Syrian government services come to a 'complete halt' as state workers stay home after rebel takeoverThe ruling addressed a lawsuit filed by Dario and Shujen Politella against Windham Southeast School District and state officials over the mistaken vaccination of their child against COVID-19 in 2021, when he was 6 years old. A lower court had dismissed the original complaint, as well as an amended version. An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was filed on Nov. 19. But the ruling by Vermont's high court is not as far-reaching as some online have claimed. In reality, it concluded that anyone protected under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, or PREP, Act is immune to state lawsuits. Here's a closer look at the facts. CLAIM: The Vermont Supreme Court ruled that schools can vaccinate children against their parents' wishes. THE FACTS: The claim stems from a July 26 ruling by the Vermont Supreme Court, which found that anyone protected by the PREP Act is immune to state lawsuits, including the officials named in the Politella's suit. The ruling does not authorize schools to vaccinate children at their discretion. According to the lawsuit, the Politella's son — referred to as L.P. — was given one dose of the Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine at a vaccination clinic held at Academy School in Brattleboro even though his father, Dario, told the school's assistant principal a few days before that his son was not to receive a vaccination. In what officials described as a mistake, L.P. was removed from class and had a “handwritten label” put on his shirt with the name and date of birth of another student, L.K., who had already been vaccinated that day. L.P. was then vaccinated. Ultimately, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that officials involved in the case could not be sued. “We conclude that the PREP Act immunizes every defendant in this case and this fact alone is enough to dismiss the case,” the Vermont Supreme Court's ruling reads. “We conclude that when the federal PREP Act immunizes a defendant, the PREP Act bars all state-law claims against that defendant as a matter of law.” The PREP Act , enacted by Congress in 2005, authorizes the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to issue a declaration in the event of a public health emergency providing immunity from liability for activities related to medical countermeasures, such as the administration of a vaccine, except in cases of “willful misconduct" that result in “death or serious physical injury.” A declaration against COVID-19 was issued on March 17, 2020. It is set to expire on Dec. 31. Federals suits claiming willful misconduct are filed in Washington. Social media users described the Vermont Supreme Court's ruling as having consequences beyond what it actually says. “The Vermont Supreme Court has ruled that schools can force-vaccinate children for Covid against the wishes of their parents,” reads one X post that had been liked and shared approximately 16,600 times as of Tuesday. “The high court ruled on a case involving a 6-year-old boy who was forced to take a Covid mRNA injection by his school. However, his family had explicitly stated that they didn't want their child to receive the ‘vaccines.’” Other users alleged that the ruling gives schools permission to give students any vaccine without parental consent, not just ones for COVID-19. Rod Smolla, president of the Vermont Law and Graduate School and an expert on constitutional law, told The Associated Press 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.” “Nothing in the Vermont Supreme Court opinion states that school officials can vaccinate a child against the instructions of the parent,” he wrote in an email. Asked whether the claims spreading online have any merit, Ronald Ferrara, an attorney representing the Politellas, told the AP that although the ruling doesn't say schools can vaccinate students regardless of parental consent, officials could interpret it to mean that they could get away with doing so under the PREP Act, at least when it comes to COVID-19 vaccines. He explained that the U.S. Supreme Court appeal seeks to clarify whether the Vermont Supreme Court interpreted the PREP Act beyond what Congress intended. “The Politella’s fundamental liberty interest to decide whether their son should receive elective medical treatment was denied by agents of the State and School,” he wrote in an email to the AP. “The Vermont Court misconstrues the scope of PREP Act immunity (which is conditioned upon informed consent for medical treatments unapproved by FDA), to cover this denial of rights and its underlying battery.” Ferrara added that he was not aware of the claims spreading online, but that he “can understand how lay people may conflate the court's mistaken grant of immunity for misconduct as tantamount to blessing such misconduct.” — Find AP Fact Checks here: https://apnews.com/APFactCheck .

Hennessy Advisors, Inc. Reports 46% Increase in Annual Earnings Per Share

The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) and MISC have signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to strengthen collaboration in innovation, research and development (R&D) and test-bedding activities, to advance digital transformation in the maritime industry. The MoU was signed by Mr David Foo, Assistant Chief Executive (Operations and Operations Technology), MPA, and Mr Mohd Denny Mohd Isa, Vice President, MISC Marine, and witnessed by Mr Teo Eng Dih, Chief Executive, MPA, and Mr Zahid Osman, President and Group Chief Executive Officer, MISC Berhad. As part of the three-year arrangement, both parties will focus on integrating sustainable digital technologies into marine operations, enhance processes through data-sharing initiatives and cybersecurity innovations. These include exchanging data and technology trials between MISC and MPA for tankers through the Just-in-time Planning and Coordination platform under digitalPort@SGTM, data sharing and cloud services to support the use of e-clearances and e-certificates in the Port of Singapore and onboard Singapore-registered ships and conducting cyber solution trials with the Maritime Cyber Assurance and Operations Centre. They will also collaborate with Singapore’s vibrant research ecosystem to explore the use of artificial intelligence, digital twins, and semi-autonomous vessel operations to improve shipping efficiency and safety. Additionally, the partnership will prioritise talent development, identify emerging skillsets for onshore ship management, upskill seafarers to operate alternative-fuelled vessels, and ensure a future-ready workforce for the maritime industry through training under the Maritime Energy Training Facility. Mr Teo Eng Dih, Chief Executive of MPA said: “MISC, with its expertise in ship management and sustainable shipping practices, is a good partner for MPA to develop solutions to help digitalise and optimise shipping operations. We look forward to deepening our partnership with MISC Marine to transform the work for seafarers and professionals for more resilient and efficient shipping services.” 5. Mr Zahid Osman, President and Group Chief Executive Officer of MISC Berhad said: “MISC is proud to partner with the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore to accelerate the maritime industry’s transition towards a sustainable future. This MoU underscores our shared commitment to harnessing digital innovation, enhancing ship management efficiency, and preparing the workforce for advancements in alternative fuels and cutting-edge technologies.” Source: Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore