The COVID misinformation at WorldNetDaily just never stops. Bob Unruh wrote in an Oct. 23 article:
A ruling from a Dutch court means that American Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates, a major influence in world organizations and a big supporter of the so-called COVID-19 “vaccines,” will go to trial in a case brought by seven people hurt by that agenda.
He repeatedly promoted the vaccines, which have since proven probably to be just about as damaging as COVID-19 itself, with side effects including fatal heart conditions and more.
[…]It is the Gateway Pundit that reported on the judicial decision, and even posted that document online.
The report said Gates will be on trial in the Netherlands “over his involvement in misleading the public about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.”
The seven plaintiffs all described the vaccine injuries they sustained, and they brought the lawsuit last year. Recent court time has been consumed by court consideration of the Gates motion to dismiss the case, based on his claim he was not subject to Dutch courts.
It’s a Gateway Pundit product that Unruh is slavishly and uncritically repeating, so you know there will be factual issues — and that is the case here. As an credible news operation reported, this is a civil action, not a criminal one, and Gates will not “go to trial” — the case is merely appearing on the docket, which is not an indication of merit, and Gates does not need to appear. Further, the case is being brought by a group of conspiracy theorists particularly obsessed with the “Great Reset” theory.
Unruh touted a right-wing congressman’s plan to criminalize vaccine mandates in an Oct. 29 article:
When COVID-19 came out of its Chinese home, probably a lab where technicians were working to make bat viruses more transmissible and more deadly, it quickly started killing people.
Shots, although more a treatment than an actual vaccine, were developed and approved for emergency use because they still were considered experimental.
Millions of people took the shots, many voluntarily. But millions more were ordered to take them, and one of those populations now may be in line for relief from the sometimes lethal side effects of those injections.
It is the Washington Examiner that has reported on a proposal by U.S. Rep. Matt Rosendale, R-Mont., for the University Forced Vaccination Student Injury Mitigation Act.
It would order colleges and universities that ordered their students to take part in the medical experiment to pay for injuries caused by the shots.
It would require the compensation under penalty of those schools losing federal funds from the Education Department.
“If you are not prepared to face the consequences, you should have never committed the act,” Rosendale announced in a statement about his plan.
“Colleges and universities forced students to inject themselves with an experimental vaccine knowing it was not going to prevent COVID-19 while potentially simultaneously causing life-threatening health defects like Guillian-Barre Syndrome and myocarditis. It is now time for schools to be held accountable for their brazen disregard for students’ health and pay for the issues they are responsible for causing.”
Rosendale is lying by calling the vaccine “experimental.” Further, the side effects he cites are rare and no worse than with other vaccines.
Unruh served up even more false fearmongering in a Dec. 2 article:
A state court ruling regarding a forced COVID treatment on a young child at his school is being denounced as something that “threatens every child in America.”
The comment is from John Klar, a lawyer, pastor and writer who has written at the Federalist about the case involving the 6-year-old Vermont boy.
He was “vaccinated with an experimental COVID-19 intervention against the family’s wishes, and now the Vermont Supreme Court has endorsed the actions by the state actors,” he reported.
“The Vermont court had ruled that the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP) prohibits such claims, granting immunity to school and government personnel when they mandate vaccinations,” he explained, as the case now is being forwarded to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Stunningly, the Vermont Supreme Court did not even pay lip service to the constitutional liberties implicated, ruling against traditional protections of parental rights and informed consent. But the PREP Act is not above the Constitution’s supremacy clause; it’s the other way around,” Klar explained.
He said it’s part of a move to erase parental rights.
“In Vermont, minor children may obtain transgender hormones and birth control without parental consent, and a 2024 law bars parents from seeing which library books are checked out by their children 12 years and older. Yet these are examples where the child wants something against his parents’ wishes. In Vermont’s COVID-19 vaccination case, the child protested and was forced to be jabbed anyway,” he said.
In fact, the ruling in question does not “threaten every child in America.” As a much more credible news operation found, a legal expert stated that the ruling “merely holds that the federal statute at issue, the PREP Act, preempts state lawsuits in cases in which officials mistakenly administer a vaccination without consent,” adding that “Nothing in the Vermont Supreme Court opinion states that school officials can vaccinate a child against the instructions of the parent.”