Translate

Showing posts with label Vaccines. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vaccines. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 27, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOURCES:


Wednesday, May 20, 2020

ARE MANDATORY VACCINES COMING?~THEY'VE ALREADY BEGUN!

ARE MANDATORY VACCINES COMING?~
THEY'VE ALREADY BEGUN!
BY REBECCA TERRELL
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 
purposes:
Big Brother has been calling the shots on school kids for decades. Is the next step a mandate for all?
Major media assure us that help is on the way. “There are reasons to be optimistic about a coronavirus vaccine,” declares The Guardian, “but it will take time.” Public health officials give a 12- to 18-month window, though an experimental version for high-risk groups is said to be on the fast track. Worldwide, as media primes a quarantine-weary public with promises of a quick fix, some see red flags.
Recalling what happened in the 1970s when Congress helped speed a swine flu vaccine to rapid approval, former Texas Congressman Ron Paul, a medical doctor, says he voted against the measure. “They rushed the vaccine through,” he told Dan Dicks in an April Press for Truth interview. “The vaccine was not properly made…. It caused a lot of harm. More people ended up dying from the inoculation than died from the flu that year,” while others suffered serious complications from the faulty med. “But that’s what happens when governments get involved and you do things for political reasons.”
There is even more cause for alarm about a premature coronavirus vaccine because, instead of simply making it available for those who want it, government may force it on everyone. As Dennis Behreandt reveals in the cover story of this edition of The New American, officials are now considering a federal mandate and national immunity ID cards. Those who refuse would forfeit their freedom to shop, travel, attend school or work, etc. Disturbed at plans in the works, Attorney General Bill Barr told Fox News, “I’m very concerned about the slippery slope in terms of continuing encroachments on personal liberty.”
Unfortunately, most Americans are already desensitized to such encroachments in regard to vaccines. Though federal mandates are unprecedented, compulsory vaccines for schoolchildren are the law of the land in every state and are based on recommendations of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC). It started with only one vaccine for a truly dangerous killer: smallpox. In the 1920s, some states began requiring that children receive it in order to attend school. Kids in the 1940s began getting DTP (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis) shots, and to the relief of many parents, polio inoculations joined the fray in 1955. Eight years later an MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine made its debut. Smallpox was eradicated in the 1970s, but the remaining seven medications, given in 23 doses, held steady for roughly two decades. Research and development exploded, beginning in the late 1980s, and vaccine requirements predictably ballooned. Since 2014, children have been receiving 69 doses of 16 inoculations starting the day they are born. Many doctors and parents question the need for them all.
Even chickenpox makes the required list in all states, though before development of the money-making vaccine, the only way chickenpox made TV ratings was on PBS Kids where government downplayed this common childhood malady. (On Caillou, the four-year-old’s mom told him, “They’re just little itchy spots. Nothing to worry about.” And on Arthur, the main character recovered in a few days, enjoying extra attention he got in the meantime.) Now CDC says chickenpox is dangerous “even in healthy children,” and vaccine sales are booming thanks to a government mandate. Cha-ching!
The agency is far less vocal about the officially reported 4,000 serious adverse events and 200 deaths associated with the chickenpox vaccine since its introduction, most cases involving children under six. News such as that spoils the party line that vaccines are safe — the inevitable response to skeptics. The reality is that, like all pharmaceutical medications, vaccines can cause harm and even death. For instance, the whole-cell pertussis vaccine was axed in the 1990s because it inflicted severe permanent brain damage. Health officials pulled the Rotashield rotavirus vaccine only one year after FDA approval because of so many severe reactions in children, including the death of an infant. Another blot on the record is LYMErix, a vaccine for Lyme disease, which lasted less than four years before class-action lawsuits linking it to rheumatoid arthritis forced it off the market.
As for the remaining vaccines, “There are no rigorous safety studies of sufficient power to rule out” complications, warns a 2019 statement to Congress from the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), a pro-vaccine organization that opposes government mandates. Likewise, there has never been a comprehensive investigation of the safety of the combination of drugs in the U.S. vaccination schedule.
Manufacturers have no incentive to test vaccine safety because the federal government protects them from virtually all liability when their products kill or injure patients. Federal law passed in 1986 prevents vaccine-injured victims from suing pharmaceutical companies, forcing them instead to petition the U.S. government’s National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), in a process that disillusioned claimants have discovered to be heavily weighted against them. In its 34 years, NVICP has paid out nearly $4.1 billion in claims but has denied far more. Through fedgov’s cozy relationship with Big Pharma, U.S. taxpayers incur the liability costs, while big drug companies reap the profits.
Acknowledging the reality of risks, states have historically allowed medical, religious, and philosophical exemptions to vaccination requirements. As regulations ceaselessly expand, however, the rights of parents to choose which chemicals are injected into their babies’ bodies are under increasing attack, even in relatively low-risk cases.
Consider what happened last summer in New York. On a single day in June, without notice or public hearings, the state legislature slipped a bill (A2371, repealing the religious exemption to vaccinate) out of committee, quickly rammed it through both Assembly and Senate, and plopped it onto the desk of Governor Andrew Cuomo, who dutifully signed it into law. What emergency called for the record-breaking pace of this bill’s approval? The 2019 measles outbreak in New York City and neighboring Rockland County.
People must have been dropping like flies!
Not exactly. In an area with a population of more than 8.7 million people, there were fewer than 1,000 measles cases all year, according to CDC data. When the top official of Rockland County catered to media hysteria by declaring an emergency and banning unvaccinated children from public places, threatening to fine and imprison their parents, a judge had to come behind him and lift the ban. There were simply not enough cases to meet the legal requirement for an emergency declaration.
Nor were these measles victims “challenging public health systems,” as the pot-stirring bastion of yellow journalism, CNN, exaggerated. In fact, of the 1,282 measles cases nationwide last year, CDC reported 128 hospitalizations and no deaths.
But desperate times call for desperate measures, and the pro-government mandate crowd needed a scapegoat — not to save people from measles, obviously, but to remove the state’s religious exemption for vaccines. They found it in two Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods in Brooklyn, having the highest concentration of measles cases in the city, as well as a high percentage of unvaccinated families. Though the community’s religious leaders confirm that vaccine refusal is not part of their belief system, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio targeted these limited areas with a mandatory vaccine order, ignoring their civil rights and slapping a misdemeanor charge and $1,000 fine on anyone who refused. In response to the Hasidic Jewish community’s lawsuit against his tyrannical edict, de Blasio rebuffed his own constituents’ concerns in a WCBS news radio interview and bragged, “We will beat them.” And he did — courtesy of the New York legislature and bill A2371. 
California has gone even further than New York. First, the Golden State used 2015’s Disneyland measles outbreak as an excuse to repeal religious and personal exemptions to its vaccine laws. (Incidentally, CDC defines the worrying term “outbreak” as three or more cases of a disease within a limited time frame. Among the 320.7 million people populating the United States in 2015, there were 188 cases, which amounts to a statistically insignificant 0.00006 percent.)
Fast forward to September 2019, a few days after the New York City Health Department declared its outbreak over. That’s when California’s governor signed two bills imposing the strictest vaccine law in the country. The draconian measures place doctors who grant more than four medical exemptions per year under investigation by the Department of Public Health. Both public and private schools with student bodies that do not meet a 95-percent vaccination minimum are also scrutinized. State officials can even revoke current medical exemptions that they deem inappropriate. In other words, bureaucrats can overrule your doctor.
Were these measures necessary to stem some tide of murderous measles mayhem in the state? Hardly. Only 73 Californians caught the virus in 2019 (a whopping 0.0002 percent), and no one died, according to the state’s public health department. Those 73 not only survived but now boast life-long immunity to the disease, a boon the vaccine cannot supply.
Obviously, measles isn’t the deadly killer that bureaucrats and their propaganda-peddling media cronies claim. In fact, CDC data reveal that nationwide only two measles-related deaths have occurred in the U.S. since 2003, out of 3,724 cases. That’s a rate of 0.05 percent, hardly equivalent to the CDC claim that death strikes between one and three of every 1,000 measles victims “even with the best care.” Yet none of these facts have stopped California from usurping the role of a doctor who, unlike a bureaucrat, is actually licensed to practice medicine. When government so decidedly overreacts to such a non-emergency, it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to tell that there is an agenda afoot.
Other states are following suit in withholding exemptions to vaccine law. Last year, Washington state stripped its residents of personal exemptions to MMR. Maine is scheduled to lose religious and philosophical exemptions altogether next year. The National Vaccine Information Center reports that exemptions in many other states are hanging by a thread.
Even if there were no threats imposed on individual patients by this cookie-cutter approach to medication administration, it’s disconcerting to ask: What limits can be placed on the power of a government that can tell you what you must inject into your own body or your own children? And despite any threats from coronavirus, do we really want to hand control over our medical decisions to Uncle Sam, when our rights at the state level are already in such jeopardy?

Tuesday, May 19, 2020

TRUMP NEVER PUSHED A MANDATORY COVID-19 VACCINE

Trump Never Pushed A Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccine
TRUMP NEVER PUSHED A MANDATORY 
COVID-19 VACCINE

Coronavirus vaccine will be completely voluntary despite MSM talking points claiming the contrary

BY MILLIE WEAVER
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 
purposes:
Many people in President Trump’s base are concerned about mandatory vaccines. Liberals tend to lean more towards advocating government mandated vaccinations whereas conservatives tend to lean more towards advocating freedom of choice. From the beginning of the coronavirus outbreak, both sides have weighed in on their concerns of a COVID-19 vaccination; some love the idea, while others abhor it.
President Trump just announced project “Warp Speed” which will accelerate the development of a COVID-19 vaccine. During his press briefing last Friday, the President made the statement, “vaccine or no vaccine, we’re back”. This statement, by no stretch of the imagination, does not say he’s pushing mandatory vaccination.
“I don’t want people to believe that this is dependent on a vaccine…some people are not going to want to get it.” – President Trump
Before we start demonizing the President’s project Warp Speed let’s look at original source material instead of edited clips and out of context quotes.
The President emphasized his efforts to find “effective treatments and vaccines,” not vaccines alone. Notice he’s emphasizing “hundreds of treatments” with over 530 possible treatments available other than vaccines.
It’s important to realize there are millions of Americans that are demanding a vaccine. Nothing is going to change their opinion on that. So, is it better to allow all of this funding for research to go to the World Health Organization and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, or should Trump work with top American scientists to develop a vaccine that is more likely to be “safer”?
If I had to choose between an American-made vaccine or a Bill Gates-Chinese vaccine, I’m going with the American-based vaccine. But, I’m not going to be forced to make that choice because vaccination isn’t going to be mandatory under the Trump administration. But, if we allow this issue to split Trump’s base, I can assure you it will be mandatory under a Biden administration.