Juneau Fireworks

As Alaska’s State Capital prepares to celebrate Independence Day, the City and Borough of Juneau has issued a “reminder” that anyone who has declined the experimental COVID shot must wear a face mask at public Fourth of July festivities.

This includes the fireworks show, downtown parade and other crowded outdoor events where people cannot keep six feet distance from one another. The requirement is part of Juneau’s “COVID-19 Mitigation Strategies.”

“The community has worked really hard with mitigation efforts, including vaccination,” City Manager Rorie Watt said June 14. “Please be considerate of your neighbors and remember to mask up when required.”

The mask mandate applies to children as young as two years old. The only people free to celebrate Independence Day without masks are those who have taken the Moderna, Pfizer or Johnson & Johnson shots.

Juneau’s mandate is one of many actions taken by local governments that single out non-vaccinated community members by imposing mask mandates on those who either cannot or will not submit to the COVID-19 injections.

Click here to support the Alaska Watchman.

Juneau imposes Independence Day mask mandates on the unvaccinated

Joel Davidson
Joel is Editor-in-Chief of the Alaska Watchman. Joel is an award winning journalist and has been reporting for over 24 years, He is a proud father of 8 children, and lives in Palmer, Alaska.


  • Michael S Totten says:

    Good luck enforcing that one. Idiots

  • NAV says:

    ( 45 CFR part 46 )for the protection of human subjects in research require that an investigator obtain the legally effective informed consent of the subject or the subject’s legally authorized representative, unless (1) the research is exempt under 45 CFR 46.101(b); (2) the IRB finds and documents that informed consent can be waived (45 CFR 46.116(c) or (d)); or (3) the IRB finds and documents that the research meets the requirements of the HHS Secretarial waiver under 45 CFR 46.101(i) that permits a waiver of the general requirements for obtaining informed consent in a limited class of research in emergency settings. When informed consent is required, it must be sought prospectively, and documented to the extent required under HHS regulations at 45 CFR 46.117. [Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations at 21 CFR part 50 may also apply if the research involves a clinical investigation regulated by FDA.]

    The requirement to obtain the legally effective informed consent of individuals before involving them in research is one of the central protections provided for under the HHS regulations at 45 CFR part 46. This requirement is founded on the principle of respect for persons, one of the three ethical principles governing human subjects research described in the Belmont Report. The principle of respect for persons requires that individuals be treated as autonomous agents and that the rights and welfare of persons with diminished autonomy be appropriately protected. The Belmont Report states that an autonomous agent is “an individual capable of deliberation about personal goals and of acting under the direction of such deliberation.” Respect for persons requires that prospective research subjects “be given the opportunity to choose what shall or shall not happen to them” and thus necessitates adequate standards for informed consent.

    The informed consent process involves three key features: (1) disclosing to potential research subjects information needed to make an informed decision; (2) facilitating the understanding of what has been disclosed; and (3) promoting the voluntariness of the decision about whether or not to participate in the research. Informed consent must be legally effective and prospectively obtained. HHS regulations at 45 CFR 46.116 and 45 CFR 46.117 describe the informed consent requirements.

    The informed consent process is the critical communication link between the prospective human subject and an investigator, beginning with the initial approach of an investigator to the potential subject (e.g., through a flyer, brochure, or any advertisement regarding the research study) and continuing until the completion of the research study. For the purposes of the HHS regulations at 45 CFR part 46, “investigators” are individuals who conduct human subjects research projects, including individuals directly involved in seeking the voluntary informed consent of potential subjects. Investigators can include physicians, scientists, nurses, administrative staff, teachers, and students, among others.

    The informed consent process should be an active process of sharing information between the investigator and the prospective subject. The exchange of information between the investigator and prospective subjects can occur via one or more of the following modes of communication, among others: face-to-face contact; mail; telephone; video; or fax. Prospective subjects should be provided with ample opportunity to ask questions and seek clarification from the investigator. The prospective subjects should be in a position to freely decide whether to initially enroll in the research, or later, to withdraw or continue participating in the research. The informed consent process should ensure that all critical information about a study is completely disclosed, and that prospective subjects or their legally authorized representatives adequately understand the research so that they can make informed choices.

    The procedures used in seeking and obtaining informed consent should be designed to communicate with the subject population in terms that they can understand. Information about a research project must be presented in such a way that enables each person to voluntarily decide whether or not to participate as a research subject. Thus, the information must be conveyed in language understandable to those being asked to participate as subjects in the research (45 CFR 46.116).

    For most research, informed consent is documented using a written document that provides key information regarding the research. The consent form is intended, in part, to provide information for the potential subject’s current and future reference and to document the interaction between the subject and the investigator. However, even if a signed consent form is required, it alone does not constitute an adequate consent process. The informed consent process is an ongoing exchange of information between the investigator and the subject and could include, for example, use of question and answer sessions, community meetings, and videotape presentations. In all circumstances, however, individuals should be provided with an opportunity to have their questions and concerns addressed on an individual basis.

    The consent process and its documentation should be revised when deficiencies in its accuracy or completeness are noted, when new information about reasonably foreseeable risks and potential benefits becomes available, or when other additional information becomes known that will improve the consent process. Such revisions must be reviewed and approved by an IRB prior to the revised consent being utilized except when necessary to eliminate apparent immediate hazards to subjects (45 CFR 46.103(b)(4)).

    Is it possible to obtain legally effective informed consent to research in an urgent or emergency care setting?
    What are the basic elements of informed consent?
    What additional information might be appropriate to provide during the consent process?
    Can consent or parental permission ever be “passive” or “implied?”
    What does it mean to minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence?
    When does compensating subjects undermine informed consent or parental permission?
    Can non-financial enrollment incentives constitute undue influence?
    What constitutes coercion or undue influence when students are involved in research in a college or university setting?
    What constitutes coercion or undue influence when employees are the subjects of research?
    Should the initial consent or parental permission procedure ever be repeated or supplemented?
    How far in advance of research participation can consent be obtained?
    Can records or databases be reviewed to identify potential subjects without obtaining informed consent or parental permission?
    How can the consent and parental permission processes be designed to facilitate understanding?
    Can an electronic signature be used to document consent or parental permission?
    Is a faxed copy of the signed consent or parental permission form acceptable to document informed consent?
    Who must sign the informed consent or parental permission document?
    Do signatures on consent forms have to be dated?
    Who can be a legally authorized representative (LAR) for the purpose of providing consent on behalf of a prospective subject?
    When may a legally authorized representative provide consent on behalf of an adult with diminished decision-making capacity?
    What should be considered in seeking informed consent from individuals with diminished decision-making capacity?
    What are the requirements for assent and parental permission in research with children?
    May the requirement for obtaining informed consent or parental permission be altered or waived?
    What is the definition of guardian in the context of obtaining consent for research involving children?
    What happens if a child reaches the legal age of consent while enrolled in a study?
    What is a waiver or alteration of informed consent or parental permission?
    What are the regulatory bases for waiving or altering some or all of the required elements of informed consent or parental permission?
    What are the criteria under 45 CFR 46.116(c) for waiving or altering some or all of the required elements of informed consent or parental permission?
    What are the criteria under 45 CFR 46.116(d) for waiving or altering some or all of the required elements of informed consent or parental permission? (Valid informed consent for research must include three major elements: (1) disclosure of information, (2) competency of the patient (or surrogate) to make a decision, and (3) voluntary nature of the decision. US federal regulations require a full, detailed explanation of the study and its potential risks.)
    So the Governor thinks he is above the Law and can issue a medical procedure without informed consent, AND where in the State Constitution does it give the governor the power to give the power to an unelected official IT DOESN’T !!! Dunleavy is a SNAKE in the grass

  • Neil A DeWitt says:

    What a bunch of garbage. Discrimination never is a good thing! If you can go anywhere without a mask now 4th of July isn’t any differents!

  • Timothy Colbath says:

    They just continue to ignore Natural Immunity gained from having the virus and recovering without medical assistance. These are EXPERIMENTAL vaccines. I’ll rely upon my natural immunity from having the virus – before I accept an experimental vaccine.

  • Sharon Turner says:

    …near in the era of comply or off to the Gulags of Siberia. What are WE the People willing to do? No longer a nation of laws, but rather the WILL of WE the People.. and we let this happen! Great grandma

  • Jon and Ruth Ewig says:

    It is unlawful to have to show proof or inform others concerning personal medical vaccinations or other medical busiiness according to HIPAA and other laws protecting privacy. What Juneau is requiring is against the law and need to be challenged through the courts or legislature. What happened to Senator Reinbold was against the law in a runaway legislature. We are still governed by the Rule of Law and protected by the Bill of Rights. We should not be going along with the CDC when they are run by the criminal Dr. Fauci who is responsible for many, many deaths.

  • Elizabeth Henry says:

    Good luck with enforcement of that.

  • Mongo Love Candy says:

    When are people going to tell this Commie Bastards to PISS OFF! FU and your retarded “Mandates”. I’m protected by the Ruger on my right hip!

  • Proud Alaskan says:

    So you tell your 2 year old kid, you can’t go watch the fireworks outside.
    Because you don’t have a mask, Gives me a break.
    Ok all you sheep, get on that first cruise ship and sail away and DON’T come back.
    Now all you sheep are together wearing your Diapers, on your face.
    More Stupidness

  • Deanna says:

    Time to get serious about getting the capitol out of there.

  • Lobo says:

    Unless it is challenged in court, or repealed, it will stand.. Mask mandates were just ruled unconstitutional by a Florida Judge.

  • Lobo says:

    Unless it is challenged in court, or repealed, it will stand.. Mask mandates were just ruled unconstitutional by a Florida Judge.. My original post is awaiting moderation, likely due to the hyperlink. If the original post doesn’t make it, you can fins the article on Thegatewaypundit.

  • Ralph says:

    You will not control us =]
    Alaskans are getting fed up with this bull spit.. the ones you’ve frightened into submission will consent, but the majority see this for what it is.. divide and conquer.
    -I do not consent.

  • Naida McGee says:

    Juneau is a joke. Not part
    Of Alaska anymore.

  • IYAAYAS says:

    Gainesville, FL (June 16, 2021) – A group of parents in Gainesville, FL, concerned about potential harms from masks, submitted six face masks to a lab for analysis. The resulting report found that five masks were contaminated with bacteria, parasites, and fungi, including three with dangerous pathogenic and pneumonia-causing bacteria. No viruses were detected on the masks, although the test is capable of detecting viruses.
    The analysis detected the following 11 alarmingly dangerous pathogens on the masks:
    • Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumonia) 
    • Mycobacterium tuberculosis (tuberculosis) 
    • Neisseria meningitidis (meningitis, sepsis) 
    • Acanthamoeba polyphaga (keratitis and granulomatous amebic encephalitis) 
    • Acinetobacter baumanni (pneumonia, blood stream infections, meningitis, UTIs— resistant to antibiotics) 
    • Escherichia coli (food poisoning)
    • Borrelia burgdorferi (causes Lyme disease)
    • Corynebacterium diphtheriae (diphtheria)
    • Legionella pneumophila (Legionnaires’ disease) 
    • Staphylococcus pyogenes serotype M3 (severe infections—high morbidity rates) 
    • Staphylococcus aureus (meningitis, sepsis)
    Half of the masks were contaminated with one or more strains of pneumonia-causing bacteria. One-third were contaminated with one or more strains of meningitis-causing bacteria. One-third were contaminated with dangerous, antibiotic-resistant bacterial pathogens. In addition, less dangerous pathogens were identified, including pathogens that can cause fever, ulcers, acne, yeast infections, strep throat, periodontal disease, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, and more.
    The face masks studied were new or freshly-laundered before wearing and had been worn for 5 to 8 hours, most during in-person schooling by children aged 6 through 11. One was worn by an adult. A t-shirt worn by one of the children at school and unworn masks were tested as controls. No pathogens were found on the controls. Proteins found on the t-shirt, for example, are not pathogenic to humans and are commonly found in hair, skin, and soil.
    A parent who participated in the study, Ms. Amanda Donoho, commented that this small sample points to a need for more research: “We need to know what we are putting on the faces of our children each day. Masks provide a warm, moist environment for bacteria to grow.”
    These local parents contracted with the lab because they were concerned about the potential of contaminants on masks that their children were forced to wear all day at school, taking them on and off, setting them on various surfaces, wearing them in the bathroom, etc. This prompted them to send the masks to the University of Florida’s Mass Spectrometry Research and Education Center for analysis.