Tag: supreme-court

Brazil's federal police have indicted the country's former president Jair Bolsonaro for suspected fraud on his COVID-19 vaccination data.

Police will allege Mr Bolsonaro inserted false information into the public health database to make it appear as though the then-president had received the COVID-19 vaccine.

They will allege Mr Bolsonaro also forged the vaccination data of his 12-year-old daughter and several others in his circle.

Police say Mr Bolsonaro tampered with the health ministry's database shortly before he travelled to the US in December 2022, two months after he lost his re-election bid to Luiz Incio Lula da Silva.

He needed a certificate of vaccination to enter the US, where he remained for the final days of his term.

During the pandemic, Mr Bolsonaro was one of the few world leaders railing against the vaccine, openly flouting health restrictions and encouraging society to follow his example.

His administration ignored several emails from pharmaceutical company Pfizer offering to sell Brazil tens of millions of shots in 2020.

Mr Bolsonaro also openly criticised a move by former Sao Paulo governor Joo Doria to buy vaccines from Chinese company Sinovac when no jabs were otherwise available.

During the pandemic, 700,000 Brazilians died of Covid-19, according to Reuters.

Brazil's prosecutor-general's office will have the final say on whether to use the police indictment to file charges against Mr Bolsonaro at the Supreme Court.

An investigation by the country's comptroller general's office had already shown that Mr Bolsonaro's vaccination records were falsified.

When contacted by Reuters, the former president reiterated he had not taken the COVID-19 vaccine and said he was calm.

"It's a selective investigation. I'm calm, I don't owe anything," Mr Bolsonaro said.

"The world knows that I didn't take the vaccine."

It is oneof several investigations targeting Bolsonaro, who governed between 2019 and 2022.

If convicted for falsifying health data, the 68-year-old politician could spend up to 12 years behind bars, or as little as two years, according to legal analyst Zilan Costa.

Brazil's top electoral court has already ruled Mr Bolsonaro ineligible until 2030, on the grounds that he abused his power during the 2022 campaign and cast unfounded doubts on the country's electronic voting system.

Other investigations against Mr Bolsonaro include one seeking to determine whether he tried to sneak two sets of expensive diamond jewellery into Brazil and prevent them from being incorporated into the presidency's public collection.

Another relates to his alleged involvement in the January 8, 2023 uprising in capital Brasilia, soon after Mr Lula took power.

The uprising closely resembled the Capitol riot in Washington in 2021.

He has denied wrongdoing in both cases.

AP/Reuters

See more here:

Brazil's former president Jair Bolsonaro indicted over alleged COVID-19 vaccination fraud - ABC News

The federal police of Brazil on Tuesday indicted former president Jair Bolsonaro in a case related to falsifying his own COVID-19 vaccination records to benefit the far-right leader and his close family members, newswire AP reported.

The Brazilian Supreme Court today released the federal police's indictment that alleges the former president and 16 others in his close circle provided false information into the public health database to make it appear as if they had received the COVID-19 vaccine during the pandemic.

The indictment comes one year after the federal police searched Bolsonaros residence to investigate if the former president and his close circle provided false data into the health ministrys database as proof of vaccination ahead of international trips.

It is important to note that the former Brazilian president was among the few world leaders who openly criticized the COVID-19 vaccines during the pandemic, breached health restrictions and encouraged society to follow his example.

The then Bolsonaro administration not only ignored emails sent by leading pharmaceutical firms like Pfizer offering to sell tens of millions of COVID-19 vaccines to Braslia in 2020, but also openly criticized Joao Doria, then governor of Sao Paulo state, for buying shots from Chinese company Sinovac when it was no available.

The report said that now the ball is in the court of the attorney general of Brazil, who will have to decide whether to file a complaint based on police indictment or close the case. A complaint, if filed, would be judged by the Supreme Court, which could eventually convict Bolsonaro

The former president denied any wrongdoing during questioning in May 2023.

The federal police have accused the former president and his aides of tampering with the health ministrys database shortly before the US visit in December 2022. Bolsonaro needed a certificate of vaccination to enter the US, where he remained for the final days of his term and the first months of Lulas term.

If convicted for falsifying health data, the 68-year-old former president could spend up to 12 years behind bars, and as little as two years, according to legal analyst Zilan Costa.

Unlock a world of Benefits! From insightful newsletters to real-time stock tracking, breaking news and a personalized newsfeed it's all here, just a click away! Login Now!

Visit link:

Brazil news: Ex-President Jair Bolsonaro indicted for giving false Covid-19 vaccination data | Mint - Mint

World

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share by Email

Mauricio Savarese - The Associated Press

Posted: 2 Hours Ago

Former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro was formally accused Tuesday of falsifying his COVID-19 vaccination status, marking the first indictment for the embattled far-right leader, with more allegations potentially in store.

The federal police indictment released by the Supreme Court alleged that Bolsonaro and 16 others inserted false information into a public health database to make it appear as though the then-president, his 12-year-old daughter and several others in his circle had received the COVID-19 vaccine.

Police detective Fbio Alvarez Shor, who signed the indictment, said in his report that Bolsonaro and his aides changed their vaccination records in order to "issue their respective [vaccination]certificates and use them to cheat current health restrictions."

"The investigation found several false insertions between November 2021 and December 2022, and also many actions of using fraudulent documents," Shor added.

The detective said in the indictment that Bolsonaro's aide-de-camp, Mauro Cid, told investigators the former president asked him to insert the false data into the system for both himself and his adolescent daughter.

Cid also said he delivered the vaccination certificates to Bolsonaro personally.

During the pandemic, Bolsonaro was one of the few world leaders who railed against the vaccine. He openly flouted health restrictions and encouraged other Brazilians to follow his example.

His administration ignored several offers from pharmaceutical company Pfizer to sell Brazil tens of millions of shots in 2020, and he openly criticized a move by So Paulo state's governor to buy vaccines from Chinese company Sinovac when no other doses were available.

Brazil's prosecutor-general's office will have the final say on whether to use the indictment to file charges against Bolsonaro at the Supreme Court.

WATCH | Brazil's COVID-19 deaths surged as Bolsonarorefusedto implementlockdown:

Show more

The case stems from one of several investigations targeting Bolsonaro, who governed from 2019 to 2022.

Bolsonaro's lawyer, Fbio Wajngarten, called his client's indictment "absurd" and said he did not have access to it.

"When he was president, he was completely exempted from showing any kind of certificate on his trips. This is political persecution and an attempt to void the enormous political capital that has only grown," Wajngarten said.

The former president denied any wrongdoing during questioning in May 2023.

Gleisi Hoffmann, chairwoman of the Workers' Party, whose candidate defeated Bolsonaro, celebrated his indictment on social media.

She said she hopes the former president stands trial in many other cases, including for his alleged attempt to sneak $3 million US in diamond jewlery into the country and the sale of two luxury watches he received as gifts from Saudi Arabia while in office.

"He has lied until this day about his nefarious administration, but now he will have to face the truth in the courts. The federal police's indictment sent to prosecutors is just the first of several," Hoffmann said.

"What is up now, Big Coward? Are you going to face this or run away to Miami?"

Brazil's Supreme Court has already seized Bolsonaro's passport.

LISTEN | Bolsonarodownplayedthreat of COVID-19 as cases rose:

Police accuse Bolsonaro and his aides of tampering with the health ministry's database shortly before he travelled to the U.S. in December 2022, two months after he lost his re-election bid to Luiz Incio Lula da Silva.

Bolsonaro needed a certificate of vaccination to enter the U.S., where he remained for the final days of his term and the first months of Lula's term.

The former president has repeatedly said he has never taken a COVID-19 vaccine.

If convicted for falsifying health data, the 68-year-old politician could spend up to 12 years behind bars or as little as two years, according to legal analyst Zilan Costa.

The maximum jail time for a charge of criminal association is four years, he said.

"What Bolsonaro will argue in this case is whether he did insert the data or enable others to do it, or not. And that is plain and simple: Either you have the evidence or you don't. It is a very serious crime with a very harsh sentence for those convicted," Costa told The Associated Press.

Shor also said he is awaiting information from the U.S. Justice Department to "clarify whether those under investigation did make use of the false vaccination certificates upon their arrival and stay in American territory."

If so, further charges could be levelled against Bolsonaro, Shor wrote without specifying in which country.

The indictment sheds new light on a Senate committee inquiry that ended in October 2021 with a recommendation for nine criminal charges against Bolsonaro alleging that he mismanaged the pandemic.

Then prosecutor-general Augusto Aras, who was widely seen as a Bolsonaro ally, declined to move the case forward.

Brazilian media reported that Aras' successor, Paulo Gonet, was scheduled to meet lawmakers later Tuesday to discuss the possibility of filing charges.

Bolsonaro retains staunch allegiance among his political base, as shown by an outpouring of support last month, when an estimated 185,000 people clogged So Paulo's main boulevard to decry what they and the former president characterize as political persecution.

The indictment will not turn off his backers and will only confirm his detractors' suspicions, said Carlos Melo, a political science professor at Insper University in So Paulo.

"It is definitely worse for him in courts," Melo said. "He could be entering a trend of convictions, and then arrest."

Brazil's top electoral court has already ruled Bolsonaro ineligible to run for office until 2030, on the grounds that he abused his power during the 2022 campaign and cast unfounded doubts on the country's electronic voting system.

Another investigation relates to his alleged involvement in the Jan. 8, 2023, uprising in the capital of Brasilia, soon after Lula took power.

The uprising resembled the U.S. Capitol riot in Washington two years prior.

He has denied wrongdoing in both cases.

Shor wrote that the indictment will be folded into the investigation of Jan. 8, which is being overseen by Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes.

That justice authorized the unsealing of the indictment.

WATCH | What role did Bolsonaro play in protests, riots after election loss:

Show more

Mauricio Savarese Associated Press

Associated Press

See the rest here:

Brazil's Jair Bolsonaro indicted for allegedly falsifying COVID-19 vaccination status - CBC News

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNALThe professional association for city managers issued a public censure against a Michigan city official in part because he promised firefighters and police that he wouldnt impose a hypothetical vaccine mandate but would instead follow alternative COVID-19 protocols. Now, hes suing to restore his good name.

I was honestly heartbroken to see the [International City/County Management Association] publicly censure me, faulting me for violating a vaccine mandate that didnt exist, James Freed, city manager of Port Huron, Michigan, told The Daily Signal in a written statement.

The International City/County Management Association serves as the major professional association for city managers across the U.S. The organization claims to be politically neutral, but Freed says that it censured him in part as retaliation after he complained about an ICMA leaders left-wing political activity on Twitter, the social media platform now called X.

The management association appears to have believed that Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, had imposed a vaccine mandate, although she did not. The association censured Freed in part for vowing that he wouldnt enforce such a mandate. The censure mentioned Freeds response to Whitmer after the governor falsely claimed that his city had violated COVID-19 protocols.

Freed spoke to The Daily Signal before the Supreme Court ruled in his favor on an unrelated matter regarding his decision to block another user on Facebook.

The story traces back to November 2018, when Freed noticed that a Twitter account with the handle @ICMAEthics started liking posts that opposed Republicans.

Freed wrote a letter to Martha Perego, the ICMAs director of member services and ethics who ran the account. He noted the accounts increasingly partisan activity, saying its handle leads the public to believe that this type of social media activity and behavior represents the members of our association.

I am requesting that either you delete and unlike any political activity and statements that may conflict with our Code of Ethics, or simply change your Twitter handle to something that does not appear to represent ICMA, Freed wrote to Perego.

Marc Ott, executive director of the International City/County Management Association, wrote a letter to Freed one month later, saying he had directed Perego to remove political activity from the Twitter account and disconnect it from the ICMA. Freed thought that was the end of the matter.

Yet ICMA launched an investigation into Freed, claiming that he had violated the management associations code of ethics by sharing information about an official ethics complaint in an improper venue. Freed had shared his concerns about the @ICMAEthics Twitter activity in a private Listserv for the Michigan Municipal Executives Association.

On Jan. 28, 2018, Jessica Cowles, ICMAs ethics adviser and an assistant to Perego, called Freed to notify him that the management association had launched an ethics investigation into his behavior. In the call, which Freed recorded and made available on the City Manager Unfiltered podcast, Freed repeatedly told Cowles that he had no intention of filing a formal ethics complaint against Perego. But Cowles didnt appear to receive the message.

In June 2019, the ICMA Committee of Professional Conduct cleared Freed of the accusations in the complaint. Later that year, the ICMA investigated another ethics complaint against Freed, claiming that his social media posts were political. The ICMAs Committee of Professional Conduct ultimately cleared Freed in that complaint, as well.

In his lawsuit against the International City/County Management Association, Freed argues that these investigations were frivolous acts of retaliation and signs of things to come.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Freed followed the guidance of health agencies, but faced a fine and ridicule from Michigans Democratic governor, Whitmer, over a false report that he had not done so.

Matthew Hartman, an inspector at the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration, issued a $6,300 fine to Port Huron, where Freed is city manager, after visiting on July 21, 2020. Hartman later testified under oath that he burned his notes from that visit, the Detroit News reported.

Hartman had not witnessed any city employee who wasnt wearing a face mask or was violating COVID-19 rules, but he claimed that employees he interviewed said they saw such violations. He also said he destroyed emails from his supervisor regarding the case.

Hartman confessed this in a deposition to Todd Shoudy, an attorney for Port Huron. Shoudy later notified Michigans occupational safety and health agency that he planned to depose its director, Bart Pickelman. Six days later, the agency announced it would dismiss the case against Port Huron.

Freed urged the state Legislature to investigate the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administrations governance structure.

My heart breaks for all the small businesses and mom-and-pops that didnt have an expert legal team, who didnt have the resources to put MIOSHA under oath, Freed told The Detroit News at the time. Port Hurons appeal cost between $15,000 and $20,000.

MIOSHA dropped the fine in November 2021.

Whitmer, Michigans governor, had said the agency fined only employers who flouted COVID-19 rules.

On the same day MIOSHA dropped the fine, Freed posted a Breitbart story on Instagram, tagging Whitmer.

@gewhitmer you shouldnt mess with a father who cares about the world his little girl grows up in, the city manager wrote.

Also in November 2021, the U.S. Labor Departments Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued an emergency temporary standard requiring large employers those with 100 employees or moreto make employees take a COVID-19 vaccine or get tested regularly for the disease. OSHAs emergency temporary standard didnt apply to Port Huron, but Freed anticipated that MIOSHA would apply similar rules.

I did everything I could to protect my employees during the COVID-19 pandemic, Freed told The Daily Signal.

He said he prepared to follow the testing regimen that OSHA presented as an alternative to the vaccine requirement. Even though OSHAs temporary standard didnt apply to Port Huron, he anticipated that MIOSHA would adopt the temporary standard.

Freed said many city employees told him they would quit if he forced them to take a vaccine, so even though he had taken a COVID-19 vaccine himself, he decided on the option that didnt mandate the vaccine for others. The city manager sent a letter to employees stating, I will never enforce a vaccine mandate upon my employees.

Freed predicted that a federal judge would issue an injunction against any such mandate, and that the Supreme Court also would rule against it. The Supreme Court unanimously blocked the rule in January 2022.

Freed insisted that Congress makes laws, not unelected bureaucrats.

I felt the liberty and personal choice of my employees warranted protection, and I needed to send a clear message to my employees that I would not force them to be vaccinated in order to avoid losing critical employees that would have been difficult to replace, Freed told The Daily Signal.

On July 5, 2022, the International City/County Management Association publicly censured Freed, in part for his apparent unwillingness to enforce a vaccine mandate that didnt exist. The association sent a press release to media and issued a post on its website announcing the censure. Freed has highlighted the differences between the documents.

The ICMA Executive Board voted to censure Freed on June 11, 2022.

The board determined Mr. Freeds personal social media post directed to Michigans governor following the citys successful appeal of a state workplace safety violation did not reflect the highest standards of ethical conduct and integrity and was especially inappropriate for an ICMA-credentialed manager, the association said in the press release.

The board concluded Mr. Freeds preemptive declaration to city employees that he would never implement a specific law or policy when it is the managers duty to do so is contrary to the principles outlined in Tenet 3 of the [ethics] code, the statement continued. Finally, the board found his commentary to a colleague on the Michigan Municipal Executives listserv failed to adhere to his ethical obligation to treat colleagues with professional respect.

The ICMAs website post went into greater detail on the first two counts against Freed. For the post about Whitmer, the association claimed Freed failed to fulfill his ethical responsibility to ensure that his conduct builds trust and respect with elected officials as well as the public.

When it came to the issue of a vaccine mandate, the ICMA acted as though Freed had vowed not to enforce an existing law.

The management association said on its website: The board concluded (1) a member has an affirmative duty to follow the law as outlined in Tenet 3s commitment to honesty and integrity; (2) a member may choose to resign from their position if they find they cannot implement a law or policy because it conflicts with their personal or professional beliefs; and (3) a manager has a responsibility to ensure their conduct enhances public trust in their position, their organization, and the local government management profession. The board determined his preemptive declaration to city employees that he would never implement a specific law or policy was contrary to the principles in Tenet 3.

Before the public censure, the International City/County Management Association allowed Freed to appeal its recommendation for a censure. He did appeal, and the ICMA rejected his appeal.

Among other things, the association took issue with his complaint that unelected bureaucrats do not make laws because it overlooked the fact that the governor is an elected official. Whitmer played no role in OSHAs emergency temporary standard, however.

During Freeds June 11, 2022, appeal hearing, ICMA board members sent text messages condemning him as a douchebag and saying they wanted to punch him in the face.

William Fraser, city manager of Montpelier, Vermont, messaged Pam Anthill, city manager of Encinitas, California.

He just looks like a douchebag, Fraser wrote to Anthill.

He is, Anthill responded.

I already want to punch him in the face, Fraser added.

Fraser told The Daily Signal he regrets making those comments.

During the hearing about Mr. Freeds ethics violations, I sent a private text message to a colleague which was uncomplimentary to Mr. Freed, he wrote in a statement Thursday. I very much regret making those comments.

Notwithstanding those remarks, I voted against issuing a public censure to Mr. Freed, Fraser added. I am no longer a defendant in Mr. Freeds civil suit and have completed my term as a member of the ICMA executive board.

Fifteen days after the ICMA formally censured Freed, the Port Huron Mayor and City Council sent the association a letter in which it stood by Freed.

In consultation with our legal counsel, we strongly disagree with your findings, the mayor and council wrote.

No law or pending law was preemptively declared to be violated, the elected city leaders added. You provided no such evidence to support your claim. On the contrary, our city manager took steps, by words and action, to comply with all current laws and any pending laws, while at the same time respecting the civil liberties of our dedicated employees.

Additionally, although you may not like professional criticism of elected or appointed officials, it is lawful [and] ethical by ICMA standards and constitutionally protected, the city leaders wrote. Our city manager did not breach or erode public trust.

The mayor and council members declared their confidence and trust in Freed, asking the ICMA to retract your baseless censure.

Despite the city councils support, Freed worries that the public censure may prevent him from getting a job in any other jurisdiction. While the city council has supported him, the censure may still stymie his career.

Freed sued ICMA and others in September 2022, alleging defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and conspiracy against him. The Port Huron city manager seeks $75,000 per defendant ($25,000 per claim), plus costs, interest, and attorneys fees. That doesnt include emotional and embarrassment damages, which the jury must decide.

Even though ICMAs case against me is based on their false understanding of the situation on the ground in Michigan at the time, the professional organization has refused to revoke the public censure which is very damaging to my professional reputation, Freed told The Daily Signal. Sadly, I am left with no other recourse but to sue to restore my good name and protect my ability to provide for my family.

Neither the International City/County Management Association nor Anthill nor Whitmers office responded to The Daily Signals request for comment by publication time.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please emailletters@DailySignal.comand well consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular We Hear You feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.

Read the original post:

ICMA Censures James Freed Over Nonexistent Vaccine Mandate - Daily Signal

As rates of childhood vaccination decline and with measles on the rise again, a KFF Health Misinformation Tracking Poll, fielded in late February, examines the extent to which adults have heard and believe misinformation about the measles vaccine. The poll also examines the publics views of the U.S. government and social media companies role in moderating false health claims online.

While most of the publicincluding parentshavent heard misinformation about the measles vaccine, many are uncertain about the validity of one specific false claim. About one in five adults (18%, including 19% of parents of children under age 18) say they have heard or read the claim, Getting the measles vaccine is more dangerous than becoming infected with measles.

A relatively small share leans towards believing the claim is true. Regardless of whether they have heard the claim, a fifth of adults (19%), including one quarter of parents (25%), say the claim is definitely or probably true. Six percent of U.S. adultsincluding about one in ten (9%) parentssay they have heard the claim and think it is probably or definitely true.

Across partisans, levels of educational attainment, and race and ethnicity, fewer than five percent of adults say that the claim is definitely true, meaning that there are few ardent believers in this piece of misinformation. However, independents (37%) and Republicans (21%) are less likely than Democrats (59%) to be certain that the claim is definitely false. Those without a college degree (29%) are also less likely to say that the claim is false than those with a college degree (55%).

Large Shares Support Social Media Companies in Restricting Health Misinformation at the Expense of Certain Freedoms

Later this March, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in three important cases related to misinformation on social media that will have implications for how the U.S. government and social media companies interact with users and can moderate information.

Two-thirds (68%) of the public views the spread of health misinformation on social media as a bigger problem than censorship of speech on social media platforms (31%). This sentiment is in turn reflected in opinions about what kind of action social media companies should take to curb the spread of false health claims.

Large shares of the public support social media companies in tamping down on misinformation even at the expense of certain freedoms. About two-thirds (66%) of adults overall say, Social media companies should restrict false health information, even if it limits people from freely publishing or accessing information, while one-third instead say Peoples freedom to publish and access health information should be protected, even if it means false information can also be published.

The public is more divided about whether the U.S. government should take action. Nearly six in ten adults overall (57%) say, The U.S. government should require social media companies to take steps to restrict false health information, even if it limits people from freely publishing or accessing information, while about four in ten (42%) say Peoples freedom to publish and access health information should be protected, even if it means false information can also be published.

There are partisan divisions on both these questions, with Democrats more likely than independents or Republicans to favor both the government and social media companies taking action to restrict false health information. Notably, however, majorities of Democrats (82%), independents (57%), and Republicans (56%) say that social media companies should take steps to restrict health misinformation even if it limits certain freedoms.

The Health Misinformation Tracking Poll is part of a new KFF program area focused on identifying and monitoring health misinformation and trust in the United States, emphasizing communities that are most adversely affected by misinformation, including people of color, immigrants, and rural communities.

Designed and analyzed by public opinion researchers at KFF, the poll was conducted from February 20-28, 2024, online and by telephone among a nationally representative sample of 1,316 U.S. adults including 283 parents. Interviews were conducted in English and in Spanish. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the full sample and 7 percentage points for the sample of parents. For results based on other subgroups, the margin of sampling error may be higher.

More here:

Most Parents Haven't Heard Misinformation About the Measles Vaccine though Significant Shares Are Uncertain About ... - KFF

When COVID hit in the winter of 2020, hospitals were overflowing with the sick and dying. Public health experts worried that wed be isolating for years because, although vaccines were possible, none had ever been developed in fewer than four years. Yet, within weeks of the identification of the viruss genetic structure, two companies had settled on the basic frameworks for mRNA vaccines, which were then developed on an accelerated timeline. Just as remarkable, after six months of testing, we were told they were over 90 percent effective against COVID.

With businesses and schools operating remotely for most of 2020 and the early part of 2021, vaccines were the best hope for emerging quickly from the worst pandemic in a century. And, to a large extent, those hopes materialised. Vaccines saved countless lives and may have reduced disease transmission in early variants. But they were neither as effective nor long-lasting as had originally been touted, did not significantly lower transmission in later variants, and had nasty side-effects for a small minority. Perhaps most importantly, a large proportion of the population did not like vaccine mandates (which in many cases were deemed illegal).

The fallout from COVID vaccine policies continues, and it's not a healthy sight. Vaccine rates appear to be dropping. And trust in public health advice is falling faster if my conversations with physicians in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, are anything to go by. This has worrying implications. As vaccination rates fall, at first the impact will be small, until it isnt. Depending on the disease and the vaccine, somewhere between 60 and 95 percent of a population must be vaccinated (or have had the disease and recovered from it) to reach herd immunity. Once rates fall below that threshold, the disease spreads rapidly. The health and economic costs of diseases such as measles, diphtheria, and smallpox were once enormous. Vaccination changed that. Indeed, smallpox was eliminated. But falling vaccination rates have already led to a resurgence in measles, a disease that deserves to be consigned to history.

Vaccines: a brilliant discovery

Over two hundred years ago, British physician Edward Jenner intentionally infected a boy with cowpox pus, hoping it would protect against the similar but far more lethal smallpox. Jenners success began the scientific formalization of centuries-old efforts to inoculate people against various maladies, in what is now known as vaccination (from the Latin for cow, vacca).

It works! It works! It works!: Jonas Salk and the Vaccine that Conquered Polio

Sydney. London. Toronto.

Vaccines were so successful and their benefits so much greater than their risks that, in the 19th century, US states began mandating smallpox vaccination for children. Although there were legal challenges to these mandates, in 1905 they were upheld by the US Supreme Court in a key decision. It is worth reading from the decision to see that the notion of compulsory vaccination campaigns is not new:

In line with the Supreme Court decision, federal agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have been recommending vaccinations since at least 1914 for whooping cough (pertussis), and states have been enforcing those recommendations by law.

The Pew Research Center chart below illustrates the panoply of useful vaccinations that have saved millions of lives and when they first were recommended by the CDC.

Pew also pulled together all the data on vaccine mandates, noting, Of the 16 immunizations the CDC recommends for children and teens, all 50 states (plus the District of Columbia) mandate diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough), polio, measles, rubella and chickenpox.

So we have been living with vaccine mandates for a long time. All except those with a medical or religious exemption have been required to take these vaccines, and the vast majority have done so without concern. And that is true across most developed nations. Growing up in England, I received most of those vaccines at roughly the same ages as my American counterparts would have (and I was required to prove that I had been vaccinated when I obtained my permanent residency here in the U.S.).

Pennsylvania, where I now live and the location of my original research, requires all of the above-listed vaccines. For children to access childcare and school, hepatitis A and B, rotavirus, Hib, pneumococcal conjugate, and influenza vaccines are also required.

And except for a few noisy skeptics, many of whom have touted discredited research that fraudulently and falsely claimed a link between autism and vaccines, these requirements have passed almost unnoticed. So, what changed with COVID?

The COVID vaccine story

With hindsight, its easy to see that COVID vaccines were oversold. The initial claims that they were more than 90 percent effective, might prevent transmission, and had no obvious side-effects didnt survive scrutiny. While obviously a lifesaver for manyparticularly those with two or more comorbiditieswithin a matter of weeks, stories of the vaccinated becoming sick and transmitting the disease to family members were rife. Vaccines did not prevent disease transmission but they did lower viral loads and hence probably reduced transmission of the Alpha variantbut not the much more virulent Delta.

Boosters were required as potency waned dramatically after about three months. The virus also mutated, becoming more virulent but less dangerous, which also changed the calculus of those considering taking the vaccine. Was it worth a sore arm and possibly a couple of sick days for a disease that, at worst, was likely to be just a bad cold for most people?

Nevertheless, federal authorities demanded vaccination even when someone had just had COVID, which was illogical given that the natural immunity provided by having contracted a disease is usually greater than the passive immunity obtained from vaccination. Social media became inflamed with stories about vaccinated young people with myocarditis who had not been infected with COVID (a rare but real, dangerous, and sometimes lethal side-effect), as well as disgust that the companies making the vaccines were making billions of dollars and were immune from prosecution when the vaccines caused harm. All the while, politiciansand scientists advising politiciansdenied problems, maintained the story of high efficacy, and mandated vaccines for work and school.

Lastly, even the strongest vaccine advocates, such as former presidential advisors Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci, admit that vaccine hesitancy has grown.

As I spoke to physicians in Montgomery County, I expected to hear that these concerns have been raised by patients, especially in the more Republican-voting areas, partly because Congressional Republicans had been vocal in their opposition to vaccine mandates and may have influenced opinion in Republican areas. My early results offer a much more nuanced picture of the nature of vaccine hesitancy following the COVID vaccination campaigns.

Physicians in Montgomery County, PA

Primary physicians oversee many vaccinations and also address many questions from patients about vaccines, including ones about efficacy and safety. Montgomery County is predominantly Democrat-voting, but two of its fourteen districts are moderately Republican. I surveyed 124 primary physicians in the county to understand what changes, if any, in vaccine uptake and opinions had occurred among their patients since the pandemic began. I also split the sample between the large, heavily Democratic area (107 physicians) and the smaller, moderately Republican area (17 physicians).

Vaccine Hesitancy and the Pandemic: Physician Survey Responses - International Center for Law & Economics

Executive Summary Vaccines for the SARS-CoV-2 virus saved countless lives and are a modern science miracle. But they had risks, were not as effective as . . .

Its important to realize that my survey data are imprecise since they are primarily based on the recall (of up to four years) of busy physicians each dealing with dozens of patients. Thus, small differences over time or between districts may well be the results of poor recall or biases due to survey design. However, significant differences could well point to identifiable trends.

As expected, nearly all patients (adults, children, and infants) received the first round of COVID vaccines in early 2021. But by the fall of 2023, far fewer adults and very few infants had taken the latest booster. This trend was even more pronounced in the more Republican areas, where fewer than half the adults had taken the latest booster (and this was confined to those with comorbidities, signaling that, under the advice of their physicians, those patients knew they were most at risk and acted accordingly). Although some evidenceindicates that Republicans are more likely to die due to lack of vaccine uptake.

According to most physicians, patients were fully aware that vaccines were less effective than had originally been touted. Physicians reported patient phrases like a small chance of myocarditis with a vaccine for a disease that would likely be a bad cold, explaining why few took the latest booster.

COVID is one disease among many; the other diseases that require vaccinations have not disappeared. Not one physician reported an increase in vaccine uptake for these other diseases, and approximately a third reported no change. Two thirds (and slightly more in the Republican areas) saw a decrease in vaccination uptake. This is a very broad measure. More detailed surveys are required to understand exactly what types of vaccines are being missed: the yearly and not particularly effective flu vaccines; or the far more important and less frequent (often a one-off in childhood) vaccines for diseases such as measles, polio, and tuberculosis. We also do not know by how much vaccine rates are falling.

Nevertheless, that rates are falling is potentially worrying and deserving of attention.

I asked the physicians: Is it just the risks of COVID vaccines that are leading to a decline in all vaccination rates?

Most physicians report patient concerns about the safety of COVID and, increasingly, other vaccines. Patients are uncertain of, but worried about, social media reports of vaccine harm. One can scoff at social media as a source of scientific truth, but as one physician said, Given that social media was the only place that supported the notion that SARS-CoV-2 came from a lab or that drugs like Ivermectin might work, were [patients] wrong to believe it? Social media allowed discussion of other theories and concerns, some of which turned out to be true; thus, many patients were inclined to worry. These patients were less likely than average to take the vaccine and were definitely not likely to let their children. Some of these patients talked about the lies told by health authorities; Anthony Fauci was named repeatedly.

More than a few patients were apparently very angry about having to take a mandatory vaccine that might be unsafe and was not clinically required if one had recently had the disease. Even some physicians were concerned about the scientific illiteracy of health authorities demanding COVID vaccines be administered to people who had recently had the disease. This led to a total distrust of vaccine policy among some patients, which definitely led to a lowering of flu vaccine uptake. Its too early to tell for other vaccines, said one physician.

Physicians mentioned several other concerns of patients ranging from arguably sensible ones such as distrust of pharmaceutical companies and the incompetence of government officials to more outlandish claims, for example, that tracker chips are inserted into vaccines and that the vaccines cause cancer. As one physician put it, when government advice is unreliable, people can believe almost anything. For some people, every unexplained young death is now attributed to COVID vaccines.

Vexed by the Un-Vaxxed

Civil society is based on the fundamental premise that we give up certain liberties to secure tranquility, defense, welfare, and greater liberty, such as the freedom from fatal diseases.

One can understand the desire of health authorities to get everyone vaccinated. With herd immunity only being achieved through high levels of vaccination or recovery from disease, it is entirely reasonable to encourage vaccination. But the conclusion from my survey is that misleading the public and overselling the vaccines backfired and played into the hands of perennial anti-vaxxers.

It is not that surprising that uptake of COVID vaccine boosters by infants and children collapsed last year and fell markedly among adults. One comment made by a few physicians was that uptake was close to zero for adults under 40 while it was nearly universal among adults over 70 and those with comorbidities. This suggests that much of the public has a good understanding of the scientific situationwith those most at risk from COVID taking the vaccine and those least at risk choosing to avoid the side-effectswhich is very positive news.

The lesson for health authorities is that they should trust people to understand the science and do what is in their self-interest instead of badgering them with simplistic (and often incorrect) information. While the Supreme Court has confirmed the right of federal authorities to impose vaccine mandates, and vaccine technology has improved so that vaccines can be designed and produced rapidly, it does not mean authorities should mandate vaccines. Or if they do, they should reassess the mandates routinely so as not to undermine public confidence in their authority.

Link:

Vaccine Hesitancy and the Covid Pandemic - Quillette

As part of KFFs ongoing effort to identify and track the prevalence of health misinformation in the U.S., the latest KFF Health Misinformation Tracking Poll examines misinformation related to the measles vaccine and the publics views of the U.S. government and social media companies role in moderating false claims online. This research builds on the Health Misinformation Tracking Poll Pilot, which found that adults across demographics were uncertain about the accuracy of many health-related false and inaccurate claims, such as the false claim that the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine causes autism.

In 2000, measles was declared eliminated from the U.S. However, measles is now on the rise again with multiple states reporting cases this year including an outbreak in a Florida elementary school. Experts suggest this is largely the result of a decrease in childhood vaccinations due to missed vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic from 2020 to 2022. Compounded with these circumstances, views and refusal of childhood vaccines have shifted and become more partisan over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. While health misinformation and disinformation long preceded the pandemic, the pervasiveness of false and inaccurate information about COVID-19 and vaccines has renewed the focus on the role misinformation can play in distorting public health policy debates and impacting the health choices individuals make.

This KFF Health Misinformation Tracking Poll explores the prevalence and salience of one specific false claim related to the measles vaccine: Getting the measles vaccine is more dangerous than becoming infected with measles. Overall, most adults (82%) say they have not heard or read this claim, though one in six U.S. adults (18%) have heard or read it somewhere. Adults under age 30 the group most likely to use social media for health information and advice are most likely to report having heard this claim, though three in four (74%) in this age group have not heard it.

The survey also gauges whether people think this false claim is definitely true, probably true, probably false, or definitely false. Regardless of whether they have heard or read the claim, a fifth of adults (19%), including one quarter of parents, say this claim is definitely or probably true. Combining these measures, six percent of U.S. adults including about one in ten (9%) parents of children under age 18 say they have heard the claim and say it is definitely or probably true.

While most of the public correctly view the false claim that The measles vaccine is more dangerous than the disease itself as false, the findings echo previous KFF research showing that a majority express at least some uncertainty in their beliefs related to health claims. More than half of U.S. adults say this claim is either probably false (41%) or probably true (16%). Few (3%) say it is definitely true while four in ten (38%) are confident that the claim is definitely false.

Across partisans, levels of educational attainment, and race and ethnicity, fewer than five percent of adults say the claim is definitely true, meaning there are few ardent believers of this piece of misinformation. However, independents (37%) and Republicans (21%) are less likely than Democrats (59%) to be certain that the claim is definitely false. Those without a college degree (29%) are also less likely to say that the claim is definitely false than those with a college degree (55%).

While few adults say that this piece of misinformation is true, the public is split between saying it is probably false (41%) or definitely false (38%). Parents of children under age 18 are especially likely to say that this piece of information is probably false (50%). Having such a sizable group lean towards the correct answer, but be uncertain, may present an opportunity for intervention. Clear, accurate messaging from trusted sources, such as pediatricians, regarding the safety of the measles vaccine may solidify the publics and parents correct inclination that the measles vaccine is not more dangerous than contracting the disease. This would allow parents to be more confident in their decisions when it comes to vaccinating their young children.

SCOTUS and Misinformation on Social Media

Later this March, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in important cases related to misinformation on social media. First, Murthy v. Missouri asserts that it was unconstitutional for the federal government to ask social media companies to remove COVID-19 misinformation, on the grounds of the right to free speech. In two others, Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton, the Supreme Court is reviewing Florida and Texas laws that bar social media companies themselves from censoring or making judgements about what posts to allow, including removing misinformation. These cases come at a time when a majority of the public says that misinformation is a major problem in the U.S. These cases will have implications for how the U.S. government and social media companies interact with users and can moderate information.

The KFF Health Misinformation Tracking Poll Pilot found social media use is correlated with both exposure and inclination to believe health misinformation. While many adults reported frequently using social media, few said they would trust health information they may see on these platforms. However, those adults who frequently use social media to find health information and advice are more likely to believe that certain false statements about COVID-19 and reproductive health are true.

Building on that research, this KFF Health Misinformation Tracking Poll shows the public overall views the spread of health misinformation on social media as a bigger problem than the censorship of health speech on these platforms, with some divisions by partisanship. By more than a two to one margin, U.S. adults say, people being allowed to say harmful or misleading things about health topics (68%) is a bigger problem on social media than people being prevented from sharing alternative viewpoints on health topics (31%). Large shares of Democrats (85%) and independents (64%) say it is a bigger problem that people can say harmful things about health topics on social media, while Republicans are split with half (52%) saying the former is a larger problem and half (48%) saying the latter is a larger problem.

When asked about potential actions to prevent the spread of harmful and misleading health information on social media, a slightly larger share of the public supports action by social media companies rather than the U.S. government. This difference is largely driven by Republicans, as majorities of Democrats and independents are supportive of action by either social media companies or the U.S. government, but Republicans are more likely to be supportive of social media companies intervening as a solution for restricting false information.

About two thirds (66%) of adults overall say, Social media companies should take steps to restrict false health information, even if it limits people from freely publishing or accessing information, while one third instead say, Peoples freedom to publish and access health information should be protected, even if it means false information can also be published. There are partisan differences on this question, but notably a large majority of Democrats (82%) along with smaller majorities of independents (57%) and Republicans (56%) agree that social media companies should act.

The public is more divided when asked about potential action by the U.S. government. About six in ten adults overall (57%) say, The U.S. government should require social media companies to take steps to restrict false health information, even if it limits people from freely publishing or accessing information, while about four in ten (42%) say, Peoples freedom to publish and access health information should be protected, even if it means false information can also be published. Again, partisans divide, with a majority of Democrats (73%) and independents (60%) supportive of government intervention on this issue. Republicans (38%) are much less likely to say the U.S. government should intervene in this way.

About the Survey:

The Health Misinformation Tracking Poll is one component of a new KFF program area aimed at identifying and monitoring health misinformation and trust in the United States, placing particular emphasis on communities that are most adversely affected by misinformation, such as people of color, immigrants, and rural communities. The poll will work in tandem with KFFs forthcoming Health Misinformation Monitor, a detailed report of developments and narratives around health misinformation and trust across various topics, sent directly to professionals working to combat misinformation. The Misinformation Monitor will be an integral part of KFFs efforts to deeper analyze the dynamics of misinformation and inform a robust, fact-based health information environment, and will inform the topics asked about on future Health Misinformation Tracking Polls.

See original here:

Measles Vaccines and Misinformation in the Courts: A Snapshot From the KFF Health Misinformation Tracking Poll | KFF - KFF

SPOKANE, Wash. - Former Gonzaga basketball star John Stockton has filed a lawsuit over state sanctions on doctors who spread alleged COVID-19 disinformation.

Stockton has been an outspoken critic of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. He was suspended from attending Gonzaga basketball games when he refused to wear a mask.

The lawsuit was filed on March 7 with COVID-19 skeptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. among the attorneysrepresenting Stockton. A number of medical professionals including Clarkston-based ophthalmologistRichard Eggleston are also listed as plaintiffs.

Eggleston is currently the subject of a medical commission administrative proceeding in connection to a column in which he questioned whether COVID-19 exists. The lawsuit said he's been "active in trying to assert his Constitutional rights."

The lawsuit names Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson and the executive director of the Washington Medical Commission as defendants. It seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction against a policy that allows the commission to discipline doctors who promote COVID-19 misinformation.

There is no place for the government, under the guise of regulating physicians and protecting the public, to censure, restrict or sanction the content and viewpoint of the publicly expressed views of physicians on Covid or any other subject, just because the government does not like the message or thinks it is wrong," the lawsuit states. "Going back 70 years every judge and Supreme Court justice who has written on professional soapbox speech has stated that it is fully protected by the First Amendment and/or said that it cannot be the subject of government regulation or restriction."

Follow this link:

John Stockton sues Washington state over sanctions for COVID-19 disinformation - KHQ Right Now

By Amy Maxmen March 12, 2024

Gayle Borne has fostered more than 300 children in Springfield, Tennessee. Shes cared for kids who have rarely seen a doctor kids so neglected that they cannot speak. Such children are now even more vulnerable because of a law Tennessee passed last year that requires the direct consent of birth parents or legal guardians for every routine childhood vaccination. Foster parents, social workers, and other caregivers cannot provide permission.

In January, Borne took a foster baby, born extremely premature at just over 2 pounds, to her first doctors appointment. The health providers said that without the consent of the childs mother, they couldnt vaccinate her against diseases like pneumonia, hepatitis B, and polio. The mother hasnt been located, so a social worker is now seeking a court order to permit immunizations. We are just waiting, Borne said. Our hands are tied.

Tennessees law has also stymied grandmothers and other caregivers who accompany children to routine appointments when parents are at work, in drug and alcohol rehabilitation clinics, or otherwise unavailable. The law claims to give parents back the right to make medical decisions for their children.

Framed in the rhetoric of choice and consent, it is one of more than a dozen recent and pending pieces of legislation nationwide that pit parental freedom against community and childrens health. In actuality, they create obstacles to vaccination, the foundation of pediatric care.

Such policies have another effect. They seed doubt about vaccine safety in a climate rife with medical misinformation. The trend has exploded as politicians and social media influencers make false claims about risks, despite studies showing otherwise.

Doctors traditionally give caregivers vaccine information and get their permission before delivering more than a dozen childhood immunizations that defend against measles, polio, and other debilitating diseases.

But now, Tennessees law demands that birth parents attend routine appointments and sign consent forms for every vaccine given over two or more years. The forms could have a chilling effect, said Jason Yaun, a Memphis pediatrician and past president of the Tennessee chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

People who promote parental rights on vaccines tend to downplay the rights of children, said Dorit Reiss, a vaccine policy researcher at the University of California Law-San Francisco.

Drop in Routine Vaccination Rates

Misinformation coupled with a parental rights movement that shifts decision-making away from public health expertise has contributed to the lowest childhood vaccine rates in a decade.

This year, legislators in Arizona, Iowa, and West Virginia have introduced related consent bills. A Parents Bill of Rights amendment in Oklahoma seeks to ensure that parents know they can exempt their children from school vaccine mandates along with lessons on sex education and AIDS. In Florida, the medical skeptic leading the states health department recently defied guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by telling parents they could send unvaccinated children to a school during a measles outbreak.

Last year, Mississippi began allowing exemptions from school vaccine requirements for religious reasons because of a lawsuit funded by the Informed Consent Action Network, which is listed as a leading source of anti-vaccine disinformation by the Center for Countering Digital Hate. A post on ICANs website said it could not be more proud in Mississippi to restore the right of every parent in this country to have his or her convictions respected and not trampled by the government.

Even if some bills fail, Reiss fears, the revived parental rights movement may eventually abolish policies that require routine immunizations to attend school. At a recent campaign rally, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said, I will not give one penny to any school that has a vaccine mandate.

The movement dates to the wake of the 1918 influenza pandemic, when some parents pushed back against progressive reforms that required school attendance and prohibited child labor. Since then, tensions between state measures and parental freedom have occasionally flared over a variety of issues. Vaccines became a prominent one in 2021, as the movement found common ground with people skeptical of covid-19 vaccines.

The parental rights movement didnt start with vaccines, Reiss said, but the anti-vaccine movement has allied themselves with it and has expanded their reach by riding on its coattails.

When Lawmakers Silence Health Experts

In Tennessee, anti-vaccine activists and libertarian-leaning organizations railed against the states health department in 2021 when it recommended covid vaccines to minors, following CDC guidance. Gary Humble, executive director of the conservative group Tennessee Stands, asked legislators to blast the health department for advising masks and vaccination, suggesting the department could be dissolved and reconstituted at your pleasure.

Backlash also followed a notice sent to doctors from Michelle Fiscus, then the states immunization director. She reminded them that they didnt need parental permission to vaccinate consenting adolescents 14 or older, according to a decades-old state rule called the Mature Minor Doctrine.

In the weeks that followed, state legislators threatened to defund the health department and pressured it into scaling back covid vaccine promotion, as revealed by The Tennessean. Fiscus was abruptly fired. Today I became the 25th of 64 state and territorial immunization program directors to leave their position during this pandemic, she wrote in a statement. Thats nearly 40% of us. Tennessees covid death rate climbed to one of the nations highest by mid-2022.

By the time two state legislators introduced a bill to reverse the Mature Minor Doctrine, the health department was silent on the proposal. Despite obstacles for foster children who would require a court order for routine immunizations, Tennessees Department of Childrens Services was silent, too.

Notably, the legislator who introduced the bill, Republican Rep. John Ragan, was among those simultaneously overseeing a review of the agency that would determine its leadership and budget for the coming years. Children belong to their families, not the state, said Ragan as he presented the bill at a state hearing in April 2023.

Democratic Rep. Justin Pearson spoke out against the bill. It doesnt take into account people and children who are neglected, he told Ragan. We are legislating from a point of privilege and not recognizing the people who are not privileged in this way.

Rather than address such concerns, Ragan referenced a Supreme Court ruling in favor of parental rights in 2000. Specifically, judges determined that a mother had legal authority to decide who could visit her daughters. Yet the Supreme Court has also done the opposite. For instance, it sided against a legal guardian who removed her child from school to proselytize for the Jehovahs Witnesses.

Still, Ragan swiftly won the majority vote. Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee, a Republican, signed the bill in May, making it effective immediately. Deborah Lowen, then the deputy commissioner of child health at the Department of Childrens Services, was flooded with calls from doctors who now face jailtime and fines for vaccinating minors without adequate consent. I was and remain very disheartened, she said.

A Right to Health

Yaun, the Memphis pediatrician, said he was shaken as he declined to administer a first series of vaccines to an infant accompanied by a social worker. That child is going into a situation where they are around other children and adults, he said, where they could be exposed to something we failed to protect them from.

We have had numerous angry grandparents in our waiting room who take kids to appointments because the parents are at work or down on their luck, said Hunter Butler, a pediatrician in Springfield, Tennessee. I once called a rehabilitation facility to find a mom and get her on the phone to get verbal consent to vaccinate her baby, he said. And its unclear if that was OK.

Childhood immunization rates have dropped for three consecutive years in Tennessee. Nationwide, downward trends in measles vaccination led the CDC to estimate that a quarter million kindergartners are at risk of the highly contagious disease.

Communities with low vaccination rates are vulnerable as measles surges internationally. Confirmed measles cases in 2023 were almost double those in 2022 a year in which the World Health Organization estimates that more than 136,000 people died from the disease globally. When travelers infected abroad land in communities with low childhood vaccination rates, the highly contagious virus can spread swiftly among unvaccinated people, as well as babies too young to be vaccinated and people with weakened immune systems.

Theres a freedom piece on the other side of this argument, said Caitlin Gilmet, communications director at the vaccine advocacy group SAFE Communities Coalition and Action Fund. You should have the right to protect your family from preventable diseases.

In late January, Gilmet and other child health advocates gathered in a room at the Tennessee Statehouse in Nashville, offering a free breakfast of fried chicken biscuits. They handed out flyers as legislators and their aides drifted in to eat. One pamphlet described the toll of a 2018-19 measles outbreak in Washington state that sickened 72 people, most of whom were unvaccinated, costing $76,000 in medical care, $2.3 million for the public health response, and an estimated $1 million in economic losses due to illness, quarantine, and caregiving.

Barb Dentz, an advocate with the grassroots group Tennessee Families for Vaccines, repeated that most of the states constituents support strong policies in favor of immunizations. Indeed, seven in 10 U.S. adults maintained that public schools should require vaccination against measles, mumps, and rubella, in a Pew Research Center poll last year. But numbers have been dropping.

Protecting kids should be such a no-brainer, Dentz told Republican Rep. Sam Whitson, later that morning in his office. Whitson agreed and reflected on an explosion of anti-vaccine misinformation. Dr. Google and Facebook have been such a challenge, he said. Fighting ignorance has become a full-time job.

Whitson was among a minority of Republicans who voted against Tennessees vaccine amendment last year. The parental rights thing has really taken hold, he said, and it can be used for and against us.

We encourage organizations to republish our content, free of charge. Heres what we ask:

You must credit us as the original publisher, with a hyperlink to our kffhealthnews.org site. If possible, please include the original author(s) and KFF Health News in the byline. Please preserve the hyperlinks in the story.

Its important to note, not everything on kffhealthnews.org is available for republishing. If a story is labeled All Rights Reserved, we cannot grant permission to republish that item.

Have questions? Let us know at KHNHelp@kff.org

Read the original post:

How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Pits Parental Rights Against Public Health - Kaiser Health News

The court found that 20th Television may have engaged in religious discrimination against the actor, who was denied an exemption from the vaccine.

Rockmond Dunbar in 911.

20th Television must face a religious discrimination trial for firing Rockmond Dunbar, an original castmember on 911, after he refused to take the COVID-19 vaccine, marking the second ruling to clear the way for trial a lawsuit against a studio over terminations triggered by vaccine mandates amid the pandemic.

U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee found on Friday that 20th may have discriminated against Dunbar for declining to provide him a religious exemption to the vaccine as a follower of the Church of Universal Wisdom. The trial will assess whether he had a sincerely held religious belief within the meaning of civil rights laws that conflicted with the vaccine mandate and if reasonable accommodations could have been offered, allowing him to continue acting on the series without endangering others or causing undue hardship to the studio.

If 20th is found to have engaged in religious discrimination in the trial, the decision could threaten how studios approach exemptions to vaccine mandates if they are reimplemented in the future. Dunbar claimed that his request for an exemption was denied after Disney determined that he was not a true believer in the Church of Universal Wisdom. An exemption request from General Hospitals Ingo Rademacher, who was fired from the series after refusing the vaccine, was similarly rejected after Disney, which owns ABC, questioned the sincerity of his belief in a book called The Revelation of Ramala. It appears that Disney vetted exemption applications on a case-by-case basis, investigating whether the religions constituted true religious institutions and whether applicants actually followed the beliefs.

Fridays ruling comes on the heels of a Los Angeles judge concluding in February that ABC may have engaged in religious discrimination against two former General Hospital crewmembers, who sued the network after they were fired for refusing the vaccine. In that case, the court will similarly evaluate whether James and Timothy Wahl had religious beliefs that ABC should have accommodated by affording them exemptions and offering them certain workarounds to mandatory vaccination policies.

In 2022, Dunbar sued 20th and Disney, which owns the TV production arm of 20th Century Studios and has been dismissed from the case, after he was fired for refusing to comply with vaccine mandates. The return-to-work protocols, which were agreed upon by Hollywoods guilds and studios, stated that vaccines could be required for those working in Zone A of a production typically a projects main actors, as well as key crewmembers who work closely with them in the highest-risk areas of the set.

In response to an alleged violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination on the basis of race, religion and sex, among other things, 20th contested the sincerity of Dunbars beliefs. It stressed that he had repeatedly taken actions contradicting tenets of the Church of Universal Wisdom by undergoing certain medical procedures less than a year before refusing the vaccine.

Dunbar answered by claiming that he communed with God, who allegedly made exceptions and permitted [him] to act differently, he attested to the court. According to the actor, he was also told that the COVID-19 vaccine was made from evil and that it will compromise [his] spirit and that it was not for [him].

The court expressed skepticism at the assertions, explaining that communing with God is not a blanket privilege that undermines our system of ordered liberty. She also noted that Dunbars original request for an exemption only mentioned unspecified medical issues, not any sort of religious objection.

In a similar lawsuit against the San Diego Unified School District that went up to a federal appeals court, it was found that a request for an exemption could be denied on the grounds that the employees belief is not sincerely held or that such an exemption would pose an undue hardship by burdening the employer through the increased risk of spreading COVID-19 to others.

Still, Gee stressed that the Supreme Court has observed that the determination of what is a religious belief is more often than not a difficult and delicate task.

And so it is here, the judge wrote. Defendants identify evidence that seems to undermine the sincerity of Dunbars religious beliefs, but Dunbar has also presented evidence that suggests under a lower than preponderance burden that his beliefs are strongly held and genuine nonetheless.

Under Title VII, employers must provide a reasonable accommodation as long as it does not cause undue hardship, which federal courts have found to include the increased risk of COVID-19 exposure and transmission. In the trial, jurors will determine whether 20th could have provided Dunbar a workaround to getting the vaccine without endangering others.

On this issue, the court emphasized that the return-to-work agreement barred unvaccinated actors from being on set with minors under the age of 12 and others for whom the vaccine was not yet available. In September 2021, the 911 cast included three minors, one of whom played Dunbars child on the series.

The remainder of Dunbars claims for race discrimination, retaliation and breach of contract, among others, were dismissed.

There is no credible dispute that Defendants offered a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for finding Dunbar in breach of the Agreement and terminating him his non-compliance with the mandatory vaccine policy is a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason, the order stated about the race discrimination claim.

Dunbar, who had over $1.3 million in his contract left to be paid out, will also not be able to pursue punitive damages in the absence of evidence that anyone acted with malice or recklessness in denying him a religious exemption.

20th and Disney did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Last month, a Los Angeles judge ruled against ABC on summary judgment and allowed a religious discrimination claim under the Fair Employment and Housing Act to go to trial against the network. The court suggested that accommodations could have been provided to General Hospital crewmembers, who sought and were denied religious exemptions, by allowing them to follow safety protocols that were in effect from July 2020 to the fall of 2021, before vaccine mandates were instituted. During this time, the production did not have an outbreak of the virus, lawyers for the crewmembers claimed.

The ruling was issued on the heels of ABC defeating a similar lawsuit from Ingo Rademacher over his dismissal from General Hospital for refusing to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Unlike with crewmembers who were not in close, unmasked contact with others, the court found in that case that it was impossible for unvaccinated actors to safely work on set during the pandemic due to the nature of their work.

More:

911 Actors Lawsuit Over COVID Vaccine Firing Heads to Trial in Major Test for Studios - Hollywood Reporter