MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘COVID Vaccine’

Erie Times E-Edition Article- COVID vaccine not a get-out-of-jail-free card

Posted by M. C. on April 7, 2021

” We are getting a lot of vaccine into people’s arms,”

“Jail”, the “vaccinated” must wear masks, shouldn’t travel. Makes you wonder just how much is known about what you are letting government pump in your body. Don’t be surprised when you are told you must get a “booster”.

Control, Obey

https://erietimes-pa-app.newsmemory.com/?publink=21839ad20

David Bruce Erie Times-News USA TODAY NETWORK

Charlotte Berringer, R.N director of community health for the Erie County Department of Health The 51,216 Erie County residents who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 might feel like they are now invincible against the virus.

That’s not exactly true, said Charlotte Berringer, R.N., director of community health for the Erie County Department of Health.

‘The impression I get is that many of these folks feel like the vaccine is a get-out-of-jail-free card and that they can get back to doing anything they did before,’ Berringer said.

Berringer said people who have full immunity are safe for activities such as gathering without face masks in small groups with other fully vaccinated people.

They can also gather with unvaccinated people from a single household under similar conditions, as long as the unvaccinated individuals are at low risk for severe illness if infected, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention.

But Berringer said vaccinated people must continue to take precautions in other circumstances. It’s because the current vaccines, while very effective, do not provide 100% protection and it is not yet known if they prevent people from spreading the virus.

‘If you are fully vaccinated and want to go out in public where there are unvaccinated people, you still need to wear a face mask and practice social distancing,’ Berringer said.

Erie County reported 56 new cases of COVID-19 and one additional death on Tuesday.

The county’s number of new cases has increased 19% in the past week, though COVID-19 hospitalizations continue to decline. Hospitalization trends tend to lag behind new case trends by a couple of weeks.

Berringer declined to predict whether COVID-19 hospitalizations will increase in the county but said she is pleased with the county’s rise in vaccinations.

‘We are getting a lot of vaccine into people’s arms,’ Berringer said. ‘About 33% of the county’s eligible population, people 16 and older, have at least one dose of vaccine. Another 7,000 doses are expected to be given this week.’

The county has 18,926 total cases of COVID-19, 453 deaths and 66,309 negative tests since the pandemic started.

Eleven county residents with COVID-19 were hospitalized Monday evening, including three in intensive care units and one who needed a ventilator, according to the Pennsylvania Department of Health.

A total of 964 county residents have active cases of COVID-19 and 17,509 have recovered, according to state health department estimates.

Contact David Bruce at

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Why Are ‘Experts’ Disagreeing With Each Other Over Covid Vaccine?

Posted by M. C. on April 1, 2021

Even the establishment experts seem to be in total disagreement with each other – and often with themselves – over the experimental Covid “vaccine.” Does it prevent the illness? Lessen the illness? Provide lasting immunity? Temporary immunity? Is it safe for all? So many questions, but so few reliable answers.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

“After Your COVID Vaccine You Should Not Travel”-CDC

Posted by M. C. on March 10, 2021

https://www.eatthis.com/news-cdc-risk-after-covid-vaccine/

I got my vaccine and I can’t travel-Join the club

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

Why People Don’t Trust Pfizer’s Covid Vaccine. | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on December 18, 2020

Whoever funds the study comes out on top. Companies commonly use positive results from head-to-head trials to encourage doctors to prescribe their drug rather than a competitor’s. When the authors of a Journal of Psychiatry survey looked at the trials, they found a curious thing: in five trials that were paid for by Eli Lilly, its drug Zyprexa came out looking superior to Risperdal, a drug made by the company Janssen. But when Janssen sponsored its own trials, Risperdal was the winner three out of four times. When it was Pfizer funding the studies, its drug Geodon was best. In fact, this tendency for the sponsor’s drug to come out on top held true for 90 percent of the more than thirty trials in the survey.6

https://mises.org/wire/why-people-dont-trust-pfizers-covid-vaccine

Antony Sammeroff

Why do people believe in conspiracy theories?

Michael Shermer, a famous skeptic, was forced to admit that one of the reasons is that some of them are true. In his research he found that the fact that some conspiracy theories are real feeds people’s suspicion and makes them susceptible to the belief in others that are far less credible. We are increasingly herded into taking a hard line on issues which are nuanced. One example of this is an apparent increase in two camps: some people are entirely against mainstream medicine while others will bend over backwards to mount an extreme defense of the indefensible excesses of Big Pharma.

Drugs save lives. Drugs are dangerous. These should not be controversial statements, nor do they contradict one another. According to the American Medical Association’s own figures, medical care has become the third leading cause of death in the United States,1 yet few would advocate a return to a time before we had modern medical care.2

When the government is buying the drug no matter what and those companies are protected from liability for damages that may be caused by those drugs, it ceases to be surprising that people may question whether what is being offered up to them is safe or not. One of the reasons why people believe in conspiracy theories about Big Pharma is because some of them are true.

Some of Pfizer’s History

A 2004 advert for Zoloft claimed that over 16 million Americans were affected by social anxiety disorder. But here’s the thing: a study conducted by Pfizer (the manufacturer) discovered that participants did a lot better overcoming social anxiety with “exposure therapy,” including counseling with a primary care doctor about their symptoms and homework to learn how to identify and break through social habits and fears, did better than people who took their drug.3

When the Upjohn Company (now Pfizer) developed Minoxidil, a drug that was originally manufactured to lower blood pressure, they found that it could cause hair regrowth in some balding patients. So they simply switched the marketed effect for the so-called side effect, and they had a drug for balding which just so happened to lower blood pressure.4

The ALLHAT Study (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attacks Trial), was intended to compare the effectiveness of four drugs in preventing complications form high blood pressure. It was originally intended to continue for between four and eight years, but part of it was stopped prematurely because those participants assigned to Cardura (manufactured by Pfizer) were developing significantly more cardiovascular complications than those taking a diuretic. At the time the results were published in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association), about $800 million worth of Cardura was being sold each year—but the diuretic was proving more effective at preventing high blood pressure complications at a seventh of the cost. Taking advantage of the fact that most doctors weren’t aware of the research, Pfizer hired damage-control consultants. The American College of Cardiology (ACC) issued a press release recommending that doctors “discontinue use” of Cardura but mere hours later downgraded its wording to “reassess.” Could this be something to do with Pfizer contributing more than $500,000 a year to the ACC?5

Whoever funds the study comes out on top. Companies commonly use positive results from head-to-head trials to encourage doctors to prescribe their drug rather than a competitor’s. When the authors of a Journal of Psychiatry survey looked at the trials, they found a curious thing: in five trials that were paid for by Eli Lilly, its drug Zyprexa came out looking superior to Risperdal, a drug made by the company Janssen. But when Janssen sponsored its own trials, Risperdal was the winner three out of four times. When it was Pfizer funding the studies, its drug Geodon was best. In fact, this tendency for the sponsor’s drug to come out on top held true for 90 percent of the more than thirty trials in the survey.6

A 2017 article noted that “prices for U.S. made pharmaceuticals have climbed over the past decade six times as far as the cost of goods and services overall.”7 In a famous case Mylan was able to increase the price of the EpiPen by more than 450 percent, adjusting for inflation, between 2004 and 2016—despite the epinephrine in each injection costing only around $1—because they were the only legal supplier of the product.8 This example, while extreme, is unfortunately not exceptional. Pfizer, Biogen, Gilead Sciences, Amgem, AbbieVie, Turing Pharmaceutical, Envizo, Valeant Pharmaceuticals, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals (to name a few) all seem to have benefited from price gouging by obtaining legally protected monopoly power over certain healthcare products.9

The covid-19 vaccine manufactured by Pfizer—having bypassed the usual 5–10 years of safety testing—may well be completely harmless, but so long as this kind of tomfoolery continues to be common within the medical field we can expect ever more skeptical people to be labeled by their critics as “antivaxx.”

Pfizer set a record for the largest health care fraud settlement and the largest criminal fine of any kind with $2.3 billion in 2009. The online website Corporate Research Project includes a Pfizer Rap Sheet detailing a number of the controversies they have been involved in.

  • 1. Ray Sipherd, “The Third-Leading Cause of Death in US Most Doctors Don’t Want You to Know About,” CNBC, Feb. 22, 2018, http://bit.ly/100_errors.
  • 2. In their famous report, To Err Is Human, the Institute of Medicine estimated that while 98,000 Americans are killed each year by medical errors, between 90,000 and 400,000 patients are harmed or killed by the innocent use of drugs. They either received the wrong drug, the wrong dose of the right drug, or two drugs that interacted in the wrong way. Institute of Medicine, To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System, ed. Linda T. Kohn, Janet M. Corrigan, and Molla S. Donaldson (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2000).
  • 3. John Abramson, Overdosed America: The Broken Promise of American Medicine (New York: Harper Perennial, 2013), p. 232–33.
  • 4. Doug McGuff and Robert P. Murphy, Primal Prescription: Surviving the “Sick Care” Sinkhole (n.p.: Primal Nutrition, 2015), p. 65.
  • 5. Abramson, Overdosed America, p. 108–09.
  • 6. Shannon Brownlee, Overtreated: Why Too Much Medicine Is Making Us Sicker and Poorer (New York: Bloomsbury, 2008), p. 230.
  • 7. Robert Pearl, “New Checks and Balances For Big Pharma,” The Health Care Blog, May 12, 2017, http://bit.ly/New_Checks.
  • 8. Charles Silver and David A. Hyman, Overcharged: Why Americans Pay Too Much for Health Care (Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2018), p. 28.
  • 9. Silver and Hyman, Overcharged, pp. 25–30.

Author:

Antony Sammeroff

Antony Sammeroff co-hosts the Scottish Liberty Podcast and has featured prominently on other libertarian themed shows including The Tom Woods Show, Lions of Liberty, School Sucks Podcast, and many more. His book Universal Basic Income — For and Against (with a foreword by Robert P. Murphy) is available in paperback and on Amazon Kindle. His previous self-help book Procrastination Annihilation is free to download from BeYourselfAndLoveIt.com. Antony blogs on economic issues at SeeingNotSeen.Blogspot.com and his articles have also been published by the Scottish Libertarian Party, the Cobden Centre, The Backbencher, The Rational Rise, and ActualAnarchy.com.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

5 Ways Americans Could Be “Encouraged” to Get a Covid Vaccine

Posted by M. C. on December 7, 2020

It’s likely to be a much different approach than a SWAT team breaching your house in the middle of the night, holding down your family members, and stabbing them with syringes. If a widespread push is made to get people to take this vaccine, it will likely be a case of making life difficult for those who opt-out and more pleasant for those who opt-in.

https://www.theorganicprepper.com/covid-vaccine/

by Daisy Luther

As Pfizer and Moderna both rush a vaccine to market to fight the Covid-19 virus, will promises of returning to “normal” be enough to persuade people to take the quickly developed injection?

This article isn’t about persuading you one way or the other about whether you should be vaccinated. That is a matter for you, your family, and your physician to discuss. It’s about the opinions of Americans, the legalities of mandating cooperation, what we know about the vaccine, and the tactics that could be used to “encourage” your cooperation.

It’s expected that the new coronavirus vaccines will be approved any day now. Each vaccine is said to require two shots to confer immunity to the virus. Pfizer requires two doses three weeks apart, and Moderna requires two doses four weeks apart.

About half of Americans are eager to be vaccinated.

According to a poll conducted by Pew Research, 51% of American adults would immediately get a vaccine if it were available. That, of course, means that nearly half of all American adults aren’t convinced this is something that they want to do right now. This number has decreased from the first time the poll was taken. Back in May, 72% of American adults were on board with rolling up their sleeves as soon as possible.

Of course, this poll assumes that people will have a choice whether or not to be inoculated.

While half of the people surveyed want the injection, the other half do not. And that’s where the controversy lies – should we have a choice what medical treatments we undergo? Dr. Ron Paul spoke to The Huffington Post back in 2008 and said something as meaningful today as it was a dozen years ago.

“If we accept this notion that the federal government is going to dictate what we can put into our bodies, then it leads to the next step: that the government is going to regulate everything that is supposedly good for us. That’s where they are. They have an FDA that won’t allow somebody who’s dying to use an experimental drug which might speed up the process of finding out which drugs are good and which drugs are bad and the federal government comes in and dictates that they want complete control over vitamins and nutritional products and I just think the whole principal of government telling us what we can take in or not take in is just a dangerous position to take… it’s related to the drug industry because they’d like to control all of this.” (source)

Here are some of the immediate side effects.

Yasir Batalvi, a 24-year-old from Boston, volunteered to get the vaccine and received the two doses after signing a 22-page consent form. He shared his experience with CNN:

“The actual injection felt, at first, just like a flu shot, which is basically just a little pinch in the side of your arm,” Batalvi said. “Once I left the hospital, that evening, the stiffness got a little bit worse. It was definitely manageable, but you kind of don’t really feel like moving your arm too far above your shoulder. But the side effects are pretty localized. I mean, it’s just in the muscle in your arm. And that’s about it. It doesn’t really affect anything else and you feel fine.”

That was after the first dose. But the second dose was different.

“I actually had some pretty significant symptoms after I got the second dose. Once I got the second dose, I was fine while I was in the hospital. But that evening was rough. I mean, I developed a low-grade fever, and fatigue and chills,” Batalvi said. He said he was out for that day and evening, but he “felt ready to go by the next morning.”He said he called the study doctors to let them know about his symptoms. They weren’t alarmed and told him he shouldn’t be either.Feeling under the weather does not mean that you got Covid-19 from the vaccine — in fact, experts say having this kind of reaction shows that your body is responding the way it should, and it should not deter anyone from getting vaccinated or going back for their second dose. (source)

Doctors have urged the CDC to be transparent about the fact that the side effects of the vaccine are “not a walk in the park.”

Dr. Sandra Fryhofer of the American Medical Association said both Pfizer’s and Moderna’s Covid-19 vaccines require two doses at varying intervals. As a practicing physician, she said she worries whether her patients will come back for a second dose because of the potentially unpleasant side effects they may experience after the first shot.

“We really need to make patients aware that this is not going to be a walk in the park,” Fryhofer said during a virtual meeting with the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, an outside group of medical experts that advise the CDC. She is also a liaison to the committee. “They are going to know they had a vaccine. They are probably not going to feel wonderful. But they’ve got to come back for that second dose…

…One North Carolina woman in the Moderna study who is in her 50s said she didn’t experience a fever but suffered a bad migraine that left her drained for a day and unable to focus. She said she woke up the next day feeling better after taking Excedrin but added that Moderna may need to tell people to take a day off after a second dose.

“If this proves to work, people are going to have to toughen up,” she said. “The first dose is no big deal. And then the second dose will definitely put you down for the day for sure. … You will need to take a day off after the second dose.” (source)

These are the immediate side effects but only time will tell if there are long-term side effects.

Does the United States intend to mandate the vaccine?

Joe Biden has said that the vaccine will not be made mandatory on a federal level. The thing is, these decisions are usually made on a state level.

Some government officials are already talking about mandating the vaccine. Virginia State Health Commissioner, Dr. Norman Oliver, is all for mandatory Covid vaccinations.

State Health Commissioner Dr. Norman Oliver told 8News on Friday that he plans to mandate coronavirus vaccinations for Virginians once one is made available to the public.

Virginia state law gives the Commissioner of Health the authority to mandate immediate immunizations during a public health crisis if a vaccine is available. Health officials say an immunization could be released as early as 2021.

Dr. Oliver says that, as long as he is still the Health Commissioner, he intends to mandate the coronavirus vaccine…

…Oliver believes that, in the case of COVID-19, public health takes precedent over choice. He said herd immunity is the state’s best defense to stop the spread. (source)

Despite his health commissioner’s enthusiasm, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam has said he is not planning to mandate the vaccine at this time.

The Virginia health commissioner is not alone in his desire to mandate the vaccination. The New York State Bar has also recommended it be mandatory for residents of the state.

All this being said, there doesn’t seem to be a direct plan to pass laws making people take the vaccine.

Can the government actually make people take a vaccine?

Actually, yes.

But there is legislative precedent dating back to a U.S. Supreme Court case in 1905 called Jacobson v. Massachusetts that allows the government to mandate vaccinations.

In that case, the Supreme Court said that states have under their police powers, which is under the Constitution, the authority to enact reasonable regulations as necessary to protect public health, public safety, and the common good. Vaccination mandates constitute exactly that kind of permissible state action to protect the public’s health. Even though it’s 115 years old, this continues to be the benchmark case on the state’s power to mandate vaccination.

In response to the argument about this individual liberty interest, the court said that sometimes individual interests might have to yield to state laws that endeavor to protect the health of everybody—the “common good.” The court said: “The rights of the individual may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint to be enforced by reasonable regulations as the safety of the general public may demand.”

So, yes: Once COVID vaccines are available, states could elect to require that people who live within that state be vaccinated. (source)

Despite this law being in place, mandating the vaccine will probably not be the first method used by the government.

Will Americans be forced or persuaded?

So what happens during a pandemic when there’s a vaccine that people are hesitant to take? Will we be forcibly immunized against our will?

It’s likely to be a much different approach than a SWAT team breaching your house in the middle of the night, holding down your family members, and stabbing them with syringes. If a widespread push is made to get people to take this vaccine, it will likely be a case of making life difficult for those who opt-out and more pleasant for those who opt-in.

People are desperate to resume some kind of normalcy, which will certainly be part of the campaign for vaccination. As we move into the second round of lockdowns, folks just want to have holidays with their families. Millions have been pushed into poverty. Mental health issues abound from the months of isolation. It’s difficult to connect with others and people want to resume their lives.

And if that’s not enough to persuade them to roll up their sleeve for an injection, following are some of the possibilities that have been mentioned to “encourage” Americans to take the vaccine when it becomes available.

Your kids may have to take it to go to school.

Most states already require that children be vaccinated against polio, diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis, measles, rumps, and rubella, chickenpox, and hepatitis B unless they hold an exemption that is valid in that state. Exemptions are generally related to medical issues, religious beliefs, or personal philosophy.

It’s likely that a mandatory Covid vaccine for children to attend school would vary from state to state.  Children have generally not become very ill with this particular virus and have seemed less likely than adults to contract it. (There have, of course, been some exceptions.) To some, that would indicate children did not need to undergo the risk of taking yet another vaccine. Dr. Christine Turley, M.D., Pediatrics Specialist and vice-chair of research at Atrium Health Levine Children’s Hospital believes it could be beneficial.

However, school-bound children could spread the virus to parents, grandparents, and others with underlying health conditions. Vaccinating children could eliminate one major source of coronavirus spread, possibly increasing the effectiveness of herd immunity (source)

And even if your kids are attending school via Zoom, it may not exempt them. I spoke to one parent whose children are engaged in distance learning in Massachusetts. Although they will not be setting foot on school property, they are still required to have proof that they are up to date on all required vaccinations.

Employers could insist that employees be vaccinated.

You could potentially lose your job if you refuse to take a vaccine that your employer has deemed mandatory. Legal and public health expert Joanne Rosen, a senior lecturer in Health Policy and Management and the Center for Law and the Public’s Health, spoke about the topic of mandatory vaccinations with Public Health On Call podcast host Stephanie Desmon.

An employer has to have a “reasonable basis.” If you worked in retail, I’m not sure a corporate entity could require that. They may want you to and recommend it, but it wouldn’t be reasonably related to the requirements of their job.

But in sectors in which the employees are themselves at greater risk of contracting vaccine-preventable illnesses or who work with populations that are especially vulnerable if they do get sick, like hospital workers, health care workers, and people who work in [long-term care] facilities, employers have required that their staff be vaccinated against the flu each year.

Another thing that states could do, short of a requirement across the board that everybody be vaccinated, is they could begin with a mandate that focuses on those sectors—people who are themselves at greater risk or who work in proximity with vulnerable populations. We don’t want the employees themselves getting sick and being a bridge, or “vector,” to infecting others who are vulnerable. People may object, but some more targeted form of vaccine mandate may make sense and also be possible. (source)

Dorit Reiss, a law professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, told TODAY there were a few exceptions:

Employees who are part of a union may be exempt from the vaccine requirement.

Anti-discrimination laws also provide some limits. If you can’t get the vaccine for medical reasons, that could be a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which would require an employer to accommodate you. That could mean requiring you to wear a mask on the job or have limited contact with other people, Reiss said.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 may protect people who have a religious objection to a vaccine. An employer would have to make a reasonable accommodation as long as it’s not too costly for the business.

These laws apply only to companies with 15 or more employees, so smaller businesses are exempt.

“We think about employers as this huge, amorphous thing, but under the law, they’re also private entities with rights, especially if it’s a small mom and pop shop,” Reiss noted. (source)

Consider how some workplaces require all employees to receive a flu shot – the Covid vaccine could be enforced in a similar manner. Health care workers and those involved in education are most likely to be the first to face such requirements.

Businesses could require patrons to show proof of vaccination.

Even if a state or federal mandate is not in place, privately owned businesses could potentially require patrons to show proof of vaccination before they receive service.

Can airlines, restaurants, stores and stadiums make the vaccine a condition of doing business with you?

Yes, within the anti-discrimination laws mentioned above.

“They can decide to refuse service to you for pretty much any reason,” Reiss said, pointing out a policy most shoppers are already familiar with: no shirt, no shoes, no service.

People who are covered by anti-discrimination laws can’t just demand a business let them do whatever they want. The company just has to give you a reasonable accommodation, so a store might refuse you entry but offer curbside pick-up of groceries. (source)

Private businesses can set their own policies. Ticketmaster, the purveyor of tickets for concerts, plays, and just about any public event, has already “been working on a framework for post-pandemic fan safety” that would use their phones to confirm whether they’ve been vaccinated or had a negative test within the past couple of days. Billboard reports:

Here’s how it would work, if approved: After purchasing a ticket for a concert, fans would need to verify that they have already been vaccinated (which would provide approximately one year of COVID-19 protection) or test negative for coronavirus approximately 24 to 72 hours prior to the concert. The length of coverage a test would provide would be governed by regional health authorities — if attendees of a Friday night concert had to be tested 48 hours in advance, most could start the testing process the day before the event. If it was a 24-hour window,  most people would likely be tested the same day of the event at a lab or a health clinic.

Once the test was complete, the fan would instruct the lab to deliver the results to their health pass company, like CLEAR or IBM. If the tests were negative, or the fan was vaccinated, the health pass company would verify the attendee’s COVID-19 status to Ticketmaster, which would then issue the fan the credentials needed to access the event. If a fan tested positive or didn’t take a test to verify their status, they would not be granted access to the event. There are still many details to work out, but the goal of the program is for fans to take care of vaccines and testing prior to the concert and not show up hoping to be tested onsite.

Ticketmaster would not store or have access to fans’ medical records and would only receive verification of whether a fan is cleared to attend an event on a given date. (source)

This isn’t a definite plan but the fact that it’s in the works means the idea could spread to sporting events, shopping centers, movie theaters, or any other venue in which people are in close proximity with one another.

Your eligibility for a $1500 stimulus check could depend on it.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Chief Medical Officer Says Canadians Who Refuse Vaccine Won’t Have “Freedom To Move Around” | Zero Hedge

Posted by M. C. on December 5, 2020

Is this the same Canada voted best country in which to live?

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/chief-medical-officer-says-canadians-who-refuse-vaccine-wont-have-freedom-move-around

Profile picture for user Tyler Durden

by Tyler Durden

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer says that those who refuse to take the COVID vaccine won’t have “freedom to move around” and will have to continue to wear masks.

Dr. David Williams was asked if he “would make some sort of mandatory vaccination recommendation.”

Williams acknowledged that “we can’t force someone to take a vaccine,” but when on to explain how people who didn’t take it would have their freedom of mobility severely restricted.

“What we can do is to say sometimes for access or ease of getting into certain settings, if you don’t have vaccination then you’re not allowed into that setting without other protection materials,” said Williams.

“What may be mandatory, is proof of vaccination, in order to have latitude and freedom to move around without wearing personal protective equipment.” – Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Williams pic.twitter.com/gHupcMxbcm — CrasHTalk (@CrasTalk) December 3, 2020

“What may be mandatory is proof of…vaccination in order to have latitude and freedom to move around…without wearing other types of personal protective equipment,” he added.

Williams also suggested that people would be prevented from entering certain settings without having been vaccinated if there was a “risk.”

As we previously highlighted, governments do not have to make the vaccine mandatory, they can simply make life unlivable for people who refuse to take the vaccine.

If bars, restaurants, cinemas, sports venues, airlines, employers and others all make the vaccination a mandatory condition of service, anyone who refuses to take it will be reduced to a personal form of de facto lockdown with their social lives and mobility completely stunted.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Exposed: There’s a new federal court to handle all the expected -COVID vaccine injury claims « Jon Rappoport’s Blog

Posted by M. C. on September 22, 2020

“We know—and don’t ask us how—that millions of you are going to get headaches. To prevent that, we’re going to hit all of you on the head with a very heavy sledgehammer. If, ahem, a few of you happen to sustain an injury or die, we have a court where your relatives can try to get money out of us. By the way, in this court, we’ll do everything we can to deny you money. Good luck.”

Yes, the government knows exactly what’s coming when they approve a COVID vaccine. And now, so do you.

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/09/21/exposed-new-federal-court-to-handle-expected-covid-vaccine-injury-claims/

by Jon Rappoport

(To join our email list, click here.)

The simple truth is: the US government is anticipating many people will be filing claims for compensation, when their family members are harmed or killed by a new COVID vaccine.

Of course, the government isn’t coming right out and admitting that.

The press will tout the usual excuses for injury and death. “He died from COVID, not the vaccine.” “Well, there was just one bad batch of vaccines.” “Because COVID is such a dire situation, and we’re rushing to save lives, a few mistakes are inevitable.”

Anything but the truth: GUESS WHAT, THE VACCINE IS HIGHLY TOXIC.

This new federal vaccine court for COVID will operate exactly like the present system for paying out claims for vaccine injury to children. Citizens have to jump through many absurd hoops and navigate all sorts of red tape, to try to squeeze money out of the federal government. The system is set up that way. It’s your basic bureaucratic nightmare.

The language that establishes the new COVID vaccine court is found in the Federal Register, 3/17/20, buried in section 14 of a document titled: “Declaration Under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act for Medical Countermeasures Against COVID-19.”

Here is the relevant passage in that document:

“Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program…Section 319F-4 of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 247d-6e, authorizes the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) to provide benefits to eligible individuals who sustain a serious physical injury or die as a direct result of the administration or use of a Covered [COVID] Countermeasure [e.g., a vaccine]. Compensation under the CICP for an injury directly caused by a Covered Countermeasure is based on the requirements set forth in this Declaration, the administrative rules for the Program, and the statute. To show direct causation between a Covered Countermeasure and a serious physical injury, the statute requires ‘compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence.’ The administrative rules for the Program further explain the necessary requirements for eligibility under the CICP…”

(The US military’s webpage that explains the CICP to US soldiers is here.)

A quick piece of important history. In the mid-1980s, vaccine manufacturers were facing a blizzard of law suits from parents of vaccine-injured children. The very nervous manufacturers told the government they were going to get out of the vaccine business. The financial hit was going to be too deep.

The government said WAIT. Meetings were held. A plan was devised. A law was passed exempting the manufacturers from financial liability.

Instead, for any of the recommended childhood vaccines, parents had to go to a government court to file a claim for compensation, after their children had been injured or killed by a vaccine.

And the government made this court a VERY tough place to win compensation.

That’s the precise model for this new COVID vaccine court. And it’s based on the same unstated confession that existed in the 1980s: there are MANY vaccine injuries.

Bottom line: the government expects many COVID vaccine injuries.

That’s what they aren’t saying. They’re just preparing. With a new vaccine court. To handle injury and death of children and adults.

That should not give you a warm secure feeling.

Quite the opposite.

“We know—and don’t ask us how—that millions of you are going to get headaches. To prevent that, we’re going to hit all of you on the head with a very heavy sledgehammer. If, ahem, a few of you happen to sustain an injury or die, we have a court where your relatives can try to get money out of us. By the way, in this court, we’ll do everything we can to deny you money. Good luck.”

Yes, the government knows exactly what’s coming when they approve a COVID vaccine. And now, so do you.


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Think The Covid Vaccine Will End Lockdowns? Think Again!

Posted by M. C. on August 6, 2020

The authoritarians who have locked this country down ostensibly to fight the outbreak of a coronavirus are not going to let up once a vaccine is ready. Already we are seeing additional qualifiers and contingencies being made that will only serve to prolong their rule-by-decree. A vaccine is not going to end it. Also today: More Americans are saying “no” to any vaccine; CDC Director admits a financial incentive to list deaths as “Covid”; Gov. Whitmer cracks down harder…but why? And more…

Look for the internal passport (chip implant, digital tattoo) next.

 

Be seeing you

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

COVID Vaccine: What Else Could They Put in the Shot? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on May 26, 2020

“…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.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/05/jon-rappoport/covid-vaccine-what-else-could-they-put-in-the-shot/

By

Jon Rappoport’s blog

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:

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2019.00022/full

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6180194/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1748013219306929

https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/first-in-human-early-stage-nanotechnology-poised-for-inflection-point-57506309

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »