Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

COVID-19

College’s COVID vaccine mandate for remote professor was ‘not reasonable,’ arbitrator rules

Published

6 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Arbitrator Larry Steinberg determined that Fanshawe College erred in mandating that Professor Andrew Wing have the shots as a condition of work despite working from home.

An Ontario arbitrator ruled in favor of a vaccine-free professor who was put on unpaid leave for refusing to comply with his college’s COVID jab policy despite working from home, concluding that the college’s jab mandate was “not reasonable.”

Arbitrator Larry Steinberg, in a ruling released February 20, determined that Fanshawe College, an applied arts college in London, Ontario, erred in mandating that Professor Andrew Wing have the shots as a condition of work despite working from home.

“This case is not about whether the vaccination Policy of the College is reasonable. This case is more narrowly focused only on whether, based on the evidence before me, it was reasonable to apply the Policy to the grievor in the context of his working conditions at the time,” Steinberg wrote in his ruling.

“I find that requiring the grievor to comply with the vaccination Policy was not reasonable and the grievance is allowed. As requested by the parties the issue of the appropriate remedy is remitted to the parties.”

Wing holds a full-time position in the Technical Systems Analysis (TSS) program within the School of Information Technology. All of its classes are remote.

Fanshawe College, like most in Ontario, in November 2021 set mandatory COVID jab policies for staff and students to comply with a provincial government dictate, which was announced a few months earlier. Those that did not comply were fired or placed on unpaid leave.

Wing told the college that he was not going to get the COVID shots and wanted an exemption under Ontario’s Human Rights Code. He was subsequently placed on a three-month leave with no pay that started January 3, 2022.

Wing was not happy with being put on unpaid leave, and with the help of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union Local 110, filed a grievance.

The grievance read, “I grieve that Fanshawe has unreasonably applied its COVID-19 Vaccination policy and as a result has threatened an unreasonable disciplinary action under our Collective Agreement and/or any applicable statues, and in so doing, has violated Articles 4 and 31 of the Collective Agreement along with any other relevant articles and/or laws.”

Fanshawe College argued that the “policy that everyone who attended on campus had to be fully vaccinated never changed from its inception.”

The college’s human resources department had argued, as per the arbitrator’s ruling, that it was an “administrative burden for the employer to continue to have to check the vaccination status of employees who found it necessary to be on campuses,” and that, “In the grievor’s case this could include meeting with students, attending to technical matters and attending at meetings.”

Steinberg ruled that regarding the human resources department’s claim, “There was no evidence why the grievor could not continue to perform all of these functions remotely as had been since the inception of the program in 2020.”

“I reject this evidence as in any way justifying the requirement that the grievor be vaccinated on the basis of the College’s interest in carrying out its responsibilities,” he wrote.

As for Wing returning to work, in March 2022, he got an email from the college that because he was working remotely he could come back to remote work with pay.

Fanshawe College, like many universities and post-secondary institutions in the Ontario, had in place a COVID jab mandate policy for staff and students that targeted the vaccine-free.

Ontario’s government, under pro-mandate and pro-lockdown Premier Doug Ford, for a time mandated not only mask-wearing, but COVID shots for workers in healthcare and other government settings.

The mandates led to lawsuits against governments and universities and other businesses Canada-wide.

Many institutions along with governments in Canada rescinded vaccine mandates and vaccine passports last year, but not after causing much harm to the unjabbed.

LifeSiteNews has reported on many cases that Canadian arbitrators ruled in favor of the vaccine-free who lost work for not getting the shots.

When it comes to the shots themselves, there is a large body of data showing that COVID jab mandates and passports have been failed strategy for tackling COVID, not to mention the fact that the jabs have been linked to millions of injuries and thousands of deaths.

It is now understood that the COVID virus has a minimal risk of asymptomatic spread, and research indicates that natural immunity from infection of COVID is far superior to vaccine-induced immunity.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

COVID-19

CDC Vaccine Safety Director May Have Destroyed Records, Says Sen. Ron Johnson

Published on

By Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

Dr. Shimabukuro implicated in concealing an 82% miscarriage rate among COVID-19 vaccinated pregnant women in NEJM study — records reportedly “remain lost.”

The New York Post has just reported:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention doctor in charge of monitoring reports of adverse COVID-19 vaccine reactions has been accused by a Republican senator of mishandling and possibly deleting key records.

Officials at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) struggled to find records belonging to Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, the director of the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office, while trying to comply with a subpoena from Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) for vaccine safety data.

“HHS officials recently informed me that Dr. Shimabukuro’s records remain lost and, potentially, removed from HHS’s email system altogether,” Johnson wrote in a Wednesday letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel and acting HHS watchdog Juliet Hodgkins.

“Any attempt to obstruct or interfere with my investigatory efforts would be grounds for contempt of Congress,” Johnson wrote Wednesday.

Contempt of Congress is punishable by up to a six-figure fine and 12 months in prison.

Under the Federal Records Act, government officials are required to preserve materials “made or received by a Federal agency under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business.”

Johnson is calling upon the FBI, DOJ and HHS Inspector General’s Office to probe whether Shimabukuro and other federal health officials “deleted or destroyed official agency records.”

Dr. Shimabukuro is the first author on fraudulent study published in The New England Journal of Medicine paper titled, Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons:

A study by Thorp et al comprehensively exposes how Shimabukuro et al manipulated the data to make the mRNA shots appear safe for pregnant women. Re-analysis of the data revealed an astonishing 82% spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) rate in COVID-19 vaccinated pregnant women:

The most blatant example of data-doctoring, eerily similar to the fraudulent Pfizer study conducted during the same time frame, was published by NEJM in June, 2021 [85]. In a study intended to evaluate vaccine safety during pregnancy, Shimabukuro et al. followed outcomes in 3958 vaccinated pregnant women between mid-December 2020 and the end of February 2021.

During the two and-a-half-month period 827 women completed their pregnancy of which 712 (86.1%) were live births and 115 (13.9%) pregnancy losses. Of the pregnancy losses, 104 were spontaneous abortions the vast majority of which (92.3%) occurred before 13 weeks of gestation.

Upon review of the data, however, 700 (84.6%) of women weren’t vaccinated until the third trimester, long after the spontaneous abortions would have occurred. Nonetheless, authors included these 700 third-trimester vaccinations in the denominator when they calculated the spontaneous abortion rate.

Based on their statistical sleight-of-hand, authors pegged the spontaneous abortion rate at 12.6% (104/827) when, in fact, it was actually 82% (104/127). This astonishing miscarriage rate is equivalent to the efficacy of the so-called abortion pill, RU486, which carries an FDA black box warning to alert consumers to major drug risks.

And yet Shimabukuro et al. concluded there were no obvious safety concerns. This is disinformation plain and simple and cannot be written off as accident. There were 21 named authors on the study, 8 of whom were physicians, including 3 Ob-Gyn specialists, and others with expertise in public health and epidemiology. It is inconceivable that an error of this magnitude could escape the scrutiny of such a stellar cast. And how could it have been overlooked by the NEJM editorial staff and reviewers unless by intention?

Provocatively, all 21 authors report affiliations with either CDC or the FDA. And NEJM, the flagship journal of the medical-industrial complex, has taken a strong pro-vax stance that can hardly be called objective. Shimabukuro’s thinly-veiled attempt to downplay the risks of COVID-19 vaccines and mitigate vaccine hesitancy is yet another research scandal laden with conflicts of interest and intent to deceive.

This may explain why Dr. Shimabukuro would seek to obscure or delete records. His potential involvement in the deliberate manipulation of critical safety data on COVID-19 mRNA injections during pregnancy carries grave implications—resulting in immeasurable harm to mothers and their unborn children worldwide.

Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation

www.mcculloughfnd.org

Please consider following both the McCullough Foundation and my personal account on X (formerly Twitter) for further content.

Subscribe to FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse).

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Fauci, top COVID officials have criminal referral requests filed against them in 7 states

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Nicolas Hulscher, MPH 

The filings urge state prosecutors to open criminal investigations into Dr. Anthony Fauci and other prominent officials for alleged crimes committed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

On April 8, 2025, the Vires Law Group, in collaboration with the Former Feds Group Freedom Foundation, submitted formal criminal referral requests to the Attorneys General of Arizona and Pennsylvania. These filings urge state prosecutors to open criminal investigations into Dr. Anthony Fauci and other prominent public health and government officials for alleged crimes committed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The referrals are based on detailed evidence—including the stories of over 80 victims and families—and allege that policies such as lethal hospital protocols, the denial of life-saving treatments, and systemic medical coercion led to widespread injury and death.

Similar filings have been submitted on behalf of constituents in Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Missouri, and Oklahoma, marking a coordinated nationwide effort to pursue justice through state and local authorities:

Individuals Named in the Referral Requests:

  • Dr. Anthony Fauci – Former Director, NIAID
  • Dr. Cliff Lane – Deputy Director, NIAID
  • Dr. Francis Collins – Former Director, NIH
  • Dr. Deborah Birx – Former White House COVID Response Coordinator
  • Dr. Rochelle Walensky – Former Director, CDC
  • Dr. Stephen Hahn – Former Commissioner, FDA
  • Dr. Janet Woodcock – Principal Deputy Commissioner, FDA (Arizona only)
  • Dr. Peter Hotez – Dean, National School of Tropical Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine (Arizona only)
  • Dr. Robert Redfield – Former Director, CDC
  • Dr. Peter Daszak – President, EcoHealth Alliance
  • Dr. Ralph Baric – Professor, University of North Carolina
  • Dr. Rick Bright – Former Director, BARDA
  • Administrators and healthcare providers at various hospital systems and care facilities in Arizona and Pennsylvania

Combined List of Alleged Crimes Across Both States:

  • Murder
  • Involuntary Manslaughter
  • Negligent Homicide
  • Assault / Aggravated Assault / Simple Assault
  • Recklessly Endangering Another Person
  • Vulnerable Adult Abuse / Emotional Abuse
  • Neglect and Abuse of a Care-Dependent Person
  • Kidnapping
  • Trafficking of Persons for Forced Labor or Services
  • Criminal Coercion to Restrict Another’s Freedom
  • Operating a Corrupt Organization
  • Violations of State Anti-Racketeering Laws
  • Terrorism

At the time of the release, two county-level criminal investigations are reportedly already underway in other states. The legal teams and victims involved assert that accountability must come through state or local prosecution, given the lack of federal action. These filings represent a significant national effort to seek justice on behalf of families who lost loved ones and were denied proper care during the pandemic.

Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation

Reprinted with permission from Focal Points.

Continue Reading

Trending

X