Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

COVID-19

US medical center refusing COVID shots for employees but still promoting to public

Published

5 minute read

Exert from Medical Musings by Dr. Pierre Kory

Major Covid mRNA policy reversals and awakenings occurred this week within a major U.S health system, a large U.S state, a South American country, and in the UK. The dominoes are starting to fall.

This week a nurse reached out with disturbing descriptions of some major changes she has witnessed inside the Ohio State University Medical Center (OSUMC) system.

OSUMC s a large and comprehensive healthcare organization, with a significant presence in Ohio and a strong focus on research, education, and patient care. It is a massive institution with over 23,000 employees, including:

  • Over 2,000 physicians
  • More than 1,000 residents and fellows
  • Nearly 5,000 nurses

Lets start off with this screenshot of a webpage from OSUMC’s website which provides information to the public as to where they can get Covid-19 vaccines. Check out the highlighted sentence at the bottom of the page:

Wait, what? Ohio State is suddenly no longer offering the Covid-19 vaccine to any of their employees but they are happily offering to inject them into the public? How can such a policy be justified? Why was this change in policy done and why was it done so quietly?

Let’s get this straight. Ohio State’s leadership is now making an institutional decision that employees should not be offerred access to any Covid-19 mRNA vaccine. I am (pretending to be) confused. I mean, if the vaccines could protect patients from being infected by staff members and they were safe to give to staff members, why wouldn’t you do everything possible (like a mandate) to ensure they receive them?

The only possible reason for the action above is that either OSUMC leadership recently discovered that the vaccines: a) do not work or b) are not safe. I think you would agree that, of the two possible answers, the only one that makes sense to explain this abrupt change in policy is B) they are not safe. I say this because if they were safe but instead just didn’t really work very well, Ohio State would not have the incentive to divorce themselves so abruptly and strongly from the recommendations of our benevolent federal government. I believe such an action would pretty quickly and negatively impact federal research funding by the NIH. It is my belief that agency’s money kept the nations 126 major academic medical centers in line throughout Covid, as those CEO’s and Deans are well aware that NIH retaliation in terms of rejecting grant funding if they “dissent” is real and happens (inflated reimbursements from the gov’t was another one of course).

I asked the brave browser AI, “why is Ohio State Medical Center no longer offering Covid-19 vaccines to its employees?” Two sentences jumped out:

  • “Based on the provided search results, it appears that Ohio State Medical Center did offer COVID-19 vaccines to its employees at one point.”
  • “Without further information or clarification from Ohio State Medical Center, it’s difficult to provide a definitive answer on why they may not be offering COVID-19 vaccines to their employees.”

So it must be the case that Ohio State leadership somehow found themselves a stronger financial disincentive to subjecting employees to Covid-19 vaccine injection. Where would such a disincentive come from? Answer: lawsuits. I also suspect that fear of worsening staff shortages from disability and/or death further disrupting operations played a role as well (as you will learn below).

This new policy action (taken very quietly) is absolutely dam breaking to me in terms of progress towards the truth about the mRNA platform getting out to the public. It is also appears ethically reprehensible, i.e. the institution made the decision to keep jabbing the public with a toxic and lethal vaccine while becoming aware that same vaccine is either exposing them to unmanageable legal risks and/or is disrupting their operations by negatively impacting the health of their workforce. Welcome to dystopia.

To see the rest of this article click here.

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

Court compels RCMP and TD Bank to hand over records related to freezing of peaceful protestor’s bank accounts

Published on

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice has ordered the RCMP and TD Bank to produce records relating to the freezing of Mr. Evan Blackman’s bank accounts during the 2022 Freedom Convoy protest.

Mr. Blackman was arrested in downtown Ottawa on February 18, 2022, during the federal government’s unprecedented use of the Emergencies Act. He was charged with mischief and obstruction, but he was acquitted of these charges at trial in October 2023. 

However, the Crown appealed Mr. Blackman’s acquittal in 2024, and a new trial is scheduled to begin on August 14, 2025. 

Mr. Blackman is seeking the records concerning the freezing of his bank accounts to support an application under the Charter at his upcoming retrial.

His lawyers plan to argue that the freezing of his bank accounts was a serious violation of his rights, and are asking the court to stay the case accordingly.

“The freezing of Mr. Blackman’s bank accounts was an extreme overreach on the part of the police and the federal government,” says constitutional lawyer Chris Fleury.

“These records will hopefully reveal exactly how and why Mr. Blackman’s accounts were frozen,” he says.

Mr. Blackman agreed, saying, “I’m delighted that we will finally get records that may reveal why my bank accounts were frozen.” 

This ruling marks a significant step in what is believed to be the first criminal case in Canada involving a proposed Charter application based on the freezing of personal bank accounts under the Emergencies Act. 

Continue Reading

Alberta

COVID mandates protester in Canada released on bail after over 2 years in jail

Published on

Chris Carbert (right) and Anthony Olienick, two of the Coutts Four were jailed for over two years for mischief and unlawful possession of a firearm for a dangerous purpose.

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

The “Coutts Four” were painted as dangerous terrorists and their arrest was used as justification for the invocation of the Emergencies Act by the Trudeau government, which allowed it to use draconian measures to end both the Coutts blockade and the much larger Freedom Convoy

COVID protestor Chris Carbert has been granted bail pending his appeal after spending over two years in prison.

On June 30, Alberta Court of Appeal Justice Jo-Anne Strekaf ordered the release of Chris Carbert pending his appeal of charges of mischief and weapons offenses stemming from the Coutts border blockade, which protested COVID mandates in 2022.

“[Carbert] has demonstrated that there is no substantial likelihood that he will commit a criminal offence or interfere with the administration of justice if released from detention pending the hearing of his appeals,” Strekaf ruled.

“If the applicant and the Crown are able to agree upon a release plan and draft order to propose to the court, that is to be submitted by July 14,” she continued.

Carbert’s appeal is expected to be heard in September. So far, Carbert has spent over two years in prison, when he was charged with conspiracy to commit murder during the protest in Coutts, which ran parallel to but was not officially affiliated with the Freedom Convoy taking place in Ottawa.

Later, he was acquitted of the conspiracy to commit murder charge but still found guilty of the lesser charges of unlawful possession of a firearm for a dangerous purpose and mischief over $5,000.

In September 2024, Chris Carbert was sentenced to six and a half years for his role in the protest. However, he is not expected to serve his full sentence, as he was issued four years of credit for time already served. Carbert is also prohibited from owning firearms for life and required to provide a DNA sample.

Carbert was arrested alongside Anthony Olienick, Christopher Lysak and Jerry Morin, with the latter two pleading guilty to lesser charges to avoid trial. At the time, the “Coutts Four” were painted as dangerous terrorists and their arrest was used as justification for the invocation of the Emergencies Act by the Trudeau government, which allowed it to use draconian measures to end both the Coutts blockade and the much larger Freedom Convoy occurring thousands of kilometers away in Ottawa.

Under the Emergency Act (EA), the Liberal government froze the bank accounts of Canadians who donated to the Freedom Convoy. Trudeau revoked the EA on February 23 after the protesters had been cleared out. At the time, seven of Canada’s 10 provinces opposed Trudeau’s use of the EA.

Continue Reading

Trending

X