The initiative, driven largely by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, has gained momentum as a growing number of companies and venues — from movie theaters, restaurants, and music venues to cruise lines and sports teams — have said they will require proof of vaccination before opening their doors.
The passports are expected to be free and available through smartphone apps, which would display a scannable code similar to an airline boarding pass. Americans without smartphone access would be able to print out the passports, developers have said.
The White House declined to answer questions about the passport initiative, instead of pointing to public statements made by Jeffrey Zients, the White House coronavirus response coordinator during a March 12 press briefing:
“As we increase the number of people vaccinated, we know some people may have a need to demonstrate that they are vaccinated … our role is to help ensure that any solutions in this area should be simple, free, open-source, accessible to people both digitally and on paper, and designed from the start to protect people’s privacy.”
According to CNN, multiple government agencies are engaged in conversations and planning, coordinated by the White House, as this kind of system will play a role in many aspects of life, including potentially the workforce.
One of the most significant hurdles facing federal officials is the number of passport initiatives already underway. The Biden administration this month identified at least 17, according to slides obtained by The Washington Post.
One initiative — a global effort led by the World Health Organization and a digital pass devised by IBM — is being tested in New York state and is rapidly moving forward as the White House deliberates how best to track shots and avoid the perception of a government mandate to be vaccinated.
On Friday, New York was the first to launch a digital vaccine passport system known as Excelsior Pass that residents can use to prove they’ve been vaccinated or recently tested negative for infection, reported USA TODAY.
The New York system, built on IBM’s digital health pass platform, is the first-in-the-nation certification and will be used at dozens of events, including arts and entertainment venues. A venue will scan the QR code, which will generate either a green check or a red X.
The new pass is part of a growing but disjointed effort to provide vaccine “passports” or certifications, so people won’t have to hang onto a dog-eared piece of paper, worry about privacy issues or forgeries, or pay money to prove they’re not contagious.
“Businesses and venues can scan and validate your pass to ensure you meet any COVID-19 vaccination or testing requirements for entry. Along with your pass, you’ll be asked to show a photo ID that shows your name and birth date to verify that the Pass belongs to you. Adults may hold passes for accompanying minors.
“Once you and your party enter an establishment, you will still be asked to follow state and CDC guidance regarding social distancing, face coverings, and hand hygiene.”
Participation in Excelsior Pass is voluntary, but New Yorkers will have to show alternate proof of vaccination or testing, such as another mobile application or paper form, directly at a business or venue.
Both Madison Square Garden, which is part of the pilot’s program phase, and Times Union Center will begin using the passes by early April with other businesses and venues expected to follow.
The state hopes to eventually link tickets to the Excelsior Pass, so people going to an event at Madison Square Garden, for example, will be able to link their admission and health passes.
But, according to Dr. Naomi Wolf, founder, and CEO of Daily Clout, the passport violates people’s liberty.
“I am not overstating this. I can’t say it forcefully enough. This is literally the end of human liberty in the west if this plan unfolds as planned. Vaccine passports sound like a fine thing if you don’t understand what these platforms can do …
“It’s not about the vaccine. It’s not about the virus. It’s about your data. And once this rolls out you don’t have a choice about being part of the system. What people have to understand is that any other functionality can be loaded onto that platform with no problem at all. What that means is that it can be merged with your Paypal account, with your digital currency, Microsoft is already talking about merging it with payment plans. Your networks can be sucked up. It geolocates you wherever you go. Your credit history can be included. All of your medical histories can be included.”
Most important warning I’ve ever sounded in my life, with the least time left to take action: https://t.co/Q00d55My6l
Wolf isn’t the only one slamming vaccine passports. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) said in a statement to Fox News:
“Vaccine credentials would be a complete government overstep. Individuals in America have a personal responsibility for their health,” said Sessions. “Implementing a ‘vaccine passport’ runs the risk of undermining public trust and substantially limiting normal day-to-day essential activities.
“As a leader, I have chosen to be vaccinated – that was my own decision.”
Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) also blasted the idea on Twitter, declaring the measure “unconstitutional.”
Other countries are racing ahead with their own passport plans, with the European Union pledging to release digital certificates that would allow for summer travel, according to the Washington Post.
On March 23, The Defender reported that the European Union was set to vote on a vaccination travel digital certificate, “Green Passport,” which would provide proof of vaccination and negative COVID test.
The pass would include information on the brand of the vaccine, date, and place of inoculation, and the number of doses administered, as well as information from a lab or hospital confirming negative test results. Holders of the certificate (a QR code on a phone app or on paper) would be exempt from quarantine and other restrictions. The document would be common to all EU citizens and would allow bilateral deals between EU countries and non-member states.
On March 25, members of the European Parliament (MEPs) agreed to fast-track voting on the European Commission’s plan to create a bloc-wide travel pass that confirms COVID vaccination, immunity, or testing status in an effort to push the rollout of certificates by June.
According to Politico, to achieve the ambitious timeline, MEPs voted to use an urgent procedure — bypassing relevant parliamentary committees, individual MEPS, debate, and the need for a report.
Green group co-president Philippe Lamberts said in Wednesday’s plenary meeting that speeding up the process could sow “considerable distrust” among citizens.
Sophie in ‘t Veld, member of the European Parliament, wrote on Twitter that bypassing parliamentary scrutiny was an “abuse of an emergency situation” and amounted to “blackmail.”
But MEPs still voted in favor of the fast-track option by a wide margin — 468 to 203. Sixteen parliamentarians abstained.
Some in the UK are raising concerns with vaccination passports. According to an opinion piece in The Guardian, Israel, Estonia, Sweden, and Denmark are all countries that have introduced, or plan to introduce, vaccine passports for domestic use — but they already have a national ID card system in place.
“If we are to follow their example, we would first need an evidence-based explanation as to how vaccine passports will help to stop the spread of the virus,” Stephanie Hare, an independent researcher, and broadcaster, wrote.
Days ago in the UK it was reported that the vaccine passport was simply a “nudge” to push supposedly vaccine-hesitant young people to get the job, but it is really a scheme that is nothing less than a national ID card by stealth, Hare wrote.
Data on vaccine passports could be used by the police, just as Singapore’s authorities admitted in January to using contact-tracing data.
Hare said, “we don’t even know if vaccine passports would help stop the spread of the virus, how long immunity lasts, to what extent vaccines reduce transmission, or by how much, or whether this varies depending on which vaccine we’ve had.”
We don’t know how much such a system would cost, how we would know if it represented good value for the money or whether our resources would be better invested in other solutions. Hare said answers are needed to these questions, as well as an explanation from the government as to why it has done a U-turn on vaccine passports.
“We cannot abandon our civil liberties for such trickery,” Hare said. “Far better to address any problem of vaccine hesitancy directly. Consent implies choice. Excluding people from society unless they get vaccinated is not a real choice.”
The entire world is watching in horror as death rates have skyrocketed in Israel since the Israeli government brokered a secret deal with Pfizer to inject the entire population with their experimental COVID shots, which are now being mandated as a condition to participating in society.
The National File reported this past week that a group of Israeli doctors, lawyers, campaigners, and concerned citizens have hired the services of Tel Aviv-based firm A. Suchovolsky & Co. Law to file a criminal complaint in the International Criminal Court, stating that the mandatory vaccine laws are a violation of the Nuremberg Code.
Israel became one of the first nations in the world to mandate COVID-19 vaccines, and to introduce a COVID passport system that would only allow individuals to participate in society – including commerce – after they received the vaccine and were approved to join the system.
Now, a group of Israeli Jews are suing the Netanyahu administration in international court, making the case that Israel is violating the Nuremberg Code by essentially making Israelis subject to a medical experiment using the controversial vaccines.
The Anshe Ha-Emet (People of the Truth) fellowship — comprising Israeli doctors, lawyers, campaigners and concerned citizens — complained to the ICC prosecutor at the Hague, accusing the government of conducting a national “medical experiment” without first seeking “informed consent.”
“When the heads of the Ministry of Health as well as the prime minister presented the vaccine in Israel and began the vaccination of Israeli residents, the vaccinated were not advised, that, in practice, they are taking part in a medical experiment and that their consent is required for this under the Nuremberg Code,” the Anshe Ha-Emet suit states.
Tel Aviv-based firm A. Suchovolsky & Co. Law argues that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s agreement with Pfizer and Netanyahu’s own admission make it clear that Israel’s warp-speed vaccination campaign “is indeed a medical experiment and that this was the essence of the agreement.”
The complaint has now been accepted by the International Criminal Court (ICC), and will be considered.
The Nuremberg Code was “written after Nazi doctors were put on trial for performing their medical experiments on concentration camp prisoners, stipulates that it is deeply unethical to force or coerce a person to take part in medical experiments,” according to a Jewish anthropologist. Those behind the lawsuit believe this is especially relevant after Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla called Israel the “world’s lab” due to its ready acceptance of the company’s COVID-19 vaccine.
This comes after an Israeli group decried the country’s green passport system, which allows only those who have taken the COVID-19 vaccine or developed immunity from the virus to engage in commerce and leave their homes, as “demonic” and a “second Holocaust.”
“Civil rights are put aside and people can only participate in society again after vaccination,” told Ilana to Flavio Pasquino in the BLCKBX studio via a live stream connection, who tracked down Ilana after an – even – more emotional audio clip on Telegram.
Ilana talks about the Green Pass, the Freedom Bracelet, the mRNA vaccine, and human rights violations.
“Currently reminiscent of the Holocaust,” said the Jewess who emigrated from the US to Jerusalem 30 years ago.
Ilana Rachel is active in Jerusalem as a health advisor and information officer for a new political party (Rappeh) that is heavily opposed by the regime. Opening a bank account is not possible and members of the party are also thwarted in their daily lives.
Watch her impassioned plea for help (this is still on YouTube – if it disappears let us know.)
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya has called lockdowns the “single worst public health mistake” of the last 100 years. He and other health experts are calling for focused protection for the vulnerable in the Great Barrington Declaration
Analysis of scientific evidence since the start of the pandemic supports the theory that lockdowns have been ineffective in stopping the spread of the illness and have come at an exceedingly high financial and human cost
Using the same logic of lockdowns to lower the death rate from COVID-19, it would be reasonable for governments to also ban the sale of sugar, tobacco, and alcohol, which account for a far higher death toll than COVID-19
The first step in overcoming the fearmongering perpetrated by governments and the media is to understand the legitimate numbers of infections and deaths, which infection control measures may help, and your potential risk
Global lockdowns were ostensibly initiated to protect the general public and “flatten the curve” of COVID-19 infections. Yet, experts agree that this policy may well have been one of the biggest public health mistakes ever made.1
Public health is a system designed to promote health, prevent disease and encourage healthy behaviors. The goal is to encourage proper medical care and healthy efforts through the implementation of policies and programs.
In a paper published in the American Journal of Public Health2 in 2009, the authors offered evidence that public health policies have a significant effect on health, citing changes in seat belt laws, workplace health and safety, and public tobacco use that have significantly affected health outcomes.
The health of communities is highly influenced by these policies, which governments use to help prevent obesity, control infectious disease, provide clean air and water, and more. Yet, in the past year, it has become apparent that public health policies have moved away from evidence-based decision-making and are being driven by another agenda.
Experts Call Lockdowns the Biggest Health Mistake Ever Made
In an interview with Daily Clout, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya declared that the COVID-19 lockdowns may well be remembered as the “single worst public health mistake” in the last 100 years.3 The full interview is found inside the Daily Clout membership area. Bhattacharya also emailed a journalist from Newsweek about his interview, reiterating his statements:4
“I stand behind my comment that the lockdowns are the single worst public health mistake in the last 100 years. We will be counting the catastrophic health and psychological harms, imposed on nearly every poor person on the face of the earth, for a generation.
At the same time, they have not served to control the epidemic in the places where they have been most vigorously imposed. In the U.S., they have — at best — protected the “non-essential” class from COVID, while exposing the essential working class to the disease. The lockdowns are trickle-down epidemiology.”
During the interview, Bhattacharya indicated that his belief and subsequent work on the Great Barrington Declaration5 was a product of two basic facts.6
“One is that people who are older have a much higher risk from dying from COVID than people who are younger … and that’s a really important fact because we know who is most vulnerable, it’s people that are older.
So the first plank of the Great Barrington Declaration: let’s protect the vulnerable. The other idea is that the lockdowns themselves impose great harm on people. Lockdowns are not a natural normal way to live.”
He goes further into the explanation in an open letter published November 25, 2020, on the website.7 The Great Barrington Declaration calls for “focused protection” and finding a middle ground between locking down an entire economy and just “letting it rip.”
Although naysayers encourage the public to remain fearful, wear masks and seek a vaccine, it’s telling that thus far, the declaration has collected over 41,500 signatures from medical practitioners and over 13,500 signatures from medical and public health scientists.8
In addition, the declaration is open for public signatures and has collected over 758,500 from concerned citizens from around the world. The website allows you to read and sign the declaration, answers many frequently asked questions, shares the science behind the recommendations, and explains how the declaration was written.
Analysis Shows Lockdowns Increased Public Health Damage
In 2019, before the pandemic, the World Health Organization published a document on nonpharmaceutical public health measures to mitigate the impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza, another potentially deadly respiratory illness. They clearly state, “there is a very low overall quality of evidence that workplace measures and closures reduce influenza transmission.”9
In the past months, scientists have learned more about the SARS-CoV-2 virus and many teams have analyzed the impact that lockdowns may or may not have had on the spread of the virus and the economy in several countries.
A paper published by the University of Bristol, U.K., in June 2020, found that the distribution of infections was on the decline, even before the U.K. had instituted lockdowns.10 The paper does not take into account the expected “second-wave” in the fall, but it is apparent from their analysis that infection rates were on the decline during the summer months well before fall.
A second paper,11 also published by U.K. scientists, found that closing schools and prohibiting mass gatherings may have helped to lower the incidence. However, stay-at-home orders and mask-wearing in public “was not associated with any independent additional impact.”
In New Zealand, communities were under a level 4 lockdown, which cost the country at least $10 billion.12 Using empirical data and comparing the numbers against areas in the U.S. that were practicing only social distancing at the time, one analysis found that lockdowns did not reduce the number of deaths and the ineffectiveness triggered large economic losses with little benefit for New Zealand.
In an analysis13 of nonpharmaceutical interventions, including business closures and mandatory stay-at-home orders in 10 countries, researchers found “no clear, significant beneficial effect” in countries using more restrictive policies as compared to those with less restrictive policies.
Cost-Benefit Analysis Doesn’t Support Lockdowns
In a paper14 by psychologist Oliver Robinson, Ph.D., from the University of Greenwich, London, he found less restrictive nonpharmaceutical measures had a similar effect as lockdowns.
Psychological research also suggested lockdowns could exacerbate stressors and were strong predictors of becoming sick when exposed to a respiratory virus. Additionally, “the extremely high financial cost of lockdowns may have negative implications for overall population health in terms of diminished resources for other health issues.”15
This has only been the tip of the iceberg in the cost-benefit evaluation researchers have completed in the past months analyzing the overall impact lockdowns have had on society. In August 2020, researchers from the U.K.16 looked at the cost of the lockdown to the country.
They evaluated quality-adjusted life years, COVID-19 mortality and comorbidity rates, and an economic cost as a percentage of loss against the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). What they found was the average age at death and life expectancy loss for non-COVID-19 and COVID-19 deaths differed by less than two years.
Their results suggested, “that the costs of continuing severe restrictions are so great relative to likely benefits in lives saved that a rapid easing in restrictions is now warranted.”17
In Israel, researchers estimated18 the lockdown would save an average of 274 lives in the country as compared to testing, tracing, and isolating those who are sick. The analysis also estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was an average of $45,104,156 to prevent one death.
The lockdowns and policy changes have also affected treatment for other health problems, such as heart disease, diabetes, and cancer.19 This public health policy has come at a high cost, which society will be paying for years in treating physical and mental health conditions.
Should the Government Outlaw Sugar, Tobacco, and Alcohol?
Of course, it does sound funny to describe a cost-benefit analysis, which ultimately places a price on life and death. Even so, it is difficult to accurately ascertain the number of deaths that can legitimately be attributed to COVID-19, since the public numbers are skewed.
According to a peer-reviewed study20,21 in October 2020 by the Public Health Policy Initiative of the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge, the CDC has inflated the mortality statistics by 1,670%.
The report offers a sobering reality check of the true mortality numbers that can be attributed to COVID-19 infection. Although some self-appointed internet “fact” checkers claim this study is mistaken, the numbers speak for themselves. For example, on page 20, there’s a graph that compares the fatalities based on the CDC’s current illegal reporting guidelines against the fatality count had they continued using guidelines that have been in use for the past 17 years.
Using the inflated statistical guidelines, the CDC reported 161,392 deaths from COVID-19 by August 23, 2020. However, using the traditional guidelines the CDC has used for the past 17 years, that number was just 6% of the total, equaling 9,684. Using the older guidelines, the CDC22 also reported the leading causes of death in 2019, including 659,041 from heart disease, 599,601 from cancer, and 87,647 from diabetes.
It is apparent from these numbers, whether you compare the leading causes of death in 2019 to the inflated numbers from the CDC, or to those using the traditional guidelines, heart disease, cancer and diabetes still cause significantly more deaths than COVID-19.
These conditions have been associated with the use of sugar, tobacco, and alcohol. This now begs the question, with the high number of deaths from these chronic conditions, should the government outlaw sugar, tobacco, and alcohol use to protect public health?
‘Mass Delusional Psychosis’ May Be the Root of Public Fear
Just one year ago, you likely would have rebelled against being told you had to stay at home, forgo meeting with friends and give up eating at restaurants. But within the past 12 months, those limitations have become commonplace, and many have accepted the mandates as part of their daily lives.
The mask mandates, inaccurate reporting of deaths and COVID “cases” and the media attention on all things COVID-19 with the expressed negligence covering rising suicide rates and opioid overdoses,23,24 have led to what Florida journalist S.G. Cheah characterizes as mass insanity caused by “delusional fear of COVID-19.”25
Cheah refers to lectures and articles by a psychiatrist and medical-legal expert Dr. Mark McDonald26 is a board-certified child and adolescent psychiatrist who believes “the true public health crisis lies in the widespread fear which morphed and evolved into a form of mass delusional psychosis.” Cheah continues:
“Even when the statistics point to the extremely low fatality rate among children and young adults (measuring 0.002% at age 10 and 0.01% at 25),27 the young and the healthy are still terrorized by the chokehold of irrational fear when faced with the coronavirus.”
Armed with this knowledge, you are better able to make decisions about your safety and the safety of your family. Moving forward it’s important to remember to protect those who are at the highest risk of severe disease and death, including nursing home residents, hospitalized patients, people over 70, and those living in crowded institutions such as homeless shelters and prisons.
In these cases, infectious control strategies are warranted. Yet, as has been demonstrated by research evidence and the knowledge of tens of thousands of medical experts who have signed the Great Barrington Declaration,28 the rest of the population can and should go back to normal.
Unfortunately, masks have become a signal of virtue, with the idea that wearing them will help to protect yourself and the surrounding population. This is not a virtuous action and is perpetuated by fear. Fear is never helpful and never virtuous.
Consider sharing information from independent journalists, scientific evidence, and the Great Barrington Declaration as a means of helping others to reduce their fear and panic over an infectious process that has not claimed nearly as many lives as the public has been led to believe.
Billions of people across the globe continue to live under COVID-19 lockdowns or heavily-restricted life. And for almost all of us, life amid the pandemic in 2020 was an isolating and difficult year. Yet doctors are warning that children, in particular, are experiencing grave mental health consequences as a result of the lockdowns—leading to an “international epidemic” of child suicide.
The Associated Pressinterviewed Dr. David Greenhorn on the subject, who works in the emergency department at England’s Bradford Royal Infirmary. The number of mental health crises he has seen, such as suicide attempts, has gone from a couple per week pre-pandemic to now several per day.
“This is an international epidemic, and we are not recognizing it,” Greenhorn said. “In an 8-year-old’s life, a year is a really, really, really long time. They are fed up. They can’t see an end to it.”
Dr. Richard Delorme heads the psychiatric department at one of the largest children’s hospitals in France, and he offered a similar warning to the AP.
Delorme pointed out that it is clearly COVID restrictions and lockdowns taking this toll on children that end up in his hospital: “What they tell you about is a chaotic world, of ‘Yes, I’m not doing my activities anymore,’ ‘I’m no longer doing my music,’ ‘Going to school is hard in the mornings,’ ‘I am having difficulty waking up,’ ‘I am fed up with the mask.’”
Delorme’s hospital went from seeing roughly 20 suicide attempts per month involving patients 15 or younger, the AP reports, to more than double that—and, disturbingly, more determination than ever before in the attempts.
“We are very surprised by the intensity of the desire to die among children who may be 12 or 13 years old,” Delorme said. “We sometimes have children of 9 who already want to die. And it’s not simply a provocation or a blackmail via suicide. It is a genuine wish to end their lives.”
This is one of the most painful paragraphs I’ve ever read, let alone had to write about. Merely typing out this story flooded my eyes with tears. But the life-threatening unintended consequences of drastic pandemic measures are too important to overlook.
Government restrictions that would’ve been unthinkable two years ago have been forced through amid the fear and uncertainty that the pandemic’s outbreak understandably wrought. Advocates undoubtedly hoped to save lives. Yet government restrictions have proven dubious in their effectiveness, with both studies and real-world examples demonstrating a little clear relationship between lockdown stringency and COVID deaths.
In the meantime, lockdowns and other restrictions have harshly curtailed social interaction and, tragically, catalyzing the aforementioned youth mental health crisis. Here in the US, the Centers for Disease Control reported that 25 percent of young adults considered suicide during the lockdowns, while overall mental health and suicide rates appear to have spiked as well.
Child suicide is only the latest mortifying revelation showing just how big a toll these policies have taken on us. We must factor this human damage into our analysis when it comes to ending pandemic restrictions; not just COVID case counts.
Like any policy, public health orders must be evaluated on their outcomes. As Nobel-prize-winning economist Milton Friedman said, “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” Pandemic lockdowns may have stemmed from an earnest desire to protect the public, but their consequences have done the opposite.
Why? Well, any government action, particularly sweeping mandates, has not just its intended effect, but its second-and third-order unintended consequences.
“Every human action has both intended and unintended consequences,” economist Antony Davies and political scientist James Harrigan explained for FEE.org. “Human beings react to every rule, regulation, and order governments impose, and their reactions result in outcomes that can be quite different than the outcomes lawmakers intended.”
When it comes to lockdowns, we’ve extensively documented the unintended consequences at FEE, including isolation, depression, suicidality, unemployment, drug abuse, domestic violence, and more. Such severe second-order effects offer a painful reminder of why policymakers should be humble in the scope of their actions. Sweeping lockdowns are anything but humble: They presume that bureaucrats in an office somewhere can save society with top-down orders and nothing will go wrong.
Governments the world over must consider more than mere COVID case counts when evaluating current and future lockdown policies. The damage we’re inflicting on children is too devastating to be waved away in the name of public health—it’s an emergency in its own right.
If you or someone you know needs help, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-TALK (8255). You can also text a crisis counselor by messaging the Crisis Text Line at 741741.
Teachers Sue LA School District Over COVID Vaccine Mandate
School employees alleged in their complaint that the statute granting the FDA power to authorize a medical product for emergency use, 21 U.S.C. § Section 360bbb-3, requires that the person being administered the unapproved product be advised of the benefits and risks, and of his or her right to refuse the product.
In their lawsuit, employees allege that Section 360bbb-3 recognizes the “well-settled doctrine” that medical experiments, or “clinical research,” may not be performed on human subjects without the express, informed consent of the individual receiving treatment.
According to HFDF, the fundamental right to avoid imposed human experimentation has its roots in the Nuremberg Code of 1947, which was later ratified by the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki, further codified in the United States Code of Federal Regulations, and adopted by the California Legislature. It says that “no person subject to this state’s jurisdiction may be forced to undergo the administration of experimental medicine without that person’s informed consent.”
“This is a very important case for educators all across America and is likely to set a precedent for all of us,” said Michael Kane, New York City teacher and founder of NY Teachers for Choice.
“Sometimes all you need is someone to stand up and say ‘No’ to remind everyone that we are completely within our rights to resist government overreach. And that is what this is — government overreach.”
Kane said the LAUSD teacher’s union “definitely plays a role in all of this” and that LA teachers need to lobby their union and threaten to pull their money from supporting the union if it doesn’t support their right to choose. “Rank-and-file union members must hold their union leadership accountable and force them to represent those who are pro-choice for all medical procedures,” Kane said.
The complaint states that employees of LAUSD last month began to receive communications from Superintendent Austin Beutner and other representatives of LAUSD instructing them to make appointments to get vaccinated.
None of the communications to employees included the information from the fact sheet required by the FDA to be given to vaccine recipients under EAU.
On March 4, guidance from LAUSD human resources was given to employees that stated: “The Moderna vaccine is currently being administered by Los Angeles Unified nurses and other licensed healthcare professionals to Los Angeles Unified employees. You will schedule your appointment […]. You will provide proof of vaccination via the DailyPass for time reporting purposes.”
As The Defender reported on March 10, Daily Pass is a COVID tracking system developed by Microsoft that will scan employees and students using a barcode before they can enter school each day. LAUSD is the first school district to announce that it will require every student and employee to get the Daily Pass, which school officials said will coordinate health checks, COVID tests and vaccinations. Data collected will be reported to public health authorities and other LAUSD healthcare collaborators.
According to the employees’ lawsuit, the process for developing a vaccine normally takes place over a period of years with many different stages of testing, as it may take years for the side effects of a new vaccine to manifest themselves. “No one knows the short, medium, or long-term effects of this medical intervention over 1, 5, 10, or 50 years,” HFDF said.
By mandating experimental COVID vaccines, LAUSD is “forcing employees to choose between providing for their families and being the victim of human experimentation,” said HFDF. “Forced vaccination is not only unethical, but it also violates the tenets fundamental to a free society and must stop.”
More than 20 countries have either suspended or said they will delay Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccinations based on reports of deaths or injuries — in most cases related to blood clots — in healthy people who received the vaccine.
Prosecutors in Northern Italy announced Monday they had seized a batch of 393,600 shots of the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine following the death of a 57-year-old man hours after he was vaccinated, reported Reuters.
Meanwhile, the World Health Organization (WHO) is standing firm in its support of the vaccine. In a press conference today, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said, “This does not necessarily mean these events [deaths and injuries] are linked to the vaccine, but it’s routine practice to investigate them, and it shows that the surveillance system works and effective controls are in place.”
According to news reports, WHO’s vaccine safety experts were meeting today to discuss the vaccine. WHO had previously said that an ongoing analysis by its vaccines advisory committee has not established a causal link between the vaccine and blood clots and countries should keep using it, reported The Telegraph.
Regulators in Europe also defended the vaccine telling news outlets that the “benefits outweigh the risks.” Still, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) is investigating reports of blood clots in vaccine recipients and will release its findings Thursday, according to Nasdaq.com.
EMA Executive Director Emer Cooke said today during a news conference that there was no indication the incidents, which she called “very rare,” had been caused by the vaccine, but experts were assessing that possibility.
In Italy, Piedmont’s regional government suspended the use of AstraZeneca’s batch ABV5811, which is different than the batch of AstraZeneca vaccine seized last week in Sicily after the sudden deaths of two men who had recently been vaccinated.
The Italian government had previously said there was no evidence of a connection between the deaths and the vaccine and had allowed the AstraZeneca vaccine to continue to be administered even after other countries had suspended the use of the vaccine.
Other countries that have hit pause on AstraZeneca:
Norway, which is investigating reports of young healthy people who experienced brain hemorrhages and blood clots after being vaccinated. On March 12, the Norwegian Medicines Agency and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH) reported an unexpected death from a brain hemorrhage after an AstraZeneca vaccine was administered. A day later the agencies received three more reports of severe cases of blood clots or brain hemorrhages in younger people who had been vaccinated and were receiving hospital treatment. All of the patients showed reduced numbers of blood platelets.
Dr. Pal Andre Holme is treating the three health workers at Olso University Hospital. He told Norway’s VG newspaper that it was “very unusual” to see such young patients with such “low levels of blood platelets.” Holme’s said, “These are healthy young people who have not had any kind of disease before, who then get severe blood clots. You have to ask questions whether there is a connection with the vaccine, which I do not consider unlikely.”
In its report, the NIPH called for anyone under the age of 50 who experienced “large or small bruises” after being vaccinated to visit a doctor.
Sweden announced today it was suspending the AstraZeneca vaccine following reports of abnormal blood clotting in recipients, according to NPR. The Swedish Public Health Agency said it would suspend the use of the vaccine until the EMA reveals findings from its ongoing investigation.
Bulgaria paused the vaccine as a precautionary measure last week after a woman died of heart failure 15 hours after receiving the shot, reported Reuters. “Until all doubts are dispelled … we are halting inoculations with this vaccine,” Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borissov said in a statement.
Ireland said on Sunday it was suspending the country’s rollout of the AstraZeneca’s vaccine, The Telegraph reported. Dr. Karina Butler, head of the National Immunisation Advisory Committee, told Irish state broadcaster RTÉ that the committee had made the decision after Norway reported a “cluster of four serious, very rare, very serious clotting events” in young healthy people.
Germany suspended the vaccine as a precautionary measure this week after the country’s health minister, Jens Spahn, said seven cases of cerebral vein thrombosis had been reported. Spahn said Germany’s vaccine authority, the Paul Ehrlich Institute, “considers further investigation necessary after new reports of cerebral brain thrombosis in connection with vaccination in Germany and Europe.”
The Paul Ehrlich Institute said the EMA should decide “whether and how the new findings will affect the approval of the vaccine.”
Indonesia Monday suspended the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine saying it was waiting for a full report from the WHO before administering any more of the vaccines.
South Africa, as previously reported by The Defender, suspended plans to distribute the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine in February after a study showed only 10% efficacy at protecting against mild and moderate COVID-19 cases from the new South African variant.
Venezueladecided it will not authorize or license AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine at all due to complications in vaccinated recipients. The country had reserved 1.4 to 2.4 million doses through COVAX.
Some countries still on board:
Despite safety concerns, some countries are moving forward with the AstraZeneca vaccine.
Last week, Thailand became the first country outside Europe to temporarily suspend using the vaccine due to safety concerns, according to Associated Press. But Thailand’s health authorities reversed course and decided to move forward. Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-Ocha and members of his cabinet received the first shots.
“There are people who have concerns,” Chan-Ocha said after he received the first dose. “But we must believe doctors, believe in our medical professionals.”
In the Philippines, presidential spokesperson Harry Roque said his country would not suspend the use of the vaccine because the benefits outweighed any risks.
“There is still no clear data that shows that the blood clotting was caused by AstraZeneca. If such data will come out, maybe we will also stop the use of AstraZeneca,” Roque said. “As of now, our experts are saying again that the benefits we get from using AstraZeneca are larger than the side effects of this vaccine.”
Australia’s Health Minister Greg Hunt said his country “absolutely, clearly and unequivocally” supports the rollout of AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine and would not suspend vaccinations, with plans to import and manufacture 70 million vaccine doses from the vaccine maker. Australia’s chief medical officer, Paul Kelly, said there was no evidence so far that the vaccine causes blood clots.
Canada’s Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, said Monday Health Canada regulators are “constantly analyzing all the available information about vaccines and have guaranteed those approved in Canada are safe for use.” The government’s National Advisory Committee on Immunization today approved the AstraZeneca vaccine for people 65 and older — it had previously limited the approval for people under age 65 due to “limited information on its efficacy,” MSN reported.
According to Reuters, AstraZeneca reviewed its own safety data and said on Sunday there was no evidence of increased risk of blood clots from its COVID vaccine. A monthly safety report will be made public on the EMA website next week, the company said.
WHO said global distribution of AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine remained undisrupted, though TGR reported investigations into AstraZeneca concerns have triggered far-reaching reactions with thousands of cancellations of AstraZeneca’s vaccine. In Veneto Italy alone, 50% of planned vaccination appointments with AstraZeneca were canceled since Saturday, reported the president of the region, Luca Zaia.
“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”— George Washington
It’s a given that the government is corrupt, unaccountable, and has exceeded its authority.
So what can we do about it?
The first remedy involves speech (protest, assembly, speech, prayer, and publicity), and lots of it, in order to speak truth to power.
The First Amendment, which is the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights, affirms the right of “we the people” to pray freely about our grievances regarding the government. We can gather together peacefully to protest those grievances. We can publicize those grievances. And we can express our displeasure (peacefully) in word and deed.
Unfortunately, tyrants don’t like people who speak truth to power.
The American Police State has shown itself to be particularly intolerant of free speech activities that challenge its authority, stand up to its power grabs, and force it to operate according to the rules of the Constitution.
Cue the rise of protest laws, the police state’s go-to methods for muzzling discontent.
These protest laws, some of which appear to encourage violence against peaceful protesters by providing immunity to individuals who drive their car into protesters impeding traffic and use preemptive deadly force against protesters who might be involved in a riot, take intolerance for speech with which one might disagree to a whole new level.
Ever since the Capitol protests on Jan. 6, 2021, state legislatures have introduced a broad array of these laws aimed at criminalizing protest activities. Yet while the growing numbers of protest laws cropping up across the country are being marketed as necessary to protect private property, public roads, or national security, they are a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a thinly disguised plot to discourage anyone from challenging government authority at the expense of our First Amendment rights.
It doesn’t matter what the source of that discontent might be (police brutality, election outcomes, COVID-19 mandates, the environment, etc.): protest laws, free speech zones, bubble zones, trespass zones, anti-bullying legislation, zero-tolerance policies, hate crime laws, etc., aim to muzzle every last one of us.
However, as Human Rights Watch points out, these assaults on free speech are nothing new. “Various states have long-tried to curtail the right to protest. They do so by legislating wide definitions of what constitutes an ‘unlawful assembly’ or a ‘riot’ as well as increasing punishments. They also allow police to use catch-all public offenses, such as trespassing, obstructing traffic, or disrupting the peace, as a pretext for ordering dispersals, using force, and making arrests. Finally, they make it easier for corporations and others to bring lawsuits against protest organizers.”
Make no mistake: while many of these laws claim to be in the interest of “public safety and limiting economic damage,” these legislative attempts to redefine and criminalize speech are a backdoor attempt to rewrite the Constitution and render the First Amendment’s robust safeguards null and void.
No matter how you package these laws, no matter how well-meaning they may sound, no matter how much you may disagree with the protesters or sympathize with the objects of the protest, these proposed laws are aimed at one thing only: discouraging dissent.
In Alabama, lawmakers are pushing to allow individuals to use deadly force near a riot. Kentucky, Missouri, and New Hampshire are also considering similar stand your ground laws to justify the use of lethal force in relation to riots.
Oregon lawmakers wanted to “require public community colleges and universities to expel any student convicted of participating in a violent riot.” In Illinois, students who twice infringe the rights of others to engage in expressive activities could be suspended for at least a year.
Responding to protests over the Keystone Pipeline, South Dakota enabled its governor and sheriffs to prohibit gatherings of 20 or more people on public land if the gathering might damage the land. At least 15 other states have also adopted or are considering legislation that would levy harsher penalties for environmental protests near oil and gas pipelines.
In Iowa, all it takes is for one person in a group of three or more people to use force or cause property damage, and the whole group can be punished with up to 5 years in prison and a $7,500 fine.
Obstruct access to critical infrastructure in Mississippi and you could be facing a $10,000 fine and a seven-year prison sentence.
A North Carolina law would have made it a crime to heckle state officials. Under this law, shouting at a former governor would constitute a crime.
In Connecticut, you could be sentenced to five years behind bars and a $5,000 fine for disrupting the state legislature by making noise or using disturbing language.
Georgia wants to ban all spontaneous, First Amendment-protected assemblies and deny anyone convicted of violating the ban from receiving state or local employment benefits.
Virginia wants to subject protesters who engage in an “unlawful assembly” after “having been lawfully warned to disperse” with up to a year of jail time and a fine of up to $2,500.
Missouri made it illegal for public employees to take part in strikes and picketing, only to have the law ruled unconstitutional in its entirety.
Oklahoma created a sliding scale for protesters whose actions impact or impede critical infrastructure (including a telephone pole). The penalties range from $1,000 and six months in county jail to $100,000 and up to 10 years in prison. And if you’re part of an organization, that fine goes as high as $1,000,000.
Talk about intimidation tactics.
Ask yourself: if there are already laws on the books in all of the states that address criminal or illegal behavior such as blocking public roadways, trespassing on private property, or vandalizing property—because such laws are already on the books—then why does the government need to pass laws criminalizing activities that are already outlawed?
What’s really going on here?
No matter what the politicians might say, the government doesn’t care about our rights, our welfare, or our safety.
Every despotic measure used to control us and make us cower and comply with the government’s dictates has been packaged as being for our benefit, while in truth benefiting only those who stand to profit, financially or otherwise, from the government’s transformation of the citizenry into a criminal class.
In this way, the government conspires to corrode our core freedoms purportedly for our own good but really for its own benefit.
Remember, the USA Patriot Act didn’t make us safer. It simply turned American citizens into suspects and, in the process, gave rise to an entire industry—private and governmental—whose profit depends on its ability to undermine our Fourth Amendment rights.
In much the same way that the Patriot Act was used as a front to advance the surveillance state, allowing the government to establish a far-reaching domestic spying program that turned every American citizen into a criminal suspect, the government’s anti-extremism program criminalizes otherwise lawful, nonviolent activities such as peaceful protesting.
Clearly, freedom no longer means what it once did.
This holds true whether you’re talking about the right to criticize the government in word or deed, the right to be free from government surveillance, the right to not have your person or your property subjected to warrantless searches by government agents, the right to due process, the right to be safe from soldiers invading your home, the right to be innocent until proven guilty and every other right that once reinforced the founders’ belief that this would be “a government of the people, by the people and for the people.”
Not only do we no longer have dominion over our bodies, our families, our property, and our lives, but the government continues to chip away at what few rights we still have to speak freely and think for ourselves.
Yet the unspoken freedom enshrined in the First Amendment is the right to think freely and openly debate issues without being muzzled or treated like a criminal.
In other words, if we no longer have the right to voice concerns about COVID-19 mandates, if we no longer have the right to tell a Census Worker to get off our property, if we no longer have the right to tell a police officer to get a search warrant before they dare to walk through our door, if we no longer have the right to stand in front of the Supreme Court wearing a protest sign or approach an elected representative to share our views, if we no longer have the right to protest unjust laws or government policies by voicing our opinions in public or on social media or before a legislative body—no matter how politically incorrect or socially unacceptable those views might be—then we do not have free speech.
What we have instead is regulated, controlled speech, and that’s what those who founded America called tyranny.
On paper, we may be technically free.
In reality, however, we are only as free as a government official may allow.
As the great George Carlin rightly observed: “Rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country, is a bill of temporary privileges. And if you read the news even badly, you know that every year the list gets shorter and shorter. Sooner or later, the people in this country are gonna realize the government … doesn’t care about you, or your children, or your rights, or your welfare, or your safety… It’s interested in its own power. That’s the only thing. Keeping it and expanding it wherever possible.”
In other words, we only think we live in a constitutional republic, governed by just laws created for our benefit.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we live in a dictatorship disguised as a democracy where 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. And now 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.
Remember: if the government can control speech, it can control thought and, in turn, it can control the minds of the citizenry.
While the casualties of government-imposed COVID-19 countermeasures are manifold, the biggest and most tragic of them all is the loss of individual freedoms
We either choose freedom, or we choose to live under authoritarian rule. Even if restrictions are lifted, public attitude can place freedom on shaky ground, as public acceptance of overreach will allow for the same to occur again and again at a moment’s notice
The freedom to interact with other human beings is a crucial, most basic human need
The inevitabilities of life — which include uncertainty, moment-to-moment risk, and the surety of death — demand that we not require people to cease living in order to “save” others from the ramifications of ill health
The answer, if we really want to protect the masses, is to educate and promote healthy living at all stages of life. Improving your health through a healthy lifestyle, sunshine, fresh air, and real food is the best way to protect the most people
While the casualties of government-imposed COVID-19 countermeasures are manifold, the biggest and most tragic of them all is the loss of individual freedoms. As noted by Jonathan Sumption in his February 15, 2021, Telegraph commentary:1
“What makes us a free society is that, although the state has vast powers, there are conventional limits on what it can do with them. The limits are conventional because they do not depend on our laws but on our attitudes.
There are islands of human life which are our own, a personal space into which the state should not intrude without some altogether exceptional justification.
Liberal democracy breaks down when frightened majorities demand mass coercion of their fellow citizens, and call for our personal spaces to be invaded. These demands are invariably based on what people conceive to be the public good. They all assert that despotism is in the public interest.”
A Fragile Freedom
As Sumption points out, “We cannot switch in and out of totalitarianism at will.” We either choose freedom, or we choose to live under authoritarian rule. Even if (and that’s a big if, at this point,) restrictions are lifted, public attitude can place freedom on shaky ground, as public acceptance of overreach will allow for the same to occur again and again at a moment’s notice.
This is a serious problem, as there will always be other epidemics and pandemics. There is always the threat of terrorism and climate change. There will always be a public health calamity, be it obesity or diabetes, that can be used as justification for government intrusion into our private lives.
“A threshold has now been crossed,” Sumption writes.2 “A big taboo has gone. Other governments will say that the only question that matters is whether it works and whether they can ‘get away with it’ … We already have a striking example. The vaccine, which was supposed to make the lockdown unnecessary, has become a reason for keeping it in force …
Infections, hospitalizations and deaths are plunging, but millions who are at virtually no risk are being kept in house imprisonment. This is being done mainly because a selective regime of controls would be too difficult for the state to enforce. Coercion quickly becomes an object in itself.”
Personal Liberty Is Worth Fighting For
Personal liberty, as Sumption points out, is critically important, and perhaps most important of all, for our mental and physical health, is the freedom to interact with other human beings. It is an absolutely crucial and most basic of human needs. Infants robbed of physical interaction fail to thrive and are at increased risk of death.
But children, adolescents, adults, and the elderly have no lesser need for it. We may tolerate it for longer without marked ill effect, but over time, it takes its toll on health, emotional stability, and longevity. The fact that we’re allowing the government to ban human interaction is a dire sign of society at the brink of self-destruction.
“I do not doubt that there are extreme situations in which oppressive controls over our daily lives may be necessary and justified,” Sumption writes.3
An epidemic of Ebola, with a death rate of 50%, for example, might qualify. However, COVID-19 is nowhere near that serious a threat. As noted by Sumption, COVID-19 “is well within the range of perils which we have always had to live with, and always will.”
Data4 shows the overall noninstitutionalized infection fatality ratio is 0.26%. People under the age of 40 have a mere 0.01% risk of dying from the infection. The vast majority that tests positive for SARS-CoV-2 have no symptoms at all, and most do not get seriously ill.
We Must Relearn to Accept the Inevitabilities of Life
What’s more, the average age of death from COVID-19 is somewhere between 76.9, according to one study,5 and 82, according to U.K. government data cited by Sumption.6
Either way, this is right around the average age of death from any cause anyway, and therefore not an outrageous threat to public health. Yet, the public willingly relinquishes the freedom to live a normal life, somehow oddly convinced that by trading in their freedom, people at the end of their life will be spared the pain of death. They won’t. None of us will.
The inevitabilities of life — which include uncertainty, moment-to-moment risk, and the surety of death — demand that we not require people to cease living in order to “save” others from the ramifications of ill health, regardless of their age. It’s as inhumane as it is illogical.
Rather, the answer, if we really want to protect the masses, is to educate and promote healthy living at all stages of life. Improving your health through a healthy lifestyle, sunshine, fresh air, and real food is the best way to protect the most people. Quarantining and shunning human interaction are probably the worst things you can do for yourself and society at large.
And let’s not go down the road of all the psychological devastation caused by teaching children to fear their own hands, other people, the air they breathe, and that their very presence poses a lethal threat to others.
The Press Has Become an Instrument of Control
Historically, the press has been viewed as a crucial instrument for a well-informed public, and thus supportive of a free and democratically-run society. Indeed, this is why journalists and news outlets were known as “the Fourth Estate.” It was an acknowledgment of their societal influence. To be effective, the press had to develop a certain amount of public trust. Today, trust in mainstream media has dramatically eroded, and for good reason.
Time and again, reporters and entire news outlets have been caught peddling fake news, and when the press misleads rather than informs the public of the facts, they become tools for tyranny. Their viewers become more ignorant by the day rather than more informed, and thus more easily controlled and manipulated.
In a recent substack article,7 independent journalists Matt Taibbi addresses the attempt by UCLA professor and co-leader of the UCLA Center for Critical Internet Inquiry, Sarah Roberts, to shame readers away from substack. “Substack is a dangerous direct threat to traditional news media,” Roberts tweeted.
According to her half-baked reasoning, journalists who leave mainstream newsrooms for substack and other independent portals are taking unfair advantage of the trust they earned while gainfully employed within the Fourth Estate. Then, once on their own, they can print whatever they want without having to go through the onerous chore of fact-checking and other standard checks and balances.
“To imply that trust is a thing that can only be conferred by a mainstream newsroom is beyond insulting, especially since mainstream news organizations already long ago started to become infamous for betraying exactly those hallowed ‘norms’ to which Roberts refers,” Taibbi writes.8
“Why did a source like former NSA contractor Edward Snowden choose to come forward to Glenn Greenwald in particular? He surely wasn’t bothered by the fact that Glenn didn’t come up through the ranks of a paper like the New York Times or Washington Post.
The answer connects to one of the primary reasons audiences are moving to places like Substack: the perception that traditional news outlets have become tools of the very corporate and political interests they’re supposed to be overseeing.
Roberts complains about lines between opinion and reporting being blurred at Substack (an absurd comment on its own, but that’s a separate issue), but the ‘blurring’ problem at those other organizations is far more severe. Are newspapers like the New York Times checks on power, or agents of it?”
A Century of Controlled Media
As detailed in “Reuters and BBC Caught Taking Money for Propaganda Campaign,” infiltration and manipulation of the media has been a routine occurrence since 1915, when J.P. Morgan interests, including the steel and shipbuilding industries, purchased editorial control of 25 of the most influential newspapers, thereby allowing them to control news about military preparedness, financial policies and other stories deemed crucial to their private and corporate interests.
Then, in 1948, the CIA launched Operation Mockingbird, a clandestine media infiltration campaign that allowed the agency to control and inject its own propaganda into the mainstream press. Today, several decades later, it’s clear that Operation Mockingbird never ceased. As noted by Taibbi:9
“The major ‘traditional’ cable networks, as well as many of the bigger daily newspapers, have for years now been engaged in mad hiring sprees of ex-spooks, putting whole nests of known perjurers and Langley goons on their payrolls as contributors, where they regularly provide ‘commentary’ on news stories in which they themselves have involvement.”
The modern propaganda machine also includes Big Tech, which allows for previously unthinkable information control through automated censorship across a much broader spectrum of sources.
Literally, overnight, an individual or company involved in the dissemination of truthful information that goes against the status quo can have their website shadowbanned by search engines, their social media accounts eliminated, their web hosting and email services canceled and their online payment systems shut down. From one day to the next, you, your thoughts, opinions, and all your hard work can be effectively erased.
Political Powerbrokers Call for Massive Censoring
We’re now even seeing politicians starting to throw their weight around, demanding to censor political opponents and news outlets that fail to properly toe the political line.
U.S. House Democrats from California — Anna Eshoo and Jerry McNerney — went so far as to send a letter to a dozen cable, satellite, and streaming TV companies, basically telling them to censor or remove Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN. As noted by Glenn Greenwald in an article10 on the rapid escalation of government calls for censorship:
“Democrats’ justification for silencing their adversaries online and in media — ‘They are spreading fake news and inciting extremism’ — is what despots everywhere say … Since when is it the role of the U.S. Government to arbitrate and enforce precepts of ‘journalistic integrity’?
Unless you believe in the right of the government to regulate and control what the press says — a power which the First Amendment explicitly prohibits — how can anyone be comfortable with members of Congress arrogating unto themselves the power to dictate what media outlets are permitted to report and control how they discuss and analyze the news of the day?”
FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr has strongly denounced the Democrats’ actions, calling it a “marked departure from First Amendment norms,” adding that the demands are “a chilling transgression of the free speech rights that every media outlet in this country enjoys … No government official has any business inquiring about the ‘moral principles that guide a private entity’s decision about what news to carry.”11
To What Aim Control?
It’s important to realize those authoritarian dictators are not, in fact, trying to help you. They’re trying to change you. Censorship does not protect the public. It’s a control mechanism, as you are unlikely to rebel against an injustice that you don’t even know exists, or if you know about it, your understanding of the problem is diametrically opposed to the truth; hence, you’ll support a “solution” that will perpetuate or deepen the problem.
At an even deeper level, censorship and information suppression is an effort to alter your cognitive faculties, because how do you even define people and things that you are not allowed to criticize? As noted by Taibbi, Big Tech and media are tools for politicians, corporations, and the intelligence industry, the interests of which are frequently diametrically opposed to that of the people.
Chemical companies cannot sell their toxic wares if an informed public shuns them. The fake food industry cannot flourish if the public understands the basics of health. Technocracy cannot be implemented if an informed public opposes the agenda, and so on.
What we see clearer than ever these days, is the schism in journalism where the old-school norms of gathering data and then delivering it to the audience and allowing them to make up their own minds as to whether it’s good or bad have been replaced by subjective interpretation of the data.
Essentially, most mainstream reporters now tell you how to think about a given topic. They even tell us how to think about people who refuse to think the way they’re instructed to think. That way, the public ends up doing the dirty work of censoring, canceling, and dehumanizing the undesirables for them.
Rule Through Medicine
While the rise of dictatorships has historically involved the use of armed forces to subdue an unruly public, the budding dictatorship of today relies heavily on weaponized medicine and the control of information. If you’ve taken the time to familiarize yourself with the concept of technocracy, which has a distinct transhumanist component to it, you will see why this makes perfect sense and was, in fact, entirely predictable.
By tying the issue of health care into the digital surveillance apparatus, you end up with a very robust platform for automated mass control. The use of fear also works well in this scenario, since most are keen to stay alive and don’t want their loved ones to die. So, they fall for lies like “we have to shut down the world and sequester indoors for months on end or else we all die.”
A leading figure in this medical dictatorship scheme is Bill Gates, who now wields a dominating influence over not just Big Tech but also global health policy, agriculture and food policy (including biopiracy and fake food), weather modification, and other climate technologies,12 surveillance, education and media. As reported by The GrayZone:13
“Beyond the public relations bonanza about Gates lies a disturbing history that should raise concerns about whether his foundation’s plans for resolving the pandemic will benefit the global public as much as it expands and entrenches its power over international institutions.
The Gates Foundation has already effectively privatized the international body charged with creating health policy, transforming it into a vehicle for corporate dominance. It has facilitated the dumping of toxic products onto the people of the Global South, and even used the world’s poor as guinea pigs for drug experiments.
The Gates Foundation’s influence over public health policy is practically contingent on ensuring that safety regulations and other government functions are weak enough to be circumvented … Strong evidence suggests that the Gates Foundation functions as a Trojan horse for Western corporations, which of course have no goal greater than an increased bottom line.”
Indeed, as reviewed in “Bill Gates — Most Dangerous Philanthropist in Modern History?” Gates donates billions to private companies, and is invested in the very products and businesses he donates money to and otherwise promotes as solutions to the world’s problems, be they hunger, disease, pandemic viruses, or climate change.
As suggested by The GrayZone, Gates’ global health empire is more about building an empire for himself and his technocrat cronies than promoting public health.14
The Great Reset — A Plan to Capitalize on COVID-19 Pandemic
For a time, there was so much uncertainty about SARS-CoV-2 and the infection it causes, you’re forgiven if you opted to err on the side of caution. Now, however, a full year later, it’s become obvious that this pandemic was never as serious as portrayed by the media, and that it is being used (whether preplanned or not) as a convenient vehicle for a radical overhaul of just about every aspect of life. And not for the better.
In a recent report, independent journalist Johnny Vedmore delved into the professional history and personal background Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, who wrote the books “The Fourth Industrial Revolution” (2016), “Shaping the Fourth Industrial Revolution” (2018) and “COVID-19: The Great Reset,” thereby cementing his role as a leading figurehead for the modern technocracy movement. Vedmore writes:15
“As the driving force behind the World Economic Forum … Schwab has courted heads of state, leading business executives, and the elite of academic and scientific circles into the Davos fold for over 50 years.
More recently, he has also courted the ire of many due to his more recent role as the frontman of the Great Reset, a sweeping effort to remake civilization globally for the express benefit of the elite of the World Economic Forum and their allies …
Like many prominent frontmen for elite-sponsored agendas, the online record of Schwab has been well-sanitized, making it difficult to come across information on his early history as well as information on his family.
Yet, having been born in Ravensburg, Germany in 1938, many have speculated in recent months that Schwab’s family may have had some tie to Axis war efforts, ties that, if exposed, could threaten the reputation of the World Economic Forum and bring unwanted scrutiny to its professed missions and motives …
Digging even deeper into his activities, it becomes clear that Schwab’s real role has long been to ‘shape global, regional and industry agendas’ of the present in order to ensure the continuity of larger, much older agendas that came into disrepute after World War II, not just nuclear technology, but also eugenics-influenced population control policies …
Is Klaus Schwab trying to create the Fourth Industrial Revolution, or is he trying to create the Fourth Reich?”
Is Depopulation Part of the Agenda?
Gates’ family history is also heavy on eugenics,16 as is the Club of Rome’s agenda,17 another technocratic power center. The United Nation’s Agenda 21 also hints at the need for a dramatic reduction in population size in the coming decade.18
The idea that eugenics might make a comeback may seem like a remote possibility, but considering the history of using vaccinations to secretly inhibit fertility in native populations, it would be naïve to dismiss the possibility out of hand. As reported in a 2014 paper written by researchers at the University of Louisiana and the University of British Columbia:19
“Published research shows that by 1976 WHO researchers had conjugated tetanus toxoid (TT) with human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) producing a ‘birth-control’ vaccine.
Conjugating TT with hCG causes pregnancy hormones to be attacked by the immune system. Expected results are abortions in females already pregnant and/or infertility in recipients not yet impregnated. Repeated inoculations prolong infertility. Currently WHO researchers are working on more potent anti-fertility vaccines using recombinant DNA.
WHO publications show a long-range purpose to reduce population growth in unstable ‘less developed countries.’ By November 1993 Catholic publications appeared saying an abortifacient vaccine was being used as a tetanus prophylactic.
In November 2014, the Catholic Church asserted that such a program was underway in Kenya. Three independent Nairobi accredited biochemistry laboratories tested samples from vials of the WHO tetanus vaccine being used in March 2014 and found hCG where none should be present …
Given that hCG was found in at least half the WHO vaccine samples known by the doctors involved in administering the vaccines to have been used in Kenya, our opinion is that the Kenya ‘anti-tetanus’ campaign was reasonably called into question by the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association as a front for population growth reduction.”
Certain vaccines have also been found to cause infertility as an unexpected side effect. For example, a 2018 study published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health20 found that women who received HPV vaccinations suffered higher rates of infertility.
According to this study, “if 100% of females in this study had received the HPV vaccine, data suggest the number of women having ever conceived would have fallen by 2 million.” After “skeptic” critics of scientific evidence that vaccines have significant health risks publicly attacked the study, the paper was withdrawn by the publisher.21
What We Lose Is Exponentially Harder to Get Back
Safeguarding our Constitutional rights and civil liberties against unlawful government overreach is essential. Yet many are willingly giving up freedoms that, once gone, may be difficult, if not impossible, to get back. Vaccine passports are just one example.
By showing proof that you’ve received a COVID-19 vaccine, through a digital certificate or app on your phone, the hope is that you can once again board an airplane and travel freely, attend a concert or enjoy a meal in your favorite restaurant, just like you used to.
Except, being required to present your “papers” in order to live your life isn’t actually freedom at all — it’s a loss of personal liberty that you once had, one that disappeared right before your eyes and one that’s setting the stage for even more intrusive surveillance and privacy erosion.
While the government has a duty to protect the health and welfare of its citizens, this duty must be balanced against the loss of individual rights and liberties. Right now we’re facing a battle of freedom versus tyranny. Long-term lockdowns are clearly not in the public’s best interest. Rather, it’s tantamount to abuse.
Will You Obey or Fight for Freedom?
It is vital to understand that the vast majority of information you are exposed to in mainstream media is carefully designed propaganda crafted from nearly two decades of stolen personal data collected from you.
This data is then run through very sophisticated and advanced deep learning algorithms that are then able to accurately predict what will trigger your emotions to achieve their desired behavior.
As I have carefully identified in many previous articles, this plan will result in a progressive loss in your freedom and liberty that eventually results in tyranny and slavery. So, be ever vigilant and seek the truth so you can understand reality well enough to distinguish between fact and a fictional narrative that promises to offer you liberation but, rather, eventually enslaves you.
In my newest book, “The Truth About COVID-19,” I investigate the origins of this virus and how the elite use it to slowly erode your personal liberty and freedom. I’ll also show how you can protect yourself against this disease and what you can do to fight back against the technocratic overlords.
No ‘Secret Agenda’ About The Great Reset + Families Reveal Deaths Wrongly Attributed to Covid-19
Sky News host Rowan Dean says there is no “secret agenda” about World Economic Forum’s Great Reset – they are shouting it from the rafters.
“This is the plan by the World Economic Forum to encourage governments to use all the levers they use during the lockdown, enforced business closures, 23-hour lockdowns, restricting how far you can go from your home and ridiculously aggressive policing tactics, in order to tackle climate change,” Mr. Dean said.
“The Guardian last week ran a lengthy and, to be the frank fairly tedious article by someone I’d never heard of called Anne Davies attacking me for ‘spreading conspiracy theories about the Great Reset, accompanied by a photo of myself looking suitably deranged and unhinged.
“I have only ever repeated the words of Klaus Schwab at the World Economic Forum, the words of Prince Charles, the words of the head of the United Nations Guterres, and many other very powerful and influential individuals who insist we must go straight from COVID lockdowns to climate lockdowns.”
It’s Here: First Court Case Against Mandatory Vaccination — Attorney Interview
In this interview, which was initially banned by YouTube before it was even published (but now reversed), Spiro is joined by Attorney Ana Garner of New Mexico. Garner represents her client Isaac Legaretta, an officer at the Doña Ana County Detention Center and a military veteran, who is suing the county over its new policy for first responders to receive the COVID-19 vaccinations or face termination.
Attorney Garner explains the significance of this case and what is at stake, as it is the first of its kind and may set a new standard for legal precedent regarding mandatory vaccination. Garner says she is prepared to take this case to the Supreme Court if necessary.
Spiro and Ana Garner also discuss another case of hers that is ongoing currently. A case that challenges not only the Governor of New Mexico but the emergency itself.
You can see this important interview on the free speech platform BitChute below … or watch it on YouTube if you must.
As the European Union announces they are preparing to implement “vaccine certificates,” the largest airline association is also preparing to roll out their version of the controversial Immunity Passports.
On Thursday, the European Union’s 27 political leaders held a 5-hour virtual call to discuss the future of reopening travel across the continent. German Chancellor Angela Merkel told reporters the leaders have “agreed that we need vaccine certificates.” Merkel also sought to quell fears about the use of such certificates, stating, “it will certainly be good to have such a certificate but that will not mean that only those who have such a passport will be able to travel; about that, no political decisions have been made yet.”
The discussion around immunity passports has grown in recent months, with the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, and Spain all considering some method of verifying whether an individual has been vaccinated or achieved immunity from COVID-19. UK officials have also discussed the potential for the use of a digital verification tool for domestic travel. In the United States, plans for immunity passports are also being developed. On January 21, Joe Biden outlined a 200-page national coronavirus pandemic strategy which included a call for the U.S. government to “assess the feasibility of linking COVID-19 vaccination to International Certificates of Vaccination.”
The statements by world leaders come on the heels of a press conference held by the International Air Travel Association, which represents 299 airlines. On Wednesday, Alexandre de Juniac, the IATA’s Director General and CEO, detailed the upcoming release of the organization’s own immunity passport, the IATA Travel Pass. A slideshow presentation discussing the IATA Travel Pass indicates that the organization plans to have its app fully functional by the early summer.
“With respect to health credentials, these past weeks have seen more airlines sign-up to trial the IATA Travel Pass. That will help us be ready for the restart.,”De Juniac stated. He went on to say that the IATA Travel pass must be secure, work with existing systems of travel, and respect data privacy. He did not provide specific details of how privacy would be respected. De Juniac also noted that proof of vaccination and COVID-19 test results must be digital because “fraudulent COVID-19 test results are already proving to be an issue.”
Despite the quick pace of the rollout of these immunity passports, they are not without controversy. According to a poll in June 2020, and a more recent study by the Brookings Institution, the public is evenly divided among support and opposition for immunity passports. “Almost half favor conferring some form of immunity privileges and a small majority are opposed,” the Brookings Institution writes.
The “small majority” opposed to the passports are pushing back out of fears that the passports will create a two-tiered class system where the vaccinated are allowed to travel freely, and the unvaccinated are denied the right to travel, attend concerts, visit museums, drink at the bar, and potentially even shop at the local market. Nicole Hassoun, professor at Binghamton University, recently wrote an opinion piece for Scientific American stating that “Immunity passports may be inevitable, given current developments in the private sector and historic precedent, but in order for them to be ethical, they must at least include some exceptions. People who cannot access vaccines for health reasons but need to work, attend school, travel, and so forth should be able to do so when the benefits exceed the risks.”
Regular readers of TLAV will not be surprised by any of these developments.
In May 2020, TLAV first reported the IATA’s plans for air travel in the post-COVID-19 era. At the time, the IATA issued their publication, Biosecurity for Air Transport A Roadmap for Restarting Aviation, which outlined their strategy to open up air travel as governments begin to lift travel restrictions. The IATA’s call for pre-boarding check-in using “electronic travel authorization platforms” coincided with the announcement of the Covipass and the Health Pass from Clear, both of which call for a digital ID system using biometrics and storing travel, health, and identification data.
In their May 2020 report, the IATA called for temperature screening at entry points to airport terminals and recommended “face coverings” for passengers and protective equipment for airline and airport staff. They also stated that “immunity passports could play an important role in further facilitating the restart of air travel.” Now, one year later, the IATA is helping bring that reality to life as their IATA Travel Pass joins the ranks of the Covipass and Health Pass as proposed options for allowing individuals to travel once again.
As the European Union and the IATA begin to reveal their plans for digital certificates of vaccination, some health experts are speaking out about the ethical and moral concerns regarding the immunity passport schemes. Dr. Deepti Gurdasani, a clinical epidemiologist at Queen Mary University of London, told CNBC that “the scientific evidence doesn’t support” vaccine passports and, she believes, “there are lots of ethical concerns about them that I think are legitimate.”
Liberty, the U.K.’s largest civil liberties organization, has also spoken out against the concept. “One thing every suggestion has missed is that it’s impossible to have immunity passports which do not result in human rights abuses,” the organization recently stated. “We should all be able to live our lives free from unnecessary interference – any form of immunity passport would rob us of that. And history tells us that once we give up these hard-won rights, we rarely get them back.”
What was seen as fantastical and paranoid delusion just one year ago – the idea that individuals could have their lives restricted for not vaccinating – is no longer a fantasy. Immunity passports are here. It is likely that the Summer nations all around the world will require some measure of a digital certificate or proof of vaccination for travel, play, work, and shopping. The opponents of these measures need to think and act quickly to decide what, if anything, they are going to do to slow down the march towards medical authoritarianism.
Derrick Broze, a staff writer for The Last American Vagabond, is a journalist, author, public speaker, and activist. He is the co-host of Free Thinker Radio on 90.1 Houston, as well as the founder of The Conscious Resistance Network & The Houston Free Thinkers.
Tanzanian President Says Citizens Will Not Be Guinea Pigs in Vaccine Trials
On Feb 2, 2021, Tanzania’s health minister, Dorothy Gwajima, announced that her country has no plans in place to recommend the widespread use of COVID-19 vaccines in the African country. The announcement came a few days after Tanzania’s President John Magufuli expressed concern about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines developed and manufactured in Western countries.
On Feb 2, 2021, Tanzania’s health minister, Dorothy Gwajima, announced that her country has no plans in place to recommend the widespread use of COVID-19 vaccines in the African country.
The announcement came a few days after Tanzania’s President John Magufuli expressed concern about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines developed and manufactured in Western countries.
President Magufuli said that the health ministry will only accept COVID-19 vaccines after Tanzania’s experts have examined and certified them. Health Minister Dorothy Gwajima explained,
“We are not yet satisfied that those vaccines have been clinically proven safe.”
President Magufuli reiterated that he will not allow Tanzanians to be used as guinea pigs in COVID-19 vaccine trials conducted by vaccine manufacturers. He warned that COVID-19 vaccines could be harmful and has been urging Tanzanians to stop living in fear and adopt common-sense disease control measures and lead a healthy lifestyle. Health Minister Gwajima said:
We must improve our personal hygiene, wash hands with running water and soap, use handkerchiefs, herbal steam, exercise, eat nutritious food, drink plenty of water, and [use] natural remedies that our nation is endowed with.
The WHO and other institutions have been watching Tanzania closely since COVID-19 began to spread across Africa.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Tanzanian government has objected to adopting strict lockdown protocols or restricting the movement of its citizens as the primary way to contain the spread of the virus, an approach adopted in the U.S., Europe, and other countries.
Although Tanzania’s more open and less restrictive approach has appeared to be radical and unconventional to many, the reasons included avoiding the negative economic fallout caused by lockdowns and the belief that the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic was over-rated.
The U.K. government has given sizeable grants to a number of private companies developing vaccine passports and digital certificates that show vaccination status
It’s likely only a matter of time before you’ll be asked to prove your vaccination status in order to carry on with your daily life
This blatant move toward an ever-increasing surveillance state is being welcomed by many who have been led to believe they’re necessary to protect public health and safety
In the U.S., universities continue to institute lockdowns for students, going so far as to ban even outdoor exercise
While many countries have suggested that the COVID-19 vaccine will not be mandated, by giving special privileges to the vaccinated, such as the ability to travel, attend social events, or even enter a workplace, it essentially amounts to the same thing and insinuates a “cleaner” class of people in those who have been vaccinated
For a weary public longing to get back to normalcy, vaccine passports represent a tantalizing carrot, being dangled as a mechanism for freedom. By showing proof that you’ve received a COVID-19 vaccine, perhaps you can once again board an airplane and travel freely, attend a concert or enjoy a meal in your favorite restaurant, just like you used to.
Except, being required to present your “papers” in order to live your life isn’t actually freedom at all — it’s discrimination, and even a move toward technocratic fascism, one that’s setting the stage for increased surveillance and erosion of your privacy.
Nonetheless, this blatant move toward an ever-increasing surveillance state is being welcomed by many who have been led to believe the passports are necessary to protect public health and safety.
Vaccine Passports Are in Development
It’s likely only a matter of time before you’ll be asked to prove your vaccination status in order to carry on with your daily life. “The government seems to be developing vaccine passports by stealth, making sure the technology is in place for anyone who needs it,” wrote Lara Prendergast, The Spectator’s assistant editor.1
She’s referring to the U.K. government, which has given sizable grants to a number of private companies developing such technology. This includes more than $86,000 to Logifect, which is slated to launch a vaccine passport app in March 2021, and more than $104,000 to iProov and Mvine, which are developing digital certificates that show vaccination status.
As Prendergast noted, “Your phone would most likely be your vaccination passport. Everyone’s vaccination status is already being logged centrally by the National Immunization Vaccination System using their NHS number. This information could be easily linked with an app.”2
Around the world, vaccine passports are rapidly being rolled out, including in Denmark, which will begin issuing them in February 2021. Sweden. Spain, Italy, Cyprus, and Malta have also expressed positivity toward vaccine passports to revive tourism, while in the U.S., plans for vaccine IDs are under evaluation.3 International efforts are also underway.
The Commons Project and the World Economic Forum created the Common Trust Network, which developed the CommonPass app that’s intended to act as a health passport in the near future.
The app allows users to upload medical data such as a COVID-19 test result or proof of vaccination, which then generates a QR code that you will show to authorities as your health passport.4 The proposed common framework “for safe border reopening” around the world involves the following:5
Every nation must publish its health screening criteria for entry into the country using a standard format on a common framework
Each country must register trusted facilities that conduct COVID-19 lab testing for foreign travel and administer vaccines listed in the CommonPass registry
Each country will accept health screening status from foreign visitors through apps and services built on the CommonPass framework
Patient identification is to be collected at the time of sample collection and/or vaccination using an international standard
The CommonPass framework will be integrated into flight and hotel reservation check-in processes
Eventually, the CommonPass framework will be integrated with already existing personal health apps such as Apple Health and CommonHealth. If you want to travel, your personal health record will be evaluated and compared to a country’s entry requirements, and if you don’t meet them, you’ll be directed to an approved testing and vaccination location.
Majority Are in Favor of ‘Privacy-Encroaching Technology’
Even as mortality data show COVID-19 is hardly the deadly pandemic it’s been made out to be, fear-mongering remains in full effect — including warnings that a more infectious, mutated strain of SARS-CoV-2 is on the loose. With fear still omnipresent, acceptance of “privacy-encroaching technology” that promises an illusion of safety is high.
In the U.K., researchers from the University of Bristol conducted two large surveys about such technologies, with overwhelming positivity reported.6 The first measured public acceptance of location tracking through your cellphone that would allow health agencies to monitor your contact with others to target social distancing and quarantine measures.
About 70% of the respondents said they would accept such an app that they could choose to download and, surprisingly, 65% also said they would accept such an app even if it was mandated by the government and used to locate those violating lockdown orders and issue fines and arrests.7
A second survey evaluated acceptance of vaccine passports, with 60% stating they were in favor and only 20% stating they were strongly opposed. The study’s lead author, Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, described those opposed as “surprisingly low, adding, “It’s fascinating how people seem increasingly receptive to their personal data being used to inform themselves and others about what they can and can’t do.”8
Prendergast put this widespread acceptance into further context for the British, who “has traditionally been deeply suspicious of the idea of an official asking for ‘papers, please’:9
“[This] … is why there was such a backlash against Blair’s ID cards. As one journalist at the time put it:
‘If I am ever asked to produce my ID card as evidence that I am who I say I am, when I have done nothing wrong and when I am simply ambling along and breathing God’s fresh air like any other freeborn Englishman, then I will take that card out of my wallet and physically eat it in the presence of whatever emanation of the state has demanded that I produce it.’
That journalist is now our Prime Minister. It would be an extraordinary turn of events if Boris Johnson ended up being the man who introduced an immunity identity system in Britain.”
US Universities Institute Jail-Like Restrictions
At every turn, long-standing societal norms — like college students gathering with friends in their dorms or even leaving their rooms for work and exercise — are disappearing. As of February 7, 2021, for instance, the University of Massachusetts Amherst was in a “high risk” operational mode due to a “continuing surge in COVID-19 cases.”10
The status, which was to be in place for a minimum of 14 days, made all classes remote and ordered all students, whether residing on or off-campus, to self-sequester in their residences, except to get meals, attend medical appointments or undergo twice-weekly COVID testing.
Violating these orders would result in “disciplinary action,” according to a university press release, which could include removal from residence halls or suspension.11 Students were also informed that, should they decide to leave campus to self-sequester at home, “it is highly unlikely we will be able to accommodate your return.”
Even within a residence hall, students were told to remain in their rooms at all times except when using a restroom on their floor. Outdoor exercise or attending to the immediate needs of a pet was allowed, but only when wearing a mask and maintaining social distancing.12
This wasn’t the case at UC Berkeley, however, which banned outdoor exercise in addition to extending dormitory lockdowns in February 2021. The only times students are allowed to leave their rooms during the lockdown are to obtain medical care, get required COVID tests, to use an assigned bathroom, or to obtain food from an outdoor dining kiosk, after which “you are required to return immediately to your room.”13
Are You Clean Enough to Travel?
While many countries have suggested that the COVID-19 vaccine will not be mandated, by giving special privileges to the vaccinated, such as the ability to travel, attend social events, or even enter a workplace, it essentially amounts to the same thing and insinuates a “cleaner” class of people in those who have been vaccinated.
It’s reminiscent of the early days of the pandemic when hand sanitizer and disinfectant wipes were flying off store shelves in a frenzy to clean away COVID. Now we know that transmission of COVID-19 by fomites — the term used for inanimate surfaces and objects that can transmit a pathogen — has been exaggerated.
Emanuel Goldman, a microbiology professor at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, suggested this in July 2020, when he stated that studies suggesting SARS-CoV-2 was easily spread via surfaces did not present real-life situation.14
“In my opinion, the chance of transmission through inanimate surfaces is very small,” he said, and while period disinfection of surfaces, especially in hospitals, was a reasonable precaution, in public settings, he noted, “this can go to extremes not justified by the data.”15 In February 2021, an editorial in Nature supported Goldman’s work, suggesting that costly and toxic disinfection efforts are misguided.
“Catching the coronavirus from surfaces is rare. The World Health Organization and national public health agencies need to clarify their advice,” the editorial reads.16 The New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority alone is spending an estimated $380 million annually on COVID-related sanitation, and when it asked the U.S. government whether they should be focusing on fomites or solely aerosols, they were told to continue their focus on fomites.17
Writing in The Atlantic, Derek Thompson describes this as a type of “hygiene theater,” in which Americans are going through the motions of dutifully cleaning and, likely, over-disinfecting surfaces when the virus spreads most efficiently through the air.18
Indeed, much of the COVID-19 pandemic response has been embroiled in theatrics, including mask mandates, for which the scientific evidence has been described as “astonishingly weak.”19 Hygiene theater, much like the theater for vaccine passports, provides an illusion of safety, not one grounded in reality.
Discussion to Ban Florida Travel for Disobedience
In the U.S., Florida announced in December 2020 that it would have no more lockdowns and no statewide mask mandates.20 The act resulted in retaliation by the federal government, which entertained the idea of a domestic travel ban to the state, reportedly to curb the spread of new COVID-19 variants.
In a press conference, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis stated, “Any attempt to restrict by the federal government would be an attack on our state done purely for political purposes.” Sen. Marco Rubio agreed, calling the act unconstitutional: “So now that they’re considering actual restrictions on Americans inside the country, I think it is unconstitutional. I think it’s going to be challenged in court successfully.”21
The “technocratic fascist vision”22 of professor Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum who wrote the book on the Fourth Industrial Revolution, is moving ahead full-steam. He announced the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset Initiative in June 2020, which includes stripping all people of their privately owned assets.
Getting health passports to become a new normal has, in fact, been part of the plan all along for the Commons Project, which began developing software that tracks medical data well before the COVID-19 pandemic. “But spikes in virus cases around the world this spring accelerated its work,” The New York Times reported.23
While the vaccine passports are starting out with the COVID-19 vaccine for international travel, it’s setting a precedent for expansion that can be extended to other vaccines and medical information, and then to domestic travel and even leaving your house, as the passports will be carried on your phone that has location-tracking abilities.
And it’s clear that when the fascists come, they’ll be wearing masks — probably two or three of them depending on their level of loyalty. For now, getting informed and sharing your knowledge is the first step to protecting your freedom.
California Bill Backed by PTSD War Veterans Groups Would Legalize Psychedelics Statewide
California could soon decriminalize psychedelics statewide if one legislator’s new bill is passed, marking another step by the Golden State to do away with laws seen by critics as antiquated vestiges of the failed U.S. war on drugs.
On Thursday, Senator Scott Wiener of San Francisco introduced Bill 519, which would comprehensively decriminalize the use of and possession of psychedelics, following the lead of such places as Oakland, Santa Cruz, the District of Columbia, and Oregon, which have all decriminalized the drugs to varying degrees.
Under the proposed law, a range of psychedelic drugs including psilocybin – the hallucinogen in “magic” mushrooms – psilocybin, 3,4-MDMA (also known as molly or ecstasy), LSD, ketamine, DMT, ibogaine, and mescaline would all be decriminalized. Like a previous law passed in 2018 that expunged cannabis-related convictions from the records of Californians, Bill 519 would also wipe clean prior convictions for the use or possession of drugs.
While the comprehensive decriminalization measure would open the door to any sort of use of the drugs, not limited to medical, it would also be tied to measures that endorse the medicinal and therapeutic benefits of psychedelics which have gained increased recognition from health experts and researchers in recent years.
“Given the severity of our mental health crisis, we shouldn’t be criminalizing people for using drugs that have shown significant promise in treating mental health conditions,” Wiener said in a statement. “People should be able to seek alternative treatment for diseases like anxiety, depression, and PTSD, and we need to make science-based treatments available to those in need.”
I introduced legislation (#SB519) to decriminalize psychedelic drugs (use & possession) in CA.
Let’s embrace science & move past the failed war on drugs. Drug use is a health issue, not a criminal issue. And, psychedelics have tremendous health benefits. https://t.co/VtDrUJKdLM
The bill has also been heavily supported by two groups, the Heroic Hearts Project and VETS (Vets Exploring Treatment Solutions), both nonprofit organizations that assist veterans in addressing mental health challenges stemming from trauma, such as PTSD.
The strategy that touts the medical benefits of the drugs is one that has been used with success in past efforts by drug policy reform advocates.
“That’s how it worked with cannabis,” Oregonian drug policy reform advocate Anthony Johnson told the Guardian. Johnson helped lead efforts in his state to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of basically all illicit drugs through Measure 110, which voters overwhelmingly approved in November.
“It’s definitely a way to help people that need it first and foremost, but also then to educate the public about these substances of how the drug war has been a failed policy and how there is a better approach,” Johnson added.
In the case of Oregon’s Measure 109, which cleared the way for the all-out legalization of psilocybin mushrooms, petitioners highlighted the need to end the prohibition of the substance as a means toward treating mental health challenges through alternative methods.
“Healthcare professionals, veterans, mothers, people struggling with depression, anxiety, addiction and end of life distress, community organizations, and so many others answered to call for a new option to help so many who are suffering,” a coalition of Oregon advocates said in a statement last November following voters’ overwhelming approval of the legal psilocybin therapy bill.
As has been the case in other states, however, the largest obstacle to decriminalization has been law enforcement, which cites concerns over public safety, and the private prison industry which enjoys generous profits from state contracts to incarcerate drug users. However, state Senator Wiener hopes that the testimony of veterans will help convince opponents of the need to shed their preconceptions and biases toward users of psychedelic drugs.
“There’s a stereotype of who’s using psychedelics, but it’s much broader than that and when you have veterans coming into the Capitol talking about how psychedelics help them with PTSD and help them get their lives back, that’s incredibly powerful for legislators,” Wiener explained.
Among those veterans is 38-year-old veteran Juliana Mercer, who spent 16 years in the U.S. Marine Corps, including 10 years of active duty service over the course of one tour in Iraq and one in Afghanistan.
As a four-year member of the wounded warriors unit, Mercer saw unspeakable horrors that left an indelible impression on her psyche – ultimately resulting in long-term trauma that she was largely unable to address.
“I lost quite a few friends and just saw a lot of a lot of damage and destruction along the way,” Mercer said. “I put all of that stuff away and kind of forgot about it for a while, and once I slowed down it was all just sitting there and I didn’t know what to do with it.”
While her first experience with psychedelics was recreational, she eventually gained a sense of connectedness that had been absent for years. She eventually reached out to the Heroic Hearts Project a year and a half ago to undergo ayahuasca therapy, which she said had completely exceeded expectations in allowing her to release “years of grief.”
“I kept hearing that when you do some of these plant medicines, you’ll be able to do 10 years’ worth of work in one session,” Mercer explained. “Just one of my sessions really brought out all of that pain and the grief that I didn’t even know was in there and allowed me to just completely release it and expel it, things that I had no idea were there.”
For licensed clinical social worker Lauren Taus, therapies involving plants such as ayahuasca and psilocybin are simply strong tools rather than cure-alls for mental health challenges. However, with the ongoing pandemic compounding a mental health crisis that has long been felt across the United States, Taus is adamant that such potent tools must be decriminalized.
“The causes of trauma are multiplying way faster than the solutions,” Taus said. “Current treatment is generally not very effective.”
“Psychedelic medicine has been engaged with globally for eons,” she added. “This stuff works and we deserve to have access to solutions that will be sustainable.”
Despite Gov’t Fear Mongering, Arizona Sees DUIs Drop After Cannabis Legalization
Across the country last November, Americans made their voices heard in regard to the war on drugs. A record five states legalized cannabis in some form. Montana voted to legalize cannabis for those 21 and up, New Jersey, South Dakota — who has since reversed course — and Arizona also approved recreational use. Legal weed started from a trickle in 2012 with Washington and Colorado and has now developed into a landslide with dozens of states legalizing it in some form.
Telling cops to stop kidnapping and caging people for possessing and selling a plant that has never killed anyone, is most certainly a massive step in the direction of freedom. However, many states who have legalized cannabis forget about those who have already been kidnapped and caged for this plant. Hundreds of thousands of people are still rotting in cages or have criminal records hanging over their heads in states where cannabis has been legalized. This is an egregious injustice and it needs to change.
Luckily, there are those in the political world who see this injustice and are moving to correct it. With the passage of Proposition 207 (the Smart and Safe Arizona Act) on Nov 3rd, Arizona decided to make that move.
However, as is normally the case, when a bad law is reversed, there are always tyrants who will resist and fearmonger. After the passage of Prop 207, the head of the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety began fear-mongering, claiming that cannabis DUIs would go up.
“It’s legal to purchase it, to consume it, but not while driving,” Alberto Gutier, director of the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety, said, adding, “We think there will be an increase (in cannabis DUI) all over the state, slowly but surely.”
Fortunately, he appears to be wrong.
According to his own Office of Highway Safety, so far in 2021, Arizona has seen 582 DUI drug arrests. Those numbers are on pace for 4,518 arrests this year, which would be the lowest number of DUI drug arrests since 2014.
These numbers are likely lower given the fact that people can test positive for cannabis, well after the effects have worn off.
“It’s hard, it’s really hard because unlike alcohol, there is no test or no chemical test one can do telling people someone is under the influence of marijuana. All it can show is prior use.” Lawrence Koplow, a former prosecutor turned DUI lawyer said, according to 12 News.
What’s more, many of these DUIs are issued by so-called “Drug Recognition Experts.” As TFTP has reported, stone-cold sober drivers in Arizona get DUI’s and have to spend thousands of dollars proving their innocence. The source of the misunderstandings and illegitimate arrests, once again, come from Drug Recognition Experts (DRE), cops with badges and fancy titles who claim they can look at a motorist and on observation alone determine if someone is impaired.
You’d have to be God to know if someone is under the influence by simply looking at them. With that being the issue, worse still is the fact the DRE’s testimony often holds up in court without so much as a failed breathalyzer or a dirty toxicology report showing alcohol and drugs in someone’s system.
Sadly, “experts” in law enforcement and prosecution constantly skew the data as not to remove their cash cow that is cannabis persecution.
As we previously reported, according to a report from the Nevada Department of Public Safety, deaths from traffic accidents in Nevada dropped by over 10 percent in the first year that marijuana was legalized in the state for recreational use.
Prior to legalization in Nevada, between July 2016 and May 2017, 310 people diedin traffic accidents, but in the year since legalization took effect, between July 2017 and May 2018, that number was reduced to just 277.
Similar numbers have been seen in other states that have implemented legalization. A study published by the American Public Health Association found that states with legal medical cannabis have lower rates of traffic fatalities than states with full prohibition.
Although correlation does not automatically mean causation, it does seem that legalization is actually making the roads safer, debunking many of the claims that DUI would increase. Critics of marijuana typically cite statistics of how often people test positive for marijuana after car crashes. However, what these assessments usually leave out is the fact that these people often have numerous other drugs in their system, usually, alcohol or opiates, which both have a much greater impact on motor skills.
Researchers at the University of Iowa’s National Advanced Driving Simulator carried out the study, sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Institute of Drug Abuse, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
“Once in the simulator—a 1996 Malibu sedan mounted in a 24-feet diameter dome—the drivers were assessed on weaving within the lane, how often the car left the lane, and the speed of the weaving. Drivers with only alcohol in their systems showed impairment in all three areas while those strictly under the influence of vaporized cannabis only demonstrated problems weaving within the lane.
Drivers with blood concentrations of 13.1 ug/L THC, or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the active ingredient in marijuana, showed increased weaving that was similar to those with a .08 breath alcohol concentration, the legal limit in most states. The legal limit for THC in Washington and Colorado is 5 ug/L, the same amount other states have considered.”
As expected, there was impairment in all areas when alcohol and cannabis were mixed. But cannabis itself, when taken in moderate amounts, seems to cause no significant driving impairment.
About the Author
Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project. Follow @MattAgorist on Twitter, Steemit, and now on Minds.
**This article (Despite Gov’t Fear Mongering, Arizona Sees DUIs Drop After Cannabis Legalization) was originally published at The Free Thought Project and is re-posted here with permission.**