Connect with us

COVID-19

Pro-freedom Canadian nurse gets two years probation for protesting COVID restrictions

Published

7 minute read

Ontario nurse Kristen Nagle

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Ontario nurse Kristen Nagle, a well-known figure in Canada’s pro-freedom movement during COVID, said her sentence of two-years probation is effectively a way for the government to silence her for the foreseeable future.

A Canadian nurse found guilty of violating Ontario’s COVID rules for participating in an anti-lockdown rally and speaking out against COVID mandates says despite scoring a recent “half-win” in court, her two-year probation sentence is designed to stop her from “speaking out or going against public health measures.”   

“The Crown wanted an egregious amount of $50,000. They saw my GiveSendGo, they saw the support, they saw that I was not deterred by the $20,000 sentencing and so they wanted to sentence me for $50,000- and two-years’ probation,” said Canadian nurse Kristen Nagle in a Facebook video posted on March 21.   

“So, kind of a half-win, the JP (justice of peace) agreed to the two years’ probation, I don’t really know what that looks like, what that means yet, but I’m under two years’ probation, I don’t know, and $7,500. And $7,500, is really not that bad compared to $50,000.” 

Nagle was heavily involved with the activist group Canadian Frontline Nurses and became a well-known face from those in the medical community in Canada who protested both the mRNA COVID jabs and lockdown dictates imposed by all levels of government.  

She worked at London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC) in Ontario before being terminated in 2021 for attending anti-lockdown rallies in 2020. She resigned from the College of Nurses of Ontario in January 2023. 

Nagle was found guilty by a court in February for violating Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s Reopening Ontario Act (RAO), after she attended and spoke at an anti-lockdown rally on January 22, 2022, in London, Ontario.  

At the end of March, a court ruled against the Crown’s requested $50,000 fine, and instead fined Nagle $7,500, plus a victim surcharge, which brought the total to $9,375, along with two years’ probation.  

The event that led to Nagle being charged had a crowd size of some 150 people, which was over the allowed 10-person limit that was in place at the time. 

Nagle’s current GiveSendGo fundraising page lists regular updates regarding the various charges incurred for speaking out against COVID mandates.  

Probation sentence a tool to discourage ‘speaking out,’ nurse says

Nagle said her two-year probation now means she “[c]annot commit a crime,” and “must keep the peace” and be on “good behavior and not commit the same offense,” which she said would impede her ability to speak freely.  

“It just seems crazy that when this probation is over it will be 2026! That to me just seemed absurd to think this is still looming in the background until then,” she noted in a recent email to her followers. 

“It was difficult to listen to them talk about the possibility of the next thing, and that we can’t have people going against public health measures in a crisis. It would be naive of them to think that we won’t find ourselves in something similar again, so this probation is to stop me from speaking out or going against public health measures should another ‘public health emergency’ find us again,” she added. 

She also thanked everyone for their support in helping her, as well as everyone’s “encouragement, prayers, and financial contributions throughout the years!” 

“You have no idea how much it has meant to me and my family and lifted up my spirits when I thought I could not go on!” she wrote in her email. 

“Thank you for everything! It has meant more to me than words I am able to express!” 

Earlier this year, Nagel was also found guilty of two charges under the RAO for attending as well as organizing another rally in November of 2020. She was fined $20,000. 

Another charge against Nagle for attending an anti-lockdown protest was withdrawn. 

In 2022, she was fined $10,000 for attending an Easter church service during Ontario’s COVID lockdowns in the spring of 2021, at the Aylmer Church of God. She appealed the fine, which was later reduced to $3,750.  

As recently reported by LifeSiteNews, some healthcare workers who refused to get the COVID jabs were successful in getting positive rulings from arbitrators. 

Indeed, two workers from a Toronto area hospital who chose not to get the COVID shots and were then fired from their jobs were wrongfully terminated, an arbitrator ruled. 

Many other recent rulings have gone in favor of those who chose to not get the shots and were fired from their jobs as a result. 

Draconian COVID mandates, including those surrounding the experimental mRNA vaccines, were imposed by both the provincial Ford government as well as the federal Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. 

In April 2021, the Ontario provincial government once again increased its COVID measures and declared a state of emergency over rising cases of the virus. It then put in place a complete ban on all outdoor gatherings that, in effect, made peaceful protests illegal in the province. 

COVID vaccine mandates, which came from provincial governments with the support of Trudeau’s federal government, split Canadian society. The mRNA shots themselves have been linked to a multitude of negative and often severe side effects in children. 

The jabs also have connections to cell lines derived from aborted babies. As a result of this, many Catholics and other Christians refused to take them. 

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

Dr. Fauci’s Lieutenant on the Hot Seat

Published on

From the Brownstone Institute

BY Justin HartJUSTIN HART  

In a moment of rare bipartisan denunciation, Democrat Representative Kweisi Mfume (D-MD) confronted Dr. David Morens, longtime advisor to Dr. Fauci: “Sir, I think you’re going to be haunted by your testimony today.”

Dr. Morens, a senior scientific advisor at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), has been embroiled in controversy following revelations of his attempts to seemingly conceal embarrassing information about his personal friend and NIH grant recipient, Dr. Peter Daszak, President of EcoHealth Alliance. Morens’s attempts to evade Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests laid bare yesterday in front of the Select Committee on Covid-19 were eye-opening and disturbing.

Dr. Morens frequently used his personal email to conduct official business, explicitly to avoid FOIA scrutiny. He emailed a colleague in May 2020: “So you and Peter and others should be able to email me on gmail only.”

In other uncovered correspondence, Dr. Morens openly discussed methods to delete federal records to prevent their release under FOIA: “I learned from our FOIA lady here how to make emails disappear after I am FOIAed, but before the search starts, so I think we are all safe. Plus I deleted most of those earlier emails after sending them to Gmail.”

In one particularly shocking email, Dr. Morens asked Dr. Peter Daszak for monetary reimbursement—specifically a “kickback”—for his assistance in editing EcoHealth Alliance’s grant compliance efforts. Although this allegation has yet to be confirmed, the email reads: “…do I get a kickback???? Too much fooking money!”

Under testimony, Dr. Morens claimed that this was simply “black humor” and “joking” with his friend  Peter Daszak—who is now under disbarment from NIH grants following serious mismanagement of grants to his company EcoHealth Alliance.

In addition to Dr. Morens’s FOIA endrun revelations, the emails also contained unprofessional and misogynistic comments. He seemingly disparaged CDC Director Rochelle Walensky attributing her appointment to her sex: “Well, she does wear a skirt…”

Representative Mary Miller-Meeks (R-IO) confronted Dr. Morens on these issues: “You’re trusted with one of the highest positions in government to combat public health crises. And instead of doing your job, you’re too busy worried about avoiding FOIAs and challenging someone’s position because they happen to wear a skirt.”

Morens apologized but seemed to downplay the significance of his comments: “…it was the same snarky, joking stuff.” But Rep. Miller-Meeks was having none of it. She interrupted: “That’s not a snarky joke. That is an underlying behavior that indicates how you approach women and how you think of women, and it’s disgusting.”

At the heart of the matter is what Dr. Morens was doing to hide information to protect Peter Daszak and even Dr. Fauci from embarrassing revelations of their actions during the Covid-19 pandemic. In emails, Morens discussed back-channeling information to Dr. Fauci to avoid FOIA requests: “I can either send stuff to Tony on his private gmail, or hand it to him…” Confronted by these emails, Morens dismissed them: “There are some elements of this that I don’t think are being understood.”

Additional emails further reveal Fauci’s involvement in offline communications, potentially undermining US government operations by assisting Dr. Morens’s efforts to share internal NIH information with Dr. Peter Daszak.

For instance, Dr. Morens shared confidential information marked (For Official Use Only) with Daszak: “Please feel free to share any docs that I’ve sent to you, with Tony. Hopefully, you can do that in a way that avoids FOIA, and if not possible, just show him stuff on screen share on Zoom.”

Dr. Morens and Dr. Fauci have collaborated and co-authored numerous papers and articles over the years but Morens seemed to downplay his relationship with Dr. Fauci: “I never gone out with him to have a beer.”

Representative Michael Cloud (R-TX) read the email regarding the “FOIA lady” instructing him on how to avoid the information requests. Morens objected: “She gave me [no info] about avoiding FOIA.” Cloud pushed back: “So you were lying then but you’re telling us the truth now?” Morens dug deeper: “I was making a joke with Peter, I said something like ‘I have a way to make it go away’ but that was just a euphemism.”

These past few weeks have been busy for the Select Committee of Covid-19, headed by Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R_OH). They have long requested the disbarment of EcoHealth Alliance and Peter Daszak from the NIH, and the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has initiated formal proceedings. The May 15, 2024 memorandum from HHS underscores the severity of EcoHealth’s compliance failures, emphasizing the need for exacting oversight in public health research.

As background to all of this, the ideological framework that Fauci and Morens have consistently promoted over two decades of co-authorship gives some color commentary on where the stringent pandemic policies originated. Their collaboration began with largely technical papers on infectious diseases, yet over time, their recommendations expanded significantly in ambition.

Their earliest publications together (which started in 2004) seemed to show cautious optimism for tackling infectious diseases without breaching individual rights or governance norms. By 2007, their tone had noticeably shifted. In an article on the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, they warned against complacency and hinted at the necessity for heightened vigilance.

In their 2012 work, “The Perpetual Challenge of Infectious Diseases,” they moved even further, declaring eradication—rather than just mitigation—as the new goal, emphasizing a radical new approach to managing infectious diseases.

Their evolution was cemented in a 2016 article on the Zika Virus. In it, they posited that human behaviors and modern societal structures were significant contributors to the emergence of diseases.

…in our human-dominated world, urban crowding, constant international travel, and other human behaviors combined with human-caused microperturbations in ecologic balance can cause innumerable slumbering infectious agents to emerge unexpectedly. In response, we clearly need to up our game…

The implications of crowds spreading sickness are not new, but the corollary here is that human actions need strict regulation to prevent future outbreaks, a policy evolution that would have significant impacts just four years down the line.

The culmination of these ideas appeared starkly in their widely-cited 2020 “Cell Magazine” article in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic. Here, Fauci and Morens argued for transformative changes in human behavior and infrastructure to live “in greater harmony with nature.” They contended that human behaviors fundamentally disrupt the “human-microbial status quo,” leading to disease outbreaks.

This article was a watershed, revealing their vision of a restructured society to prevent pandemics—an ideological stance that has drawn criticism for its potentially authoritarian overtones.

Fauci and Morens’s advocacy for “rebuilding the infrastructures of human existence” was more than a scientific proposal; it was a call for a societal overhaul.

They seem to pine for yesteryear without all the hustling and bustling: “Since we cannot return to ancient times, can we at least use lessons from those times to bend modernity in a safer direction?”

Nothing epitomizes the US Government’s response to the pandemic like the loaded phrase: “bend modernity in a safer direction.”

Now, with Dr. Morens’s skirting FOIA requests and promoting ways to “[make] it all go away” – the hubris is laid bare for all to see.

The deceitful actions of Drs. Morens, Daszak, and Fauci, their evasion of FOIAs, and their backroom dealings have severely undermined public trust. As these revelations come to light, it is crucial for us to demand greater transparency and integrity from our public health officials. Only then can we restore faith in our health institutions and ensure they truly serve the public good.

Republished from the author’s Substack

Author

  • Justin Hart

    Justin Hart is an executive consultant with over 25 years experience creating data-driven solutions for Fortune 500 companies and Presidential campaigns alike. Mr. Hart is the Chief Data Analyst and founder of RationalGround.com which helps companies, public policy officials, and even parents gauge the impact of COVID-19 across the country. The team at RationalGround.com offers alternative solutions on how to move forward during this challenging pandemic.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Wenstrup Releases Francis Collins’ House Testimony

Published on

From the Brownstone Institute

BY Robert MaloneROBERT MALONE 

Wenstrup Releases Former NIH Director Francis Collins’ Transcript, Highlights Key Takeaways in New Memo

WASHINGTON — Today, Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Chairman Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) released the transcript from Dr. Francis Collins’ transcribed interview. Dr. Collins helped lead the government’s Covid-19 pandemic response as the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) until his resignation at the end of 2021. In conjunction with the transcript, the Select Subcommittee also released a new staff memo that highlights the key takeaways from Dr. Collins’ transcribed interview. The memo can be found here.

The full transcript can be found here. Below are important exchanges from Dr. Collins’ transcribed interview:

The hypothesis that the Covid-19 pandemic was the result of a lab leak or lab-related accident is not a conspiracy theory. Despite previously disagreeing with the lab-leak theory — both in public and in private — Dr. Collins testified that the lab-leak hypothesis is indeed not a conspiracy theory.

Majority Counsel: “All it’s calling for is a “yes” or “no.” Is the possibility of a lab leak a conspiracy theory?”

Dr. Collins: “You have to define what you mean by a lab leak.”

Majority Counsel: “Putting aside de novo, the possibility of a laboratory or research-related accident, a researcher doing something in a lab, getting infected with a virus, and then sparking the pandemic. Is that scenario a conspiracy theory”?

Dr. Collins: “Not at this point.”


Majority Counsel: “We have talked about this an awful lot, I think I know the answer to the question, but I want to ask it. Is the origin of Covid-19 still unsettled science?”

Dr. Collins: “Yes.”

The “6-feet apart” social distancing guidance that federal public health officials endorsed was likely not based on any science or data. Dr. Collins agreed with Dr. Fauci that he has not seen any evidence to support the “6-feet apart” directive — which was promoted by public health officials and caused widespread economic and social damage to Americans.

Majority Counsel: “Moving on to social distancing and the various regulations surrounding that. On March 22, 2020, the CDC issued guidance describing social distancing to include remaining out congregant settings, avoiding mass gatherings, and maintaining a distance of approximately six feet from others when possible. We asked Dr. Fauci where the six feet came from and he said it kind of just appeared, is the quote. Do you recall science or evidence that supported the six-feet distance?”

Dr. Collins: “I do not.”

Majority Counsel: “Is that I do not recall or I do not see any evidence supporting six feet?”

Dr. Collins: “I did not see evidence, but I’m not sure I would have been shown evidence at that point.”

Majority Counsel: “Since then, it has been an awfully large topic. Have you seen any evidence since then supporting six feet?”

Dr. Collins: “No.”

NIH often lacks the necessary subject matter expertise to ensure US taxpayer funds are spent safely. Concerningly, Dr. Collins was unaware of any NIH policy that ensures foreign laboratories comply with US standards and are not at odds with U.S. national interests.

Majority Counsel: “Thank you. We’ve asked a number of people regarding the vetting or certifying process of foreign labs that receive U.S. dollars. Do you know what that process is?”

Dr. Collins: “I do not.”

Majority Counsel: “To your knowledge, does NIH certify foreign labs that receive U.S. dollars?”

Dr. Collins: “I don’t know that.”


Majority Counsel: “Again, what we’re trying to figure out is if, like, you get a proposal that has a foreign lab on it, if the NIH would do all the work themselves, or if they would call the State Department, or if they would call some other department to try to determine if that foreign lab is reputable.”

Dr. Collins: “I don’t know.”

The Trump Administration led the charge to rightfully terminate and later suspend EcoHealth Alliance, Inc.’s grant in April 2020. Dr. Collins testified that he supported every enforcement action suggested by the Trump administration and executed by the NIH.

Majority Counsel: “Moving into 2020. Before we start with individual letters, we asked Dr. Lauer and he testified that he would not sign or send a letter that he disagreed with. Do you have any reason to doubt that assertion?”

Dr. Collins: “No.”

Majority Counsel: “Do you agree with every enforcement action the NIH took against EcoHealth?”

Dr. Collins: “Yes.”

Dr. Collins claims that Dr. Fauci invited him to participate in the infamous February 1, 2020 phone call that allegedly “prompted” the public narrative that Covid-19 originated from nature and that vilified the lab-leak hypothesis.

This testimony directly contradicts earlier statements made by Dr. Fauci.

Majority Counsel: “How were you made aware of this call?”

Dr. Collins: “I was, I think – again, it’s four years ago – initially informed by Dr. Fauci that the call was happening. And then, I think I got this email forwarded about what the agenda was going to be from Dr. Farrar, who was clearly the person organizing the call.”

Majority Counsel: “Did Dr. Fauci ask you to join the call?”

Dr. Collins: “Yes.”


There we have it. Ex-director NIH Francis Collins had NO data and has not seen any data to support the social distancing edicts from HHS.


The transcript itself documents that Director Collins had evidence that masking would harm children.

From the transcript:

Q: In the realm of masking, obviously masks became this big to-do during the pandemic. One of the specific aspects that we are interested in is the science and data that supported it for children. So the WHO recommended against masking children less than five because masks are, I’m quoting, not in the overall interest of the child, and against children 6 to 11 from wearing masks because of again, quoting, the potential impact of wearing a mask on learning and psychological development. The United States recommended masking kids as young as two, so directly contradicted the WHO’s recommendation on that. 

Do you recall what science or data backed up that recommendation?

Collins: I have no knowledge of that. 

Q: Okay. There are now studies coming out regarding learning loss from both school closures and childhood mask wearing — for masks specifically, kids not being able to see adults form words and things like that and it’s causing speech issues. Are you aware of those issues? 

Collins: In a general way, yes. 

Q: Do you agree that there’s learning loss and other unintended consequences of mask-wearing? 

Collins: I have to depend on the experts who assess those things who have evidence, they say, that that’s the case.


This is all the evidence required to conclusively demonstrate that the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) needs a complete overhaul.

Republished from the author’s Substack

Author

  • Robert Malone

    Robert W. Malone is a physician and biochemist. His work focuses on mRNA technology, pharmaceuticals, and drug repurposing research. You can find him at Substack and Gettr

Continue Reading

Trending

X