Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The big question: Why should someone who has had Covid need the vaccine?

By Kathy Gyngell | TCW Defending Freedom | August 10, 2021

LAST week TCW Defending Freedom writer Frederick Edward tweeted this eminently reasonable question: If the purpose of vaccination is to give antibodies, then why should he, as someone who’s already had Covid, have the vaccine?

Of course there is no rational or reasonable explanation. Nor is it explicable why, given the levels of testing to which the government is subjecting the population, it does not add antibody testing to the mix.

It is unreasonable and Todd Zywicki, an American law professor, is determined to demonstrate this. In an article for the Wall Street Journal he explains why he is suing his employer, the highly rated George Mason University in Virginia, a state institution which is mandating Covid vaccines. In sum, it is that since he already has natural immunity, there can be no justification for a coercive violation of his bodily autonomy. 

He explains that although vaccination is unnecessary and potentially risky, the only other options open to him are to teach remotely or to seek a medical exemption that would require him to wear a mask, remain socially distanced from faculty or students during, say, office hours, and submit to weekly testing. In which case, he writes:

‘It would be impossible for me to perform my duties to the best of my ability under such conditions. The administration has threatened those who don’t submit with disciplinary action, including termination of employment. This week the public-interest lawyers at the New Civil Liberties Alliance filed suit on my behalf, challenging the university’s mandatory vaccination requirement for those with naturally acquired immunity. This coercive mandate violates my constitutional right to bodily integrity for no compelling reason.’

He cites clinical studies from Israel, the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, England and elsewhere that ‘have demonstrated beyond a doubt that natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 provides robust and durable protection against reinfection comparable to or better than that provided by the most effective vaccines’ and goes on to question the approval of vaccines with less efficacy than natural immunity, referencing the World Health Organisation conclusion: ‘Current evidence points to most individuals developing strong protective immune responses following natural infection with SARS-CoV-2.’

Even more interesting is the centering of his case around the danger of vaccination to those who have previously contracted and recovered from Covid:

‘It isn’t merely unnecessary for me to get the shot. It’s potentially dangerous. Covid-recovered individuals have been mostly excluded from the vaccine clinical trials, rendering any claims about the purported safety for this group largely speculative. Moreover, clinical evidence has suggested that Covid survivors suffer more frequent and more serious side effects from vaccination than those who have never been infected.

‘The onslaught of the Delta variant in recent weeks has reinforced the lessons about the robust protection afforded by natural immunity. Unlike the current vaccines, which are designed to target the spike protein of the virus, natural immunity recognizes the entire complement of SARS-CoV-2 proteins and thus protects against a greater array of variants.

‘Thus even as vaccine breakthrough infections multiply around the world, natural immunity is robust to the Delta and other variants. With respect to the Gamma variant, a recent analysis of an outbreak among a small group of mine workers in French Guiana found that 60 per cent of fully vaccinated miners suffered breakthrough infections compared with zero among those with natural immunity.

‘And whereas the vaccine’s protection may wane faster than expected, the latest estimates on the durability of natural immunity stretch to at least 11 months, the duration of most follow-up studies. Some 16 months after contracting Covid I am still testing positive for antibodies. In fact, researchers have discovered that the antibodies produced by natural infection continue to evolve to generate “increasingly broad and potent antibodies that are resistant to mutations” compared with the more static “antibodies elicited by vaccination”.’

We will follow his case with interest.

The new assumption that only by vaccination can herd immunity can be achieved is a false one – it is not science. It needs to be challenged in the courts here too.

August 9, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

CDC has a plan to stick the “high risk” in special camps, which will most likely enhance transmission of Covid

Green Zones or Concentration Camps? 

By Meryl Nass, MD | August 9, 2021

For people who still think that public health dictates are intended for our benefit, will you still think so when the public health police decide to remove granny from her home to a high risk camp, where latrines will be provided? And hopefully food and medical care, all based on the refugee model? This was updated a year ago, so it has probably changed in the interim.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/global-covid-19/shielding-approach-humanitarian.html

The purpose of this document is to highlight potential implementation challenges of the shielding approach from CDC’s perspective and guide thinking around implementation in the absence of empirical data. Considerations are based on current evidence known about the transmission and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and may need to be revised as more information becomes available. Please check the CDC website periodically for updates.

What is the Shielding Approach? 1

The shielding approach aims to reduce the number of severe COVID-19 cases by limiting contact between individuals at higher risk of developing severe disease (“high-risk”) and the general population (“low-risk”). High-risk individuals would be temporarily relocated to safe or “green zones” established at the household, neighborhood, camp/sector or community level depending on the context and setting.1,2 They would have minimal contact with family members and other low-risk residents.

Operational Considerations

The shielding approach requires several prerequisites for effective implementation. Several are addressed, including access to healthcare and provision of food. However, there are several prerequisites which require additional considerations. Table 2 presents the prerequisites or suggestions as stated in the shielding guidance document (column 1) and CDC presents additional questions and considerations alongside these prerequisites (column 2).

Table 2: Suggested Prerequisites per the shielding documents and CDC’s Operational Considerations for Implementation

Suggested Prerequisites

*As stated in the shielding document*

  • Each green zone has a dedicated latrine/bathing facility for high-risk individuals
  • To minimize external contact, each green zone should include able-bodied high-risk individuals capable of caring for residents who have disabilities or are less mobile
  • Otherwise, designate low-risk individuals for these tasks, preferably who have recovered from confirmed COVID-19 and are assumed to be immune.
  • The green zone and living areas for high-risk residents should be aligned with minimum humanitarian (SPHERE) standards.6

Considerations as suggested by CDC

  • The shielding approach advises against any new facility construction to establish green zones; however, few settings will have existing shelters or communal facilities with designated latrines/bathing facilities to accommodate high-risk individuals. In these settings, most latrines used by HHs are located outside the home and often shared by multiple HHs.
  • If dedicated facilities are available, ensure safety measures such as proper lighting, handwashing/hygiene infrastructure, maintenance and disinfection of latrines.
  • Ensure facilities can accommodate high-risk individuals with disabilities, children and separate genders at the neighborhood/camp-level.
  • This may be difficult to sustain, especially if the caregivers are also high risk. As caregivers may often will be family members, ensure that this strategy is socially or culturally acceptable.
  • Currently, we do not know if prior infection confers immunity.
  • The shielding approach requires strict adherence to infection, prevention and control (IPC) measures. They require, uninterrupted availability of soap, water, hygiene/cleaning supplies, masks or cloth face coverings, etc. for all individuals in green zones. Thus, it is necessary to ensure minimum public health standards6 are maintained and possibly supplemented to decrease the risk of other outbreaks outside of COVID-19. Attaining and maintaining minimum SPHERE6 standards is difficult in these settings for the general population.8,9,10 Users should consider that provision of services and supplies to high risk individuals could be at the expense of low-risk residents, putting them at increased risk for other outbreaks.

August 9, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , , | Leave a comment

The murder of the ‘menacing’ water technician: On the shadow wars in the West Bank

By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | August 9, 2021

There is an ongoing, but hidden, Israeli war on the Palestinians which is rarely highlighted or even known. It is a water war, which has been in the making for decades.

On 26 and 27 July, two separate but intrinsically linked events took place in the Ein Al-Hilweh area in the occupied Jordan Valley, and near the town of Beita, south of Nablus.

In the first incident, Jewish settlers from the illegal settlement of Maskiyot began construction in the Ein Al-Hilweh Spring, which has been a source of freshwater for villages and hundreds of Palestinian families in that area. The seizure of the spring has been developing for months, all under the watchful eye of the Israeli occupation army.

Now, the Ein Al-Hilweh Spring, like most of the Jordan Valley’s land and water resources, is annexed by Israel.

Less than 24 hours later, Shadi Omar Salim, a Palestinian municipal employee, was killed by Israeli soldiers in the town of Beita. The Israeli army quickly issued a statement which, expectedly, blamed the Palestinian for his own death.

The Palestinian victim approached the soldiers in a “menacing manner”, while holding “what appeared to be an iron bar,” before he was gunned down, the Israeli army claimed.

If the “iron bar” claim was true, it might be related to the fact that Salim was a water technician. Indeed, the Palestinian worker was on his way to open the pipes that supply water to Beita and other adjacent areas.

Beita, which has witnessed much violence in recent weeks, is facing an existential threat. An illegal Jewish settlement, called Givat Eviatar, is being built atop the Palestinian Sabih Mountain, in Arabic, Jabal Sabih. As usual, whenever a Jewish settlement is constructed, Palestinian life and livelihood are threatened. Thus, the ongoing Palestinian protests in the area.

The struggle of Beita is a representation of the wider Palestinian struggle: unarmed civilians fighting against a settler-colonial state that ultimately wishes to replace a Palestinian village or town with a Jewish settlement.

There is another facet to what may see as a typical story, where the Israeli army and Jewish settlers work together to ethnically cleanse Palestinians: Mekorot. The latter is a state-owned Israeli water company that literally steals Palestinian water and sells it back to the Palestinians at an exorbitant price.

Unsurprisingly, Mekorot operates near Beita as well. The Palestinian worker, Salim, was killed because his job of supplying water to the people of Beita was a direct threat to Israeli colonial designs in this region.

Let us put this in a larger context. Israel does not just occupy Palestinian land, it also systematically usurps all of its resources, including water, in flagrant violation of international law which guarantees the fundamental rights of an occupied nation.

The occupied West Bank obtains most of its water from the Mountain Aquifer, which is divided into three smaller aquifers: the Western Aquifer, the Eastern Aquifer and the North-Eastern Aquifer. In theory, Palestinians have plenty of water, at least enough to meet the minimally-required water allotment of 102-120 litres per day, as recommended by the World Health Organisation (WHO). In practice, however, this is hardly the case. Sadly, most of the water in these aquifers is appropriated directly by Israel. Some call it “water capture”; Palestinians call it, more accurately, “theft”.

While in Israel the daily per capita water consumption is estimated at 300 litres, illegal Jewish settlers in the West Bank consume over 800 litres per day. The latter number becomes even more outrageous if compared to the meager amount enjoyed by a Palestinian, that of 70 litres per day.

This problem is accentuated in the so-called ‘Area C’ in the West Bank, for a reason. ‘Area C’ consists of nearly 60 per cent of the total size of the West Bank and, unlike ‘Areas A’ and ‘B’, it is the least populated. It is mostly fertile land and it includes the Jordan Valley, known as the ‘breadbasket of Palestine’.

Despite the fact that the Israeli government had, in 2020, decided to postpone its formal annexation of that area, a de facto annexation has been in effect for years. The illegal appropriation of the Ein Al-Hilweh Spring by illegal Jewish settlers is part of a larger stratagem that aims at appropriating the Jordan Valley, one dunum, one spring, and one mountain at a time.

Of the more than 150,000 Palestinians living in ‘Area C’, nearly 40 per cent – over 200 communities – suffer from “severe shortage of clean water”. That shortage can be remedied if Palestinians are allowed to drill new wells, expand current ones or to use modern technologies to allocate other sources of freshwater. Not only does the Israeli army prohibit them from doing so, even rainwater is off-limits to Palestinians.

“Israel even controls the collection of rainwater throughout most of the West Bank and rainwater harvesting cisterns owned by Palestinian communities are often destroyed by the Israeli army” an Amnesty International report, published in 2017, concluded.

Since then, the situation became even worse, especially since the idea of officially annexing a third of the West Bank obtained widespread support in the Israeli Knesset and society. Now, every move made by the Israeli army and Jewish settlers in the West Bank is directed towards that end, controlling the land and its resources, denying Palestinians access to their means of survival and, ultimately, ethnically cleansing them altogether.

The Beita protests continue, despite the heavy price being paid. Last June, a 15-year-old boy, Ahmad Bani Shamsa, was killed when an Israeli army bullet struck him in the head. At the time, Defense for Children International-Palestine issued a statement asserting that Bani-Shamsa did not pose any threat to the Israeli army.

The truth is, it is Beita that is under constant Israeli threat, as well as the Jordan Valley, ‘Area C’, the West Bank and the whole of Palestine. The protest in Beita is a protest for land rights, water rights and basic human rights. Bani Shamsa and, later, Salim, were killed in cold blood simply because their protests were mere irritants to the grand design of colonial Israel.

The irony of it all is that Israel seems to love everything about Palestine: the land, the resources, the food and even the fascinating history, but not the indigenous Palestinians themselves.

August 9, 2021 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation | , , , | Leave a comment

Is Ashli Babbit’s Killer Guilty of Murder?

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | August 9, 2021

There are those who think that the so-called riot or so-called insurrection in the Capitol last January justified the killing of Ashli Babbitt, the Air Force veteran who was shot dead by a still-unidentified Capitol police officer during the melee. 

Not so! The power to use deadly force is strictly limited, even if the event was in fact a “riot” or an “insurrection” rather than simply a protest that got out of hand. 

The killer’s lawyer, Mark Schamel, understands that, even if journalists within the mainstream media do not. He stated, “Lethal force is appropriate if the situation puts you or others in fear of imminent bodily harm.”

Well, except for the fact that what Schamel stated is not correct. The test for the use of deadly force is not whether the police officer is in fear of imminent bodily harm. The test is whether the officer reasonably believes that the subject poses a significant threat of serious bodily injury or death to the officer or others. 

In other words, just because a police officer is scared that someone might do harm to him is not enough, under the law, to justify his killing the person. The police officer must reasonably believe that he is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death. 

It is undisputed that Ashli Babbit was unarmed. In fact, it is also undisputed that during this so-called riot or so-called insurrection, none of the Capitol protestors were shooting anyone. 

Light jail sentences

Federal Judge Randolph Moss seems to get that. That’s got to be the reason he meted out an 8-month jail sentence to Paul Hodgins, another Capitol protestor, for participating in the melee. Isn’t that a rather light sentence for someone who participated in what the mainstream media continues to call a “riot,” an “insurrection,” and a “grave assault on democracy”? Don’t some people who get convicted of DUI receive higher jail sentences than that? 

Why, even federal prosecutors were recommending to the judge to give Hodgins no more than a 15-21 month sentence. Interestingly, at sentencing federal prosecutors compared Hodgins’ conduct to that of a “domestic terrorist.” Yet, there was a problem with that theory: They didn’t charge him with domestic terrorism. Did they just forget to do so?

According to the CBSNews.com, “So far, nearly 20 Capitol rioters have entered guilty pleas, and two have been sentenced for misdemeanor crimes:  one, Anna Morgan-Lloyd, was sentenced to three years probation and no jail time, and another, Michael Curzio, was sentenced to six months imprisonment, although the courts credited him for the nearly six months he had already spent incarcerated as he waited for the courts to hear his case.”

What? How in the world can participating in a “riot” (or an “insurrection” or a “grave assault on democracy) be only a misdemeanor rather than a felony? How can “rioters” and “insurrectionists” and “grave assaulters on democracy” be receiving probation or extremely light jail sentences?

Where is Robert Mueller when we need him? He clearly should be summoned out of retirement to help these federal prosecutors and federal judges understand how serious this “riot,” “insurrection,” and “grave assault on democracy” really was.

Secrecy vs transparency

A video of the Ashli Babbitt killing proves that the protestors weren’t killing anyone. In fact, there were Capitol police on the protestors’ side of the door who were guarding the door that the protestors were trying to bash down. No one touched those police officers. Since the door was made of glass, it is a virtual certainty that Ashli Babbitt’s killer saw those police officers and the fact that Babbitt and the other protestors were doing nothing to harm them. 

So, what caused that still-unidentified Capitol police officer to kill Ashli Babbitt? Did he mistakenly think he saw a gun in her hand? Given that she hadn’t even broken through the door, what caused him to think that he was in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death? Did he simply get scared and decide to shoot? What was his level of training? Was he a newbie Capitol police officer? Had he received adequate training on the use of deadly force? Did he have a misunderstanding with respect to when he was authorized to use deadly force?

We don’t know the answers to these questions because the killer’s version of events is still shrouded in secrecy. We know that federal prosecutors have exonerated him but that’s no big surprise. What’s necessary is transparency. For one thing, there is absolutely no reason to keep the killer’s identity secret. Just because a police officer might be scared of retaliation for killing a citizen is no reason to keep his identity and his version of events secret. The criminal justice system doesn’t operate like that. Police work is inherently dangerous business. If people don’t want to incur that danger, then they shouldn’t become police officers. To use danger surrounding police work to shroud a police killing of a citizen in secrecy is totally illegitimate. Justice demands full transparency of all matters relating to Ashli Babbitt’s killing.

As more facts have come out about Ashli Babbitt and her life, one thing has become painfully clear: This 35-year-old wife and mother would never have threatened that still-unidentified police officer or anyone else with serious bodily injury or death. Therefore, the obvious question arises: What caused that still-unidentified police officer to kill Ashli Babbitt? Her family has a right to know. So do the American people.

August 9, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | Leave a comment

Let’s divide the European Union

By Dr Jiří Weigl | The Reference Frame | July 22, 2021

Last week’s publication of the European Commission’s plan for a green “great leap” in the holy struggle to save the climate has definitively confirmed that the gulf of opinion, ideas, and interests between the EU’s West and its post-communist East has reached an insurmountable dimension.

The EU West, which controls Brussels and all European structures, has completely succumbed to the phantasmagorical progressivist ideology and is not willing to discuss it at all, but on the contrary wants to impose it by force on everyone, regardless of their views. We are in danger of something strongly reminiscent of the [fatal 1620 Battle of] White Mountain and the subsequent 1627-1628 Verneuerte Landesordnung [Restored Land Order, a new constitutional document] which was octroied [by Ferdinand II i.e. circumventing the legislative assembly of the estates], i.e. intolerant foreign domination, ideological monopoly enforced from the position of strength, persecution of those who disagree, de-nationalisation, and disenfranchisement.

This is not an exaggeration. Progressivist anti-humanist pseudo-salvation of the planet cannot do without such actions and suppression of dissent by force.

Hypothetically, the following possible responses are offered:

Submission and relying on somehow surviving again. That may no longer work in today’s world.

Fight within the EU. An unrealistic scenario, because there is no chance of convincing Brussels and the West of the need to change the current policy.

To respect the balance of power and agree with the other dissatisfied parties to divide the whole, whose direction is not to our liking, while preserving the maximum of the positive from the common past.

To come forward individually, which in the current constellation is not a realistic project for which we have the strength.

We have to respect that our Western European partners, disgusted by their current excess of wealth, see a meaningful future only in poverty, sacrifice, and renunciation for the sake of the planet. Let us respect that they want to renounce consumerism, flying, and personal transport, meat-eating, child-bearing, and other pleasures of life. Let us accept that polyamory and marriage for all will take the place of family for them. Let us give our Western friends the pleasures of doing good deeds in opening their borders and caring for all who head to them from the world for an easier life. Let us allow them to live in a multicultural, Islamized society with free choice of gender and total equality for every conceivable minority, protected by the surveillance of inquisitorial political correctness. Let us allow them to have their own experience of the restriction of civil rights and liberties and the only ideology allowed.

However, let us firmly demand that they respect that we – Czechs, Hungarians, Poles, Slovaks, and other Central and Eastern Europeans – do not want to live in such a society, that we did not enter the EU with such goals and they were not outlined to us at the time. We have our own experiences of totalitarianism and social utopias and we do not want to repeat them. We want to live in our own way and not under someone else’s dictates.

Let us try to avoid the imminent conflict and destruction of European cooperation rationally – let us divide today’s EU with respect for one another and preserve the maximum of the good that unites us. Only in this way will we be able to overcome today’s tensions that threaten to destroy the entire current shaky European construct. We Czechs and Slovaks may have something important to say about this. By taking a similar step, we avoided the serious threats after the fall of communism.

As we know, it was not beneficial for anyone to stay on the Titanic after the collision with the iceberg. The European Commission itself put such an iceberg in the EU’s path. Let us try to get off a ship that we cannot stop at any cost if we care about the future of our children. The planet will survive.

August 8, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics | , | Leave a comment

“It’s just…” – Why I Won’t Submit

By Addison Reeves | OffGuardian | August 7, 2021

It’s just two weeks. It’s just staying three feet apart. It’s just staying six feet apart. It’s just not going outside. It’s just not giving handshakes. It’s just working from home. It is just non-essential businesses that are closed.

It’s just bars. It’s just restaurants. It’s just theaters. It’s just concerts. It’s just dancing. It’s just intramural sports. It’s just choir.

It’s just non-essential medical services that you have to give up. It is just non-essential items that you are not allowed to buy. It’s just not being able to exercise. It’s just gyms. It is just the closure of your business for a while. It is just not making money for a while. It is just not being able to pay your bills for a little while.

It’s just a minor inconvenience. It’s just not being allowed to carpool. It’s just not socializing for a while. It’s just a mask. It’s just not traveling for a while. It’s just not hugging people for a while. It’s just missionary sex that is risky.

It is just not seeing your family and friends for a while. It’s just not visiting your grandparents temporarily. It’s just your grandparents not having visitors for their safety. It’s just one birthday you have to sacrifice. It’s just one Thanksgiving alone. It’s just one Christmas without your family. It’s just two birthdays you had to sacrifice. It is just not celebrating any milestones for a year and a half.

It’s just temporary. It’s just a safety measure. It is just your ability to pay cash. It is just contact tracing. It is just a health screening. It is just a temperature check. It is just a scan of your face. It’s just a minor loss of privacy.

It is just one semester. It is just two semesters. It is just one year out of your child’s life. It is just one more semester. It is just a high school graduation.

It’s just the birth of your grandchild that you missed. It is just not being able to be there for your relatives when they are ill or dying. It is just not having a funeral. It is just in person that you cannot grieve with your loved ones. It is just not getting to attend religious service. It is just not getting to practice some parts of your religion.

It is just misinformation that is being censored. It is just conservatives that are being censored. It is just some of the science that is being censored. It is just the people who have the opposing opinions that are banned online. It is just the opposition that the White House is targeting for censorship. It is just bad opinions that are being censored.

It’s just the economy. It is just small business owners who are suffering financially. It is just poor people who are suffering financially. It is just people of color who are suffering financially. It is just financial suffering. It is just a few small businesses that had to close permanently. It is just a few big businesses that closed.

It is just not going farther than a few kilometers from your house. It is just a curfew. It is just a permission slip. It is just being alone for two weeks. It is just being socially isolated for one year.

It is just one vaccine. It is just one set of booster shots. It is just regular booster shots every six months. It is just another two weeks. It is just one more lock-down. It is just once a week—twice tops—that you will have to prove that you are fit to participate in society. It is just the unvaccinated that will be segregated from society. It is just a medical test.

Pretty simple, no?

Just fucking do it.

But when you add up all the “justs,” it amounts to our entire lives.

For over a year and a half and counting, we have been robbed of the ability to live our lives fully, to make meaningful choices for ourselves, and to express our values the way we see fit.

It is “just” the inability to express our humanity and the total negation of our very selves. All of these measures have served as a prohibition of expressing outwardly one’s valid and complex internal reality. This kind of suppression of self does violence to one’s very soul.

All of these supposedly little and supposedly short-lived “justs” have transformed us into totalitarian states from which there appears to be no endpoint.

In New York City, California, Australia, etc., the people have permitted government such control over our daily lives that we have to ask it for permission to control our bodies, to move freely, to practice religion, to educate our children ourselves, to protest, etc.

Soon Biden, Trudeau, and other world leaders are going to clamp down on our ability to express ourselves and to associate with each other online so that we can no longer question, object to, or organize against government action. It is the destruction of democracy.

It astounds me that my Progressive friends — the same ones who claim to support “social justice” — are welcoming a fascist society in which government crushes any opposition and individuals cannot make choices about their own lives.

I will not comply because I do not want to live in the society that is being created by extraordinary submissiveness to government. I do not want to be complicit in this era’s atrocities.

What is the point of living if one merely exists to obey the elite to one’s own detriment? Is it even living if one lacks the agency to direct one’s life? I’ve already submitted in contradiction of my values to a shameful extent. One might say, “Well, what’s one more compromise,” but it won’t be just one more compromise. It will be just the next cut in a slow death by a thousand cuts.

Submitting only validates tyrannical displays of power and ensures that there will be more such displays in the future.

And what does one get for compromising? Merely your continued membership in a society that will only have you if you immolate yourself and become nothing more than a reflection of the desires of the ruling class.

If you cannot be truly yourself in a society, is that society worth clinging to? I think not. As much as leaving the stability of my comfort zone terrifies me, staying in it means continuing to silence and shrink myself for a disingenuous feeling of acceptance. In that way, it is more of a discomfort zone.

Each time I expressed my fears about the future direction of society, my friends said “it won’t happen.” Each time it did happen, they shrugged their shoulders and reminded me that compliance was an option.

At this point, if the government were to cart me away to an internment camp (which is not a completely far-fetched notion and which has happened in the past) for being a dangerous dissident I am certain that my friends and family would watch it happen and say it was my fault for not complying.

They are no longer capable of recognizing the humanity of the opposition or of questioning government.

I will not submit because I don’t want to live in a world in which my supposed allies would happily see me persecuted by the government.

I will not comply because the political climate has become so censorial, authoritarian, and generally toxic that my viewpoints will never be represented in the political process here. Without representation, my values and beliefs will be violated again and again by a polity that sees any deviation from itself as invalid. Thus, my compliance will provide zero assurance of any better treatment in the future.

I will not bend because I am not a conformist.

I will not give in because I do not want to reward government manipulation and coercion.

I will not surrender because I could die at any moment, and I do not want my final memories to be ones of craven submission to tyranny and the resultant misery and self-loathing.

I will not comply because it is not the government’s first intrusion on my body, mind, and spirit; and if we comply, it will definitely not be the last. All I will accomplish by my compliance is validating the government’s claim on my body and life.

I am not submitting because this is war, and I am not handing the enemy its victories.

I will not comply because the reward for compliance will still be being treated as a second class-citizen by society.

I won’t acquiesce because I am a conscientious objector.

I will not cede because the measures are unnecessary and the only practical effect will be to increase government power.

I don’t comply because I do not want to be a mere slave in the future version of the world they are creating, doing only what I am told to do and having to beg for access to the necessities of life that I am entitled to as a living being on this earth.

I will not yield because their religion is not my religion, and I refuse to worship a false idol.

I will not capitulate because I do not want to betray my ancestors and predecessors who fought for me to be free.

I will not surrender because freedom is more important than convenience and ease.

I will not comply because if I did I would be filled with rage against society, resentment towards my friends and family, and self-loathing that would eat me alive. I would become bitter and closed-hearted, and I don’t want that for myself.

All of this is why I won’t “just fucking do it.”.

Addison Reeves is a lawyer, political scientist, philosopher, and civil rights and civil liberties advocate based in New York. Addison critiques modern culture from a radical, leftist perspective at ModernHeretic.com or you can follow him on Telegram 

August 7, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

“IT’S TIME TO TELL WHAT’S HAPPENING IN FRANCE”

The Highwire with Del Bigtree | August 5, 2021

French President, Emmanuel Macron, provoked a huge uprising on Bastille Day after announcing his new #Covid19 vaccine passport mandate. Founder of Children’s Health Defense Europe, Senta Duypudt, gives Del an insider’s view on how the people of France are standing up to their tyrannical government.

NETHERLANDS PRIME MINISTER CAUGHT LYING

Watch as a new Dutch civil servant & politician, Gideon Van Meijeren, skillfully outs his Prime Minister regarding his connection to WEF’s Klaus Schwab, and his approval of the ‘Great Reset.’ Grab some popcorn and enjoy this gem!

August 6, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Solidarity and Activism, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

Covid Medical insanity, as described by an MD

By Matt Bettag, MD | August 6, 2021

When did the world become insane? What is the reason for it? Big Brother? Depopulation? Or people in love with control?

I don’t know and it’s driving me nuts. But I’ve decided I’m tired of complaining about it to my friends and family and I’m willing to put my name on the line. If the woke culture wants to ruin me for speaking the truth, I guess I might as well just get it over with now.

I have been a physician for 24 years, a practicing ENT for 19 years. I have never before seen the medical establishment just stop thinking. Insanity is the new rule, and common sense cannot even be discussed.

From the beginning, 15 days to “flatten the curve,” I was shocked. We had never done this before, but perhaps this virus was really bad, so I gave the government the benefit of the doubt.

Then came Fauci.

He initially said social distancing didn’t work, and masks were largely ineffective.

But by late March, he pronounced both masking and social distancing necessary. Weird… red flag.

What? So now I am alarmed.

I started researching the utility of masks. There were very good articles I found — one out of a respiratory center in Chicago, and another a good dental review. I bookmarked both of them. Less than a month later, the dental website was down, replaced by a text saying basically that their information is now irrelevant because of COVID. The Chicago article also had a disclaimer that previously wasn’t there saying people shouldn’t use their article politically. What? Don’t use a scientifically derived article to make a scientifically based decision on the utility of masks? What the hell is going on?

Next comes PCR testing. Let’s conveniently jack up the PCR Magnification cycles to 40+, resulting in a 90–97% false positive rate.

Then, let’s start testing all elective surgery, asymptomatic exposures, and hospitalized patients with this fake test to artificially increase the Covid numbers.

In addition we will reimburse hospitals greatly for any diagnosed COVID admissions and ICU visits.

Oxygen doesn’t work; go home until you get worse. Oh, and bring your family and friends with you; they’ll need testing.

Steroids were advised against early on, which made no sense, because they do decrease inflammation and in ENT have been used widely for viral illness.

Next we find a few weeks later the secret drug to treat COVID: steroids. What?

Hydroxychloroquine HCQ—suddenly not safe, even though it has been used for decades worldwide with a great safety profile, but not anymore. Mention it, and you are a lunatic.

The same went for all other proven therapeutics, such as ivermectin and vitamin D.

Vaccines? “I wouldn’t trust anything president Trump made.” That was Kamala Harris back in the fall.

Now if you don’t get vaccinated, you don’t care about other people, and you wanna watch people die.

Oh, and by the way, we should vaccinate everyone, including those who previously had COVID, pregnant women, and small children.

What about VAERS? That’s the open record report system that the CDC has made almost unnavigable. It’s slowly crept up and showed up to 12,000 deaths coincident with the vaccine. Then dropped to 6,000, only to come back up to 10,000 and now back to 12,000–Just a little glitch from our trustworthy government.

There are reports that the numbers could be ten times or more as high, and perhaps the CDC is misclassifying deaths to hide them. But let’s trust the government; they’ve been so good thus far.

Now the latest lie: “the delta variant, is surging because of the unvaccinated.”

Ignore the data from other countries that have very high vaccine rates but high spiking cases, and ignore the data from other countries that have low vaccine rates and almost no COVID.

As a matter fact, let’s not even look at Sweden, who essentially didn’t do lockdowns or masking, has a low vaccination rate, and has almost zero COVID.

I have never lived in the world like this, where open medical dialogue is completely suppressed and there is only one party line.

I thought the left was always talking about how we shouldn’t bully people, and we need to have “dialogue.” Well… let’s start.

The media and the government need to do their job and start opening dialogue to the other side. If we are crazy, it will come out.

If we are right, and the data show that to be the fact, then a large apology is warranted.

August 6, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

On Quebec and its “Vaccine Passport”

By Maximilian Forte | Zero Anthropology | August 5, 2021

Since the Government of Quebec under Premier François Legault decided to jump the gun today and announced the coming of “vaccine” certification on September 1st, possibly in response to the opposition’s demand for always harsher measures, I decided to post these extracts from my larger work earlier than planned. As always, the imitation of Americans is instant in Canada—this comes in the same week that New York City imposed its own “vaccine” certification system. In fact the Liberal Party in opposition added a cruel and perverse twist to the naming of the vaccine passport, calling it a “Freedom Passport”. Without the passport, no freedom, hence the indefinite suspension of the constitutional rights of a select group of Canadians, discriminated against on the basis of their health status. This must also mean that workers in “non-essential services” (does that include political parties?) will be mandated to get injected, or else be fired. A “vaccine passport” is thus also mandatory “vaccination” at the same time. Bruised by many months of lockdowns, private businesses are required to not only collaborate with the state, and agree to reduce their revenue by refusing customers, they also agree to be effectively deputized as the state’s auxiliary police service. Where under Canadian law it is stated that citizens are required to involuntarily divulge their private health information to strangers, it is not known, nor did Legault at any point cite any legal support (let alone scientific support) for this measure. We need to further analyze this obvious slide into full-fledged dictatorship, which uses a “pandemic” as a convenient cover and as a gold mine for imposing always more authoritarian measures.

Health Discrimination in Quebec

The Government of Quebec began planning to penalize the “vaccine hesitant,” by removing from them the freedom to access “non-essential services,” as defined by the government (Manitoba is also following). This is clearly a case of shaming and stigmatizing, and the invention of a threat from those who are officially libelled as a dangerous Other. Having invented a vaccine passport (in the works for several months), for which at first the government claimed there was no use, now the government reveals its intended use: to segregate the public and pressure people to allow themselves to be injected, preemptively blaming them for any rise in “cases” given spreading variants (to which the vaccinated are also clearly vulnerable, and which they can spread). The passports, using QR codes, were easily hacked in a trial, thus the system would further breach person’s private data. The federal government of Canada has not gone so far—since vaccine passports are discriminatory, divisive, and force people to reveal their personal health data—but is reportedly considering mandatory vaccination for all federal employees. Quebec Premier Legault, citing the flimsiest of evidence of increased infections (blamed on the unvaccinated, without any evidence) announced on August 5, 2021, that “vaccine passports” would indeed go into effect on September 1st. The “science” behind this, needless to say, is more akin to magic.

There has also been resistance to vaccine passports internationally, not just on the streets of Europe in massive weekly protests that the media refuse to cover, but also from the WHO. In the UK a parliamentary committee concluded that the scientific case for certification has not been made, that passports are discriminatory on prohibited grounds for discrimination, that there are valid concerns for privacy and data protection, and that such passports have “the potential to cause great damage socially and economically”. However, as noted by the Security and Policing Subgroup that advises the UK government, “Once the majority of the population is vaccinated, the exclusion of individuals who refuse vaccination may have public support” (SPI-B, “Lifting Restrictions: Security and Policing Implications,” February 10, 2021, p. 7)—thus one ostensible aim of mass vaccination is precisely to facilitate discrimination against the resistant. One report from France painted a complete picture of devastation wrought by the introduction of this certification regime, where citizens now have to qualify to enjoy inalienable human rights.

Vaccine certification is coercive, placing people under duress and violating free and informed consent; it is also entirely redundant and unnecessary if public health is really the issue. To be clear: vaccine certification is not a health or medical issue, it is political. Anything concerning inclusion/exclusion, controlling population mobility, borders, and passports, is by definition part of the political domain of the state. Highlighting the politics of vaccine passports, even the acute partisanship of the politics involved, witness Democrats in the US who applaud the entry of unvaccinated migrants from Central America, and yet simultaneously call for the exclusion of unvaccinated Americans from universities, schools, workplaces, and entertainment venues.

What is usually overlooked is that such a system of vaccine certification means the removal of basic rights for everyone in Quebec who is required to furnish proof of official approval to enter whichever establishment (a minor change in the app can change the range of access immediately): the right to participate in civic life is thus abrogated, rendering citizenship provisional and tentative. At a very minimum, this expands the already vastly expansive range of regulations that exist at all levels of government in Quebec, a multiplication of powers of oversight and surveillance that render personal autonomy fictitious. When people comply with this, they agree that all aspects of their everyday behaviour are now subject to licensing.

Testing the Logic of the Passport

Examine the logic of the Quebec government’s decision. For this purpose I will use a semi-fictionalized example based on elements of my own routine, and for this purpose the reader will need to assume that the person in question has not been vaccinated. Let’s begin: schools are declared essential services, so there will be no vaccine discrimination when accessing them. Professor X teaches at a university in Montreal, but does not live in the city. To get to that university, Professor X spends 1.5 hours on a heavily packed train. In the train station itself in Montreal, there is a sandwich and coffee bar, in the middle of masses of people swirling around it—there is no feasible way of barring entry, since it has no walls and no door. After the train station, Professor X switches to a crowded Metro system. He arrives at his campus’ Metro stop, and shuffles in a massive throng of people to go up escalators. Then he squeezes into a packed elevator. He arrives at a packed classroom with no windows and poor ventilation. Class lasts three hours. That is just part of the work for that day. After all is done, on his way out of Montreal, he decides to stop at a restaurant near the campus, to have a bite alone—and it is there where he is barred entry.

(Not only that: within the very same building where Professor X teaches and has his office, there are two cafes and a pub—one of the cafes has only two walls—presumably, he will be denied access to services within the same building and among the same people to which he delivers his service.)

Everywhere else, he has been inside of crowds, for many hours, but suddenly when it comes to having a burger off campus, no, that is just too much. Why? Because the “vaccinated,” benefiting from a “vaccine” that keeps them “safe,” still need to be protected from the unvaccinated. Never has such a low bar of immunity been set for a “vaccine”. The vaccinated ought to be wondering exactly what was squirted into their veins that fails to make them immune to the unvaccinated. As for the unvaccinated, they will be protected from dangerous restaurants, but somehow they will also be safe among thousands of people in buildings that are like stacks of cruise ships. The vaccinated will be protected both inside the restaurant, and inside the train station, yet Professor X cannot have a burger in the restaurant, but he can have a sandwich in the train station. The virus understands these nuanced differences and respects the government’s finicky little dividing lines.

What is to be done to people working in “non-essential services,” who are themselves unvaccinated? Are they to be laid off? How is access regulated to establishments that offer a mix of both “essential” and “non-essential”? Will guards with QR code scanners be posted in each aisle? Meanwhile, all “non-essential services” will presumably need to dedicate personnel to stand guard at entrances and scan the QR code of each single person seeking entry to the establishment. There will be lines of people—people lining up like compliant little toddlers, shifting from foot to foot, and repeating this for each store they visit. The security theatre we found in airports all these years, will now be everywhere: every “non-essential” store will have to become a security clearance point, like in an airport.

If the Quebec government’s aim was to increase exasperation, add to confusion, multiply divisions among people, expand bureaucracy, violate the right to privacy, securitize daily life, openly signal politicians’ lust for total power, effectively suspend civil rights and nullify the defining rights of citizenship, and to maximize distrust of the authorities, then this strategy is refined beyond measure. Success is assured, unquestionably.

Medical Apartheid

It’s an “exotic” word, so of course “educated” Canadians working in the media will struggle with it. Some in the Canadian media take umbrage at anyone calling such a pass-based system of discrimination, “apartheid”. They think that “apartheid” is a holy word, that is racially exclusive property belonging to a specific people. To call one act of discrimination by the same word used for another act of discrimination, somehow “cheapens” and “diminishes” that other discrimination. In other words, there is “good discrimination” which is to be applauded (“vaccine passports”) and then “bad discrimination” (which only became bad in Canada when it was politically convenient). Yet, what is the essence of apartheid? Two of the three definitions listed by The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language state: “A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups” and “The condition of being separated from others; segregation”. Separation, segregation, discrimination—linking “vaccine passports” with apartheid is all the more warranted when we recognize the fact that targeted Others are forced to contain their movements within what is allowed by a pass. In both cases, the pass is associated with a certain biological property, whether it is skin colour or one’s health status.

Canada, at an official level, likes to celebrate itself as place where diversity and inclusivity reign, and where we face the injustices of the colonial past. This is very convenient, as a distraction. It is a stance that distracts from the new injustices being perpetrated in the immediate present, right under everyone’s nose.

Medical apartheid is precisely the kind of regime we would expect in a Health Security State as discussed extensively by Giorgio Agamben. Writing specifically about “vaccine passports” (or the Green Pass in the case of Italy) in a recent article which, translated from Italian, is titled “Second-Class Citizens,” he explains:

As happens every time a despotic emergency regime is established and constitutional guarantees are suspended, the result is, as happened with the Jews under fascism, the discrimination of a category of humans, who automatically become second-class citizens. This is the aim of the creation of the so-called green pass. That it is a discrimination based on personal beliefs and not an objective scientific certainty is proved by the fact that in the scientific field the debate is still ongoing on the safety and efficacy of vaccines, which, according to the opinion of doctors and scientists who there is no reason to ignore, they were produced quickly and without adequate testing.

Despite this, those who stick to their free and well-founded belief and refuse to be vaccinated will be excluded from social life. That the vaccine is thus transformed into a sort of political-religious symbol aimed at creating discrimination among citizens is evident in the irresponsible declaration of a politician, who, referring to those who do not get vaccinated, he said, without realizing that he was using a fascist jargon: “we will purge them with the green pass”. The “green card” constitutes those who do not have it in bearers of a virtual yellow star.

This is a fact whose political gravity cannot be overstated. What does a country become in which a discriminated class is created? How can one accept living with second-class citizens? The need to discriminate is as old as society and certainly forms of discrimination were also present in our so-called democratic societies; but that these factual discriminations are sanctioned by law is a barbarism that we cannot accept.

(Thanks to Robin Monotti for the translated text.) For more, see Agamben’s “Bare Life and the Vaccine”.

Such a certification regime—let us be absolutely clear about this—is authoritarian for everyone. It is not authoritarian just for the “unvaccinated” alone. Everyone who abides by such a system, agrees to furnish documentary proof to gain access to what was previously free and open to them. They thus agree to concede access, on grounds arbitrarily decided by the state. What was previously taken for granted, is now the focus of heightened securitization. This is effectively the abolition of the very concept of everyday life, for everyone.

To end on a personal note, this is an exceptionally depressing time in which I find myself. From the start, I suspected that our summer here of lessened restrictions was just a brief interim period, the carrot dangled in front of the mule before the stick struck our hindquarters again. Never have I personally witnessed such a dark curtain of fascism pulled across a society, and with such insignificant protest, and to the cheers of fake opposition parties and even faker media. Nobody will see this, thanks to ever widening censorship. I knew this was just the beginning of much worse to come, and this newest measure is itself an open door to a permanent “pandemic” of authoritarianism, fear, and the abolition of anything that can meaningfully be called society. It has come to pass, things have finally fallen apart.

August 5, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Net-Zero Will Cripple British Households As Costs Get Slipped Into Energy Bills

BY DR. BENNY PEISER | CLIMATE CHANGE DISPATCH | JULY 29, 2021

In recent weeks, ministers and officials have announced that UK households and businesses will have to fund many of the government’s Net-Zero plans via their energy bills and cost of living.

Currently, UK consumers are funding renewable energy investors to the tune of £12 billion per year, taken from consumer bills as stealth taxes.

These subsidies are projected to grow over the coming years, reaching a total of about £13 billion a year in the mid-2020s.

But on top of this huge and rising cost, the government now plans to add a whole catalog of additional Net-Zero subsidies, as the recent news reports below reveal.

  • The government plans to force consumers to subsidize the installation of charging stations for electric vehicles (EV) by raising electricity bills.
  • Ministers are in the process of drawing up legislation that will force households to fund the construction of new nuclear power plants through the use of a surcharge on energy bills.
  • Households face paying an extra £200 per year to fund greenhouse gas removal technology.
  • The wind energy lobby has warned that consumers will have to subsidize offshore wind farms indefinitely, refuting the oft-repeated claim that renewables are close to becoming “subsidy-free”, and confirming analysis showing that wind power costs have not fallen.
  • Energy bills face an additional rise in cost as the power grid operator is increasingly forced to pay wind farms to switch off turbines. ‘System balancing’ costs alone were £2 billion last year and could hit £2.5 billion per year over the next decade as renewable capacity continues to grow.

Industrial and commercial consumers with the option of relocating to countries with cheaper energy will obviously do so.

Households, on the other hand, will simply have to cut down on food and other expenditures in order to pay their energy bills and cut their standard of living.

The GWPF’s director Benny Peiser said:

“It is fairly certain that most households would be unable to keep their heads above water as this torrent of additional Net-Zero costs overwhelms their domestic budgets.”

“Neither Boris Johnson nor his government would survive this unwise and unjust imposition on the British people.”

August 4, 2021 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , | Leave a comment

French firefighters’ & hospital unions declare strikes against ‘unconstitutional’ vaccine mandate

RT | August 4, 2021

Two French unions have called for strikes against the compulsory vaccination of firefighters, healthcare workers, and caregivers. They say the measure violates fundamental rights.

One of the leading French firefighters’ unions, FA/SPP-PATS, which boasts 7,000 members, said it will go on strike starting Monday unless changes are made to the recent law on compulsory vaccination of certain employees.

“The obligatory vaccination of firefighters under [the threat] of penalty violates the constitution,” the union said in a statement.

“Our union does not oppose vaccination,” the organization’s spokesperson, Andre Goretti, told BFM TV. “But the conditions, under which it is being imposed on the professional level, with [the threat of] financial and other sanctions – that’s where we disagree.”

The hospital and caregivers’ union, SUD Sante Sociaux, also called for a strike and protests against the measure which it labelled “a new attack on labor law.”

According to the legislation, which was approved by parliament late last month, firefighters, medical workers, caregivers, and certain soldiers have until September 15 to get vaccinated or face sanctions. The controversial provision containing the vaccination mandate will be examined by the country’s Constitutional Council on Thursday.

The government has been pushing the population to get vaccinated in greater numbers amid the spread of the more contagious Delta variant of the virus.

Starting from August 9, people will be barred from restaurants, cafes, and long-distance transportation unless they have a health pass. The pass is already required for museums, cinemas, and other cultural venues with a capacity of more than 50 people.

These restrictions, along with the vaccination mandate, sparked protests across the country. More than 200,000 people participated in demonstrations across France on Saturday.

A group of uniformed firefighters was seen marching in a protest column in the southern city of Nice on Saturday, where around 6,500 people rallied against the government’s restrictive Covid-19 response.

Charles-Ange Ginesy, the head of the Alpes-Maritimes region and president of the regional firefighters’ board of directors, told BFM TV that he was “very disappointed” after seeing uniformed firefighters participating in a protest.

“The right to protest is a right that belongs to each of us. On the other hand, they wore their uniforms, which surprised me a lot,” the official said, expressing hope that “the controller-general will be able to make them understand that such attitude should not be repeated.”

The procedure is underway, during which we look at how these firefighters, who had probably acted out of clumsiness, will be able to return to reason.

Only a group of 20 to 30 marched with the protesters, compared to the 3,800 firefighters in the region, Ginesy said.

French civil servants are typically bound by the ‘duty of reserve’, meaning they must show restraint and moderation when expressing personal opinions.

The firefighters’ union spokesperson, Andre Goretti, meanwhile, defended his colleagues. “There are individual choices that are not put to question by our union,” he said. “It is an expression of a citizen. A firefighter – before being a professional firefighter – is a citizen.”

Authorities have made several concessions following the outrage, such as lowering the fines for businesses that do not check for health passes.

August 4, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

We utterly deplore this reckless vaccine rollout to children

By Kathy Gyngell | TCW Defending Freedom | August 4, 2021

THE Covid vaccine rollout is to be extended to 16- and 17-year-olds across the UK – 1.4million children – it was confirmed this afternoon. Injections of the experimental gene therapy will begin within weeks, after approval from the government’s chosen scientists. The many others from around the world who have strongly advised against such a programme have been ignored.

A recent letter from the UK Medical Freedom Alliance of doctors set out the reasons why vaccinating children is not just risky but totally unnecessary:

1. The risk of death or serious disease from Covid-19 to children is close to zero.

2. Children play an insignificant role in transmission of Covid-19.

3. All Covid-19 vaccines used in the UK, including the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine most likely to be offered to children, are based on completely new gene technologies. They have not been licensed and remain experimental until Phase 3 trials have been completed in 2023.

4. Serious adverse events and vaccine-related deaths have been reported to Government databases in the UK, the US and Europe. As of June 9, 949,276 adverse reactions and 1,332 vaccine-related deaths had been reported to the MHRA in the UK. Some effects, such as blood clots and heart inflammation (myocarditis), have occurred specifically in young adults. The CDC in America is currently investigating more than 1,200 children and young adults with vaccine-related myocarditis and have issued a warning. In the US, several children under the age of 18 are reported to have died after a Covid-19 vaccine.

5. Medium- and long-term effects of Covid-19 vaccines, including effects on fertility, carcinogenesis, autoimmune diseases, are completely unknown, which is most relevant for children.

6. Vaccine manufacturers have an almost complete exemption from liability for any injuries or deaths that may be caused by their products.

7. In children, acquiring natural immunity will serve a better purpose, as this will last longer and cover a broad range of virus variants, contributing to herd immunity.

8. There is no precedent of vaccines successfully halting or mitigating an ongoing pandemic, and they may even risk the promotion of more virulent variants. Without the concept of ending a pandemic by vaccinating the entire population, there is no imperative for vaccinating all children.

We first learnt the Government were thinking about targeting children on July 19. But until today there had been some reassurance from the Government’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) that ‘those newly eligible’ would include only vulnerable children aged 12 to 15 with severe neurodisability, Down’s syndrome or a severely weakened immune system, including some children with cancer and those with profound and multiple learning difficulties.

We were mistaken. Was there ever any intention for it to be restricted to these groups? If so, what has changed since then? Nothing on the evidence side. Who is pulling the strings here? Why is the government bent on such a reckless policy?

Given that there is no public health justification for this mass experiment on children, it now must be crystal clear to any doubters that the government is set on vaccinating the entire population regardless of age and with no consideration paid to the mounting serious adverse reactions, the lack of ANY positive safety data for children and absence of any on long-term risks and outcomes. The Pfizer trial data reported by Belinda Brown in this research article here is clear about the immediate adverse reaction.

Make no mistake, this decision is egregious, immoral and indefensible. All decent citizens must stand up to this vaccine assault on the nation’s children.

August 4, 2021 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »