đ pic.twitter.com/Ps4Izj6LbN
â Mark Zuckerberg (@MarkZuckerbelg) April 11, 2021
A few friends have asked my thoughts on the COVID jab(s) so I thought it was time to write an article on the topic.
Knowing how contentious this issue is, part of me would rather just write about something else. But I believe the discussion/news is so one-sided that I should speak up.
As I always strive to do, I promise to do my best to be level-headed and non-hysterical.
Iâm not here to pick a fight with anyone, just to walk you through some of what Iâve read, my lingering questions and explain why I canât make sense of these COVID vaccines.
Three ground rules for discussion:
If you care to engage on this topic with me, excellent. Here are the rules. I am more than happy to correspond with you if:
If you do respond, and you break any of those rules, your comments will be ignored/deleted.
With that out of the way, let me say this: I donât know everything, but so far no one has been able to answer the objections below. So here are the reasons Iâm opting out of the COVID vaccine:
1. Vaccine makers are immune from liability
The only industry in the world that bears no liability for injuries or deaths resulting from their products are vaccine makers.
As first established in 1986 with the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, and reinforced by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, vaccine makers cannot be sued â even if they are shown to be negligent.
The COVID vaccine makers are allowed to create a one-size-fits-all product, with no testing on sub-populations (i.e. people with specific health conditions), and yet they are unwilling to accept any responsibility for any adverse events or deaths their products cause.
If a company is not willing to stand behind its product as safe, especially one rushed to market, I am not willing to take a chance on that product.
No liability. No trust. Hereâs why âŠ
2. The checkered past of vaccine companies
The four major companies who are making COVID vaccines are/have either:
Moderna had been trying to âModernize our RNAâ (thus the company name) for years, but had never successfully brought any product to market. How nice for the company to get a major cash infusion from the government to keep trying.
In fact, all major vaccine makers (save Moderna) have paid out tens of billions of dollars in damages for other products they brought to market when they knew those products would cause injuries and death â see Vioxx, Bextra, Celebrex, Thalidomide and opioids as a few examples.
If drug companies willfully choose to put harmful products in the market â when they can be sued â why would we trust any product where they have no liability?
Three of the four COVID vaccine makers have been sued for products they brought to market even though they knew injuries and deaths would result.
Given the free pass from liability, and the checkered past of these companies, why would we assume that all their vaccines are safe and made completely above board?
Where else in life would we trust someone with that kind of reputation?
To me that makes as much sense as expecting a remorseless, abusive unfaithful lover to become a different person because a judge said deep down they are a good person.
No. I donât trust them. No liability. No trust. Hereâs another reason why I donât trust them âŠ
3. Ugly history of attempts to make coronavirus vaccines
There have been many attempts to make viral vaccines in the past that ended in utter failure â which is why we did not have a coronavirus vaccine in 2020.
In the 1960s, scientists attempted to make an RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) vaccine for infants. In that study, they skipped animal trials because the trials werenât required then.
In the end, the vaccinated infants got much sicker than the unvaccinated infants when exposed to the virus in nature, with 80% of the vaccinated infants requiring hospitalization. Two of them died.
After 2000, scientists made many attempts to create coronavirus vaccines. For the past 20 years, all ended in failure because the animals in the clinical trials got very sick and many died, just like the children in the 1960s.
You can read a summary of this history/science here. Or if you want to read the individual studies you can check out these links:
The typical pattern in the studies referenced above is that the children and the animals produced beautiful antibody responses after being vaccinated. The manufacturers thought they hit the jackpot.
The problem came when the children and animals were exposed to the wild version of the virus.
When that happened, an unexplained phenomenon called antibody dependent enhancement, also known as vaccine enhanced disease, occurred where the immune system produced a âcytokine stormâ (i.e. overwhelmingly attacked the body) and the children/animals died.
Hereâs the lingering issue: The vaccine makers have no data to suggest their rushed vaccines have overcome that problem.
In other words, never before has any attempt to make a coronavirus vaccine been successful, nor has the gene-therapy technology in mRNA âvaccinesâ been safely brought to market.
We might assume that because the companies received billions of dollars in government funding, they must have figured out that problem.
Except they donât know if they have âŠ
4. The âdata gapsâ submitted to FDA by vaccine makers
When vaccine makers submitted their papers to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the Emergency Use Authorization (which is not the same as a full FDA approval), among the many âdata gapsâ they reported was that they have nothing in their trials to suggest they overcame that pesky problem of vaccine enhanced disease.
They simply donât know if the vaccines theyâve made will also produce the same cytokine storm (and deaths) as previous attempts at such products.
As Dr. Joseph Mercola points out âŠ
âPrevious attempts to develop an mRNA-based drug using lipid nanoparticles failed and had to be abandoned because when the dose was too low, the drug had no effect, and when dosed too high, the drug became too toxic. An obvious question is: What has changed that now makes this technology safe enough for mass use?â
If thatâs not alarming enough, here are other gaps in the data â in other words, there is no data to suggest safety or efficacy regarding:
In case you think Iâm making this up, or want to see the actual documents sent to the FDA by Pfizer and Moderna for their Emergency Use Authorization, you can check out this, or this respectively. The data gaps can be found starting with page 46 and 48 respectively.
For now letâs turn our eyes to the raw data the vaccine makers used to submit for emergency use authorization âŠ
5. No access to raw data from trials
Would you like to see the raw data that produced the â90% and 95% effectiveâ claims touted in the news?
Me too. But the companies wonât let us see that data.
As pointed out in the BMJ, something about the Pfizer and Moderna efficacy claims smells really funny. There were â3,410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed COVID-19 in the overall study population, 1,594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1,816 in the placebo group.â
Wait ⊠what? Did they fail to do science in their scientific study by not verifying a major variable?
Could they not test those âsuspected but unconfirmedâ cases to find out if they had COVID? Why not test all 3,410 participants for the sake of accuracy?
Can we only guess they didnât test because it would mess up their â90-95% effectiveâ claims?
Would it not be prudent for the FDA to expect (demand) the vaccine makers test people who have âCOVID-like symptoms,â and release their raw data so independent third parties could examine how the manufacturers justified the numbers?
Itâs only every citizen of the world weâre trying to get to take these experimental products â why did the FDA not require that? Isnât that the entire purpose of the FDA anyway?
Good question. Foxes guarding the hen house? No liability. No trust.
6. No long-term safety testing
With products that have been on the market only a few months, we have no long-term safety data.
In other words, we have no idea what this product will do in the body months or years from now â for any population.
Given all the risks above (risks that all pharmaceutical products have), would it not be prudent to wait to see if the worst-case scenarios have indeed been avoided?
Would it not make sense to want to fill those pesky âdata gapsâ before we try to give this to every man, woman and child on the planet?
That would make sense. But to have that data, they need to test it on people, which leads me to my next point âŠ
7. No informed consent
What most who are taking the vaccine donât know is that because these products are still in clinical trials, anyone who gets the shot is now part of the clinical trial â part of the experiment.
Those (like me) who do not take it, are part of the control group. Time will tell how this experiment works out.
But, you may be asking, if the vaccines are causing harm, wouldnât we be seeing that all over the news? Surely the FDA would step in and pause the distribution? (Editorâs note: federal health officials on Tuesday paused the Johnsons & Johnson vaccine over concerns related to blood clots).
If the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) â the government-run system for reporting deaths and injuries after vaccines â worked, maybe things would be different, but âŠ
8. Under-reporting of adverse reactions and deaths
According to a Harvard study (commissioned by our own government), less than 1% of all adverse reactions to vaccines are actually submitted to VAERS.
While the problems with VAERS have not been fixed (as you can read about in this letter to the CDC), at the time of this writing, VAERS reports over 2,200 deaths from the current COVID vaccines, as well as close to 60,000 adverse reactions.
If those numbers represent only 1% of the total adverse reactions (or .8% to 2% of what this study published recently in the JAMA found), you can do the math â but that equates to somewhere around 110,000 to 220,000 deaths from the vaccines to date, and a ridiculous number of adverse reactions.
Bet you didnât see that on the news.
That death number would currently still be lower than the 424,000 deaths from medical errors that happen every year (which you probably also donât hear about), but we are not even six months into the rollout of these vaccines yet.
If you want a deeper dive into the problems with the VAERS reporting system, you can check out this or this.
But then thereâs my next point, which could be argued makes these COVID vaccines seem pointless âŠ
9. The vaccines donât stop transmission or infection
Arenât these vaccines supposed to be what weâve been waiting for to âgo back to normalâ? Nope.
Why do you think weâre getting all these conflicting messages about needing to practice social distancing and wear masks after we get a vaccine? The reason is because these vaccines were never designed to stop transmission or infection.
If you donât believe me, I refer you again to the papers submitted to the FDA I linked to above which show that the primary endpoint (what the vaccines are meant to accomplish) is to lower your symptoms.
Sounds like just about every other drug on the market right? Thatâs it ⊠lowering your symptoms is the big payoff weâve been waiting for. Does that seem completely pointless to anyone but me?
There are plenty of other things I can do to lower my symptoms that donât involve taking what appears to be a really risky product.
Now for the next logical question: If weâre worried about asymptomatic spreaders, would the vaccine not make it more likely that we are creating asymptomatic spread?
If it indeed reduces symptoms, anyone who gets it might not even know they are sick and thus they are more likely to spread the virus, right?
For what itâs worth, Iâve heard many people say the side effects of the vaccine (especially the second dose) are worse than catching COVID.
I canât make sense of that either.
Take the risk. Get no protection. Suffer through the vaccine side effects. Keep wearing your mask and social distancing ⊠and continue to be able to spread the virus.
It gets worse âŠ
10. People are catching COVID after being fully vaccinated
Talk about a bummer. You get vaccinated and you still catch COVID.
In reality, this phenomenon is probably happening everywhere, but those are the ones making the news now.
Given the reasons above (and whatâs below), maybe this doesnât surprise you, but bummer if you thought the vaccine was a shield to keep you safe.
Itâs not. That was never the point.
If 66% of healthcare workers in L.A. are going to delay or skip the vaccine ⊠maybe they arenât wowed by the rushed science either.
Maybe they are watching the shady way deaths and cases are being reported âŠ
11. Overall death rate from COVID
According to the CDCâs own numbers, COVID has a 99.74% survival rate.
Why would I take a risk on a product, that doesnât stop infection or transmission, to help me overcome a cold that has a .26% chance of killing me â which actually in my age range is has about a .1% chance of killing me (and .01% chance of killing my kids).
With a bar (death rate) that low, we will be in lockdown every year ⊠i.e., forever.
But wait, what about the 500,000-plus deaths, thatâs alarming right? Iâm glad you asked âŠ
12. Bloated COVID death numbers
Something smells really funny about this one. Never before in the history of death certificates has our own government changed how deaths are reported.
Why now, are we reporting everyone who dies with COVID in their body, as having died of COVID, rather than the co-morbidities that actually took their life?
Until COVID, all coronaviruses (common colds) were never listed as the primary cause of death when someone died of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, auto-immune conditions or any other major comorbidity.
The disease was listed as the cause of death, and a confounding factor like flu or pneumonia was listed on a separate line.
To bloat the number even more, the World Health Organization and the CDC changed their guidelines such that those who are suspected or probable (but were never confirmed) of having died of COVID, are also included in the death numbers.
If we are going to do that then should we not go back and change the numbers of all past cold and flu seasons so we can compare apples to apples when it comes to death rates?
According to the CDCs own numbers, (scroll down to the section âcomorbidities and other conditionsâ), only 6% of the deaths being attributed to COVID are instances where COVID seems to be the only issue at hand.
In other words, reduce the death numbers you see on the news by 94% and you have what is likely the real numbers of deaths from just COVID.
Even if the former CDC director is correct and COVID-19 was a lab-enhanced virus (see Reason #14 below), a .26% death rate is still in line with the viral death rate that circles the planet every year.
Then thereâs this Fauci guy. Iâd really love to trust him, but besides the fact that he hasnât treated one COVID patient, you should probably know âŠ
13. Fauci and others at NIAID own patents on the Moderna vaccine
Thanks to the Bayh-Dole Act, government workers are allowed to file patents on any research they do using taxpayer funding.
Tony Fauci owns more than 1,000 patents (see this video for more details), including patents being used on the Moderna vaccine ⊠for which he approved government funding.
In fact, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) â which oversees the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), of which Fauci is the director â claims joint ownership of Modernaâs vaccine.
Does anyone else see this as a major conflict of interest, or criminal even?
I say criminal because thereâs also this pesky problem that makes me even more distrustful of Fauci, NIAD, and the NIH in general âŠ
14. Fauci is on the hot seat for illegal gain-of-function research
What is âgain-of-functionâ research? Itâs where scientists attempt to make viruses gain functions â i.e. make them more transmissible and deadlier.
Sounds at least a touch unethical, right? How could that possibly be helpful?
Our government agreed, and 2014, banned the practice.
So what did the Fauci-led NIAID do? They pivoted and outsourced the gain-of-function research (in coronaviruses no less) to China â to the tune of a $600K grant.
Mr. Fauci, you have some explaining to do ⊠and I hope the cameras are recording when you have to defend your actions.
For now, letâs turn our attention back to the virus âŠ
15. The virus continues to mutate
Not only does the virus (like all viruses) continue to mutate, but according to world-renowned vaccine developer Geert Vanden Bossche (whom youâll meet below if you donât know him) itâs mutating about every 10 hours.
How in the world are we going to keep creating vaccines to keep up with that level of mutation? Weâre not.
Might that also explain why fully vaccinated people are continuing to catch COVID?
Why, given that natural immunity has never ultimately failed humanity, do we suddenly not trust it?
Why, if I ask questions like the above, or post links like what you find above, will my thoughts be deleted from all major social media platforms?
That brings me to the next troubling problem I have with these vaccines âŠ
16. Censorship and the complete absence of scientific debate
I canât help but get snarky here, so humor me.
How did you enjoy all those nationally and globally televised, robust debates put on by public health officials, and broadcast simultaneously on every major news station?
Wasnât it great hearing from the best minds in medicine, virology, epidemiology, economics and vaccinology, from all over the world. as they vigorously and respectfully debated things like:
Wasnât it great seeing public health officials (who never treated anyone with COVID) have their âscienceâ questioned?
Wasnât it great seeing the FDA panel publicly grill the vaccine makers in prime time as they stood in the hot-seat of tough questions about products of which they have no liability?
Oh, wait ⊠you didnât see those debates? No, you didnât. Because they never happened.
What happened instead was heavy-handed censorship of all but one narrative.
Mark Zuckerberg can question vaccine safety, but I canât? When did the First Amendment become a suggestion?
Itâs the FIRST Amendment, Mark â the one our founders thought was most important.
With so much at stake, why are we fed only one narrative. Shouldnât many perspectives be heard and professionally debated?
What has happened to science?
What has happened to the scientific method of always challenging our assumptions?
What happened to lively debate in this country, or at least in Western society?
Why did anyone who disagrees with WHO, or the CDC get censored so heavily?
Is the science of public health a religion now â or is science supposed to be about debate?
If someone says âthe science is settledâ thatâs how I know Iâm dealing with someone who is closed minded. By definition science (especially biological science) is never settled.
If it was, it would be dogma, not science.
I want to be a good citizen. I really do.
If lockdowns work, I want to do my part and stay home.
If masks work, I want to wear them.
If social distancing is effective, I want to comply.
But, if there is evidence they donât (masks for example), I want to hear that evidence, too.
If highly credentialed scientists have different opinions, I want to know what they think. I want a chance to hear their arguments and make up my own mind.
I donât think Iâm the smartest person in the world, but I think I can think. Maybe Iâm weird, but if someone is censored, then I really want to hear what they think. Donât you?
To all my friends who donât have a problem with censorship, will you have the same opinion when what you think is censored?
Is censorship not the technique of dictators, tyrants and greedy, power-hungry people?
Is it not a sign that those who are doing the censoring know itâs the only way they can win?
What if a man who spent his entire life developing vaccines was willing to put his entire reputation on the line and call on all global leaders to immediately stop the COVID vaccines because of problems with the science?
What if he pleaded for an open-scientific debate on a global stage?
Would you want to hear what he has to say? Would you want to see the debate heâs asking for?
17. Worldâs leading vaccinologist is sounding the alarm
Here is what may be the biggest reason this COVID vaccine doesnât make sense to me.
When someone who is very pro-vaccine, who has spent his entire professional career overseeing the development of vaccines, is shouting from the mountaintops that we have a major problem, I think the man should be heard.
In case you missed it, and in case you care to watch it, here is Geert Vanden Bossche, explaining:
If you want to see/read about a second, and longer, interview with Vanden Bossche, where he was asked some tough questions, you can check this out.
If half of what he says comes true, these vaccines could be the worst invention of all time.
If you donât like his science, take it up with him.
Iâm just the messenger.
But I can also speak to COVID personally âŠ
18. I already had COVID
I didnât enjoy it. It was a nasty cold for two days:
It was weird not being able to smell anything for a couple days. A week later, coffee still tasted a little âoff.â
But I survived.
Now it appears (as it always has) that I have beautiful, natural, life-long immunity â not something likely to wear off in a few months if I get the vaccine. In my body, and my household, COVID is over.
In fact, now that Iâve had it, there is evidence the COVID vaccine might actually be more dangerous for me.
That is not a risk Iâm willing to take.
In summary
The above are just my reasons for not wanting the vaccine. Maybe my reasons make sense to you, maybe they donât.
Whatever does makes sense to you, hopefully we can still be friends.
I for one think thereâs a lot more that we have in common than what separates us.
Agree or disagree with me, Iâll treat you no differently.
Youâre a human just as worthy of love and respect as anyone else. For that I salute you, and I truly wish you all the best.
I hope you found this helpful. If so, feel free to share.
Originally published by TRUE Whole Human.
Source: Children’s Health Defense
“We will keep their lives short and their minds weak while pretending to do the opposite. We will use our knowledge of science and technology in subtle ways so that they never see what is happening.
We will use soft metals, aging accelerators, and sedatives in food and water as well as in the air. They will be covered in poisons wherever they turn.
The soft metals will make them lose their minds. We will promise to find a cure from our many funds, and yet we will give them more poison. Chemical poisons will be absorbed through the skin of idiots who believe that certain hygiene and beauty products presented by great actors and musicians, will bring eternal youth to their faces and bodies, and through their thirsty and hungry mouths, we will destroy their minds and systems of internal organs. reproduction.
However, their children will be born as disabled and deformed and we will hide this information.
The poisons will be hidden in everything around them, in what they drink, eat, breathe and wear. We have to be ingenious in distributing the poisons because they can see far. We’ll teach them that poisons are good – with funny pictures and musical tones on TV. Those who are looking for them will be helpful. We’ll enroll them to push our poisons.
They will see that our products are used in film and they will get used to them and will never know their true effect. When they give birth, we will inject poisons into the blood of their children and convince them that we are helping them! We will start earlier when their minds are young, we will target their children with what children love most, sweet things.
When their teeth decay, we will fill them with metals that will kill their minds and steal their future. When their ability to learn has been affected, we have created drugs that will make them sicker and cause them other illnesses, for which we will create even more drugs. We will make them docile and weak before us, by our power.
They will grow depressed, slow and obese, and when they come to us for help, we will give them more poison.
We will focus our attention on money and material goods so that they never connect with their inner self. We will distract them with fornication, external pleasures, and video games so that they are never one with the unity of all.
Their minds will belong to us, and they will do as we say. If they refuse, we will find ways to implement technology that alters the mind in their lives.
We will use fear as our weapon. We will establish their governments and we will establish opposition within them.
We will own both sides. We will always hide our goal, but we will continue our plan. They will do the work for us, and we will prosper from their toil.
Our families will never mix with theirs.
Our blood must be pure (because it is). We will make them kill each other when they oppose us.
We will keep them separate from unity through dogma and religion.
We will control all aspects of their lives and tell them what to think and how. We will guide them kindly and let them believe that they are guiding themselves.
We will instigate animosity among them through our factions. When light shines among them, we will extinguish it by mockery or death, which suits us best. We will make them tear their hearts apart and kill their own children. We will accomplish this using hatred as our ally, anger as our friend. Hatred will completely blind them and they will never see that in their conflicts we will be their leaders.
They will be busy killing each other. They will bathe in their own blood and kill their neighbors, as long as we see that they are against us.
We will benefit greatly from this, for they will not see us, for they cannot see us. We will continue to prosper from their wars and their deaths.
We will repeat this until our ultimate goal is achieved. We will continue to make them live in fear and anger, we will give them images and sounds. We will use all the tools we have to achieve this. The tools will be provided by their work.
This was my little surprise from a few days ago. Maze had been systematically stripping all of the batting out of the bottom of my couch. One evening I decided to flip the couch to see just how much damage she did. She stripped the bottom of the couch clean.
I thought I would dig around to see what was down there. I found my gold Cross pen, a silver chain bracelet, two nail clippers, and the kitten. The little guy just jumped right into the palm of my hand.
This is the first time he came out on his own long enough for me to take the picture.
by Paul Anthony Taylor, Dr. Rath Foundation
April 2, 2021
With the world being told that so-called âvaccine passportsâ will be required for all international travel in future, and in many countries even to enter shops, restaurants, bars, gyms, hotels, theatres, concerts and sports events, the impression we are being given is that the measure is a direct result of the coronavirus pandemic. In Europe, however, which hosts 8 of the top 10 pharmaceutical exporting countries, planning for vaccine passports began at least 20 months prior to the start of the COVID-19 outbreak. Apparently, the pandemic conveniently provided European politicians with the âexcuseâ they needed to introduce the idea.
The âEuropean Commissionâ â the executive body of Europe â first published a proposal for vaccine passports on 26 April 2018. Buried deep in a document dealing with âStrengthened Cooperation against Vaccine Preventable Diseasesâ, the proposal was essentially ignored by the mainstream media.
AÂ roadmap document issued in early 2019Â subsequently set out specific plans for implementing the European Commissionâs proposal. The primary action listed in the roadmap was to âexamine the feasibility of developing a common vaccination card/passportâ for European citizens that is âcompatible with electronic immunization information systems and recognized for use across borders.â The plan aimed for a legislative proposal to be issued in Europe by 2022.
Interestingly, the roadmap uses several terms that, while relatively uncommon in most countries prior to the pandemic, have since become heard on a daily basis in the mainstream media. Perhaps the most notable of these is âvaccine hesitancyâ. Supporting European countries in âcountering vaccine hesitancyâ is listed in the document as one of the key action points.
The possibility of pandemics and âunexpected outbreaksâ occurring is also referred to in the roadmap. Revealingly, specific reference is made to supporting the authorization of âinnovative vaccines, including for emerging health threats.â Stating that the âvaccine manufacturing industryâ has a âkey roleâ in meeting the aims described in the document, the roadmap lists âimproving EU manufacturing capacityâ and stockpiling vaccines as further action points to be considered. Towards strengthening âexisting partnershipsâ and âcollaboration with international actors and initiatives,â the roadmap also refers to a global vaccination summit meeting that took place in September 2019. A close examination of the attendees and subject matter for this meeting is revealing.
Unreported by most mainstream media outlets, a âGlobal Vaccination Summitâ was hosted in Brussels, Belgium, on 12 September 2019. Organized by the European Commission in cooperation with the World Health Organization, the meeting took place just 3 months before the coronavirus outbreak began. Significantly, this was also only 36 days before the now infamous coronavirus outbreak simulation exercise, supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Economic Forum, and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, which took place on 18 October 2019.
An invitation-only event, the vaccination summit participants included political leaders, high-level representatives from the United Nations and other international organizations, health ministries, leading academics, scientists and health professionals, the private sector, and non-governmental organizations.
The summit was structured around three round tables entitled âIn Vaccines We Trustâ, âThe Magic Of Scienceâ, and âVaccines Protecting Everyone, Everywhereâ. Notable panel members for these round tables included Nanette Cocero, Global President of Pfizer Vaccines; Dr. Seth Berkley, CEO of GAVI, the Global Vaccine Alliance â an organization that has received vast amounts of funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; and Joe Cerrell, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundationâs Managing Director for Global Policy and Advocacy.
Pandemic planning was clearly in evidence at this summit meeting. Key documents distributed to the participants included reports on âPandemic influenza preparedness planningâ, âA pandemic influenza exercise for the European Unionâ, âAvian Influenza and Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Planningâ, âPandemic influenza preparedness and response planningâ, âTowards sufficiency of Pandemic Influenza Vaccines in the EUâ, and âA âPublic Private Partnershipâ on European Pandemic influenza vaccinesâ. Across all these documents, the goal of strengthening collaboration with the pharmaceutical industry is repeatedly stressed, as also is the message that a global pandemic was now inevitable.
Who really benefits from vaccine passports? Certainly not ordinary people, for whom sharing their health records and other personal data could soon become mandatory merely for participation in society. Instead, the chief beneficiary will be the multinational pharmaceutical industry. With global drug and vaccine sales already forecast to reach $1.5 trillion this year, pharmaceutical companies and their investors are salivating at the prospect of vaccine passports becoming mandatory worldwide.
The total market for COVID-19 vaccines is predicted to be worth $100 billion in sales and $40 billion in post-tax profits. Annual vaccinations against mutations of the coronavirus could raise these numbers still further. Unless we resist vaccine passports and instead âvote for reasonâ, drug and vaccine makers could force the world into long-term economic and political dependency. Our urgent goal must therefore be to replace the greed-driven pharmaceutical âbusiness with diseaseâ with a healthcare system based on truly preventive approaches. Accepting the pharmaceutical industryâs alternative to this is simply unthinkable.
Source: TruthComeToLight.com
Before you begin…
Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.
Read the entire article on Collective Evolution
A document produced for the UK Government entitled âSummary of further modelling of easing of restrictions â Roadmap Step 2â advising them on the consequences of reopening the country has declared that a third wave is inevitable and that it will be the fault of children and those who refuse the experimental Covid-19 vaccines.
It will also disappoint millions of naive members of the British Public who believe life will return to normal as of the 21st June 2021, that the document, prepared by the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling, confirms long term mitigations and guidance will remain in place beyond that date.
The document which will undoubtedly be followed to the letter by the UK Government due to their constant admission that they are being âguided by the scienceâ, uses two models to predict the outcome of the easing of restrictions alongside the vaccination programme throughout the year. One of the models has been collated by the infamous Imperial College, whilst the other model has been collated by Warwick University.
Imperial College with the assistance of the notoriously wrong Professor Neil Ferguson were the ones who produced the extremely over exaggerated model used by the UK and the US to justify imposing draconian restrictions back in March 2020. However strangely this time their model is slightly more optimistic than the one produced by Warwick University.
But whilst the numbers and dates slightly differ everything else remains the same, and thatâs where things get slightly strange.
Section 31 of the document states that both models are based on extremely high uptake of the Covid-19 vaccines and havenât factored in any waning immunity or âescape variantâ (this is a card not played enough and we can expect to see it played by the end of Summer 2021). But both models still predict a significantly damaging third wave despite using a best case scenario within the model, and guess who theyâre going to blame? â Children and the Unvaccinated.
The document states that âThe resurgence is a result of some people (mostly children) being ineligible for vaccination; others choosing not to receive the vaccine; and others being vaccinated but not perfectly protected.â
What can we take from this? Well letâs rewind back to the March 2020, this was when authorities told the British people they needed just âthree weeks to flatten the curveâ. Thirteen months later and counting the United Kingdom is still trying to âflatten the curveâ, and the UK Government keep moving the goal posts. For instance letâs look at what the Heath Secretary Matt Hancock has been saying for the past few months â âThe vaccine is our route back to normalâ.
Now that the most vulnerable to the alleged Coronavirus Disease are fully vaccinated letâs take a look at what Matt Hancock is now saying â âRegular testing is our route back to normalâ. Moving the goal posts.
The authorities have managed to con the public into falling for the Covid-19 facade for over a year, in which they have been given ultimate power over the British people, do you honestly think theyâre going to give it up now?
The next question that should be on everybodyâs lips is âwhy do the authorities so desperately want to vaccinate every man, woman, and child?â. The data shows that the alleged Covid-19 kills just 0.2% of those it infects. It also shows that the vast majority of deaths are in those who are aged over 85 and have underlying conditions. Even between the ages of 60 and 85 the risk of dying is not significant unless the person already has a serious underlying condition. But the data also shows that anyone under the age of 60 has such a small chance of suffering serious disease and dying that the number is negligible. So weâll ask again, why are the authorities so desperate to vaccinate every man, woman and child?
Taking all of this into account and applying it to the statement made in the document that the predicted resurgence will be âa result of some people (mostly children) being ineligible for vaccination; others choosing not to receive the vaccine; and others being vaccinated but not perfectly protectedâ, can you not see that this is a ploy that will be used to justify vaccinating children? Even though there is almost zero risk of them even developing symptoms of Covid-19. Itâs also a ploy to justify ostracizing those who refuse to take part in what is a mass human experiment due to phase three trials of the Covid-19 vaccines not ending until 2023 at the earliest. It is guaranteed this will be used to justify the roll-out of a âvaccine passportâ system a.k.a freedom passes.
What? That must be an error? Hospitilisations and death will be dominated by those who have received two doses of the vaccine?
As we read further into the document and skip to section 56 we can clearly see this was not an error. As the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling provide several illustrations on hospital admissions and deaths and groups them into the unvaccinated, those who have received one dose and those who have received two doses.
The illustrations clearly show that at the predicted peak of the third wave there will be around 300 deaths per day, with the fully vaccinated accounting for around 250 of them. They also show that the fully vaccinated will account for around 60-70% of hospital admissions due to the alleged Coronavirus Disease.
But how can this be? The document clearly states that the third wave will be the fault of mainly children and those who have refused the vaccine, so surely the majority of deaths should be seen in those who have refused the vaccine. For this to not be the case what we have here is an admittance that these experimental vaccines are essentially redundant and do not work. But this again leads us back to the question of why on earth the authorities are so desperate to vaccinate every man, woman, and child.
One of the possible reasons is their desperation to impose a digital identity disguised as a vaccine passport. Another is of course that the Government and its circle of scientific advisors all stand to make a fortune from the roll-out of the Covid vaccines due to having major shares in pharmaceutical companies.
A âvaccine passportâ will ensure millions who would otherwise say no to the experimental Covid vaccines will now say yes because they believe it will give them back their freedom. The variants of concern card will also see a boost in the authorities earnings through their shares in pharmaceutical companies due to the inevitable requirement of yearly or even twice yearly vaccine top ups.
There are of course several other reasons that could explain why the authorities are so desperate to vaccinate every man, woman and child but we need solid evidence to back them up. (If you have it then please send it to contact@theexpose.uk). But we do have solid evidence to support the introduction of a digital identity disguised as âvaccine passportsâ and to support our claim that the Government and its circle of scientific advisors have major shares in pharmaceutical companies (See here and here).
Weâll end with our final piece of evidence to support our claims this will not end on the 21st June 2021. Section 51 of the âSummary of further modelling of easing of restrictions â Roadmap Step 2â document states the following â âIt is possible that a summer of low prevalence could be followed by substantial increases in incidence over the following autumn and winter. Low prevalence in late summer should not be taken as an indication that SARS-CoV-2 has retreated or that the population has high enough levels of immunity to prevent another wave.â
Itâs all their in black and white, seasonality will be used to create the illusion of a third wave of which children and those whoâve refused the vaccine will be blamed, in order to justify vaccinating children and imposing âvaccine passportsâ on society. But most deaths will occur in those who are fully vaccinated so a new âvariant of concernâ will be blamed in order to justify the introduction of annual or bi-annual Covid-19 vaccinations.
The question is why? Itâs because this isnât about a virus, itâs all about control â havenât you worked that out yet?
Source: The Daily Expose
You’re planning on using NASCAR and country music TV to convince people to take the vaccine @PressSec ?
You’ve lied to us about the controllavirus ever since the beginning. Why would we believe anything you tell us?
Dense people shouldn’t be in politics!
â NO MORE LIBERAL BS đșđž (@ChrisBl60857952) April 14, 2021
I resent the idea that conservatives can be lulled to comply and take the vaccine by using NASCAR and Country Music TV.
Why not try a new approach that hasn’t been tried before. Try telling us the truth for a change!
Does this woman really think that a conservatives are a bunch of morons?
These two gorgeous little creatures are hiding under the house across the street. They were nice enough to come out and pose for me.
Blacky’s Burrow by Chris Blackwood is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
What others are saying . . .