1

How to Fight Vaccine Mandates and Passports

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com 

Story at-a-glance

  • Around the world, huge numbers of people are protesting vaccine mandates and passports
  • New York City has seen large protests in the wake of its vaccine requirement for restaurants and other public venues. Among those protesting are firefighters, first responders, correctional officers, police officers, and sanitation workers
  • Among city sanitation workers, 38% remain unvaccinated. Unless they’re fully “vaccinated” by November 1, 2021, they face being placed on unpaid leave. While catastrophic, losing half the sanitation department may also force New York to rethink its ill-advised mandate
  • While there’s no one-size-fits-all solution, some general suggestions can be made. Available solutions can be divided into four main categories: legal challenges, workarounds that don’t require you to face the issue head-on, protests, and demonstrations, and mass noncompliance
  • Mass noncompliance is the only strategy that can save us in the long run

Around the world, huge numbers of people are protesting vaccine mandates and passports. In mid-September 2021, Italy became the first European country to announce the implementation of mandatory COVID-19 health passes (so-called “Green Pass”) for all workers, both public and private.

The Italian mandate took effect on October 15, 2021. Under the new rules, any Italian who does not have a Green Pass is forced into unpaid leave and risks fines of up to 1,500 euros (approximately $1,750). Massive demonstrations are also taking place in The Netherlands, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Greece, Romania, Slovenia, Australia, and France.

Even in Israel, mass protests are now taking place as it was announced Israelis will lose their health pass privileges unless they get a third booster shot six months after their second dose.

The situation in New York

New York City has also seen large protests in the wake of its vaccine requirement for restaurants and other public venues. Among those protesting are firefighters, first responders, correctional officers, police officers, and sanitation workers.

The New York City police union, the Police Benevolent Association, recently sued the city over its COVID jab mandate, saying it opposes any mandate that does not allow police officers to undergo weekly testing in lieu of getting the shot.

As of mid-October 2021, an estimated 30% of the New York police department remained unvaccinated.1 Unless they’re fully “vaccinated” by November 1, 2021, they all face being placed on unpaid leave. In all, about 46,0002 New York City workers stand before this difficult choice: get the risky jab or lose their job.

Among city sanitation workers, 38% remain unvaccinated.3 We’ve already seen how mass walkouts can change things. For example, in mid-October 2021, Southwest Airlines did a sudden U-turn, reversing its strict get jabbed or get lost policy.4

Southwest is now urging unvaccinated employees to apply for an exemption, which the airline will do its best to approve. In cases where an exemption is not approved, Southwest has promised to provide other accommodation, such as weekly testing, which is not an option under Biden’s mandate.

Now, imagine what halving the sanitation department in New York City would do. I predict a few weeks of letting trash pile up might soften the mayor’s stance on the mandate.

It would be even more catastrophic — and more likely to end the mandate — were the remaining vaccinated sanitation workers to walk off the job in solidarity. After all, whether you decided to get the initial jab or not, the vaccine mandate is a direct attack on your personal freedom and liberty.

Unless you’re willing to give up all personal autonomy to the government, you have to say no to this clear authoritarian overreach, because it’s only going to get worse from here. There really is no telling what you’ll have to submit yourself to next in order to keep your “privileges,” which now include having a job.

The Global Threat of Vaccine Mandates and Passports

In the video above, investigative reporter James Corbett of The Corbett Report Solution Watch explores how we can thwart the threat of vaccine mandates and passports. As noted by Corbett, this threat is worldwide.

There’s not a nation in the world that can expect to not face vaccine mandates and passports, for the simple reason that the passports are a foundational part of the new economic control system that is being rolled out.

So, while it appears people have successfully pushed back in some areas — including the U.K., which recently announced it would scrap the passport requirement for restaurants and other public venues, and in Florida, where Gov. Ron DeSantis is calling on businesses to pay for adverse reactions if they mandate the shot (see his speech below) — we must remain vigilant, not let up, and not give an inch.

We’ve repeatedly seen how government officials have said there are no plans for vaccine mandates or passports, only to turn on dime days or weeks later. It seems they’re all using the same playbook: First, put people’s minds at ease, and then pull the rug out — over and over again.

How to Thwart the Threat of Vaccine Mandates and Passports

While there’s no one-size-fits-all solution, some general suggestions can be made. Corbett divides the available solutions into four main categories:

1. Legal challenges to the vaccine mandates — A variety of legal resources can be found on The Corbett Report’s September Open Thread.5 A thread by HomeRemedySupply, in particular, contains a long list of legal resources for Americans looking to combat vaccine mandates, including vaccine exemption documents and much more.

The Corbett Report shows notes6 also lists a variety of resources. Another resource is The Solari Report, where you can download a variety of forms, including:

a. A family financial disclosure form, to ensure that a vaccine injury or death does not translate into financial destruction of the whole family

b. An employer disclosure form that informs your employer of the many laws and ethical principles they are breaking and demands they take financial responsibility for any injury you might incur as a result of their mandate

c. A school disclosure form that informs the school of the many laws and ethical principles they are breaking and demands they take financial responsibility for any injury you might incur as a result of their mandate

d. A notice of parental authority form, which parents can use to notify relevant parties that they do not consent to their child being vaccinated without their written informed consent

Another type of legal challenge you can pursue is that of religious and medical exemptions. Just keep in mind that while this might temporarily save the livelihoods of some, it does virtually nothing to protect you or anyone else from tyranny in the long term.

And, as noted by Corbett, even the Amish have had religious exemptions denied by bureaucrats who say they don’t think the Amish have a strongly held religious conviction against vaccination. If you know anything about Amish who choose not to vaccinate, you know what a ridiculous statement that is, but at the end of the day, these are the kinds of people making the decisions.

2. Workarounds that don’t necessitate facing the problem head-on — This includes setting up a network of likeminded people to create parallel economies and resources,7 and getting involved in local politics, your children’s school board, and so on, where you can apply pressure and affect change from the inside. You can also sign petitions, such as the British togetherdeclaration.org.8

3. Peaceful protests and demonstrations — As mentioned earlier, there are mass protests taking place all over the world. Keep in mind that this strategy requires patience and above all persistence. Doing it once or twice will accomplish little.

The French have been taken to the streets by the hundreds of thousands every weekend for months. Our leaders are clearly not easily or rapidly swayed by these displays of solidarity but, over time, peaceful protests can be effective.

4. The ultimate solution: noncompliance — At the end of the day, the most effective long-term solution is mass noncompliance, “ignoring the rulers out of existence,” to quote Arizona Dara, featured in Corbett’s report. It’s important to realize that it’s not our politicians who are running the show. They’re foot soldiers for unnamed, unelected globalists, which is why fighting in the political arena is unlikely to eliminate this threat over the long term.

As noted by Corbett, the technocrat globalists that are the real string-pullers are only able to do what they do because people tend to just go along with it. It’s that simple. If enough people don’t comply, their plans fall apart.

If millions of people refuse to comply with the mandates and the passports and then sue their employers when they’re fired, if millions force the establishment to go through that hassle, the establishment will eventually cave. As noted by Corbett, it would become mathematically impossible for them to enforce the tyranny. Ultimately, that’s how we win.

Vaccine Passports Are Part of Surveillance Capitalism

To learn more about the scheme behind vaccine passports, read Jeremy Loffredo’s and Max Blumenthal’s article, “Public Health or Private Wealth? How Digital Vaccine Passports Pave Way for Unprecedented Surveillance Capitalism.”9 As noted in that article:

“The titans of global capitalism are exploiting the Covid-19 crisis to institute social credit-style digital ID systems across the West.

The death by starvation of Etwariya Devi, a 67-year-old widow from the rural Indian state of Jharkhand, might have passed without notice had it not been part of a more widespread trend.

Like 1.3 billion of her fellow Indians, Devi had been pushed to enroll in a biometric digital ID system called Aadhaar in order to access public services, including her monthly allotment of 25kg of rice.

When her fingerprint failed to register with the shoddy system, Devi was denied her food ration. Throughout the course of the following three months in 2017, she was repeatedly refused food until she succumbed to hunger, alone in her home.

Premani Kumar, a 64-year-old woman also from Jharkhand, met the same demise as Devi, dying of hunger and exhaustion the same year after the Aadhaar system transferred her pension payments to another person without her permission, while cutting off her monthly food rations.

A similarly cruel fate was reserved for Santoshi Kumari, an 11-year-old girl, also from Jharkhand, who reportedly died begging for rice after her family’s ration card was canceled because it had not been linked to their Aadhaar digital ID.

These three heart-rending casualties were among a spate of deaths in rural India in 2017 which came as a direct result of the Aadhaar digital ID system.

With over one billion Indians in its database, Aadhaar is the largest biometric digital ID program ever constructed. Besides serving as a portal to government services, it tracks users’ movements between cities, their employment status, and purchasing records. It is a de facto social credit system that serves as the key entry point for accessing services in India …

For those yearning for an end to pandemic-related restrictions, credential programs certifying their vaccination against Covid-19 have been marketed as the key to reopening the economy and restoring their personal freedom. But the implementation of immunity passports is also accelerating the establishment of a global digital identity infrastructure.”

Don’t Fall Into the Convenience Trap

Make no mistake, vaccine passports are the precursor to digital ID wallets, as noted by the military surveillance firm Thales.10 Of course, it’s sold as something that will provide you with superior convenience, but as the three stories above show, it doesn’t always work, and even when it does, it turns you into a slave in a system that profits from surveilling everything you do.

The system also gives unelected globalists — the richest of the rich — the power to cut your access to funds, health care, travel, food, or anything else whenever they please. Bill Gates, the World Health Organization, the Rockefellers, the World Bank, and the World Economic Forum are just some of the people and organizations that are behind this global enslavement agenda.

Don’t fall for altruistic language spouted by these people. It’s nothing but PR to cover their profit motives. In the real world, digital ID systems have proven disastrous for the average person, resulting in marginalization and death.

In India, a random sampling of 18 villages that had implemented compulsory biometric authentication at rationing stations showed a shocking 37% of people were unable to get their food rations for one reason or another.11 So much for convenience. Imagine having to rely on a system like that for everything in your life — your food, your health care, your education, your banking, and everyday purchases.

As noted by Canadian immunologist and geneticist Sir John Bell,12 the COVID-19 medical system can easily be repurposed for other ailments and health goals as well. Any number of other vaccinations could be mandated, and without having those logged in your passport, there goes your freedom yet again.

Any number of drugs could be required to maintain a valid passport. They could put every adult over 40 on mandatory statin treatment, for example, as a public health measure.

Just how much freedom are you willing to lose? Don’t think for a minute that it’ll all end once you get fully vaccinated against COVID-19. Sooner or later, everyone will have to make a choice: freedom or slavery. There’s no middle ground anymore.

Sources and References



Vaccine Passports: Why Bother if Shots Don’t Prevent Infection, Transmission?

Story at-a-glance:

  • More than 15 studies now show the natural immunity you get after recovering from COVID-19 is far superior and more long-lasting than what you get from the COVID shot.
  • Lawsuits challenge vaccine requirements that fail to accept natural immunity as an alternative to the COVID injection.
  • Todd Zywicki, a law professor at George Mason University in Virginia, sued over the school’s vaccine mandate, which did not recognize natural immunity. The school settled out of court, granting Zywicki a medical exemption. They did not, however, change their general policy to recognize other staff and students who have natural immunity.
  • Some of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed against Rutgers University in New Jersey also object to the vaccine mandate on the basis that they have natural immunity. This lawsuit is still pending.
  • Since COVID shots do not prevent infection or spread of the virus, and COVID-jabbed individuals carry the same viral load when symptomatic as unvaccinated individuals, the argument that vaccine passports will identify and separate “public health threats” from those who are “safe” to be around simply falling apart.

While governments around the world are going full steam ahead with plans for vaccine passports, two key things have occurred that blow irreparable holes in the whole argument.

First, more than 15 studies now show the natural immunity you get after recovering from COVID-19 is far superior and longer-lasting than what you get from the COVID shot, and secondly, lawsuits have challenged vaccine requirements that fail to accept natural immunity as an alternative to the COVID injection. Other lawsuits highlighting the illegalities of vaccine mandates have also been filed.

The Zywicki case

As reported by the New York Post on Aug. 4, when George Mason University in Virginia decided to implement a vaccine mandate, law professor Todd Zywicki sued. Mason recovered from COVID-19 in 2020 and has natural immunity, as demonstrated by several antibody tests. One of his attorneys, Harriet Hageman, stated:

“Common sense and medical science should underpin GMU’s actions. Both have gone missing with this latest effort to force a distinguished professor to take a vaccine that he does not need — not for his own protection nor for anyone else’s safety at Scalia Law School.”

The lawsuit pointed out that people with natural immunity have an increased risk of adverse reactions to the COVID shot — according to one study up to 4.4 times the risk of clinically significant side effects — and that the requirement not only violates due process rights and the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment but is not compliant with the Emergency Use Authorization.

A win for GMU professor but no legal precedent

Aug. 17 George Mason University caved before the case went to trial and granted Zywicki a medical exemption to the vaccine requirement. Unfortunately, and irrationally, the school did not revise its general policy. As reported by Citizens Journal:

“The school’s acknowledgment of natural immunity is significant given the serial case of amnesia that seems to have overtaken the world on this basic point of biology.

“However, the school still maintains the vaccination requirement for all other members of the GMU community, regardless of naturally acquired immunity. At the time of this writing, the same medical exemption has not been offered on a broader scale.

“Furthermore, the lawsuit would have served as an interesting test case for vaccine mandate-related litigation, which will become more prevalent as time goes on. Regardless, the victory still serves as a sliver of hope that some universities will entertain reasonable arguments and that individuals can fight back with litigation …

“With the GMU case resolved without trial, many critical legal arguments went untested. For example, does the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause apply to vaccine mandates, or does the state have the ability to suspend such rights when responding to a public health emergency?

“How does the reliability of natural immunity affect the constitutionality of policies that fail to recognize it? Can the government simply cherry-pick whatever science it wants to justify its policies? According to the court filing:

“’ The Supreme Court has recognized that the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to privacy. A ‘forcible injection … into a nonconsenting person’s body represents a substantial interference with that person’s liberty[.]’ Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229 (1990).’

“Given this precedent, as well as the state’s police powers to suspend individual rights under compelling circumstances, how will this apply to Covid-19 in a low-risk environment such as a college campus?

“If the right still holds, how will it apply to city-wide vaccine passport programs, given that Covid-19 is a relatively mild disease? … The move is also mysterious, given the relevance of the matter. As a result, it did not create a binding legal precedent.”

In a statement, lead counsel Jenin Younes with the New Civil Liberties Alliance said:

“NCLA is pleased that GMU granted Professor Zywicki’s medical exemption, which we believe it only did because he filed this lawsuit. According to GMU, with the medical exemption, Prof. Zywicki may continue serving the GMU community, as he has for more than two decades, without receiving a medically unnecessary vaccine and without undue burden.

“Nevertheless, NCLA remains dismayed by GMU’s refusal — along with much other public and private universities and other employers — to recognize that the science establishes beyond any doubt that natural immunity is as robust or more so than vaccine immunity.”

Other lawsuits challenging schools’ vaccine mandates

While not specifically centered around the validity of natural immunity, a lawsuit filed by more than a dozen students and Children’s Health Defense against Rutgers University in New Jersey does include this aspect, as some of the plaintiffs object to the mandate on the basis that they have natural immunity. This lawsuit was filed in mid-August 2021 and is still pending.

Earlier this year, in April, the Los Angeles Unified School District was sued over its vaccine requirement by California Educators for Medical Freedom and the Health Freedom Defense Fund. July 27, a California court dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, as it concluded the LAUSD had voluntarily abandoned its mandatory vaccine requirement. As reported by Health Freedom Defense:

“This is a BIG win — because of the lawsuit, LAUSD represented to the court on the record that it does not have a policy requiring vaccination with EUA products. Since the court has now confirmed the absence of any policy requiring vaccination at LAUSD, all teachers and staff are safe to return to work without vaccination or furnishing proof of vaccination in the fall.”

Time will tell if the Children’s Health Defense case against Rutgers University will bring the legal precedent needed to more effectively thwart this tyrannical trend. Still, even smaller wins like Zywicki’s are important and demonstrate there are ways we can fight back if only we’re willing

Natural immunity surpasses vaccine-induced protection

While vaccine passports are immoral and unconstitutional in and of themselves, medical science is also proving them useless and irrational. As reported by Daniel Horowitz in an Aug. 25 article in The Blaze, there are at least 15 studies that show natural immunity from the previous infection is more robust and longer-lasting than what you get from the COVID shot. He writes:

“The debate over forced vaccination with an ever-waning vaccine is cresting right around the time when the debate should be moot for a lot of people. Among the most fraudulent messages of the CDC’s campaign of deceit is to force the vaccine on those with prior infection, who have a greater degree of protection against all versions of the virus than those with any of the vaccines.

“It’s time to set the record straight once and for all that natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is broader, more durable, and longer-lasting than any of the shots on the market today. Our policies must reflect that reality.”

We now have data showing vaccine immunity rapidly wanes regardless of variants, but especially when a new variant becomes predominant. According to the Mayo Clinic, as of July, Pfizer‘s COVID injection was only 42% effective against infection, which doesn’t even meet the U. S. Food and Drug Administration’s requirement of 50% efficacy14 for COVID vaccines.

This matches Israeli data, which show Pfizer’s shot went from a 95% effectiveness at the outset, to 64% in early July 2021 and 39% by late July, when the Delta strain became predominant. Pfizer’s own trial data also demonstrate rapidly waning effectiveness. BMJ associate editor Peter Doshi discussed this in an Aug. 23 blog.

By the fifth month into the trial, efficacy had dropped from 96% to 84%, and this drop could not be due to the emergence of the Delta variant since 77% of trial participants were in the U.S., where the Delta variant didn’t emerge until months later. So, even without a predominance of a new variant, effectiveness drops off. In an Aug.20 report, BPR noted:

“‘The data we will publish today and next week demonstrate the vaccine effectiveness against SARS COVID 2 infection is waning,’ the CDC director [Rochelle Walensky] began … She cited reports of international colleagues, including Israel ‘, suggest increased risk of severe disease amongst those vaccinated early’ …

“’ In the context of these concerns, we are planning for Americans to receive booster shots starting next month to maximize vaccine-induced protection. Our plan is to protect the American people and to stay ahead of this virus,’ Walensky shared …

“The CDC director appears to all but admit that the vaccine’s efficacy rate has a strict time limit, and its protections are limited in the ever-changing environment.”

You’re far safer around a naturally immune person

Add to this a) the fact that the COVID shots do not prevent infection or spread of the virus and b) the fact that COVID-jabbed individuals carry the same viral load when symptomatic as unvaccinated individuals, and the whole argument that vaccine passports will identify and separate “public health threats” from those who are “safe” to around simply fail miserably.

As noted by Horowitz, anyone capable of rational thought understands that a person with natural immunity from a previous infection is “exponentially safer to be around than someone who had the vaccines but not the prior infection.”

As for the unvaccinated who do not have natural immunity from prior infection, well, their status poses no increased risk to anyone but themselves. Conversely, since the COVID shot cannot prevent infection or transmission, and only promises to reduce your risk of serious illness, the only one who can benefit from the shot is the one who got it. It protects no one else.

In fact, you may actually pose an increased risk to others, because if your symptoms are mild or nonexistent, but your viral load high, you’re more likely to walk around as usual. Rather than staying home because you suspect you’re infected and infectious, you’re out spreading the virus around to others, vaccinated and unvaccinated alike.

What does the research say?

In his article, Horowitz reviews 15 studies that should, once and for all, settle the debate about whether people who have had COVID are now immune and whether that immunity is comparable to that of the COVID shots. Here’s a select handful of those studies. For the rest, please see the original Blaze article.

  • Immunity May 2021 — New York University researchers concluded that while both SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination elicit potent immune responses, the immunity you get when you’ve recovered from natural infection is more durable and quicker to respond.

The reason for this is because natural immunity conveys more innate immunity involving T cells and antibodies, whereas vaccine-induced immunity primarily stimulates adaptive immunity involving antibodies.

  • Nature May 2021 — This research dispels fears that SARS-CoV-2 infection might not produce long-lasting immunity. Even in people with mild COVID-19 infection, whose anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (S) antibodies levels might rapidly decline in the months’ post-recovery, persistent and long-lived bone marrow plasma cells start churning out new antibodies when the virus is encountered a second time.

According to the authors, “Consistently, circulating resting memory B cells directed against SARS-CoV-2 S were detected in the convalescent individuals. Overall, our results indicate that mild infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces robust antigen-specific, long-lived humoral immune memory in humans.”

  • Nature July 2020 — The Nature findings above support findings from Singapore published in July 2020, which found patients who had recovered from SARS in 2002/2003 had robust immunity against SARS-CoV-2 17 years later.
  • Cell Medicine July 2021 — Here, they found that most previously infected patients produced durable antibodies and memory B cells, along with durable polyfunctional CD4 and CD8 T cells that target multiple parts of the virus.

According to the authors: “Taken together, these results suggest that broad and effective immunity may persist long-term in recovered COVID-19 patients.” The same clearly cannot be said for vaccine-induced immunity.

  • BioRxiv July 2021 — Echoing the Cell Medicine findings above, University of California researchers concluded that “Natural infection-induced expansion of larger CD8 T cell clones occupied distinct clusters, likely due to the recognition of a broader set of viral epitopes presented by the virus not seen in the mRNA vaccine.”

We’re creating a pandemic of the vaccinated

If natural immunity is better than vaccine-induced antibodies, you’d expect to see fewer reinfections among those who have already had COVID-19, compared to breakthrough infections occurring among those who got the COVID shot. And that’s precisely what we see.

In a preprint titled “Necessity of COVID-19 Vaccination in Previously Infected Individuals,” the researchers looked at reinfection rates among previously infected health care workers in the Cleveland Clinic system.

Of the 1,359 frontline workers with natural immunity from the previous infection, not a single one was reinfected 10 months into the pandemic, despite heavy exposure to COVID-19-positive patients.

A second preprint, posted Aug. 25, compared SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity by looking at reinfection and breakthrough rates. Four outcomes were evaluated: SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic disease, COVID-19-related hospitalization, and death.

Results showed that, compared to those with natural immunity, SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals who had received a two-dose regimen of Pfizer’s COVID shot had:

  • A 5.96-fold increased risk for breakthrough infection.
  • A 7.13-fold increased risk for symptomatic disease.
  • A 13.06-fold increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant.
  • A higher risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations.

After adjusting for comorbidities, SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals who had received two Pfizer doses were 27.02 times more likely to experience symptomatic breakthrough infection than those with natural immunity. No deaths were reported in either of the groups. In closing the authors concluded:

“This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer-lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease, and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.”

Majority of hospitalizations are actually in the vaccinated

The oft-repeated refrain is that we’re in a “pandemic of the unvaccinated,” meaning those who have not received the COVID jab make up the bulk of those hospitalized and dying from the Delta variant. However, we’re already seeing a shift in hospitalization rates from the unvaccinated to those who have gotten one or two injections.

For example, in Israel, the fully “vaccinated” made up the bulk of serious cases and COVID-related deaths in July, as illustrated in the graphs below.

The red is unvaccinated, yellow refers to partially “vaccinated” and green fully “vaccinated” with two doses. By mid-August, 59% of serious cases were among those who had received two COVID injections.

New hospitalizations

New severe patients

Deaths

Data from the U.K. show a similar trend among those over the age of 50. In this age group, partially and fully “vaccinated” people account for 68% of hospitalizations and 70% of COVID deaths.

Covid Delta Variant

Data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also refute the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” narrative. Between July 6 and July 25, 469 COVID cases were identified in a Barnstable County, Massachusetts, outbreak.

Of those who tested positive, 74% had received two COVID injections and were considered “fully vaccinated.” Even despite using different diagnostic standards for non-jabbed and jabbed individuals, a whopping 80% of COVID-related hospitalizations were also in this group.

COVID shot may harm immunity in those previously infected

While the authors of that Aug. 25, preprint claim in their abstract that “Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant,” in the body of the article they admit they “could not demonstrate significance in our cohort.”

Unless significance is demonstrated, the finding is basically irrelevant, so I would not rely on this paper if I wanted to argue for the vaccination of those with preexisting natural immunity. Besides, there’s research showing the COVID shots may actually harm the superior T cell immunity built up from prior infection, especially after the second dose. As reported by Horowitz in The Blaze:

“Immunologists from Mount Sinai in New York and Hospital La Paz in Madrid have raised serious concerns. In a shocking discovery after monitoring a group of vaccinated people both with and without prior infection, they found ‘in individuals with a pre-existing immunity against SARS-CoV-2, the second vaccine does not only fail to boost humoral immunity but determines a contraction of the spike-specific T cell response.’

“They also note that other research has shown ‘the second vaccination dose appears to exert a detrimental effect in the overall magnitude of the spike-specific humoral response in COVID-19 recovered individuals.’”

Arguments for vaccine passports are null and void

FEE.org reported the Aug. 25 findings under the headline, “Harvard Epidemiologist Says the Case for COVID Vaccine Passports Was Just Demolished”:

“Harvard Medical School professor Martin Kulldorff said research showing that natural immunity offers exponentially more protection than vaccines means vaccine passports are both unscientific and discriminatory since they disproportionately affect working-class individuals.

“’ Prior COVID disease (many working-class) provides better immunity than vaccines (many professionals), so vaccine mandates are not only scientific nonsense, they are also discriminatory and unethical,’ Kulldorff, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist, observed on Twitter …

“Vaccine passports would be immoral and a massive government overreach even in the absence of these findings. There is simply no historical parallel for governments attempting to restrict the movements of healthy people over a respiratory virus in this manner.

“Yet the justification for vaccine passports becomes not just wrong but absurd in light of these new revelations. People who have had COVID already have significantly more protection from the virus than people who’ve been vaccinated.

“Meanwhile, people who’ve not had COVID and choose to not get vaccinated may or may not be making an unwise decision. But if they are, they are principally putting only themselves at risk.”

Positive signs

@arihasanaj

Discord link in bio. We need help I can’t do this alone

♬ original sound – VALHALLA.AT.ME

 

While we still have a long and likely hard fight ahead of us, there is reason to be optimistic. In a recent TikTok video, a young man named Ari Hasanaj who lives in New York City describes how he printed up posters that say:

“We do not discriminate against ANY customer based on sex, gender, race, creed, age, vaccinated or unvaccinated. All customers who wish to patronize are welcome in our establishment.”

He then went around the city, from one store to the next, asking each owner if they would agree to post the sign on their door to protest NYC’s vaccine passport requirement. A majority said yes. He is now asking others to join him in this effort.

In Denmark, vaccine passports will no longer be used to restrict movement as of Sept. 10. The health minister, Magnus Heunicke, has stated, though, that the passport system may be reinstated if rising infection rates threaten important functions.

Denmark was among the first to announce the development of a digital vaccine passport, which came into effect in April. For months, Danes repeatedly demonstrated against the COVID passes, and it seems the protests eventually had the desired effect. It just goes to show that if enough people resist, tyrannical overreach can be reined in.

Originally published by Mercola.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.




Harvard Epidemiologist Says The Case For COVID Vaccine Passports Was Just Demolished

Photo by Thérèse Soukar, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

By Jon Miltimore | Foundation for Economic Education

A newly published medical study found that infection from COVID-19 confers considerably longer-lasting and stronger protection against the Delta variant of the virus than vaccines.

“The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a ‘Don’t try this at home’ label,” the Scientific American reported Thursday. “The newly released data show people who once had a SARS-CoV-2 infection were much less likely than vaccinated people to get Delta, develop symptoms from it, or become hospitalized with serious COVID-19.”

Put another way, vaccinated individuals were 27 times more likely to get a symptomatic COVID infection than those with natural immunity from COVID.

The findings come as many governments around the world are demanding citizens acquire “vaccine passports” to travel. New York City, France, and the Canadian provinces of Quebec and British Columbia are among those who have recently embraced vaccine passports.

Meanwhile, Australia has floated the idea of making higher vaccination rates a condition of lifting its lockdown in jurisdictions, while President Joe Biden is considering making interstate travel unlawful for people who have not been vaccinated for COVID-19.

Vaccine passports are morally dubious for many reasons, not the least of which is that freedom of movement is a basic human right. However, vaccine passports become even more senseless in light of the new findings out of Israel and revelations from the CDC, some say.

Harvard Medical School professor Martin Kulldorff said research showing that natural immunity offers exponentially more protection than vaccines means vaccine passports are both unscientific and discriminatory since they disproportionately affect working-class individuals.

“Prior COVID disease (many working-class) provides better immunity than vaccines (many professionals), so vaccine mandates are not only scientific nonsense, they are also discriminatory and unethical,” Kulldorff, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist, observed on Twitter.

Nor is the study out of Israel a one-off. Media reports show that no fewer than 15 academic studies have found that natural immunity offers immense protection from COVID-19.

Moreover, CDC research shows that vaccinated individuals still get infected with COVID-19 and carry just as much of the virus in their throat and nasal passage as unvaccinated individuals

“High viral loads suggest an increased risk of transmission and raised concern that, unlike with other variants, vaccinated people infected with Delta can transmit the virus,” CDC Rochelle Director Walensky noted following a Cape Cod outbreak that included mostly vaccinated individuals.

These data suggest that vaccinated individuals are still spreading the virus much like unvaccinated individuals.

Vaccine passports would be immoral and a massive government overreach even in the absence of these findings. There is simply no historical parallel for governments attempting to restrict the movements of healthy people over a respiratory virus in this manner.

Yet the justification for vaccine passports becomes not just wrong but absurd in light of these new revelations.

People who have had COVID already have significantly more protection from the virus than people who’ve been vaccinated. Meanwhile, people who’ve not had COVID and choose to not get vaccinated may or may not be making an unwise decision. But if they are, they are principally putting only themselves at risk.

Jon Miltimore
Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune.

Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.




A New State of Segregation: Vaccine Cards Are Just the Beginning

By John W. Whitehead & Nisha Whitehead | The Rutherford Institute

The things we were worried would happen are happening.”—Angus Johnston, professor at the City University of New York

Imagine it: a national classification system that not only categorizes you according to your health status but also allows the government to sort you in a hundred other ways: by gender, orientation, wealth, medical condition, religious beliefs, political viewpoint, legal status, etc.

This is the slippery slope upon which we are embarking, one that begins with vaccine passports and ends with a national system of segregation.

It has already begun.

With every passing day, more and more private businesses and government agencies on both the state and federal level are requiring proof of a COVID-19 vaccination in order for individuals to work, travel, shop, attend school, and generally participate in the life of the country.

No matter what one’s views may be regarding the government’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, this is an unnerving proposition for a country that claims to prize the rights of the individual and whose Bill of Rights was written in such a way as to favor the rights of the minority.

By allowing government agents to establish a litmus test for individuals to be able to engage in commerce, movement, and any other right that corresponds to life in a supposedly free society, it lays the groundwork for a “show me your papers” society in which you are required to identify yourself at any time to any government worker who demands it for any reason.

Such tactics can quickly escalate into a power-grab that empowers government agents to force anyone and everyone to prove they are in compliance with every statute and regulation on the books. Mind you, there are thousands of statutes and regulations on the books. Indeed, in this era of overcriminalization, it is estimated that the average American unknowingly breaks at least three laws a day.

This is also how the right to move about freely has been undermined, overtaken, and rewritten into a privilege granted by the government to those citizens who are prepared to toe the line.

It used to be that “we the people” had the right to come and go as we please without the fear of being stopped, questioned by police or forced to identify ourselves. In other words, unless police had a reasonable suspicion that a person was guilty of wrongdoing, they had no legal authority to stop the person and require identification.

Unfortunately, in this age of COVID-19, that unrestricted right to move about freely is being pitted against the government’s power to lock down communities at a moment’s notice. And in this tug-of-war between individual freedoms and government power, “we the people” have been on the losing end of the deal.

Now vaccine passports, vaccine admission requirements, and travel restrictions may seem like small, necessary steps in winning the war against the COVID-19 virus, but that’s just so much propaganda. They’re only necessary to the police state in its efforts to further brainwash the populace into believing that the government legitimately has the power to enforce such blatant acts of authoritarianism.

This is how you imprison a populace and lock down a nation.

It makes no difference if such police state tactics are carried out in the name of national security or protecting America’s borders or making America healthy again: the philosophy remains the same, and it is a mindset that is not friendly to freedom.

You can’t have it both ways.

You can’t live in a constitutional republic if you allow the government to act like a police state.

You can’t claim to value freedom if you allow the government to operate like a dictatorship.

You can’t expect to have your rights respected if you allow the government to treat whomever it pleases with disrespect and an utter disregard for the rule of law.

If you’re tempted to justify these draconian measures for whatever reason—for the sake of health concerns, the economy, or national security—beware: there’s always a boomerang effect.

Whatever dangerous practices you allow the government to carry out now, rest assured, these same practices can and will be used against you when the government decides to set its sights on you.

The war on drugs turned out to be a war on the American people, waged with SWAT teams and militarized police. The war on terror turned out to be a war on the American people, waged with warrantless surveillance and indefinite detention for those who dare to disagree.

The war on immigration turned out to be a war on the American people, waged with roving government agents demanding “papers, please.”

This war on COVID-19 is turning out to be yet another war on the American people, waged with all of the surveillance weaponry and tracking mechanisms at the government’s disposal. You see, when you talk about empowering government agents to screen the populace in order to control and prevent the spread of this virus, what you’re really talking about is creating a society in which ID cards, roundups, checkpoints, and detention centers become routine weapons used by the government to control and suppress the populace, no matter the threat.

No one is safe.

No one is immune.

And as I illustrate in my new novel, The Erik Blair Diaries, no one gets spared the anguish, fear, and heartache of living in a police state.

That’s the message being broadcast 24/7 with every new piece of government propaganda, every new law that criminalizes otherwise lawful activity, every new policeman on the beat, every new surveillance camera casting a watchful eye, every sensationalist news story that titillates and distracts, every new prison or detention center built to house troublemakers and other undesirables, every new court ruling that gives government agents a green light to strip and steal and rape and ravage the citizenry, every school that opts to indoctrinate rather than educate, and every new justification for why Americans should comply with the government’s attempts to trample the Constitution underfoot.

Yes, COVID-19 has taken a significant toll on the nation emotionally, physically, and economically, but there are still greater dangers on the horizon.

As long as “we the people” continue to allow the government to trample our rights in the so-called name of national security, things will get worse, not better.

It’s already worse.

We’ve been having this same debate about the perils of government overreach for the past 50-plus years, and still, we don’t seem to learn, or if we learn, we learn too late.

Curiously enough, these COVID-19 mandates, restrictions, and vaccine card requirements dovetail conveniently with a national timeline for states to comply with the Real ID Act, which imposes federal standards on identity documents such as state drivers’ licenses, a prelude to a national identification system.

Talk about a perfect storm for bringing about a national ID card, the ultimate human tracking device.

In the absence of a national ID card, which would make the police state’s task of monitoring, tracking, and singling out individual suspects far simpler, “we the people” are already being tracked in a myriad of ways: through our state driver’s licenses, Social Security numbers, bank accounts, purchases, and electronic transactions; biometrics; by way of our correspondence and communication devices (email, phone calls, and mobile phones); through chips implanted in our vehicles, identification documents, even our clothing.

Add to this the fact that businesses, schools, and other facilities are relying more and more on fingerprints and facial recognition to identify us. All the while, data companies such as Acxiom are capturing vast caches of personal information to help airports, retailers, police and other government authorities instantly determine whether someone is the person he or she claims to be.

This informational glut—used to great advantage by both the government and corporate sectors—has converged into a mandate for “an internal passport,” a.k.a., a national ID card that would store information as basic as a person’s name, birth date, and place of birth, as well as private information, including a Social Security number, fingerprint, retinal scan, and personal, criminal and financial records.

A federalized, computerized, cross-referenced, databased system of identification policed by government agents would be the final nail in the coffin for privacy (not to mention a logistical security nightmare that would leave Americans even more vulnerable to every hacker in the cybersphere).

Americans have always resisted adopting a national ID card for good reason: National ID card systems have been used before, by other oppressive governments, in the name of national security, invariably with horrifying results. After all, such a system gives the government and its agents the ultimate power to target, track and terrorize the populace according to the government’s own nefarious purposes.

For instance, in Germany, the Nazis required all Jews to carry special stamped ID cards for travel within the country. A prelude to the yellow Star of David badges, these stamped cards were instrumental in identifying Jews for deportation to death camps in Poland.

Author Raul Hilberg summarizes the impact that such a system had on the Jews:

The whole identification system, with its personal documents, specially assigned names, and conspicuous tagging in public, was a powerful weapon in the hands of the police. First, the system was an auxiliary device that facilitated the enforcement of residence and movement restrictions. Second, it was an independent control measure in that it enabled the police to pick up any Jew, anywhere, anytime. Third, and perhaps most important, identification had a paralyzing effect on its victims.

In South Africa during apartheid, pass books were used to regulate the movement of black citizens and segregate the population. The Pass Laws Act of 1952 stipulated where, when, and for how long a black African could remain in certain areas. Any government employee could strike out entries, which canceled the permission to remain in an area. A passbook that did not have a valid entry resulted in the arrest and imprisonment of the bearer.

Identity cards played a crucial role in the genocide of the Tutsis in the central African country of Rwanda. The assault, carried out by extremist Hutu militia groups, lasted around 100 days and resulted in close to a million deaths. While the ID cards were not a precondition to the genocide, they were a facilitating factor. Once the genocide began, the production of an identity card with the designation “Tutsi” spelled a death sentence at any roadblock.

Identity cards have also helped oppressive regimes carry out eliminationist policies such as mass expulsion, forced relocation, and group denationalization. Through the use of identity cards, Ethiopian authorities were able to identify people with Eritrean affiliation during the mass expulsion of 1998. The Vietnamese government was able to locate ethnic Chinese more easily during their 1978-79 expulsion. The USSR used identity cards to force the relocation of ethnic Koreans (1937), Volga Germans (1941), Kamyks and Karachai (1943), Crimean Tartars, Meshkhetian Turks, Chechens, Ingush and Balkars (1944), and ethnic Greeks (1949). And ethnic Vietnamese were identified for group denationalization through identity cards in Cambodia in 1993, as were the Kurds in Syria in 1962.

And in the United States, post-9/11, more than 750 Muslim men were rounded up on the basis of their religion and ethnicity and detained for up to eight months. Their experiences echo those of 120,000 Japanese-Americans who were similarly detained 75 years ago following the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Despite a belated apology and monetary issuance by the U.S. government, the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to declare such a practice illegal. Moreover, laws such as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) empower the government to arrest and detain indefinitely anyone they “suspect” of being an enemy of the state.

So you see, you may be innocent of wrongdoing now, but when the standard for innocence is set by the government, no one is safe.

Everyone is a suspect.

And anyone can be a criminal when it’s the government determining what is a crime.

It’s no longer a matter of if, but when.

Remember, the police state does not discriminate.

At some point, it will not matter whether your skin is black or yellow or brown or white. It will not matter whether you’re an immigrant or a citizen. It will not matter whether you’re rich or poor. It won’t even matter whether you’ve been properly medicated, vaccinated, or indoctrinated.

Government jails will hold you just as easily whether you’ve obeyed every law or broken a dozen. Government bullets will kill you just as easily whether you’re complying with a police officer’s order or questioning his tactics. And whether or not you’ve done anything wrong, government agents will treat you like a suspect simply because they have been trained to view and treat everyone like a potential criminal.

Eventually, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People when the police state has turned that final screw and slammed that final door, all that will matter is whether some government agent chooses to single you out for special treatment.

ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is the founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His books Battlefield America: The War on the American People and A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State are available at www.amazon.com. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.




Mass Protests Can End Vaccine Passports

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Peaceful protests work. In the U.K., following massive protests against vaccine passports, the government may now scrap its plan for vaccine passports as a legal requirement for large events
  • In the U.S., 14 states have enacted laws that ban vaccine passport requirements in order to prevent the creation of a two-tier society. Only two have implemented vaccine passport requirements for certain activities
  • Vaccine passports or any other type of certification are part of a much larger plan to implement a global social credit system, which would rely on the interconnectivity of thousands of databases, which Oracle offered to do for the U.S. government in 2002, for free
  • Oracle manages databases for COVID-19 cases, vaccine data and clinical trial data, the U.S. national security database and databases for the CIA, Navy Intelligence, Air Force Intelligence, and the National Security Agency, plus banking, and a host of commercial databases. Oracle Labs is also partnered with DARPA to create an interconnected supercomputer
  • Ultimately, the vaccine passport will expand to include not just vaccination status but also other medical data, basic identification records, financial data, and just about anything else that can be digitized and tracked. The end goal is to end freedom as we know it, using a social credit system based on 24/7 electronic surveillance to ensure compliance

March 20, 2021, on the 1-year anniversary of the first COVID-19 lockdown, people in more than 40 countries took to the streets peacefully demonstrating against COVID-19 lies and tyrannical measures under the banner of “Worldwide Freedom Day.” While synchronized around the world that particular day, demonstrations are more or less ongoing in various areas.

Peaceful Protests Are Ending Vaccine Passport Requirements

In the U.K., Britons held a “Unite for Freedom” rally in London, Saturday, May 29, 2021, as seen in the short video clip above. According to ITV.com,1 hundred no-vaccine-passport protesters surged into the Westfield shopping mall in London, while another large crowd gathered in Parliament Square.

They were reportedly cleared from the mall after about 20 minutes by police, but no one was injured or arrested in this particular instance.

As reported by Reuters2 May 30, 2021, it now looks like the U.K. will be scrapping its plan for vaccine passports as a legal requirement for large events, although a government spokesman told Reuters that a final decision has yet to be made and that the COVID-19 vaccine certification review is still ongoing. Why the sudden change? Undoubtedly, it’s because Britons have repeatedly taken to the streets in protest of the medical apartheid these passports create.

14 US States Have Banned Vaccine Passport Requirements

In the U.S., there’s also good news. A number of states have enacted laws that ban vaccine passport requirements in order to prevent the creation of a two-tier society of those with the freedom to live as they please, and others whose lives would be restricted based on vaccination status alone.

As of May 28, 2021, the following 14 states have banned vaccine passports from being required:3 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Wyoming.

Utah has issued a partial ban that applies to state government only. Only two states so far — Hawaii and New York — have actually implemented vaccine certification requirements for certain activities.

In Hawaii, only those with proof of vaccination are allowed to travel between counties without pretravel testing and quarantine restrictions, while New York requires you to be vaccinated or have a recent negative COVID-19 test to enter certain sports arenas and large performance venues.

Florida Fights to Make Cruise Lines Adhere to Law

In my home state of Florida, one of the best pro-freedom governors in the U.S., Ron DeSantis, is now fighting the cruise industry over its proposed vaccination passport requirement.4 The bill he signed into law May 3, 2021,5 prohibits state government from issuing vaccine passports and private businesses from requiring proof of vaccination status to enter or obtain services.

As such, cruise lines that do business in Florida and want to restrict travel to vaccinated-only are in violation of this new anti-medical apartheid law. As reported by NBC News:6

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention gave the go-ahead Wednesday to begin work toward restarting cruises for the first time in over a year after the massive ships became some of the first superspreader locations for the coronavirus …

To comply with CDC guidance … several cruise liners want to require nearly everyone onboard to be fully vaccinated. But that could now be illegal in Florida, the center of the American cruise industry, under a law DeSantis signed … that prohibits businesses from discriminating against unvaccinated customers.

‘In Florida, your personal choice regarding vaccinations will be protected, and no business or government entity will be able to deny you services based on your decision,’ DeSantis said of the law, which codified executive orders he had already issued.

The dispute may end up in court, as the cruise industry argues that the state law doesn’t apply to it thanks to federal rules. In the meantime, companies may decide to move ahead with plans to require vaccinations, even if it means racking up violations in Florida.”

A Social Credit System Is the End Goal of Vaccine Passports

It’s important to realize those vaccine passports or any other type of certification in and of themselves are not the end goal here. They’re merely a part of a much larger plan to implement a social credit system, such as that already implemented in China. First, they’d be expanded to cover other required vaccinations.

Booster shots against COVID-19 variants would logically come first, followed by any number of other vaccinations. The sky’s the limit as far as that’s concerned, and many are likely to be gene-based and therefore dangerous in the extreme. Already, vaccine makers have announced they’re working on a combination COVID-flu/mRNA vaccine,7 a pneumococcal-COVID/mRNA booster shot for adults over 65,8, and mRNA/seasonal influenza vaccines.9

Ultimately, the vaccine passport will expand to include not just vaccination status but also other medical data, basic identification records, financial data, and just about anything else that can be digitized and tracked. It may even extend to include real-time biological data.

The end goal is to end freedom as we know it, using a social credit system to ensure compliance. If you disobey or act “out of line” with a prevailing dictate, your freedom to travel, bank, shop, get a loan, or even leave your home could be vastly restricted.

We can see how such a system could work by looking at the Chinese social credit system10 where behavior is electronically monitored to assess “trustworthiness” in real-time. Aside from failing to pay taxes on time, score-lowering actions can include such minutia as cheating in an online video game, jaywalking, not visiting your parents on a frequent enough basis, smoking in a nonsmoking zone, or walking your dog without a leash.

Momentary thoughtlessness can also land you on any one of hundreds of blacklists controlled by a variety of state agencies with their own jurisdictions, and if you end up on one, you’re typically subject to blacklisting across all of them, at which point you won’t be allowed to do much of anything except work to improve your score. On average, it takes two to five years to get off a blacklist, and that’s assuming you comply with all the recommendations put forth.11

While the Chinese social credit score is still in its infancy, eventually, the plan is to use it to “search for signs of potentially harmful behavior before it occurs”12 — in other words, a real-world pre-crime type of situation as illustrated in the movie “Minority Report.” This is what vaccine passports can lead to, and there’s every reason to believe that is the plan.

As noted by Naomi Wolf, a former adviser to the Clinton administration, in an interview with Fox News’ Steve Hilton:13,14

“I’m [the] CEO of a tech company, I understand what these platforms can do. It is not about the vaccine, it’s not about the virus, it’s about your data … What people have to understand is that any other functionality can be loaded onto that platform with no problem at all. It can be merged with your Paypal account, with your digital currency.

Microsoft is already talking about merging it with payment plans. Your network can be sucked up. It geolocates you everywhere you go. Your credit history can be included. All of your medical and health history can be included …

It is absolutely so much more than a vaccine pass … I cannot stress enough that it has the power to turn off your life, or to turn on your life, to let you engage in society or be marginalized.”

It’s All Been Building to This Point

Indeed, recreating China’s social credit system here in the U.S. is likely easier at this point than anyone would like to think, and probably wouldn’t take long to implement. Silicon Valley titan Oracle nabbed the contract to be the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s central data repository for all COVID-19 vaccine data in the U.S. early on in the pandemic.

Oracle also manages the database for COVID-19 cases and the National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) database for clinical research into COVID-19 vaccines and drugs, a program overseen by Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Now consider this: Oracle has for many years also managed the U.S. national security database, as well as databases for the CIA, Navy Intelligence, Air Force Intelligence, and the National Security Agency, plus banking, and a host of commercial databases. As reported by The Defender:15

“’The information about your banks, your checking balances, your saving balance is stored in an Oracle database,’ Ellison was quoted in the 2004 book, ‘The Naked Crowd.’ ‘Your airline reservation is stored in an Oracle database. What books you bought on Amazon is stored in an Oracle database. Your profile on Yahoo! is stored in an Oracle database.’”

And, as Ellison admitted in 2002, thousands of databases can easily be integrated into a single national file — something he offered to do for free for the U.S. government all the way back then.

The Defender also recounts an old Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) program called Total Information Awareness (TIA), which sought to collect the medical records, drug prescriptions, DNA, financial information, travel data, and media consumption habits of all Americans.16

The justification for this vast data collection, according to DARPA, was that “the whole population needed surveillance to prevent not only future terrorist attacks but bioterrorism and even naturally occurring disease outbreaks.” The program was defunded in 2003 after intense public backlash, “but TIA never really went away,” The Defender writes.17 “Various of its programs ended up divvied into a web of military and intelligence programs.”

Here are a few more connections to consider when trying to decide whether a social credit system is really in the works, and why a vaccine passport could serve a central function.

Oracle Labs, the research arm of Oracle, is partnered with DARPA to create an “optically interconnected supercomputer” — something that would come in handy if putting together a massive social credit system that demands interconnectivity between thousands of databases.

DARPA is also working on advanced pandemic surveillance and biological threat detection.18 In fact, it has an entire division specializing in biological technologies — the Biological Technologies Office (BTO) — which developed hydrogel, an implantable type of nanotechnology that transmits light-based digital signals through wireless networks.19

It’s basically a gel-like biosensor that can both record and share biological data. The hydrogel is manufactured by Profusa, which is partnered with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation20 and backed by Google, the largest data mining company in the world.

In 2020, there were rumors that this hydrogel would be part of Moderna’s mRNA delivery system.21 DARPA, by the way, actually funded Moderna too.22 However, it is unclear whether hydrogel actually ended up being used in Moderna’s or any other COVID-19 vaccine. At any rate, it could be used, if not now, then in the future.

Now, ask yourself, considering all of these various data points that I’ve covered — which by no means includes everything — just how likely is it that a national social credit system based on digital surveillance, including medical and biological surveillance, is NOT in the works?

Vaccine Passports Spell the End of Freedom

I recently interviewed Wolf about her book “The End of America.” The book, published in 2007, was a prescient warning about the very time we now find ourselves in. In it, she laid out the 10 steps toward tyranny that have been followed by virtually every modern-day would-be tyrant.

“They all took the same 10 steps, and they always work. I warned people that when you start to see these 10 steps, you have to take action, because there is no way to recover once things go too far without a bloody revolution or a civil war. We are [now] at Step 10 … and once Step 10 locks in, there is no going back,” Wolf says.

The 10 steps toward tyranny start with the invocation of a terrifying internal and/or external threat. It may be a real threat or an imagined one, but in all cases, it’s a hyped-up threat. From 2001 onward, that threat was terrorism, which was used as the justification for stripping us of our liberties.

The last and final step in the implementation of tyranny, Step 10, involves the creation of a surveillance state where citizens are under constant surveillance and critique of the government is reclassified as dissent and subversive activity. Vaccine passports are clearly an integral part of that surveillance apparatus and a precursor to a social credit system.

There simply can be no doubt of that, and if we don’t put a stop to it now, we’ll be locked into not just a national dictatorship but a global one, run by unelected, largely unknown individuals and Big Tech oligarchs. There will be no one to help anyone else because all nations will be in the same boat.

Peaceful Protest and Legislative Action Are the Remedies

To avoid the fate that comes next, everyone everywhere needs to recognize the danger and take action. Such action includes peaceful protest and civil disobedience — simply not complying with mask mandatessocial distancinglockdowns, vaccination, or anything else.

We must also fight through legislation. As mentioned earlier, 14 U.S. states have already passed laws banning requirements for vaccine passports, which protects the freedoms of everyone within those states. While that’s a good start, there are dozens more to go, and other countries need to enact such laws as well. As noted by Wolf in my interview with her:

“Once [vaccine passports] are launched … people like you and I, Dr. Mercola, will be switched off of society. ‘Oops, my vaccine passport is positive. I guess I can’t go food shopping for my family.’ ‘I said something critical of biofascism on Dr. Mercola’s show, so now my child can’t get into school.’

Just as in Israel, where people who are critics are being surveilled [and] marginalized from society, it has turned into a two-tier society. If you choose not to get vaccinated, then you’re really in a marginalized minority in an apartheid state.

The more we know about these vaccines, the scarier it is to have coercion that is social. It’s also illegal. In America, we have the Americans with Disabilities Act. It means it’s illegal to even ask me anything about my medical status. You can’t ask me if I’m pregnant. You can’t ask me if I’m disabled. You can’t ask me if I have diabetes or HIV. You cannot ask me anything. By definition, these intrusive measures are unlawful.

We have to use the law to save the law, basically … We have to fight before we are living in fascist regime where every move is tracked and we’re marginalized from society.”




‘We Won’t Be Human Guinea Pigs’: 117 Doctors, Nurses Sue Over Forced ‘Experimental’ Vaccine

By Matt Agorist | The Free Thought Project

Houston, TX — Over a hundred doctors and nurses who work in the Houston Methodist hospital network have filed a lawsuit against the company, arguing that they don’t want to be forced to take an “experimental” vaccine. This lawsuit could pave the way for other health care workers to make similar claims.

According to the lawsuit, the company’s CEO, Marc Boom gave all the employees of the network, some 26,000 people, a deadline of June 7 to be vaccinated or be fired.

A total of 117 plaintiffs are insisting that the hospital is “illegally requiring its employees to be injected with an experimental vaccine.” The hospital is forcing the staff to be “human ‘guinea pigs’ as a condition for continued employment,” the lawsuit says.

“This is my body, this is my choice, and I don’t think employers or anyone should mandate what goes into my body,” Kim Mikeska, a registered nurse, told the Houston Chronicle.

Houston Methodist nurse Jennifer Bridges, the lead plaintiff in the case, told the Washington Post this month that she had received “every vaccine known to man” in the past, but believed the coronavirus vaccines needed further study.

The lawsuit referred to the vaccines as “experimental COVID-19 mRNA gene modification injection.”

“It is a severe and blatant violation of the Nuremberg Code and the public policy of the state of Texas,” attorney Jared Woodfill, who filed the lawsuit in Montgomery County, told local news, and he’s right.

RELATED POST: 18 Reasons I Won’t Be Getting a COVID Vaccine

Because the current Moderna, Pfizer, and J&J vaccines have been only authorized by the FDA under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), the safety and effectiveness data are still being collected. This means the current mass vaccination program is an experiment in an ongoing study in which researchers may still find small effect-size side effects.

It is a fact that vaccines that receive EUA are considered experimental until the FDA formally approves it as it is entirely possible that a rare side effect will be found after mass vaccination allows a longer term of observation on a larger number of people.

Therefore, it can be argued that forcing employees to take the vaccine is a medical ethics violation. According to the 1947 Nuremberg Code:

The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent;
should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching,
or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved
as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision
by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is
to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his
participation in the experiment.

The fact that these vaccines are currently under EUA makes all attempts to mandate them, a direct violation of the Nuremberg Code as the number one premise behind it is that “the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.”

There is nothing voluntary about vaccine passports, forced vaccinations, or any other form of government or employee coercion methods to increase COVID-19 vaccination rates.

On an ethical stance alone, the very premise of these ideas is based on violations of the Nuremberg Code. Nevertheless, government officials, media, and academia alike, continue to shame, coerce, and threaten those who choose to abstain from the vaccine.

Marc Boom, the company’s CEO disagrees, however, and says “it is legal for health care institutions to mandate vaccines, as we have done with the flu vaccine since 2009″

He then went on to completely dismiss the facts in the case, claiming that the COVID-19 vaccines are “not experimental.”

Given the recent changes to the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines over forced vaccinations in the workplace, Boom may want to reconsider his stance.

As TFTP reported earlier this month, OSHA recently changed the “vaccine-related” requirement for on-the-job injuries. In three parts it details the liability.

Are adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine recordable on the OSHA recordkeeping log?

In general, an adverse reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine is recordable if the reaction is: (1) work-related, (2) a new case, and (3) meets one or more of the general recording criteria in 29 CFR 1904.7 (e.g., days away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job, medical treatment beyond first aid).

If I require my employees to take the COVID-19 vaccine as a condition of their employment, are adverse reactions to the vaccine recordable?

If you require your employees to be vaccinated as a condition of employment (i.e., for work-related reasons), then any adverse reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine is work-related. The adverse reaction is recordable if it is a new case under 29 CFR 1904.6 and meets one or more of the general recording criteria in 29 CFR 1904.7.

In a third bullet point, OSHA explicitly notes that employers who do not require their employees to take the vaccine, will not be held liable through the recording criteria in 29 CFR 1904.7. The guideline notes that in order for an employer to be free from liability, the vaccine must be “truly voluntary,” meaning no negative reports for unvaccinated employees.

I do not require my employees to get the COVID-19 vaccine. However, I do recommend that they receive the vaccine and may provide it to them or make arrangements for them to receive it offsite. If an employee has an adverse reaction to the vaccine, am I required to record it?

No. Although adverse reactions to recommended COVID-19 vaccines may be recordable under 29 CFR 1904.4(a) if the reaction is: (1) work-related, (2) a new case, and (3) meets one or more of the general recording criteria in 29 CFR 1904.7, OSHA is exercising its enforcement discretion to only require the recording of adverse effects to required vaccines at this time. Therefore, you do not need to record adverse effects from COVID-19 vaccines that you recommend, but do not require.

Note that for this discretion to apply, the vaccine must be truly voluntary. For example, an employee’s choice to accept or reject the vaccine cannot affect their performance rating or professional advancement. An employee who chooses not to receive the vaccine cannot suffer any repercussions from this choice. If employees are not free to choose whether or not to receive the vaccine without fearing adverse action, then the vaccine is not merely “recommended” and employers should consult the above FAQ regarding COVID-19 vaccines that are a condition of employment.

Note also that the exercise of this discretion is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding OSHA’s expectations as to the recording of adverse effects during the health emergency; it does not change any of employers’ other responsibilities under OSHA’s recordkeeping regulations or any of OSHA’s interpretations of those regulations.

Finally, note that this answer applies to a variety of scenarios where employers recommend, but do not require vaccines, including where the employer makes the COVID-19 vaccine available to employees at work, where the employer makes arrangements for employees to receive the vaccine at an offsite location (e.g., pharmacy, hospital, local health department, etc.), and where the employer offer the vaccine as part of a voluntary health and wellness program at my workplace. In other words, the method by which employees might receive a recommended vaccine does not matter for the sake of this question.

This clarification by OSHA is especially relevant thanks to The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) which removes any and all liability from vaccine manufacturers even if their product kills someone.

You can actually prove that you or your child were harmed from a vaccine yet the vaccine maker is completely shielded from liability. Even if you are awarded monetary compensation through the NVICP, the taxpayers are put on the line, not the vaccine makers.

If companies have to start footing the bill for lawsuits related to COVID-19 vaccine adverse reactions, the implications for vaccine manufacturers could be massive especially given the sheer magnitude of adverse events being reported to the CDC from the COVID-19 vaccine.

The most recent data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on the number of injuries and deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following COVID vaccines reveals there have been over 200,000 adverse events reported. Of those adverse reactions, according to the CDC, 4,863 of them are deaths.




Why FDA Should Not Authorize COVID Vaccines for Kids, Teens

By Stefan Baral, Wesley Pegden, Vinay Prasad | The Defender

The rapid development of highly effective COVID-19 vaccines is a triumph of science and, with equitable implementation strategies, represents humanity’s path out of the COVID-19 pandemic. To expedite deployment in the U.S., three COVID-19 vaccines were provided Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) while concurrently undertaking the traditional review process.

Pfizer has requested the FDA amend the existing EUA for its vaccine to allow eligibility for children aged 12 to 15, and further clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines, including for younger children, are underway. Unlike for adults, however, the likelihood of severe outcomes or death associated with COVID-19 infection is very low for children, undermining the appropriateness of a EUA for child COVID-19 vaccines.

Emergency Use Authorization in the U.S. requires that an intervention address a serious or life-threatening condition, and for known and potential benefits of the intervention to be balanced against the known and potential harms. The EUA for COVID-19 vaccines was implemented at the height of the second wave in the U.S., enabling 100 million American adults, who would otherwise be at significant risk of severe outcomes or death from COVID-19 infection, to be vaccinated on an accelerated time frame.

Significant adverse events to vaccines are sometimes detected during wider distribution; for example, such events were investigated for the Johnson and Johnson COVID-19 vaccine. But Phase 3 trials of COVID-19 vaccines in adults demonstrated reductions in both infections and severe disease, and even if one reasoned conservatively from data on infections alone, these trials showed a large benefit for adult populations that convincingly offset the potential for harms from any side effects rare enough to be missed in Phase 3 trials. Collectively, COVID-19 vaccination in adults met EUA criteria given the positive balance of risks and benefits at the individual level.

Trials for COVID-19 vaccines are also underway for children as young as 6 months. These trials are not powered to measure decreases in severe COVID-19 infections, due to their rarity. Instead, these trials are examining the safety, the immune response, and, as a secondary outcome, the impact on the incidence of COVID-19 infections. As for adults, these trials are not designed to assess rare or delayed adverse events.

Unlike for adults, the rarity of severe COVID-19 outcomes for children means that trials cannot demonstrate that the balance of the benefits of vaccination against the potential adverse effects is favorable to the children themselves. In short, given the rarity of severe clinical courses and limited clarity of risks, the criteria for Emergency Use Authorization do not appear to be met for children.

Emergency Use Authorizations for child vaccinations can make sense for children for whom the benefits are greatest, and thus for whom it is clearest that the benefits outweigh any unknown harms. In the near term, EUA’s should be considered for children at genuinely high risk of serious complications from the infection. It is also worth considering whether emergency use could be authorized for children whom especially concerned caregivers are sheltering from school or social interactions.

The small risk posed to children by COVID-19 does not merit restrictions on any normal child activities in a context where adults are protected by vaccines, but individual children who find their lives curtailed in this way may obtain significant benefits from vaccination.

One might hope to achieve population-level benefits with broader child vaccination, even while the relative benefits and risks for children themselves remain unclear. But this is inconsistent with the conditions for Emergency Use Authorization. Fortunately, COVID-19 vaccines have shown very high effectiveness across the adult population, and future trajectories of hospitalizations and deaths will largely be determined by vaccination rates in adults.

In 1976, the vaccination campaign in anticipation of the deadly Swine flu (H1N1) epidemic inoculated 45 million Americans before being derailed by very rare cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome. That year saw less flu-related morbidity and mortality than expected, and these few hundred adverse events cast a long shadow on American vaccination programs, affecting attitudes towards influenza vaccines for years to come.

This highlights an important tradeoff when accelerating approval of pharmaceutical interventions in the context of an emergency. Specifically, that risk of rare adverse events remains. And if the benefit achieved by an intervention is insufficient, serious, yet rare, adverse effects can prove to be the lasting legacy of a regulatory decision.

For adults, the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination are enormous, while for children, they are relatively minor. Rare side effects from adult COVID-19 vaccination are unlikely to lead to future vaccine hesitancy whose public health impact could be comparable to the benefits of the adult COVID-19 vaccination program itself.

But accelerated mass child vaccination under EUA — perhaps even spurred by school mandates and “vaccine passports” — presents a different balance of risks and benefits. Rare adverse events really could prove to be the most durable public health legacy of a EUA for child COVID-19 vaccines.

Even in the likely scenario that no significant adverse events materialize, we may pay a price for the pursuit of EUA’s for COVID-19 vaccines in children. The controversy surrounding mass child vaccination under EUA’s could feed vaccine hesitancy in the U.S. at a time when public attitudes towards vaccination are critical. A wide rollout of child COVID-19 vaccines should follow the standard regulatory process as for most children, unlike adults, COVID-19 vaccination is not addressing an emergency.

Originally published by Medium.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense’s The Defender.




Russell Brand on Vaccine Passports: Is It Really a Good Idea to Let Big Tech Dictate Everyday Freedoms?

By Children’s Health Defense Team | The Defender

No matter where you are in the world, vaccine passports are being discussed as a way to prove you’ve been vaccinated against COVID.

Big Tech companies are rushing to develop proof-of-vaccination technologies. And airlines, cruise ships, stadiums, and other businesses are considering — or already using — vaccine passports to exclude the unvaccinated.

In the video below, “Vaccine Passports: THIS Is Where it Leads,” Russell Brand questions whether it’s a good idea to let Big Tech and Big Government dictate which everyday freedoms we can enjoy.

Are we “further empowering massive centralized authorities that we have good reason to distrust?” asks Brand. “The institutions that have the power to carry this out have not behaved in a way that engenders trust, up until now.”

Brand highlights the mass surveillance of Americans by the National Security Agency, an illegal program exposed by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

“Often disasters and times of crises are used to leverage further power for already powerful entities,” said Brand — whether that be government agencies or corporations.

If we use fear as the reason to grant “more power to organizations and institutions that have not behaved with our best interests in mind,” said Brand, “we are facilitating a future that might be very difficult for us to participate in.”

Watch “Vaccine Passports: THIS Is Where it Leads:” 




The Ugly Truth About COVID: The World Is Being Needlessly Crippled By Fear Due To a False Narrative

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Pandemics ~ Data & Analytics (PANDA), co-founded by Nick Hudson, is using live data and open science to empower the public to exercise freedom of choice and preserve free societies
  • Hudson explains the ugly truth about COVID-19, which is that the world is being needlessly crippled by fear due to a false narrative
  • The pandemic response has created “homosapienophobia” — the idea that everyone is dangerous until proven healthy
  • Data compiled by PANDA found no relationship between lockdowns and COVID-19 deaths per million people; the disease followed a trajectory of linear decline regardless of whether or not lockdowns were imposed
  • With looming vaccine passports, the loss of personal liberties is at an unprecedented level, while people are generally living “enslaved by fear” — fear of infection or reinfection, “long COVID,” resurgence, and mutant variants

Nick Hudson, an actuary, and private equity investor co-founded Pandemics ~ Data & Analytics (PANDA) in response to the many threats to civil rights and freedoms that have occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic response. While media and public health institutions have engaged in a campaign of smoke and mirrors — one that is perpetuating paralyzing fear, needlessly, to this day — data and facts don’t lie.

Hudson and his team at PANDA, which include a data analyst, economist, medical doctors, big data analyst, and public health experts, are using live data1 and open science to empower the public to exercise freedom of choice and preserve free societies.2

Hudson spoke at the inaugural BizNews Investment Conference in March 2021, and his keynote address is above. He explains the ugly truth about COVID-19, which is that the world is being crippled by fear due to a false narrative. Anyone who challenges that narrative is being labeled as a lunatic, a menace, or a danger to society, which is furthering the repression and unjustified fear.

Bringing COVID-19 Truth to Light

George Washington famously said, “Truth will ultimately prevail where there are plans taken to bring it to light.”3 With that in mind, Hudson saw the “seeds of a great tragedy” being planted with the false COVID-19 narrative and has made it a mission to get the truth out. So, what is the reality of the pandemic? According to Hudson:4

A virus that presents a high risk to few and negligible risk to most hit some regions Few are susceptible to severe disease
There are several available treatments Asymptomatic people are not major drivers of disease
Lockdowns and mask mandates haven’t worked and instead caused great harm The vulnerable were hurt instead of helping

The misinformation has been spewed from the beginning, including by World Health Organization director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. In a March 3, 2020, media briefing, he stated, “Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died. By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected.”5

But according to Hudson, the 3.4% represents case fatality rate (CFR), which is the number of deaths from COVID-19 divided by the number of cases of COVID-19, while the 1% is infection fatality rate (IFR), or the number of deaths divided by all infected individuals.

“By conflating these two separate points (CFR and IFR),” Hudson said, “Tedros was effectively lying.” Quantitative scientist John Ioannidis, professor of medicine at the Stanford Prevention Research Center, calculated the IFR for COVID-19 in a review of 61 seroprevalence studies, which was a median of 0.23%, and 0.05% in people younger than 70.6

Based on this, the IFR for COVID-19 is lower than that of the flu. And wouldn’t you know it, in a New England Journal of Medicine editorial published March 26, 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), and colleagues wrote that “the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza?”7

The media have suppressed this fact, Hudson noted, along with the fact that there’s a 1,000 times difference in mortality among those younger than 19 and those older than 70 — something that should have been taken into account in the pandemic response.

Is COVID-19 Really a ‘Novel Virus’?

Further inflaming widespread fear is the idea that COVID-19 is a “novel virus,” which makes it sound like it’s something humans have never encountered before. But is it really? According to Hudson:

“The reality is that the coronavirus is a very close relative, not even a separate subspecies, a very close relative of the 2003 SARS virus. There are seven related coronaviruses known to cause disease in humans, probably many others, and four of them are in general circulation.

Annual, global circulation. So the naming of this disease is terribly inconsistent. This is really a rose by any name, SARS. A variant of SARS. It’s not novel.”

One study even found that 81% of people not exposed to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, were still able to mount an immune response against it, which “suggests at least some built-in immune protection from SARS-CoV-2 …”8

Nonetheless, Maria Van Kerkhove, WHO’s technical lead for the COVID-19 pandemic, stated that “a majority of the world’s population is susceptible to infection from this virus.”9 This is the first of two key elements that, Hudson said, lead to “homosapienophobia” — the idea that everyone is dangerous until proven healthy.

The idea of universal susceptibility to COVID-19 is nonsense, Hudson noted, as was demonstrated early on with the Diamond Princess cruise ship. Among the 3,711 passengers and crew on board the Diamond Princess, 712 (19.2%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, and of these 46.5% were asymptomatic at the time of testing. Of those showing symptoms, only 9.7% required intensive care, and 1.3% (nine) died.10

PANDA data also showed that starting in February 2021, there was not universal susceptibility to the virus. Their data showed cumulative COVID-19 deaths per million people. In Africa, Southeast Asia, and Oceania, the population fatality rate was 112 per million compared to 710 per million in Europe and the Americas.

As for Africa, Southeast Asia, and Oceania, Hudson said, “the population fatality rate there almost isn’t an epidemic. In a typical year, they’d have 10,000 deaths per million from all causes.”

Fear-Mongering Over Asymptomatic Spread

The second element that enables the doctrine of “everyone being a danger” to continue is the idea of asymptomatic spread driving the disease. “I was absolutely aghast to find out the poor quality of the science” behind it, Hudson said.

One of the seminal papers involved one woman who reportedly infected 16 colleagues while she was asymptomatic.11 The study was widely used to suggest that asymptomatic spread was occurring, but controversy later ensued over whether the woman was actually asymptomatic when the others were infected or if she was symptomatic and being treated for flu-like symptoms at the time.12

In June 2020, Kerkhove also made it very clear that people who have COVID-19 without any symptoms “rarely” transmit the disease to others. But in a dramatic about-face, WHO then backtracked on the statement just one day later. June 9, 2020, Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of WHO’s emergencies program, quickly backpedaled Van Kerkhove’s statement, saying the remarks were “misinterpreted or maybe we didn’t use the most elegant words to explain that.”13

“It’s utter, utter nonsense,” Hudson said, adding that Fauci also stated in January 2020, “asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always an asymptomatic person.”14

A JAMA Network Open study later found, in December 2020, that asymptomatic transmission is not a primary driver of infection within households.15 A study in Nature Communications also found “there was no evidence of transmission from asymptomatic positive persons to traced close contacts.”16

Lockdown Madness

The myth of widespread asymptomatic spread is what was used to justify worldwide lockdowns of healthy people. “Bruce Aylward will go down in history as a criminal of immense stature,” Hudson said, referring to Aylward’s role as the head of a WHO team that visited Wuhan, China, and concluded lockdowns were working to stop COVID-19 spread.17

“He takes a delegation to China, spends a few days, then comes back and says everyone should follow China’s response, the doctrine of universal susceptibility,” Hudson said. Yet, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic official guidelines for pandemic response plans recommend against large-scale quarantine of the healthy.

In fact, WHO wrote that during an influenza pandemic, quarantine of exposed individuals, entry and exit screening, and border closure is “not recommended in any circumstance.”18

Likewise, in 2021 a study published in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation found no significant benefits on COVID-19 case growth in regions using more restrictive nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) such as mandatory stay‐at‐home and business closure orders (i.e., lockdowns).19

Data compiled by PANDA also found no relationship between lockdowns and COVID-19 deaths per million people. The disease followed a trajectory of linear decline regardless of whether or not lockdowns were imposed.

What isn’t a lie, however, is that lockdowns cause a great deal of harm. Infant mortality, poverty, starvation, and joblessness are on the rise, as are delays in medical treatment and diagnosis, psychological disorders among youth, suicide, and deaths of despair.

Education has been disrupted for an estimated 1.6 billion children, Hudson said, and a survey of 2,000 U.S. adults revealed that 1 in 6 Americans started therapy for the first time during 2020. Nearly half (45%) of the survey respondents confirmed that the COVID-19 pandemic was the driving reason that triggered them to seek a therapist’s help.20 According to Hudson:

“Perhaps the hardest thing for me to swallow about all of this is in undergraduate epidemiology, it is a well-known finding that when you are confronted with a disease with sharp edge graduation, as you are with coronavirus, measures to generally suppress the spread of the disease have the effect, reliably, of shifting the disease burden onto the vulnerable, who we should be protecting. They worsen coronavirus mortality.”

Mask Rhetoric Is Misleading

It’s been touted that face masks are essential to stopping the spread of COVID-19 and could save 130,000 lives in the U.S. alone.21 But in 2019, the World Health Organization analyzed 10 randomized controlled trials and concluded, “there was no evidence that facemasks are effective in reducing transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”22

Only one randomized controlled trial has been conducted on mask usage and COVID-19 transmission, and it found masks did not statistically significantly reduce the incidence of infection.23

You may remember that in the early days of the pandemic, face masks were not recommended for the general public. In February 2020, Christine Francis, a consultant for infection prevention and control at WHO headquarters, was featured in a video, holding up a disposable face mask.

She said, “Medical masks like this one cannot protect against the new coronavirus when used alone … WHO only recommends the use of masks in specific cases.”24 As of March 31, 2020, WHO was still advising against the use of face masks for people without symptoms, stating that there is “no evidence” that such mask usage prevents COVID-19 transmission.25

But by June 2020, the rhetoric had changed. Citing “evolving evidence,” WHO reversed their recommendation and began advising governments to encourage the general public to wear masks where there is widespread transmission and physical distancing is difficult.26 Yet that same day, June 5, 2020, WHO published an announcement stating:27

“At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID-19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.”

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention did a similar about-face on mask usage, citing a study of two hairdressers in Missouri, who were reportedly symptomatic with COVID-19 and styled 139 clients’ hair.

None of the clients tested positive for COVID-19, which the CDC suggested was because they and the stylists wore masks.28 Hudson believes, however, that the customers were probably young and not susceptible to the virus in the first place.

Another study published in the CDC’s journal Emerging Infectious Diseases stated, “We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility.”29

PANDA data also showed no differences in transmission in states with mask mandates and those without. Still, health officials are now advising you should double or triple up on masks to make them work better.

Vaccines Being Sold as a Ticket to Freedom

People who stand to make countless billions out of COVID-19 vaccines are now selling them as a ticket to freedom, Hudson states:

“How convenient that we now have a logic that tells us that we need to vaccinate 7.8 billion people for a disease that has a mean survival rate of 99.95% for people under the age of 70. The profiteering here is naked. It is transparent.”

It’s a sad situation when teenagers, who aren’t at high risk, are lining up for vaccines just to get their freedoms back, he adds. When you add in all the other inconsistencies and lies — PCR tests that are not capable of diagnosing infectiousness, inflated death numbers, restrictions on travel, media propaganda, and arbitrary rules, like the CDC’s recent change in physical distancing in classrooms from 6 feet to 3 feet30 — it’s as though we’re living in an Orwellian reality.

With looming vaccine passports, the loss of personal liberties is at an unprecedented level, while people are generally “enslaved by fear” — fear of infection or reinfection, “long COVID,” resurgence, and mutant variants. “The underpinnings of our civilization are under threat,” Hudson noted, and we have a choice. “We’ve been pushed up against a precipice, will we be pushed off or will we push back?”

He urges people to support the Great Barrington Declaration, which calls for “focused protection” and finding a middle ground between locking down an entire economy and just “letting it rip.” As of April 4, 2021, the declaration has collected 41,890 signatures from medical practitioners and over 13,796 signatures from medical and public health scientists.31

In addition, the declaration is open for public signatures and has collected 764,089 from concerned citizens 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.

PANDA also published a protocol for reopening society “to provide a road map out of the damaging cycle of lockdowns.”32 Hudson quoted Nelson Mandela, who stated courage is not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it. We all need to strive for courage and support awareness campaigns aimed at stopping the harmful narrative, relieving fear, and protecting future freedom.




Dr. Naomi Wolf : “Why Vaccine Passports Equal Slavery Forever”

Video Source: Daily Clout

Watch Dr. Naomi Wolf as she discusses the reasons why the vaccine passports equal slavery forever



Former Pfizer VP: ‘Your Government is lying to You in a Way That Could Lead to Your Death.’

Dr. Mike Yeadon
Arshad Ebrahim / YouTube

By Patrick Delaney | LifeSiteNews 

April 7, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Dr. Michael Yeadon, Pfizer’s former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy & Respiratory who spent 32 years in the industry-leading new medicines research and retired from the pharmaceutical giant with “the most senior research position” in his field, spoke with LifeSiteNews.

He addressed the “demonstrably false” propaganda from governments in response to COVID-19, including the “lie” of dangerous variants, the totalitarian potential for “vaccine passports,” and the strong possibility we are dealing with a “conspiracy” which could lead to something far beyond the carnage experienced in the wars and massacres of the 20th century.

His main points included:

  1. There is “no possibility” current variants of COVID-19 will escape immunity. It is “just a lie.”
  2. Yet, governments around the world are repeating this lie, indicating that we are witnessing not just “convergent opportunism,” but a “conspiracy.” Meanwhile, media outlets and Big Tech platforms are committed to the same propaganda and the censorship of the truth.
  3. Pharmaceutical companies have already begun to develop unneeded “top-up” (“booster”) vaccines for the “variants.” The companies are planning to manufacture billions of vials, in addition to the current experimental COVID-19 “vaccine” campaign.
  4. Regulatory agencies like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, have announced that since these “top-up” vaccines will be so similar to the prior injections which were approved for emergency use authorization, drug companies will not be required to “perform any clinical safety studies.”
  5. Thus, this virtually means that the design and implementation of repeated and coerced mRNA vaccines “go from the computer screen of a pharmaceutical company into the arms of hundreds of millions of people, [injecting] some superfluous genetic sequence for which there is absolutely no need or justification.”
  6. Why are they doing this? Since no benign reason is apparent, the use of vaccine passports along with a “banking reset” could issue a totalitarianism unlike the world has ever seen. Recalling the evil of Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, “mass depopulation” remains a logical outcome.
  7. The fact that this at least could be true means everyone must “fight like crazy to make sure that system never forms.”

Dr. Yeadon began identifying himself as merely a “boring guy” who went “to work for a big drug company … listening to the main national broadcast and reading the broadsheet newspapers.”

Continuing, he said: “But in the last year I have realized that my government and its advisers are lying in the faces of the British people about everything to do with this coronavirus. Absolutely everything. It’s a fallacy this idea of asymptomatic transmission and that you don’t have symptoms, but you are a source of a virus. That lockdowns work, that masks have a protective value obviously for you or someone else and that variants are scary things and we even need to close international borders in case some of these nasty foreign variants gets in.

“Or, by the way, on top of the current list of gene-based vaccines that we have miraculously made, there will be some ‘top-up’ vaccines to cope with the immune escape variants.

“Everything I have told you, every single one of those things is demonstrably false. But our entire national policy is based on these all being broadly right, but they are all wrong.”

‘Conspiracy’ and not just ‘convergent opportunism’

“But what I would like to do is talk about immune escape because I think that’s probably going to be the end game for this whole event, which I think is probably a conspiracy. Last year I thought it was what I called ‘convergent opportunism,’ that is a bunch of different stakeholder groups has managed to pounce on a world in chaos to push us in a particular direction. So it looked like it was kind of linked, but I was prepared to say it was just convergence.”

“I [now] think that’s naïve. There is no question in my mind that very significant powerbrokers around the world have either planned to take advantage of the next pandemic or created the pandemic. One of those two things is true because the reason it must be true is that dozens and dozens of governments are all saying the same lies and doing the same inefficacious things that demonstrably cost lives.

“And they are talking the same sort of future script which is, ‘We don’t want you to move around because of these pesky varmints, these “variants”’— which I call ‘samiants’ by the way because they are pretty much the same — but they’re all saying this and they are all saying ‘don’t worry, there will be “top-up” vaccines that will cope with the potential escapees.’ They’re all saying this when it is obviously nonsense.”

Possible end game: vaccine ‘passports’ tied to spending allowances, thorough control

“I think the end game is going to be, ‘everyone receives a vaccine’… Everyone on the planet is going to find themselves persuaded, cajoled, not quite mandated, hemmed-in to take a jab.

“When they do that every single individual on the planet will have a name, or unique digital ID and a health status flag which will be ‘vaccinated,’ or not … and whoever possesses that, sort of single database, operable centrally, applicable everywhere to control, to provide as it were, a privilege, you can either cross this particular threshold or conduct this particular transaction or not depending on [what] the controllers of that one human population database decide. And I think that’s what this is all about because once you’ve got that, we become playthings and the world can be as the controllers of that database want it.

“For example, you might find that after a banking reset that you can only spend through using an app that actually feeds off this [database], your ID, your name, [and] your health status flag.”

“And, yes, certainly crossing an international border is the most obvious use for these vaccine passports, as they are called, but I’ve heard talk of them already that they could be necessary for you to get into public spaces, enclosed public spaces. I expect that if they wanted to, you would not be able to leave your house in the future without the appropriate privilege on your app.

“But even if that’s not [the] true [intent of the vaccine campaign], it doesn’t matter, the fact that it could be true means everyone [reading] this should fight like crazy to make sure that [vaccine passport] system never forms.”

“[With such a system], here is an example of what they could make you do, and I think this is what they’re going to make [people] do.

“You could invent a story that is about a virus and its variations, its mutations over time. You could invent the story and make sure you embed it through the captive media, make sure that no one can counter it by censoring alternative sources, then people are now familiar with this idea that this virus mutates, which it does, and that it produces variants, which is true [as well], which could escape your immune system, and that’s a lie.

“But, nevertheless, we’re going to tell you it’s true, and then when we tell you that it’s true and we say ‘but we’ve got the cure, here’s a top-up vaccine,’ you’ll get a message, based on this one global, this one ID system: ‘Bing!’ it will come up and say ‘Dr. Yeadon, time for your top-up vaccine. And, by the way,’ it will say ‘your existing immune privileges remain valid for four weeks. But if you don’t get your top-up vaccine in that time, you will unfortunately detrimentally be an “out person,” and you don’t want that, do you?’ So, that’s how it’ll work, and people will just walk up and they’ll get their top-up vaccine.”

Gov’t lies, Big Pharma moves forward, medicine regulators get out of the way, and possible ‘mass depopulation

“But I will take you through this, Patrick, because I am qualified to comment. I don’t know what Vanden Bossche is about. There was no possibility at all, based on all of the variants that are in the public domain, 4000 or so of them, none of them are going to escape immunity [i.e. become more dangerous].

“Nevertheless, politicians and health advisers (to loads of governments) are saying that they are. They’re lying. Well, why would you do that?

“Here’s the other thing, in parallel, pharmaceutical companies have said, several of them, it will be quite easy for us to adjust our gene-based vaccines, and we can hasten them through development, and we can help you.

“And here’s the real scary part, global medicines regulators like [the U.S. Food and Drug Administration] FDA, the Japanese medicines agency, the European Medicines Agency, have gotten together and announced … since top-up vaccines will be considered so similar to the ones that we have already approved for emergency use authorization, we are not going to require the drug companies to perform any clinical safety studies.

“So, you’ve got, on the one hand, governments and their advisers that are lying to you that variants are different enough from the current virus that, even if you’re immune from natural exposure or vaccination, you’re a risk and you need to come and get this top-up vaccine. So, I think neither of those is true. So why is the drug company making the top-up vaccines? And [with] the regulators having got out of the way — and if Yeadon is right, and I’m sure I am or I wouldn’t be telling you this — you go from the computer screen of a pharmaceutical company into the arms of hundreds of millions of people, some superfluous genetic sequence for which there is absolutely no need or justification.

“And if you wanted to introduce a characteristic which could be harmful and could even be lethal, and you can even tune it to say ‘let’s put it in some gene that will cause liver injury over a nine-month period,’ or, cause your kidneys to fail but not until you encounter this kind of organism [that would be quite possible]. Biotechnology provides you with limitless ways, frankly, to injure or kill billions of people.

“And since I can’t think of a benign explanation for any of the steps: variants, top-up vaccines, no regulatory studies… it’s not only that I cannot think of a benign explanation, the steps described, and the scenario described, and the necessary sort of resolution to this false problem is going to allow what I just described: unknown, and unnecessary gene sequences injected into the arms of potentially billions of people for no reason.

“I’m very worried … that pathway will be used for mass depopulation because I can’t think of any benign explanation.”

‘Absurdly impossible’ variants will escape immunity, ‘just a lie’

“If I can show you that one major thing that governments around the world are telling the people is a lie, you should take my 32 years of experienced opinion that says, most of it, if not all of it, is a lie.”

“The most different variant is only 0.3% different from the original sequence as emailed out of Wuhan in … January 2020. 0.3% [is] the one [variant] that is the most different on the planet so far. And now another way of saying it is, ‘all of the variants are not less than 99.7% identical to each other.’

“Now, you might be thinking, ‘hmm, .3%, is that enough [to escape immunity and become more dangerous]?’ The answer is no. Getaway, ya know, get out of here …

“The human immune system is a thing of wonder. What it does is when it faces a new pathogen like this, you’ve got professional cells, they’re called professional antigen-presenting cells —they’re kind of rough tough things that tend not to succumb to viruses. And their job is to grab foreign things in the near environment and tear them limb from limb [inside the cell]. They really cut them up into hundreds of pieces. And then they present these pieces on the surfaces of their cell to other bits of your immune system, and amazingly, because of the variability that God and nature gave you, huge variability to recognize foreign things, and your body ends up using 15 to 20 different specific motifs that it spots about this virus. They’re called epitopes, basically, they’re just like little photographs of the details about this virus. That’s what they do. And that is what is called your repertoire, your immune repertoire is like 20 different accurate photographs, close-ups, of different bits of this virus.

“Now, if a tiny piece of the virus changes, like the .3% I’ve just described, if you are reinfected by that variant, your professional cells tear into that virus and cut it into pieces, present them again, and lo and behold, most of the pieces that you have already seen and recognized, are still there in the variants.

“There is absolutely no chance that all of them will fail to be recognized and that is what is required for immune escape, to escape your immunity. It must present to you as a new pathogen. It must be sufficiently different that, when it is cut up by your professional checker cells, it won’t find mostly the same thing it has seen before. And that is just absurdly impossible when you have only varied .3%, so it is 99.7% (similar).

“You can go and check that by looking at papers by a person called Alison Tarke. There is also Shane Crotty and all of the other co-authors.

“And before them, coming from my theoretical understanding of multi-locus immunity, which is what I just badly tried to describe, to what actually happens … If your [immune system] is presented with something that contains even half of those similar pieces, there is no way your body will say, ‘that’s a new pathogen.’

“And, so, the idea that 0.3% could even have a chance of getting around immunity is just a lie. It’s not [even] like an opinion difference.

“I don’t think 3% would be enough. That’s 10 times more variation than has occurred in 16 months [with this virus]. I don’t even think a 30% difference would be enough. So, I’m saying that 100 times more variation than has actually happened, would still leave me putting a big bet on the human immune system not being fooled that these are new pathogens.

“I’ve chatted this over with several professors of immunology and they agreed with me, it’s like, ‘why are you asking me this?’

“So, I think that what I’ve just said is that governments and their advisors in multiple countries are lying about variants. That’s a massive thing! You should check it out. Your readers should check it out. If it’s true, don’t you think it’s terrifying?! It was when I realized it.

“So, they’re lying about variants, and then, of course, since [the variants] are not really different, you do not need a ‘top-up’ vaccine. Now you should be getting the hairs on the back of your neck up because they are making them right now!”

“They are making billions of vials of it. And they will be available by the end of the year.

“And I think they’ll require people to first, be on the vaccine passport one-world database, and then it will roll up into the top-ups, and if it takes a bit longer it will take a bit longer.

“But this is not going away. It won’t go away until enough people, if they ever do, say ‘you’re a bunch of frauds and we are taking our freedoms back, so you can just stop doing this.’

“Because one person shouting into the wilderness and all of the other academics looking the other way, will have us just going down this pipe maybe a week later than if I hadn’t said anything, but we’re still going down to hell.

“So, that’s why I’m frightened.

“The variants aren’t different. I call them ‘samiants’… they’re pretty much the same. They’re not different. Therefore, you don’t need a top-up vaccine, so don’t go near any of them.”

‘Why is my government lying to me?’ Because ‘they are going to kill you.’

“[And if you recognize that our governments are involved in a major verifiable lie], don’t just turn your computer off and go to supper. Stop. Look out the window, and think, ‘why is my government lying to me about something so fundamental?’ Because, I think the answer is, they are going to kill you using this method. They’re going to kill you and your family.

“The eugenicists have got hold of the levers of power and this is a really artful way of getting you to line up and receive some unspecified thing that will damage you. I have no idea what it will actually be, but it won’t be a vaccine because you don’t need one. And it won’t kill you on the end of the needle because you would spot that.

“It could be something that will produce normal pathology, it will be at various times between vaccination and the event, it will be plausibly deniable because there will be something else going on in the world at that time, in the context of which your demise or that of your children will look normal.

“That’s what I would do if I wanted to get rid of 90 or 95% of the world’s population. And I think that’s what they’re doing.”

“Now I don’t know [for certain] that they’re going to use that [system] to kill you, but I can’t think of a benign reason, and with that power, they certainly could harm you, or control you, so you should object [and strenuously oppose it].”

READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE…




“Vaccine Passports: THIS Is Where It Leads | Russell Brand

Video Source: Russell Brand

Watch this great video with Russell Brand for a super informative discussion about vaccine passports.

Vaccination passports are creating public and political disputes across the world. Is this debate a matter of civil liberties, and can the state compel you to take a vaccine with the reward of everyday freedoms?



Coming Soon — Vaccine Passports Will Determine Where You Can Go and What You Can Do

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender

The Biden administration and private companies are working to develop vaccine passports that would allow Americans to prove they’ve been vaccinated against COVID as the country opens, The Washington Post reported Sunday.

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.

According to NPR, New York described the pass this way:

“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.

Last night on “The Next Revolution” with Steve Hilton on Fox News, Wolf said:

“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.”

https://twitter.com/naomirwolf/status/1376373126032977920?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1376373126032977920%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fchildrenshealthdefense.org%2Fdefender%2Fcoming-soon-vaccine-passports%2F

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.”




‘Papers, Please’: Vaccine Passports Have Officially Arrived

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • 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

  1. Every nation must publish its health screening criteria for entry into the country using a standard format on a common framework
  2. Each country must register trusted facilities that conduct COVID-19 lab testing for foreign travel and administer vaccines listed in the CommonPass registry
  3. Each country will accept health screening status from foreign visitors through apps and services built on the CommonPass framework
  4. Patient identification is to be collected at the time of sample collection and/or vaccination using an international standard
  5. 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.