The Great Reset Demands Firing All Unvaccinated Employees
By Dr. Joseph Mercola | September 7, 2021
Over the past year and a half, I’ve written many articles detailing the evidence supporting the claim that the COVID pandemic is a ruse to usher in a new system of global centralized governance by unelected leaders, the so-called Great Reset.
The recent release of the House Foreign Affairs Committee report1 entitled, “The Origins of COVID-19: An Investigation of the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” presented solid evidence that many of the “conspiracy theories” about the virus were in fact true. For example, using some intelligence reports and other public documents, the committee found that:2
“… we now believe it’s time to completely dismiss the wet market as the source of the outbreak. We also believe the preponderance of the evidence proves the virus did leak from the WIV and that it did so sometime before September 12, 2019.”
They presented evidence of genetic modification and wrote this:3
“This report also lays out ample evidence that researchers at the WIV, in conjunction with U.S. scientists and funded by both the PRC [People’s Republic of China] government and the U.S. government, were conducting gain of-function research on coronaviruses at the WIV …
In many instances, the scientists were successful in creating ‘chimeric viruses’ — or viruses created from the pieces of other viruses — that could infect human immune systems.
With dangerous research like this conducted at safety levels similar to a dentist’s office, a natural or genetically modified virus could have easily escaped the lab and infected the community.”
The idea of the Great Reset may feel like a conspiracy theory, especially if life as you know it where you live has not dramatically changed. You still go to work, buy food, go to the gym, go out to eat and attend events. There may be people wearing masks, and you may see or hear news reports about vaccine mandates and vaccine passports, but it hasn’t reached your employer and you may not be personally affected … yet.
But, make no mistake, unless we all do our part to peacefully protest the changes being planned, write to our legislatures, and talk to our neighbors and friends, what is happening in New York,4 France,5 Germany6 and Israel,7 will soon be knocking on your front door.
Does ‘Great Reset’ Sound Like a Conspiracy? It May Be Worse
An article titled, “Welcome To 2030: I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy and Life Has Never Been Better” appeared in Forbes Magazine8 in November 2016. It was written by Ida Auken, a member of the Denmark Parliament9 and agenda contributor at the World Economic Forum (WEF).10
The article was frightening in the simplistic way it describes the dissolution of society as we know it. And, as time marches forward, we see more evidence of what the WEF has proposed as “perfect sense”11 coming true.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau suggested in September 2020 what other world leaders have also promoted12 — that the COVID-19 virus, that has killed and devastated the health of many people, provided the world is an:13
“… opportunity for a reset … our chance to accelerate our pre-pandemic efforts to re-imagine economic systems that actually address global challenges like extreme poverty, inequality and climate change.”
More than 20 world leaders came together to suggest, “At a time when COVID-19 has exploited our weaknesses and divisions, we must seize this opportunity and come together as a global community for peaceful cooperation that extends beyond this crisis.”14 And while that sounds noble, altruistic and humanitarian, it is the plan for the future that is in stark contrast to the statement.
Ivan Wecke, a journalist from Open Democracy, did a deep dive into some of what lies behind the WEF’s Great Reset plan and found what he called something “almost as sinister hiding in plain sight. In fact, more sinister because it’s real and it’s happening now. And it involves things as fundamental as our food, our data and our vaccines.”15
Although Wecke discounts the plans of the Great Reset to abolish private property, use the virus to solve overpopulation and enslave the remainder of humanity as “nebulous and hard to pin down,” he goes on to illustrate in detail how the fundamental structure of the world that controls food and data, and ultimately humanity, is being upended and restructured so that private corporations have more control and influence than governments.
WEF Calls It ‘Stakeholder Capitalism’
It comes down to “stakeholder capitalism,” which are the magic words that Klaus Schwab, WEF chairman, has been promoting for decades, and is a central theme in the organization’s Great Reset plan.16 The concept as Wecke describes it is to transform global capitalism, so corporations create value for stakeholders.17
These stakeholders can be consumers, employees, communities and others. This will be carried out through multi-stakeholder partnerships of governments and private-sector businesses across the globe. As he dug deeper into the concept, it became more apparent that this means giving corporations more power and taking that influence away from democratically elected institutions.
The initial plan was drafted after the 2008 economic crisis and included the vision that governments around the world would be only one influencer in a multi-stakeholder model. When he asked himself who would be the other nongovernmental stakeholders, Wecke only had to look at the WEF partners that meet each year in Davos, Switzerland.
These partners are some of the biggest companies in oil, food, technology and pharmaceuticals. In other words, the companies that could ultimately restructure society and control the supply chain are those that provide everyday necessities. These proposed concepts appear to have started taking shape in a strategic partnership agreement which the WEF signed with the United Nations in 2019.
Harris Gleckman, senior fellow at the Center for Governance and Sustainability from the University of Massachusetts18 calls this move an inroad to creating a place for corporations inside the United Nations.19
The WEF is using the concept of multi-stakeholders to change the current system that countries use today to work together. This multilateral system may not always be effective and may have too many layers of bureaucracy, but Wecke says it is “theoretically democratic because it brings together democratically elected leaders of countries to make decisions in the global arena.”20
Big Tech May Run the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation
What’s really happening here, though, is the move toward placing unelected stakeholders in positions of power does not deepen democracy but, rather, puts decision making in the hands of financially focused corporations. As Wecke points out, this will have real-world implications for how medications are distributed, food systems are organized and how Big Tech is governed.
Under a democratic rule of law, six corporations already control 90% of the news media consumed by Americans. Tech Startups calls this an “illusion of choice and objectivity.”21 How much more propaganda will be thrown in the face of consumers when Big Tech is monitoring and controlling Big Tech?
The year 2030 holds significance for the WEF’s vision22 which is to scale technology and facilitate “inclusive growth.” In the fall of 2021, the UN will bring together the Food Systems Summit to achieve sustainable development goals by 2030.23 Yet, Sofia Monsalve of FIAN International, a human rights organization focused on food and nutrition, told Wecke:24
“’Abandoning pesticides is not on the table. How come?’ asks Sofia Monsalve of FIAN International, a human rights organisation focused on food and nutrition.
‘There is no discussion on land concentration or holding companies accountable for their environmental and labour abuses.’ This fits into a bigger picture Monsalve sees of large corporations, which dominate the food sector, being reluctant to fix the production system. ‘They just want to come up with new investment opportunities.’”
Wecke also dug into a long list of participants in the 2020 Roadmap For Digital Cooperation25 and found influencers included Microsoft, Google, Facebook and the WEF.26 The functions for the group appear to be vague, but if the group comes to fruition, it will be a decisive victory for those Big Tech companies that have been pushing to expand their power,27 are fighting antitrust rules28 and are facing accusations of tax evasion.29
The move by the UN and WEF has not gone unnoticed. A group of more than 170 civil organizations have signed an open letter30 detailing why they oppose the plan. At a time when stronger regulations are needed to protect consumers, it appears that the new UN digital roadmap may be seeking less.
Firing the Unvaccinated Is the Start of the Great Job Reset
Finally, Wecke addresses the issue of global vaccine distribution.31 Instead of the World Health Organization, which is “the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations system,”32 being responsible for vaccine access, another initiative was created called COVAX. According to the WHO, COVAX is co-led by the WHO, UNICEF, CEPI and GAVI.33
As a quick reminder, GAVI (the Vaccine Alliance) and CEPI (Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations) have strong ties with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the WEF and are connected with large pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer, AstraZeneca and more.34
The influence these groups have on the global distribution of the COVID vaccine may have been best illustrated when South Africa and India requested a temporary lift on the rules governing intellectual property to increase manufacturing and distribution to developing countries. Wecke reports35 that although the WHO director-general publicly said that he backed a proposal, others in the COVAX initiative strongly opposed it, and it didn’t happen.
There appears to be enough vaccines available in industrialized nations for the WEF to support any and all employees being fired if they choose not to take the vaccine. The National File 36 published a tweet the WEF made in May 2021 which said, “Get your COVID-19 jab — or you could face consequences from your employer #COVID19 #JobsReset21.”
Additionally, the WEF had posted an article37 on their website that made a variety of claims about the percentage of companies that would require employees to be vaccinated and juxtaposed mental health concerns and burnout through the pandemic with being unvaccinated in the article.
After intense backlash, the tweet was deleted and replaced with a question, “Will employees be required to get the COVID-19 vaccination?”38 The new post quickly filled with screen shots of the original post.
Two Cities Promising to Fire Employees
Even before the FDA announced their approval of the Pfizer vaccine,39 Cincinnati, Ohio, area hospital systems had announced that starting October 1, 2021, all health care workers and volunteers are required to be vaccinated. Among those participating in the vaccine mandate are the University of Cincinnati Health, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and the Christ Hospital Health Network.40
Health care workers in Cincinnati have now filed a lawsuit against six of the hospital systems saying requiring vaccines for employment is unlawful and violates workers’ Constitutional rights. The lawsuit says, “When there was no vaccine, the workers had to go to work. They were heroes. Now that there is a vaccine, they have to get the vaccine or be fired. Now they are ‘zeros.’”41
April Hoskins is a lab assistant at St. Elizabeth Edgewood who has worked for 20 years in family practice and hospital oncology. She told a reporter from WLWT5,42 “You’ve trusted us this whole time to take care of these patients, unvaccinated, without the proper PPE. And now out of nowhere, you have to get it or you’re going to be terminated? Like, something is wrong with that picture.”
August 23, 2021, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that all public school teachers and staff would be required to have at least one dose of the vaccine by September 27, 2021, or they would no longer have a job. Not soon afterward, the United Federation of Teachers union issued a statement from union president Michael Mulgrew reiterating their desire and priority to keep the students and teachers safe. He went on to say:43
“While the city is asserting its legal authority to establish this mandate, there are many implementation details, including provisions for medical exceptions, that by law must be negotiated with the UFT and other unions, and if necessary, resolved by arbitration.”
It Is Important to Point Out the Inconsistencies
This was the second announcement from de Blasio, who first mandated vaccinations for approximately 400,000 employees in the Department of Education, New York Police Department and the Fire Department of New York.44 In tandem with New York, California Long Beach Unified School District also announced mandatory vaccinations, as has Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot for all Chicago Public School employees by October 15, 2021.
New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy also announced mandatory vaccinations or twice-weekly testing requirements for all state employees, effective October 18. It is clear that as different states and municipalities add their own mandates, it’s essential to be aware of what is happening in your local and regional areas, as well as to speak up at public meetings and demand public hearings on the matter.
The mayor of Orland Park, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago, describes an example of how decisions behind closed doors can have a different outcome than those in public.45 He also says what is happening now is about “our processes, Constitutionality and the rule of law.”
The inconsistencies from health experts are deafening. Even the World Health Organization advises people who are vaccinated to continue wearing masks due to the Delta variant because “vaccine alone won’t stop community transmission.”46 Simultaneously, the public is told that everyone needs the vaccine to prevent spread of the infection47 and if you have the vaccine, you can still spread the virus and put others at risk.48
Each person has a responsibility to speak up, share information and ensure that as people make up their minds about vaccination, vaccine passports, civil liberties and the right to free speech, they have all the information they need and not just what’s shared in mainstream media.
To that end, I encourage you to share my articles with your friends and family. As you know, they are removed from the website 48 hours after publication. Please copy and paste the information, with the sources, and share it!
Sources and References
- 1, 2, 3 House Foreign Affairs Committee, August 2021
- 4 Spectrum News NY1, August 13, 2021
- 5 Schengenvisainfo, August 10, 2021
- 6 AP News, June 10, 2021
- 7 BBC, July 26, 2021
- 8, 11 Forbes Magazine, November 10, 2016
- 9 National File, November 16, 2020 image
- 10 World Economic Forum, Ida Auken
- 12 The Hill, June 25, 2020
- 13 YouTube, September 20, 2020, Minute 1:55
- 14 BBC, March 30, 2020, para 6 under the bullets
- 15, 17, 19, 20, 24, 26, 31, 34, 35 Open Democracy, August 16, 2021
- 16 World Economic Forum, June 3, 2020
- 18 Transnational Institute, Harris Gleckman
- 21 Tech Startups, September 18, 2020
- 22 World Economic Forum, 2030Vision
- 23 United Nations Food Systems Summit 2021
- 25 United Nations Secretary-General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation
- 27 The Guardian, August 1, 2021
- 28 Politico, July 30, 2021
- 29 The Guardian, May 31, 2021
- 30 Just Net Coalition
- 32 United Nations, World Health Organization
- 33 World Health Organization, COVAX
- 36, 38 National File, May 18, 2021
- 37 World Economic Forum, May 17, 2021
- 39 U.S. Food and Drug Administration, August 23, 2021
- 40 Cincinnati Enquirer, August 5, 2021
- 41, 42 WLWT5, August 25, 2021
- 43 United Federation of Teachers, August 23, 2021
- 44 CBS, August 24, 2021
- 45 Facebook, Keith Pekau, Bullying, Shaming and Intimidation of Illinois Families
- 46 CNBC June 25, 2021
- 47 Infection Control Today, July 27, 2021
- 48 U.S. News, April 12, 2021
Doctor: Jabbing Children Is “Contravention Of International Law”
By Richie Allen | September 7, 2021
Retired paediatrician Dr. Ros Jones has suggested that the UK government may be contravening international law if they offer covid jabs to healthy 12 to 15 year-olds. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) is not recommending jabs for healthy children, but the government has indicated that it will do so anyway.
Dr. Jones, who is a member of the Health Advisory Recovery Team, said that it would be unprecedented for the government to ignore the JCVI and go to the country’s Chief Medical Officer for his backing to begin jabbing healthy children.
Speaking to Talk Radio’s Kevin O’Sullivan last night, Dr. Jones said:
“So we’re talking about giving it to children where definitely there isn’t a balance for benefit. Absolutely not. That is actually in contravention of international law. We are signed up to Nuremberg code, Helsinki agreement, all of these international treaties, UNESCO, which specify that you cannot do research on children unless it’s for their benefit.
And these vaccines, whether we like it or not, are still in phase three trials. And you quoted Matt Hancock (former Health Secretary) saying that “oh you know they haven’t been studied in children because we know they don’t need them.”
And that is true and I don’t think many of your listeners would know that when the JCVI approved 16 and 17 year-olds last month, only 138 children aged 16 to 17 were in the Pfizer vaccination trials.”
She’s right. The JCVI approved the Pfizer jab for 16 to 17 year-olds despite there being next to no data on how the jab would affect them. I wonder how many parents whose children received the Pfizer jab were even aware of that?
Challenging Vaccination Policies At Work
UK Freedom Project | August 31, 2021
The UK Government has played a duplicitous game over recent months regarding COVID-19 vaccines and proof of vaccination status.
Dr. Chant: COVID Will be With us “Forever,” People Will Have to “Get Used To” Endless Booster Vaccines
By Paul Joseph Watson | Summit News | September 6, 2021
Australian health chief Dr. Kerry Chant says that COVID will be with us “forever” and people will have to “get used to” taking endless booster vaccines.
The New South Wales Chief Health Officer made the alarming comments during a recent press conference.
“We need to get used to being vaccinated with COVID vaccines for the future … I can’t see COVID is not going to be with us forever,(sic)” said Chant said during a press conference last week.
“As a public health doctor we always want to have diseases go, to be totally eliminated, but that is not on the horizon in the near future,” she continued. “Booster doses and repeat doses will be part of it.”
“I can assure you that the commonwealth government has purchased large quantities of vaccine into 2022 and this will be a regular cycle of vaccination and revaccination as we learn more about when immunity wanes.”
In a separate answer to a reporter, Chant again asserted that people “will be getting vaccinated regularly” against COVID.
Given that Australians were previously told authorities “wouldn’t hesitate” to go door to door to carry out COVID tests, what’s to stop them doing the same thing for vaccines?
As we previously highlighted, the infamously stern-faced Chant previously warned Aussies that they shouldn’t even be talking to their own friends and neighbors, even if they’re wearing a mask.
“Whilst it’s human nature to engage in conversation with others, to be friendly, unfortunately this is not the time to do that,” said Chant.
“So even if you run into your next door neighbor in the shopping center… don’t start up a conversation, now is the time for minimizing your interactions with others, even if you’ve got a mask, do not think that affords total protection,” she added.
Australia continues to pursue a disastrous ‘zero COVID’ policy enforced via endless lockdowns that have characterized the country as a “prison island” with no escape anywhere on the horizon.
Anyone who challenges the policy via protests faces fines of up to $11,000 dollars while police have also carried out home visits to people who merely promote anti-lockdown demonstrations via social media.
Ticket Sales “Flatlining” as Rebellion Against Vaccine Passports Grows
By Paul Joseph Watson | Summit News | September 6, 2021
Ticket sales for events in the UK that could require vaccine passports are “flatlining” according to industry insiders, as the rebellion against the onerous system grows.
The government has asserted that it will continue to pursue the policy despite multiple warnings that it will create a two tier society and put countless venues out of business.
From the end of the month, people seeking to enter a nightclub in the UK will have to prove that they have been double jabbed.
Proof of a negative test will no longer be accepted despite the fact that vaccinated people can still carry and pass on the virus.
With nightclubs operating at a net profit margin of 15 per cent, and with around 25 per cent of young adults in the UK remaining unvaccinated, the industry faces potential financial ruin.
The scheme is also expected to cover all venues where crowds of over 500 people gather, which includes some of London’s larger west end theatres.
“There is a significant proportion of people who don’t want to use passports or are not vaccinated. It has settled at 20 per cent in France. We expect something similar here,” said Kate Nicholls, the chief executive of Hospitality UK.
Nicholls noted that with the industry already struggling desperately as a result of lockdowns, the administrative costs combined with the loss of income as a result of people staying away will deliver “a further nail in the coffin of returning for many venues.”
According to Michael Kill, of the Night Time Industries Association, ticket sales for events at the end of September and beyond are already “flatlining.”
“We are seeing a lot of pushback from people who don’t want to come and have to show their health status on entry,” he told the Telegraph.
Plans to introduce the passports are also going ahead despite Israel, which was the first major country to launch a similar scheme, now experiencing its highest COVID wave since the start of the pandemic.
Numerous major European countries have also been rocked by weeks of protests and rioting against the measures, while many businesses in France have simply stopped enforcing them.
As we highlighted earlier, the BBC is already reporting that vaccine passports are going to be rolled out with no mention of the fact that in a democratic society, such a scheme would require a Parliamentary vote.
Victoria, Australia will ‘Lock Out’ unvaccinated people from its economy

A woman scans a QR code to enter a store in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, June 11, 2021 © Reuters / Sandra Sanders
By Paul Joseph Watson | Summit News | September 6, 2021
Authorities in Victoria, Australia have announced they will “lock out” unvaccinated people from being able to participate in the economy.
Premier Dan Andrews made the announcement during a press conference where he told citizens, who remain under a draconian lockdown and a 9pm-5am curfew, that the unvaccinated will be kept under such restrictions indefinitely.
“There is going to be a vaccinated economy, and you get to participate in that if you are vaccinated,” Andrews said. “We’re going to move to a situation where, to protect the health system, we are going to lock out people who are not vaccinated and can be.”
“If you’re making the choice not to get vaccinated, then you’re making the wrong choice,” he added.
Andrews then portrayed the unvaccinated as some kind of horde of unruly lepers, commenting, “It’s not going to be safe for people who are not vaccinated to be roaming around the place spreading the virus.”
The whole system will of course be enforced via a vaccine passport that will serve to reclassify the unvaccinated as second class citizens living in a segregated society.
The pronouncement once again underscores how vaccines are being used as a tool for population control, with the unvaccinated set to be frozen out of access to health care, social activities and the economy in general.
This is all happening while Israel, one of the most highly vaccinated countries in the world, experiences its highest ever COVID infection wave, because the efficacy of the vaccines is waning fast.
As we highlighted earlier, Australian health chief Dr. Kerry Chant says that COVID will be with us “forever” and people will have to “get used to” taking endless booster vaccines.
The timetable is now set for people to be forced to take government jabs every year simply to be allowed to perform basic lifestyle functions.
Those who refuse will at first be denied access to social activities and eventually could be barred from having bank accounts or even being able to make purchases as the true extent of the west’s chilling social credit score vaccine passport system comes into full view.
Oxford Prof: “Jabbing Children Without Parental Consent Is Battery!”
By Richie Allen | September 6, 2021
Clinicians will be reluctant to administer covid-19 jabs to children without parental consent according to Oxford Family Law Professor Lucinda Ferguson. She told The Telegraph this morning that injecting a child without parental permission is “technically battery.”
Yesterday, vaccine minister Nadhim Zahawi said that if a 12- to 15-year-old said yes to the jab and was deemed to be “competent” then their decision would overrule the parents’ refusal.
However, according to The Telegraph :
Lucinda Ferguson, associate professor of family law at the University of Oxford, said: “In my view the clinician may well be reluctant to accept that because alongside that, you’ve now got the JCVI saying that they don’t consider it to be essentially in the medical best interests of children more generally.
She added: “At least at this early stage would be reluctant to accept that that consent [from a child] is good enough because of course if you treat a child without informed consent, either from them, or from a parent with parental responsibility, it’s technically battery and that would be what would be concerning the clinician.”
That seems perfectly reasonable to me. If I was a parent and my child was underage, I would consider it an assault if anyone laid their hands on the child without my express permission.
Further to that, aren’t those administering the jabs putting themselves at risk of litigation, if they ignore the parents wishes that the child not be jabbed and the child is subsequently injured?
Good luck relying on a defence that the now injured child gave you permission to inject her and that in your mind her wishes superseded those of her parents. No credible judge or jury would buy that.
Jabs for kids and the impossibility of informed consent
By Neil McCarthy | TCW Defending Freedom | September 6, 2021
‘THEY’RE coming after the children next’: these were the words of a Northern Ireland GP, Anne McCloskey, on a video she posted on social media a couple of weeks ago, much shared until predictably deleted from YouTube and Twitter; words which, amongst others, have led to her being ‘suspended’ by the Northern Ireland Health and Social Care Board pending a ‘full investigation’, due to there being ‘no evidence to support Dr McCloskey’s comments’.
It hasn’t taken long for the truth of Anne’s words to be revealed.
Although the Government’s own independent vaccination advice body, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, advised as recently as July 15 that ‘the JCVI’s view is that the minimal (my emphasis) health benefits of offering universal COVID-19 vaccination to children do not outweigh the potential risks’, that selfsame body performed a spectacular volte-face a mere couple of weeks later to advise that all 16- and 17-year-olds should receive a first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.
In tendering this advice they were unusually frank about the precise risks, as they saw them, for young people, especially young men. They characterised these risks as potential ‘serious side effects’ which include myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of the membrane around the heart), with data from the US reporting ‘67 cases of myocarditis per million after the second dose.’ Although stating again that ‘Covid-19 is usually mild in younger people’ and that it is therefore ‘important to weigh up the benefits of any vaccine against the possible, although extremely rare, side effects’, the JCVI signally failed to do so in this statement. The simple arithmetic of Covid-19 fatally affecting approximately one in every 1.7million children compared with myocarditis affecting 9.8 in every million males aged 12 to 17 after receiving their first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech jab seems to have eluded them.
Such an egregious reversal of a clearly set out and principled opposition to mass vaccination of young people within such a short time suggests that the heavily covered (in the legacy MSM) tussle between Government and the JCVI over whether to extend the mass vaccination programme to all children over the age of 12 and last Friday’s apparent refusal by the JCVI to recommend mass vaccination of 12- to 15-year-olds are merely stage-managed ploys to make us believe that some deep ethical and societal debate is taking place. Judiciously leaked comments before Friday from Government about its ‘frustration‘ and the description of the JCVI as a ‘black box‘ in which ‘no one knows what’s going on‘ were so many will-o’-the-wisps. It is surely no coincidence that one of the most outspoken opponents of the mass vaccination of young people amongst the membership of the JCVI, Robert Dingwall, was recently ‘axed’ from the body. Indeed, according to a Guardian report dated August 7, ‘the JCVI has moved to ‘refresh’ the membership of its Covid subcommittee in recent weeks‘.
The JCVI is clearly thoroughly compromised. Friday’s statement that the ‘margin of benefit’ of jabbing 12- to 15-year-olds is ‘considered too small’ was in reality a Pontius Pilate-style washing of hands with its express invitation to the Home Secretary to seek further advice. The JCVI is salving what remains of its conscience and is inviting the Government to do its dirty work for it. Therefore Dr Anne McCloskey is right: they are ‘coming after the children next’. Indeed, the Times reported on Saturday, one day after the JCVI’s apparent refusal, that ‘ministers are reported to be confident the medical officers will give swift backing to the mass immunisation programme . . . it could begin as early as next week’.
As if to clarify their malice aforethought, our Government had until Friday gone out of their way to make it known that they had decided in advance that children of 12 and up are ‘Gillick competent’. What this means, quite simply, is that the sole force which stands between our children and a state which is determined to inject them with what Dr McCloskey has rightly called an ‘unlicensed’ vaccine – i.e. parents – was to be pushed out of the way. Briefings to the Times last Friday to the effect that written consent from parents will be sought after all are just words. The Government simply cannot be trusted.
The 1985 case of Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority was without doubt a great victory for the modern liberal state against the traditional notion that children belong to their families rather than the state. Victoria Gillick lost on the substantive issue of whether her teenage daughter could be lawfully prescribed contraception by the family GP without the consent of her parents being sought. A consolation of the ruling, however, was that such bypassing of parental consent to medical procedures for children under 16 could be lawful only in specific circumstances when, as Lord Scarman put it, ‘the child achieves sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is proposed’. A gratifying and very recent upholding of this ruling occurred in the Bell v Tavistock case, when the High Court decided that it must essentially be true in nearly all cases, a priori, that a child under the age of 16 could not understand fully the implications of receiving puberty blockers.
How children could fully understand the implications of receiving an unlicensed vaccine which, according to the JCVI itself, has the potential for ‘serious side effects’ and the safety trials of which are not due to conclude until 2023, is a question which the courts could surely only but answer in the same way as they did in Bell v Tavistock.
We need to take this government to court. Even if they stick to their new word and children under 16 are no longer classed as ‘Gillick competent’ in relation to receiving the Covid vaccines, the fight needs to move on to the general question of ‘informed consent‘, based upon the Montgomery case, which is detailed here. In the absence of full clinical trials and the suppression and non-investigation of adverse symptoms, ‘informed consent’ is simply an impossibility. This was one of Dr Anne McCloskey’s central points in that suppressed video, and doubtless her real crime.
Update
We read today that Nadhim Zahawi is ALREADY rowing back on last Friday’s briefings to the Times about the need for written consent and that children deemed ‘Gillick competent’ will be able override their parents. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/sep/05/vaccine-passports-to-be-required-for-nightclubs-and-mass-events-in-england
A Twelve Year-Old Cannot Give Informed Consent For Vaccination
By Richie Allen | September 6, 2021
Professor Adam Finn from the Joint Committee on Vaccination (JCVI) has just been speaking to the BBC. He was on Radio 5 Live’s Breakfast Show. Finn reiterated the JCVI stance, that is that healthy children should not be offered a covid jab.
Finn did say that the JCVI stood by its earlier advice, that children with underlying health conditions should be offered the jab. He was speaking to the BBC’s Rachel Burden. Strangely, Burden didn’t ask Finn for his thoughts on comments made by vaccine minister Nadhim Zahawi (pictured) yesterday.
Zahawi told The Marr Show yesterday, that if the parents of a given child refused to give their consent but the child wanted the jab, once the child was ruled to be competent, he/she could overrule mum and dad. Zahawi gave no details as to how it would be determined whether or not the child was competent.
Adam Finn made a point of telling Rachel Burden this morning that parental consent is needed for every vaccine that is offered to children. Burden, either through incompetence or because she’d been warned off, didn’t press him. She should of course have said, “Well Professor, it sounds like you disagree with the vaccine minister. Is that right?”
The government will ignore the JCVI advice. It will roll out the jabs in schools to perfectly healthy children. England’s Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty and his deputy Jonathan Van Tam will give the go ahead.
Parents, you need to seek legal advice at the speed of light. It is preposterous to claim that a child under 16 years-old can give informed consent to be jabbed. You need to move quickly.
The government’s plan is to administer the jabs in schools. Children will come under tremendous pressure to take the needle. It’s fiendishly clever. The government knows that by doing it in schools and not at vaccine centres where parents would need to be present, they’ll be in a better position to overcome the problem of parental consent.
They’re coming for your children. Seek legal advice now.
David Davis: “Vaccine Passports Are Dangerously Misleading!”
By Richie Allen | September 6, 2021
The former Brexit Secretary David Davis has described vaccine passports as dangerously misleading. The Conservative Party MP also said this morning, that he will be opposing the extension of “unnecessary emergency powers” in a vote in Parliament this month.
Speaking to Talk Radio’s Julia Hartley-Brewer, Davis said:
“On the so-called coronavirus passport, it is an idea looking for a problem. It’s not actually gonna do any good. If you have been vaccinated, it protects you! It doesn’t particularly well protect other people.
It stops you getting a very serious illness. but it doesn’t stop you becoming infected and it doesn’t stop you infecting other people. So we’re now going to have a certificate saying we’ve got a vaccine protecting ourselves, and we’re pretending that it’s protecting everybody else.
It’s misleading. Apart from all the civil liberty issues, it’s also dangerously misleading. And again, I hope the opposition parties grow some courage over this, because I think there’s a growing opposition to it on the Tory benches including me.”
Davis was responding to Vaccine Minister Nadhim Zahawi’s confirmation yesterday, that vaccine passports will be required to enter a nightclub and other indoor venues from the end of the month.
On the government’s wish to extend the covid emergency powers for another six months, something which will require parliamentary approval later this month, Davis said:
“We ought to have a freedom bill to revoke every law passed under the emergency powers act.”
Children can get Covid-19 vaccine even if their parents are opposed: UK minister Zahawi
RT | September 5, 2021
Asked by Times Radio’s Tom Newton Dunn what would happen if a teenager’s parents said no to vaccination but the teenager said yes, UK vaccine minister Nadhim Zahawi said they would still be able to get jabbed without permission.
Claiming that the NHS “is really well-practiced in this because they’ve been doing school immunisation programmes for a very long time,” Zahawi told Newton Dunn on Sunday said that “what you essentially do is make sure that the clinicians discuss this with the parents, with the teenager, and if they are then deemed to be able to make a decision that is competent, then that decision will go in the favour of what the teenager decides to do.”
Newton Dunn questioned, “So to be clear, the teenager can override the lack of parental consent? If a teenager really wants a jab and is only 15, the parents say no, the teenager can have it?” to which Zahawi responded, “They’d need to be competent to make that decision, with all of the information available.”
Bizarrely, on the same day, Zahawi told Sky News that children would require parental consent to get vaccinated against Covid-19.
Asked by Sky News’ Trevor Phillips whether he could “assure parents that if there is a decision to vaccinate 12 to 15-year-olds, it will require parental consent,” Zahawi declared, “I can give that assurance, absolutely.”
Despite the fact that the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) refused to recommend on Friday that healthy children between the ages of 12 and 15 be vaccinated against Covid-19, given they are considered extremely low risk, the government is still pushing for vaccination – with The Times newspaper reporting that child vaccination could occur as early as next week.
JCVI’s deputy chairman, Professor Anthony Harnden, noted on Saturday that “the health benefits from vaccinating well 12- to 15-year-olds” are only “marginally greater than the risks,” and said that any decision should ultimately require “parents’ consent.”
“Both the teenagers and the parents need to be involved in that choice,” he argued.
The age of consent in the UK is 16.
On Friday, protesters stormed the London headquarters of the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency in protest of the government’s likely intention to vaccinate children under the age of 16.
This Week in the New Normal #5
OffGuardian | September 5, 2021
This Week in the New Normal is our weekly chart of the progress of autocracy, authoritarianism and economic restructuring around the world.
1. MANDATORY VACCINES FOR NHS WORKERS?
The UK’s health secretary Sajid Javid is said to be considering mandatory Covid “vaccines” for all NHS employees. Such a move could be disastrous, and likely intentionally so.
The UK already has mandatory vaccinations for carehome workers, a policy which is predicted to cause 10,000s of posts to be emptied. Almost every care facility and old person’s home in the country already has a sign out front almost begging for staff.
The same policy in the NHS would see the same results… but worse. The NHS is the biggest single employer in Europe, with over 1.3 million full-time staff. A mass exodus of even 1-5% of them would mean tens of thousands of newly unemployed. Not to mention the effect on logistics and standard of care.
To enforce this policy in the autumn, just before the winter flu surge which cripples the NHS every single year, would be an intentionally destructive act. As staff leave rather than face forced injections, patient care will suffer, people will die… and the deaths will be blamed on Covid, and the unvaccinated, despite being the predictable result of bureaucratic mismanagement.
If it goes forward, this will not be incompetence, but deliberate sabotage.
2. THE TWO FACES OF JENNIFER
Jennifer Rubin is a warmonger who writes for the Washington Post, but I repeat myself. Her out put, from Syria to Ukraine to vaccines to Trump is exactly what you’d expect from the CIA’s paper of choice.
She’s also got a beautiful example of media “liberal” doublethink for us this week.
Here is Jennifer on abortion rights in 2019:
… and here is Jennifer suggesting vague legal repercussions for refusing the Covid “vaccine”.
Yup.
Oh, and be sure to out her latest for the WaPo too, where she extolls the virtue of fear as a tool of public manipulation, demands legal mandates for vaccines for everyone, insists that funding should be cut for schools who don’t force their pupils to wear masks, and says “If eligible people insist on remaining unvaccinated, it should be increasingly difficult for them to interact with others.”
In short, she’s a monster.
3. THE DANGEROUS ILLUSION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS … continue reading
