“The Cabinet concluded that because of the extraordinary booster campaign, together with the way the public has responded to the Plan B measures, we can return to Plan A in England, and allow Plan B regulations to expire.”
Johnson first announced the Plan B measures on Dec. 8, 2021. The measures took effect on Dec. 15, 2021, after passing a parliament vote.
The ending of the restrictions means workers are due back in the office Thursday. The Department for Education also will end requirements tomorrow for facemasks in classrooms.
Mandates for vaccine passports to access businesses or public places will expire next Wednesday without renewal, the prime minister announced, as will public mask mandates.
Health Secretary Sajid Javid called the relaxation of measures a “major milestone,” adding: “But it’s not the end of the road and we shouldn’t see this as the finish line because we cannot eradicate this virus and its future variants.”
“Instead we must learn to live with COVID in the same way we have to live with flu. We will be setting out our long-term plan for living with COVID-19 this spring.”
The unexpected announcements came in the wake of signs the Omicron wave has peaked in the UK.
Dr. Susan Hopkins, the chief medical adviser to the UK Health Security Agency, told a Downing Street news conference the latest seven-day average of COVID cases was 93,200 compared with almost 225,000 on Dec. 29, 2021.
She said hospital cases were back down to below 20,000 while there were only 703 on mechanical ventilators — levels not seen since last July.
Omicron is “not the same disease we were seeing a year ago” and high COVID death rates in the UK are “now history,” Sir John Bell, professor of medicine at Oxford University and leading immunologist said.
“While we welcome the prime minister’s statement to lift draconian COVID restrictions in the UK, we believe this ‘victory through COVID defeat’ narrative raises more questions than it answers. Why now? Has science really changed? Who is calling the shots?
“Children’s Health Defense will continue to seek truthful answers and real accountability for the harmful lockdown policies of the COVID pandemic era.”
Some suggested the timing of Johnson’s announcement is politically motivated as calls for his resignation increased Tuesday in the wake of “party game,” the scandal over numerous, alleged parties in Number 10 Downing Street during the pandemic in breach of government lockdowns.
The announcement also came after the prime minister received a petition on Monday, signed by more than 200,000 people, demanding an end to vaccine passports.
Despite also receiving a petition signed by 160,000 healthcare workers, Johnson said vaccination requirements for healthcare workers and the mandatory testing of travelers to the UK will remain in place.
As protests grow in EU countries and worldwide against COVID-19 vaccine mandates and so-called “vaccine passports,” some countries appear to be backtracking or at least harboring second thoughts about enforcing such measures.
Some policymakers point to evidence COVID is here to stay and we need to live with it since Omicron is similar to the common cold or seasonal flu. Others appear more willing to accept natural immunity in lieu of vaccination.
Still, other governments are digging in their heels and moving forward with punitive restrictions on the unvaccinated.
Here’s a look at the latest shifting policies outside the U.S.
Austria, citing ‘technical complications,’ won’t enforce mandates until at least April
Austria garnered much attention in November 2021 when it became the first country in the world to impose an all-encompassing vaccine mandate for its entire adult population and minors 14 years old and up.
This mandate, set to take effect in February, would be accompanied by fines of up to 3,600 euros per quarter. To that end, Austria recently reportedly began hiring “headhunters” to track down those who continue to remain unvaccinated.
The mandate has resulted in frequent large-scale protests against the mandate, as well as a political movement opposing this policy.
An open letter recently sent to Austria’s Interior Minister, Gerhard Karner, signed by 600 police officers, also expressed opposition to mandatory vaccination.
This opposition may be having an impact. Recently, the firm responsible for the technical implementation of the mandate announced that due to “technical complications,” the mandatory vaccination law cannot be enforced until at least April.
This news came amidst calls in Austria that the mandate should be reevaluated in light of the spread of the Omicron variant.
Germany struggling with mandate implementation; support not unanimous
Similar concerns over the feasibility of rapid implementation of a vaccine mandate have been raised in Germany, which has also mulled the implementation of compulsory vaccinations and has already approved such a mandate for healthcare workers.
In December 2021, Germany’s Ethics Council also gave its stamp of approval for vaccine mandates.
Nevertheless, concerns have been raised in Germany that parliamentary debate and subsequent technical implementation of a vaccination database cannot be completed before June at the earliest, calling into question the feasibility of the mandate in light of rapidly changing conditions.
Such hesitation comes despite renewed calls from German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier for an immediate full parliamentary debate on a potential vaccine mandate, and from German Chancellor Olaf Scholz for COVID vaccines to be mandated.
Similarly, German Health Minister Karl Lauterbach recently suggested vaccine mandates, not natural herd immunity stemming from the rapid spread of the Omicron variant — which he described as “dirty vaccination” — represent the only way “out” of the crisis.
In November 2021, Lauterbach’s predecessor, Jens Spahn, publicly predicted that by the end of the coming winter, everyone would be “vaccinated, recovered, or dead” — due to the Delta variant.
Despite these public proclamations from German politicians though, recent reports suggest support for a vaccine mandate in Germany’s three-party governing coalition is far from unanimous.
Nevertheless, some localities in Germany are moving ahead with their own innovative means of confirming individuals’ vaccination status.
The city of Saarbrücken will soon launch a system where individuals who received a COVID vaccine or who have recovered from infection can voluntarily wear a colored wristband to indicate their status.
Greece pushes ahead with age 60+ mandate policy, threatens fines for unvaxxed
Greece was one of the first countries in Europe to implement a vaccine mandate for a portion of its general population when, in December 2021, it imposed such a policy for everyone age 60 and over.
The policy is set to take effect on Jan. 16, with fines of 100 euros per month levied against anyone who doesn’t comply.
Despite this policy, which has received broad and highly sensational media attention in Greece, and despite the burden the policy would place on pensioners in a country where the average pension is just over 700 euros per month, a significant number of individuals 60 and older appear to have opted to remain unvaccinated.
In late December 2021, it was reported that 400,000 people in this age group had not received the COVID vaccine.
In a televised appearance on Jan. 11, Greek government spokesperson Giannis Oikonomou stated that 200,000 people aged 60 and over had gotten vaccinated as a result of this mandate, touting this as a “big success.”
However, this would suggest approximately half of the relevant population in question had chosen to remain unvaccinated, despite the looming threat of a financial penalty.
It is perhaps, for this reason, the Greek government reportedly “froze” any further discussion of expanding the mandatory vaccination policy to those aged 50 and over, while it has been suggested the measure is unconstitutional and may eventually be struck down judicially.
However, despite rumors that the enforcement of fines against individuals 60 and older who have not been vaccinated would be postponed, Greece’s far-right Interior Minister Makis Voridis announced the policy would be enforced as originally planned.
Nevertheless, the Greek government will now extend existing measures, which include a midnight curfew and ban on music for dining and entertainment venues, and a 1,000-spectator capacity limit at sporting events, for at least an additional week past the original sunset date of Jan. 16.
In the Balkans, protests lead to a standstill on mandates
Major protests against the so-called “Green Pass,” or vaccine passport, took place recently in both Bulgaria and Romania.
In Bulgaria, protesters on Jan. 12 stormed the parliament building in opposition to the “Green Pass” and other restrictions. Attempts to enter parliament resulted in clashes with police and multiple arrests.
Similar events transpired recently in Romania, where on Dec. 21, 2021, protesters attempted to enter Romania’s parliament as part of a protest against proposed legislation making the “Green Pass” mandatory for workers.
Disagreements that have since followed between the parties which comprise Romania’s governing coalition have resulted in talks on this proposed policy coming to a standstill.
Notably, Bulgaria and Romania have the lowest and second-lowest COVID vaccination rates in the EU as of this writing.
Herd immunity as official policy?
As attempted moves toward wide-ranging vaccine mandates and broader implementation of vaccine passports appear to be floundering in Europe, such hesitation has increasingly been accompanied by ever more vocal suggestions that a form of herd immunity, via natural infection stemming from the rapid spread of the milder Omicron variant, should be considered at the policymaking level.
In Israel, for instance, a country that was among the first to move forward with a mass vaccination and booster campaign against COVID, health officials are mulling a “mass infection model.”
On Jan. 11, EU regulators, who had previously supported the administration of COVID booster shots every three months, had a sudden about-face, warning about the dangers the continued administration of boosters could pose for the human immune system.
That same day, the World Health Organization issued a remarkably similar warning, stating that “a vaccination strategy based on repeated booster doses of the original vaccine composition is unlikely to be appropriate or sustainable.”
Just one day prior, on Jan. 10, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez suggested European officials should move towards treating COVID as an endemic illness, calling for a debate on the issue and for a move away from the detailed pandemic case tracking system in place since early 2020.
Dr. Clive Dix, former chairman of the UK’s vaccine task force, Nick Moakes, a chief investment officer of the Wellcome Trust (Britain’s largest independent funder of medical research) made similar remarks. Moakes suggested coronavirus be treated like the common cold.
Meanwhile, certain European countries appear to be shifting away from considering a mandatory vaccination policy for their populations. Irish Prime Minister Michael Martin said his country will maintain a system of voluntary vaccination, while Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo said his intention is to give people a “free choice” on the matter.
This shift is occurring despite remarks made on Dec. 1, 2021, by Ursula von der Leyen, president of the EU Commission, who said it is time to “potentially think about mandatory vaccination within the European Union” and to have a “discussion” about this possibility.
Punitive measures continue elsewhere
The gradual shift away from vaccine mandate policies in Europe and elsewhere is far from uniform, with punitive restrictions and policies continuing to be implemented in several countries.
In Italy, for instance, mandatory vaccination was expanded on Jan. 5 to everyone age 50 and older. The unvaxxed will face a potential fine ranging from 600 to 1,500 euros.
French President Emmanuel Macron made waves in an interview with the Le Parisien newspaper on Jan. 4, justifying the implementation of his country’s “Green Pass” by stating “I really want to piss them off, and we’ll carry on doing this — to the end” and that “irresponsible people [the unvaccinated] are no longer citizens.”
On Jan. 11, the premier of the Canadian province of Quebec, Francois Legault, stated adults who refuse the COVID vaccine will face a “significant” financial penalty.
This statement came on the heels of remarks made on Jan. 7 by Canadian Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos. When asked whether mandatory vaccination was on the horizon in Canada, Duclos stated, “I personally think we will get there at some point.”
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau previously stated, in May 2021, that “[w]e’re not a country that makes vaccination mandatory.”
Other countries have resorted to more extreme, albeit “temporary,” measures.
Non-vaccinated individuals in one Australian state, the Northern Territory, were recently required to stay home for a four-day period, with limited exceptions. The conclusion of this four-day ban coincided with the launch of vaccine passports in the territory.
And in the Philippines, the country’s president, Rodrigo Duterte, called for the arrest of non-vaccinated citizens who venture outside their homes, in light of what he described as the “galloping” spread of the coronavirus.
This nevertheless may represent a milder stance on the part of Duterte, who in April 2020, empowered the police and military with shoot-to-kill orders against lockdown violators.
Kids in California, New York, Illinois, and a number of other states are required to wear face masks every day at school. Nearly 40% of schoolchildren nationwide are required to do so. Other states leave it up to local rules, which means about half the kids in the country are wearing face masks every day, social distancing, eating lunch outside, and performing athletics in masks.
Close to 30% of all schools are legally prevented from implementing mandates, or face pending legal challenges to restrictions, which means few in those states are imposing restrictions as we saw in 2020-2021. Below are those states with and without face mask requirements in schools.
There are two things that would almost assuredly amaze most parents across the country. Many parents in states like California or Illinois with mask mandates would likely be shocked how normal school protocols are in Texas, Florida, Utah, Iowa, and other states are shown in dark green or orange. Those with school-aged children in the green states would be stunned to learn that those in blue are requiring kids to wear face masks in school, socially distance, and eat outside in the cold or rain.
Some universities are requiring students to wear masks while on campus, even outdoors, including the University of Southern California and the University of Arizona.
COVID-19 is currently surging all over the country. Fortunately, a combination of a less lethal variant, recovered immunity and vaccinations are preventing many from the highly serious conditions we have seen in the past. You can see below that positive tests have skyrocketed over the past few weeks. Why so many people who aren’t sick are waiting in long lines and panicking to buy at-home tests is the subject for another article, but it’s clear that millions are currently contracting COVID-19:
In looking at the grouping of the states (CA/OR/WA/IL/NY/DE/MA/CT/NJ/MD/NV/NM/VA/RI) with required masking in schools compared to those without mask mandates (UT/FL/AZ/TX/OK/MO/IA/AR/TN/SC), where very few students are wearing them, we see nearly identical trends, and those with little to no masking have lower current case rates:
The proportion of pediatric positive tests is similar in all parts of the country right now, about 20% of all positive tests across the three 0-17 age groups shown below. This is about the same regardless of weather (seasonality) or restrictions:
It made us wonder. Are the school restrictions in some states working? It’s not about cases; cases are really a product of community spread and how much testing we do. It is about sickness. Are more kids getting hospitalized for or with COVID-19 in the states with normal school protocols than those requiring face masks?
We reached out to Josh Stevenson (@ifihadastick on Twitter), who has repeatedly produced amazing data analysis throughout the pandemic. Below is what he uncovered. This is an original compilation you won’t see anywhere else. For the states requiring masks, COVID-19 pediatric hospitalizations are averaging 4.23 per 100,000 kids:
For the states not allowing face mask mandates (or close to not requiring), COVID-19 pediatric hospitalizations are averaging 4.90 per 100,000 kids:
The hospitalization rate is nearly identical. There is no discernible difference between outcomes of infection or hospitalization for kids in communities where face masks are required in school and those where face coverings are optional.
Kids should be in school with normal protocols. They should be in class without masks, without plexiglass dividers, socializing while they eat lunch, and participating in sports without face masks. Logic clearly tells us this, and this data overwhelmingly proves there is no health benefit to requiring kids to wear face masks in school.
Ian Miller is the author of the upcoming book “Unmasked: The Global Failure of COVID Mask Mandates.” His work has been featured on national television broadcasts, national and international news publications and referenced in multiple best-selling books covering the pandemic. He writes a Substack newsletter, also titled “Unmasked.”
The most underreported story of 2021 was the “crushing impact” of COVID policies on kids, according to CBS News chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford.
During a Dec. 26, 2021 appearance on “Face the Nation,” Crawford slammed COVID policies, blaming them for a number of problems affecting children today, including the ongoing mental health crisis, increased suicide rates, and learning disruptions due to school closures.
Crawford said the risk of suicide attempts by girls is up 51%, while “black kids are twice as likely as white kids to die by suicide.”
“School closures, lockdowns, cancellation of sports — you couldn’t even go on a playground in the D.C. area without cops scurrying, shooing the kids off [and it had a] tremendous negative impact on kids, and it’s been an afterthought,” Crawford said. Crawford said healthy teenagers have “a one-in-a-million chance” of catching and dying of COVID, noting they have a greater chance of dying in a car accident.
“But they have suffered and sacrificed the most, especially kids and underrepresented at-risk communities,” Crawford said. “And now we have the Surgeon General saying there’s a mental health crisis among our kids.”
“They will be paying for our generation’s decisions the rest of their lives”: @JanCBS explains why she thinks 2021's biggest underreported story was the devastating impact of COVID policies on children pic.twitter.com/AUU1f6AFNi
“If our policies don’t reflect a more measured and reasonable approach for our children, they will be paying for our generation’s decisions, the rest of their lives,” Crawford said. “And that, to me, is the greatest underreported story of the past year.”
Crawford’s comments come shortly after U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy in early December issued a 53-page advisory on the youth mental health crisis saying the COVID pandemic “dramatically altered young peoples’ experiences at home, at school, and in the community.”
“The pandemic era’s unfathomable number of deaths, pervasive sense of fear, economic instability, and forced physical distancing from loved ones, friends, and communities have exacerbated the unprecedented stresses young people already faced. It would be a tragedy if we beat back one public health crisis only to allow another to grow in its place.”
People frequently write to Jill and myself. People we have never met. They call, they arrive at the farm by appointment or unannounced, they fill our email in boxes with their inquiries. They all want something; time, attention, an interview. Many want to tell us about their fear, illness, nightmares, or (what often seems like) outright paranoid conspiracies. And then, over time, these fears and “conspiracies” keep getting confirmed. As Jan Jekielek (a senior editor with The Epoch Times) recently said to me, it is getting harder and harder to tell which ones are mere conspiracy theories and which are true reality.
One farm visitor told me of his foreshadowing massive numbers of deaths within three years consequent to the genetic vaccines, and that this was all about the “Great Reset” and the depopulation agenda of the World Economic Forum (WEF). I tried to reassure him that, in my opinion, this was highly unlikely- while privately thinking about how easily people fall into this type of conspiracy ideation, and how I need to be careful to avoid going there when confronting so many public health decisions that appear either incompetent or nefarious. At the time, I only knew of the WEF as the host of a big annual party in Davos Switzerland where the uber-rich and the hoi oligoi of the Western nations went to watch Ted talks, drink the best wine, see and be seen. Silly me. What a long, strange trip this has been. I doubt that even Hunter S. Thompson could have imagined it in his most drug and booze-addled state. Suffice to say, I nominate Ralph Steadman as official illustrator of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Or a resurrected Hieronymus Bosch.
But I am wandering from a point that I am afraid to clearly state.
It is starting to look to me like the largest experiment on human beings in recorded history has failed. And, if this rather dry report from a senior Indiana life insurance executive holds true, then Reiner Fuellmich’s “Crimes against Humanity” push for convening new Nuremberg trials starts to look a lot less quixotic and a lot more prophetic.
Here is what lit me up in this report from The Center Square contributor Margaret Menge.
“The head of Indianapolis-based insurance company OneAmerica said the death rate is up a stunning 40% from pre-pandemic levels among working-age people.
“We are seeing, right now, the highest death rates we have seen in the history of this business – not just at OneAmerica,” the company’s CEO Scott Davison said during an online news conference this week. “The data is consistent across every player in that business.”
OneAmerica is a $100 billion insurance company that has had its headquarters in Indianapolis since 1877. The company has approximately 2,400 employees and sells life insurance, including group life insurance to employers in the state.
Davison said the increase in deaths represents “huge, huge numbers,” and that’s it’s not elderly people who are dying, but “primarily working-age people 18 to 64” who are the employees of companies that have group life insurance plans through OneAmerica.
“And what we saw just in third quarter, we’re seeing it continue into fourth quarter, is that death rates are up 40% over what they were pre-pandemic,” he said.
“Just to give you an idea of how bad that is, a three-sigma or a one-in-200-year catastrophe would be 10% increase over pre-pandemic,” he said. “So 40% is just unheard of.””
So, what is driving this unprecedented surge in all-cause mortality?
“Most of the claims for deaths being filed are NOT classified as COVID-19 deaths,
Davison said.“What the data is showing to us is that the deaths that are being reported as COVID deaths greatly understate the actual death losses among working-age people from the pandemic. It may not all be COVID on their death certificate, but deaths are up just huge, huge numbers.””
AT A MINIMUM, based on my reading, one has to conclude that if this report holds and is confirmed by others in the dry world of life insurance actuaries, we have both a huge human tragedy and a profound public policy failure of the US Government and US HHS system to serve and protect the citizens that pay for this “service”.
IF this holds true, then the genetic vaccines so aggressively promoted have failed, and the clear federal campaign to prevent early treatment with lifesaving drugs has contributed to a massive, avoidable loss of life.
AT WORST, this report implies that the federal workplace vaccine mandates have driven what appear to be a true crime against humanity. Massive loss of life in (presumably) workers that have been forced to accept a toxic vaccine at higher frequency relative to the general population of Indiana.
FURTHERMORE, we have also been living through the most massive, globally coordinated propaganda and censorship campaign in the history of the human race. All major mass media and the social media technology companies have coordinated to stifle and suppress any discussion of the risks of the genetic vaccines AND/OR alternative early treatments.
IF this report holds true, there must be accountability. We are not just talking about running over the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States and grinding it into the mud with an army of artificial intelligence-powered heavy infantry. This article reads like a dry description of an avoidable mass casualty event caused by a mandated experimental medical procedure. One for which all opportunities for the victims to have become self-informed about the potential risks have been methodically erased from both the internet and public awareness by an international corrupt cabal operating under the flag of the “Trusted News Initiative”. George Orwell must be spinning in his grave.
I hope I am wrong. I fear I am right.
Japan Puts Warning Labels on COVID Jabs | Dr. Joseph Mercola
Japan has taken steps to warn its citizens about serious side effects linked to COVID-19 injections
They’ve added a warning label to the jabs, warning about the risk of myocarditis — inflammation of the heart muscle
Japan is also taking strict measures to monitor and report all side effects to the unprecedented jabs
Hospitals must report, in detail, any adverse effects that occur within 28 days of receiving a COVID-19 injection
Japan’s Ministry of Health includes a “consent to vaccination” section on its website, which states mandatory vaccination and discrimination against those who choose not to be vaccinated are not advised; this includes at workplaces, which are told not to force anyone to get injected
Japan is standing out as a protector of informed consent and medical freedom, during a time in history when many other countries are opting for totalitarian control
Japan has taken steps to warn its citizens about serious side effects linked to COVID-19 injections.1 They’ve added a label to the jabs, warning about the risk of myocarditis — inflammation2 of the heart muscle that can cause symptoms similar to a heart attack, including chest pain, shortness of breath, abnormal heartbeat, and fatigue.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states on their website, “Myocarditis and pericarditis have rarely been reported, especially in adolescents and young adult males within several days after COVID-19 vaccination.”3
Further, in June 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration added a warning to patient and provider fact sheets for the Pfizer and Moderna jabs about the “suggested increased risks of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of the tissue surrounding the heart) following vaccination.”4
Unlike in the U.S., however, Japan is taking measures to monitor and report all side effects to the unprecedented jabs.
Japan Has Strict Reporting Requirements for Jab Side Effects
In Japan, strict legal reporting requirements are in effect for side effects that occur within 28 days of receiving a COVID-19 injection. Hospitals must report, in detail, any adverse effects that occur within that time period.
Japan’s Ministry of Health reported that, as of November 14, 2021, for every 1 million males who received the Moderna COVID-19 injection, 81.79 youths between the ages of 10 and 19 developed myocarditis or pericarditis, as did 48.76 men in their 20s.5
For Pfizer’s COVID-19 jab, 15.66 out of every 1 million 10- to 19-year-old males who received the jab suffered from myocarditis or pericarditis, along with 13.32 of males in their 20s.6 Due to the risk of myocarditis, Britain’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI) recommended COVID-9 injections for healthy 12- to 15-year-olds. JCVI member Adam Finn told Reuters:7
“… the number of serious cases that we see of COVID in children this age are really very small. There are uncertainties about the long-term implications of (myocarditis), and that makes the risk-benefit balance for these children really quite tight and much tighter than we would be comfortable to make the recommendation.”
In the U.S., where COVID-19 injections are recommended for ages 5 and up, the CDC stated it is “conducting surveys of patients (or their parents or guardians) and health care providers to gather information about myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination” and “contacting people who meet the case definition for myocarditis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.”8
As of December 8, 2021, 1,908 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis had been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following COVID-19 jabs, typically among male adolescents and young adults.9 December 17, 2021, just 51 days after approving the shots for children ages 5 to 11, the CDC reported10 that it had so far received reports of eight cases of myocarditis in that age group.
Past investigations have shown only between 1%11 and 10%12 of adverse reactions are ever reported to VAERS, which is a passive, voluntary reporting system, so the actual number could be much higher.
In its approval letter for Comirnaty (Pfizer’s COVID-19 injection), the FDA ordered Pfizer to conduct research to investigate the risk of inflammation in and around the heart, as voluntary reporting mechanisms are insufficient.13
The FDA accepted Pfizer’s suggested timetable for the post-approval study to evaluate the incidence of heart and heart sack inflammation, which includes the submission of an interim report at the end of October 2023, a study completion date of June 30, 2025, and submission of a final report October 31, 2025.
Japan Says No to Vaccine Mandates, Discrimination
In stark contrast to much of the rest of the globe, Japan stands against compulsory vaccination. Japan’s Ministry of Health includes a “consent to vaccination” section on its website, which states mandatory vaccination and discrimination against those who choose not to be vaccinated are not advised. This includes at workplaces, which are told not to force anyone to get injected:14,15
“Although we encourage all citizens to receive the COVID-19 vaccination, it is not compulsory or mandatory. Vaccination will be given only with the consent of the person to be vaccinated after the information provided.
Please get vaccinated of your own decision, understanding both the effectiveness in preventing infectious diseases and the risk of side effects. No vaccination will be given without consent. Please do not force anyone in your workplace or those who around you to be vaccinated, and do not discriminate against those who have not been vaccinated.”
The page even links to “human rights counseling in foreign languages,” which details what to do if faced with vaccine discrimination in the workplace.16 Japan is standing out as a protector of informed consent and medical freedom, during a time in history when many other countries are opting for totalitarian control. Rair Foundation explained:17
“Doctors worldwide have echoed Japan’s health authority warnings about the gene-therapies side effects. However, this kind of proper informed consent has cost many doctors in western nations their licenses to practice medicine. The government has accused these doctors of spreading ‘vaccine hesitancy.’
Furthermore, while Japan allows its citizens to choose whether to be injected with the experimental gene-therapies, other countries are forcing citizens to receive the jab. For example, in February 2022, Austria will mandate the injections. Citizens who refuse will face heavy fines and up to one year in prison.”
Japanese Researchers Warn of Blood Clots, Death After Jabs
Reports of both cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) have been reported following COVID-19 shots, including both fatal and nonfatal cases. In a commentary published in the Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice,18 Japanese researchers revealed that, as of May 2021, 10 deaths were reported following the shots — and the manner of deaths raised a red flag.
Among the five men who died, it was from causes other than stroke, but four of the five women who passed away died from ICH. “This imbalance is incompatible with the mortality data on cardiovascular diseases in the National Statistics, which show no apparent disparity between sexes or between hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke,” they wrote.19
Their analysis revealed “a disproportionately high incidence of death by ICH in Japanese women who received tozinameran [Pfizer’s COVID0-19 shot], suggesting a potential association of ICH with the vaccine.”20 They also believe that a causal link between the deaths from ICH and the shot is possible and warrants further study. Others have also warned that blood clot formation with mRNA vaccines is inevitable.
The mRNA COVID-19 injections affect your body at the cellular level.21 In each dose of the Moderna COVID-19 shot are 40 trillion mRNA — or messenger RNA — molecules. Each mRNA “package” is designed to be absorbed into your cell, but only 25% stay in your arm at the site of the injection. The other 75%, is collected by your lymphatic system and fed into your circulation, Dr. Charles Hoffe, a family physician from Lytton, British Columbia, said.
The cells where mRNA is absorbed are those around your blood vessels — the capillary network, which are the tiniest blood vessels in your body. When the mRNA is absorbed into your vascular endothelium — the inner lining of your capillaries — the “packages” open and genes are released. Each gene can produce many COVID-19 spike proteins, and your body gets to work manufacturing these spike proteins, numbering in the trillions.
Your body recognizes the spike protein as foreign, so it begins to manufacture antibodies to protect you against COVID-19, or so the theory goes. But there’s a problem. In a coronavirus, the spike protein becomes part of the viral capsule, Hoffe says, but when you get the shot, “it’s not in a virus, it’s in your cells.” The spike protein, in turn, can lead to the development of blood clots:22
“So it therefore becomes part of the cell wall of your vascular endothelium, which means that these cells, which line your blood vessels, which are supposed to be smooth so that your blood flows smoothly now have these little spiky bits sticking out.
So it is absolutely inevitable that blood clots will form, because your blood platelets circulate around in your vessels and the purpose of blood platelets is to detect a damaged vessel and block that damage when it starts bleeding. So when a platelet comes through a capillary and suddenly hits all these covid spikes that are jutting into the inside vessel … blood clots will form to block that vessel. That’s how platelets work.”
Japanese Study Reveals Adverse Events Following Jabs
In a preprint study released in October 2021, researchers from Nagasaki International University, Japan, studied adverse events that occur in young Japanese people following Moderna’s COVID-19 shot.23
Using data from 7,965 individuals, they found that 83% experienced local adverse events while 65% experienced systemic adverse events. Those, particularly at risk, included women, youth under the age of 20 — who often experienced adverse events after the first dose — and those who experienced adverse events after the first dose.
Such information is crucial to proper informed consent, something that not only has been lacking during the pandemic but actively censored. It’s encouraging to see countries like Japan standing out in their efforts to get a true picture of how dangerous COVID-19 jabs may be. As Health Thoroughfare noted:24
“According to the latest reports, the country is reaffirming its commitment to adverse event reporting requirements to ensure all possible side effects are documented. These efforts from Japan’s health authority are in stark contrast to the measures taken by other countries to coerce citizens into taking the injection, downplaying side effects, and discouraging proper adverse event reporting.”
Japan’s ministry of health is taking a sensible, ethical approach to Covid vaccines. They recently labeled the vaccines with a warning about myocarditis and other risks. They also reaffirmed their commitment to adverse event reporting to document potential side effects.
Japan’s ministry of health states: “Although we encourage all citizens to receive the COVID-19 vaccination, it is not compulsory or mandatory. Vaccination will be given only with the consent of the person to be vaccinated after the information provided.”
Furthermore, they state: “Please get vaccinated of your own decision, understanding both the effectiveness in preventing infectious diseases and the risk of side effects. No vaccination will be given without consent.”
Finally, they clearly state: “Please do not force anyone in your workplace or those around you to be vaccinated, and do not discriminate against those who have not been vaccinated.”
They also link to a “Human Rights Advice” page that includes instructions for handling any complaints if individuals face vaccine discrimination at work.
Other nations would do well to follow Japan’s lead with this balanced and ethical approach.
This policy appropriately places the responsibility for this healthcare decision with the individual or family.
We can contrast this with the vaccine mandate approach adopted in many other Western nations. The U.S. provides a case study in the anatomy of medical coercion exercised by a faceless bureaucratic network.
A bureaucracy is an institution that exercises enormous power over you but with no locus of responsibility. This leads to the familiar frustration, often encountered on a small scale at the local DMV, that you can go round in bureaucratic circles trying to troubleshoot problems or rectify unfair practices. No actual person seems to be able to help you get to the bottom of things—even if a well-meaning person sincerely wants to assist you.
Here’s how this dynamic is playing out with coercive vaccine mandates in the U.S. The CDC makes vaccine recommendations. But the ethically crucial distinction between a recommendation and mandate immediately collapses when institutions (e.g., a government agency, a business, employer, university, or school) require you to be vaccinated based on the CDC recommendation.
Try to contest the rationality of these mandates, e.g., in federal court, and the mandating institution just points back to CDC recommendation as the rational basis for the mandate. The court will typically agree, deferring to the CDC’s authority on public health. The school, business, etc., thus disclaims responsibility for the decision to mandate the vaccine: “We’re just following CDC recommendations, after all. What can we do?”
But CDC likewise disclaims responsibility: “We don’t make policy; we just make recommendations, after all.”
Meanwhile, the vaccine manufacturer is immune and indemnified from all liability or harm under federal law. No use going to them if their product—a product that you did not freely decide to take—harms you.
You are now dizzy from going round in circles trying to identify the actual decision-maker: it’s impossible to pinpoint the relevant authority. You know that enormous power is being exercised over your body and your health, but with no locus of responsibility for the decision and no liability for the outcomes.
You are thus left with the consequences of a decision that nobody claims to have made. The only certainty is that you did not make the decision and you were not given the choice.
Japan’s policy avoids most of these problems simply placing responsibility for the decision on the individual receiving the intervention, or the parent in the case of a child who is not old enough to consent.
Incidentally, this focus on choice and freedom was somewhat reflected in Japan’s policies throughout the pandemic, which were less stringent than most countries, including those in the U.S.
Two weeks to flatten the curve has turned into two years and only official medical apartheid enforced by a corporate-managed technological social credit score system can save us.
This would be a lunatic solution even if the virus were as dangerous as they are making it out to be, but in reality, there is no medical emergency.
In a recent interview Dr. Naomi Wolf, author of Outrages: Sex, Censorship, and the Criminalization of Love, comments on the reality we are all facing: laws, mandates, authoritarianism, and tyranny are being imposed on us even though the situation is nowhere near as critical as the media and paid for pundits and scientists are telling us. This is a travesty, and an embarrassment to the tradition of freedom and medical autonomy long honored by America and other free nations.
There is no medical emergency, so why are we complying with the destruction of our liberties?
“We’re seeing this state by state. There’s some kind of contract where governors have to deliver a certain percent of vaccinated in order to get something from pharma or in order to fulfil their contract. So you can see this structure over and over of, well we have to reach 70% or 80% of vaccinated or you don’t get your rights back. And, this is not how America works. I have my rights…
…They’re trying to drag us onto their field of rhetoric, and it is a field of rhetoric of lies and it’s built on lies. And I always think of Goebbels saying if you just tell a big enough lie over and over again people will believe you. So number one, as I say all the time, everybody agrees, all the data show vaccinated, unvaccinated, that it does not affect transmission. So all of these tyrannical measures are nonsensical because they’re predicated on transmission.
The other thing I want to say is, we’re not in a pandemic emergency anymore. It’s not a pandemic. The numbers of people dying of or with covid in the hospitals are below cardiac arrest, below stroke, below suicide… what is being reported is cases… cases are not people who are dying, it is just a flu, or similar to a flu. It’s unfortunate and I’m not diminishing it but it is not a pandemic emergency.”
About the Author
Alex Pietrowski is an artist and writer concerned with preserving good health and the basic freedom to enjoy a healthy lifestyle. He is a staff writer forWakingTimes.com. Alex is an avid student of Yoga and life.
In this video, Dr. Peter McCullough speaks with Bret Weinstein regarding what a wise and logical response to Covid would look like. This is a must-see and must-share interview for those who are concerned about the one-size-fits-all vaccine approach being forced on the world today. Dr. McCullough is an academic internist, cardiologist, and trained epidemiologist located in Dallas, Texas. He is also the most peer-reviewed/published cardiologist in US history.
The War Over Life, Liberty and Privacy Rights: From Abortion to COVID-19 and Beyond | John W. Whitehead & Nisha Whitehead
Who gets to decide when it comes to bodily autonomy?
Where does one draw the line over whose rights are worthy of protecting? And how do present-day legal debates over bodily autonomy, privacy, vaccine mandates, the death penalty, and abortion play into future discussions about the singularity, artificial intelligence, cloning, and the privacy rights of the individual in the face of increasingly invasive, intrusive, and unavoidable government technologies?
Caught up in the heated debate over the legality of abortion, we’ve failed to think about what’s coming next. Get ready, because it could get scary, ugly, and overwhelming really fast.
Thus far, abortion politics have largely revolved around who has the right to decide—the government or the individual—when it comes to bodily autonomy, the right to privacy in one’s body, sexual freedom, and the rights of the unborn.
In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause provides for a “right to privacy” that assures a woman’s right to abort her pregnancy within the first two trimesters.
In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the Supreme Court reaffirmed its earlier ruling in Roe when it prohibited states from imposing an “undue burden” or “substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.”
No matter how the Supreme Court rules in Dobbs, it will not resolve the problem of a culture that values life based on a sliding scale. Nor will it help us navigate the moral, ethical, and scientific minefields that await us as technology and humanity move ever closer to a point of singularity.
Here’s what I know.
Life is an inalienable right. By allowing the government to decide who or what is deserving of rights, it shifts the entire discussion from one in which we are “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights” (that of life, liberty property, and the pursuit of happiness) to one in which only those favored by the government get to enjoy such rights. The abortion debate—a tug-of-war over when an unborn child is considered a human being with rights—lays the groundwork for discussions about who else may or may not be deserving of rights: the disabled, the aged, the infirm, the immoral, the criminal, etc. The death penalty is just one aspect of this debate. As theologian Francis Schaeffer warned early on: “The acceptance of the death of human life in babies born or unborn opens the door to the arbitrary taking of any human life. From then on, it’s purely arbitrary.”
If all people are created equal, then all lives should be equally worthy of protection. There’s an idea embraced by both the Right and the Left according to their biases that there is a hierarchy to live, with some lives worthier of protection than others. Out of that mindset is born the seeds of eugenics, genocide, slavery, and war.
There is no hierarchy of freedoms. All freedoms hang together. Freedom cannot be a piece-meal venture. My good friend Nat Hentoff (1925-2017), a longtime champion of civil liberties and a staunch pro-lifer, often cited Cardinal Bernardin, who believed that a “consistent ethic of life” viewed all threats to life as immoral: “[N]uclear war threatens life on a previously unimaginable scale. Abortion takes life daily on a horrendous scale. Public executions are fast becoming weekly events in the most advanced technological society in history, and euthanasia is now openly discussed and even advocated. Each of these assaults on life has its own meaning and morality. They cannot be collapsed into one problem, but they must be confronted as pieces of a larger pattern.”
Beware slippery slopes. To suggest that the end justifies the means (for example, that abortion is justified in order to ensure a better quality of life for women and children) is to encourage a slippery slope mindset that could just as reasonably justify ending a life in order for the great good of preventing war, thwarting disease, defeating poverty, preserving national security, etc. Such arguments have been used in the past to justify such dubious propositions as subjecting segments of the population to secret scientific experiments, unleashing nuclear weapons on innocent civilians, and enslaving fellow humans.
Beware of double standards. As the furor surrounding COVID-19 vaccine mandates make clear, the debate over bodily autonomy and privacy goes beyond the singular right to abortion. Indeed, as vaccine mandates have been rolled out, long-held positions have been reversed: many of those who historically opposed the government usurping a woman’s right to bodily autonomy and privacy have no qualms about supporting vaccine mandates that trample upon those very same rights. Similarly, those who historically looked to the government to police what a woman does with her body believe the government should have no authority to dictate whether or not one opts to get vaccinated.
What’s next? Up until now, we have largely focused the privacy debate in the physical realm as it relates to abortion rights, physical searches of our persons and property, and our communications. Yet humanity is being propelled at warp speed into a whole new frontier when it comes to privacy, bodily autonomy, and what it means to be a human being.
We haven’t even begun to understand how to talk about these new realms, let alone establish safeguards to protect against abuses.
Humanity itself hangs in the balance.
Remaining singularly human and retaining your individuality and dominion over yourself—mind, body, and soul—in the face of corporate and government technologies that aim to invade, intrude, monitor, manipulate and control us may be one of the greatest challenges before us.
These battles over COVID-19 vaccine mandates are merely the tipping point. The groundwork being laid with these mandates is a prologue to what will become the police state’s conquest of a new, relatively uncharted, frontier: inner space, specifically, the inner workings (genetic, biological, biometric, mental, emotional) of the human race.
Everything we do is increasingly dependent on and, ultimately, controlled by technological devices. For example, in 2007, there were an estimated 10 million sensor devices connecting human utilized electronic devices (cell phones, laptops, etc.) to the Internet. By 2013, it had increased to 3.5 billion. By 2030, there will be an estimated 100 trillion sensor devices connecting us to the internet by way of a neural network that approximates a massive global brain.
The end goal? Population control and the creation of a new “human” species, so to speak, through singularity, a marriage of sorts between machine and human beings in which artificial intelligence and the human brain will merge to form a superhuman mind.
Advances in neuroscience indicate that future behavior can be predicted based upon activity in certain portions of the brain, potentially creating a nightmare scenario in which government officials select certain segments of the population for more invasive surveillance or quarantine based solely upon their brain chemistry.
Clearly, we are rapidly moving into the “posthuman era,” one in which humans will become a new type of being. “Technological devices,” writes journalist Marcelo Gleiser, “will be implanted in our heads and bodies, or used peripherally, like Google Glass, extending our senses and cognitive abilities.”
Transhumanism—the fusing of machines and people—is here to stay and will continue to grow.
All of this indicates a new path forward for large corporations and government entities that want to achieve absolute social control.
It is slavery in another form.
Yet we must never stop working to protect life, preserve our freedoms and maintain some semblance of our humanity.
Abortion, vaccine mandates, transhumanism, etc.: these are all points along the continuum.
Even so, there will be others. For instance, analysts are speculating whether artificial intelligence, which will eventually dominate all emerging technologies, could come to rule the world and enslave humans. How will a world dominated by artificial intelligence redefine what it means to be human and exercise free will?
Scientists say the world’s first living robots can now reproduce. What rights are these “living” organisms entitled to? For that matter, what about clones? At the point that scientists are able to move beyond cloning organs and breeding hybrid animals to breeding full-bodied, living clones in order to harvest body parts, who is to say that clones do not also deserve to have their right to life protected?
The Road to Fascism: Paved with Vaccine Mandates and Corporate Collusion | John W. Whitehead & Nisha Whitehead
“Man is born free but everywhere is in chains.”—Jean-Jacques Rousseau
We are moving fast down the road to fascism.
This COVID-19 pandemic has shifted us into high gear.
The heavy-handed collusion between the Techno-Corporate State and the U.S. government over vaccine mandates is merely the latest manifestation of the extent to which fascist forces are working to overthrow our constitutional republic and nullify the rights of the individual.
In other words, as Katrina Trinko writes for USA Today, “the government is turning employers—who are not paid by, nor work for, the government—into an army of vaccine enforcers.”
Do you know who won’t suffer any harm as a result of these vaccine mandates? The Corporate State (manufacturers, distributors, and health care providers), which were given a blanket “get out of jail” card to insulate them from liability for any injuries or death caused by the vaccines.
While this vaccine mandate is being presented as a “targeted” mandate as opposed to a national mandate that impacts the entire population, it effectively leaves those with sincere objections to the COVID vaccine with very few options beyond total compliance or unemployment.
This has long since ceased to be a debate over how best to protect the populace at large against an unknown pandemic. Rather, it has become a massively intrusive, coercive, and authoritarian assault on the right of individual sovereignty over one’s life, self, and private property.
As such, these COVID-19 mandates have become the new battleground in the government’s tug-of-war over bodily autonomy and individual sovereignty.
Already, the legal challenges to these vaccine mandates are piling up before the courts. Before long, divided circuit court rulings will make their way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will be asked to decide whether these mandates constitute government overreach or a natural extension of the government’s so-called emergency powers.
With every new court ruling that empowers corporations and the government to use heavy-handed tactics to bring about vaccine compliance, with every new workplace mandate that forces employees to choose between their right to bodily autonomy and economic livelihood, and with every new piece of legislation that insulates corporations and the government from being held accountable for vaccine injuries and deaths, our property interest in our bodies is diminished.
At a minimum, our right to individual sovereignty over our lives and our bodies is being usurped by power-hungry authoritarians; greedy, self-serving corporations; egotistical Nanny Staters who think they know what’s best for the rest of the populace; and a short-sighted but well-meaning populace which fails to understand the long-term ramifications of trading their essential freedoms for temporary promises of safety and security.
We are more vulnerable now than ever before.
This debate over bodily autonomy, which covers broad territory ranging from forced vaccinations, abortion, and euthanasia to forced blood draws, biometric surveillance, and basic healthcare has far-reaching ramifications for who gets to decide what happens to our bodies during an encounter with government officials.
On a daily basis, Americans are already being made to relinquish the most intimate details of who we are—our biological makeup, our genetic blueprints, and our biometrics (facial characteristics and structure, fingerprints, iris scans, etc.)—in order to clear the nearly insurmountable hurdle that increasingly defines life in the United States: we are now guilty until proven innocent.
This merely pushes us one step further down that road towards a total control society in which the government in collusion with Corporate America gets to decide who is “worthy” of being allowed to take part in society.
Right now, COVID-19 vaccines are the magic ticket for gaining access to the “privileges” of communal life. Having already conditioned the population to the idea that being part of society is a privilege and not a right, such access could easily be predicated on social credit scores, the worthiness of one’s political views, or the extent to which one is willing to comply with the government’s dictates, no matter what they might be.
The government is litigating and legislating its way into a new framework where the dictates of petty bureaucrats carry greater weight than the inalienable rights of the citizenry.
When all that we own, all that we earn, all that we say and do—our very lives—depends on the benevolence of government agents and corporate shareholders for whom profit and power will always trump principle, we should all be leery and afraid.
The Biden vaccine mandate appears to be falling apart before it’s even in place. From first responders to truck drivers to everyone in-between, the message is clear: many thousands are willing to be fired from their jobs rather than be forced to take a medical procedure they do not want.
They have leverage and they are using it. We should support them.
Grocery shelves are bare, shipping containers continue to float offshore, firehouses in New York are shut down, the Los Angeles County Sheriff warns that, in the middle of a crime wave, half of his deputies may quit or be fired. Airlines are citing non-existent “weather problems” to excuse the fact that their employees are rebelling against forced covid shots.
The country is teetering on the edge of an economic abyss and the Biden Administration is doubling down. The only question is how far down the President is willing to drag his party and his own approval numbers to continue to push an unconstitutional, deeply unpopular, and thoroughly tyrannical forced vaccine on the population.
If the vaccine provided a high level of immunity from the virus that did not wane over time, encouraging people to take the shot – which uses experimental technology – might make some sense, though mandating it would still be immoral and illegal.
But Biden’s own senior health officials such as CDC Director Wallensky have been telling us since August that the shot does not prevent infection from the virus and does not prevent transmission of the virus. So it is not a “vaccine” by any definition of the term. That’s why the CDC itself in September changed its official definition of the term “vaccine” to exclude the term “immunity.” The deception is so transparent.
They say you must take the shot because it may prevent serious illness from the virus. But we know there are plenty of other things that may prevent serious illness from the virus. Media personality Joe Rogan was widely ridiculed for using ivermectin and other drugs and procedures to treat his bout of Covid-19. But it seems to have worked. Likewise, Green Bay Packers legendary quarterback Aaron Rodgers successfully treated his Covid with ivermectin and other procedures. Even though he now has natural immunity to the virus, he has been attacked by the mainstream media for not following Fauci’s demands. Success means nothing. Only obedience matters.
A new study of the effectiveness of the Covid shots is not good news for the Biden Administration. Published November 4th in the scientific journal Nature, researchers followed 800,000 US veterans for six months after receiving the shot. Between March and November, Moderna’s effectiveness fell from 85 percent to 58 percent – just a little better than a coin flip. The Pfizer/BioNTech two-dose fell in effectiveness from 87 percent to 45 percent, and the Johnson & Johnson fell in effectiveness from 86 percent to 13 percent!
As the Washington Times wrote about the important new Nature study, “Factor in natural immunity and a case could be made these vaccines are nearly worthless.”
So why is the Administration pursuing this scorched earth policy on vaccine mandates? Maybe we should look at how many lobbyists Big Pharma has on Capitol Hill. Maybe look at the revolving door between the FDA, CDC, and Big Pharma. The word is “corruption,” and if the CDC’s own adverse reaction database is accurate it is killing thousands of Americans. Hold the line and resist the mandate!
Until recently, it appeared economic competition had been driving the rise and fall of small and large companies across the U.S. Supposedly, PepsiCo is Coca-Cola’s competitor, Apple and Android vie for your loyalty, and drug companies battle for your health care dollars. However, all of that turns out to be an illusion.
Since the mid-1970s, two corporations — Vanguard and Blackrock — have gobbled up most companies in the world, effectively destroying the competitive market on which America’s strength has rested, leaving only false appearances behind.
Indeed, the global economy may be the greatest illusionary trick ever pulled over the eyes of people around the world. To understand what’s really going on, watch Tim Gielen’s hour-long documentary, “MONOPOLY: Who Owns the World?” below.
As noted by Gielen, who narrates the film, a handful of mega-corporations — private investment companies — dominate every aspect of our lives; everything we eat, drink, wear or use in one way or another. These investment firms are so enormous, they control the money flow worldwide. So, how does this scheme work?
While there appear to be hundreds of competing brands on the market, like Russian nesting dolls, larger parent companies own multiple smaller brands. In reality, all packaged food brands, for example, are owned by a dozen or so larger parent companies.
Pepsi Co. owns a long list of food, beverage and snack brands, as does Coca-Cola, Nestle, General Mills, Kellogg’s, Unilever, Mars, Kraft Heinz, Mondelez, Danone and Associated British Foods. Together, these parent companies monopolize the packaged food industry, as virtually every food brand available belongs to one of them.
These companies are publicly traded and are run by boards, where the largest shareholders have power over the decision making. This is where it gets interesting, because when you look up who the largest shareholders are, you find yet another monopoly.
While the topmost shareholders can change from time to time, based on shares bought and sold, two companies are consistently listed among the top institutional holders of these parent companies: The Vanguard Group Inc. and Blackrock Inc.
Pepsi and Coca-Cola — An Example
For example, while there are more than 3,000 shareholders in Pepsi Co., Vanguard and Blackrock’s holdings account for nearly one-third of all shares. Of the top 10 shareholders in Pepsi Co., the top three, Vanguard, Blackrock and State Street Corporation, own more shares than the remaining seven.
Now, let’s look at Coca-Cola Co., Pepsi’s top competitor. Who owns Coke? As with Pepsi, the majority of the company shares are held by institutional investors, which number 3,155 (as of the making of the documentary).
As shown in the film, three of the top four institutional shareholders of Coca-Cola are identical with that of Pepsi: Vanguard, Blackrock and State Street Corporation. The No. 1 shareholder of Coca-Cola is Berkshire Hathaway Inc.
These four — Vanguard, Blackrock, State Street and Berkshire Hathaway — are the four largest investment firms on the planet. “So, Pepsi and Coca-Cola are anything but competitors,” Gielen says. And the same goes for the other packaged food companies. All are owned by the same small group of institutional shareholders.
Big Tech Monopoly
The monopoly of these investment firms isn’t relegated to the packaged food industry. You find them dominating virtually all other industries as well. Take Big Tech, for example. Among the top 10 largest tech companies we find Apple, Samsung, Alphabet (parent company of Google), Microsoft, Huawei, Dell, IBM and Sony.
Here, we find the same Russian nesting doll setup. For example, Facebook owns Whatsapp and Instagram. Alphabet owns Google and all Google-related businesses, including YouTube and Gmail. It’s also the biggest developer of Android, the main competitor to Apple. Microsoft owns Windows and Xbox. In all, four parent companies produce the software used by virtually all computers, tablets and smartphones in the world. Who, then, owns them? Here’s a sampling:
Facebook — More than 80% of Facebook shares are held by institutional investors, and the top institutional holders are the same as those found in the food industry: Vanguard and Blackrock being the top two, as of the end of March 2021. State Street Corporation is the fifth biggest shareholder
Apple — The top four institutional investors are Vanguard, Blackrock, Berkshire Hathaway, and State Street Corporation
Microsoft — The top three institutional shareholders are Vanguard, Blackrock, and State Street Corporation
You can continue going through the list of tech brands — companies that build computers, smart phones, electronics and household appliances — and you’ll repeatedly find Vanguard, Blackrock, Berkshire Hathaway and State Street Corporation among the top shareholders.
Same Small Group Owns Everything Else Too
The same ownership trend exists in all other industries. Gielen offers yet another example to prove this statement is not an exaggeration:
“Let’s say we want to plan a vacation. On our computer or smart phone, we look for a cheap flight to the sun through websites like Skyscanner and Expedia, both of which are owned by the same group of institutional investors [Vanguard, Blackrock and State Street Corporation].
We fly with one of the many airlines [American Airlines, Air France, KLM, United Airlines, Delta and Transavia] of which the majority of the shares are often owned by the same investors …
The airline we fly [on] is in most cases a Boeing or an Airbus. Again, we see the same [institutional shareholders]. We look for a hotel or an apartment through Bookings.com or AirBnB.com. Once we arrive at our destination, we go out to dinner and we write a review on Trip Advisor. The same investors are at the basis of every aspect of our journey.
And their power goes even much further, because even the kerosene that fuels the plane comes from one of their many oil companies and refineries. Just like the steel that the plane is made of comes from one of their many mining companies.
This small club of investment companies, banks and mutual funds, are also the largest shareholders in the primary industries, where our raw materials come from.”
The same goes for the agricultural industry that the global food industry depends on, and any other major industry. These institutional investors own Bayer, the world’s largest seed producer; they own the largest textile manufacturers and many of the largest clothing companies.
They own the oil refineries, the largest solar panel producers and the automobile, aircraft and arms industries. They own all the major tobacco companies, and all the major drug companies and scientific institutes too. They also own big department stores and online marketplaces like eBay, Amazon, and AliExpress.
They even own the payment methods we use, from credit card companies to digital payment platforms, as well as insurance companies, banks, construction companies, telephone companies, restaurant chains, personal care brands and cosmetic brands.
No matter what industry you look at, the top shareholders, and therefore decision-makers, are the same: Vanguard, Blackrock, State Street and/or Berkshire Hathaway. In virtually every major company, you find these names among the top 10 institutional investors.
Who Owns the Investment Firms of the World?
Diving deeper, we find that these major investment firms are in turn owned by their own set of shareholders. One of the most amazing things about this scheme is that the institutional investors — and there are many more than the primary four we’ve focused on here — also own each other. They’re all shareholders in each other’s companies.
“Together, they form an immense network that we can compare to a pyramid,” Gielen says. Smaller institutional investors, such as Citibank, ING and T. Rowe Price, are owned by larger investment firms such as Northern Trust, Capital Group, 3G Capital and KKR.
Those investors in turn are owned by even larger investment firms, like Goldman Sachs and Wellington Market, which are owned by larger firms yet, such as Berkshire Hathaway and State Street. At the top of the pyramid — the largest Russian doll of all — we find Vanguard and Blackrock.
“The power of these two companies is something we can barely imagine,” Gielen says. “Not only are they the largest institutional investors of every major company on earth, they also own the other institutional investors of those companies, giving them a complete monopoly.”
Gielen cites data from Bloomberg, showing that by 2028, Vanguard and BlackRock are expected to collectively manage $20 trillion-worth of investments. In the process, they will own almost everything on planet Earth.
BlackRock — The Fourth Branch of Government
Bloomberg has also referred to BlackRock as the “fourth branch of government,” due to its close relationship with the central banks. BlackRock actually lends money to the central bank, the federal reserve, and is their principal adviser.
Dozens of BlackRock employees have held senior positions in the White House under the Bush, Obama and Biden administrations. BlackRock also developed the computer system that the central banks use.
Who Owns BlackRock?
While Larry Fink is the figurehead of BlackRock, being its founder, chairman and chief executive officer, he’s not the sole decision-maker, as BlackRock too is owned by shareholders. Here we find yet another curiosity, as the largest shareholder of BlackRock is Vanguard.
“This is where it gets dark,” Gielen says. Vanguard has a unique structure that blocks us from seeing who the actual shareholders are. “The elite who own Vanguard don’t want anyone to know they are the owners of the most powerful company on earth.” Still, if you dig deep enough, you can find clues as to who these owners are.
The owners of the wealthiest, most powerful company on Earth can be expected to be among the wealthiest individuals on earth. In 2016, Oxfam reported that the combined wealth of the richest 1% in the world was equal to the wealth of the remaining 99%. In 2018, it was reported that the world’s richest people get 82% of all the money earned around the world in 2017.
In reality, we can assume that the owners of Vanguard are among the 0.001% richest people on the planet. According to Forbes, there were 2,075 billionaires in the world as of March 2020. Gielen cites Oxfam data showing that two-thirds of billionaires obtained their fortunes via inheritance, monopoly and/or cronyism.
“This means that Vanguard is in the hands of the richest families on earth,” Gielen says. Among them we find the Rothschilds, the DuPont family, the Rockefellers, the Bush family and the Morgan family, just to name a few.
Many belong to royal bloodlines and are the founders of our central banking system, the United Nations and just about every industry on the planet. Gielen goes even further in his documentary, so I highly recommend watching it in its entirety. I’ve only summarized a small piece of the whole film here.
A Financial Coup D’etat
Speaking of the central bankers, I recently interviewed finance guru Catherine Austin Fitts, and she believes it’s the central bankers that are at the heart of the global takeover we’re currently seeing. She also believes they are the ones pressuring private companies to implement the clearly illegal COVID jab mandates. Their control is so great, few companies have the ability to take a stand against them.
“I think [the central bankers] are really depending on the smart grid and creepy technology to help them go to the last steps of financial control, which is what I think they’re pushing for,” she said.
“What we’ve seen is a tremendous effort to bankrupt the population and the governments so that it’s much easier for the central bankers to take control. That’s what I’ve been writing about since 1998, that this is a financial coup d’etat.
Now the financial coup d’etat is being consolidated, where the central bankers just serve jurisdiction over the treasury and the tax money. And if they can get the [vaccine] passports in with the CBDC [central bank digital currency], then it will be able to take taxes out of our accounts and take our assets. So, this is a real coup d’etat.”
The Spartacus Letter
Again, I urge you to watch the documentary at the top of this article and keep an eye out for my interview with Austin Fitts, which will be published in the near future. In closing, I want to highlight a mysterious letter posted by an anonymous individual who goes by the name “Spartacus.”
“COVID-19 — The Spartacus Letter” was originally posted on docdroid.net, but has since been deleted. Another copy can be found on mega.nz.1 The Automatic Earth2 and ZeroHedge3 have also published the letter in full. The letter starts out saying, “My name is Spartacus, and I’ve had enough”:
“We are watching the medical establishment inject literal poison into millions of our fellow Americans without so much as a fight. We have been told that we will be fired and denied our livelihoods if we refuse to vaccinate. This was the last straw.”
What follows is a compilation of data showing the COVID pandemic was a biowarfare attack that has been kept going using sophisticated psychological warfare tactics. It also reviews the dangers of the COVID shots, noting that the virus and the “vaccines” were made by the same entities.
A summary of Spartacus’ findings is as follows. Each summary point is elaborated upon in later sections of the letter, which you can read in any of the three references provided.
COVID-19 is a blood and blood vessel disease. SARS-CoV-2 infects the lining of human blood vessels, causing them to leak into the lungs.
Current treatment protocols (e.g. invasive ventilation) are actively harmful to patients, accelerating oxidative stress and causing severe VILI (ventilator-induced lung injuries). The continued use of ventilators in the absence of any proven medical benefit constitutes mass murder.
Existing countermeasures are inadequate to slow the spread of what is an aerosolized and potentially wastewater-borne virus, and constitute a form of medical theater.
Various non-vaccine interventions have been suppressed by both the media and the medical establishment in favor of vaccines and expensive patented drugs.
The authorities have denied the usefulness of natural immunity against COVID-19, despite the fact that natural immunity confers protection against all of the virus’s proteins, and not just one.
Vaccines will do more harm than good. The antigen that these vaccines are based on, SARS-CoV-2 Spike, is a toxic protein. SARS-CoV-2 may have ADE or antibody-dependent enhancement; current antibodies may not neutralize future strains, but instead, help them infect immune cells. Also, vaccinating during a pandemic with a leaky vaccine removes the evolutionary pressure for a virus to become less lethal.
There is a vast and appalling criminal conspiracy that directly links both Anthony Fauci and Moderna to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
COVID-19 vaccine researchers are directly linked to scientists involved in brain-computer interface (‘neural lace’) tech, one of whom was indicted for taking grant money from China.
Independent researchers have discovered mysterious nanoparticles inside the vaccines that are not supposed to be present.
The entire pandemic is being used as an excuse for a vast political and economic transformation of Western society that will enrich the already rich and turn the rest of us into serfs and untouchables.
A Criminal Conspiracy
It’s a long letter, so I won’t reproduce the whole thing here. However, the following sections are of particular interest, with regard to a criminal elite that is orchestrating the destruction of life as we know it, in an effort to usher in a technocracy-led system of global governance and control:4
“In November of 2019, three technicians at the Wuhan Institute of Virology developed symptoms consistent with a flu-like illness. Anthony Fauci, Peter Daszak, and Ralph Baric knew at once what had happened, because back channels exist between this laboratory and our scientists and officials.
December 12th, 2019, Ralph Baric signed a Material Transfer Agreement (essentially, an NDA) to receive Coronavirus mRNA vaccine-related materials co-owned by Moderna and NIH.
It wasn’t until a whole month later, on January 11th, 2020, that China allegedly sent us the sequence to what would become known as SARS-CoV-2. Moderna claims, rather absurdly, that they developed a working vaccine from this sequence in under 48 hours.
Stephane Bancel, the current CEO of Moderna, was formerly the CEO of bioMerieux, a French multinational corporation specializing in medical diagnostic tech, founded by one Alain Merieux. Alain Merieux was one of the individuals who was instrumental in the construction of the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s P4 lab.
The sequence given as the closest relative to SARS-CoV-2, RaTG13, is not a real virus. It is a forgery. It was made by entering a gene sequence by hand into a database, to create a cover story for the existence of SARS-CoV-2, which is very likely a gain-of-function chimera produced at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and was either leaked by accident or intentionally released. The animal reservoir of SARS-CoV-2 has never been found.
This is not a conspiracy ‘theory.’ It is an actual criminal conspiracy, in which people connected to the development of Moderna’s mRNA-1273 are directly connected to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and their gain-of-function research by very few degrees of separation, if any. The paper trail is well- established.
The lab-leak theory has been suppressed because pulling that thread leads one to inevitably conclude that there is enough circumstantial evidence to link Moderna, the NIH, the WIV, and both the vaccine and the virus’s creation together.
In a sane country, this would have immediately led to the world’s biggest RICO and mass murder case. Anthony Fauci, Peter Daszak, Ralph Baric, Shi Zhengli, and Stephane Bancel, and their accomplices, would have been indicted and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Instead, billions of our tax dollars were awarded to the perpetrators.
The FBI raided Allure Medical in Shelby Township north of Detroit for billing insurance for ‘fraudulent COVID-19 cures.’ The treatment they were using? Intravenous Vitamin C. An antioxidant. Which, as described above, is an entirely valid treatment for COVID-19-induced sepsis, and indeed, is now part of the MATH+ protocol advanced by Dr. Paul E. Marik.
The FDA banned ranitidine (Zantac) due to supposed NDMA (N-nitrosodimethylamine) contamination. Ranitidine is not only an H2 blocker used as antacid, but also has a powerful antioxidant effect, scavenging hydroxyl radicals. This gives it utility in treating COVID-19.
The FDA also attempted to take N-acetylcysteine, a harmless amino acid supplement and antioxidant, off the shelves, compelling Amazon to remove it from their online storefront. This leaves us with a chilling question: did the FDA knowingly suppress antioxidants useful for treating COVID-19 sepsis as part of a criminal conspiracy against the American public?
The establishment is cooperating with, and facilitating, the worst criminals in human history, and are actively suppressing non-vaccine treatments and therapies in order to compel us to inject these criminals’ products into our bodies …
Conclusions: The current pandemic was produced and perpetuated by the establishment, through the use of a virus engineered in a PLA-connected Chinese biowarfare laboratory, with the aid of American taxpayer dollars and French expertise …
Either through a leak or an intentional release from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a deadly SARS strain is now endemic across the globe, after the WHO and CDC and public officials first downplayed the risks, and then intentionally incited a panic and lockdowns that jeopardized people’s health and their livelihoods.
This was then used by the utterly depraved and psychopathic aristocratic class who rule over us as an excuse to coerce people into accepting an injected poison which may be a depopulation agent, a mind control/pacification agent in the form of injectable ‘smart dust,’ or both …
They believe they can get away with this by weaponizing the social stigma of vaccine refusal. They are incorrect. Their motives are clear and obvious to anyone who has been paying attention.
These megalomaniacs have raided the pension funds of the free world. Wall Street is insolvent and has had an ongoing liquidity crisis since the end of 2019. The aim now is to exert total, full-spectrum physical, mental, and financial control over humanity before we realize just how badly we’ve been extorted by these maniacs. The pandemic and its response served multiple purposes for the Elite:
Concealing a depression brought on by the usurious plunder of our economies conducted by rentier-capitalists and absentee owners who produce absolutely nothing of any value to society whatsoever …
Destroying small businesses and eroding the middle class.
Transferring trillions of dollars of wealth from the American public and into the pockets of billionaires and special interests.
Engaging in insider trading, buying stock in biotech companies and shorting brick-and-mortar businesses and travel companies, with the aim of collapsing face-to-face commerce and tourism and replacing it with e-commerce and servitization.
Creating a casus belli for war with China, encouraging us to attack them, wasting American lives and treasure and driving us to the brink of nuclear Armageddon.
Establishing technological and biosecurity frameworks for population control and technocratic- socialist ‘smart cities’ where everyone’s movements are despotically tracked, all in anticipation of widespread automation, joblessness, and food shortages, by using the false guise of a vaccine to compel cooperation.
… The Elites are trying to pull up the ladder, erase upward mobility for large segments of the population, cull political opponents and other ‘undesirables,’ and put the remainder of humanity on a tight leash, rationing our access to certain goods and services that they have deemed ‘high-impact,’ such as automobile use, tourism, meat consumption, and so on.
Naturally, they will continue to have their own luxuries, as part of a strict caste system akin to feudalism. Why are they doing this? Simple. The Elites are Neo-Malthusians and believe that we are overpopulated and that resource depletion will collapse civilization in a matter of a few short decades.
They are not necessarily incorrect in this belief. We are overpopulated, and we are consuming too many resources. However, orchestrating such a gruesome and murderous power grab in response to a looming crisis demonstrates that they have nothing but the utmost contempt for their fellow man.
To those who are participating in this disgusting farce without any understanding of what they are doing, we have one word for you. Stop. You are causing irreparable harm to your country and to your fellow citizens.
To those who may be reading this warning and have full knowledge and understanding of what they are doing and how it will unjustly harm millions of innocent people, we have a few more words. Damn you to hell. You will not destroy America and the Free World, and you will not have your New World Order. We will make certain of that.”
Elias Neibart – Contemporary Political Lessons and Wisdom from Aristotle
Elias Neibart has undertaken practical steps to build the knowledge and skills necessary to work as an attorney and succeed in the legal field. He spent the summer of 2016 as a judicial intern in Essex County, New Jersey, shadowing Judge Michael L. Ravin and becoming familiar with the parts of the trial process. The following Fall, Elias Neibart enrolled at a prominent university as a student of political science and philosophy with a concentration in political theory.
The following summer, Mr. Neibart became a legal intern with the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office. He observed court proceedings and analyzed various forms of evidence, including surveillance videos and witness statements. He also built experience in authoring a number of legal documents, including motions to suppress and post-conviction relief briefs.
Elias Neibart successfully completed a summer internship with the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, assisting in the writing of subpoenas and the preparation of evidence for federal criminal proceedings.
This fall he will pursue an MPhil at the University of Cambridge, and in 2022, he will begin his legal education at Harvard Law School.
Elias Neibart recently shared excerpts from his research into Aristotle and why the Green philosopher’s political thought is still highly relevant today.
“Aristotle generally believes that there are three competing forces that “dispute over equal treatment in the regime”—wealth, freedom, and virtue. With respect to wealth, a polity succeeds in mixing socioeconomic classes—that is the well-off and the poor. And, when mixing democracy and oligarchy to create a polity, certain “defining principles” must also be followed. Generally, the chief defining principle of a “good mixture” is that “it should be possible [for the polity] to be spoken of as either a democracy or an oligarchy” (ibid, 112). One particular way in which regime types can be mixed is by using two different methods for selecting political officers. For instance, the Spartan regime seems democratic because the people elect the ruler and the board of overseers, yet by merely having elections for these positions, and not choosing officers by lot—which is characteristic of pure democratic regimes—the Spartan regime is also oligarchic, for in oligarchies, elections—or picking representatives to rule—is commonplace.”
“Additionally, the Spartan regime featured a rudimentary judiciary that ruled over cases of exile and death; in these cases, the people’s judgment was not considered. Aristotle’s discussion of Sparta and polity, however, is by no means an outright endorsement of polity nor should it be taken as a designation of polity as the best regime or even the best regime possible. His reference to polity is important because it demonstrates that mixing two deviant regime types can result in a single, correct regime. Aristotle begins his explanation of the best regime, however, by first referencing a point made in his Ethics—that virtue is the “mean” and the best life of life is “the middling sort of life” (ibid, 114) Rather than addressing the merits of Aristotle’s claim or the philosophical reasoning he provides in his Ethics, for the purposes of this paper, we will stipulate that Aristotle’s claim about the middling sort of life is true, and, just as he does, apply that reasoning and principle to the organization and structure of the regime.”
“First, the city wishes “to be made up of equal and similar persons to the [greatest] extent possible,” and this is generally the case among the middling class of city—they are neither poor nor rich. This middling class neither desires the possession of others—like the poor—nor do they feel the constant pressure of being plotted against or envied—like the very wealthy. Aristotle concludes then that the best “political communities” depend on the middling class, and the cities that are capable of being well governed are cities where the middling class is numerous, so they can prevent the other social classes from tipping the scales of power in their favor (ibid, 115-116).”
“Tyranny, therefore, is least likely to arise in a middling sort of regime. In this regime, factional conflicts are minimal. But, in regimes where the middling class is few, conflicts are commonplace, as either the poor or the rich take control, and govern in a manner that merely benefits their own interest, not what is “common or equal” (ibid, 115). Mixing power results in a longer “lasting” regime, as all sides take part and participate in the running of and governing of the regime (ibid, 118-119). This regime will not last for “two or three days” like other states and constitutions; instead, because of its mixed nature, it will be governed for “the longest time” possible, as this regime establishes “the safety of the state, carefully avoiding the things that cause [state] destruction” (ibid, 6.28). Aristotle quite clearly outlines the advantages of the mixed regime and its desired outcome, but now, we must shift our focus to explaining to how state-builders (or constitution-makers) can successfully create a mixed regime.”
“Aristotle notes that the functions of government are manifested in (1) a deliberative body that discusses “common matters”, (2) a part that determines how officers should be elected and in what manner, and (3) an “adjudicative part” (ibid, 120). Again, he introduces the concept of mixing when discussing these parts of government. For instance, he asserts that the masses “should have authority over the highest offices by electing and auditing these officeholders, but he also limits their participation to the collective activities of serving in the [common] assembly and on juries” (Cherry 2009, 1407). Additionally, in a mixed regime, some legislative offices and judicial offices will be filled by lot and others will be filled by election (Aristotle, Politics, 126-128).”
“To briefly contrast Aristotle’s mixed regime from Montesquieu’s separation of powers doctrine, we can see that “Aristotle does not consider these functions in connection with the balance of powers in the state,” like Montesquieu (Levin 1936, 127). In other words, he does not view this process of mixing and balancing as a way to halt governmental interference or overreach; instead, he views mixing as a way to keep social strife in-check, ensuring that factional conflicts do not overwhelm the political community. In this way, mixing does not ensure that government is limited; rather, it ensures government is stable and durable, unphased by competing social classes and their attempts to gain power.”
“Thus, we see that Aristotle is more interested in the blending, balancing, and mixing of the “monarchical, the aristocratic, and democratic elements” of society—the various social classes that make up every political community (ibid, 130).”
“Understanding the American Founding and the formation of the American Constitution is a difficult often cumbersome task. Such an endeavor requires engaging with, reading, and analyzing troves of historical documents, treatises, transcripts, and letters. Yet, rather than first assessing the products of the Founding generation, as scholars, we should first strive to understand their process. In other words, debates, arguments, and conversations about the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights are intellectually incomplete if we do not first to delineate the people, ideas, and philosophies that influenced the men who drafted those documents. While the foregoing excerpt represents a humble and incomplete attempt to do so, our discourse would be better suited if we were to collectively grapple and engage with the often ancient ideas that undergird our country’s foundational texts.”
Words In Your Head – How They Are Using MIND CONTROL to Tell You to ‘Get The Vaccine’ PLUS the ANTIDOTE
David Icke shares info on people reporting they receive thoughts in their head telling them to get the vaccine despite being 100% against it. He also provides some of the history of mind control going all the way back to the mid-1970’s and explains how it works. BE SURE TO READ THIS ENTIRE ARTICLE TO GET THE ANTIDOTE TO MIND CONTROL.
It Was Predicted in 1981 that Psychotronic Devices Would Be a Major Weapon Used Against the Population
Watch the video below with David Wilcock starting at 1:25:00, in which David discusses the contents of Book 5 of the Law of One material, which was channeled in 1981. Not only was the global war against humanity predicted, but it was also predicted that psychotronic devices would be a MAJOR weapon used against the population.
How to Protect Yourself and Others: LOVE IS THE ANSWER
In a recent post by Dr. Jacqueline Hobbs (aka Oracle Girl), she shared the following advice:
“A frequency can also be taken and willfully directed at the electromagnetic field of a human being. This will penetrate the electrical circuitry of the body and produce an auto-suggestive effect that the human being will comply with. This has long been developed through the use of devices found in the home, watched and listened to, ever placed closer and closer to the body.
Linked with a machine that can generate the wave of a precise image, those devices start to control the actions and the thoughts of human beings.
If you generate pure love your electromagnetic field has frequency immunity. An image can be directed at you even injected into your personal field precisely but it will fail to influence your actions…
Be aware. Safeguard your body and your frequency environment against any type of device capable of emitting a frequency wave of directed energies…”