OB/GYN DOCTORS IN THE U.S. WANT COVID-19 VACCINES TESTED ON PREGNANT WOMEN

BY BARBARA CACERES

SEE: https://thevaccinereaction.org/2020/07/ob-gyn-docs-in-u-s-want-covid-19-vaccines-tested-on-pregnant-women/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
OB/GYN Docs in U.S. Want COVID-19 Vaccines Tested on Pregnant Women

A U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report1 on pregnancy and SARS-CoV-2 infection released on June 26 suggested that pregnant women may be at increased risk for COVID-19 complications. The report was followed by a statement issued by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)2 urging that pregnant and lactating women be included in COVID-19 vaccine and therapeutics trials and that pregnant women be among the first to get the vaccine after it is licensed.

Pregnant Women Report Fewer COVID-19 Symptoms

The CDC reported that the government’s COVID-19 surveillance program has received reports of 326,335 women of reproductive age (15-44 years) who had positive rest results for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Data on pregnancy status was available for 29 percent of the women, and among these, 9 percent were pregnant.

Symptomatic pregnant and non-pregnant women reported similar frequencies of cough and shortness of breath during COVID-19 infections. However, pregnant women less frequently reported headache, muscle aches, fever, chills, and diarrhea.3

Chronic Conditions Reported During COVID-19 Infections May Be Pregnancy Related

Chronic lung disease, diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease were reported among pregnant women at roughly twice the rate of those who were not pregnant. However, data was not available to distinguish whether chronic conditions were present before or were uniquely associated with pregnancy (e.g. gestational diabetes or hypertensive disorders of pregnancy).4

More Pregnant Women Admitted to Hospital and ICU for COVID-19 But Death Rates Identical Between Pregnant and Non-Pregnant Women

Approximately one third (31.5 percent) of pregnant women were hospitalized compared with 5.6 percent of non-pregnant women. However data were not available to distinguish hospitalization of women for COVID-19 related circumstances from hospital admission for pregnancy-related treatment or procedures, including birthing.

After adjusting for age, presence of underlying conditions and race/ethnicity, pregnant women were 1.5 times more likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and receive mechanical ventilation during COVID-19 infections. Risk of death for the pregnant and non-pregnant women was identical (0.2 percent).5

The CDC data indicates that Hispanic and black women may be disproportionately more likely to suffer complications from SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy, which reflects an overall increased risk for COVID-19 complications in Hispanic and black populations in the U.S.6

Limitations of CDC study on COVID-19 in Pregnant Women

CDC officials acknowledged at least four limitations to their report, which include missing data, insufficient time for accurate outcomes, lack of data on trimester of pregnancy at the time of infection and whether the hospitalization was related to pregnancy conditions rather than for COVID-19 illness, and no data on pregnancy or birth outcomes such as pregnancy loss or preterm birth.7

COVID-19 Pregnancy Registries Seek Answers

ACOG represents more than 60,000 physician obstetricians/gynecologists in the U.S.8 In response to the CDC report, the ACOG released a statement advising member physicians of the increased risk to pregnant women of COVID-19 infections. ACOG urged its members to encourage pregnant patients testing positive for COVID-19 to enroll in a COVID-19 registry to help gather more data measuring the impact of COVID-19 on pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes.9

In April, UCLA Health and the University of San Francisco launched a nationwide registry called PRIORITY (Pregnancy CoRonavIrus Outcomes RegIsTrY) to study how COVID-19 impacts pregnant women and their newborns. Researchers will collect data throughout pregnancy, then track the new mothers and babies for up to one year.

“The issue is we don’t have data in pregnancy. A lot of this data is extrapolated from other SARS infection, MERS, and non-pregnant individuals,” says Yalda Afshar, MD, assistant professor in the Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine at UCLA Health.10

In May, the PRIORITY study launched the Reproductive Health Equity and Birth Justice Core to focus on the impact of COVID-19 on Black, Indigenous, and People of Color communities.11 Other COVID-19 pregnancy registries include COVI-Preg, a global collaboration between 198 antenatal clinics from 23 countries,12 the International Registry of Coronavirus Exposure in Pregnancy (IRCEP), and Coronavirus Health Outcomes in Pregnancy and Neonates (CHOPAN) in Australia.

ACOG Says Pregnant Women, Breastfeeding Moms Should Be Test Subjects in COVID-19 Vaccine Trials and Be Among the First to Get Vaccinated

In its June 24 statement, the ACOG also stated:

In light of this new information from the CDC regarding the risk to pregnant patients, it is even more concerning that pregnant and lactating patients have been excluded from clinical trials for a coronavirus vaccine. The new information from the CDC highlights the importance of pregnant patients being prioritized for a coronavirus vaccine once it becomes available. ACOG again urges the federal government to use its resources to ensure the safe inclusion of pregnant and lactating patients, including patients of color, in trials for vaccines and therapeutics to ensure that all populations are included in the search for ways to prevent and treat COVID-19.13

Questions About Safety of Vaccination During Pregnancy

The time-honored rule of avoiding any potential toxic exposure that might interfere with the normal development of the fetus was suspended and replaced by the CDC in 2006 with an assumption that vaccination during pregnancy was safe after the CDC strengthened recommendations that all pregnant women, healthy or not, should get influenza vaccine during in any trimester. This CDC recommendation was followed up in 2011 with another new one directing obstetricians and gynecologists to administer a pertussis containing Tdap (tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis) shot to all pregnant women during every pregnancy.14 15

Influenza and Tdap vaccines were formerly categorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as Pregnancy Category B and C biologicals because it is not known whether they are genotoxic and can cause fetal harm or can affect maternal fertility and reproduction.16 Influenza and pertussis containing Tdap vaccines were not tested in or licensed for use in pregnant women prior to the CDC’s recommendation for their use by all pregnant women, and their use has been considered “off label” during pregnancy.17

The text of one vaccine manufacturer’s prescribing information for the use of Tdap vaccine in pregnant women highlights a critical lack of knowledge about the potential negative biological effects of pertussis containing Tdap vaccine on the pregnant woman and her fetus, which appears to be common for vaccines administered to pregnant women:

Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with Adacel vaccine. It is also not known whether Adacel vaccine can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman or can affect reproduction capacity.” In addition, the following language is common in most vaccine manufacturer prescribing information inserts: “Adacel vaccine has not been evaluated for carcinogenic, mutagenic potential or impairment of fertility.18

About 35 Percent of Women in U.S. Get Vaccinated During Pregnancy

Barbara Loe Fisher, cofounder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) states, “The rush to vaccinate pregnant women and reach into the womb to try to passively vaccinate the developing fetus is a clear case of policy preceding science.”19

A 2019 report by the CDC found that 35 percent of women received both influenza and pertussis containing Tdap vaccines during pregnancy. Anne Schuchat, MD, principal deputy director of the CDC states that for any woman wary of getting vaccinated, “it’s been proven repeatedly that these vaccinations are safe for pregnant women and their developing babies.”20

Civil Liability Waiver Encourages Pharmaceutical Companies to Test Experimental Vaccines on Pregnant Women

The 21st Century Cures Act passed by Congress and signed into law in 2016 amended the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 to give vaccine manufacturers a product liability shield so they can’t be sued in civil court when there is evidence that a federally FDA licensed vaccine (or vaccines) recommended by the CDC for pregnant women injured or caused the death of a woman or an infant born alive who was injured in the womb by a vaccine administered to the infant’s mother.

The fact that commercial pharmaceutical companies producing vaccine products are no longer legally liable for harm caused to pregnant women or their infants during gestation if they are born alive, becomes even more significant as COVID-19 vaccines using experimental mRNA and DNA technology are being fast tracked to market.21 As pointed out in a 2017 review of ethical issues involved in vaccine research on pregnant women:

“As a fetus or infant cannot consent to participation in research, a critical issue is how much risk is acceptable to impose upon the fetus or the infant. For research with the potential of direct medical benefit to the woman or fetus, risk proportionate to the potential benefit is acceptable. For research that does not involve the prospect of direct medical benefit, risk to the fetus must be no more than minimal. However, the definitions of minimal risk in the context of pregnancy are unclear.”

Big Gaps in Vaccine Safety Research and Knowledge Concerning for Pregnant Women

In a response to the FDA’s 2018 proposed guidance for scientific and ethical consideration for inclusion of pregnant women in clinical trials, Barbara Loe Fisher and Theresa Wrangham on behalf of the National Vaccine Information Center submitted a public comment and noted the “lack of basic understanding of the biological mechanisms and high risk factors for vaccine injury and death in individuals who are not pregnant hampers the ability to design ethical research into the biological effects of vaccination in pregnant women. The lack of published biological mechanism studies and well-designed prospective case controlled studies that assess immune and brain function and genetic integrity before and after adults or children are vaccinated is of great concern to those being directed to receive all federally recommended vaccines. That justifiable concern is magnified when it comes to the potential adverse effects of vaccination on pregnant women and their unborn infants developing in the womb.”22

Fisher observed that, “This maternal vaccination policy is a violation of the precautionary principle to “first, do no harm,” and warned “it is of grave concern to women having babies in America.”23

References:

1 U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Characteristics of Women of Reproductive Age with Laboratory-Confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Infection by Pregnancy Status—United States, January 22-June 7, 2020Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report June 26, 2020.
2 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Statement on COVID-19 and Pregnancy. June 24, 2020.
3 CDC. Characteristics of Women of Reproductive Age with Laboratory-Confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Infection by Pregnancy Status—United States, January 22-June 7, 2020 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report June 26, 2020.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
6 CDC. COVID-19 in Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups. June 25, 2020.
7 See Footnote 3.
8 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. About Us. 2020.
9 See Footnote 2.
10 WBBJ Eyewitness News. Researchers seek COVID-19 effects on pregnancy. Apr. 20, 2020.
11 University of California – San Francisco. PRIORITY Study Reproductive Health Equity & Birth Justice Core.
12 Advances in Surgery. COVI-Preg, a structured data collection tool available to any facility accessing pregnant patients for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Apr.28, 2020.
13 See Footnote 2.
14 Fisher BL. Vaccination During Pregnancy: Is It Safe? NVIC Newsletter Nov. 9, 2013.
15 CDC. Vaccines During and After Pregnancy. Dec. 16, 2019.
16 Fisher BL. FDA Prepares to Fast Track New Vaccines Targeting Pregnant Women. National Vaccine Information Center Nov. 17, 2015.
17 See Footnote 14.
18 Fisher BL, Wrangam TK. Written Comment on 83 FR 15161, Docket No. FDA-2018-D-1201 – “Pregnant Women: Scientific and Ethical Considerations for Inclusion in Clinical Trials; Draft Guidance; Availability National Vaccine Information Center June 8, 2018.
19 See Footnote 14.
20 Preidt R. Only a Third of Pregnant Women Get Needed VaccinesWebMD Oct 8, 2019.
21 Fisher BL. COVID-19 Meltdown and Pharma’s Big Money Win: DNA and mRNA Vaccines: Flying Blind Into Uncharted TerritoryNVIC Newsletter Apr. 1, 2020.
22 See Footnote 18.
23 See Footnote 16.

 

FAUCI: AMERICANS “DON’T BELIEVE SCIENCE AND THEY DON’T BELIEVE AUTHORITY”

Disease kingpin slams Americans who don’t trust him as having “anti-science bias”

BY STEVE WATSON

SEE: https://www.infowars.com/fauci-americans-dont-believe-science-and-they-dont-believe-authority/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the polarising director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, slammed everyday Americans for refusing to go along with ‘authority’ on medical matters, and accused people of ‘amazing denial’ when it comes to ‘truth’.

Speaking on a podcast called Learning Curve, produced by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Fauci charged that “unfortunately, there is a combination of an anti-science bias that people are — for reasons that sometimes are, you know, inconceivable and not understandable — they just don’t believe science and they don’t believe authority.”

“So when they see someone up in the White House, which has an air of authority to it, who’s talking about science, that there are some people who just don’t believe that — and that’s unfortunate because, you know, science is truth,” Fauci asserted.

“It’s amazing sometimes the denial there is, it’s the same thing that gets people who are anti-vaxxers, who don’t want people to get vaccinated, even though the data clearly indicate the safety of vaccines,” Fauci proclaimed, adding “That’s really a problem.”

Perhaps the real reason Americans don’t trust Fauci is that he’s consistently flip flopped and contradicted himself on ‘the truth’ for months.

The man also exudes authoritarianism, and clearly has a problem with anyone who questions his superiority.

Fauci also has a long history of being the front man for a network of powerful Big Pharma and Big Medicine interests, pushing vaccines and medicines in a clear conflict of interest.



BARBARA LOE FISHER: HOW FEAR OF A VIRUS CHANGED OUR WORLD

BARBARA LOE FISHER: HOW FEAR OF A VIRUS CHANGED OUR WORLD

SEE: https://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/June-2020/How-Fear-of-a-Virus-Changed-Our-World.aspx;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

To activate and view hyperlinked references, please click here once and then click any superscripted number below to access a hyperlinked reference, or scroll down to the bottom of the article to view all hyperlinked references.

By Barbara Loe Fisher

Fear is a primal biological response to a perceived threat to our survival. Fear triggers momentary paralysis and then a fight or flight reaction before the brain can rationally analyze and calibrate our response to a perceived threat. 1

Fearful Woman

Right now, people around the world are living in fear of being infected or infecting someone else with a new coronavirus that can kill those most vulnerable without warning. Along with confusion and uncertainty, which prolongs fear, many of us are traumatized by the authoritarian measures governments have taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic that began in China in late 2019.

The “new normal” is disorienting, like we have taken a hit to the gut and then to the head that we didn’t see coming. Maybe that is why so many Americans, who value freedom of speech, religion, assembly, privacy and the right to work, have given those constitutional rights up, without stopping to think through the ramifications of the larger precedent being set.

We are slowly coming out of shock five months after the U.S. Centers for Disease Control declared a public health emergency on January 31, 2 which escalated six weeks later into a social distancing lockdown when the World Health Organization declared a COVID-19 pandemic on March 11. 3

Questions About the Lockdown Response to COVID-19 Pandemic

Closed Business

There are lots of questions being asked now about whether the lockdown response to the new coronavirus has matched the threat, questions like:

  • Why did the U.S. fail to immediately screen people at sea ports and airports for illness as soon as the outbreak was identified in China and got worse in February so they could be quarantined and tested? 4 5 6 7 8
  • At the beginning of the pandemic, why were Americans told masks were useless and to stop buying and wearing them, when now we are told we must wear masks? 9 10 11 12
  • Why were U.S. emergency supply warehouses, which were supposed to be stocked with pandemic preparedness equipment for health care workers, completely empty? 13
  • Why were residents of nursing homes and other crowded medical facilities not effectively screened and tested to make sure the sick were not being housed with the healthy? 14 15 16 17
  • Why did U.S. public health officials persuade lawmakers to almost immediately lockdown and home quarantine most of our population,18 instead of using traditional disease control measures that identify, quarantine and treat the sick? 19 20 21 22

Opening Up Conversation About Science, Health and Liberty in the U.S.

As we let go of fear and return to rational thinking, it is opening up a public conversation about science, health and liberty that is going viral, despite attempts by Big Pharma and Big Tech working with governments and mainstream media to censor it. 23 24 25 26 27

In the United States of America, we live in a constitutional republic where democratically elected representatives make laws, and state governments are a check and balance on the authority of the federal government. 28

Fists Clashing

American values and beliefs, which have influenced the adoption of human rights in international law, 29 30 31 32 are embedded in the 1776 Declaration of Independence 33 and codified in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. 34

Americans value autonomy and individuality. We believe each person is a unique and independent  individual with an inalienable right to life and liberty. 35

We value the human right to freedom of thought, expression and belief; freedom of conscience and association; and respect for privacy – all civil liberties that limit the power of government. 36

We value equal opportunity for all and mobility within society based on individual initiative and hard work, not on hierarchy, inherited privilege or government permission. 37

We are a pragmatic and adaptable people who value the use of common sense and practical solutions to problem solve, achieve and succeed. 38

We are a generous people and believe that voluntarily helping others by donating our money and time is a personal choice motivated by charity, not by communal expectation or a legal requirement. 39

Above all, we are a self-reliant, optimistic people with an indomitable spirit and faith in our ability to overcome adversity individually and as a nation. 40 41 42

Some of the core values, which have shaped our history and defined who we are as a nation, have been put on trial in 2020 because we are paralyzed by fear of a virus that doctors say could be hiding in the breath of every person who comes near us and contaminate everything we touch. 43 44 Often described in military and apocalyptic terms as a war for human survival against an “invisible enemy,” 45 46 47 48 the authoritarian lockdown approach by governments to the coronavirus pandemic has been framed as a choice between safety and liberty.

In horror, we watched the coronavirus pandemic unfold in February 2020 with Chinese officials either chasing citizens suspected of being infected with the virus into the streets and dragging them away to quarantine camps, or using hammers, nails and blocks of wood to barricade families into their apartments. 49 50 51 52 Then, after scientists and U.S. public health officials used mathematical models to warn lawmakers to lock down the U.S. or prepare for between 1.7 and 2.2 million Americans to die of COVID-19, 53 54 55 we were filled with an uncommon fear and uncertainty that continues to haunt our lives.

The Fear of Entering Public Spaces and Getting Too Close to Each Other

As most states emerge from months of quarantining people in their homes and shuttering businesses,56 many Americans are still afraid to enter a public space because we are warned over and over again that the invisible enemy will kill us if we don’t stay six feet away from each other at all times, even outdoors. 57 Parents have been urged not to hug their children if a member in their family has been exposed to the virus. 58 In one city, government officials told residents to take photos and report fellow citizens who violate social distancing rules by getting too close to each other outside. 59

Worried Parents

We see fellow Americans be arrested for not wearing masks, 60 61 or walking on deserted beaches, 62 63 or for taking their children to empty playgrounds. 64 65 Small business owners, who are struggling to feed their families, are being sent to jail for re-opening without government permission. 66 Food banks are running out of food because families, who have never stood in a food bank line in their lives, have no other choice. 67

It doesn’t feel right, but most of us comply with the new rules, afraid to be the one who gets a dirty look or is yelled at or arrested – or worse – if we don’t comply.

COVID-19 Mortality Estimates Far Exceed Reality

Since the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a coronavirus pandemic in March 2020 and CDC officials predicted it could kill 1.7 million Americans, by May 22, there had been 335,000 COVID-19 reported deaths among the world’s seven billion people with about 96,000 of those deaths reported in the U.S. [68] How the death toll would have been affected if global lockdowns had not taken place to try to slow the infection rate and delay population based herd immunity will be debated for years to come. [69]

Although the vast majority of COVID-19 infections are thought to be asymptomatic, data shows the estimated symptomatic infection-mortality rate in America is currently at most 1.3 percent. 70 71 72 73 About 90 percent of people who die are over 65 years old, with the majority of those people suffering with one or more chronic poor health conditions like heart or lung disease, obesity, diabetes and hypertension. 74 More than 80 percent of children who die from COVID-19 also suffer with chronic illness and disabilities like immune suppression, obesity, diabetes, seizures, developmental delays and genetic disorders. 75 76

We all hope to live long and productive lives but nobody escapes death and, for some, it comes sooner than expected. The sudden unexpected death of a person for any reason is a tragedy, especially for that person’s family and friends. The deaths of tens of thousands during this pandemic or any pandemic is a tragedy. The feelings of loss and helplessness are magnified when individuals hospitalized with COVID-19 die alone, separated from their families, denied the comfort of taking their last breath in the company of people they love and who love them. 77

Are We Really All in This Together?

Whether the new coronavirus jumped out of an animal in a Chinese live food market 78 or escaped from a biohazard lab, 79 80 whether the virus kills an estimated one to two percent of those symptomatically infected or far less, 81 this year billions of people around the world have followed the advice of the World Health Organization, government health agencies and doctors, who tell us that this “invisible common enemy” must be vanquished using any means possible because, collectively, “we are all in this together.” 82

Group Praying

Public health officials have persuaded lawmakers to divide the American people into two classes: those who are considered “essential” and allowed to continue working and those who are considered “non-essential” and barred from earning a living. 83 84 85 86 Small businesses and services judged to be “non-essential” have been forced to close their doors, including daycares, schools, churches, restaurants, theaters, barber shops and salons, gyms, parks and beaches while, paradoxically, everyone is free to roam through grocery stores, drug stores and big box stores like Walmart, Target and Home Depot owned by big corporations.

The Mass Suffering Generated by Widespread “Sheltering in Place”

Tens of millions of healthy Americans have obeyed orders to “shelter in place” and self-quarantine at home for months, sacrificing their jobs and losing their savings, 87 88 89 destroying one third of the small businesses middle class citizens have worked a lifetime to build, 90 91 while parts of the travel, 92 93 94 95 96 restaurant, 97 retail 98 99 and personal care industries 100 go bankrupt. By the end of May, there were more than 38 million Americans unemployed, representing almost 24 percent of the labor force, and most of them are low hourly wage earners who don’t have savings to pay the rent or buy food while they are out of work. 101 102 103

So the homeless rate in the U.S. is projected to increase by 45 percent this year, with almost one million people homeless by the summer. 104 At the same time, Congress is driving up the national debt in an attempt to delay the complete collapse of our economy by using taxpayer money to pay people to stay away from each other. 105

Police State

Fear of a virus has prevented people sick with heart disease, cancer and other health problems from being treated in hospitals that have been told to only treat patients infected with COVID-19. 106 107 Neglected children and battered women have been trapped for months in homes with their abusers, while calls to mental health hotlines from depressed, anxiety-ridden and suicidal children and adults have increased by nearly 900 percent 108 109 110 111 and, in some cities, prison inmates – even those charged with violent crimes – are being released from jail with the justification they should not be exposed to COVID-19. 112 113

With our children locked out of classrooms and the faithful blocked from worshipping in churches, synagogues and mosques, fear has stopped most of us from publicly questioning the premise that the price of safety is liberty. 114 115 116 117 118 119

Few have challenged the mantra repeated over and over again by doctors and politicians in positions of power that this dystopian reality we are now living in will be the “new normal” 120 until we are all tested and everyone is vaccinated when a COVID-19 vaccine is available because then, and only then, will it be “safe” for government to give back at least some of the liberty that has been taken from us. 121 122 123 124 125

What we have allowed to be done in the name of public health has no parallel in American history or human history.

No Lockdowns for Past Epidemics and Pandemics

The world did not lock down during centuries of epidemics of smallpox, which was a highly contagious virus and had a case fatality rate of 30 percent. 126 Americans did not stop working to prevent epidemics of diphtheria when that contagious disease swept through communities in the 19th and early 20th centuries, with a mortality rate of between 5 and 10 percent that was even higher for children. 127 Societies have not closed businesses and schools to prevent tuberculosis, a contagious disease that spreads the same way as coronavirus and has a case fatality rate still between 20 and 70 percent. 128 129

In 1918, state Governors did not order healthy people to shelter in place and put tens of millions of Americans out of work during the Spanish Flu Pandemic, when that highly contagious H1N1 influenza virus had a case fatality rate of more than 2.5 percent. 130

So why are the majority of people in educated societies like the U.S. cowering in fear before a virus that does not cause any symptoms or complications in the majority of children and adults under the age of 65, and has a mortality rate of about one percent, which is even lower if all the asymptomatic infections are counted? 131

In America, why are we allowing fear to erode cultural values and beliefs that have sustained and defined who we are as a nation for 245 years?

1982: The Challenge to Vaccine Science, Policy, Law and Ethics

The profound ramifications of what is happening this year in the name of public health and the slippery slope that has been created is expanding the conversation about science, health and liberty that has been going on for several centuries in academic, philosophical and political circles, 132 133 134 135 136 137 but didn’t go public in post-World War II America until 1982, when parents of vaccine injured children challenged the science, policy, law and ethics of mandatory vaccination, the most revered of all medical interventions in the history of public health programs. 138

Mothers and fathers, whose children died or were brain injured in the 1970s and 80s by the crude whole cell pertussis vaccine in DPT, had simple goals: we wanted safer vaccines, more and better quality scientific research to identify those children at high risk for being harmed by vaccination, and the inclusion of informed consent protections in public health policies and laws. 139 140 141 142 At first, defensive vaccine manufacturers, public health officials and pediatricians met our request for safer vaccines and better science with anger and dismissal. 143 Before Congress passed the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act giving vaccine makers a partial liability shield but also acknowledging that vaccine safety should be a national priority, 144 145 we were patronized.  Then, when we refused to go away, we were demonized. 146 147 148 149 150

Shaming and Blaming

Today, any person who talks about their or their child’s vaccine reaction or criticizes one-size-fits-all vaccine policies is called ignorant. 151 152 Any person who points out how low vaccine licensing standards are or how big the long standing gaps in vaccine safety research are, is accused of being a science denier and slapped with the “anti-vaxxer” label.153 154

If you question the orders of doctors, who believe it is moral to enforce “no exceptions” vaccine laws that sacrifice vaccine vulnerable children in the name of the greater good, you are called “selfish” for defending the ethical principle of informed consent and refusing to offer up your child’s health for herd immunity. 155 If you protest against vaccine policies that deny people an education, medical care and employment based on their vaccination status, you are called a danger to society. 156 If you criticize information disseminated by the CDC and World Health Organization, you are branded a threat to global health and can be censored on the Internet or far worse. 157 158 159 160 161

Strategies Creating a “New Normal” During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Does this sound familiar? It should, because it is the same rhetoric and political tactics being used during this COVID-19 pandemic to keep the people fearful and compliant.

It is the same strategy that will be used to label you a selfish threat to the public health if you don’t agree to be electronically tagged, tested and tracked by health officials when thousands of COVID-19 “contact tracers” fan out across America to test for COVID-19 infections. 162 163 164 It is the same strategy that will be used when you are told you must get an antibody test and obtain an “immunity passport” 165  before you are given back your freedom to participate in society – that is until a fast tracked coronavirus vaccine is licensed and your passport to life and liberty becomes proof you have received a COVID-19 vaccine – perhaps simultaneously delivered and tracked via a microneedle quantum dot tattoo on your skin. 166

Covid-19 Passport

Will a positive antibody test be accurate 167 or does it even matter? Every day, we hear scientists and public health officials arguing about whether or not naturally acquired coronavirus immunity means anything at all, 168 169 170 171 while promoting the idea that a COVID-19 vaccine is the only thing that will give us immunity and save us all. 172 173

Tomorrow, the “new normal” in America may well include the order to “Show me your vaccine papers” [174] [175] before you can enter a store or restaurant, go to school, attend a football game, get on a plane, train or subway, obtain a driver’s license, be admitted to a hospital or nursing home, get a room at a hotel or walk on a public beach, if health policy and lawmakers do not use common sense to adopt a more balanced approach to dealing with a virus that, so far, has changed everything.  [176] [177] [178] [179]

There is no oversight [180] on the decisions we allow scientists and doctors with big titles and even bigger salaries to make for us, [181] [182] [183] decisions that can affect the biological integrity of each one of us and profoundly impact the way we live our lives.

Yet, science is not perfect, doctors are not infallible, and the risks of having a complication to an infectious disease or a vaccine can be higher or lower depending upon the genes and epigenetic history we inherit, the environments we live in, and the life choices we make. [184] [185] [186] [187]

Health of a Society Defined by Absence of Chronic Disease and Disability

The health of a society is not solely measured by the absence of infectious disease but, more importantly, by the absence of chronic disease that destroys quality of life and lowers a nation’s life expectancy because it often leads to premature death.

Bodily Inflammation

In America every year, heart disease kills 647,000 people; lung disease kills 160,000; uncontrolled hypertension and stroke kills 146,000, and diabetes kills 83,000 people, [188] while millions more suffer cancer [189] and other types of immune and brain disorders. [190] America has the worst life expectancy, [191] the worst infant mortality [192] and maternal mortality [193] rates and the highest prevalence of chronic illness and disability [194] of all developed nations in the world, even though we have one of the most highly vaccinated populations in the world, [195] with over 94 percent of school children having received dozens of doses of vaccines for the past three decades. [196] [197]

Today, only four adults in 10 are considered healthy, while over 50 percent have one chronic disease and 30 percent suffer with two or more. [198]  An astonishing 25 percent of all children have a chronic poor health condition [199] like asthma, epilepsy, food allergies, obesity, inflammatory bowel disease and other autoimmune disorders, developmental delays, autism, anxiety and depression, and diabetes. [200]

In fact, chronic disease marked by unresolved inflammation in the body 201 202 is the Number One cause of death and disability in America and is responsible for most of the annual $3.5 trillion dollars spent on health care. 203 It is an epidemic that is crippling and killing far more people than COVID-19 or any other pandemic in our history.

U.S. public health officials have no explanation for why the majority of Americans are sick, except to blame the people for making themselves sick by smoking and drinking too much, eating junk food and not getting enough exercise or sleep. 204

COVID-19 Mortality in U.S. Impacted by Multiple Failures

Whether or not you buy that explanation, the fact that over 160 million people in our population are afflicted with chronic poor health may be at least one reason why there have been more COVID-19 related deaths reported in the U.S. than any other country. That, along with the fact that on March 24, the CDC told doctors and coroners to list COVID-19 as the official cause of death for a person, even if that person had one or more chronic health conditions or had never been tested for COVID-19. 205

Mortality from COVID-19 in the U.S. has also been impacted by the systematic neglect of well-funded federal health agencies like the CDC and BARDA. 206 207 The government was caught totally unprepared for an influenza-like pandemic, despite Congress and three Administrations appropriating billions of dollars to federal health agencies since 2006 to prepare for a pandemic just like this one. 208 Instead, warehouses were left empty without emergency supplies of masks, gowns and gloves for health care workers 209 and without diagnostic tests, equipment and therapeutic agents to help patients survive complications associated with an epidemic of a viral respiratory disease like coronavirus. 210

That is because federal health agencies, which have forged public-private business partnerships with the pharmaceutical industry, 211 have given most of the money Congress handed them for pandemic planning to drug companies to build new vaccine manufacturing plants and produce more vaccines for the national stockpile. 212 213 As the World Health Organization, the CDC, businessman Bill Gates and NIH’s Dr. Anthony Fauci keep telling us, using lots of vaccines is the best way to stay healthy and fast tracking a COVID-19 vaccine to market is the only way the world will ever be a safe place to live again 214 215 216

Corporations, Governments Cut Corners in Race to Develop COVID-19 Vaccines

So global pharmaceutical and biotech companies are now developing over 100 experimental COVID-19 vaccines, with a handful leading the race after being given billions of dollars in funding from the U.S. government, the Gates Foundation and other organizations. 217 218 Some of these coronavirus vaccines being created by scientists will use as yet unlicensed DNA, messenger RNA and nanoparticle technology, oil based adjuvants and electricity, to genetically manipulate and hyperstimulate strong inflammatory immune responses in the body. 219 220

Monied Syringe in Globe

Some companies are skipping animal trials, 221 which are an important part of the vaccine licensing process to answer questions about whether COVID-19 vaccines could cause neurological reactions or more severe coronavirus infections in vaccinated animals or fail to work at all. These are only a few of the short and long term problems that could have devastating consequences for humans being vaccinated.

Some companies are cutting corners by conducting Phase 1, 2 and 3 trials simultaneously, but will they investigate whether half of US adults and a quarter of children suffering with chronic illness are at increased risk for adverse responses to the new COVID-19 vaccines before they are licensed and mandated?

Other vaccine manufacturers want the green light to deliberately infect human clinical trial subjects with COVID-19 to see how well an experimental vaccine works. 222 Enthusiastic “bioethicists” are jumping on board to help advance this type of “new normal” in vaccine research, but parents of vaccine injured children are logically asking why it is ethical to intentionally infect humans with a new virus in a clinical trial when for decades public health officials have insisted that it is absolutely unethical to conduct a prospective clinical trial comparing health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children to determine whether vaccines are harming far more than “one in a million.” 223 224

So, while we are being ordered to obey new rules that require us to give up our constitutional and human rights, drug companies and government health officials are violating old rules that govern ethics and the scientific method for proving that vaccines are safe and effective. 225

Jacobson v. MassachusettsA Utilitarian Ruling by SCOTUS with Tragic Consequences

Science is not perfect, doctors are not infallible, and vaccines carry risks that can be greater for some than others, which is why voluntary vaccination should have been unanimously upheld in the 1905 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts226 Instead, the majority sitting on that high court more than a century ago viewed the notoriously reactive smallpox vaccine as a sacred cow and medical doctors as infallible so they could affirm the constitutional authority of state legislatures to mandate smallpox vaccinations during outbreaks. The Court said:

“The matured opinions of medical men everywhere, and the experience of mankind, as all must know, negative the suggestion that it is not possible in any case to determine whether vaccination is safe.”

SCOTUS 1905 Jacobson

Using bad logic and bad science while leaning heavily on the pseudo-ethic of utilitarianism, state governments were given the green light to legally require vaccination based on a “common belief” that vaccination is safe and effective, rather than proven fact. Piously waving the greater good flag to justify throwing civil liberties out the door, the Court majority ruled that citizens do not have a legal right to be free at all times because there are “manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subjected for the common good.”

The Court said that state legislatures can exercise police power to restrict or eliminate civil liberties, including freedom of religion, during public health emergencies in order to “secure the general comfort, health and prosperity of the state.” 

But the justices also warned that mandatory vaccination laws should not be forced on a person whose physical condition would make vaccination “cruel and inhuman to the last degree.” They said:

“We are not to be understood as holding that the statute was intended to be applied in such a case or, if it was so intended, that the judiciary would not be competent to interfere and protect the health and life of the individual concerned. ‘All laws,’ this Court has said, “should receive a sensible construction.”

One academic activist attorney has said that the 1905 Jacobson ruling “is often regarded as the most important judicial decision in public health.” [227] That is not an overstatement because, in 1927, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes used it to issue a eugenics ruling in Buck v. Bell that affirmed the constitutional authority of Virginia to forcibly sterilize a young woman mistakenly judged by state officials to be mentally retarded.228

Justice Holmes declared, “The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the fallopian tubes,” leading the way for mass sterilization of tens of thousands of Americans that doctors and government officials judged to be genetically defective, or morally unfit or otherwise a threat to the public health during the 1920s and 30s. [229]

This is the tragic legacy of Jacobson v. Masschusetts, 230 an immoral utilitarian ruling that public health officials cling to in order to justify legally requiring people to use vaccines that carry a risk of injury or death and applying societal punishments for refusing to do it. 231 232

State Legislators Primarily Make Most Public Health Laws

During this time of fear and confusion, the Jacobson ruling also reminds us that it is democratically elected representatives in state legislatures who make public health laws governing people living in different states. That is because what is not defined in the US Constitution as a federal activity is reserved for the states, which is an important check on federal government power. Elected lawmakers in your state can choose to mandate a few or many vaccines with or without exemptions, while the federal government has the authority to mandate vaccinations for people entering the U.S. or crossing state borders. 233

It was this understanding that prompted NVIC in 2010 to launch our free online Advocacy Portal at NVICAdvocacy.org that monitors proposed vaccine-related legislation and helps Americans educate lawmakers so flexible medical, religious and conscience vaccine exemptions can be secured and protected in public health laws. Despite aggressive lobbying efforts by vaccine manufacturers, public health officials and medical trade groups, until 2020, vaccine exemptions and informed consent rights have been successfully defended in multiple states over past decade, even though California, New York and several other states have taken those rights away. 234

Now, it looks like voluntary vaccination will be on the line in every state as the Vaccine Culture War, 235 which is the tip of the spear in a much larger culture war about values and beliefs going on in this and many other countries in the 21st century, is brought home to every person and every community in America.

Contact Your Legislators Now and Vote in November

You have an opportunity, right now, to contact your elected representatives and let them know how you feel about protecting civil liberties and vaccine informed consent rights in your state. Sign up to use NVIC’s Advocacy Portal to defend voluntary vaccine choices.

And when you go to the polls on November 4, 2020, think hard about who you are voting for and why. If you don’t like the response to the COVID-19 pandemic that your Governor or other elected representatives have made, your vote in this and every election beyond this one could affect whether America will continue to value liberty or throw it away.

Act Now

Because if the state can tag, track down and force individuals to be injected with biologicals of known and unknown toxicity today, then there will be no limit on which individual freedoms the state can take away in the name of the greater good tomorrow.

Be the one who never has to say you did not do today what you could have done to change tomorrow.

It’s your health, your family, your choice, and our mission continues:

No forced vaccination. Not in America.

Note: This commentary provides referenced information and perspective on a topic related to vaccine science, policy, law or ethics being discussed in public forums and by U.S. lawmakers.  The websites of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) provide information and perspective of federal agencies responsible for vaccine research, development, regulation and policymaking.

Click the plus sign at the bottom of this page to view and/or post comments on our commentary.
Click to View and Access References

 



COVI-PASS: UK INTRODUCES ‘DIGITAL HEALTH PASSPORT’ TO MONITOR TRAVEL, HEALTH OF POPULATION~COVID VACCINE: WHAT ELSE COULD THEY PUT IN THE SHOT?

COVI-PASS: UK Introduces 'Digital Health Passport' To Monitor Travel, Health Of Population
COVI-PASS: UK INTRODUCES 
‘DIGITAL HEALTH PASSPORT’ 
TO MONITOR TRAVEL, HEALTH OF POPULATION

We warned you for years; now it’s here!

BY JAMIE WHITE
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
purposes:
The UK government is preparing to rollout a new “digital health passport” to monitor nearly every aspect of citizens’ lives in the name of strengthening public health management.
British cybersecurity firm VST Enterprises, in partnership with the UK government, developed an application called “COVI-PASS” to track “your Covid-19 test history and immunoresponse and other relevant health information” using a proprietary matrix code called a “VCode.”
The COVI-PASS website bills the tech as “the World’s most secure Digital Health Passport, built on patented technology, awarded the ‘Seal of Excellence’ by the European Commission and being used by various United Nations Projects.”
The “VCode” itself is described as an end-all tech that can store every sensitive detail about your life using military-grade encryption software.
“Assign any form of information to your own VCode® securely. Your VCode® can store anything from identity details, in case of emergency information, health records, payment methods, car registration numbers, business card details, social media links and much more all from the same code.”
The company states that the technology will “allow” people to go back to work “safely,” suggesting the technology could be mandatory in order to return to work.
“As a secure Digital Health Passport, COVI-PASS™ links and displays a certified Covid-19 test result to the user’s Health and Immunoresponse, using a secure biometric gateway, allowing individuals to return to work and life safely,” the website states.
“COVI-PASS™, biometrically accessed on a mobile phone, or held on a key fob or RFID, provides a unique authenticated gateway for Government / Health Services and Businesses to ensure a safe work environment.”
A sports marketing company called Redstrike Group is partnering with VST Enterprises to introduce the tech for group sporting events, saying that people will only be able to return to daily life after they’ve been “officially tested.”
“Redstrike Group and its partner, Manchester-based cyber-security firm VST Enterprises, is delivering ground-breaking digital passport solution to governments, healthcare organizations, sports federations, leagues and clubs around the world. The VCode Digital Health Passport enables individuals who have been officially tested to start returning to work and daily activities in a safe and secure environment.”
As we reported last month, depopulation czar Bill Gates touted “immunity passports” as a means of contact tracing the U.S. population in order to reopen the economy.
“An even better solution would be the broad, voluntary adoption of digital tools,” wrote in the Washington Post. “For example, there are apps that will help you remember where you have been; if you ever test positive, you can review the history or choose to share it with whoever comes to interview you about your contacts.”
“And some people have proposed allowing phones to detect other phones that are near them by using Bluetooth and emitting sounds that humans can’t hear. If someone tested positive, their phone would send a message to the other phones, and their owners could get tested. If most people chose to install this kind of application, it would probably help some.”

Twitter: 
Constitutional lawyer Robert Barnes breaks down the globalist plot to roll out Mark of the Beast tech in the name of public health that will really be used to consolidate global power and enslave humanity.
_____________________________________________________________
COVID Vaccine: What Else Could They Put in the Shot?

COVID VACCINE: WHAT ELSE COULD THEY PUT IN THE SHOT?

There can be no doubt that nanotechnology is, indeed, very much involved in cutting-edge vaccine research

BY JON RAPPOPORT
SEE: https://www.infowars.com/covid-vaccine-what-else-could-they-put-in-the-shot/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
There has never been a greater opportunity to deploy one vaccine against so many people. So it’s certainly not out of line to consider a “dual use.”
I have already covered the devastating effects of experimental RNA/DNA vaccine technologies—both of which could be launched with a COVID vaccine. Putting that aside for the moment, could the vaccine serve another purpose?
In this article, I raise questions. Questions about the potential covert use of nanotechnology in the COVID vaccine.
From lexico.com: nanotechnology: “The branch of technology that deals with dimensions and tolerances of less than 100 nanometers, especially the manipulation of individual atoms and molecules.”
Are researchers interested in marrying nanotechnology and vaccines?
Here is a quote from Frontiers in Immunology, January 24, 2019, “Nanoparticle-Based Vaccines Against Respiratory Viruses”: A new generation of vaccines based on nanoparticles has shown great potential to address most of the limitations of conventional and subunit vaccines. This is due to recent advances in chemical and biological engineering, which allow the design of nanoparticles with a precise control over the size, shape, functionality and surface properties, leading to enhanced antigen presentation and strong immunogenicity. This short review provides an overview of the advantages associated with the use of nanoparticles as vaccine delivery platforms to immunize against respiratory viruses…” [such as the purported COVID-19 virus?]
Here is another quote, also from Frontiers in Immunology, October 4, 2018, “Nanoparticle Vaccines Against Infectious Diseases”: In the last several years, the use of nanoparticle-based vaccines has received a great attention to improve vaccine efficacy, immunization strategies, and targeted delivery to achieve desired immune responses at the cellular level…Nanocarriers composed of lipids, proteins, metals or polymers have already been used…This review article focuses on the applications of nanocarrier-based vaccine formulations and the strategies used for the functionalization of nanoparticles to accomplish efficient delivery of vaccines in order to induce desired host immunity against infectious diseases.”
There can be no doubt that nanotechnology is, indeed, very much involved in cutting-edge vaccine research.
Now let’s shift into another use of nanotech.
Here are astonishing quotes from the journal Nano Today, from a 2019 paper titled: “Nanowire probes could drive high-resolution brain-machine interfaces.” Its authors are Chinese and American:
“…advances can enable investigations of dynamics in the brain [through nano-sensor-implants] and drive the development of new brain-machine interfaces with unprecedented resolution and precision.”
“…output electrical signals of brain activity or input electrical stimuli to modulate brain activity in concert with external machines, including computer processors and prosthetics, for human enhancement…”
Aside from research into prosthetics and, perhaps, the reversal of certain paralyses, this avenue of investigation also suggests “modulation” of the brain remotely connected to machines, for the purpose of control.
Modulation…such as control of basic thought-impulses, sensations, emotions?
ONE: Nano-sensors, implanted in the body and brain, would issue real time data-reports on body/brain functioning to ops centers.
TWO: And from those ops centers, data—including instructions—would be sent back to the nano-sensors, which would impose those instructions on the brain and body.
If this seems impossible, consider nanotech research aimed at improving the use of prosthetics. In that field, imposing instructions on the body/brain appears to be the whole point.
The question is: how far along the road of development is this technology? I can only say we are seeing the public published face of nanotech. What lies behind it, in secret research, is a matter for estimation and speculation.
I offer one speculation: the “promotion” of the social agenda of collectivist thought, through nanotech. Utilizing the Internet of Things, an attempt would be made to hook up and “harmonize” many, many brains with one another. Same basic feelings, same impulses—shared.
Who would be interested in such a program? Think Chinese government, DARPA (the technology arm of the Pentagon), and numerous other international actors. Think Rockefeller medical researchers. Think technocracy and Brave New World.
SUPPOSE, THROUGH A COVID VACCINE, NANOTECH COULD BE INSERTED INTO BODIES AND BRAINS OF THE GLOBAL POPULATION? As a grand control “experiment.” Is that too far-out an idea?
Here is an interesting quote from a 3/11/20 S&P Global article, “Early-stage nanotechnology poised for ‘inflection point’”:
“One of the most pressing global healthcare challenges in 2020 is the coronavirus outbreak and Moderna Inc….is on the front line of vaccine development for this new biological threat.”
“Moderna’s nanoparticle-driven science uses genetic engineering to trigger cells to create proteins that prevent certain infections. Its vaccines for Zika virus and influenza have already progressed to early clinical stages…”
If Moderna’s COVID vaccine is indeed using nanoparticles, I have not seen this mentioned in current press reports.
The S&P Global article states, “One of the leaders in the field of biological nanotech engineering is Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Robert Langer, who has helped found about 40 companies based on technology created and developed in his Langer Lab…Moderna Inc., one of the companies Langer helped found…”
Does Moderna’s COVID vaccine use nanoparticles? If so, what can these particles actually do? These are pressing questions that need to be answered.
I offer two backgrounders I wrote several months ago. They involve the flood of highly significant scientific research across borders.

BACKGROUNDER ONE: Behind the explosive Charles Lieber nanotech scandal
Once upon a time, they called it espionage. Then they called it “illegal technology transfer.” Then they casually and admiringly called it Globalism.
Imagine this.
A cutting-edge technology, which has applications for weaponry, transportation, medicine, artificial intelligence, surveillance, mind control…is being openly shared between the US and China. And by implication, who knows how many other nations?
As just one example, tiny sensors would, up the road, be placed inside the human body. These sensors would automatically monitor and report thousands of changes, in real time, in the body—as a way of diagnosing diseases.
The sensors will transmit all this information, through the emerging Internet of Things—using the 5G pipeline—to medical centers—where AI corporate and government analysts will make the disease diagnoses and prescribe treatments.
Eventually, a few billion people (patients) would, through these sensors in their bodies, be hooked up to the 5G Internet of Things.
—HOWEVER, as I’ve reported many times in these pages, the standard definitions of diseases and disorders are often incorrect, or even invented. But because the future system I’ve just sketched is automated, the patient is enclosed in a fake and dangerous bubble. Among other problems, the disease treatments, the drugs and vaccines, are toxic.
What is the technology that is on the way to producing these body sensors?
Nanoscience. Nano-engineering.
From lexico.com: nanotechnology: “The branch of technology that deals with dimensions and tolerances of less than 100 nanometers, especially the manipulation of individual atoms and molecules.”
One of the leading nanoscience researchers in the world was recently arrested on a charge of concealing his connections to China.
Major US science star busted by the feds.
Charles Lieber, now suspended by Harvard, is the University’s chairman of the chemistry department.
I have read two articles from a foreign news outlet headlined with the claim that Lieber stole and smuggled the “new coronavirus” from the US to China. In both cases, the text of the articles mentioned nothing about such a theft. I’m not writing this article about “coronavirus.” I’ve been writing many articles rejecting the premise of an “epidemic” caused by the “virus.”
I decided to look into this situation, because Lieber does apparently have big-time connections to China. Sharing research on his specialty, nanoscience, with China would be one more case of “technology transfer.”
Bloomberg News, February 12, 2020: “Lieber’s arrest on Jan. 28 came in connection with his dealings in China. He hasn’t been charged with any type of economic espionage, intellectual-property theft, or export violations. Instead, he’s accused of lying to U.S. Department of Defense investigators about his work with the People’s Republic…”
“…by targeting Lieber, the chairman of Harvard’s chemistry department and a veritable ivory tower blue blood, prosecutors struck at the crimson heart of the academic elite, raising fears that globalism, when it comes to doing science with China, is being criminalized.”
“According to a government affidavit, signed by a Federal Bureau of Investigation agent named Robert Plumb, Lieber signed at least three agreements with Wuhan Technology University, or WUT, in central China. These included a contract with the state-sponsored Thousand Talents Plan—an effort by Beijing to attract mostly expatriate [Chinese] researchers and their know-how back home—worth a total of about $653,000 a year in pay [to Lieber] and living expenses for three years, plus $1.74 million [to Lieber] to support a new ‘Harvard-WUT Nano Key Lab’ in Wuhan. The government offered no evidence that Lieber actually received those sums… Lieber also deceived Harvard about his China contracts, the [federal] affidavit said.”
“Whatever extracurricular arrangements Lieber may have had in China, his Harvard lab was a paragon of U.S.-China collaboration. He relied on a pipeline of China’s brightest Ph.D. students and postdocs, often more than a dozen at a time, to produce prize-winning research on the revolutionary potential of so-called nanowires in biomedical implants. Dozens of Lieber’s 100 or so former lab members from China have chosen to stay in the U.S. Many now lead their own nanoscience labs at top universities, including Duke, Georgia Tech, MIT, Stanford, University of California at Berkeley, and UCLA.”
I’d say that’s a pretty big technology-transfer WOW right there.
“In the 1990s and 2000s, as Lieber’s achievements and stature were taking off, U.S. research institutions and grant makers pumped money and moral support into expanding the burgeoning collaborations between scientists in the U.S. and other countries, particularly China. The new paradigm was globalization, China was an emerging economic power, and Lieber’s lab became an exemplar of pan-Pacific collaboration. “
Another WOW. Not a leak of information. A flood.
“A more controversial Lieber protégé is Liqiang Mai, the international dean and chair of materials science at WUT, the little-known school in Wuhan that prosecutors allege recruited Lieber to be a ‘strategic scientist’ in 2011, for $50,000 a month. Mai, who hasn’t been named in any U.S. filings against Lieber, earned a doctorate at WUT in 2004 and worked as a postdoc in Lieber’s lab from 2008 to 2011, according to Mai’s WUT online bio….”
How big a star is Lieber? Wikpedia: “Charles M. Lieber (born 1959) is an American chemist and pioneer in the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology. In 2011, Lieber was recognized by Thomson Reuters as the leading chemist in the world for the decade 2000-2010 based on the impact of his scientific publications. Lieber has published over 400 papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals and has edited and contributed to many books on nanoscience. He is the principal inventor on over fifty issued US patents and applications, and founded the nanotechnology company Nanosys in 2001 and Vista Therapeutics in 2007. He is known for his contributions to the synthesis, assembly and characterization of nanoscale materials and nanodevices, the application of nanoelectronic devices in biology, and as a mentor to numerous leaders in nanoscience. In 2012, Lieber was awarded Israel’s Wolf Prize in Chemistry.”
Chemistry and Engineering News, January 28, 2020: “In addition, Lieber allegedly signed a contract that obligated Harvard to become part of a cooperative research program that allowed WUT [Chinese] scientists to visit the university up to two months each year. The [federal] complaint says he did not inform university officials of the agreement, which was for ‘advanced research and development of nano wire-based lithium-ion batteries with high performance for electric vehicles’.”
Another “technology transfer” of great value.
“…the NIH [US National Institutes of Health, a federal agency] asked Harvard about whether the university or Lieber failed to disclose his financial relationship with China. Lieber has been a principal investigator on at least three NIH grants totaling $10 million since 2008. After interviewing Lieber, Harvard [incorrectly, supposedly based on Lieber’s statements] responded to the NIH that he [Lieber] had ‘no formal association with WUT [Wuhan Institute of Technology]’ and ‘is not and has never been a participant in’ the [Chinese] Thousand Talents program.”
NIH has strict regulations about its researchers disclosing their conflict-of-interest connections. The feds obviously believe Lieber has failed to report his China connections to NIH. This would become a factor in his prosecution.
Lieber was operating a robust center at Harvard: Lieber Research Group. Its focus is nanoscience and nanotechnology. So it’s natural to ask, what kind of research findings would be shared with China?
On the Group’s website, there is this, right off the bat: “We are pioneering the interface between nanoelectronics and the life sciences…sensors for real-time disease detection…”
Hence, the picture of the future I sketched at the beginning of this backgrounder.
I may report further on nanoscience. Of course, the ominous technological innovations apply to both China and the US, and the rest of the world…
The Chinese government has the clout, will, force, and intent to impose, without hesitation, every sort of possible control on its 1.4 billion citizens. It is in the process of building many new “smart cities.” These centers will be models of wall-to-wall surveillance. AI, Internet of Things, 5G, the works. If nanoscience can achieve much more intimate access to people, through implanted sensors, why wouldn’t the Chinese government jump at the chance to deploy it? The rationale and the cover story are obvious: WE MUST HAVE EARLY KNOWLEDGE OF NEW VIRUS EPIDEMICS. WE WILL DETECT THEM DIRECTLY FROM THE BODIES OF OUR PEOPLE IN REAL TIME.
All hail, Globalism and technocracy.

BACKGROUNDER TWO: Nano-technology: one world, one brain
From lexico.com: nanotechnology: “The branch of technology that deals with dimensions and tolerances of less than 100 nanometers, especially the manipulation of individual atoms and molecules.”
The recent arrest of Harvard pioneer in the field of nanotechnology, Charles Lieber—on charges of lying to federal authorities about his business connections to China—has exposed wide-ranging relationships among American and Chinese researchers.
These relationships include, above all, the open sharing of sensitive technologies that, once upon a time, would have been considered closely guarded state secrets.
Here are quotes from the journal Nano Today, from a 2019 paper titled: “Nanowire probes could drive high-resolution brain-machine interfaces”. Its authors are Chinese and American:
“…advances can enable investigations of dynamics in the brain [through tiny sensor-implants] and drive the development of new brain-machine interfaces with unprecedented resolution and precision.”
“…output electrical signals of brain activity or input electrical stimuli to modulate brain activity in concert with external machines, including computer processors and prosthetics, for human enhancement…”
Aside from research into prosthetics and, perhaps, the reversal of certain paralyses, this avenue of investigation also suggests “modulation” of the brain, hooked to machines, for the purpose of control. Control of basic thoughts, sensations, emotions.
And along with the Internet of Things, why couldn’t that control eventually be extended, in order to “harmonize” many, many brains with one another?
Who would be interested in such a thing? Think Chinese government, DARPA (the technology arm of the Pentagon), and numerous other international actors. Think Rockefeller medical researchers. Think technocracy and Brave New World.
Over the past few decades, the flow of all sorts of ultra-sensitive scientific information, between the US and China, hasn’t consisted of rare leaks. It’s a flood, out in the open, in labs and universities. All part of the new share-and-care Globalist agenda.
Nanotechnology, to choose one branch of such research-exchange, has applications in weaponry, transportation, surveillance, medicine, etc. And of course, mind control.
“Look, I’m certainly willing to share my latest research on nano-brain implants. But I need your, ahem, assurance that your government won’t use this for dark purposes.”
“I understand completely. My government would no more do that than your government would.”
“All right. Then we’re good.”
“Yes. Good.”
How did US-China relations get to this point? At one time, it appeared the two governments were involved in a cold war. Oh, that’s right, President Nixon opened up China to trade, in 1972, after 25 years of no diplomatic relations. Nixon was the agent of David Rockefeller, who, years earlier, had rescued him from a broken career as a politician. David Rockefeller, arch Globalist.
Here’s what Rockefeller blithely wrote in 1973, a year after Nixon had worked his China miracle:
“Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.” (“From a China Traveler”. NY Times. August 10, 1973.)
Millions of people dead, freedom crushed, a whole population under the boot of the Communist regime, but somehow that’s not what David Rockefeller saw, or pretended to see. He, like other of his elite Globalist colleagues, admired the Chinese government for the capacity to control its own people, to such a high degree.
Flash forward 47 years. Scientists from both countries are blowing each other kisses, as they collaborate on developing a technology that has the potential to gain intimate influence inside the human brain itself.
—Of course, remember, when political push comes to shove, and it always does, China is the friend of China. In the case of American corporate and government big shots, hometown loyalty tends to be conditional, depending on which sources and countries are putting money on the table.

SOURCES:

FORCED VACCINES & DIGITAL IDs~CONDITIONING, THEN CONTROL, POPULATION CONTROL

FORCED VACCINES & DIGITAL IDs
With the high proclivity for government to operate outside of its constitutional limitations, the very real scenario of setting up a police state to ensure compliance with COVID-19 took a step forward with a new resolution introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. We’ll look at the TRACE Act 6666 and help you extend the lines to what may happen to your freedom if it passes in this episode of Analysis Behind the News, where we provide the perspective that you can use to restore American liberty and independence. Action Items: 1. Tell Congress to stop H.R. 6666: https://www.jbs.org/alert/stop-contac… 2. Visit our Countering COVID-19 action project page: https://www.jbs.org/covid19/ 3. Help to protect and restore American liberty and independence by joining The John Birch Society: https://www.jbs.org/join 4. Subscribe to our JBS news alerts: https://www.jbs.org/e-newsletter

 

If we agree that all of this lockdown fervor can be used as a means of conditioning the American people to willingly give up some of their liberties and rights, then the discussion naturally goes to the question, “What are we being conditioned for?” We’ll answer that question in this episode of Activate America, patriotically staying active during COVID-19 lockdown. With that question in mind, let us introduce the May 18, 2020 issue of The New American magazine, titled “Forced Vaccines and Digital IDs.” Action Items: 1. Distribute copies of the “Forced Vaccines and Digital IDs” issue: https://www.jbs.org/store/shoptna/tna… 2. Visit our COVID-19 Action Page for the latest legislative alerts, articles, and videos: https://www.jbs.org/covid19/ 3. Download and share the Freedom is the Cure issue of our news magazine: http://www.thenewamerican.com/files/T… ▶️ More Related Videos – America Pushes Back. ttps://youtu.be/rkq1TQhpQxg – The Importance of a Republic, Not a Democracy! https://youtu.be/AuTf1l2OVYo – Patriots Make Nullification Work. https://youtu.be/3pOSNa-fF5k LIKE THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY AND WANT TO GET INVOLVED? HERE ARE SOME NEXT STEPS! 🇺🇸 Become a Member https://www.jbs.org/join 📧 Free E-Newsletter https://www.jbs.org/e-newsletter 💰 Donate to Help Keep our Videos Free https://www.jbs.org/store/shopjbs/qui… 📺 Subscribe to our YouTube Channel https://bit.ly/2BJiEpx 📲 Let’s Connect! – https://www.facebook.com/JohnBirchSoc…https://twitter.com/the_jbshttps://www.instagram.com/johnbirchso… 📺 The New American YouTube https://bit.ly/2S8EBE1 #NoForcedVaccines #NoDigitalID #DeepState

______________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
purposes:
Over the last decade, major component agencies of the international Deep State have been working to design an all-encompassing digital ID system that would allow the tracking and control of the population of the entire world.
Here’s what they are planning: a national health ID. This has been under development by international agencies along with the Gates Foundation for several years. Planning for this is being done by ID2020, an organization supported by Accenture, the Rockefeller Foundation, Microsoft Corp., the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and others. Of note, among the others is an entity named “Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance,” whose support of ID2020 demonstrates the interest of would-be globalist regulators in tying vaccination to identification. This is all being built as part of an ongoing effort to force all of the world’s peoples, Americans not excluded, into a thoroughgoing digital ID scheme.
Of course, this sounds crazy. First, vaccines are always good, aren’t they? Second, there has to be some means of tracking who has and has not been vaccinated, right? Third, naturally, there needs to be some means of proving who you are. Finally, there can’t be some worldwide coordination on all of this, centralizing it and imposing it on everyone without Americans having come to know about it. That would be impossible, right?
Wrong. Far removed from the day-to-day concerns of average Americans, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and national and international government agencies work together to craft policies without notice being given to citizens, without mainstream media reporting, and without legislative oversight. In this case, for more than a decade these groups have collaborated on two tracks of tracking and control: a general-purpose digital ID to track each of the world’s inhabitants, and vaccination-based health IDs to allow governments and NGOs to track the health of citizens. In the age of COVID-19, the world’s would-be technocrat controllers and oligarchs are working to merge this pair of efforts into a single, foundational ID that would be used to constrain and control human activity.
Conditioning, Then Control
A first step toward implementing a vaccine-based ID scheme is conditioning people to accept the idea that they will need to prove their vaccination and health status before being allowed by government to engage in any activities that, heretofore, were exercised without restriction by a free people. This is perfect for the age of COVID-19, when mainstream media organs and government “experts” have worked overtime to instill extreme levels of fear into the American people, forcing them into what amounts to house arrest to fight the “war” on the virus. Now, to regain freedom, it has been suggested that people will need to prove that they have gained immunity to the virus. To this end, Anthony Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and a key member of the Trump administration’s coronavirus task force, admitted that the federal government is considering forcing citizens to use coronavirus immunity cards.
“You know, that’s possible,” Fauci told CNN. “I mean, it’s one of those things that we talk about when we want to make sure that we know who the vulnerable people are and [are] not,” he continued. “This is something that’s being discussed. I think it might actually have some merit, under certain circumstances.”
Importantly, the idea was also floated by Bill Gates, former head of Microsoft and current international supporter of digital ID schemes tied to vaccination. During an “Ask Me Anything” session on the social-media site Reddit, Gates said he supported using immunity IDs. “Eventually we will have some digital certificates to show who has recovered or been tested recently or when we have a vaccine who has received it,” Gates remarked. This is significant, as Gates and his foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, have been among the key players in the decade-old effort to develop both general-purpose digital IDs and vaccine/immunity tracking.
The constellation of efforts Gates has been making around digital identity and vaccination includes funding research at MIT on encoding health and identity data into a quantum-dot based system that can be embedded in the skin. Described by researchers in the journal Science Translational Medicine, the researchers said they had developed an “approach to encode medical history on a patient using the spatial distribution of biocompatible, near-infrared quantum dots (NIR QDs) in the dermis. QDs are invisible to the naked eye yet detectable when exposed to NIR light.”
The journal translated this into less technical terminology: “McHugh et al. developed dissolvable microneedles that deliver patterns of near-infrared light-emitting microparticles to the skin. Particle patterns are invisible to the eye but can be imaged using modified smartphones. By codelivering a vaccine, the pattern of particles in the skin could serve as an on-person vaccination record.… These results demonstrate proof of concept for intradermal on-person vaccination recordkeeping.”
Records in scientific journal research databases reveal sources of funding for studies such as this one. In this case, funding was provided by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, along with the National Science Foundation, the National Cancer Institute, and the National Institutes of Health here in the United States. Funding sources also included the Youth Innovation Promotion Association of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the China Scholarship Council, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China.
WHO Is the Vaccine ID Granddaddy
Fauci and the NIAID have a history of working with the Gates Foundation on worldwide vaccination programs. In 2010, the World Health Organization launched the “Global Vaccine Action Plan to guide discovery, development and delivery of lifesaving vaccines.”
“The World Health Organization (WHO), UNICEF, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have announced a collaboration to increase coordination across the international vaccine community and create a Global Vaccine Action Plan,” said the WHO press release announcing the plan.
It continued: “The collaboration follows the January 2010 call by Bill and Melinda Gates for the next ten years to be the Decade of Vaccines. The Global Vaccine Action Plan will enable greater coordination across all stakeholder groups — national governments, multilateral organizations, civil society, the private sector and philanthropic organizations — and will identify critical policy, resource, and other gaps that must be addressed to realize the life-saving potential of vaccines.”
The leadership council for this initiative included:
• Margaret Chan, director general of WHO;
• Anthony Fauci, director of NIAID, part of the National Institutes of Health;
• Anthony Lake, executive director of UNICEF;
• Joy Phumaphi, chair of the International Advisory Committee and executive secretary of the African Leaders Malaria Alliance; and
• Tachi Yamada, president of global health at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Among these names, readers of The New American may be familiar with Anthony Lake, who previously served as national security advisor to President Bill Clinton. Lake, who had been nominated by Clinton to head the Central Intelligence Agency, infamously wasn’t sure if notorious Soviet spy Alger Hiss was actually a spy.
Also noteworthy is Margaret Chan, former longtime leader of the World Health Organization. Before taking the reins of WHO, Chan served as director of public health for Hong Kong. There, in 2004, she came under criticism from the city’s Legislative Council for her handling of the original SARS outbreak that led to 299 deaths and considerable economic turmoil for the city. Reporting in 2004, the Hong Kong Standard noted that Chan was “unanimously condemned” by the council for what was described as “dereliction of duty before and during the early stage of the Sars outbreak,” said Tim Pang from the group Society for Community Organisation, a group representing the interests of SARS victims in the city. Chan’s inaction “had a serious impact on public health and global health, which should disqualify her from working for the WHO,” Pang concluded, according the Standard.
Her record at WHO, where she gained the top job after being boosted by Communist China, as reported by Politico, was also not without controversy. In 2009, under her leadership, WHO promoted the idea that the H1N1 swine flu pandemic would be a worldwide catastrophe. In fact, it proved to be much milder than the WHO health bureaucrats promised, prompting noted German physician and one-time member of the German Parliament Wolfgang Wodarg to note in response, “WHO in cooperation with some big pharmaceutical companies and their re-defined pandemics … lowered the alarm threshold.” The organization pushed a mass vaccination program for the swine flu, and these vaccines proved dangerous in some cases, causing narcolepsy in some, according to Politico. Though judged safe by the likes of the CDC, the swine flu vaccine was viewed with increasing suspicion.
Chan was also known for her deferential treatment of communism. She appeared particularly fond of North Korea, where she noted, according to Reuters, that there were no signs of obesity and that “nutrition is an area that the government has to pay attention [to] and especially for pregnant women and for young children.” This in a country where at least 40 percent of the population teeters on the verge of starvation. She also praised the communist dictatorship’s vaccination programs, Reuters reported. “They have something which most other developing countries would envy,” she said of North Korean healthcare.
Most recently, Chan has worked with Mike Bloomberg’s Task Force on Fiscal Policy for Health. That effort resulted in an April 2019 “study” calling for all nations to raise taxes by 50 percent on sugary soft drinks, alcohol, and tobacco. She is now part of the Council of Advisors for the China-based globalist organization the Boao Forum for Asia, run by former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Zhou Xiaochuan, former governor of the People’s Bank of China, the communist nation’s answer to the Federal Reserve. At the Boao Forum, she is president of the organization’s Global Health Forum (GHF). The GHF’s first annual conference was held in June 2019, and among the organization’s stated goals was to “advance the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” Among a broad menu of other things, that UN program promises by 2030 to “provide legal identity for all, including birth registration.” This UN program is the framework on which all other world government organizations and NGOs are basing their efforts to build health, vaccination, and digital ID plans and programs.
In its documentation, the World Health Organization’s Global Vaccine Action Plan, led by Chan and Fauci, called for numerous steps, including the use of ID technologies to track those vaccinated. According to the Global Vaccine Action Plan 2011-2020 summary available as a PDF from WHO: “Reaching every community will call for an understanding of the barriers to access and use of immunization; it will also require the underserved to be identified, and micro-plans at the district and community levels to be reviewed and revised in order to ensure that these barriers can be overcome. The rapid expansion of information technology should be leveraged to establish immunization registries and electronic databases that will allow each individual’s immunization status to be tracked, timely reminders to be sent when immunization is due and data to be accessed easily to inform actions. The introduction of unique identification numbers could be a catalyst for the establishment of such systems.”
Schemes for Global ID Control
Tying vaccine and health data to identification documentation is a twist on an already elaborate, emerging constellation of efforts to subjugate the population of the entire world using a universal digital ID.
In a 2019 paper, the McKinsey Global Institute (McKinsey) described how a digital ID would take the place of traditional paper IDs. The organization worked with all of the leading players in the development of these ID schemes. “Our understanding of good ID was informed by extensive consultations with our research collaboration partners Omidyar Network, the Open Society Foundations, and the Rockefeller Foundation,” said the McKinsey report. “We also conducted in-depth discussions on the opportunities and challenges associated with digital ID with experts from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Center for Global Development, iSPIRT, the United Nations Development Programme, the World Bank Group’s ID4D initiative, and the World Economic Forum.”
This is a rogues’ gallery of NGOs if there ever was one. The Omidyar Network, for instance, thinks capitalism should be “reimagined,” which is code for being “managed” by planners to “rebalance power,” shifting it from markets to the state and from businesses to workers’ groups in such a way as to explicitly undermine free market economics, which the organization identifies with its bogeyman, the “Milton Friedman-Friedrich Hayek paradigm.”
In addition to the Omidyar Network, the Open Society Foundations from internationalist mastermind George Soros is the chief NGO involved in the disruption of national sovereignty worldwide, while the Rockefeller Foundation has a deep history of dangerous subversion of individual dignity and rights. The latter organization, to point to just one disturbing example, played a key role in the perpetuation of the eugenics scheme worldwide, including in Nazi Germany. This, of course, sounds preposterous to those unfamiliar with this bit of hidden history. But as pioneering journalist Edwin Black, author of several books on the eugenics movement and Nazi Germany, points out, “The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.”
These are some of the key organizations that now want to be trusted to guide the creation of a world scheme of digital identification.
Based on their discussions with these and other organizations behind the scheme, McKinsey reported that a “good ID” (a euphemism preferred by the Omidyar Network) would be authenticated digitally, and could be issued by “a national or local government, by a consortium of private or nonprofit organizations, or by an individual entity.” Technologies used for authentication, McKinsey wrote, could include everything from “biometric data to passwords, PINs, or smart devices and security tokens.”
Building a digital ID platform, McKinsey notes, is needed in order to reach the goals outlined by the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development — the same program guiding the efforts of Margaret Chan’s Global Health Forum.
Describing digital ID as an opportunity — the main theme of the report — Mc-Kinsey pointed directly to the UN program, arguing that the world body’s “Sustainable Development Goals promote legal identity for all, especially birth registration, by 2030. Furthermore, digital ID is increasingly seen as a prerequisite to participate in the digital economy, for example in digital finance. Digital inclusion is considered so important to promote economic development that the United Nations has highlighted digital inclusion as a key enabler for 13 of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals.”
That last bit is promoted by those behind the digital ID schemes as a benefit. People provided with these new digital talismans will be able to get financing, secure jobs, purchase products, participate in democracy, and so forth, according to the prevailing propaganda.
But the reverse is also true. Without the digital ID, freedom will be revoked. There will be no freedom to work for a living, to purchase property, to move about freely, or to trade for goods or services. The digital ID is, in fact, a scheme to restrict or eliminate individual freedom outright and to provide it only on the authority of some NGO or government agency.
Turn over enough rocks and you’ll find some of those behind the push for a digital ID admitting that the scheme is actually about controlling people and behavior. While pushing for adoption of digital IDs, McKinsey admits: “Without proper controls, digital ID system administrators with nefarious aims, whether they work for private-sector firms or governments, would gain access to and control over data. History provides ugly examples of misuse of traditional identification programs, including tracking or persecuting ethnic and religious groups. Digital ID, if improperly designed, could be used in yet more targeted ways against the interests of individuals or groups by government or the private sector. Potential motivations could include financial profit from the collection and storage of personal data, political manipulation of an electorate, and social control of particular groups through surveillance and restriction of access to uses such as payments, travel, and social media.”
One of the companies building the technological infrastructure for digital ID schemes is arms manufacturer and security firm Thales Group. Partially owned by the French government, the key division of Thales working on Digital ID is Gemalto, a formerly independent company that Thales acquired in 2017 for $5.4 billion.
As with every other participant in the digital ID scheme, Gemalto points to its alignment with the UN’s goals in its literature on building a digital ID. And it admits that a future digital identity will be necessary for individuals to engage in activities that, today, don’t require an ID. “Without a robust means of proving one’s identity, exercising one’s basic rights, claiming entitlements, accessing a range of governmental services, and conducting many daily activities could be hampered,” Gemalto warns.
It should be noted that this is not something coming in the distant, far-off future. Digital IDs are already being implemented. For just one example, in July 2019, Thales launched the Gemalto Digital ID Wallet. In a press release the company described the function of this technology:
With Thales’s new Gemalto Digital ID Wallet, governments will issue a secure digital version of official documents including identity cards, health cards and drivers licenses, available to all citizens on their smartphones. Citizens will therefore be able to prove who they are, both online and in the “real world,” and access their rights and services at the touch of a button. The solution uses multi-layered security techniques and sophisticated encryption to achieve robust protection of personal data, whilst offering users complete control over what information they choose to share, with whom, and when.
Solutions such as this would invariably be tied to various databases housing information about each person. It is a trivial matter to include in such databases information about credit scores, consumer behavior, and more. In China, the population is increasingly controlled by the communist regime’s “social credit score.” Writing for Digital Trends in 2018, Luke Dormehl pointed out that the West is closer to China’s system than many think. Of China’s Orwellian plan, he wrote: “In addition to more mundane areas like whether you pay your community charge on time, the system’s reputational algorithm will also factor in your choice of online friends. That person who complains about how the government is doing its job could suddenly cost you some serious social cred. Befriend too many wrongthinkers and you could quickly find yourself classed as a wrongthinker too.”
It’s disturbing, and it’s not going to be confined to China. “It’s an idea straight out of the oft-invoked George Orwell dystopia Nineteen Eighty-Four,” Dormehl continued. “But it’s also not wholly unique to China. True, the U.S. government isn’t publicly instituting a Social Credit System, but the idea that digital reputation analysis isn’t something that affects us all in 2018 is patently untrue.”
While somewhat informal and dispersed today in America, a worldwide digital ID would offer the planet’s would-be ruling class — the international “Deep State” if you will — the opportunity to roll out a communist China-like system for everyone, offering a level of control over people never before possible, or even dreamed of by tyrants of the past.
The Health ID Scheme
One of the key international organizations working to integrate digital ID and health ID is the World Bank, through its Identification for Development (ID4D) scheme. In 2018, the world financial body revealed in a report on its ID4D initiatives that it was receiving key support from certain governments and from a pair of the internationalist and subversive NGOs that are prominent throughout the movement to shackle the world’s people to an ID control scheme. “The work of ID4D is made possible through support from the World Bank Group, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the UK Government, the Australian Government and the Omidyar Network,” the World Bank report notes.
The World Bank calls for the linking of a health ID with existing national IDs into a resulting, all-encompassing digital ID called a “foundational identification.”
“Integration between foundational identification and healthcare systems has the potential to not only improve the delivery of health services and public health management, but also to strengthen identification systems themselves,” the World Bank report notes. “This is particularly the case where there are strong linkages between identification and civil registration systems, the latter of which already relies on the health sector for birth and death registration. Incorporating foundational systems into healthcare can strengthen and streamline these processes and create further demand for identity documents and civil registration.”
On the latter point, generating citizen demand for more ID documents, the World Bank report is slyly admitting that demand for IDs will be driven by restricting services to only those who already have the ID required. “Where a unique foundational identifier is required to enroll in or access health services, it may increase incentives to obtain the ID, as in Estonia and India,” the report notes. Again, that’s because without the new ID, citizens would be prevented from accessing services.
Of course, the World Bank’s 2018 report also pointed out that a “foundational identification” scheme that incorporates health ID would be “useful” during health emergencies. “Stronger vital statistics generated by CR [civil registration] systems also benefit public health by improving the accuracy and timeliness of important indicators — e.g., mortality, morbidity, maternal and child health, etc. — used in health policy and planning and emergency response to disease outbreaks,” the organization says.
Population Control
As if tracking and controlling people isn’t bad enough, there may be a more sinister population-control plan afoot. Speaking at a TED conference in 2010 on the subject of cutting carbon emissions to prevent global warming, Bill Gates pointed to population control as one area where an impact could be made. Among other things, he singled out vaccination as having a role in population control.
“First we’ve got population,” Gates began. “The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”
Now, most people make the reasonable conclusion that vaccines, making people less prone to disease and, therefore, healthier, promote population stability, if not outright growth. But Gates, quite curiously, tied vaccines to population control in this talk.
Subsequently, Melinda Gates attempted to explain his counterintuitive philosophy on vaccines for population control. In the couple’s 2017 Annual Letter, she wrote: “Saving children’s lives is the goal that launched our global work. It’s an end in itself. But then we learned it has all these other benefits as well. If parents believe their children will survive — and if they have the power to time and space their pregnancies — they choose to have fewer children.”
Credible but also creditably disputed claims, especially in Kenya, that some Gates-related vaccines intervened in human reproduction aside, Gates and his organization are interested in population control. Their work for a decade or more on tying vaccination to identification is clearly part of this agenda. Even taking the generous position of assigning to Gates the possibility that he is attempting to simply improve childhood health and reduce poverty does not remove or make illegitimate concerns about using vaccination and health IDs to track the world’s population, as such a scheme creates a system of control for population technocrats to direct the lives of billions of people in a power grab of unimaginable proportions — and consequences.
At least not everyone in the Trump administration is simply going along with the internationalist plan for the implementation of health IDs.
Speaking to Laura Ingraham on Fox News, Attorney General Bill Barr said he didn’t like the idea of vaccine IDs and certificates to prove immunity to COVID-19.
“I’m very concerned about the slippery slope in terms of continuing encroachments on personal liberty. I do think during the emergency, appropriate, reasonable steps are fine,” Barr said when asked about vaccine certificates. Asked for more specifics, he continued: “I’d be a little concerned about that, the tracking of people and so forth, generally, especially going forward over a long period of time.”
Opposition aside, if technocrats such as Gates achieve their aims, Americans will not be able to shop, work, travel, or do anything else without their vaccine/health ID, which will almost certainly end up in some sort of technological and possibly injectable form. This likely would then be combined in the future with your credit score and other social scores, becoming an all-encompassing tracking and management technology for the world’s population.
Keep in mind, too, the very important point that plans for a digital ID imposed worldwide are not schemes for the far-distant future. The UN development goals motivating the construction of the ID scheme call for implementation by 2030, just a decade away. But already, much of the infrastructure is in place. From Thales and Gemalto already launching digital ID wallets, to pilot projects in places such as Bangladesh and early digital ID operations in Estonia and India, to name just two of many, the electronic control trap is ready to spring.
“The technology sector is on a mission to equip everyone on the planet with a digital and online presence,” wrote Gavi Vaccine Alliance CEO Seth Berkely in Nature in 2017. “One of the biggest needs is for affordable, secure digital identification systems that can store a child’s medical history, and that can be accessed even in places without reliable electricity. That might seem a tall order, but it is both achievable and necessary,” he concluded.
Again, Berkely was writing in 2017. The scheme has made great strides since then, and a pandemic is just what is needed to scare a fearful populace into submission.
Contrary to what the Deep State schemers and planners claim, people receive neither legitimacy nor identity from an NGO- or government-administered database or tracking system. Each person’s natural rights are inherent in their humanity and cannot be subjected in any legitimate way to control, management, and regulation by some oligarchic international bureaucracy.
A digital ID scheme is nothing more than a means of tracking personal activity and limiting and regulating access and behavior. It is antithetical to a free people. That the plans for this have been and continue to be made at international conferences and behind the closed doors of international agencies and NGOs, unreported by the media and without citizen knowledge or assent, tells you much about their essential nature.
Technocrat oligarchs and planners are not looking to emancipate the peoples of the world, but to enslave  and control them. Don’t let them.
Live free — oppose the ID!

OPPOSE H.R. 6666, THE COVID–19 TESTING, REACHING & CONTACTING EVERYONE (TRACE) ACT

OPPOSE H.R. 6666, THE COVID–19 TESTING, REACHING & CONTACTING EVERYONE 

(TRACE) ACT 

Contact your U.S. Congressional Representative and ask them to vote NO on H.R. 6666

THE NVIC ADVOCACY PORTAL

THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER

Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

Dear NVIC Advocacy Team Members,

H.R. 6666, otherwise known as the COVID–19 Testing, Reaching, And Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act, was introduced and referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on 5/1/2020.  This bill is sponsored by Representative Bobby Rush (D) of Illinois District 1.  The bill has 59 cosponsors, 58 Democrats and 1 Republican.  We need your help to stop this terrible bill.

Summary

H.R. 6666 provides 100 billion dollars this year and unlimited federal funding in future years to create and operate a massive and likely unconstitutional surveillance, testing, and tracing enforcement system under the guise of “protecting” Americans against coronavirus.

H.R. 6666 is a federal funding bill. It proposes to create a surveillance infrastructure that can be used by the federal government, as well as local and state governments and private businesses, to require medical testing and tracking of all citizens in violation of fundamental civil liberties as set forth in the Bill of Rights, which include the first 10 amendments to the  U.S. Constitution designed to protect individual rights and limit the power of the government.

H.R. 6666 lacks safeguards and conditions related to funding of the proposed surveillance operation to prevent it from being applied to intrusive programs mandating testing and surveillance without an individual’s voluntary consent. If this legislation is passed by Congress and enacted into law, it could lead to denial of an individual’s right to appear in public spaces and travel; the right to employment and education or participation in government-funded services, and the right to receive care in a government funded hospital or other any other medical facility.

H.R. 6666 specifically allows for funded entities to home quarantine a person against their will, even while they are healthy. Once a vaccine is available, the testing and tracing results potentially could be used to force individuals to be injected with a COVID-19 vaccine against their will.

According to a Press Release from the sponsor Congressman Bobby L. Rush, “Reopening our economy and getting back to normal will be all but impossible if we do not step up our testing efforts and implement robust and widespread contact tracing,” said Rep. Rush.  “Until we have a vaccine to defeat this dreaded disease, contact tracing in order to understand the full breadth and depth of the spread of this virus is the only way we will be able to get out from under this.”

The Devil is in the Details

H.R. 6666 would allow The Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), to award federal grants to eligible entities to conduct diagnostic testing for COVID–19, to trace and monitor the contacts of infected individuals, and to support the quarantine of such contacts. Through the use of mobile health units, as necessary, individuals would be tested and provided with services related to testing and quarantine at their residences.

The amount of money appropriated for fiscal year 2020 would be $100,000,000,000 (one hundred billion dollars) and more money may be appropriated by Congress as necessary for any subsequent fiscal year during which the emergency period continues.

A grant recipient may use the federal grant funds, in support of the above referenced activities to hire, train, compensate, and pay the expenses of individuals; and to purchase personal protective equipment and other supplies.

Priority will be given to applicants in “hot spots” and medically underserved communities and to entities that hire residents of the community where the activity will occur.  Hot spots are defined as a geographic area where the rate of infection with the virus that causes COVID–19 exceeds the national average. Medically underserved communities are communities given that term in section 799B of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295p).

Entities eligible for the grant money are defined as a federally qualified health center, school-based clinic, disproportionate share hospital, academic medical center, nonprofit organization, institute of higher education, high school, and any other type of entity as determined by the Secretary of HHS.

H.R. 6666 Does Not Guarantee Privacy

Section 2 (e) of H.R. 6666 is entitled “Federal Privacy Requirements”, but it does little to protect privacy. It states that “Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede any Federal privacy or confidentiality requirement, including the regulations promulgated under section 264(c) of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–191; 110 Stat. 2033) and section 543 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290dd–2).

In actuality, H.R. 6666 offers few privacy protections for Americans who will be surveilled and tested without their consent under programs funded with this grant. In fact, Americans can expect their privacy to be violated under TRACE funded programs. That is because the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA45 CFR 164.512(b)(1)(i) has always allowed disclosure of private health information to government officials and other government approved entities including foreign governments without the knowledge or consent of the individual for the purpose of conducting public health surveillance, investigations or interventions.

Bill of Rights Cannot Be Suspended During A “Public Health Crisis”

The Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution cannot be set aside by the federal government or state governments during pandemics or other public health emergencies. In The United States Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiffs, filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in a case last month in which church goers attending a drive-in sermon were issued citations for violating an executive order in Mississippi, the DOJ stated;

“There is no pandemic exception, however, to the fundamental liberties the Constitution safeguards. Indeed, “individual rights secured by the Constitution do not disappear during a public health crisis.” In re Abbott, — F.3d —, 2020 WL 1685929, at *6 (5th Cir. Apr. 7, 2020). These individual rights, including the protections in the Bill of Rights made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, are always in force and restrain government action.”

H.R. 6666 sets the stage for multiple violations of our constitutional rights.

The 4th Amendment right of American citizens is to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The proposed law would provide government funding of entities that create and implement programs to trace and monitor healthy people potentially exposed to the coronavirus. However, the bill does not allow individuals to exercise their Constitutional right to be safe in their homes free from warrantless government intrusion, and does not provide for voluntary refusal of testing and monitoring by a government funded entity. The bill also does not set forth how the contacts of persons with COVID-19 will be traced and whether the Constitutional rights of those infected with COVID-19, as well as their contacts, will be upheld.

The 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. This legislation provides government funding of entities that will enforce testing and potentially enforce vaccination of healthy individuals, who are suspected of having come into contact with COVID-19 positive persons whether or not they are exhibiting symptoms, without requiring the voluntary consent of the individual.

The  8th Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment of citizens.  The proposed law provides government funding to entities that will create and implement programs that trace, monitor and support the enforced quarantine of healthy individuals, who are suspected of coming into contact with COVID-19 persons, whether or not they are exhibiting symptoms and whether or not they may already be immune.

The 9th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution bestows upon the people rights not specifically set forth in the Constitution. H.R. 6666 provides funding for entities to create and implement undefined “related activities” to COVID-19 testing and unnamed “other purposes.”

H.R. 6666 should be opposed because it provides federal funding to entities to create and enforce unrestricted surveillance, testing, tracing and quarantine mechanisms and has no set end date. There is simply no way to know how many inalienable rights protected under the U.S. Constitution could be infringed upon or taken away from citizens if this bill becomes law. 

Text, Status and History for H.R. 6666 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6666?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22HR+6666%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=1

Action Needed

1) Call and Email your own U.S. Congressional Representative and ask them to vote against H.R. 6666, the “COVID–19 Testing, Reaching, And Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act.” Pick a few points in the discussion about that resonate with you to personalize your message.  You may need to leave a phone message as many staff members are working remotely.

If you do not know who your U.S. House Representative is or their contact information, you can login to the NVIC Advocacy Portal, http://NVICAdvocacy.org, click on the “NATIONAL” tab, and your elected Congressional Legislators are automatically posted on the right hand side of the page.  Click on their name to display links to all of their contact information.  If a district office is close to your home, you may also consider trying to set up a longer phone call, video chat or meeting with your Representative or staff to discuss your concerns.

2) Login to the NVIC Advocacy Portal, http://NVICAdvocacy.org, OFTEN to check for state and U.S. updates and action items.  We review bills and make updates daily. Bills can change many times over the legislative process and your timely visits, calls, and emails directed at the correct legislators are critical to this process.

3) Please forward this email to family and friends and ask them to register for the NVIC Advocacy Portal at http://NVICAdvocacy.org and share their concerns with their Representative as well. 

Sincerely,

NVIC Advocacy Team National Vaccine Information Centerhttp://NVIC.org and http://NVICAdvocacy.org https://nvicadvocacy.org/members/Members/ContactUs.aspx

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) works diligently to prepare and disseminate our legislative advocacy action alerts and supporting materials.  We request that organizations and members of the public forward our alerts in their original form to assure consistent and accurate messaging and effective action. Please acknowledge NVIC as originators of this work when forwarding to members of the public and like-minded organizations. To receive alerts immediately, register  at http://NVICAdvocacy.org, a website dedicated to this sole purpose and provided as a free public service by NVIC. 

PRESIDENT TRUMP TO MOBILIZE MILITARY TO GIVE COVID-19 VACCINE; THIS IS THE WORST IDEA EVER~ WTF IS THE PRESIDENT THINKING?

PRESIDENT TRUMP TO MOBILIZE MILITARY

TO GIVE COVID-19 VACCINE;

THIS IS THE WORST IDEA EVER

WTF is the president thinking?
SEE: https://www.infowars.com/president-trump-to-mobilize-military-to-give-covid-19-vaccine-this-is-the-worst-idea-ever/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
In a move that will make globalists squeal with delight, President Trump says he would mobilize the military to give out the Covid-19 vaccine to the American public.
What a horrible idea! This is literally an idea the deep state would cook up. Does the president realize the pro-mandatory vaccine crowd is not his base?
According to CBS:
President Trump says he would “rapidly” mobilize the U.S. military to distribute a coronavirus vaccine once it’s ready, focusing first on nursing homes and the elderly most vulnerable to deadly complications from the virus. Mr. Trump made the comments during an interview with Fox Business’ Maria Bartiromo.
“We’re mobilizing our military and other forces but we’re mobilizing our military on the basis that we do have a vaccine. You know, it’s a massive job to give this vaccine. Our military is now being mobilized so at the end of the year we’re going to be able to give it to a lot of people very, very rapidly,” the president said.
“We will have a tremendous force because assuming we get it, then you have to distribute it,” he added. “And unless you’re mobilized and ready, you’re not going to be able to do it for a long time. So we’re starting now.”
Voice of America also reported that the president would release more details on Friday.
Notice the number of downvotes on this video posted by his base:
Scientists in Iceland said they have already found at least 40 different mutations of the coronavirus, which suggests that the vaccine could be as ineffective as a flu shot.
“So now they’re telling us they’re gonna rush a COVID vaccine when we know there have been twenty to thirty mutations of this virus already, and I’m very, very concerned that they’re rushing out a vaccine that will be dangerous, ineffective, et cetera, so I said this,” radio host Michael Savage said last week. “
…And I don’t care who tells me I have to take it, if Donald Trump tells me to take it, I’m not taking it, you hear me? I’m not taking it for Jesus, I’m not taking it for Trump, I’m not taking it for Moses, I’m not not taking it for Isaiah, I’m not taking it for Muhammad, I’m not taking it for Charlie Parker, I’m not taking it.”

Did you listen? Will you listen now?

HEALTH OFFICIALS LAUNCH MOBILE APP TO PRE-REGISTER CHICAGOANS FOR MASS COVID-19 VACCINES~IMPLEMENTING “CONTACT TRACING, MAPPING, MONITORING”~WHY “OPERATION WARP SPEED” COULD BE DEADLY; FORCING VACCINES ON YOU WITH IMMUNITY FOR THE PHARMACEUTICALS

HEALTH OFFICIALS LAUNCH MOBILE APP 
TO PRE-REGISTER CHICAGOANS 
FOR COVID-19 VACCINE 
BY RISHMA PARPIA
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
purposes:
The Chicago Department of Public Health (CDPH) has developed a website and an application known as the “Chi COVID Coach “ app where Chicagoans can now pre-register to receive a COVID-19 vaccine once it is licensed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in the U.S.1
According to the Chicago Sun Times, the “Chi COVID Coach” mobile app was developed by Google and MTX in collaboration with the CDPH to help communicate with Chicagoans who have either tested positive for the coronavirus or may be experiencing symptoms.1 The application uses Google Cloud’s technology to provide residents with real-time information.

Pre-Registration for Future Mass Vaccination in Chicago

The CDPH website states that the main purpose of the “Chi COVID Coach” app is to coach COVID-19 patients on symptoms, provide testing information, announce the availability of future antibody testing information and allow pre-registration for when a vaccine becomes available.2
The website states, “Looking even further ahead, registering with Chi COVID Coach will ensure CDPH has your individual information as we plan for Chicago’s COVID-19 vaccination campaign–which likely will not happen until 2021, once a vaccine is available.”
CDPH Commissioner Allison Arwady said officials are building their plans with the intention to vaccinate the whole city of Chicago.3 According to a press release from Mayor Lori Elaine Lightfoot’s office, “Though a vaccine may be many months away, CDPH is already taking steps to prepare for mass vaccination. Because of this, everyone is encouraged to sign up, whether they have symptoms or not.”4
Although Mayor Lightfoot and CDPH Commissioner Arwady said a COVID-19 vaccine is not expected until 2021, both said they are already mapping plans to vaccinate the whole city by purchasing syringes and equipment and choosing locations where the vaccine will be administered.1

Using Technology For “Contact Tracing” and Mapping Plans

Even though a COVID-19 vaccine is not expected to be licensed for emergency use until the end of this year with widespread use not expected until 2021, the goal of pre-registering Chicagoans and collecting personal medical information in an electronic database will make the data immediately available to public health officials once a licensed vaccine is distributed in the United States.5
Public health officials in Chicago are weighing technology options needed to link a person’s symptoms to COVID-19 test results, vaccination status and ultimately, contact tracing.5
Contact tracing involves electronically monitoring the movements of people, usually through smartphones carried by the majority of people, and tracing everyone that a person, who tests positive for the coronavirus, has been in contact with. Public health officials have said that this practice is viewed as a crucial step to safely re-open the Chicago economy.5
Mayor Lightfoot said that the city of Chicago is looking at adopting a mobile app technology being developed in Germany.1 She states, “The German government is working on an app that will automatically be able to do and facilitate contact tracing on the basis of proximity to somebody who is subsequently tested positive. The app will collect information about who you’ve been in contact with, then automatically send out an alert.”1
Chicago officials maintain that the electronic surveillance data is protected and will only be used by CDPH for public health purposes related to controlling the spread of COVID-19.5
References:
____________________________________________________________
WHY “OPERATION WARP SPEED” COULD BE DEADLY
BY  BARRY BROWNSTEIN, PhD
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
purposes:
Opinion | Politicians are dreaming of a “Manhattan Project-style effort” to develop and distribute a coronavirus vaccine “for most Americans by year’s end.” To accomplish this dramatic cut in vaccine development time, “the program will pull together private pharmaceutical companies, government agencies and the military.” Normal vaccine development time is significantly longer.
Fourteen potential coronavirus vaccines are vying to be selected as the winner of “Operation Warp Speed.” Government will shield pharmaceutical companies from liability for damages that their vaccines may inflict. Taxpayers will reimburse companies for development costs for vaccines that don’t make it to market.
If you’re cheering the government for cutting red-tape, think again. Liability shields for crony capitalists and no cost for failure policies guarantee errors will be made. Without market safeguards significant injuries to human beings are highly likely. Errors will be exacerbated if medical tyranny prevails with legal mandates requiring the COVID-19 vaccination for employment and travel.
Haven’t we learned there was no such thing as efficient food distribution in the Soviet Union? Haven’t we learned there was no such thing as a safe East German Communist Trabant automobile? There is no such thing as efficient and safe, centrally planned pharmaceutical development. As we will see later in this essay, the last time government sought a “warp speed” vaccine, dead and paralyzed vaccine recipients were the tragic consequences.

Limits on Liability

Pharmaceuticals, including vaccines, have benefits and costs. We don’t have to resolve our cognitive dissonance by denying the benefits of vaccines or denying the harm they can do.
Faced with “challenges to vaccine orthodoxy, scholars, commentators, and public health officials are quick to characterize dissent as mere propaganda of ‘anti-vaxxers,’” writes law professor Efthimios Parasidis in his Boston University Law Review article “Recalibrating Vaccination Laws.”
Parasidis wrote his essay a mere three years ago. Could he have imagined what is happening today, just a few years later? A group affiliated with the FBI is labeling those who question the vaccine orthodoxy as a “threat to national security.” In a similar vein, California State Senator Dr. Richard Pan claims that those demanding an end to lockdowns and those who question vaccines “have the same message: We want you to get sick.” Demonizing dissenters is rhetoric straight out of a totalitarian playbook. People who threaten “national security” and who “want you to get sick” will be ideal “devils” for politicians to blame when their own policies fail.
Parasidis wrote that such tactics obfuscate safety and legal issues, “Focusing contemporary vaccine policy debate on anti-vaxxer rhetoric detracts from adequate consideration of important vaccine-related issues.” In his article, Parasidis points to both “the health benefits of vaccines” and “the shortcomings of the legal framework governing immunizations.”
The shortcomings of the legal framework to which Parasidis refers stem from the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Vaccine Act).
The Vaccine Act granted pharmaceutical manufacturers broad legal immunity from lawsuits for vaccine injuries. Further, Parasidis writes, “once a vaccine is approved and made available to the public, a manufacturer does not have a statutory obligation to actively collect and analyze safety and efficacy data, nor are manufacturers obligated to update vaccine formulas in light of new scientific advancements.”
On top of the protections in the 1986 Vaccine Act, vaccine manufacturers have received additional liability protections under a February 2020 declaration by Alex Azar, Secretary of Health and Human Services. Azar claims his authority to make such a declaration is granted by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act).
Azar’s order makes “immune from suit and liability…to all claims of loss,” for all those who “manufacture, distribute, administer, prescribe or use” any treatments or vaccines. Administer a rushed-to-market vaccine to healthy individuals at no particular risk from COVID-19 and the government will shield you from liability. Lobby to make the vaccine mandatory and government will shield you from liability.
Noted vaccine advocates and developers such as Dr. Paul Offit have expressed alarm that “warp speed” developers might ignore standard vaccine development safeguards. “Remember,” Offit cautioned, “You’re giving this vaccine, likely, to healthy people — who are not the people typically dying from this infection.”
Liability shields warp decision-making and increase risk. Having to pay insurance premiums provides incentives to reduce risk. Think of insurance premiums on cars. Insurance premiums might help us decide against the sports car we have been coveting for years in favor of a sedate sedan. High insurance premiums for drivers involved in crashes or caught driving drunk or frequently speeding help those drivers make needed behavioral changes.
If the government indemnified us from damages from driving, risky driving would become more common. Those taking added risks would fool themselves with an illusion of competency. They might be indignant when charged with endangering others.
Libertarian law professor Richard Epstein has explored the problem in limiting liability. Writing about the 2010 BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill, he explained why “the best way to deter future spills is to expose drillers to the full costs of any mistake and not let any company without proper insurance near an oil derrick.”
Let’s rewrite Epstein’s observations: the best way to ensure vaccine safety is to expose pharmaceutical companies to the full costs of any mistake and not let any company without proper insurance near a human body.
Epstein was adamant:
The legal system should never allow self-interested parties to keep for themselves all the gains from dangerous activities that unilaterally impose losses on others—which is why the most devout defender of laissez-faire must insist, not just concede, that tough medicine is needed in these cases.
As Epstein explained, insurance companies are the best regulators:
“A tough liability system does more than provide compensation for serious harms after the fact. It also sorts out the wheat from the chaff—so that in this case companies with weak safety profiles don’t get within a mile of an oil derrick. Solid insurance underwriting is likely to do a better job in pricing risk than any program of direct government oversight. Only strong players, highly incentivized and fully bonded, need apply for a permit to operate.”
Epstein’s logic applies to the Vaccine Act. Pharmaceutical companies are highly incentivized to produce the safest vaccines when they are subject to the discipline of obtaining insurance coverage.
Those advocating in favor of liability shields say that protecting public health requires this waiver. Without the waiver, they claim, too few vaccines would be produced.
The case against liability shields is not a case against vaccines; it is a case against the distorted production of vaccines. Limits on liability override the risk-reducing incentives provided by having to pay insurance premiums and thus result in vaccines that are less safe than they would otherwise be.

Swine Flu Lessons

In his book, The Myth of Scientific Public Policy, economist Robert Formaini challenges the view that elite experts can evaluate public policy objectively “while remaining neutral on troublesome ethical issues.”
Formaini looks at lessons we should have learned from the 1976 swine flu outbreak. The outbreak began at Fort Dix, New Jersey. The flu outbreak was not unusual; it was winter, and in the close quarters of army barracks, respiratory illnesses and flu were common. Formaini writes, “The outbreak may have passed unnoticed except for a bet between two doctors about the nature of the disease.” Throat cultures were sent to multiple health organizations; the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) found swine flu.
The CDC asked Congress “for a $134 million program to vaccinate virtually every person within the United States.”
Formaini writes, “Private drug companies did not want to make the vaccine unless they were statutorily protected from liability from torts.” Congress granted such protection despite warnings from some such luminaries as polio vaccine pioneer Dr. Albert Sabin. Sabin “castigated the rush to vaccinate everyone and urged that vaccines be stockpiled for ‘high risk’ groups.” Sabin also derided “scare tactics” used to get people to vaccinate.
Within months, a swine flu vaccine was produced and approved. The CDC failed “to alert the public to any serious potential side effects other than a possible case of ‘mild’ flu.” Even a mild flu can lead “to fatal complications” for “high-risk groups.”
Within days, 33 people who received the vaccine died. Health officials refused to acknowledge the connection between the vaccine and the deaths. “Walter Cronkite chastised his media colleagues” for covering the deaths. Vaccinations continued, and an alarming number of Guillain-Barré syndrome cases, a known potentially fatal side effect of flu vaccines, appeared.
Shortly after that, the CDC director resigned, and government shelved the vaccination program.
Formaini raised pointed questions that should be asked again today in the rush for a COVID-19 vaccine. Among those questions were:
  1. Why did “experts immediately decide” that “universal vaccination was the only option?”
  2. “Why were the drug companies released from liability if the ‘risks’ were so small?”
  3. “Why was disengagement so difficult when the program’s consequences began to materialize?”
  4.  “Who ought to have been liable for this policy?”
Today’s experts are like the experts in the 1970s who were full of hubris and overconfidence. Policy analysts who later examined the 1976 swine flu concluded among other things:
  1. “There was overconfidence by medical specialists in theories ‘spun’ from ‘meager evidence.’”
  2. “Conclusions were reached ‘fueled by conjunctions’ with pre-existing ‘personal agendas.’”
  3. “There often was ‘premature commitment’—deciding more than had to be decided.”
  4. There often was “insufficient questioning of scientific logic and implementation prospects.”
Distorted decision-making was driven by “rent-seeking” by public officials during this crisis where “the heads of bureaucratic departments or agencies,” sought expansion of “their personal empires within the government.”
Reading Formaini, it is easy to see the same mistakes of 1976 repeated in 2020. In his Meditations, Marcus Aurelius observed of politics, “All of this has happened before. And will happen again—the same plot from beginning to end, the identical staging.”

Biochemical Individuality

The late biochemist Roger J. Williams is famed for his study of the implications of biochemical individuality. His research explains the importance of understanding that “real people exhibit individuality and in a sense are always exceptional people.” Biochemical individuality explains why, for some, a coronavirus vaccine may help to maintain health; for others, it may prove deadly.
In his essay “Individuality and Its Significance in Human Life” contained in the Liberty Fund book Essays on Individuality, Williams writes: “Concerning the ubiquity of individuality, we can, I believe, accept without danger of contradiction the categorical statement that every human individual (even in the case of identical twins) is distinctive and different.”
Yet, in medicine, often only lip service is paid to individuality. We like “the idea of distinctiveness,” yet, as Williams observes, we are “all the time being ignorant about the character of the differences and perhaps even assuming they are inconsequential.”
Williams explores startling differences in our organs: “Although the textbook picture of the human stomach, for example, is well stereotyped, there are enormous variations in shape and about a sixfold variation in size.” Even the position of the stomach in the body may vary by up to eight inches.
Similar differences in size and position are found in livers and intestines. Should we be surprised, Williams asks, “that people exhibit individuality in their eating?”
Williams explains that “Each individual has a highly characteristic breathing pattern,” and “has a distinctive heart action.”
“Endocrine glands vary widely from individual to individual.” Williams adds that “our entire nervous system is subject to the same wide variation, which is not only anatomic but physiological as well.
If you’re thinking all these differences even out and most people are average, you would be wrong. The chance that we have an average anatomical makeup, according to Williams, is only about one in 1024.
Physiological individuality is also the norm. For example, there are up to “100 fold variations in the taste sensitivity of different individuals for such common substances as sugar [and] salt.” Nutritional needs vary up top fivefold for vitamins, minerals, and amino acids.
In short, Williams writes, “Whether we consider heart action, brain waves, circulation, breathing, the endocrine functions, the blood, temperature regulation, or a multitude of other facets of physiology, the story is the same—abundant evidence of individuality involving differences of great magnitude.”
Biochemical individuality has great significance for the administration of drugs or vaccines. Since body chemistries differ among individuals, reactions to pharmaceuticals also differ.
According to Williams, “Some specific chemical reactions may be taking place 10 times as fast in one individual as in another.” Consider that “Using objective tests 10.5 percent were intoxicated when the alcohol blood level was 0.05 percent, whereas 6.7 percent were sober when the alcohol blood level was eight times this high or 0.4 percent.”
There is no “normal man” for which a particular reaction is guaranteed.
Williams emphatically rejects the assumption of “every recognized treatise in the fields of biochemistry, physiology, pharmacology, and physiological psychology… that normal man, the prototype of all humanity, is the primary if not the exclusive object of study—he, above all is to be fathomed and understood.”
Caution is warranted. Previous attempts to develop “SARS coronavirus vaccines” led to “pulmonary” issues in animal testing. Vaccines against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) led to enhanced disease response among infants and toddlers. “Frequent hospitalization” was the result; an unacceptable result since RSV illnesses are usually mild. Despite “expert” assurances to the contrary, medical research suggests receiving a flu vaccination “may increase the risk of other respiratory viruses, a phenomenon known as virus interference.”

The Greater Good?

Some might say, yes, mandatory vaccines may harm some, but the greater goal of protecting public health is worth the price. This “greater good” mindset led to the famed New York Times correspondent Walter Duranty covering up Stalin’s atrocities. Duranty was fond of saying, “You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.”
Immunization levels thought to generate herd immunity, “magic numbers,” have never been proven as public health historian James Colgrove reports in his book State of Immunity: The Politics of Vaccination in Twentieth-Century America.
In 2009, during another swine flu outbreak, in their essay, “Does the Vaccine Matter?” Shannon Brownlee and Jeanne Lenzer report of doctors challenging the medical orthodoxy about flu vaccines and antivirals. They provided evidence that “flu vaccines do not protect people from dying—particularly the elderly, who account for 90 percent of deaths from seasonal flu.”
Vaccination may have unintended psychological consequences as well. Brownlee and Lenzer observe a connection between vaccinating and “breeding feelings of invulnerability, and leading some people to ignore simple measures like better-than-normal hygiene, staying away from those who are sick, and staying home when they feel ill.” Feelings of invulnerability lead people to eschew responsibility and become potential breeding grounds for disease.
Nothing we can do will guarantee health, but there are steps we can take that tilt the odds in our favor. Sugar-laden diets suppress the immunological system, while exercise boosts it. This year, the average American will eat nearly 200 pounds of disease-promoting sugar and corn syrup and will consume only about 6 pounds of disease-fighting broccoli and a mere “2 to 3 cups of kale every year — one of the healthiest foods on the planet.”
Biochemical individuality explains why, for some, a coronavirus vaccine may help to maintain health; for others, it may prove deadly. Biochemical individuality also explains why there is no one best way to a healthy immune system. Some thrive on keto diets, while others thrive on vegan diets. Others seek a middle ground in a Mediterranean diet.
For some, perhaps those in crowded urban environments, taking a COVID-19 vaccine may seem like a wise choice. Individuals choosing to be vaccinated deserve the safest possible vaccine, a vaccine for which insurance companies insuring vaccine manufacturers will provide liability protection.
For those who wish to avoid a COVID-19 vaccine, fundamental natural rights guarantee that freedom. No individual should be forcibly injected with a vaccine because of policy mandates from self-interested and zealous “expert” decision-makers.
Williams is clear: “Among the myriad of potentialities with which every individual is born, there still are an infinite number of possibilities of development—provided this ability to order one’s own life exists.” “In medicine,” Williams writes, “recognition of the scope and importance of individuality is indispensable to progress.”
For a central planner, individuality is a meaningless idea. Central planners will ignore Williams’s admonition at our peril.

This article was reprinted with the author’s permission. It was originally published by the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER). Barry Brownstein is professor emeritus of economics and leadership at the University of Baltimore. He is senior contributor at Intellectual Takeout and the author of The Inner-Work of Leadership.
Note: This commentary provides referenced information and perspective on a topic related to vaccine science, policy, law or ethics being discussed in public forums and by U.S. lawmakers.  The websites of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) provide information and perspective of federal agencies responsible for vaccine research, development, regulation and policymaking.

THE PSEUDOSCIENCE OF VACCINES~BIG PHARMA’S FINAL SOLUTION

THE PSEUDOSCIENCE OF VACCINES~
BIG PHARMA’S FINAL SOLUTION

The de-evolution of healthcare in the western world

BY GREG REESE 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
purposes:
In this exclusive report, Infowars’ Greg Reese dives into the history of vaccinations and highlights dangers the establishment has tried to hide for decades.
1 58 59 60