because he is unvaccinated, they claim that he can carry and spread the virus to others.Obviously this is true. And yet, as all the data show, vaccinated people can also carry and transmit the virus. Vaccinated people can become infected and hospitalized. They can even die.Vaccination rates in Australia are among the highest in the world, and they’re feverishly (no pun intended) administering booster shots to the population.Yet despite this adherence to public health authorities, cases are surging to record highs. In the last 24 hours there were 55,232 new Covid cases in Australia.By comparison, Australia had 10 (yes, ten) new daily cases a year ago in January 2021, just prior to the vaccine rollout.But now that 92.6% of eligible Australians have been vaccinated, the infection rate has increased more than 5,000x from a year ago.Obviously vaccinated people are transmitting the virus to other vaccinated people.Yet the government seems to be asserting that only unvaccinated people like Djokovic can spread Omicron… which is a very flat-earth, anti-science view.But the Australian government’s dumbest reason to expel Djokovic was that his presence in the country may increase vaccine or booster hesitancy.This one is really extraordinary.Let’s assume for a moment that their point is true, i.e. Djokovic could infect Australian people with his dangerous ideology.Even so, the Australian government apparently believes that ideas only spread through physical contact.In other words, these politicians think that Australian residents will only become vaccine hesitant if Djokovic is physically present in Australia, as if he’s going to sneeze and his ideas will spread like Omicron droplets.But as long as they keep him out of the country, then Australians will be sufficiently socially distanced from his ideas and no one will be exposed to his heresy.Just like the rest of their arguments, this notion is completely absurd. And yet it was their ‘rational’ basis for punishing someone whose only transgression was exercising independent thought.Back in the 1600s (and prior), anyone who disagreed with the civil or religious authorities was branded a heretic. And their censorship was especially brutal; people were expelled, imprisoned, tortured, and even put to death for questioning authority and expressing a different view.We have once again returned to medieval intolerance for ideological differences.Australia’s government is a sad example of this Dark Ages-era mentality– that they (and they alone) dictate truth. And anyone who questions their supreme wisdom must be banished.Back then people faced Inquisition, witch hunts, and public beheadings. Today it’s the Twitter mob, cancel culture, and expulsion.It’s not quite as bloody, but still ruinous. And it’s reason enough to give very serious consideration to your Plan B.
To your freedom,
Simon Black,
Founder, SovereignMan.com

Joseph Mercola: Do More Children Die From the COVID Shot Than From COVID?

Joseph Mercola January 15, 2022 Updated: January 15, 2022biggersmallerPrint

Commentary

According to published research, children are at risk for potentially lifelong health effects from the jab. Read here to learn what the experts say.Video Player03:0203:27

The video above features Collette Martin, a practicing nurse who testified before a Louisiana Health and Welfare Committee hearing December 6, 2021. Martin claims she and her colleagues have witnessed “terrifying” reactions to the COVID shots among children—including blood clots, heart attacks, encephalopathy and arrhythmias—yet their concerns are simply dismissed.

Among elderly patients, she’s noticed an uptick in falls and acute onset of confusion “without any known ideology.” Coworkers are also experiencing side effects, such as vision and cardiovascular problems.

Martin points out that few doctors or nurses are aware the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) even exists, so injury reports are not being filed. Hospitals also are not gathering data on COVID jab injuries in any other ways, so there’s no data to investigate even if you wanted to. According to Martin:

“We are not just seeing severe acute [short term] reactions with this vaccine, but we have zero idea what any long-term reactions are. Cancers, autoimmune [disorders], infertility. We just don’t know.

We are potentially sacrificing our children for fear of MAYBE dying, getting sick of a virus — a virus with a 99% survival rate. As of now, we have more children that died from the COVID vaccine than COVID itself.

And then, for the Health Department to come out and say the new variant [Omicron] has all the side effects of the vaccine reactions we’re currently seeing — it’s maddening, and I don’t understand why more people don’t see it. I think they do, but they fear speaking out and, even worse, being fired … Which side of history will you be on? I have to know that this madness will stop.”

What the VAERS Data Tell Us About COVID Jab Risks

I recently interviewed Jessica Rose, Ph.D., a research fellow at the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge in Israel, about what the VAERS data tell us about the COVID jabs’ risks. As noted by Rose, the average number of adverse event reports following vaccination for the past 10 years has been about 39,000 annually, with an average of 155 deaths. That’s for all available vaccines combined.

The COVID jabs alone now account for 983,756 adverse event reports as of December 17, 2021, including 20,622 deaths—and this doesn’t include the underreporting factor, which we know is significant and likely ranges from five to 40 times higher than reported. Most doctors and nurses don’t even know what VAERS is and even if they do, they chose not to report the incidents.

In the case of the COVID jabs, 50 percent of the deaths occur within 48 hours of injection. It’s simply not conceivable that 10,000 people died two days after their shot from something other than the shot. It cannot all be coincidence. Especially since so many of them are younger, with no underlying lethal conditions that threaten to take them out on any given day. A full 80 percent have died within one week of their jab, which is still incredibly close in terms of temporality.

Children Risk Permanent Heart Damage

Aside from the immediate risk of death, children are also at risk for potentially lifelong health problems from the jab. Myocarditis (heart inflammation) has emerged as one of the most common problems, especially among boys and young men.

In early September 2021, Tracy Beth Hoeg and colleagues posted an analysis of VAERS data on the preprint server medRxiv, showing that more than 86 percent of the children aged 12 to 17 who report symptoms of myocarditis were severe enough to require hospitalization.

Cases of myocarditis explode after the second shot, Hoeg found, and disproportionally affect boys. A full 90 percent of post-jab myocarditis reports are males, and 85 percent of reports occurred after the second dose. According to Hoeg et al.:

“The estimated incidence of CAEs [cardiac adverse events] among boys aged 12-15 years following the second dose was 162 per million; the incidence among boys aged 16-17 years was 94 per million. The estimated incidence of CAEs among girls was 13 per million in both age groups.”

No doubt, doctors are seeing an increase in myocarditis, but few are willing to talk about it. In a recent Substack post, Steve Kirsch writes:

“I just read a comment on my private ‘healthcare providers only’ substack. An estimated100X elevation in rate of myocarditis, but nobody will learn of it since cardiologists aren’t going to speak out for fear of retribution.

His comment was a private conversation he had with a pediatric cardiologist. The cardiologist is never going to say this in public, to the press, or have his name revealed since his first duty is to his family (keeping his job).

If a ‘fact checker’ called the cardiologist, he might either refuse to comment or say ‘I’m seeing somewhat more cases after the vaccine rolled out.’ Here’s the exact comment that was posted to the private substack:

‘Pre-jab, one or two cases per year of myocarditis. Now, half his waiting room. Tells parents they are ‘studying’ the causality. Refers them to infectious disease specialist for discussions on their other children.

Admits he and about 50% of his colleagues know what’s going on but are too terrified to speak out for fear of retaliation from hospitals and state licensing boards.

Other 50% don’t want to know, don’t care and/or are reveling in the cognitive dissonance (like Dr. Harvey [Cohen] at Stanford) and/or letting loose their authoritarian demon. Good luck with these former colleagues of mine. The stench is overpowering.’

… From 1 or 2 cases per year to ‘half his waiting room.’ I don’t know the size of his waiting room, but it’s at least two people since he said ‘half.’ So, the rate has increased by: 250 day per year open/1.5 avg cases per year=166X.”

Myocarditis Is Not a Mild, Inconsequential Side Effect

Together with Dr. Peter McCullough, in October 2021 Rose also submitted a paper on myocarditis cases in VAERS following the COVID jabs to the journal Current Problems in Cardiology. Everything was set for publication when, suddenly, the journal changed its mind and took it down.

You can still find the pre-proof on Rose’s website, though. The data clearly show that myocarditis is inversely correlated to age, so the risk gets higher the younger you are. The risk is also dose-dependent, with boys having a sixfold greater risk of myocarditis following the second dose.

While our health authorities are shrugging off this risk saying cases are “mild,” that’s a frightening lie. The damage to the heart is typically permanent.

Omicron Poses No Risk to Young People

As noted in a recent analysis by Dr. Robert Malone, (who recently got banned from Twitter but can be found on Substack), the risk-benefit ratio of the COVID shot is becoming even more inverted with the emergence of Omicron, as this variant produces far milder illness than previous variants, putting children at even lower risk of hospitalization or death from infection than they were before, and their risk was already negligible.

Malone is currently spearheading the second Physicians Declaration by the International Alliance of Physicians and Medical Scientists, which has been signed by more than 16,000 doctors and scientists, stating that “healthy children shall not be subjected to forced vaccination” as their clinical risk from SARS-CoV-2 infection is negligible and long term safety of the shots cannot be determined prior to such policies being enacted.

Not only are children at high risk for severe adverse events from the shots, but having healthy, unvaccinated children in the population is crucial to achieving herd immunity.

Shots Double Risk of Acute Coronary Syndrome

Researchers have also found Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 shots dramatically increase biomarkers associated with thrombosis, cardiomyopathy and other vascular events following injection.

People who had received two doses of the mRNA jab more than doubled their five-year risk of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), the researchers found, driving it from an average of 11 percent to 25 percent. ACS is an umbrella term that includes not only heart attacks, but also a range of other conditions involving abruptly reduced blood flow to your heart. In a November 21, 2021, tweet, cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra wrote:

“Extraordinary, disturbing, upsetting. We now have evidence of a plausible biological mechanism of how mRNA vaccine may be contributing to increased cardiac events. The abstract is published in the highest impact cardiology journal so we must take these findings very seriously.”

What Do the VAERS Data Show?

Research published in 2017 calculated the background rate of myocarditis in children and youth, showing it occurs at a rate of four cases per million per year. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, as of 2020 there were 73.1 million people under the age of 18 in the U.S. That means the background rate for myocarditis in adolescents (18 and younger) would be about 292 cases per year.

As of December 17, 2021, looking only at U.S. reports and excluding the international ones, VAERS had received:

  • 308 cases of myocarditis among 18-year-olds
  • 252 cases among 17-year-olds
  • 226 cases in 16-year-olds
  • 256 cases in 15-year-olds
  • 193 in 14-year-olds
  • 132 in 13-year-olds
  • 108 in 12-year-olds

In total, that’s 1,475 cases of myocarditis in teens aged 18 and younger—five times the background rate. And again, this does not take into account the underreporting rate, which has been calculated to be anywhere from five to 40.

Meanwhile, the CDC claims that, between March 2020 and January 2021, “the risk for myocarditis was 0.146% among patients diagnosed with COVID-19,” compared to a background rate of 0.009 percent among patients who did not have a diagnosis of COVID-19.

After adjusting for “patient and hospital characteristics,” COVID-19 patients between the ages of 16 and 39 were on average seven times more likely to develop myocarditis than those without COVID.

That said, the CDC stressed that “Overall, myocarditis was uncommon” among all patients, COVID or not. What’s more, only 23.7 percent of myocarditis patients between the ages of 16 and 24 had a history of COVID-19, so a majority of the cases in that age group were not due to COVID.

We’re also not talking about big numbers in terms of actual COVID infections. The weekly adolescent hospitalization rate peaked at 2.1 per 100,000 in early January 2021, declined to 0.6 per 100,000 in mid-March, and rose to 1.3 per 100,000 in April.

Using that peak hospitalization rate of 2.1 per 100,000 (or 21 per million) in this age group, and assuming the risk for myocarditis is 0.146 percent among COVID-positive patients, we get a myocarditis-from-COVID rate among adolescents of 0.03 per million. That’s a far cry from the normal background rate of four cases per million, so the risk of getting myocarditis from SARS-CoV-2 infection is probably quite small.

Now, assuming the COVID hospitalization rate for adolescents is 21 per million, and we have 73.1 million adolescents, we could expect there to be 1,535 hospitalizations for COVID in this age group in a year. If 0.146 percent of those 1,535 teens develop myocarditis, we could expect 2.2 cases of myocarditis to occur in this age group each year, among those who come down with COVID.

In summary, based on CDC statistics, we could expect just over two teens to contract myocarditis from COVID-19 infection. Meanwhile, we have 1,475 cases reported following the COVID jab in just six months (shots for 12- to 17-year-olds were authorized July 30, 2021).

Taking into account underreporting, the real number could be anywhere between 7,375 and 59,000—again, in just six months! To estimate an annual rate, we’d have to double it, giving us anywhere from 14,750 to 118,000 cases of myocarditis. So, is it actually true that “For adolescents and young adults, the risk of myocarditis caused by COVID infection is much higher than after mRNA vaccination”? I doubt it.

Can You Lessen the Damaging Effects?

There is absolutely no medical rationale or justification for children and teens to get a COVID shot. It’s all risk and no gain. If for whatever reason your son or daughter has already received one or more jabs, and you hope to lessen their risk of cardiac and cardiovascular complications, there are a few basic strategies I would suggest implementing.

Keep in mind these suggestions DO NOT supersede or cancel out any medical advice they may receive from their pediatrician. These are really only recommendations for when there are no adverse symptoms. If your child experiences any symptoms of a cardiac or cardiovascular problem, seek immediate medical attention.

  1. First and foremost, do not give them another shot or booster.
  2. Measure their vitamin D level and make sure they take enough vitamin D orally and/or get sensible sun exposure to make sure their level is between 60 ng/mL and 80 ng/ml (150 to 2000 nmol/l).
  3. Eliminate all vegetable (seed) oils in their diet. This involves eliminating nearly all processed foods and most meals in restaurants unless you convince the chef to only cook with butter. Avoid any sauces or salad dressings as they are loaded with seed oils. Also avoid conventionally raised chicken and pork as they are very high in linoleic acid, the omega-6 fat that is far too high in nearly everyone and contributes to oxidative stress that causes heart disease.
  4. Consider giving them around 500 milligrams per day of NAC, as it helps prevent blood clots and is a precursor for the important antioxidant glutathione.
  5. Consider fibrinolytic enzymes that digest the fibrin that leads to blood clots, strokes and pulmonary embolisms. The dose is typically two to six capsules, twice a day, but must be taken on an empty stomach, either an hour before or two hours after a meal. Otherwise, the enzymes will merely act as a digestive enzyme rather than digesting fibrin.

References

Louisiana Health and Welfare Committee Meeting, Dec. 6, 2021

Louisiana Government Archived Videos 2021 (see Health and Welfare)

OpenVAERS Data as of Dec. 17, 2021

Dare to Seek the Truth Dr. Peter McCullough

SteveKirsch.substack, Dec. 30, 2021

Journal Pre-proof, A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with […]

Census.gov 2020 Statistics

Putin Challenges Biden to Bear-Riding Competition to Settle Ukraine Standoff

After a diplomatic talks this week failed to produce an end to tensions between Russia and the United States, Vladimir Putin issued a direct challenge to President Biden to settle the standoff.

“If American President wants me withdraw the troops from Ukraine border, he must beat me in bear-riding competition,” said Mr. Putin in broken English at a press conference in Moscow, as he ripped his shirt off and revealed bulging pecs. Putin then stared directly into the cameras and said, “I must break you. . .”

White House aides burst into the Oval Office to bring President Biden the news, interrupting his weekly cognitive testing session just as the doctor had asked Mr. Biden, “Who is the President of the United States?”

Mr. Biden appeared visibly relieved at the interruption. Chief of Staff Ron Klain then handed him an iPad so that the President could watch the video of Mr. Putin’s Press Conference, and bear riding challenge.

Initially President Biden seemed excited about bear riding with Mr. Putin, until an aide informed him, “Sir, I believe Putin means B-E-A-R and not B-A-R-E.”

“Come on, man!” exclaimed the President. He then turned to his physician and answered, “Donald Trump,” at which point reporters were quickly ushered out of the room.

When reached for comment about Putin’s challenge, former President Trump told Fox News’s Sean Hannity, “Believe me, I’d beat him easily. Everyone knows it. I’m tremendous at riding bears.”

It’s impossible to achieve immunization with intramuscular covid-19 vaccines because coronaviruses propagate intracellularly and in the mucus

Friday, January 14, 2022 by: Lance D Johnson

(Natural News) All vaccines for covid-19 are DEAD UPON ARRIVAL because the vaccines augment antibodies in the deltoid muscles, bypassing the mucus and the mucous membranes, where coronaviruses actually attach and replicate. Any measurement of antibodies post-vaccination is all for naught. These vaccine-induced antibodies are produced in the muscle tissue, far from its target environment in the body. Furthermore, these short-lived antibodies cannot neutralize coronaviruses because they cannot travel inside the cells, where coronaviruses propagate. A proper immune response to coronaviruses should include an equal response from the T-cells. Currently, this is best achieved through a full humoral and adaptive immune response via natural infection.

Prevailing immunity comes through natural infection, in the mucus of the nose, and includes a full spectrum, T cell response

Over 9.5 billion doses of mRNA vaccine were delivered into the arms of people in 2021, yet infections continue to multiply, with case counts surpassing numbers recorded in 2020. Masks, vaccines and isolation have failed to stop a class of viruses that are endemic, are always mutating, and are best neutralized in the mucus of the mouth, nose, digestive tract and lungs. This biological reality has been ignored by the fear-mongering media and public health officials who fail to understand how the immune system works.

Not only are there anti-viral treatments and anti-inflammatory protocols to assist the innate immune response, but there are ways to thin mucus and prevent the thickening of the mucus so that the body can properly detect and eliminate viral threats. There are phytochemicals that thin the mucus to help the body respond to infections. Herbs such as mullein (Verbascum thapsus L.) are beneficial for the innate immune response. Isolated saponins from mullein (Ilwensisaponin A and C) are proven anti-inflammatory, anti-viral agents. There are foods  that thicken mucus in the body, too. Upon infection, foods such as sugar and dairy can contribute to excess phlegm and complications in the respiratory tract.

Sterilizing immunity can only occur through natural infection because the exposure process must take place in the mucus as it was intended by nature. After the infection is neutralized, a durable response includes resident memory T and B cells along with neutralizing IgA antibodies. These forces stand ready where they are most needed, and they are poised to take on future infections in their early stages.

The human immune system is not a machine, programmed exclusively by vaccines

There is no doubt that the covid vaccine developers spent tremendous effort developing a correct code (for spike proteins), so the vaccines could elicit a response in humans and theoretically program immune-responsive cells. The vaccine makers also developed and optimized an efficient lipid nano-particle to deliver this program into the cells. Despite years of research into mRNA and lipid nano-particles, the vaccine makers missed the mark entirely with this vaccine because they did not study the best way to deliver this program to the human body. Vaccine makers needed more than a pinpoint solution; they needed more time to develop a holistic, full systems approach that focused on the delivery method. If the vaccine program is to be effective long term, it would need to target specific systems of the body that matter most for developing durable, longstanding immunity. Vaccine developers should be asking: How do we develop a durable immune response in the mucus, while equally activating T-cells?

Vaccine efficacy is promoted with absolutism, but a measurement of antibody levels in serum is only one small part of a much more intelligent system that includes mucus, mucous membranes, glands, the lymphatic system, cellular surveillance proteins, commensal microbes, T-cells, cytotoxic T-cells, and the T-Helper-1 and T-Helper-2 cells which work intracellularly to neutralize viruses like SARS-CoV-2. Vaccine makers trivialize the human immune system, giving off the impression that it is some programmable machine. The immune system is much more sophisticated than it is made out to be. The immune system contains many variables, and it differs from one person to the next.

Vaccine-induced antibodies are mostly useless because they circulate in the blood and away from the mucus – where they are actually needed. They also cannot work to the body’s benefit inside the cells, where virus replication actually occurs. As a general rule of thumb, antibodies are unable to bind with viruses that are replicating inside the cells. This is the job of the T-cells, which carry out the task of instructing infected cells to self-destruct.

Professor Sucharit Bhakdi (Germany) recently wrote about this systemic vaccine fallibility in a paper titled, “Why intramuscular COVID-19 vaccination must fail.” His conclusions were corroborated by Professor Edward J. Steele (Australia) in an interview titled, “The Origins of Covid-19 & Why the Vaccines Don’t Work.” Professor Michael W. Russel (US) wrote about this topic in an article titled, “Mucosal Immunity in COVID-19: A Neglected but Critical Aspect of SARS-CoV-2 Infection.” Intramuscular vaccines will not work for mucosal viruses, whether for influenza viruses or SARS-CoV-2 and its endless variants.

Sources include:

Covidmythbuster.substack.com

Pubmed.gov

NCBI.NLM.NIH.gov

Thermofisher.com

DoctorsforcovidEthics.org [PDF]

Rumble.com

InternalJournal.frontiersin.corgPrevious :Pfizer CEO just admitted his company’s shots are useless, double jabbed have “very limited protection, if any” – so why are governments still paying for Pfizer shots and mandating them?

Legal Experts Respond to Supreme Court’s Split Decision on Vaccine Mandates

By Matthew Vadum January 13, 2022 Updated: January 14, 2022

The Supreme Court’s decision blocking the Biden administration’s private-sector vaccination regime was viewed positively by legal experts consulted by The Epoch Times but the other decision allowing the mandate requiring health care workers to get vaccinated against COVID-19 received a mixed reception.

The rulings came mid-afternoon on Jan. 13 after the high court heard oral arguments on Jan. 7 about the two separate mandates on an emergency basis. An array of business groups, along with Ohio, Missouri, Louisiana, and two dozen other states, asked for the federal mandates to be blocked.

The ruling allowing compulsory vaccination of health care workers is a “terrible” decision that is “going to result in people dying,” Robert Henneke of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, told The Epoch Times.

The Supreme Court voted 6-3 to block the mandate issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), finding the challenge to it was likely to succeed. The rule forced employers with at least 100 employees –or most of the nation’s private workforce— to subject their employees to vaccinations aimed at preventing COVID-19 or to regular testing to detect it.

The decision split cleanly along partisan lines.

All Republican appointees on the high court–Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—were in the majority in the court’s opinion in National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Department of Labor.

“Administrative agencies are creatures of statute” and “possess only the authority that Congress has provided,” the majority opinion states. “The Secretary has ordered 84 million Americans to either obtain a COVID–19 vaccine or undergo weekly medical testing at their own expense. This is no ‘everyday exercise of federal power.’ It is instead a significant encroachment into the lives—and health—of a vast number of employees.”

“Although COVID-19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most. COVID-19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather,” the opinion continues.

All the Democratic appointees–Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor—would have allowed the mandate to go forward. Their dissenting opinion states that the court “seriously misapplies the applicable legal standards” and “stymies the Federal Government’s ability to counter the unparalleled threat that COVID–19 poses to our Nation’s workers.”

Henneke, who represented a coalition of Texas temporary staffing companies in the OSHA challenge, was pleased to win but wary of the reasoning adopted by the high court.

“Without the constitutional questions being taken on by the Supreme Court, we’ve won the battle today, but we still are left fighting the war,” he told The Epoch Times.

“It’s the correct outcome but unfortunately the majority opinion misses the forest for the trees because it doesn’t address except in touching reference … the bigger constitutional issues or defects in the Biden administration’s claim of authority.”

“By narrowly ruling on a very focused, textual statutory analysis of the OSHA statute, the court invites further creativity by this administration to look for other statutes to claim novel and unprecedented power.”

Jim Burling, vice president of legal affairs for the Pacific Legal Foundation, said he was pleased the OSHA ruling limits executive branch authority.

“This ruling has an importance that extends beyond the confines of these cases and may have a lasting effect on the executive branch’s behavior.”

Burling said the court recognized the importance of the separation of powers, “where the legislature passes the laws, where the executive [enforces] those laws, and the judiciary is the traditional arbiter of whether the law is being followed.”

“This is a really important thing for our liberty, as James Madison pointed out in the Federalist Papers, when the Constitution was being debated, that when you have these parts of government together in one person, that’s the very definition of tyranny.”

Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice, said the ruling “was a victory for the Constitution because it reminded the administrative state that its job is to interpret statutes, not to expand them.” Levey said he was happy the decision “emphasizes separation of powers … if you know there’s going to be an OSHA that’s going to be in charge of vaccine mandates, that’s got to come from Congress, not from the executive branch.”

The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to lift lower court stays that had halted enforcement of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) emergency regulation, finding the government’s challenge to it would probably be successful. The rule, now in effect, requires more than 10 million employees at health care facilities that participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

In this case, all three liberal justices–Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor—sided with the government in the court’s opinion in Biden v. Missouri. Two conservatives, Roberts and Kavanaugh, also sided with the government.

The majority opinion states: “Congress did grant authority to the health secretary to promulgate” regulations he considers necessary to protect health and safety. Although a vaccination mandate is unprecedented, “we agree with the government that the Secretary’s rule falls within the authorities that Congress has conferred upon him,” they added.

Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion that was joined by Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett.

The case is “only about whether [HHS] has the statutory authority to force health care workers, by coercing their employers, to undergo a medical procedure they do not want and cannot undo. Because the Government has not made a strong showing that Congress gave [HHS] that broad authority, I would deny the stays pending appeal,” the dissent states.

Levey said the HHS ruling was a closer call than the OSHA ruling.

“You can always make an argument about how somehow this is regulating occupational safety and Health, as the court said, where this is really about regulating public health, and that’s not within OSHA’s power.”

But with the HHS case, “it was a closer fit,” Levey said.

“Anyone listening to that argument would have said, ‘yeah, when I think of regulating health care facilities and health care workers, this seems like a natural fit, whereas the other was just commandeering employers to do something that really has no relationship to employment.”

But Henneke was critical of the HHS mandate ruling.

“I think it’s a terrible decision, and I’m fearful that it’s going to be immediately disastrous and disruptive to our healthcare industry, and it’s going to result in people dying.”

The ruling “gives far too much deference to a broad and vague reading of an ambiguous statute” related to HHS that the Biden administration claimed gave this authority to the federal government.

The decision will inflict “damage” on the health care system and will lead to “layoffs and staffing shortages,” which will make things “dangerous and damaging,” especially in rural settings.

“Rural areas already have a very difficult time in obtaining sufficient workers to provide staffing for rural health care needs,” Henneke said.

“Even if it’s only 10 to 15 percent of the workforce, that has at this point not taken the COVID vaccine, eliminating that staffing in short order from a rural Texas nursing home,” will create serious problems.

Zachary Stieber contributed to this article.

SStevenC5 mins agoVote up0Vote down

I did not see the oral arguments,
but the comments made by the demlib judges show they have no clue what is going on.
Did the lawyers against the mandates show the numbers that the jabs don’t work,
or the harm they are causing?
Did they mention the Nuremberg code?
Our Constitution?
The lack of testing?
The lack of informed consent?
The lack of details for the approval process? etc…
Let’s go Brandon

Lleslieannbrown19611 hours agoVote up+2Vote down

“Challenges” would have been successful or not. Seems like a weenie way to deal with the mandates. SCOTUS’s responsibility is to determine constitutionality, not whether or not a lower court challenge will be successful. I’m very disappointed. Should have overturned both, period. All they really did was send back down.

WWilliam Bell1 hours agoVote up+3Vote down

Pondering whether an agency’s authorization permits them to inflict tyranny, rather than whether the Constitution allows the Federal Government to inflict tyranny. Now, isn’t that creative and appalling jurisprudence?!