Passport to a protection racket

If you’d prefer to read this episode, you can download a transcript here.

With the long-predicted launch of vaccine passports announced, the Scottish and UK governments have taken the first step in enforcing a medical intervention that has not been fully trialled and the effectiveness of which, research shows, is at the very least questionable.

This kind of physical imposition has not been known in Europe since…

If you enjoyed this podcast, please subscribe, and feel free to comment below.

SHOW NOTES

Public Health England briefing paper on variants:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1014926/Technical_Briefing_22_21_09_02.pdf

Research paper from Tel Aviv, Israel, “Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections”

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1.full.pdf

Kim Iversen: BOMBSHELL Report Suggests Natural Immunity Triggers Better Response Against COVID

Etienne de La Boetie: The Politics of Obedience

https://www.mises.ch/library/Boetie_Politics_of_Obedience.pdf

Growing up Black in Nazi Germany, interview with Esther Amanu Fordham

A “no jab, no job” policy followed by “record number of Covid deaths”. Coincidence?

If you’d prefer to read this episode, you can download a transcript here.

Governments around the world are implementing various levels of coercion to persuade people to take Covid vaccinations – this despite several scientific warnings of the potential risks of “ADE” and “VADE” – “vaccine-associated disease enhancement”, a phenomenon which has been associated with coronavirus vaccination research in the past, making lab animals MORE susceptible to the serious, even fatal effects of the disease that the vaccine was meant to be protecting them from.

Recent research from Public Health England showed that more deaths from the Delta variant of Covid occurred in the double-jabbed than in those who had not had the jab.


The government of Fiji announced a “no jab, no job” policy on 6th July. By 22nd July, Fiji was reporting record numbers of Covid deaths.


With the PHE results indicating at the very least that these vaccines are protecting no one, surely governments should be halting all vaccine coercion until more facts are known.


SHOW NOTES


Fiji’s “No jab, no job” policy
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/world/no-jab-job-fijis-pm-gives-vaccination-deadline-workers


Fiji reports a record number of covid deaths
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/22/fiji-reports-record-covid-deaths-including-two-pregnant-women


Imagining Freedom, Podcast 7, Series 2
http://imaginingfreedom.co.uk/podcast-episodes/a-bit-of-sunny-freedom-to-re-elect-and-ignore-the-wolf-in-sheeps-clothing-lurking-round-the-corner/


Nature article looking at ADE and VADE:
“Learning from the past: development of safe and effective Covid-19 vaccines”, 16th Oct, 2020
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-020-00462-y


“We’ve never made a successful coronavirus vaccine before”
https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2020-04-17/coronavirus-vaccine-ian-frazer/12146616


Public Health England briefing paper on the Delta Variant (see p18):
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1005517/Technical_Briefing_19.pdf

Why vaccine passports are a terrible idea

This is my response to the UK government’s consultation on “Covid-Status Certification” – or vaccine passports to you and me. There were three questions asked in the consultation, which is open until 29th March, 2021. The questions can be seen here. My responses follow.

Question 1

g) I am an individual

Question 2

a) clinical/medical considerations

Certification for vaccination for any disease is an infringement of human rights. A vaccination enters the bloodstream, and always carries a certain risk to health. Being vaccinated should therefore be a matter of personal choice. I have been vaccinated many times in the past, and this was my personal choice.

Medical and scientific opinion is not always correct. I was born in February 1962, and my mother was prescribed Thalidomide for morning sickness while pregnant with me. After a week, she heeded my grandmother’s advice, and decided to stop taking it. She told me that she hid the tablets from the health visitor and pretended that she was still taking them.

I have read the MHRA papers for the covid vaccines, and much of the test research for all vaccine brands is stated to be “ongoing”. This in itself raises alarm bells for me.

But even if the vaccines had been trialled for 10 years, I don’t think that any individual should be coerced into taking them.

Many people prefer to take a more natural approach to their health, and pharmaceuticals should not be forced on anyone, especially in relation to a disease that – going by the official figures – has been associated with the deaths of no more than 0.18 percent of the UK population.

b) legal considerations

I am not an expert in law, but there seems to be evidence of corruption and conflicts of interest in the promotion of covid vaccines. The World Health Organisation has been active in pressurising governments all over the world to take certain actions regarding covid, and a very significant proportion of its income comes from pharmaceutical companies.

The Times and the Wall Street Journal have reported [1] that governments and big tech information companies like Google Ventures are invested in firms that stand to benefit financially from the rollout of covid vaccinations.

It has also been revealed that government contracts for PPE were awarded to “brass plate” firms. I suspect that this is the tip of the iceberg. In my opinion, the whole covid episode reeks of corruption.

At a time when there are more billionaires than ever before, I fear that the health of the world’s population is being threatened – not by a disease which has so far been associated with the deaths of no more than 0.03 percent of the global population, but by vested financial interests, maybe even organised crime. This is a very serious concern.

d) considerations relating to the operation of venues that could use a potential covid-status certification scheme and e) considerations relating to the responsibilities or actions of employers under a potential covid-status certification scheme

I think such venues and employers could be exposing themselves to future legal action if these vaccines are found to have caused physical damage or harm. This could be on a mass scale. Even if these companies find a way round the legal action, they could suffer a serious loss of reputation if they are seen to be associated with irreversible physical damage as a result of their coercion.

f) ethical considerations

There are tribes and societies that insist on irreversible practices like circumcision, male and female, and would outlaw anyone who refused to comply. I think this is wrong. I believe strongly in bodily autonomy. I would fight anyone who tried to assault or poison me, or who forced me to take a substance against my will.

g) equalities considerations

A certification scheme would certainly create a “class” of people who are inferior in many ways, and unable to participate fully in society because of their beliefs. This would not only violate current equalities legislation, but could also lead to serious discrimination similar to that suffered by the Jews in Nazi Germany.

h) privacy considerations

Covid vaccine certification would be a violation of personal privacy.

Question 3

With regards to testing:

The PCR test for covid is invasive and potentially dangerous. I would personally choose not to have one, and I would see any coercion to have it as coercion to an assault.

I have taken blood tests for covid, as part of volunteering for research into covid with UK Biobank. I was happy to do this. Invasive tests should be a matter of personal choice.

Finally, with regards to the sentence: “COVID-status certification refers to the use of testing or vaccination data to confirm in different settings that individuals have a lower risk of getting sick with or transmitting COVID-19 to others.”

I would argue that the use of testing or vaccination data cannot confirm that individuals have a lower risk of getting sick with or transmitting covid-19 to others. I have never had the flu vaccination, and I have not had flu since I was 13 years old. But I know several people who have had the flu vaccination and have then had the flu.

Covid vaccinations are said to reduce the symptoms, but not necessarily the transmission of covid. [2] The covid PCR tests have a questionable accuracy. [3] I personally believe that good sanitation and personal hygiene, eating good natural food, taking regular exercise, and mixing with other people to build up my immunity and gut health, is a much better approach to reducing my risk of covid than taking pharmaceutical drugs. If I am wrong in this, I will suffer the consequences. I am not prepared to put my own health at risk by taking a vaccine that some people believe might protect others.

There are many scientific unknowns in all of this, including the long-term (and even the short-term) safety of the covid vaccinations. There are many vested financial interests involved in the promotion of these vaccines and the censorship of dissenting opinions.

I therefore believe that any move towards covid-status certification would be a very serious mistake that could lead us all into dangerous territory.

Sources

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20201127212301/https://www.theweek.co.uk/107698/who-is-set-to-make-money-from-the-oxford-coronavirus-vaccine

[2] https://theconversation.com/covid-19-vaccines-are-probably-less-effective-at-preventing-transmission-than-symptoms-heres-why-156611

[3] https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/27182/20200905/positive-covid-19-test-results-accurate.htm

Photo by Eduardo RS on Pixabay.