Great Reset: Self Anointed Elitists Want to Impose Global Socialism (Must Watch)
rairfoundation.com/great-reset-self-anointed-elitists-want-to-impose-global-socialism-must-watch
Self-anointed elitists are seeking to impose their dictatorial will on the planet through what is referred to as the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) “Great Reset“, a literal globalist plot to remake the world’s economy. As with all leftist experiments, the actual details of their ultimate socialist vision are vague. The vehicle for the Great Reset is, of course, the coronavirus.
The World Economic Forum was founded by globalist Klaus Schwab and his wife Hilde in 1971 as the “European Management Forum.” If the creepiness component of the WEF is unclear, consider that they keep trying to get people used to the idea of eating bugs in order to save the planet, or something. The WEF is well known for their annual meeting of the “global hyper-elite” at Davos, an alpine resort town in Switzerland.
1/6 Klaus Schwab
It was at one of these meetings that a must-see, jaw-dropping panel discussion titled “Delivering Social Justice in the Recovery” took place. Moderated by Washington Post Foreign Affairs Columnist Ishaan Tharoor, the discussion encompassed several terrifying key concepts globalist fascists are promoting within their self-important circles. The key themes for reshaping the global economy, i.e., the “Great Reset” in a post-pandemic world, include harping on so-called “stakeholder capitalism” (i.e. socialism), “inequality,” (i.e. class war) and “white supremacy.”
The video starts with a disturbing montage featuring such figures as radical leftist economist Joseph Stiglitz, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Anthony Fauci, preaching to the world’s citizens about “systemic social inequities”.
As an aside, Joseph Stiglitz trashed President Donald Trump earlier this year, and questioned the limits of “freedom of expression” stating in part: “We must reconcile freedom of expression with accountability for the enormous harm that ‘social media’ can and has caused, from inciting violence and promoting racial and religious hatred to political manipulation.”
2/6 Screenshot of Anthony Fauci floating in space from “Delivering Social Justice in the Recovery”
Panelists included Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, Anisa Kamadoli Costa, Chairman and President of the Tiffany & Co Foundation, Darren Walker, President of the Ford Foundation and Gabriela Bucher, Executive Director of Oxfam International.
Ishaan Tharoor referred to Oxfam International as a “town crier among the global elites” for their annual class war report, (this year’s mind-numbing “report” is called The Inequality Virus). Note that the phrase “white supremacy” can be found seven times in the report, as one of the drivers of “inequality”. This is a common theme thoughout the discussion.
Oxfam Executive Director Gabriela Bucher stated in part:
“Many of us think of inequality as something just for idealists or an inconvenience to the serious business of capitalism. Oxfam’s message is that equality is a fresh, moral and serious framework that can reshape the way we run our economies for the 21st century.” [emphasis added]
Sadiq Khan agreed, stating that the coronavirus should be used as “an opportunity to reset and reboot our economies across the globe”.
3/6 Mayor of London Sadiq Khan
Khan also referenced installed president Joe Biden while referencing the “Build Back Better” campaign:
“And Ishaan, you’ll hear phrases like ‘Build Back Better’ being used not just by the new president of the USA – I can actually smile when I say ‘President of the USA’ now, rather than frown or, or be intimidated into cowering – but actually means a ‘new normal’ – a ‘new normal’ where we’ll have a just recovery. And I hate using the word ‘opportunity’ when it comes to a global pandemic, but Gabriela [Bucher] is spot on – we’ve got to use this pandemic as an opportunity to reset, and in your word, ‘reboot,’ our economies across the globe, and that means not just for government but also civic society, the business community, the faith community and others, to work together to address the inequalities we have talked about for too many years”
Darren Walker of The Ford Foundation
Many thoughtful citizens around the world are familiar with the destructive “philanthropy” of George Soros’ Open Society Foundations. However, many are not aware that Soros is just one of many elitists making it their mission to globally “redistribute the wealth” in a post- pandemic world.
4/6 Darren Walker, President of the Ford Foundation
The Ford Foundation, headed by Darren Walker, is one of the wealthiest social justice funding platforms, boasting an endowment of $14 billion. The Ford Foundation and Open Societies Foundations are both members of the “Forge Collective,” which, according to their website:
“…will support community-led and civil society organizations, workers’ rights groups and social movements that work with those most impacted by the economic fallout of Covid-19, while advancing systemic change to shift the economy in a more just and sustainable direction.” [emphasis added]
Open Societies Foundations and the Ford Foundation are two drops in a large pond of leftist grant-making organizations, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), and local and federal governments who squander their citizens’ taxes by diverting money to leftist cronies.
Darren Walker, a millionaire himself, declares that “we must intentionally put a nail in the coffin of the ideology of the last fifty years propagated first and foremost by Milton Friedman…” Milton Friedman believed in economic freedom versus the welfare state, or economic dependency promoted by leftists. Further, Walker targeted “white supremacy,” claiming:
“We must recognize that the challenge of white supremacy…is real. Patriarchy is real in our capitalist systems. And if we want a more just recovery, we have to acknowledge that there was a…’B.C.’ world: Before Coronavirus…”
5/6 The “B.C.” world, Walker declares, “is over.” Walker contends that “…many of the norms and structures and understandings” of the world before the coronavirus “must be reorganized, reimagined, and dismantled.” Walker declares that “the issue of white supremacy, of patriarchy, must be acknowledged in the boardroom as part of a diagnosis of recovery…”
As usual, those who preach the most about “democracy” are most likely to attempt to seize control by force. They are not elected to remake the world into their vague, grand utopian vision, yet that is precisely what they are attempting to do.
6/6 Hero: Man Stranded On Desert Island Still Obediently Wearing His Mask
babylonbee.com/news/man-marooned-on-island-still-wondering-if-he-needs-to-wear-a-face-mask
CARIBBEAN—The U.S. Coast Guard announced today that they discovered a man who has been stranded on a deserted island in the Caribbean Ocean for over 5 months after his boat sunk in a storm. A spokesman for the USCG reported that this heroic man has been responsibly wearing his mask the entire time on the island, even though he is the only living soul in a thousand-mile radius.
"This man is a true hero," said Governor Gavin Newsom of California. "He is a shining example of an obedient citizen who dutifully wears his mask even when it makes absolutely zero sense for any sane person to do so. California citizens ought to look to this survivor and emulate him in every way."
Celebrities took to Twitter to respond to the news and congratulate the stranded man on his unwavering commitment to obeying every single thing politicians and experts told him to do. "Thank you," said superstar Mark Ruffalo, "for showing us all how it's done!"
Authorities were planning on rescuing the survivor but later decided his story is just too inspiring and that he will serve a greater purpose if they just leave him there to continue wearing his mask.
1/2 "He has enough coconuts to last him a couple of years, he'll be fine," said the USCG spokesman. "Besides, wait till you see how he re-applies his mask between bites!"
Babylon Bee subscriber Fidel Perez contributed to this report. If you want to get involved with the staff writers at The Babylon Bee, check out our membership options here!
2/2 Germany imposes strict lockdown over Easter
dw.com/en/germany-imposes-strict-lockdown-over-easter/a-56948895
"We are in a new pandemic" due to the spread of coronavirus variants, Chancellor Angela Merkel has said. German federal and state leaders have agreed on a radical shutdown over the Easter holidays.
Germany extends lockdown over Easter
Germany is extending the current lockdown through to April 18, Chancellor Angela Merkel announced early Tuesday.
The country will enter an even stricter lockdown from April 1 to April 5 over the Easter holiday period, when shops, including grocery stores, will largely have to close.
Merkel warned that Germany needed to "break the exponential growth of the third wave." Case numbers have reached levels that authorities say will overburden intensive care units.
Tuesday's announcement marks a reversal from earlier this month when state leaders agreed to begin a cautious reopening process.
Talks between leaders of Germany's 16 federal states and Merkel lasted until the early hours of the morning following a lengthy interruption.
What are the new measures?
As well as prolonging existing measures such as the closure of cultural, leisure and sporting facilities, tougher restrictions will apply over the Easter period.
Churches will be asked to hold services marking the Christian festival online. No more than five adults from two households will be able to meet over the five-day period. Testing and vaccination centers can remain open. Public gatherings will be prohibited. Almost all shops will be shut during the five days. Only grocery stores may open on Saturday, April 3. Anyone from Germany holidaying abroad will have to be tested before boarding a flight back to Germany.
This "emergency brake" will halt further reopenings and will apply to areas exceeding 100 new cases per 100,000 inhabitants over a seven-day period.
1/5 If an area has an incidence rate of over 100 for three consecutive days, harsher lockdown measures will once again apply.
What did Merkel say?
"We are in a very, very serious situation" due to the spread of coronavirus variants in the country, Merkel told the press conference.
"What we have is essentially a new pandemic," she said. The new virus is "significantly more deadly, significantly more infectious."
"It really makes you a bit wistful about what we could have already achieved," Merkel said, adding that the mutated virus has now "basically eaten up" earlier gains.
Germany would have to be "prudent and flexible" and was in a "race against time" to vaccinate its population, she said.
Patrick Sensburg, a member of the German parliament from Merkel's governing CDU party, told DW that it was a tough decision for politicians to extend Germany's lockdown until April 18.
"We are quite close to the Easter holidays, and a lot of people wanted to go on holidays. So for political leaders, it was quite hard to tell people 'no,'" Sensburg said.
"This was not an easy decision, but in the end, the numbers are too high in Germany," he said.
2/5 The meeting between Merkel and the state premiers lasted more than 10 hours
What state leaders said
"We are having a de facto Easter lockdown," Bavarian State Premier Markus Söder told reporters. The goal is to take the speed out of the virus, he said.
"We are probably now living in the most dangerous phase of the pandemic," Söder added, saying that many people underestimate the situation.
He cautioned that impatience should not become Germany's weakness.
Governing Mayor of Berlin Michael Müller said it was important to win time until the vaccine becomes available.
Mallorca braces for German tourists
Tuesday's decision represented a "paradigm shift" on how to proceed in the pandemic, he said. "It is no longer just about restrictions, it is no longer just about 'open — close, open — close.'"
Stephan Weil, Lower Saxony's state premier, backed the measures as he spoke of "five days of hard lockdown over Easter."
"Firms should not produce anything, traveling to work should only take place when it is absolutely necessary. Public life in Germany and human interactions should be reduced to the absolute minimum. A short but consequent phase of stillstand can break and dampen the infection wave," Weil said.
'Doubt' over length of Easter shutdown
For some experts, the lockdown measures agreed might not be enough to put a dent in the rising COVID cases across Germany.
"I doubt it a little bit," Tobias Kurth, the director of the Institute of Public Health and Epidemiology at Berlin's Charité Hospital, told DW.
He noted that the government's plan to curb shop openings and discourage social contacts over the Easter holidays isn't that much different than what would have normally taken place over those five days.
He urged for a stronger rapid testing regimen to be in place before officials consider relaxing restrictions again.
3/5 "I think a strict lockdown would work, but we opened up … without a clear concept of rapid testing or not having enough rapid testing available," Kurth said.
A full lockdown 'won't work'
Professor Andrew Ullmann, spokesman for the German parliament's health committee, told DW he believes that a full lockdown, such as that enforced in early 2020 during the first wave "won't work" due to general lockdown fatigue in the population.
Volume 90%
Watch video 04:52
Opening a new hotel during the pandemic
"What I'm really concerned about is that we are running from one lockdown to the next lockdown with any with no perspective for our population," added Ullman, who is also a trained physician and lawmaker for Germany's pro-business Free Democratic Party.
Infection rate quickly rising
According to Germany's Robert Koch Institute for infectious diseases (RKI), the seven-day incidence rate stood at 107 on Monday, above the 100 threshold at which hospitals often become overwhelmed.
Health authorities warned last week that coronavirus case numbers are rising at a "very clearly exponential rate."
The number of confirmed cases in Germany on Monday increased by 7,709 to 2,667,225, while the death toll rose by 50 to 74,714. kmm, rs, lc/rt (AFP, dpa, Reuters)
DW recommends
Europe to end lockdowns for good by autumn: BioNTech CEO
Ugur Sahin, whose firm developed one of the world's first coronavirus vaccines, believes Europe will have the pandemic under control by the end of this summer. It comes amid criticism of the EU's vaccination drive.
Audios and videos on the topic
Date 23.03.2021 Homepage DW News -
4/5 COVID Vaccine Nonsense
geopolitic.org/2021/03/31/covid-vaccine-nonsense
All posts March 31, 20213:06 pm
The efforts to require every American to be injected with an experimental vaccine for Covid-19 are based on the false notion that vaccination will protect recipients from becoming infected with SARS-Cov-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, or protect them from passing along the infection to other people.
The FDA, the CDC, the NIH and the pharmaceutical companies involved have all stated very clearly that there is no evidence to support this idea.
None of the three experimental Covid-19 vaccines now being distributed in the United States have been demonstrated to protect against infection with or transmission of the virus believed to cause Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2), or even prevent symptoms of Covid-19 disease from developing.
This fact is indisputable, yet media, medical providers, and politicians continue to repeat the lie that vaccination provides “immunity to Covid” and even sources like the Mayo Clinic make irresponsible and unsubstantiated claims that vaccination “might prevent you from getting”or “spreading” Covid- 19. The same lies are the basis for President Biden’s hard press for mass vaccination to “make this Independence Day truly special.”
On February 27, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it had “issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the third vaccine for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19),” the Janssen (Johnson&Johnson) Covid-19 vaccine.
This announcement is virtually identical to the EUAs previously issued for Covid-19 vaccines produced by Pfizer-Biontech and Moderna.
1/9 In each of the EUAs, the FDA has been careful to avoid any claim that the vaccines provide protection against infection or transmission of the virus. Similarly, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have each publicly stated that the vaccines have NOT been shown to prevent infection or transmission.
All of their regulatory documents and commentary addressing the issue state clearly that there is no evidence that the vaccines affect either infection with or transmission of the virus, nor do they prevent symptoms of Covid-19 from appearing.
The US Government Position
The FDA’s Briefing Document analyzing clinical trial data for the Pfizer vaccine, released the day before the FDA’s issuance of an EUA for that vaccine, noted (on page 47):
Data are limited to assess the effect of the vaccine against asymptomatic infection
And:
Data are limited to assess the effect of the vaccine against transmission of SARS- CoV-2 [virus] from individuals who are infected despite vaccination.”
The FDA Briefing Document on the Moderna vaccine stated the same fact, while also describing plans for a future clinical trial to measure infection prevention, but that will not be completed until December 31, 2023 (p.47). The FDA’s review of the Janssen vaccine noted the same “limited” data… to assess the effect of the vaccine in preventing asymptomatic infection… and definitive conclusions cannot be drawn at this time.”
“Limited data” means there is in fact no evidence to support those conclusions.
The CDC Advisory Committee that recommended emergency use of the Moderna vaccine noted:
“the level of certainty for the benefits of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine was… type 4 (very low certainty) for the estimates of prevention of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and all-cause death.”
The CDC guidance to Covid vaccine administrators (January 2, 2021) asks:
2/9 Can a person who has received a Covid-19 vaccine still spread COVID-19? At this time, we do not know if COVID-19 vaccination will have any effect on preventing transmission.”
The World Health Organization (WHO) on January 26, 2021 similarly admitted:
We do not know whether the vaccines will prevent infection and protect against onward transmission.”
This is all very confusing due to the language the FDA, NIH and other agencies use to describe the potential effectiveness of the vaccines. For example, in the NIH analysis of the Janssen vaccine data, the authors note the vaccine’s reported effectiveness in “preventing moderate and severe COVID-19 in adults.”
This deliberately blurs the distinction between infection with a virus (SARS- Cov-2) and the illness called Covid-19.
The NIH claims the Janssen vaccine prevents or lessens symptoms of the illness Covid-19, but is silent on whether the vaccine prevents infection or transmission of the virus said to cause Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2). The similar analysis for the Moderna vaccine notes, however:
“[T]here is not yet enough available data to draw conclusions as to whether the [Moderna] vaccine can impact SARS-CoV-2 transmission.”
Unfortunately, we have seen many reports over the last few months of deaths attributed to Covid-19 days and weeks after vaccination (see here and here (video)), confirming that vaccinated people can and do become infected with the virus.
Health officials have avoided blaming these deaths on side effects from the vaccines themselves. Instead, they say these deaths are the result of infections with the virus (SARS-Cov-2) acquired after receiving the vaccines.
Particularly devastating reports from an isolated Kentucky monasterydescribe how two nuns died of Covid-19 after receiving Covid-19 vaccines, despite the complete absence of any cases of infection in the monastery during the ten months prior to vaccination.
Moderna’s chief science officer was quoted in the British Medical Journalabout the clinical trials in 2020 that resulted in the FDA’s decision to grant a EUA to the Moderna shot:
3/9 Our trial will not demonstrate prevention of transmission,” Zaks said, “because in order to do that you have to swab people twice a week for very long periods, and that becomes operationally untenable.”
The most important questions about the experimental Covid-19 vaccines were not even asked during the clinical trials: Do these experimental vaccines prevent infection with the virus and do they prevent transmission of that virus? The short answer is No.
The FDA has stated clearly in each of the Covid vaccine Briefing Documents (see Moderna document here, Pfizer here, Janssen here) that the trials were not even designed prove or disprove a hypothesis that the vaccines prevent infection or transmission of the virus, or even prevent symptoms of Covid-19 from developing.
The FDA issued Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) for the Pfizer, Moderna and Janssen vaccines on December 11 and December 18, 2020, and on February 27, 2021, respectively.
The EUAs indicate that the vaccines “prevent severe Covid-19,” that is, they don’t prevent infection or development of symptoms after infection, but they may make the illness less severe.
The EUAs explicitly deny any evidence that the Pfizer, Moderna or Janssen vaccines prevent infection, or prevent hospitalization or even death from Covid- 19 after vaccination. The highly publicized “success rates” of the vaccines refer only their potential ability to lessen the severity of those symptoms, but there is “no data” that they prevent the infection that could cause those symptoms.
Mandating Vaccination Under Emergency Use Authorization Is Impermissible
An EUA is not “FDA Approval.”
An EUA indicates that a product has not been fully tested but, despite the obvious risks, distribution is permitted because the government declared a “public health emergency” in January 2020.
As the FDA notes in its Information Sheet for the Moderna shot:
The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine has not undergone the same type of review as an FDA- approved or cleared product.”
The FDA granted EUAs for all three experimental vaccines after less than five months of clinical trials, with most of trial data still to be collected. All three vaccines will be in clinical trial status through January 31, 2023.
4/9 According to comments from vaccine scientists in September 2020 (prior to the Covid-19 EUA issuances), no vaccine had ever before been distributed on an EUA basis.
“We don’t do EUAs for vaccines,” [Dr. Peter] Hotez said, “It’s a lesser review, it’s a lower-quality review, and when you’re talking about vaccinating a large chunk of the American population, that’s not acceptable.”
Three months later, the FDA issued EUAs for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, but with explicit guidance that the vaccine “has not undergone the same type of review as an FDA- approved or cleared product.”
Indeed, the highly experimental nature of the Moderna Covid-19 vaccine, in particular, is extraordinary as that vaccine is the first and only product the company has ever been allowed to distribute, and it was allegedly developed in only two days.
Any use of an experimental vaccine under an EUA must be voluntary and recipients must be informed “of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.
This information is repeated in small print on each of the FDA Covid-19 vaccine Fact Sheets, but it is largely ignored.
Dr Amanda Cohn, the executive secretary of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, was asked in October 22, 2020, if the new Covid-19 vaccines could be legally required. She respondedthat, under a EUA:
Vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory. So, early in this vaccination phase, individuals will have to be consented and they won’t be able to be mandatory.”
Under EUA status, the government is not permitted to require Covid-19 vaccinations because the vaccines are not FDA-approved and recipients are clinical trial participants. This is why states cannot legally require vaccination, despite suggestions by some legislators to do just that.
Indeed, the US military is barred from mandating the vaccines. This ban on government vaccine mandates explains why some private companies are trying to require vaccination of employees, which makes the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance on this issue potentially relevant.
The EEOC Guidance on COVID-19 Vaccination Does Not Authorize Vaccine Mandates
5/9 The EEOC updated its guidance on the issue of Covid-19 vaccination on December 16, 2020.
This update appeared five days after the FDA issued an EUA for the Pfizer vaccine and two days prior to issuing the Moderna EUA. Based on this timing, we can safely assume that the EEOC was well-aware of the contents of the FDA briefing documents and Fact Sheets, specifically the FDA statements about the lack of proof that the vaccines prevent infection with or transmission of the virus (SARS-CoV-2).
The EEOC guidance evaluates the idea of employer Covid-19 vaccine mandates under the Americans with Disabilities Act’s (ADA) “direct threat” analysis:
The ADA allows an employer to have a qualification standard that includes ‘a requirement that an individual shall not pose a direct threat to the health or safety of individuals in the workplace.’“
But the EEOC’s analysis presupposes that vaccines protect against infection, which is false.
The “direct threat” doctrine is an employer’s potential defense to a claim of disability discrimination under the ADA. According to the EEOC, “A conclusion that there is a direct threat would include a determination that an unvaccinated individual will expose others to the virus at the worksite.”
The specific but theoretical “direct threat” described here is one allegedly posed by an unvaccinated person who might become infected with the virus (SARS- CoV-2) and then spread infection to the workplace.
But no “determination” of such a threat is possible. The EEOC was careful to state only that a direct threat defense “would include” such a “determination.” The EEOC took no position on this issue because officials there were likely aware there has been no determination that vaccination prevents infection or transmission, and none is possible with current data.
Aspirational claims that vaccination “might” [be eventually be shown to] prevent infection or that “some data tends to show” such an effect are insufficient bases for a direct threat defense.
The US Supreme Court ruled in Bragdon v Abbott (1988) that the assertion of a direct threat defense must be evaluated “in light of the available medical evidence,” noting that “the views of public health authorities, such as the U.S. Public Health Service, CDC, and the National Institutes of Health, are of special weight and authority.”
6/9 Overcoming the long-standing protections of the right to bodily integrity and informed, voluntary consent to medical treatment requires articulation of an actual and imminent, not theoretical, threat presented by an unvaccinated person in the workplace.
The CDC, the National Institutes of Health and numerous other “public health authorities” have all stated that there is no evidence to show that vaccination prevents viral infection or transmission, a fact the EEOC should have presented but did not.
The EEOC guidance does not provide any legal cover for employers to require vaccination. The guidance proposes that employers might be successful in proving a direct threat if they were able to prove facts which, it turns out, cannot be proven.
Even more importantly, according to the CDC, more than 29 million Americans (and likely many, many more) have already contracted the virus (SARS-CoV-2) and recovered from it.
A recent NIH study demonstrates that these millions of “recovered” people have long-lasting, and likely permanent protection from re-infection. They present no threat of infection or transmission of the virus. However, under a blanket employer vaccine requirement, these people who are already immune would still be required to get vaccinated. It makes no sense logically or legally to require the vaccination of people who already have more protection from the virus than people who get vaccinated.
What Is the Threat Prevented by Mandatory Vaccination?
Outside the employment context, companies are demanding proof of vaccination from travelers and even movie- and concert-goers, based on the same debunked idea that vaccination with one of the Covid-19 vaccines will prevent the theoretical spread of the virus in trains, planes, movie theaters and concert halls among low-risk populations. But the relevant government agencies have all stated clearly that that the vaccines do not prevent infection or the spread of infection.
The benefit from any vaccination lies with the recipient of the vaccine. In the case of Covid-19 vaccines, vaccinated people may have fewer symptoms after becoming infected. While this is an important consideration for many people, this benefit has nothing to do with preventing the spread of the virus SARS-Cov- 2.
7/9 A vaccinated person presents at least the same “risk” of infection and transmission of the virus (if not more risk) as a person who is not vaccinated. At best, vaccination might prevent a more serious case of Covid-19 illness from developing. The vaccines do not prevent infection or the spread of the virus that causes Covid-19. They can have little or no impact on stopping transmission.
Because no one has shown that vaccination prevents infection or transmission of the virus SARS-CoV-2, a fact undisputed by all official sources, this also means that vaccination cannot help to achieve the goal of herd immunity.
“Herd immunity” means that a population can be protected from a virus after enough of the population has become immune to infection, either through exposure to the virus and later recovery, or through vaccination.
But with Covid-19, there is no proof that vaccination makes anyone immune to the virus SARS-CoV-2. Covid-19 vaccination cannot play any meaningful role in the pursuit of herd immunity because the Covid-19 vaccines do not provide immunity from infection.
Oddly, the WHO contradicts itself in arguing that Covid-19 vaccination promotes herd immunity to the virus that causes Covid-19, claiming:
To safely achieve herd immunity against COVID-19, a substantial proportion of a population would need to be vaccinated, lowering the overall amount of virus able to spread in the whole population.”
This statement is simply false. It also contradicts the WHO’s prior admission that “We do not know whether the vaccines will prevent infection and protect against onward transmission.”
If the WHO has already acknowledged that it “does not know if” the Covid-19 vaccines protect people from becoming infected or transmitting the virus, it is a deliberate lie to claim that somehow these vaccines can lead to herd immunity.
A far more useful strategy than forcing people to accept an experimental vaccine that does not even protect them from infection would be to instead protect those most vulnerable to serious illness or death as a result of infection. Tens of thousands of renowned doctors and scientists in the U.S. and around the world proposed such a strategy in October 2020.
Unfortunately, the media and Silicon Valley tech monopolies attacked and effectively censored discussion of this common sense approach as “anti- science” and “right wing” by removing discussion of the proposal from nearly all media platforms.
8/9 Yet the fake “scientific” approach to herd immunity touted by the WHO, US government agencies and politicians, and media monopolists is blatantly dishonest, and has nothing to do with “science.” The push by private companies to require vaccination and “immunity passports” is similarly based on private financial interests, not scientific research.
Government scientists admit that the Covid-19 vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission of the virus they say causes Covid-19, but many of these same scientists also dishonestly claim the vaccines will somehow prevent the spread of the virus, leading to herd immunity.
Such an approach is not only unscientific and dishonest. It’s nonsense.
Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/covid-vaccine-nonsense/5741470 iThere are no comments
Add yours
Leave a Reply
9/9 The Vaccine Passport Propaganda Template
geopolitic.org/2021/03/31/the-vaccine-passport-propaganda-template
All posts March 31, 20213:17 pm
With reports that President Joe Biden’s administration is planning for imposing a vaccine passport mandate in America, expect to see in the media a deluge of vaccine passport propaganda. What will that propaganda look like? A template illustrating several elements you can expect to see in the propaganda push was provided several weeks ago in a CNN interview.
In the first week of March, host Fareed Zakaria and his guest Arthur Caplan provided at CNN a textbook example of how to present vaccine passport propaganda to the American people. Let’s look at some of the major elements of the propaganda template as demonstrated by Zakaria and Caplan.
1) Include some short expression that the idea of vaccine passports can be troubling, but make sure to only bring this up superficially. This is accomplished in the CNN segment by starting with a clip from a short scene from the movie Casablanca. In the clip, a policeman asks to see a man’s “papers,” the man says he does not have them, and the policeman responds, “in that case we’ll have to ask you to come along.” Not shown is the remainder of the scene in which the accosted man, after presenting apparently expired papers, attempts to flee only to be gunned down. Not showing the full scene demonstrates the care demanded in the propaganda to not allow any depiction of potential dire consequences from imposing vaccine passports.
2) Frame the imposing of a vaccine passport mandate as something that is both inevitable and threatens only minimal, if any, harm. Zakaria accomplishes this task with the first sentence he utters to begin the media segment. Zakaria states: “From Casablanca to today, a demand to produce personal documents can be uncomfortable, but, post-pandemic, it’s something we’ll all likely have to get more and more comfortable with.” Masterfully, Zakaria, in addition to
1/5 minimizing the problems with passports as just causing discomfort, asserts that even that discomfort with time will disappear, suggesting objecting to vaccine passports is just an irrational or silly reaction.
3) Bring on a guest who, despite his description making him sound like someone who would be looking out for the interests of people concerned about vaccine passports, pretty much says that vaccine passports are the best thing since sliced bread. In the CNN interview the guest performing this role is Arthur Caplan, who Zakaria introduces as a “medical ethicist” and “professor at NYU.” A medical ethicist will surely provide some warning about dangers from vaccine passports, right? Yes, in many cases. But, Caplan is not that sort of medical ethicists. He is the one picked to be interviewed in a media segment designed to promote acceptance of vaccine passports.
4) Reiterate that vaccine passports are inevitable, and that people should support them. Zakaria hits the nail on the head with this, presenting this first question to his guest: “So explain why you think, basically, that this is the future and we should be comfortable with it.”
5) Declare that vaccine passports must be imposed on the American people because of coronavirus. Caplan accomplishes this task in his first words in the media segment. He states: “Well, I’m sure that the future holds vaccine passports for us, partly to protect against the spread of Covid.” Of course, as coronavirus has turned out not to be a major danger to most people, imposing a vaccine passport mandate to counter it makes no more sense than doing it to counter any other of many diseases. But, this is not a topic to be brought up when selling people on vaccine passports. Fearmongering, no matter how ridiculously unjustified, is the name of the game. This is the fraudulent message people are encouraged to act on without much critical thought: Coronavirus is gonna kill us all unless we take the shots and show our papers!
6) Say that mandating vaccine passports is really no big deal because of some other supposedly very similar restriction to which some people are already subjected. Caplan states: “And, you know, it’s not a new idea, we have it for yellow fever; there are about more than a dozen countries that say you can’t come in if you haven’t been vaccinated against yellow fever, and many others require you to show proof of vaccination if you transit through those countries.” Are the yellow fever-related requirements justified? Caplan does not say more than that, because these somewhat similar restrictions exist someplace, the mandating of vaccine passports in America is fine. That’s medical ethicist reasoning? Anyway, the yellow fever stuff, because most Americans have no experience with or knowledge of it, is a fine example for the propaganda. Few watchers of the segment will have any basis for questioning the current practice that is used to justify the new desired mandate. One big difference, though,
2/5 jumps out on further consideration. Caplan explains that the yellow fever requirements apply for just coming to several countries. In contrast, Zakaria early in the interview says the vaccine passports that will, he claims, inevitably be imposed on Americans will be required for people “to get on an airplane, to go to a concert, or to go back to work.” The vaccine passport mandate is, thus, much more troublesome for most Americans than yellow-fever-related requirements for entry into a few countries that most Americans never visit. But, the point is to quickly present the example as if it provides conclusive support no matter how far that representation is from the truth.
7) Dismiss as insignificant people’s concerns about being required, in order to go about their daily activities, to present a vaccine passport and to take a vaccine, or, really, an experimental coronavirus vaccine that is not even a vaccine under the normal meaning of the term. Assert instead that the only danger to freedom could be something theoretical that could be additionally required in the future. Here is how Zakaria puts it in a question to Caplan: “What about the concerns that many people have about privacy, about the privacy of their health data, that, you know, is there a slippery slope here — ‘OK, I’m comfortable telling you whether or not I have Covid, but does that mean it becomes OK to ask about other things?’” Of course, many people are justifiably wary of being pressured to take the shots and then having their mandated vaccine passport used to track them as they go about their daily activities. That is why this media segment and others like it are being presented, after all.
8) Dismiss any concern that vaccine passports can in fact harm freedom. Instead, describe people as benefiting from and gaining freedom by their being mandated to take experimental coronavirus vaccines and present vaccination passports in order to go about their daily activities. Oh yeah, and keep quiet about all the mass surveillance facilitated by a vaccine passport program, the vaccinations-based caste system resulting from the mandate that will make people who do not take the shots suffer, and how the vaccine passport program can be expanded to advance many additional types of control over people. Here is how Caplan puts it: “With a Covid certification, you’re going to gain freedom, you’re going to gain mobility, and I’m going to suggest that you’re probably going to be able to get certain jobs.” Talk about turning things on their head. The mandate really means that people who do not comply will be barred from the mobility they already have and fired from their jobs. Freedom is supported by rejecting the mandate, not by supporting it.
9) Insist that the vaccine passport mandate is fine because it will be applied equally to all people. This is something Zakaria and Caplan spend a long time talking about in the CNN segment. Come on guys, something bad does not
3/5 become good because it is applied to the maximum number of people, irrespective of their race, sex, or whatever. We are dealing with a mandate here, not giving everyone a serving of his favorite dessert.
10) Declare that a vaccine passport mandate helps encourage people to take the shots. (Unlike the other nine elements of the vaccine passport mandate propaganda template, this one is likely true. Threats can yield compliance. Still, the threats could deter some people from taking the experimental coronavirus vaccine shots. It sure makes you wonder about shots’ supposed safety when an extreme, and unprecedented, act of force is employed to ensure people take the shots.) States Caplan in the interview: “It also gives you an incentive to overcome vaccine hesitancy. Some people are not sure still whether they want to do the vaccine, but if you promise them more mobility, more ability to get a job, more ability to get travel, that’s a very powerful incentive to actually achieve fuller vaccination.” What Caplan is really talking about is coercion. He is saying that people who would otherwise refuse taking the shots will be forced to do so by the vaccine passport mandate severely restricting their activities and even depriving them of the ability to earn an income so long as they do not give in to the demand they take the shots. All this authoritarianism is dressed up in deceptive language. “Vaccine hesitancy” is substituted for “vaccine refusal” to disguise that the vaccine passport mandate is about stopping people from exercising free choice. “Incentive” is substituted for “coercive technique.”
Watch Zakaria and Caplan’s interview here:
Watch Video At: https://youtu.be/tPYMgwN-oII
4/5 Hopefully, many people will see through the deception and be able to prevent the implementation of the vaccine passport mandate Zakaria, Caplan, and others are promoting in the media.
5/5 MSM Has Officially Declared There’s A “FOURTH WAVE” Of COVID-19
investmentwatchblog.com/msm-has-officially-declared-theres-a-fourth-wave-of-covid-19
April 1, 2021
This article was written by Mac Slavo and originally published at SHTFplan.com
The mainstream media has officially declared that we are now going through the fourth wave of COVID-19. Is it odd that somehow most of us missed the first, second, and third waves?
Fear and panic and living a life terrified because the media told you to do not account for a “wave” of infections of a disease with only a 99.98% survival rate. And yet, the MSM is still pushing the “fourth wave” narrative, even though allegedly 146 million doses of the experimental gene therapies have been injected into people in the United States. Just because people are scared and the government goes full dictatorship does not mean there were any waves of anything.
The United States has reported an average of 65,000 new cases in the last seven days, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), up about 10,000 cases per day since the most recent low point two weeks ago, according to a report from The Hill. Of course, these numbers are likely completely made up. No one trusts these numbers anymore. and the rulers know it.
READ Ukraine declared war on Russia. Apparently, we all missed the third wave. It was in January, according to the ruling class’ propaganda outlets:
Those figures are well below the January apex of the third wave of infections when a quarter- million people a day were testing positive for the virus. – The Hill
They actually want us to believe that even though the current “numbers” are well below the high of the third wave, we are somehow magically in the “fourth wave.” It’s astonishing that so many are still falling for this, but it is also, at the same time, refreshing to see so many figuring it out.
“Our work is far from over. The war against COVID-19 is far from won. This is deadly serious,” President Joe Biden said Monday at the White House, hours after CDC Director Rochelle Walensky pleaded for the public to keep up mitigation strategies. “If we let our guard down now, we could see a virus getting worse, not better.”
Both of the aforementioned psychopaths will do anything to maintain their grip on power. It isn’t about wealth, considering they can create as much money as they want and steal from the peasants at their leisure. This is now about control. They want it all.
1/2 READ UK Care home staff to face compulsory Covid vaccination / Foreign holidays illegal from Monday Oh, and don’t forget to get your “vaccine.” The one that isn’t really a vaccine. The propaganda around this experimental gene therapy and the push to get as many injected with it as possible is unbelievable:
After a year of errors and missteps in handling the pandemic, the vaccination campaign stands out as a distinct bright spot.
The number of Americans who have received a vaccine against the coronavirus is growing by more than 2 million a day, according to CDC data. The United States is vaccinating a larger share of its population than any nation other than Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Chile, and the United Kingdom. – The Hill
There are 2 million Americans per day getting jabbed with this shot? Or are these just more false numbers and lies to try to coerce even more into taking this thing? You decide. Use your discernment and apply critical thinking to everything. Those skills are lost today.
93 views
2/2 WANT AN ADVANCE LOOK AT VACCINE PASSPORT AMERICA?
investmentwatchblog.com/want-an-advance-look-at-vaccine-passport-america
April 1, 2021
Check out this report by The Epoch Times’ Daniel Teng on the list of 5,000 foreigners tracked by China’s pervasive internal surveillance system. The lead photo of dozens of surveillance cameras on a beam in Hangzhou is chilling.
BECAUSE IT IS: Joe Biden’s ‘Vaccine Passport’ Sounds Like Precursor to China’s Social Credit Score.
The worldwide pandemic vaccine passport being proposed appear to be a lighter version (for the moment) of China’s social credit score scheme. This divides people into camps, the trustworthy and the untrustworthy. “Trustworthy” people who hew to government diktat would get more points. This is a scheme we feel sure the Left is going to love. You can guess which group you’d be in.
China’s rulers in the Communist Party began pre-announcing its social credit score in 2014. It was rolled out soon thereafter and was to have been country-wide by 2020.
Vox reports that the government’s goal in setting up the system was to “help ensure a model society in which “sincerity and trustworthiness become conscious norms of action among all the people.”
The Chinese social credit scheme is a series of databases keeping track of each person to “provide a holistic assessment of an individual or a company’s trustworthiness, based on a numerical score.”
Drew Donnelly, Ph.D., writes about the scoring system and finds “the social credit system has some similarities with the credit ratings provided for individuals and corporations in other countries, but captures information on a wider variety of behaviors.” [Emphasis added]
It’s believed that in addition to a database, the Chinese government would likely use, if it isn’t already, facial recognition technology from the ubiquitous surveillance cameras – an estimated 200-million of them.
READ Yes, America Is On The Verge Of Yet Another Toilet Paper Crisis READ Tucker: Even the Chinese know America won't survive with 'woke' liberals in charge INDUBITABLY. Vaccine passports are white supremacist.
1/2 “This does not require a long explanation, so let’s get straight to the point: poor people are much less likely to be vaccinated than higher-income persons, such as in these states. But racial demographics are not spread evenly across income deciles. . . . Intent has nothing to do with systemic racism. The fact is that, ‘Black and Latino people are far more likely to live in poverty than white people, and despite having died at higher rates throughout the pandemic, they are receiving fewer vaccines than white people.’ That’s the metric that matters.”
Inescapably, a reliance on vaccine passports means that poor and minority people will be disproportionately barred from the places that require them. Indeed, the discrepancy for vaccinations is likely to be much greater than for driver’s licenses. h/t Mark
108 views
2/2 LA Times columnist admits vaccine passports will ‘single out’ vaccine skeptics, ‘break the resistance down’
naturalnews.com/2021-04-01-columnist-admits-on-breaking-the-resistance-down.html
April 1, 2021
Bill Clinton appointee and Los Angeles Times Legal Affairs Columnist Harry Litman admitted that “vaccine passports are a good idea” because they will “single out” and “break down” vaccine skeptics. This comes amid widespread concerns with reports that the Biden regime is influencing corporations to de-facto force Americans to get the COVID-19 vaccine by restricting access to travel, products, and services.
(Natural News) (Article by Andrew White republished from NationalFile.com)
“Vaccine passports are a good idea. Among other things, it will single out the still large contingent of people who refuse vaccines, who will be foreclosed from doing a lot of things their peers can do,” tweeted Litman. “That should help break the resistance down.”
Vaccine passports are a good idea. Among other things, it will single out the still large contingent of people who refuse vaccines, who will be foreclosed from doing a lot of things their peers can do. That should help break the resistance down.
— Harry Litman (@harrylitman) March 28, 2021
1/3 A recent poll by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy that showed that a staggering one out of four Americans will reasonably refuse to take the experimental mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. It appears that many Americans remain skeptical despite the creepy corporate/government campaigns currently urging them to get vaccinated.
Watch Video At: https://youtu.be/Li-oxKhvZy0
To the displeasure of many New Yorkers, governor Andrew Cuomo has unveiled the “Excelsior Pass,” a vaccine passport that citizens of that state will need to get in order to engage in commerce, as National File reported.
The New York Post reports that the vaccine passport will force New Yorkers to “prove their vaccination status, or recent history of a negative COVID-19 test, in order to gain entry to events and businesses,” and was unveiled by Cuomo in a press release last week.
According to the New York government, the vaccine passport will be available on smartphones or be printed, and must be presented by New Yorkers to enter “businesses and become part of New York’s safe reopening.” They add, “Businesses will scan your Pass with a mobile device or tablet.”
In Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis recently announced that he will be taking executive action against the Biden regime’s development of vaccine passports. “You want the fox to guard the hen house? I mean, give me a break,” said DeSantis. “I think this is something that has huge privacy implications, it is not necessary to do.”
2/3 Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) says he’ll be taking executive action against “vaccine passports” over privacy concerns:
“You want the fox to guard the hen house? I mean, give me a break.” pic.twitter.com/99ZPY9K8AW
— The Recount (@therecount) March 29, 2021
As National File reported, the Washington Post confirmed that the Biden regime and private companies “are working to develop a standard way of handling credentials — often referred to as ‘vaccine passports’ — that would allow Americans to prove they have been vaccinated against the novel coronavirus as businesses try to reopen.” In other words, Americans will have to provide a certification of vaccination identification before being offered business.
It appears that the United States is taking inspiration for their COVID-19 response from none other than Xi Jinping’s communist China, who oversaw implementation of a QR code-based digital certificate proclaimed as the world’s first COVID-19 vaccine passport in early March, according to reports.
Read more at: NationalFile.com and VaccineHolocaust.org
3/3 Gov. Cooper Having ‘Discussions’ About Creating NC Vaccine Passport
ncrenegade.com/editorial/gov-cooper-having-discussions-about-creating-nc-vaccine-passport
By Wes Rhinier April 1, 2021
North Carolina Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper said Wednesday his administration is having “discussions” about creating “vaccine passports” — a standardized record for people to show they have been vaccinated for COVID-19.
The passports could allow businesses to determine who is admitted and who isn’t for events like concerts or perhaps even indoor dining.
President Joe Biden has said the federal government is leaving the implementation of “vaccine passports” up to the states, though his administration is expected to release guidelines soon on ways states can implement them.
The Biden administration has said it doesn’t want to create a federal database of who has been vaccinated and who hasn’t.
Cooper said Wednesday he’s looking into it.
1/2 “We want to be able to help people to be able to show others that they have gotten the vaccine because a lot of people are going to want that,” he said after a tour of a vaccination site at CaroMont Regional Medical Center in Gastonia. “So we are figuring that out now and we’re having discussions about the best way to do that.”
Read the Whole Article Here…
Plugin by: PHP Freelancer
2/2 Negative COVID Tests For Sale Are Flooding The Dark Web
ncrenegade.com/editorial/negative-covid-tests-for-sale-are-flooding-the-dark-web
By DRenegade April 1, 2021
With Covid test results now becoming the key to people doing the once basic things they used to be able to do without turning over personal health records (i.e. go to the store and buy a sandwich, or do their laundry) it should come as no surprise that dark web searches for Covid test results are skyrocketing.
In fact, Uswitch recently analyzed Google searches and found that the number of people who were searching for “buy covid test results” in January 2021 had doubled since August 2020.
Other media outlets are also starting to pick up on the trend. “At the moment we are scanning more than 200 million dark web pages per week. We do see an increase in Covid-19 vaccine proof or Covid-19 test result but also there were some tests results on offer in certain marketplaces,” a cybersecurity expert in New Zealand told NZHerald this week.
More…
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fake test results for a price to provide security against tyranny. I wonder if the illegal government will still require a mask if I have my “papers”?
1/2 Macron Closes Schools, Orders National Lockdown for Another Month
pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2021/04/01/macron-closes-schools-orders-another-national-lockdown-for-a- month-n1436698
News & Politics By Rick Moran Apr 01, 2021 9:35 AM ET
AP Photo/Francois Mori
French President Emmanuel Macron announced a third lockdown in France amid the pandemic and ordered schools closed for at least three weeks as France reels from a surge in Covid cases that’s overwhelming hospitals.
Macron wouldn’t be in such a pickle if the vaccine rollout had gone smoothly. But like most other EU countries — with notable exceptions — the number of vaccinated citizens has fallen far behind projections.
There’s little doubt that this surge of Covid cases is a threat. Hospitals are filling up all across Western Europe and national leaders are torn. German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced a lockdown last week but the pushback was so severe, she walked it back. But the problem
1/3 isn’t going away. The German Intensive Care association is demanding Merkel initiate a “hard lockdown” nationwide.
Reuters:
Christian Karagiannidis, the DIVI’s scientific head, said about 1,000 additional patients had ended up in intensive care since the middle of March. On Wednesday, 3,680 people were in intensive care in Germany, DIVI data show.
“If this rate continues, we will reach the regular capacity limit in less than four weeks,” he told the Rheinische Post daily. “We are not overexaggerating. Our warnings are driven by the figures.”
The intensive care workers in Germany are calling for a minimum two-week lockdown with mandatory testing of students and teachers. Merkel, who at first won high praise from the lockdown crowd in the U.S. for the severity of her methods, now faces a growing revolt among German states that are pushing back against her increasingly draconian measures and her chaotic response.
In France, it’s inevitable that there will be some resistance to the lockdown orders.
Associated Press:
Macron said restrictions already applying in the Paris region and elsewhere will be extended next week to the whole country, for at least one month. Under these restrictions, people are allowed to go outside for leisure, but within a 10-kilometer (6 miles) radius from their homes — and without socializing. Also, most non-essential shops are closed down.
In addition, Macron promised to speed up the vaccination campaign by giving access to all people aged 60 and over in mid-April, those aged 50 and over in mid-May and the rest of the population a month later. So far, France has prioritized people living in nursing homes and those aged 70 and over, as well as health care workers and people with serious health conditions.
France was already under some heavy restrictions, including all restaurants, bars, gyms, theaters, and museums being closed since October. But French school kids have made out much better than children in most other Western countries.
Macron reaffirmed his views against a prolonged closure of schools as “increasing social inequalities.” According to figures reported by the U.N. education agency UNESCO, to this date, France has closed schools for 10 weeks in total since the start of the pandemic — compared to 27 weeks in the U.K., 28 weeks in Germany and 47 in the United States.
A debate is scheduled in parliament Thursday that will address the virus situation and the new measures.
2/3 Macron is following a “best practices” strategy, obeying the recommendations of public health officials who never tire of telling us that the end of the world is nigh unless we do what they say. Many of their recommendations are reasonable and sound, but enough studies have been done of these total lockdowns that suggest they are counterproductive at best.
It’s time for Macron and other EU leaders to realize that and change their strategy. Their citizens deserve better.
3/3 Diaper Report 3/28/21
ericpetersautos.com/2021/03/28/diaper-report-3-28-21/
March 28, 2021
Forcing healthy people to wear a “mask” as a condition of being allowed to live was never meant to “stop the spread.” It was meant to establish the precedent – in this case, for forcing healthy people to submit to a vaccination.
To many vaccinations. And more than just that.
A writer for the Daily Beast makes the point – without putting it quite that way.
Instead, he uses the world-turned-upside-down logic of the “mask” pushers – i.e., that you must accept the vaccine as the price of being allowed to work, shop and socialize with others because you haven’t got the right to expose others to sickness.
He writes, in reverse-logic form:
“ Just as I may have a right not to wear a mask or get a shot, you have a right to be able to walk down the street without me giving you a lethal disease. Choosing not to get vaccinated isn’t “freedom” any more than driving drunk is. It’s endangering other people. It is
1/6 profoundly unethical. ”
Except it isn’t either thing – if you’re not sick. Because a person who isn’t sick can’t ”give you a lethal disease.”
Presupposing sickness is the same as presupposing guilt, which is vile enough. And much more dangerous to societal health than a virus – especially one that doesn’t kill 99.8- something percent of the people who are infected by it.
Because presupposing sickness would kill 100 percent of everyone’s right to be presumed innocent.
Of anything.
If the person who wrote the article has the right to presume I am sick then surely I have just as much right to presuppose he’s mentally ill, say – and insist on “testing” him to establish that he is not. And to deny him entry into a restaurant or shop if he does not submit – if he does not produce an official document attesting that he has been examined by a psychiatrist and found sane – because otherwise he might be a dangerous lunatic and that risk, which is possible, is simply unbearable.
Perhaps someone will explain why not.
The moral toxicity of this sentence-first/verdict-preordained on the basis of nothing more than someone’s finger pointing fear ought to be obvious (the writer apparently does not understand the difference between ethics and morals).
Both rely on the same hysterically malevolent nothing – an accusation about a possibility purveyed as a certainty used to justify punishment, preemptively. And that is precisely what the writer prescribes: “Too much is at stake to wait for people who refuse to get vaccinated. We need a plan to move forward without them.”
Italics added.
More on this “we” in a moment.
2/6 The plan, of course, is to “move forward” by closing the doors to life to people who refuse to get a vaccine that they don’t need – healthy people having almost no risk of being killed or even made seriously sick by this virus – while the risk of taking a vaccine that has been rushed to market, without long-term testing of side effects and that is known to be capable of causing death in some cases is very real and quite possibly greater than the extremely slight, almost nonexistent risk assumed by healthy people choosing not to take the vaccine.
They are to be locked-out rather than locked down.
These “anti-vaxxers” – take note of the language, intended to marginalize and even dehumanize people, in order to make what is done to them seem not only okay but necessary – must be transmuted into a pariah caste; they must be cordoned off, marked as untouchables. No freedom of moment, no freedom of association – even with people who wish to associate with them, it is important to state. As has been the case with the “masks.” It is not sufficient for these j’ accuse hysterics to “mask” themselves and to “mask” their own businesses – if that is what they wish.
Everyone must “mask.”
Which brings up interesting questions about the “masks.”
Shouldn’t the “maskers” be content to “mask” themselves if the “masks” protect them? Shouldn’t the same apply to vaccines? If one has received the Jab, then one is safe – assuming the vaccine is in fact effective. In which case it ought not to matter whether others do not get it, since they can’t get others sick – assuming, of course, that they are in fact sick.
The writer has a very sick answer for this. He says that the vaccine is only “95 percent effective” (a number pulled out of a hat, as “we” really have no idea just how “effective” whatever is in this “vaccine” is, but let’s leave that lie for purposes of the immediate discussion) and thus the possibility of any chance – however attenuated – that someone might be sick and that someone else might get sick justifies both the “mask” and the shot.
3/6 Which means more shots, going forward – to be justified on the same basis. How can one argue against the ordinary flu shot, for instance, once one accept the basis for imposing the WuFlu shot?
Shots for all, for everything – forever.
Or else.
This is how the world – as we once knew it – ends. Because there is no end – no limit – to such “reasoning.” It opens the door to general presumptive guilt – of anything – based on anyone’s assertion – not just about sickness. And does it in the complete absence of a scintilla of specific evidence to support that a given individual may be guilty of whatever it is that’s being generally asserted he might be guilty of because anyone might be guilty of it.
The writer says this without saying it plainly, by using the royal “we” so popular among such great minds.
To efface the individual. To collectivize him. With certain self-appointed individuals embodying the supposed will of this collective.
“We need written proof of vaccination that is as difficult to counterfeit or falsify as a hundred- dollar bill. We need it to be standardized and easy to show to others. And we need to start rolling it out in this phase of the pandemic, not the next one. Call them “vaccine passports”; simple, standardized documents, digital or printed, that enable society and the economy to get back to semi-normal without waiting for every anti-vaxxer to see the light.”
It is as breathtaking as it is horrifying – for its thoughtless, reckless imbecility. To give the writer the benefit of the doubt as regards the latter.
This person could have written similar piece for Der Sturmer – another publication the specialized in “we” – and in the pariah-ization of a caste characterized as a threat to the health of the collective.
No need to find the individual guilty of anything. It is sufficient to punish him – to make outrageous demands of him – on the basis of assertions made by people such as this writer who insist their hysterical fears justify them as such.
Americans are to be forced, de facto, to carry and present their “papers” everywhere they go.
4/6 And these “papers’ will almost certainly not be paper at all. They will be digital – embedded technology in smartphones, which it will become de facto necessary to carry everywhere – so as to monitor where everyone goes and what everyone does, all the time. It will no longer be possible, as a practical matter, to not have a smartphone – if you wish to leave your home, at any rate – and take with you all that it contains and all that is capable of doing, all the time.
And once it is cemented that healthy people can be forced to take this vaccine – on the basis of an assertion about their being possibly sick and assertions, however attenuated, about the possibility that they might spread a sickness no one has shown they have – there will no longer be any reason to not force the population to get any vaccine peddled as a palliative against any sickness, ad infinitum – which means forever, ongoing.
It will mean accepting as moral the idea that our health – however hypothetical – is the public’s business. That “we” have the right to inject you, shun you and inevitably, worse for those who still refuse.
It always gets worse when sicknesses such as this begin to spread.
“I suspect that when enough businesses and other public places go “vaxx-only,” that may incentivize some of the unvaccinated to change their behavior. If they can’t get into a baseball game, a graduation, a diner or a veterinarian’s office, they might find themselves re- examining their opinions about the vaccine.
“This is what freedom looks like,” the useful idiot writes with predictable moral inversion.
No, it doesn’t.
Freedom looks like leaving people alone unless they have done something to harm someone else. Quivering fears of The Might do not rise to the standard, unless “we” wish to quiver in fear, perpetually – of what others worry we “might” do – and about what they are going to do
5/6 to us on that basis.
Which is far worse than worrying about the threat posed by a virus that doesn’t even make most people feel sick.
. . .
Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos 721 Hummingbird Lane SE Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
My eBook about car buying (new and used) is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here. If that fails, email me at [email protected] and I will send you a copy directly!
6/6 It’s ‘entirely possible’ vaccine campaigns ‘will be used for massive-scale depopulation’: Former Pfizer VP
lifesitenews.com/mobile/opinion/former-pfizer-vp-to-aflds-entirely-possible-this-will-be-used-for-massive-scale- depopulation
Dr. Mike Yeadon Arshad Ebrahim / YouTube
Mordechai Sones
Mon Mar 29, 2021 - 2:42 pm EST
Introduction by LifeSiteNews journalist Patrick Delaney.
March 29, 2020 (America’s Frontline Doctors) – Dr. Michael Yeadon, a former Vice President and Chief Science Officer for Pfizer, spoke with great urgency to America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) late last week warning that the drive to inject the largest possible portion of the population with experimental COVID-19 vaccines is “madness,” involves “evil,” includes “crimes against humanity” and may have the intention of “massive-scale depopulation.”
Yeadon’s comments are also made in the broader context of a sharp debate over theories offered by Geert Vanden Bossche, a vaccine expert associated with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, who, with the appearance of a “whistleblower” has also warned of a “global catastrophe without equal” due to the way these vaccines have been utilized.
1/8 In short, Vanden Bossche fears these experimental vaccines, which do not prevent infection or transmission of the virus, will foster the development of “dangerous variants” that will be far more lethal to the unvaccinated and vaccinated alike, who, for different reasons, will not have sufficient immunity to protect them.
In addition to the immediate halting of the current vaccination campaign, Vanden Bossche’s proposed solution is yet another worldwide vaccination of a different type.
While Yeadon also fears terrible consequences due to these vaccination campaigns, he strongly disagrees with Vanden Bossche’s theory, and with the proposed solution of more vaccination.
“I think the Gerrt Vanden Bossche story is highly suspect,” Yeadon said. “There is no evidence at all that vaccination is leading or will lead to ‘dangerous variants’. I am worried that it’s some kind of trick.”
Last December, Yeadon, a British national, filed a petition with the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to immediately suspend testing on these experimental vaccines due to many safety concerns, including pathogenic priming, which involves “an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real, ‘wild’ virus after vaccination.”
In their white paper on the topic, AFLDS warned that such reactions, which can be fatal, “are difficult to prove,” as they are often interpreted as infection with “a worse virus,” or, perhaps, a more dangerous variant.
Having maintained that there is “no need of vaccines” for COVID-19, Yeadon emphasizes below, “PLEASE warn every person not to go near top up vaccines. There is absolutely no need to them.”
------
America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) spoke to former Pfizer Vice President and Chief Science Officer Dr. Mike Yeadon about his views on the COVID-19 vaccine, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, the regulatory authorities, and more.
At the outset, Dr. Yeadon said: “I’m well aware of the global crimes against humanity being perpetrated against a large proportion of the world’s population.
“I feel great fear, but I’m not deterred from giving expert testimony to multiple groups of able lawyers like Rocco Galati in Canada and Reiner Fuellmich in Germany.
“I have absolutely no doubt that we are in the presence of evil (not a determination I’ve ever made before in a 40-year research career) and dangerous products.
2/8 “In the U.K., it’s abundantly clear that the authorities are bent on a course which will result in administering ‘vaccines’ to as many of the population as they can. This is madness, because even if these agents were legitimate, protection is needed only by those at notably elevated risk of death from the virus. In those people, there might even be an argument that the risks are worth bearing. And there definitely are risks which are what I call ‘mechanistic’: inbuilt in the way they work.
“But all the other people, those in good health and younger than 60 years, perhaps a little older, they don’t perish from the virus. In this large group, it’s wholly unethical to administer something novel and for which the potential for unwanted effects after a few months is completely uncharacterized.
“In no other era would it be wise to do what is stated as the intention.
“Since I know this with certainty, and I know those driving it know this too, we have to enquire: What is their motive?
“While I don’t know, I have strong theoretical answers, only one of which relates to money and that motive doesn’t work, because the same quantum can be arrived at by doubling the unit cost and giving the agent to half as many people. Dilemma solved. So it’s something else. Appreciating that, by entire population, it is also intended that minor children and eventually babies are to be included in the net, and that’s what I interpret to be an evil act.
“There is no medical rationale for it. Knowing as I do that the design of these ‘vaccines’ results, in the expression in the bodies of recipients, expression of the spike protein, which has adverse biological effects of its own which, in some people, are harmful (initiating blood coagulation and activating the immune ‘complement system’), I’m determined to point out that those not at risk from this virus should not be exposed to the risk of unwanted effects from these agents.”
INTERVIEWER: In a talk you gave four months ago, you said:
3/8 The most likely duration of immunity to a respiratory virus like SARS CoV-2 is multiple years. Why do I say that? We actually have the data for a virus that swept through parts of the world seventeen years ago called SARS, and remember SARS CoV-2 is 80% similar to SARS, so I think that’s the best comparison that anyone can provide.
The evidence is clear: These very clever cellular immunologists studied all the people they could get hold of who had survived SARS 17 years ago. They took a blood sample, and they tested whether they responded or not to the original SARS and they all did; they all had perfectly normal, robust T cell memory. They were actually also protected against SARS CoV- 2, because they’re so similar; it’s cross immunity.
So, I would say the best data that exists is that immunity should be robust for at least 17 years. I think it’s entirely possible that it is lifelong. The style of the responses of these people’s T cells were the same as if you’ve been vaccinated and then you come back years later to see if that immunity has been retained. So I think the evidence is really strong that the duration of immunity will be multiple years, and possibly lifelong.
In other words, previous exposure to SARS – that is, a variant similar to SARS CoV-2 – bestowed SARS CoV-2 immunity.
The Israel government cites new variants to justify lockdowns, flight closures, restrictions, and Green Passport issuance. Given the Supreme Court verdict, do you think it may be possible to preempt future government measures with accurate information about variants, immunity, herd immunity, etc. that could be provided to the lawyers who will be challenging those future measures?
DR. YEADON: “What I outlined in relation to immunity to SARS is precisely what we’re seeing with SARS-CoV-2. The study is from one of the best labs in their field.
“So, theoretically, people could test their T-cell immunity by measuring the responses of cells in a small sample of their blood. There are such tests, they are not ‘high throughout’ and they are likely to cost a few hundred USD each on scale. But not thousands. The test I’m aware of is not yet commercially available, but research only in U.K.
“However, I expect the company could be induced to provide test kits “for research” on scale, subject to an agreement. If you were to arrange to test a few thousand non-vaccinated Israelis, it may be a double edged sword. Based on other countries experiences, 30-50% of people had prior immunity & additionally around 25% have been infected & are now immune.
“Personally, I wouldn’t want to deal with the authorities on their own terms: that you’re suspected as a source of infection until proven otherwise. You shouldn’t need to be proving you’re not a health risk to others. Those without symptoms are never a health threat to others. And in any case, once those who are concerned about the virus are vaccinated, there is just no argument for anyone else needing to be vaccinated.”
4/8 INTERVIEWER: My understanding of a “leaky vaccine” is that it only lessens symptoms in the vaccinated, but does not stop transmission; it therefore allows the spread of what then becomes a more deadly virus.
For example, in China they deliberately use leaky Avian Flu vaccines to quickly cull flocks of chicken, because the unvaccinated die within three days. In Marek’s Disease, from which they needed to save all the chickens, the only solution was to vaccinate 100% of the flock, because all unvaccinated were at high risk of death. So how a leaky vax is utilized is intention-driven, that is, it is possible that the intent can be to cause great harm to the unvaccinated.
Stronger strains usually would not propagate through a population because they kill the host too rapidly, but if the vaccinated experience only less-serious disease, then they spread these strains to the unvaccinated who contract serious disease and die.
Do you agree with this assessment? Furthermore, do you agree that if the unvaccinated become the susceptible ones, the only way forward is HCQ prophylaxis for those who haven’t already had COVID-19?
Would the Zelenko Protocol work against these stronger strains if this is the case?
And if many already have the aforementioned previous “17-year SARS immunity”, would that then not protect from any super-variant?
Advertisement DR. YEADON: “I think the Gerrt Vanden Bossche story is highly suspect. There is no evidence at all that vaccination is leading or will lead to ‘dangerous variants’. I am worried that it’s some kind of trick.
“As a general rule, variants form very often, routinely, and tend to become less dangerous & more infectious over time, as it comes into equilibrium with its human host. Variants generally don’t become more dangerous.
“No variant differs from the original sequence by more than 0.3%. In other words, all variants are at least 99.7% identical to the Wuhan sequence.
“It’s a fiction, and an evil one at that, that variants are likely to “escape immunity”.
“Not only is it intrinsically unlikely – because this degree of similarity of variants means zero chance that an immune person (whether from natural infection or from vaccination) will be made ill by a variant – but it’s empirically supported by high-quality research.
“The research I refer to shows that people recovering from infection or who have been vaccinated ALL have a wide range of immune cells which recognize ALL the variants.
5/8 “This paper shows WHY the extensive molecular recognition by the immune system makes the tiny changes in variants irrelevant.
“I cannot say strongly enough: The stories around variants and need for top up vaccines are FALSE. I am concerned there is a very malign reason behind all this. It is certainly not backed by the best ways to look at immunity. The claims always lack substance when examined, and utilize various tricks, like manipulating conditions for testing the effectiveness of antibodies. Antibodies are probably rather unimportant in host protection against this virus. There have been a few ‘natural experiments’, people who unfortunately cannot make antibodies, yet are able quite successfully to repel this virus. They definitely are better off with antibodies than without. I mention these rare patients because they show that antibodies are not essential to host immunity, so some contrived test in a lab of antibodies and engineered variant viruses do NOT justify need for top up vaccines.
“The only people who might remain vulnerable and need prophylaxis or treatment are those who are elderly and/or ill and do not wish to receive a vaccine (as is their right).
“The good news is that there are multiple choices available: hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, budesonide (inhaled steroid used in asthmatics), and of course oral Vitamin D, zinc, azithromycin etc. These reduce the severity to such an extent that this virus did not need to become a public health crisis.”
INTERVIEWER: Do you feel the FDA does a good job regulating big pharma? In what ways does big pharma get around the regulator? Do you feel they did so for the mRNA injection?
DR. YEADON: “Until recently, I had high regard for global medicines regulators. When I was in Pfizer, and later CEO of a biotech I founded (Ziarco, later acquired by Novartis), we interacted respectfully with FDA, EMA, and the U.K. MHRA. Always good quality interactions.
“Recently, I noticed that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) had made a grant to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)! Can that ever be appropriate? They’re funded by public money. They should never accept money from a private body.
“So here is an example where the U.K. regulator has a conflict of interest.
“The European Medicines Agency failed to require certain things as disclosed in the ‘hack’ of their files while reviewing the Pfizer vaccine.
“You can find examples on Reiner Fuellmich’s ‘Corona Committee’ online.
“So I no longer believe the regulators are capable of protecting us. ‘Approval’ is therefore meaningless.
6/8 “Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg and I petitioned the EMA Dec 1, 2020 on the genetic vaccines. They ignored us.
“Recently, we wrote privately to them, warning of blood clots, they ignored us. When we went public with our letter, we were completely censored. Days later, more than ten countries paused use of a vaccine citing blood clots.
“I think the big money of pharma plus cash from BMGF creates the environment where saying no just isn’t an option for the regulator.
“I must return to the issue of ‘top up vaccines’ (booster shots) and it is this whole narrative which I fear will he exploited and used to gain unparalleled power over us.
“PLEASE warn every person not to go near top up vaccines. There is absolutely no need to them.
“As there’s no need for them, yet they’re being made in pharma, and regulators have stood aside (no safety testing), I can only deduce they will be used for nefarious purposes.
“For example, if someone wished to harm or kill a significant proportion of the world’s population over the next few years, the systems being put in place right now will enable it.
“It’s my considered view that it is entirely possible that this will be used for massive-scale depopulation.”
Reprinted with permission from America’s Frontline Doctors.
LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here.
RELATED
Former Pfizer VP: ‘No need for vaccines,’ ‘the pandemic is effectively over’
Priest on COVID vaccine: ‘The risks far outweigh the benefits’
At least nine countries pull AstraZeneca’s vaccine over blood clot reports
‘Healthy’ 28-year-old mom dies suddenly following second Pfizer shot
Portuguese mother, 41, dies two days after taking Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine
39-year-old nurse aide dies ‘within 48 hours’ of receiving mandated COVID-19 shot
‘Very healthy’ Miami obstetrician, 56, dies 16 days after receiving Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine
Johns Hopkins scientist: ‘A medical certainty’ Pfizer vaccine caused death of Florida doctor
Advertisement
7/8 Covid Vaccine Nonsense US-based human rights lawyer breaks down the contradictory claims of “effectiveness”, the incomplete studies and legal minefield of forced use of experimental vaccines
off-guardian.org/2021/03/30/covid-vaccine-nonsense
March 30, 2021
The efforts to require every American to be injected with an experimental vaccine for Covid- 19 are based on the false notion that vaccination will protect recipients from becoming infected with SARS-Cov-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, or protect them from passing along the infection to other people.
The FDA, the CDC, the NIH and the pharmaceutical companies involved have all stated very clearly that there is no evidence to support this idea.
None of the three experimental Covid-19 vaccines now being distributed in the United States have been demonstrated to protect against infection with or transmission of the virus believed to cause Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2), or even prevent symptoms of Covid-19 disease from developing.
This fact is indisputable, yet media, medical providers, and politicians continue to repeat the lie that vaccination provides “immunity to Covid” and even sources like the Mayo Clinic make irresponsible and unsubstantiated claims that vaccination “might prevent you from getting” or “spreading” Covid-19. The same lies are the basis for President Biden’s hard press for mass vaccination to “make this Independence Day truly special.”
1/9 On February 27, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it had “issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the third vaccine for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19),” the Janssen (Johnson&Johnson) Covid-19 vaccine.
This announcement is virtually identical to the EUAs previously issued for Covid-19 vaccines produced by Pfizer-Biontech and Moderna.
In each of the EUAs, the FDA has been careful to avoid any claim that the vaccines provide protection against infection or transmission of the virus. Similarly, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have each publicly stated that the vaccines have NOT been shown to prevent infection or transmission.
All of their regulatory documents and commentary addressing the issue state clearly that there is no evidence that the vaccines affect either infection with or transmission of the virus, nor do they prevent symptoms of Covid-19 from appearing.
The US Government Position
The FDA’s Briefing Document analyzing clinical trial data for the Pfizer vaccine, released the day before the FDA’s issuance of an EUA for that vaccine, noted (on page 47):
Data are limited to assess the effect of the vaccine against asymptomatic infection
And:
Data are limited to assess the effect of the vaccine against transmission of SARS-CoV-2 [virus] from individuals who are infected despite vaccination.”
The FDA Briefing Document on the Moderna vaccine stated the same fact, while also describing plans for a future clinical trial to measure infection prevention, but that will not be completed until December 31, 2023 (p.47). The FDA’s review of the Janssen vaccine noted the same “limited” data…
to assess the effect of the vaccine in preventing asymptomatic infection… and definitive conclusions cannot be drawn at this time.”
“Limited data” means there is in fact no evidence to support those conclusions.
The CDC Advisory Committee that recommended emergency use of the Moderna vaccine noted:
“the level of certainty for the benefits of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine was… type 4 (very low certainty) for the estimates of prevention of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and all- cause death.”
2/9 The CDC guidance to Covid vaccine administrators (January 2, 2021) asks:
Can a person who has received a Covid-19 vaccine still spread COVID-19? At this time, we do not know if COVID-19 vaccination will have any effect on preventing transmission.”
The World Health Organization (WHO) on January 26, 2021 similarly admitted:
We do not know whether the vaccines will prevent infection and protect against onward transmission.”
This is all very confusing due to the language the FDA, NIH and other agencies use to describe the potential effectiveness of the vaccines. For example, in the NIH analysis of the Janssen vaccine data, the authors note the vaccine’s reported effectiveness in “preventing moderate and severe COVID-19 in adults.”
This deliberately blurs the distinction between infection with a virus (SARS-Cov-2) and the illness called Covid-19.
The NIH claims the Janssen vaccine prevents or lessens symptoms of the illness Covid-19, but is silent on whether the vaccine prevents infection or transmission of the virus said to cause Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2). The similar analysis for the Moderna vaccine notes, however:
“[T]here is not yet enough available data to draw conclusions as to whether the [Moderna] vaccine can impact SARS-CoV-2 transmission.”
Unfortunately, we have seen many reports over the last few months of deaths attributed to Covid-19 days and weeks after vaccination (see here and here (video)), confirming that vaccinated people can and do become infected with the virus.
Health officials have avoided blaming these deaths on side effects from the vaccines themselves. Instead, they say these deaths are the result of infections with the virus (SARS- Cov-2) acquired after receiving the vaccines.
Particularly devastating reports from an isolated Kentucky monastery describe how two nuns died of Covid-19 after receiving Covid-19 vaccines, despite the complete absence of any cases of infection in the monastery during the ten months prior to vaccination.
Moderna’s chief science officer was quoted in the British Medical Journal about the clinical trials in 2020 that resulted in the FDA’s decision to grant a EUA to the Moderna shot:
Our trial will not demonstrate prevention of transmission,” Zaks said, “because in order to do that you have to swab people twice a week for very long periods, and that becomes operationally untenable.”
3/9 The most important questions about the experimental Covid-19 vaccines were not even asked during the clinical trials: Do these experimental vaccines prevent infection with the virus and do they prevent transmission of that virus? The short answer is No.
The FDA has stated clearly in each of the Covid vaccine Briefing Documents (see Moderna document here, Pfizer here, Janssen here) that the trials were not even designed prove or disprove a hypothesis that the vaccines prevent infection or transmission of the virus, or even prevent symptoms of Covid-19 from developing.
The FDA issued Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) for the Pfizer, Moderna and Janssen vaccines on December 11 and December 18, 2020, and on February 27, 2021, respectively.
The EUAs indicate that the vaccines “prevent severe Covid-19,” that is, they don’t prevent infection or development of symptoms after infection, but they may make the illness less severe.
The EUAs explicitly deny any evidence that the Pfizer, Moderna or Janssen vaccines prevent infection, or prevent hospitalization or even death from Covid-19 after vaccination. The highly publicized “success rates” of the vaccines refer only their potential ability to lessen the severity of those symptoms, but there is “no data” that they prevent the infection that could cause those symptoms.
Mandating Vaccination Under Emergency Use Authorization is Impermissible
An EUA is not “FDA Approval.”
An EUA indicates that a product has not been fully tested but, despite the obvious risks, distribution is permitted because the government declared a “public health emergency” in January 2020.
As the FDA notes in its Information Sheet for the Moderna shot:
The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine has not undergone the same type of review as an FDA- approved or cleared product.”
The FDA granted EUAs for all three experimental vaccines after less than five months of clinical trials, with most of trial data still to be collected. All three vaccines will be in clinical trial status through January 31, 2023.
According to comments from vaccine scientists in September 2020 (prior to the Covid-19 EUA issuances), no vaccine had ever before been distributed on an EUA basis.
“We don’t do EUAs for vaccines,” [Dr. Peter] Hotez said, “It’s a lesser review, it’s a lower- quality review, and when you’re talking about vaccinating a large chunk of the American population, that’s not acceptable.”
4/9 Three months later, the FDA issued EUAs for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, but with explicit guidance that the vaccine “has not undergone the same type of review as an FDA- approved or cleared product.”
Indeed, the highly experimental nature of the Moderna Covid-19 vaccine, in particular, is extraordinary as that vaccine is the first and only product the company has ever been allowed to distribute, and it was allegedly developed in only two days.
Any use of an experimental vaccine under an EUA must be voluntary and recipients must be informed “of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.
This information is repeated in small print on each of the FDA Covid-19 vaccine Fact Sheets, but it is largely ignored.
Dr Amanda Cohn, the executive secretary of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, was asked in October 22, 2020, if the new Covid-19 vaccines could be legally required. She responded that, under a EUA:
Vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory. So, early in this vaccination phase, individuals will have to be consented and they won’t be able to be mandatory.”
Under EUA status, the government is not permitted to require Covid-19 vaccinations because the vaccines are not FDA-approved and recipients are clinical trial participants. This is why states cannot legally require vaccination, despite suggestions by some legislators to do just that.
Indeed, the US military is barred from mandating the vaccines. This ban on government vaccine mandates explains why some private companies are trying to require vaccination of employees, which makes the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance on this issue potentially relevant.
The EEOC Guidance on Covid-19 Vaccination Does Not Authorize Vaccine Mandates
The EEOC updated its guidance on the issue of Covid-19 vaccination on December 16, 2020.
This update appeared five days after the FDA issued an EUA for the Pfizer vaccine and two days prior to issuing the Moderna EUA. Based on this timing, we can safely assume that the EEOC was well-aware of the contents of the FDA briefing documents and Fact Sheets, specifically the FDA statements about the lack of proof that the vaccines prevent infection with or transmission of the virus (SARS-CoV-2).
The EEOC guidance evaluates the idea of employer Covid-19 vaccine mandates under the Americans with Disabilities Act’s (ADA) “direct threat” analysis:
5/9 The ADA allows an employer to have a qualification standard that includes ‘a requirement that an individual shall not pose a direct threat to the health or safety of individuals in the workplace.’“
But the EEOC’s analysis presupposes that vaccines protect against infection, which is false.
The “direct threat” doctrine is an employer’s potential defense to a claim of disability discrimination under the ADA. According to the EEOC, “A conclusion that there is a direct threat would include a determination that an unvaccinated individual will expose others to the virus at the worksite.”
The specific but theoretical “direct threat” described here is one allegedly posed by an unvaccinated person who might become infected with the virus (SARS-CoV-2) and then spread infection to the workplace.
But no “determination” of such a threat is possible. The EEOC was careful to state only that a direct threat defense “would include” such a “determination.” The EEOC took no position on this issue because officials there were likely aware there has been no determination that vaccination prevents infection or transmission, and none is possible with current data.
Aspirational claims that vaccination “might” [be eventually be shown to] prevent infection or that “some data tends to show” such an effect are insufficient bases for a direct threat defense.
The US Supreme Court ruled in Bragdon v Abbott (1988) that the assertion of a direct threat defense must be evaluated “in light of the available medical evidence,” noting that “the views of public health authorities, such as the U.S. Public Health Service, CDC, and the National Institutes of Health, are of special weight and authority.”
Overcoming the long-standing protections of the right to bodily integrity and informed, voluntary consent to medical treatment requires articulation of an actual and imminent, not theoretical, threat presented by an unvaccinated person in the workplace.
The CDC, the National Institutes of Health and numerous other “public health authorities” have all stated that there is no evidence to show that vaccination prevents viral infection or transmission, a fact the EEOC should have presented but did not.
The EEOC guidance does not provide any legal cover for employers to require vaccination. The guidance proposes that employers might be successful in proving a direct threat if they were able to prove facts which, it turns out, cannot be proven.
Even more importantly, according to the CDC, more than 29 million Americans (and likely many, many more) have already contracted the virus (SARS-CoV-2) and recovered from it.
6/9 A recent NIH study demonstrates that these millions of “recovered” people have long-lasting, and likely permanent protection from re-infection. They present no threat of infection or transmission of the virus. However, under a blanket employer vaccine requirement, these people who are already immune would still be required to get vaccinated. It makes no sense logically or legally to require the vaccination of people who already have more protection from the virus than people who get vaccinated.
What is the Threat Prevented by Mandatory Vaccination?
Outside the employment context, companies are demanding proof of vaccination from travelers and even movie- and concert-goers, based on the same debunked idea that vaccination with one of the Covid-19 vaccines will prevent the theoretical spread of the virus in trains, planes, movie theaters and concert halls among low-risk populations. But the relevant government agencies have all stated clearly that that the vaccines do not prevent infection or the spread of infection.
The benefit from any vaccination lies with the recipient of the vaccine. In the case of Covid-19 vaccines, vaccinated people may have fewer symptoms after becoming infected. While this is an important consideration for many people, this benefit has nothing to do with preventing the spread of the virus SARS-Cov-2.
A vaccinated person presents at least the same “risk” of infection and transmission of the virus (if not more risk) as a person who is not vaccinated. At best, vaccination might prevent a more serious case of Covid-19 illness from developing. The vaccines do not prevent infection or the spread of the virus that causes Covid-19. They can have little or no impact on stopping transmission.
Because no one has shown that vaccination prevents infection or transmission of the virus SARS-CoV-2, a fact undisputed by all official sources, this also means that vaccination cannot help to achieve the goal of herd immunity.
“Herd immunity” means that a population can be protected from a virus after enough of the population has become immune to infection, either through exposure to the virus and later recovery, or through vaccination.
But with Covid-19, there is no proof that vaccination makes anyone immune to the virus SARS-CoV-2. Covid-19 vaccination cannot play any meaningful role in the pursuit of herd immunity because the Covid-19 vaccines do not provide immunity from infection.
Oddly, the WHO contradicts itself in arguing that Covid-19 vaccination promotes herd immunity to the virus that causes Covid-19, claiming:
7/9 To safely achieve herd immunity against COVID-19, a substantial proportion of a population would need to be vaccinated, lowering the overall amount of virus able to spread in the whole population.”
This statement is simply false. It also contradicts the WHO’s prior admission that “We do not know whether the vaccines will prevent infection and protect against onward transmission.”
If the WHO has already acknowledged that it “does not know if” the Covid-19 vaccines protect people from becoming infected or transmitting the virus, it is a deliberate lie to claim that somehow these vaccines can lead to herd immunity.
A far more useful strategy than forcing people to accept an experimental vaccine that does not even protect them from infection would be to instead protect those most vulnerable to serious illness or death as a result of infection. Tens of thousands of renowned doctors and scientists in the U.S. and around the world proposed such a strategy in October 2020.
Unfortunately, the media and Silicon Valley tech monopolies attacked and effectively censored discussion of this common sense approach as “anti-science” and “right wing” by removing discussion of the proposal from nearly all media platforms.
Yet the fake “scientific” approach to herd immunity touted by the WHO, US government agencies and politicians, and media monopolists is blatantly dishonest, and has nothing to do with “science.” The push by private companies to require vaccination and “immunity passports” is similarly based on private financial interests, not scientific research.
Government scientists admit that the Covid-19 vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission of the virus they say causes Covid-19, but many of these same scientists also dishonestly claim the vaccines will somehow prevent the spread of the virus, leading to herd immunity.
Such an approach is not only unscientific and dishonest. It’s nonsense.
P Jerome is civil rights attorney based in Washington, D.C. He can be reached at [email protected] can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media
Unlike the Guardian we are NOT funded by Bill & Melinda Gates, or any other NGO or government. So a few coins in our jar to help us keep going are always appreciated.
Our Bitcoin JTR code is: 1JR1whUa3G24wXpDyqMKpieckMGGW2u2VX
8/9 Rand Paul Humiliates Dr. Fauci AGAIN Over Double- Masking
pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2021/04/01/rand-paul-humiliates-dr-fauci-again-over-double-masking- n1436713
On Wednesday, Senator Rand Paul posted a link to a pre-print of a National Institutes of Health (NIH) study that determined that anyone who has recovered from COVID-19 or has been vaccinated has immunity from all variants of the disease, and then called out Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which is part of the NIH.
“Dr. Fauci, great news! T cell immunity after natural infection shown to include variants. Do we still need to wear multiple masks after we’ve recovered or been vaccinated?” he tweeted.
Dr. Fauci, great news! T cell immunity after natural infection shown to include variants. Do we still need to wear multiple masks after we’ve recovered or been vaccinated? https://t.co/sSsE66wJbs
— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) March 31, 2021
1/2 According to the study, “virtually all anti-SARS-CoV-2 CD8+ T-cell responses should recognize these newly described variants.” The study has not been peer-reviewed yet, and the authors acknowledge the findings are based on a small sample size.
This tweet comes a couple of weeks after Paul called out Dr. Anthony Fauci during a Senate hearing on the nation’s COVID response for wearing two masks in public despite being vaccinated. Paul accused Fauci of “parad[ing] around in two masks for show.”
Fauci disagreed with Paul’s accusation, but the senator didn’t let up.
“You can’t get it again,” Paul insisted. “There is virtually zero percent chance you’ll get it, and yet you are telling people that have had the vaccine, who have immunity, you’re defying everything about immunity by telling people to wear masks who have been vaccinated,” Senator Paul continued. “Instead, you should be saying, ‘There is no science to say we’re going to have a problem from the large number of people we’ve vaccinated.’”
“You want to get rid of vaccine hesitancy?” Paul asked. “Tell them to quit wearing their mask after getting the vaccine. You want people to get the vaccine? Give them a reward instead of telling them that the nanny state’s going to be there for three more years, and you gotta wear a mask forever. People don’t want to hear it and there’s no science behind it.”
“Well,” began Fauci, “let me just state, for the record, that masks are not theater, masks are protective—”
“If you have immunity they’re theatre. If you already have immunity you’re wearing a mask to give comfort to others. You’re not wearing a mask because of any science,” Senator Paul, a medical doctor, explained.
_____
Matt Margolis is the author of Airborne: How The Liberal Media Weaponized The Coronavirus Against Donald Trump, and the bestselling book The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama. You can follow Matt on Twitter, Gab, Facebook, MeWe, Heroes, Rumble, and CloutHub.
Watch Rand Paul Challenge Dr. Fauci Over Mask Wearing: ‘You Parade Around in Two Masks for Show’
2/2 First Vaccine Passports, Now Comes 'Well Health Safety Seals' Promoted by Celebrities
redstate.com/nick-arama/2021/04/01/first-vaccine-passports-now-comes-well-health-safety-seals-promoted-by- celebrities-n354057
We’ve been reporting about how the Biden White House is considering “vaccine passports” for people to use to get into events/businesses/travel.
Remember when people posited those might be coming and people pooh-poohed it as a conspiracy theory?
The vaccine passports are already underway in New York State to get into events. With theirs, you have an app with a QR code on your phone that is then scanned showing that you have been vaccinated before you can get in.
Folks on both sides of the political aisle are raising a lot of concerns about the vaccine passport idea. Democrat and Clinton supporter Naomi Wolf is concerned about the government having your health information and, in essence, then being able to dictate where you can and can’t go. She’s also concerned that then there is a platform and precedent to load anything onto that platform that could potentially lead to something like a social credit system and control like the CCP has. Then there’s the World Health Organization, who you
1/3 would think would be for it but have actually come out against it largely because of the “inequity” of people who may not be able to have access to vaccines being locked out. Not to mention a whole raft of privacy and constitutional questions.
But now there’s more and all the “right” (really meaning “liberal”) celebrities are pitching it. The “Well Health Safety Seal.”
This is a major effort to get businesses to sign aboard to get this “seal.” Let’s hear from those celebrities that someone thinks are trustworthy on health matters including J Lo and Robert De Niro. Plus, there’s also a former U.S. Surgeon General, Richard Carmona, who’s on board with this too.
Dystopia has arrived pic.twitter.com/r2Ou4LFlAX
— Jan III Sobieski (@LSobiscius) March 31, 2021
Here’s the full video:
Watch Video At: https://youtu.be/TDg-kKJXQKI
It’s basically saying that this business has complied with a variety of different practices so that you can “feel better” going into a store/business.
2/3 The impact of COVID-19 in relation to the places where we live, work, learn and play is unprecedented: offices, restaurants, stores, venues, schools, industrial facilities, residential common areas, places of worship and space types of all kinds have been closed across the world, in some cases for months. As these spaces and places begin to re-open, people across the world are wondering whether it is safe to return. Organizations seeking to navigate the impacts of COVID-19 are faced with important decisions about when and how to restore their operations, how to support the safety of occupants and employees, and how to prepare for the inevitable changes to their facilities over the coming months. The WELL Health-Safety Rating is designed to help guide organizations to evidence-based best practices for operating through this crisis, as well as for long-term preparedness on other critical health and safety issues.
By the way, this seal isn’t free. It’s a graduated price depending on how big and how many people the business is dealing with, up to thousands of dollars. All that for a sticker on your window, that’s some operation. Going to guess that most small businesses aren’t going to sign aboard this when they’re already likely stretched to the limit because of lockdown rules.
3/3 New Data From The CDC Makes Mask Mandates For The Vaccinated Look Absolutely Foolish
redstate.com/scotthounsell/2021/04/01/new-data-from-the-cdc-makes-mask-mandates-for-the-vaccinated-look- absolutely-foolish-n354180
By Scott Hounsell | Apr 01, 2021 5:00 PM ET
AP Photo/Matt Slocum
If you’re like me, you’re tired of the left’s constant call to “science” while they continue to ignore the wealth of data and evidence that their COVID-19 restrictions are not only unnecessary but in some cases, but more detrimental in their effect than had they done nothing. This follows my piece from a few days ago, where I showed we knew the target population a year ago derived from the data from the Diamond Princess.
Now it appears, that Joe Biden’s begging for the continuance for mask mandates for the vaccinated, but is counter to the data and evidence coming from his own CDC officials.
From NYMag:
1/3 After warning for months that vaccinated people should still be cautious in order to not infect others, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggests they may not be at much risk of transmitting the coronavirus.
“Vaccinated people do not carry the virus — they don’t get sick,” Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the CDC, told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Tuesday. That’s “not just in the clinical trials, but it’s also in real-world data.”
Walensky was referring to a new CDC study that suggests those fully inoculated with the vaccines produced by Moderna and Pfizer don’t transmit the virus. Researchers looked at how the shots protected nearly 4,000 health-care workers, first responders, and other essential workers toiling in eight U.S. locations against the virus and more-contagious variants. Following a single dose of either vaccine, the participants’ risk of infection was reduced by 80 percent, and that figure jumped to 90 percent after the second dose. Without infection, people are unable to spread the virus. The results are similar to what scientists saw in clinical trials for the vaccines, which found that two doses of either two-dose vaccine had an efficacy rate of around 95 percent.
In other words, not only are fully vaccinated people essentially incapable of getting the virus, but they are also incapable of transmitting it, making mandates restricting their travel, participation in group events, or demanding they wear masks, as completely unnecessary and superficial. Our slippery slide into further government control has ironically, slid further away from fact and scientific evidence. At this point, vaccinated individuals should have zero restrictions. Not only would this increase willingness to receive the vaccine, but would increase economic opportunities as more and more people receive the vaccine.
A few weeks ago, the President tweeted this: https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1373771407218335745?s=20
What is so funny about this, is according to the CDC’s own data, neither Biden nor Harris could give the other the virus, let alone contract it in the first place. That doesn’t stop Biden from continuing his flat-out stupid mask-mandate howls.
Scott is a former campaign and public affairs consultant with a flair for the sarcastic. Aside from writing, Scott enjoys traveling, photography, playing the piano, and hanging out with his two kids. Professionally, Scott has worked on campaigns across the Western United States, and owned a political consulting firm until 2018, when he returned to school to get his MBA from George Washington University. Scott has studied in Germany, Sweden, and Morocco. Follow Scott on Twitter @Hounsizzle and listen to him and Jennifer Van Laar on Sounds Right with Jen and Scott found on all your favorite podcast streaming services.
Tags: CDC COVID-19 MASK MANDATES
2/3 The answer to the question of whether January 6 or January 8 becomes the footnote within the larger metanarrative of America’s national consciousness, and thus our self- understanding as a people, may hinge upon the success or failure of RightForge, or companies like it. The co-founders of RightForge, along with Sean Patrick Tario, Martín Avila and Aron Wagner have been skeptics of Big Tech’s dominance of America’s economy and media landscape for some time. Avila and Wagner, whom I interviewed for this article, are both autodidacts of sorts. Avila, a self-taught computer programmer, started a website development company in high school and has since moved seamlessly in and between the worlds of tech and politics—particularly where the two intersect. He worked for the Ron Paul Presidential Campaign of 2008 as well as the successful election of Senator Mike Lee. Aron Wagner is an Iraq war veteran and published author who has written books on the tech industry. Neither is a college graduate, which tells me not that they are uneducated but that both men are willing to buck conventional wisdom in pursuit of their individual definitions of success.
Martín is the more talkative of the two, but both of them made clear to me their intimate familiarity and comfort with the language of American liberty and the constitutional tradition. In our hour-long interview the pair reiterated time and again that the internet was both erected upon the philosophical edifice of our founding fathers and, for that edifice to survive, would have to be rebuilt from the ground up—effectively from scratch.
Avila was in D.C. on the day of the riots. “What happened that day was deeply troubling,” Avila readily acknowledged, “but the gravity of the other problem,” Big Tech’s ease at deplatforming ideological nonconformists, “is much bigger in my mind.”
The idea behind RightForge is “elegant in its simplicity, but enormous in its impact and scope,” Avila and Wagner explained to me. The internet is so immersed in our everyday lives that it has become the proverbial water we fish swim in. What Amazon, Google, and Apple did to Trump and Parler is, in effect, to draw attention to the wizard(s) behind the curtain– the stuff of which the water in the fishbowl is made. Websites and applications rely on separate components and providers in order to function: from the servers in the data centers, both of which actually occupy physical spaces in the U.S. and around the globe; to the code and applications that live on those servers; to the URL that directs people to those servers and applications; and the ISPs that connect everything together. If any one of these providers decides to cancel you—the way Trump was cancelled, Parler was cancelled, or Ryan T. Anderson, author of When Harry Became Sally,was cancelled—your life on the world wide web is effectively finished.
This is where RightForge comes in. RightForge owns and operates the hard infrastructure of the web, the “backbone,” to use Avila’s words, that will support and expand what will become essentially a second internet, an internet free from interference and censorship by the self- appointed woke internet custodians of the truth of the Big Tech world. RightForge offers “migration services,” which means the technology to migrate your company’s web presence off of established platforms before they can deplatform you. Alternatively, RightForge also
2/4 provides what are in essence insurance policies against cancel culture: website cloning and data backup, refreshed at intervals of the client’s choosing, in the event the company in question is deplatformed.
In the emerging parlance of RightForge executive-speak, the company can “re-platform” its clients at the drop of a hat using alternative servers, cloud computing, coding, etc., copied from the ones provided by Amazon, Google, and others. Just say the word, and the cloned website will re-emerge from the abyss of digital oblivion to which Big Tech had condemned it. What they offer is “mission critical infrastructure” that is impervious to cancellation. When I asked Avila and Wagner what would have happened to Parler had RightForge existed at the time and Parler chosen to avail themselves of their services, Avila and Wagner provided me with something of an epiphany for a tech greenhorn like myself: “If Parler had been built off of our infrastructure from the beginning, it would have only had a problem with Google and Apple on the app store but would have stayed alive as a website.” In other words, no dead link when you click.
I told Avila and Wagner that I had no idea what Parler was until I heard of its cancellation, and that when I clicked on the link to the website and nothing happened the feeling was eerie, almost dread-inducing. As Avila pointed out to me, this simultaneously tyrannical and oafish move, coordinated by Apple, Google, and Amazon, was not conjured out of thin air. Such a move is a quotidian occurrence in Chinese cyberspace, where Google, Apple, and others happily do business. Avila agreed when I averred that what happened to Trump and Parler was unprecedented in the annals of American democracy.
“But why,” I asked, “if Google, Amazon, and others are profiting off of data, even data from conservatives, would they cancel someone they’re making a buck off of? Aren’t they worried at least about losing money?”
“They’ve grown so big and so powerful that they are able to walk away from certain markets” if they decide the “circumstances” warrant. According to Avila, the groupthink and ideological monoculture of the tech bubble has reached astronomical heights of arrogance. “They didn’t think we’d be having these discussions after they did what they did….They don’t respect or understand freedom, or what it means to be somebody in Iowa or Missouri who wants to express themselves….As smart as they are, they don’t understand the world. They think they run the world but they don’t.”
In one of his few interjections in our interview, Wagner explained to me that he actually thinks the days of Big Tech are numbered and that a whole new internet, a second internet, is on the cusp of arrival. “Right now, we’re talking about the old internet. But who knows what the future will look like. Tesla wasn’t around that long ago, and it reshaped the auto industry.” He also mentions SpaceX and makes clear that instead of an internet dominated by “shadow algorithms” which attempt to herd and divide us like cattle, the second internet will be “simpler, cleaner, and freer…with the ability of entrepreneurs to freely engage in and
3/4 build the future.” That, he said “is the internet that will win out in the end.” The internet today will go the way of Sears, or RadioShack, or Borders, from hegemons of the market to the ash heap of history.
“We’re all staring down the barrel of the same gun,” Avila explains to me. The “we” being conservatives, libertarians, and classical liberals who value the “Bill of Rights, the Declaration of the Independence, and the Constitution,” and want the political culture that created the internet to be the same one that sustains it instead of giving life to a Frankenstein-world in which the creature, run by woke elites, devours its creators. Perhaps someday, in the not-too-distant future, the second internet will punch so far above its current weight that the first one will be felled, and then textbooks will speak of how American consumers, along with the inherent dynamism of market forces guided by patriots zealous for their freedom, caused a new birth of liberty in our land.
Kurt Hofer is a native Californian with a Ph.D. in Spanish Literature. He teaches high school history in a Los Angeles area independent school.
This article was supported by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. The contents of this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors.
4/4