Source: Tulsi Gabbard
Tulsi Gabbard delivers a brilliant speech regarding the Weaponization of the Federal Government during a House Subcommittee meeting.
Today (November 22, 2021) marks the 58th anniversary of JFK’s assassination.
“My father’s initial belief was that the CIA had killed his brother. I always believed that, and I think you’d have to be an idiot not to.” ~ Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
By Aaron Kesel | Activist Post
Here Are The Elements MSM Misses That Proves It
Both U.S. President Joe Biden (in 2021) In 2017 and President Donald Trump (in 2017) announced that they would be holding back on disclosure of documents pertaining to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy under the pretense of “National Security,” delaying the release of over 3oo files while releasing 2,800, Dallas News reported.
What could be the reasoning behind holding back over a total of 300 files from being released to the general public to finally tell the truth about who assassinated John F. Kennedy and, more importantly, who paid to have it done?
Related Post: Insider Reveals CIA Killed JFK in Near-Deathbed Confession
If you want to see the released 2,800 files and download them and look yourself you can do so by clicking here. If you want more pieces of the puzzle to who killed JFK, keep reading. This will be a wild ride.
To start, the truth was never going to come out because an entire volume on Lee-Harvey Oswald went missing weeks ago right before the CIA was mandated to release the files, as TFTP reported.
(NOTE FILES PRESENTED BELOW AREN’T THE NEW 2,800 FILES)
It’s quite clear by now that there was much more than a single gunman from analysis of the gunshots from the Dallas Police Audio Tape alone, (SYNCED TO JFK’s MURDER BELOW). But even without that audio released in 2013, experts have said that it is nearly impossible to aim a bolt action sniper rifle, shoot, and then cock it back and shoot again simultaneously one after another and still be accurate, let alone fire three or four consecutive shots and still hit your target, The Telegraph reported.
Adding in multiple shooters to the narrative completely explains the magic bullet that hit Kennedy and John Connally (driver) somehow in the hip, History.com reported. Why? Because it wasn’t a magic bullet, it was several bullets.
In fact, E. Howard Hunt, a CIA agent who was convicted of being the lead Watergate burglar and was a main component in helping the subterfuge of Guatemala and the eventual death of Che Guevara, stated in his deathbed confession that he was a part of a hit squad that killed JFK. So a man known to do the CIA’s dirty deeds at the time confesses to killing a president of the United States, yet that’s ignored and called “conspiracy theory” by the mainstream press. Oh and a fun fact: the CIA are the ones who first came up with the word “conspiracy theorist” to discredit those who didn’t believe the Warren Commission report by controlling the narrative according to an internal memo.
The CIA in the last batch of JFK files over the summer revealed that E. Howard Hunt was fingered as being responsible for JFK’s death in a 1978 “tabloid piece.”
In August, 1978, Victor Marchetti published an article about the assassination of John F. Kennedy in the Liberty Lobby newspaper, Spotlight. In the article, Marchetti argued that the House Special Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) had obtained a 1966 CIA memo that revealed E. Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis and Gerry Patrick Hemming had been involved in the plot to kill Kennedy. Marchetti’s article also included a story that Marita Lorenz had provided information on this plot. Later that month, Joseph Trento and Jacquie Powers wrote similar stories for the Sunday News Journal.
The paper was then sued for libel by Hunt but he lost the case. Subsequently on Feb. 6, 1985, a jury in Miami concluded that the CIA was involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Spotlight reported.
Hunt later came clean and claimed on his deathbed that the plot to kill JFK was codenamed “The Big Event.”
Speaking in a History Channel documentary years ago, former CIA Samuel Halpern, claimed that the threat against JFK’s life stemmed from Kennedy’s frustration with the CIA, which he believed was becoming a “state within a state.” Halpern was involved in the investigation of the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
The documentary also discusses Operation Northwoods, a proposed false flag operation against Fidel Castro, planned by the U.S. joint chiefs of staff and CIA.
According to ABC News, “the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.” All to manipulate the American people into supporting a war against Cuba.
Kennedy also criticized the CIA’s original Bay Of Pigs (Operation Pluto/Zapata) and ultimately caused it to fail because of his decision to cut the operation’s military force down for the mission.
The CIA‘s “Bay of Pigs” plan to overthrow Cuba’s communist government had been in the works before John F. Kennedy moved into the White House. After weeks of discussion with his national security advisors, President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved the CIA’s plan to oust Castro. The operation suggested opening a radio station on Swan Island in the Caribbean to broadcast anti-Castro programming to Cuba, supplying anti-Castro resistance groups within Cuba and training a paramilitary force for the eventual infiltration of the country. Eisenhower signed the deal stating that he knew of “no better plan” to oust the Cuban Communists and eliminate Castro.
While he was still running for the presidency, Kennedy learned about the plan on July 23, 1960, when CIA Director Allen Dulles visited Kennedy at his family’s home at Hyannis Port on Cape Cod to brief the then-candidate about the anti-Castro operation. But a few weeks later the plan changed. The CIA abandoned the idea of infiltrating the island in favor of an invasion, complete with air support, to drive Castro from power. Eisenhower approved a budget of $13 million for the operation but stipulated that no U.S. military personnel could be part of the combat force.
Somehow, the plan leaked to the press and on January 10, 1961, the New York Times ran a front-page story under the headline, “U.S. HELPS TRAIN AN ANTI-CASTRO FORCE AT SECRET GUATEMALAN BASE.”
On March 11, 1961, Kennedy invited CIA Director Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell, the CIA’s chief of operations to the White House. JFK wanted to know, in detail, the plans for the invasion of Cuba. Dulles and Bissell explained that after U.S. aircraft had run a bombing mission over the Bay of Pigs area, Cubans recruited from exile living in Miami would take the beach by storm. The CIA expected that the invasion would inspire anti-Castro Cubans to rise up and overthrow the dictator.
Kennedy didn’t like the idea of beginning the attack with air strikes. “Too spectacular,” he said. “It sounds like D-Day. You have to reduce the noise level of this thing.”
Many of the approximately 1,500 CIA-trained Cuban exiles believed that they were the first wave of Cuban freedom fighters who would liberate their homeland from Castro. They were convinced that as they stormed ashore, they would be supported overhead by the U.S. Air Force, and as they advanced into Cuba the U.S. Marines would be right behind them. The exiles were absurdly mistaken; they held the beach for three days and then ran out of ammunition, and over 1,000 of the resistance troops known as Brigade 2506 were captured.
On April 14, 1961, just three days before the invasion, Kennedy called Bissell to ask how many planes he would use in the operation. Bissell told the president that the CIA planned to use all sixteen of their B-26s. “Well, I don’t want it on that scale,” Kennedy replied. “I want it minimal.” Kennedy cut the planes used down to eight and the operation ultimately failed.
CIA Deputy Director Charles Cabell was fired by Kennedy. Cabell’s brother was the Mayor of Dallas, Texas at the time of his assassination (more on that later.)
CIA director Allen Dulles was also fired and replaced by John A. McCone after the second attempt was proposed to overthrow the Cuban government under Operation Northwoods.
As David Talbot wrote in his book The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government and The Daily Beast reported, did CIA Director Allen Dulles order a hit on JFK?
The next fact surrounding JFK’s assassination is that George H.W. Bush Sr. was present during the day of JFK’s assassination, but he vehemently denies that he was there despite photographic evidence that looks exactly like him. There is also an FBI memo and another document that mentions an agent, George W. Bush, receiving intel on anti-Castro Cubans but Bush denies again that the person mentioned in the report was him. While another picture shows a young Bush as a security detail for John F. Kennedy outside the funeral of Philip Graham, a reporter at the time. Then yet another document, an FBI memo, fails to account for where Bush Senior actually was that day.
George Bush Sr.’s oil company was called Zapata Offshore Co. Dulles, Bush and the mayor of Dallas Earle Cabell all knew each other. Zapata sound familiar? It was the original name for the Bay Of Pigs operation. Was Bush involved in the Bay Of Pigs invasion? Why was his company name used as the mission name is it just a coincidence? We will never know because the documents were destroyed.
In 1981, all Securities and Exchange Commission filings for Zapata Off-Shore between 1960 and 1966 were destroyed. In other words, the year Bush became vice president, important records detailing his years at his drilling company disappeared. In 1969, Zapata bought the United Fruit Company of Boston, another company with strong CIA connections. Bush later became CIA director in 1976.
Another man, Clay Shaw, was involved with the intelligence community. Shaw was in charge of the International Trade Mart. It wasn’t known then, but this was another CIA front, along with the United Fruit Company. The Shaw trial, which was sabotaged from the start, did not have enough evidence to find Clay Shaw guilty of conspiracy charges. He was released on March 1, 1969 and died of lung cancer in 1974. The Oliver Stone film JFKdoes an incredible job summarizing the trial of Shaw.
Bush was CIA, Dulles once led the CIA before being fired by Kennedy, and Cabell was a CIA asset in the 1950s, while his brother, Charles Cabell was a high-ranking CIA official until 1962 when Kennedy fired him as well.
Dulles also headed the Warren Commission investigation into Kennedy’s assassination. Despite being fired by Kennedy, Dulles was appointed by President Lyndon B. Johnson.
JFK’s son John F. Kennedy, Jr founded a magazine oddly titled George which many speculate is insinuating for people to look closer at his father’s death and that Kennedy Jr. was trying to tell the world that George H.W. Bush was involved in the murder.
Bush even laughed at the assassination of JFK at President Gerald Ford’s funeral. What’s so funny George?
Former CIA agent E. Howard Hunt names in his confession. Hunt said that CIA operatives Cord Meyer (whose wife was apparently having an affair with JFK), David Morales and William Harvey a CIA agent were involved as gunmen. Hunt also said then-Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson and William Harvey hired Frank Sturgis, Bernard Barker and French Corsican gunmen.
Now back to Oswald. Was he just a patsy, or was he a part of this hit squad? There is a mysterious attempted call that has been ignored by the mainstream media. “The Raleigh Call” happened just hours before his death. Lee Harvey Oswald tried to call John Hurt, a former military counterintelligence agent in Raleigh, North Carolina, from the Dallas jail on the evening of Nov. 23, 1963. “For years, this significant information was ignored by assassination investigators and concealed from the public,” Dr. Grover Proctor said.
Oswald himself had significant military ties and intelligence serving in the Marines — where his nickname was “Osvaldovich.” He even allegedly had a CIA 201 employee file.
“We don’t know what happened, but we do know Oswald had intelligence connections. Everywhere you look with him, there are the fingerprints of intelligence,” Senator Richard Schweiker said.
Further, a document titled the “Central Intelligence Report On The Assassination Of John Kennedy” allegedly sent from then-CIA director McCone to then-Chief U.S. Secret Service James Rowley mentions Oswald’s ties to the Office Of Naval Intelligence. Although there are some who are calling the document a forgery, prior information proves Oswald’s connection to intelligence services. There is also another very similar (but very real) memorandum which shares some hallmarks with the “McCone-Rowley” memo titled “Warren Commission Exhibit 1026; Secret Service memorandum, dated March 19, 1964, re “Secret Service Report on the Assassination of President.”
Another fun fact about Oswald was that someone may have planted a counterfeit ID card in his wallet.
A former FBI Agent, Don Adams, even says that “thousands of national archives prove that John F. Kennedy wasn’t assassinated by Oswald,” adding that the “the Warren Commission was a fraud.” He also adds another suspects name who he said previously threatened to kill Kennedy; that man was Joseph Adams Milteer. Finally, the nail in the coffin that this was a sophisticated conspired plot, not just a lone wolf, was a Miami intelligence audio recording from November 9th, 1963. The recording shows Milteer talking to an informant where he relays there is a “threat to kill President Kennedy” by a group of men mere weeks before the shooting occurred.
Another theory behind JFK’s assassination is that it was a Cuban government hit job as payback for the failed Bay Of Pigs invasion a few years prior; but believing that theory would require ignoring all other factual evidence, testimony, and documents provided in this article.
Whatever the truth may be behind the killing of potentially the greatest president the U.S. has ever had, Trump has delayed it despite the fact that the CIA was mandated to disclose the redacted pages behind JFK’s death. Whether Oswald was a patsy or compliant in the assassination will also never be known, but as this article illustrates what is now known is that this was a sophisticated plot of several individuals, not just Oswald, which aligns with the story of CIA Agent E. Howard Hunt, that there was a hit squad there that fateful day that murdered President John F. Kennedy in cold blood.
Here’s a song to demonstrate a number of anomalies that don’t make sense in JFK’s killing including deaths of witnesses, which should trouble everyone since the mysterious deaths of witnesses including Dorothy Kilgallen would have to be carried out by a powerful force that in itself proves the cover-up is way more messy than the crime.
In my opinion based on everything above, JFK’s death is a clear intelligence agency hitjob; it’s absolutely impossible it was just Oswald who murdered Kennedy 55 years ago in Dallas. The theory of a lone gunman killing JFK is about as plausible as the CIA’s own director William Colby drowning himself in his own lake canoeing at night, something that his friend Senator John DeCamp said was out of character for the man who, like JFK, challenged the agency. If you are further interested in the truth behind JFK’s death follow the JFK2017 website here.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Aaron Kesel writes for Activist Post and is Director of Content for Coinivore. Follow Aaron at Twitter and Steemit.
This article is Creative Commons and can be republished in full with attribution. Like Activist Post on Facebook, subscribe on YouTube, follow on Twitter and at Steemit.
Source: Children’s Health Defense
The CDC on Thursday issued sweeping new recommendations as part of the agency’s efforts to overhaul its COVID-19 guidance.
“This guidance acknowledges that the pandemic is not over, but also helps us move to a point where COVID-19 no longer severely disrupts our daily lives,” the CDC’s Greta Massetti said in a press release.
Here are the biggest changes to the CDC’s guidance:
According to The New York Times, the CDC has been working for months on the new guidance which builds on previous guidance issued in February that reduced isolation times for those who get COVID-19.
The agency said it is making changes to its guidance now because “vaccination and prior infections have granted many Americans some degree of protection against the virus, and treatments, vaccines and boosters are available to reduce the risk of severe illness.”
According to The National Law Review:
“The CDC’s focus on individual responsibility, the removal of distinctions between vaccinated and unvaccinated, the removal of quarantine recommendations and the discussion of mask-wearing as an individual responsibility are good news for employers who are considering relaxing COVID-19 workplace requirements.
“This likely will not be the last we hear from the CDC on this topic. Indeed, the CDC stated that it intends to issue more specific guidance for settings such as healthcare, congregate living, and travel.”
“Some people believed that JFK was talking about the Soviets. However, the Soviets did not control our media which was the focus of his speech to a group of newspaper editors. The Soviets were known to the public, they were not a “secret society”. There is no question, he was talking about the globalists of his day.” – Dave Hodges, The Two Speeches That Got JFK Killed (Part One)
This post contains the complete audio (in the video above) and written transcript (see below) of JFK’s speech known as his “Secret Society” speech. Pay particular attention to the part of the speech highlighted in the transcript below. He pissed off the wrong people. Even worse, his speech fell on deaf ears: the media continued to lie and cover up the doings of the secret society (aka Deep State, cabal, globalists, elite, etc).
Note that Kennedy wasn’t the only president to warn us about a secret, invisible government running the U.S. Have a look at this highly-read article written by CLN editor Ross Pittman:
Also, see the following posts about the JFK assassination on CLN:
JFK’s Assassination Isn’t a Conspiracy Theory, It Was a Sophisticated Plot
Documents Show JFK Was Murdered Days After Demanding Answers About UFOs From The CIA
New Evidence of Zapruder Film Alteration and Government Cover Up of JFK Assassination
Mr. Chairman, ladies, and gentlemen:
I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.
You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present-day events bear upon your profession.
You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.
We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the “lousiest petty bourgeois cheating.”
But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.
If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaperman.
I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight “The President and the Press.” Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded “The President Versus the Press.” But those are not my sentiments tonight.
It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.
Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one-party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.
Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.
If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.
On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.
It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one’s golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.
My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.
I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future–for reducing this threat or living with it–there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security–a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.
This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President–two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.
I
The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country’s peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of “clear and present danger,” the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public’s need for national security.
Today no war has been declared–and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.
If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of “clear and present danger,” then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions–by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.
Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security–and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.
For the facts of the matter are that this nation’s foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation’s covert preparations to counter the enemy’s covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.
The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.
The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.
On many earlier occasions, I have said–and your newspapers have constantly said–that these are times that appeal to every citizen’s sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.
I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.
Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: “Is it news?” All I suggest is that you add the question: “Is it in the interest of the national security?” And I hope that every group in America–unions and businessmen and public officials at every level– will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.
And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.
Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.
II
It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation–an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people–to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well–the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.
No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.
I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers–I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: “An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.
Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed–and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment– the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply “give the public what it wants”–but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.
This means greater coverage and analysis of international news–for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security–and we intend to do it.
III
It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world’s efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.
And so it is to the printing press–to the recorder of man’s deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news–that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.
Story at-a-glance:
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the White House, and most mainstream media, what we have now is a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”
According to the official narrative, 99% of COVID-19 deaths and 95% of COVID-related hospitalizations are occurring among the unvaccinated. In a July 16 White House press briefing, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky claimed: “over 97% of people who are entering the hospital right now are unvaccinated.”
But as reported by Fox News anchor Laura Ingraham on “The Ingraham Angle,” “that statistic is grossly misleading,” and in an Aug. 5 video statement, Walensky inadvertently revealed how that 95% to 99% statistic was created.
Grossly misleading data manipulation
As it turns out, to achieve those statistics, the CDC included hospitalization and mortality data from January through June 2021. It does not include more recent data or data related to the Delta variant, which is now the most prevalent strain in circulation. The problem is, the vast majority of the U.S.population was unvaccinated during that timeframe.
By Jan. 1, only 0.5% of the U.S. population had received a COVID shot. By mid-April, an estimated 31% had received one or more shots, and as of June 15, 48.7% were fully “vaccinated.” Keep in mind that you’re not “fully vaccinated” until two weeks after your second dose (in the case of Pfizer or Moderna), which is given six weeks after your first shot. This is according to the CDC.
So, those receiving an initial dose in June, for example, won’t be “fully vaccinated” until eight weeks later, sometime in July or August.
By using statistics from a time period when the U.S. as a whole was largely unvaccinated, the CDC is now claiming we’re in a “pandemic of the unvaccinated,” in an effort to demonize those who still have not agreed to receive this experimental gene modification injection.
Selective pressure promotes the emergence of new variants
Here’s what Canadian viral immunologist and vaccine researcher Dr. Byram Bridle told Ingraham about the claim that we’re in a pandemic of the unvaxxed, and that the unvaccinated are hotbeds for dangerous variants:
“Absolutely, it’s untrue to be calling this a pandemic of the unvaccinated. And it’s certainly untrue … that the unvaccinated are somehow driving the emergence of the novel variants. This goes against every scientific principle that we understand.
“The reality is, the nature of the vaccines we are using right now, and the way we’re rolling them out, are going to be applying selective pressure to this virus to promote the emergence of new variants. Again, this is based on sound principles.
“We have to look no further than … the emergence of antibiotic resistance … The principle is this: If you have a biological entity that is prone to mutation — and the SARS-CoV-2, like all coronaviruses, is prone to mutation — and you apply a narrowly focused selective pressure that is nonlethal, and you do this over a long period of time, this is the recipe for driving the emergence of novel variants.
“This is exactly what we’re doing. Our vaccines are focused on a single protein of the virus, so the virus only has to alter one protein, and the vaccines don’t come close to providing sterilizing immunity.
“People who are vaccinated still get infected, it only seems particularly good at blunting the disease, and what that tells you, therefore, is that these vaccines in the vast majority of people are applying a nonlethal pressure, narrowly focused on one protein, and the vaccine rollout is occurring over a long period of time. That’s the recipe for driving variants.”
Natural immunity offers far superior protection
Bridle also explains why natural immunity offers robust protection against all variants, whereas vaccine-induced immunity can’t. When you acquire the infection naturally, your body develops antibodies against ALL of the viral proteins whereas the COVID shots only trigger antibodies against one, namely the spike protein.
"It’s truly tragic to be witnessing President Biden and his administration make this catastrophic public health and political error." @noorchashm
SUBSCRIBE to #TheDefender: https://t.co/zL66EdwTnDhttps://t.co/a63t5EzADL
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) June 18, 2021
As mentioned above, when you have antibodies against just one of the viral proteins, the virus only needs to mutate that one protein in order to evade your immune system. When you have natural immunity, on the other hand, your antibodies will recognize all parts of the virus, so even if the spike protein is mutated, your body will recognize other parts of the virus and mount an attack against those.
That SARS-CoV-2 works the same way other viruses do was shown in a Nature Reviews Immunology study by Alessandro Sette and Shane Crotty, published in October 2020. The study, “Cross-Reactive Memory T Cells and Herd Immunity to SARS-CoV-2” argued that naturally acquired immunity against SARS-CoV-2 is potent, long-lasting, and very broad in scope, as you develop both antibodies and T cells that target multiple components of the virus and not just one.
If we are to depend on vaccine-induced immunity, as public health officials are urging us to do, we’ll end up on a never-ending booster treadmill. Boosters will absolutely be necessary, as the shot offers such narrow protection against a single protein of the virus. Already, data around the world show vaccine-induced protection is waning rapidly in the face of new variants, and Moderna has publicly stated that the need for additional boosters is expected.
How dangerous is the Delta variant?
According to Dr. Anthony Fauci, the Delta variant is both more transmissible and more dangerous than the original virus and previous variants. July 4, 2021, he told NBC News:
“It is more effective and efficient in its ability to transmit from person to person. And studies that we’ve seen where they have been the variant that’s dominated in other countries, it’s clear that it appears to be more lethal in the sense of more serious — allow you to get more serious disease leading to hospitalization, and in some cases leading to deaths.”
In a June 29 interview, Fauci called the Delta variant “a game-changer” for unvaccinated people, warning it will devastate the unvaccinated population while vaccinated individuals are protected against it.
Remember, Fauci is not a clinician and has never treated someone infected with SARS-CoV-2. Other health experts and practicing physicians who treat COVID-19 patients disagree with Fauci’s claims, arguing that not only is the Delta variant not more dangerous, it’s certainly not more dangerous for the unvaccinated.
As reported by Ingraham in June 2021 (video above), there’s an evolutionary genetics theory called Muller’s Ratchet, which states that as an outbreak starts to peter out, the virus tends to mutate into a more transmissible form, but at the same time it grows weaker, causing far less serious infection. According to epidemiologist and cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, this is exactly what we’re seeing. He told Ingraham:
“The good news is on the 18th of June, the United Kingdom presented their 16th report11 on the mutations — and they’re doing a great job, much better than our CDC — and what they demonstrated is that the Delta is more contagious but it’s far less deadly, far less worrisome. In fact, it’s a much weaker virus than both the U.K. [Alpha] and the South African [Beta] variants.
Spike mutations render vaccinated vulnerable to delta
Importantly, the Delta variant contains three different mutations, all in the spike protein. This, McCullough explains, allows this variant to evade the immune responses in those who have received the COVID jabs — but not those who have natural immunity which, again, is much broader. In a June 30 appearance on Fox News, McCullough stated:
“It is very clear from the UK Technical Briefing13 that was published June 18th that the vaccine provides no protection against the Delta variant. It’s a very mild variant.
“Whether you get the vaccine or not, patients will get some very mild symptoms like a cold and they can be easily managed … Patients who have severe symptoms or at high risk, we can use simple drug combinations at home and get them through the illness. So, there’s no reason now to push vaccinations.”
Children’s Health Defense chief scientific officer Brian Hooker, Ph.D., has echoed McCullough’s sentiments. The Defender quotes Hooker:
“What we’re seeing is virus evolution 101. Viruses like to survive, so killing the host (i.e. the human who is infected) defeats the purpose because killing the host kills the virus, too. For this reason, new variants of viruses that circulate widely through the population tend to become more transmissive but less pathogenic. In other words, they will spread more easily from person to person, but they will cause less damage to the host.
The vaccine focuses on the spike protein, whereas natural immunity focuses on the entire virus.
“Natural immunity — with a more diverse array of antibodies and T-cell receptors — will provide better protection overall as it has more targets in which to attack the virus, whereas vaccine-derived immunity only focuses on one portion of the virus, in this case, the spike protein. Once that portion of the virus has mutated sufficiently, the vaccine no longer is effective.”
Real-world data show most of the infected are fully ‘vaccinated’
Real-world data from areas with high COVID jab rates show the complete converse of what media, the CDC, and White House officials are telling us. In addition to the British Technical Briefing No. 16, cited above, we have additional data from Israel, Scotland, Massachusetts, and Gibraltar:
A few days later, on Aug. 5, Dr. Kobi Haviv, director of the Herzog Hospital in Jerusalem, appeared on Channel 13 News, reporting that 95% of severely ill COVID-19 patients are fully vaccinated and that they make up 85% to 90% of COVID-related hospitalizations overall. As of Aug. 2, 66.9% of Israelis had received at least one dose of Pfizer’s injection, which is used exclusively in Israel; 62.2% had received two doses.
The CDC also found that fully vaccinated individuals who contract the infection have as high a viral load in their nasal passages as unvaccinated individuals who get infected. This means the vaccinated are just as infectious as the unvaccinated.
While those who benefit from keeping the pandemic going would like you to cower in fear at the thought of the Delta variant, there’s really no evidence that it’s any worse than the original. It’s more transmissible, yes, but far less dangerous, as its primary symptoms are that of a regular cold.
According to Harvard and Stanford professors, the actual number of Americans dying from or with COVID-19 are actually at an all-time low, so alarmism is uncalled for.
And, as for viral social media posts by doctors and nurses claiming hospitals are overflowing with unvaccinated COVID patients, don’t believe them. Most are bots. We’ve repeatedly seen evidence that fearmongering is being spread not by real people but by fake accounts run by artificial intelligence. This includes blue check accounts. Here’s a sampling of recent bot farm tweets trying to scare everyone:
Originally published by Mercola.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.
CDC Director Rochelle Walensky
Source: Need To Know
March 30:
August 5:
Fully vaccinated people who get a Covid-19 breakthrough infection can transmit the virus, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky said Thursday.
“Our vaccines are working exceptionally well,” Walensky told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “They continue to work well for Delta, with regard to severe illness and death — they prevent it. But what they can’t do anymore is prevent transmission.”
That’s why the CDC changed its guidance last week and is now recommending even vaccinated people wear masks indoors again, Walensky said.
The CDC said the exact opposite in April (and social media sites would silence you for claiming otherwise):
Following up on a threat he made last week, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) sent an official criminal referral on Dr. Anthony Fauci to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), The Hill reported today.
Paul is asking Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate Fauci for allegedly lying to Congress when he said the National Institutes of Health (NIH) “has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”
Last week, Paul asked Fauci if he wanted to retract the statement he made to Congress during a May 11 hearing. Paul said, “Dr. Fauci, knowing that it is a crime to lie to Congress, do you wish to retract your statement of May 11, where you claimed the NIH never funded gain-of-function research and move on?”
Fauci replied he would not retract the statement and was adamant that he has never lied before Congress.
“You do not know what you’re talking about, quite frankly, and I want to say that officially,” Fauci said. “You do not know what you’re talking about … If anybody is lying here, senator, it is you.”
According to the Washington Examiner, in his letter, Paul told Garland that a 2017 research paper on experiments carried out at the Wuhan lab referenced a grant from the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) — of which Fauci is the director.
Paul said the paper discussed research “in which the spike genes from two uncharacterized bat SARS-related coronavirus strains, Rs4231, and Rs7327, were combined with the genomic backbone of another SARS-related coronavirus to create novel chimeric SARS-related viruses” and that “these experiments combined genetic information from different SARS-related coronaviruses and combined them to create novel, artificial viruses able to infect human cells.”
The senator told the DOJ that contrary to Fauci’s contention, “this research, conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and funded under NIAID Award R01AI110964, fits the definition of gain-of-function research.”
Garland can approve or deny the referral, which only requests the investigation.
WSJ editorial board calls for Congressional investigation
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) editorial board on Sunday called on Congress to “thoroughly investigate the process that led to the approval of money for the WIV [Wuhan Institute of Virology] and possible gain-of-function research.”
The board also said Congress should debate limits on this kind of research in the U.S. and push for international standards.
The editors wrote:
“No one should expect the Chinese Communist Party to cooperate with a real inquiry into the origins of COVID-19. More disappointing is the lack of candor from American scientists and officials whose conflicts of interest deserve more scrutiny.”
The board joined others who previously criticized a World Health Organization (WHO) report from earlier this year concluding SARS Co-V2 likely did not leak from a lab. After more evidence surfaced contradicting the WHO report, President Biden in May ordered another investigation.
HUGE! President Biden Wednesday ordered U.S. intelligence agencies to investigate the origins of the SARS-CoV-2, including whether the virus may have escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China. #TheDefender https://t.co/zr6oU0C3yC
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) May 27, 2021
Last week, Biden administration officials involved in the investigation said they now believe the theory that the virus accidentally escaped from a lab in Wuhan is at least as credible as the possibility that it emerged naturally in the wild.
The WSJ editors said the “U.S. knows something about the research conducted at the WIV because American taxpayer dollars helped fund it.” They said the NIH gave almost $600,000 to the WIV through a nonprofit over several years to study bat coronaviruses.
They said Fauci’s claim that the coronavirus research didn’t meet the federal government definition of gain-of-function research may be technically true, but some scientists think the government definition is too limited and can allow de facto gain-of-function research to bypass safety protocols.
They cited Rutgers molecular biologist Richard Ebright who said the NIH-funded work “was — unequivocally — gain-of-function research.”
According to the WSJ, democrats and much of the media will avoid demanding further investigation into the NIH-funded research because Paul and the populist right have taken up this cause.
“Such groupthink is what prevented the lab-leak theory from being treated seriously for more than a year,” the editors wrote. “Making the same mistake twice is inexcusable.”
By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), has been a staunch defender of the natural-origin theory for SARS-CoV-2 since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Back in May 2020, CNN used Fauci’s statements on the issue as proof that then-President Donald Trump was spouting a ridiculous conspiracy theory:1
“For weeks now, President Donald Trump has been making the case that the coronavirus originated not in nature but in a lab in Wuhan, China,” CNN wrote.2
“Enter Anthony Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease and perhaps the single most prominent doctor in the world at the moment. In an interview with National Geographic … Fauci was definitive about the origins of the virus …
‘If you look at the evolution of the virus in bats and what’s out there now, [the scientific evidence] is very, very strongly leaning toward this could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated … Everything about the stepwise evolution over time strongly indicates that [this virus] evolved in nature and then jumped species,’ [Fauci said].
Now, before we play the game of ‘he said, he said’ remember this: Only one of these two people is a world-renowned infectious disease expert. And it’s not Donald Trump.”
Oh, the difference a year can make. Mainstream media is finally forced to face the fact that Fauci and a number of other so-called “experts” they’ve paraded before their viewers and readers have been no more reliable than your average armchair scientist.
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Fauci has been front and center, spouting recommendations, over time changing his mind again and again.
A virtuoso of contradiction, he’s flip-flopped on the usefulness and needs for masks multiple times, from “Americans shouldn’t be wearing masks because they don’t work,” to masks definitely work and should be worn by everyone, to you should wear not just one but two, for safe measure.
He’s gone from promising a mask-free existence once the vaccine rolls out, to insisting mask-wearing is still necessary after vaccination because vaccine-resistant variants might pop up, to proposing we might need to wear masks every flu season in perpetuity.
His biggest flip-flop to date, however, has to be his stance on the origin of SARS-CoV-2. As reported by Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti in a May 24, 2021 “Rising with Krystal & Saagar” episode (see video above), Fauci is now claiming he’s “not convinced” the virus had a natural origin after all, and that we must continue to investigate “what went on in China until we find out, to the best of our ability, what happened.”
Considering Fauci’s opinion has been used by mainstream media pundits and fact-checkers to censor any and all other experts — including people with far more impressive credentials than Fauci, who at the end of the day is an administrator, a paper-pusher, not a working scientist — this very public 180-degree turn is no doubt causing embarrassment among many mainstream reporters.
Krystal and Saagar both look uncomfortable having to explain how the media, en masse, ended up being so wrong for so long.
According to Krystal and Saagar, new information indicating workers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) fell ill with COVID-like symptoms in November 2019 now makes the lab leak theory the most plausible.
What’s so ironic about that statement is that this isn’t new information that would definitively tip the scale. It’s just that now, all of a sudden, it’s not being dismissed off-hand. The weight of the evidence has, for over a year now, strongly leaned in the direction of SARS-CoV-2 being a lab creation that somehow escaped.
Now, mainstream media are scrambling to save face, and it’s rather hilarious to watch them trying to justify their previous refusal to do what journalists and reporters are expected to do: Report the facts without interjecting their own personal opinions and biases.
Of course, you’d be hard-pressed to find an unbiased news outlet these days — it’s all tightly and centrally controlled, as detailed in “Reuters and BBC Caught Taking Money for Propaganda Campaign” — so, in all likelihood, the only reason mainstream media are now starting to report on the lab leak theory is because of the success of alternative media.
Their viewers simply aren’t buying what they’re selling anymore, so they have no choice but to acknowledge what a majority of people already know, or lose what little credibility they have left.
In the video above, Freddie Sayers interviews3 Nicholas Wade, a former New York Times science writer, about the two primary origin theories. Wade recently published a widely-read article4 detailing the evidence supporting the lab-leak and natural-origin theories.
As reported by Wade in “Origin of COVID — Following the Clues: Did People or Nature Open Pandora’s Box at Wuhan?”5 if we are ever to solve the mystery of where this novel virus came from, we must be willing to actually follow the science, as “it offers the only sure thread through the maze.”
“It’s important to note that so far there is no direct evidence for either theory,” Wade writes.6 “Each depends on a set of reasonable conjectures but so far lacks proof. So I have only clues, not conclusions, to offer. But those clues point in a specific direction.”
In summary, the preponderance of clues leans toward SARS-CoV-2 originating in a lab, most likely the WIV, and having undergone some sort of manipulation to encourage infectiousness and pathology in humans.
As just one example, there’s research dating as far back as 1992 detailing how inserting a furin cleavage site right where we find it in SARS-CoV-2 is a “sure way to make a virus deadlier.” One of 11 such studies was written by Dr. Zhengli Shi, head of coronavirus research at the WIV.
The arguments laid out in support of natural origin theories, meanwhile, are grounded in inconclusive speculations that require you to throw out scientifically possible scenarios. From a scientific standpoint, doing so is ill-advised.
“It seems to me that proponents of lab escape can explain all the available facts about SARS2 considerably more easily than can those who favor natural emergence,” Wade writes.7
Getting back to Fauci, he’s also now denying ever having funded gain-of-function research, even though there’s irrefutable evidence that he did. As reported by the National Review:8
“Dr. Roger Ebright, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers University and biosafety expert, is contesting … Fauci’s testimony before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on [May 11, 2021].
Dr. Fauci’s claim — made during an exchange with Senator Rand Paul9 — that ‘the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain of function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology’ is ‘demonstrably false,’ according to Ebright …
A research article written by WIV scientists, ‘Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus,’10 for example, qualifies as gain-of-function and was clearly a product of NIH-funding.
Ebright insists that the research can be classified as gain-of-function under a number of different definitions, including those found in two pieces of Department of Health and Human Services guidance on the subject.
The first details the Obama administration’s 2014 decision to halt domestic gain-of-function research, which it defines as that which ‘may be reasonably anticipated to confer attributes to influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses such that the virus would have enhanced pathogenicity and/or transmissibility in mammals via the respiratory route.’11
The second — drafted in 2017 as Fauci was pushing to renew government funding for gain-of-function research — provides a definition of what are called ‘enhanced potential pandemic pathogen (PPP)’ or those pathogens ‘resulting from the enhancement of the transmissibility and/or virulence of a pathogen.’12
Ebright claims that the work being conducted at the WIV, using NIH funds originally granted to Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance, ‘epitomizes’ gain-of-function research under the definition HHS provided in its guidance, and is the exact kind of research that led the Obama administration to conclude that gain-of-function was too dangerous to continue domestically.”
Essentially, Fauci is now trying to redefine what “gain-of-function” actually is. However, as explained above, the type of research Fauci has been funding at the WIV has always and repeatedly been referred to as gain-of-function.
It appears as though Fauci and National Institutes of Health director Dr. Francis Collins are preemptively trying to position themselves in such a way as to distance themselves from future blame, should the lab leak theory be proven true. In a May 19, 2021, statement, Collins backed Fauci’s convoluted word-wrangling and attempts at rewriting the definition of gain-of-function research, stating:13
“Based on outbreaks of coronaviruses caused by animal to human transmissions such as … SARS and … MERS, NIH and the NIAID have for many years supported grants to learn more about viruses lurking in bats and other mammals that have the potential to spill over to humans and cause widespread disease.
However, neither NIH nor NIAID have ever approved any grant that would have supported ‘gain-of-function’ research on coronaviruses that would have increased their transmissibility or lethality for humans.”
In other words, both admit they funded research at the WIV and other places, but they insist none of it was gain-of-function specifically, so even if the COVID-19 pandemic turns out to have been the result of a lab leak at the WIV, Fauci and Collins had no part in the creation of that particular virus — or any other virus capable of causing a deadly pandemic — and should not be on the list of people to be held accountable.
Considering what the NIH has stated previously, and what we already know about the coronavirus research the NIAID/NIH funded, Collins’ statement appears to be a desperate lie, issued to prop up Fauci’s indefensible stance that no gain-of-function research was ever funded.
For example, as reported by the National Review,14 we know that the WIV received NIAID/NIH funding to create novel chimeric SARS-related coronaviruses capable of infecting both human cells and lab animals. “Chimeric viruses” refers to artificial man-made viruses, hybrid organisms created through the joining of two or more different organisms. This is precisely what gain-of-function research is all about. So, as noted by the National Review:15
“Fauci appears to have been, at best, mistaken while sparring with Senator Paul … At worst, he was playing tenuous word games meant to deceive.”
Of course, Fauci and Collins have good reason to develop sudden amnesia when it comes to the definition of complicated words like “gain-of-function.” While statistics have been massively manipulated to overcount COVID-19 deaths, there’s no doubt that this pandemic has been one of the most destructive in modern history.
Sure, we can blame global and regional leaders for playing along with the globalist game to use a hyped-up pandemic to justify a Great Reset of our global economic and societal systems, but without doubt, the creators of this virus will not get off scot-free, and neither will those who enabled its creation. And those people may well include Fauci and Collins at the NIAID and NIH.
At the end of it all, should SARS-CoV-2 be deemed a man-made bioweapon, even if its release was a total accident, which appears to be the case, a number of individuals stand to lose their careers, and perhaps their freedom, as the punishment for having anything to do with the creation of biological weapons includes both potentially hefty fines and lengthy jail sentences? The Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 states:16
“Whoever knowingly develops, produces, stockpiles, transfers, acquires, retains, or possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon, or knowingly assists a foreign state or any organization to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both.”
I believe research cooperation and sharing between nations is such that blame will ultimately be shared by multiple parties. The key issue, really, if SARS-CoV-2 did in fact come from a lab, is how do we prevent another lab escape? And, if it turns out to have been a genetically manipulated virus, do we allow gain-of-function research — based on the conventionally accepted definition — to continue?
I believe the answer is to ban research that involves making pathogens more dangerous to humans. As it stands, the same establishment that is drumming up panic by warning of the emergence of new, more infectious, and dangerous variants is also busy creating them.
World leaders need to realize that funding gain-of-function research is the real threat here and take action accordingly to forestall another pandemic. As long as researchers are allowed to mutate and create synthetic pathogens, they’re creating the very risk they claim they’re trying to prevent. We got off easy this time, all things considered. The next time, we may not be as lucky.
Source: AwakenWithJP
JP Sears explores the investigation into is Fauci public enemy #1? The nation’s top infectious disease villain has a load of mounting evidence stacked against him. JP takes an in-depth look at his ties to the Wuhan lab and the virus in this video. You be the judge.
By
The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Friday reversed its position on requiring companies that mandate COVID vaccines to treat adverse reactions as “recordable injuries,” announcing that it will no longer enforce its previous ruling.
OSHA said it made the change in order to avoid “the appearance of discouraging workers” from getting the COVID vaccine and also because it did not wish to “disincentivize employers’ vaccination efforts.”
According to the agency’s website:
“DOL [U.S. Department of Labor] and OSHA, as well as other federal agencies, are working diligently to encourage COVID-19 vaccinations. OSHA does not wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and also does not wish to disincentivize employers’ vaccination efforts. As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904’s recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination through May 2022. We will reevaluate the agency’s position at that time to determine the best course of action moving forward.”
As The Defender reported May 20, OSHA’s website previously stated:
“If you require your employees to be vaccinated as a condition of employment (i.e., for work-related reasons), then any adverse reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine is work-related. The adverse reaction is recordable if it is a new case under 29 CFR 1904.6 and meets one or more of the general recording criteria in 29 CFR 1904.7.”
In general, an adverse reaction to the COVID vaccine is recordable if the reaction is: (1) work-related, (2) a new case, and (3) meets one or more of the general recording criteria in 29 CFR 1904.7 (e.g., days away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job, medical treatment beyond first aid).”
According to OSHA, the requirement that employers must record serious work-related injuries and illness can leave employers with worker’s compensation claims, which can have a negative impact on the employer’s safety record.
OSHA previously stated it would not require adverse reactions to be recorded when an employer only “recommends” that employees receive the vaccine while noting that for this discretion to apply, the vaccine would have to be truly voluntary.
In determining whether a vaccine is “voluntary,” the website previously stated, “an employee’s choice to accept or reject the vaccine cannot affect [his or her] performance rating or professional advancement,” and that an “employee who chooses not to receive the vaccine cannot suffer any repercussions from this choice.”
If employees were not free to choose whether or not to receive the vaccine without fearing negative recourse, then the vaccine was not considered voluntary.
The Defender reached out to OSHA and asked why the agency abruptly changed its policy, who pressured OSHA to change its position and why adverse reactions caused by COVID vaccines that an employee may be required to receive as a condition of employment and would fall under 29 CFR 1904.7 would not be recorded as a work-related injury.
OSHA responded by referring us to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to read more about coronavirus, local and regional OSHA facilities, and the U.S. Department of Labor’s website. An OSHA spokesperson declined to provide any additional information.
According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Bob Clark, executive chairman of Clayco construction firm, said he worried OSHA’s previous policy would harm a company’s safety record and cause higher workers’ compensation costs. Clayco was one of the leading companies to mandate COVID vaccination before OSHA’s initial ruling and plans to reinstate the mandate now that the agency has reversed its position.
Children’s Health Defense argues that COVID vaccine mandates violate federal law, and provides resources for concerned employees, students and parents.
By
New guidance from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is making employers think twice about their COVID vaccine requirements.
On April 20, companies were put on notice they’ll be responsible for any adverse reaction should they require their employees to be vaccinated with a COVID vaccine.
In the Frequently Asked Questions section of OSHA’s website has to do with COVID safety compliance, a question was asked whether an adverse reaction to a COVID vaccine had to be recorded if an employer-mandated vaccination as a condition for employment.
OSHA stated:
“If you require your employees to be vaccinated as a condition of employment (i.e., for work-related reasons), then any adverse reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine is work-related. The adverse reaction is recordable if it is a new case under 29 CFR 1904.6 and meets one or more of the general recording criteria in 29 CFR 1904.7.”
In general, an adverse reaction to the COVID vaccine is recordable if the reaction is: (1) work-related, (2) a new case, and (3) meets one or more of the general recording criteria in 29 CFR 1904.7 (e.g., days away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job, medical treatment beyond first aid).
According to OSHA, recording requirements of serious work-related injuries and illness may leave employers with worker’s compensation claims and impact their safety record.
Conversely, OSHA states it will exercise enforcement discretion and will not require adverse reactions to be recorded when an employer only “recommends” that employees receive the vaccine while noting that for this discretion to apply, the vaccine must be truly voluntary.
In determining whether a vaccine is “voluntary,” the website states, “an employee’s choice to accept or reject the vaccine cannot affect [his or her] performance rating or professional advancement,” and that an “employee who chooses not to receive the vaccine cannot suffer any repercussions from this choice.”
If employees are not free to choose whether or not to receive the vaccine without fearing negative recourse, then the vaccine is required and employers should refer to the section on COVID vaccines as a condition to employment.
In response to the news that COVID vaccine adverse reactions suffered by workers are reportable incidents, or incidents that count against a company’s safety record, several large contractors said they have changed or will change their vaccination policy to only recommend — not require — a vaccine.
Construction firm Clayco stepped back from a previously announced firmwide vaccine mandate in response to the recent federal guideline.
“We, sadly, had to back off our [employee vaccination] mandate because OSHA did something I don’t understand at all,” said Bob Clark, founder and executive chairman of Clayco in a recent ENR Critical Path podcast. “I side with OSHA frequently, we’re in its VIP program, but on this, they’re just wrong. It’s a terrible decision they’ve made and I think it’ll be overturned.”
“What they put forward could potentially discourage employers from supporting their workers getting the vaccine,” said Kevin Cannon, senior director of safety and health services at the Associated General Contractors of America (ACG).
ACG is not in support of any vaccine mandate, however, the company participated in vaccine awareness week in April and hosted vaccine clinics on an active job site and in its offices.
Cannon said some contractors may have changed their approach to those events had they known, at the time, they could potentially “be on the hook for recording these potential adverse reactions.”
All businesses and institutions will be very reluctant to mandate vaccinations if OSHA says adverse reactions count as reportable against a company’s “experience modification rate.” It’s honestly ridiculous, Clark said.
An experience modification rate, or EMR, is a safety rating insurers use in calculating workers’ compensation. Part of the calculation includes reportable incidents — a higher number of reportable incidents damages the company’s safety ratings and could hike up the price of insurance, St. Louis Business Journal reported.
Clark noted that Clayco wants to set an example and plans to challenge the guidance through lobbying and outreach to senators, and it’s not alone in that effort. The company also will continue to strongly encourage employees to get vaccinated, log which employees do, and are considering “vaccinated only” areas within its workspace.
According to the National Law Review, employers may want to make it clear in communications to employees whether COVID vaccines are required or voluntary.
Employers may also consider circumstances in which OSHA will investigate an employer’s recordkeeping practices. If an employer’s vaccination program is voluntary, an employer may not have any entries resulting from adverse reactions. Under those circumstances, OSHA will have to ask the employer about the vaccination program and whether an employee suffered an adverse reaction.
Employees may be more likely to make a complaint to OSHA when they have been denied time off for an illness that they consider to be work-related, which means post-vaccination paid time off may be helpful.
Although OSHA is facing scrutiny for its guidance, it is consistent with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), which requires any product with this designation to be voluntary. Currently, Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson are only approved for emergency use.
As reported by The Defender, this was reiterated in August 2020 at a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, where its executive secretary, Dr. Amanda Cohn, stated:
“I just wanted to add that, just wanted to remind everybody, that under an Emergency Use Authorization, a EUA, vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory. So, early in this vaccination phase, individuals will have to consent and they won’t be able to be mandated.”
By Stefan Baral, Wesley Pegden, Vinay Prasad | The Defender
The rapid development of highly effective COVID-19 vaccines is a triumph of science and, with equitable implementation strategies, represents humanity’s path out of the COVID-19 pandemic. To expedite deployment in the U.S., three COVID-19 vaccines were provided Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) while concurrently undertaking the traditional review process.
Pfizer has requested the FDA amend the existing EUA for its vaccine to allow eligibility for children aged 12 to 15, and further clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines, including for younger children, are underway. Unlike for adults, however, the likelihood of severe outcomes or death associated with COVID-19 infection is very low for children, undermining the appropriateness of a EUA for child COVID-19 vaccines.
Emergency Use Authorization in the U.S. requires that an intervention address a serious or life-threatening condition, and for known and potential benefits of the intervention to be balanced against the known and potential harms. The EUA for COVID-19 vaccines was implemented at the height of the second wave in the U.S., enabling 100 million American adults, who would otherwise be at significant risk of severe outcomes or death from COVID-19 infection, to be vaccinated on an accelerated time frame.
Significant adverse events to vaccines are sometimes detected during wider distribution; for example, such events were investigated for the Johnson and Johnson COVID-19 vaccine. But Phase 3 trials of COVID-19 vaccines in adults demonstrated reductions in both infections and severe disease, and even if one reasoned conservatively from data on infections alone, these trials showed a large benefit for adult populations that convincingly offset the potential for harms from any side effects rare enough to be missed in Phase 3 trials. Collectively, COVID-19 vaccination in adults met EUA criteria given the positive balance of risks and benefits at the individual level.
Trials for COVID-19 vaccines are also underway for children as young as 6 months. These trials are not powered to measure decreases in severe COVID-19 infections, due to their rarity. Instead, these trials are examining the safety, the immune response, and, as a secondary outcome, the impact on the incidence of COVID-19 infections. As for adults, these trials are not designed to assess rare or delayed adverse events.
Unlike for adults, the rarity of severe COVID-19 outcomes for children means that trials cannot demonstrate that the balance of the benefits of vaccination against the potential adverse effects is favorable to the children themselves. In short, given the rarity of severe clinical courses and limited clarity of risks, the criteria for Emergency Use Authorization do not appear to be met for children.
Emergency Use Authorizations for child vaccinations can make sense for children for whom the benefits are greatest, and thus for whom it is clearest that the benefits outweigh any unknown harms. In the near term, EUA’s should be considered for children at genuinely high risk of serious complications from the infection. It is also worth considering whether emergency use could be authorized for children whom especially concerned caregivers are sheltering from school or social interactions.
The small risk posed to children by COVID-19 does not merit restrictions on any normal child activities in a context where adults are protected by vaccines, but individual children who find their lives curtailed in this way may obtain significant benefits from vaccination.
One might hope to achieve population-level benefits with broader child vaccination, even while the relative benefits and risks for children themselves remain unclear. But this is inconsistent with the conditions for Emergency Use Authorization. Fortunately, COVID-19 vaccines have shown very high effectiveness across the adult population, and future trajectories of hospitalizations and deaths will largely be determined by vaccination rates in adults.
In 1976, the vaccination campaign in anticipation of the deadly Swine flu (H1N1) epidemic inoculated 45 million Americans before being derailed by very rare cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome. That year saw less flu-related morbidity and mortality than expected, and these few hundred adverse events cast a long shadow on American vaccination programs, affecting attitudes towards influenza vaccines for years to come.
This highlights an important tradeoff when accelerating approval of pharmaceutical interventions in the context of an emergency. Specifically, that risk of rare adverse events remains. And if the benefit achieved by an intervention is insufficient, serious, yet rare, adverse effects can prove to be the lasting legacy of a regulatory decision.
For adults, the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination are enormous, while for children, they are relatively minor. Rare side effects from adult COVID-19 vaccination are unlikely to lead to future vaccine hesitancy whose public health impact could be comparable to the benefits of the adult COVID-19 vaccination program itself.
But accelerated mass child vaccination under EUA — perhaps even spurred by school mandates and “vaccine passports” — presents a different balance of risks and benefits. Rare adverse events really could prove to be the most durable public health legacy of a EUA for child COVID-19 vaccines.
Even in the likely scenario that no significant adverse events materialize, we may pay a price for the pursuit of EUA’s for COVID-19 vaccines in children. The controversy surrounding mass child vaccination under EUA’s could feed vaccine hesitancy in the U.S. at a time when public attitudes towards vaccination are critical. A wide rollout of child COVID-19 vaccines should follow the standard regulatory process as for most children, unlike adults, COVID-19 vaccination is not addressing an emergency.
Originally published by Medium.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense’s The Defender.
By
Primed by the media to equate COVID-19 injections with “escape from COVID-19’s long siege,” about half of U.S. adults (54%) have now accepted at least one dose of vaccine.
However, according to the latest CBS News poll, at least four in 10 Americans remain in the “maybe” or “no thanks” categories.
Though some media and medical and public health officials mock the uninjected as know-nothing rubes, the objections of so-called “vaccine holdouts” are far from uninformed or frivolous.
Reports of “rare” blood clots and other serious adverse events are emerging on an almost daily basis. As of April 26, 3,848 post-vaccine deaths had been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
Faced with widespread recalcitrance, health officials like Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), have been upping their public relations offensive, including dangling the threat of COVID vaccine mandates.
This is unsurprising coming from a pharma-beholden and conflict-of-interest-riddled health agency like the NIH. But why are financial gurus like Jerome Powell, U.S. Federal Reserve chair — a wealthy lawyer and investment banker — also heavy-handedly making the COVID vaccines the centerpiece of their public prognostications?
In a recent 60 Minutes interview, Powell returned to the COVID jabs, again and again, trying to make the case that economic recovery depends on everyone getting vaccinated.
Powell’s preoccupation with COVID vaccines makes little sense — unless one recognizes the growing convergence of the financial, tech, biopharmaceutical, and military-intelligence sectors, as well as the “global policy coordination” being engineered by private central banks.
Pilot programs that bundle biometric digital identity, vaccination and payment systems “into a single cohesive platform,” plus the aggressive worldwide push for “vaccine passports” that would make access to businesses and events contingent on proof of vaccination, provide a further hint of bankers’ ultimate vision: a surveillance-driven totalitarian system that uses new technologies to centralize economic flows — including controlling the ability to transact at the individual level.
Vaccines as operating systems
To understand central bankers’ aims, it is important to recognize that COVID has furnished a pretext for deploying waiting-in-the-wings vaccine biotechnologies that differ substantially from the already problematic lab techniques used to create earlier generations of vaccines.
This 21st-century vaccine paradigm draws on the exploding fields of biocomputing and synthetic biology, with the latter cheerfully defined as the redesign of an organism’s genetic code for “useful purposes.”
Dazzled by the endless vistas opened up by these technologies, proponents envision a rosy future filled with “programmable ‘smart vaccines’” — concoctions that would permit synthetic biologists to become the puppet masters of human biology.
Nowhere is this intention more apparent than in Moderna’s description of its messenger RNA (mRNA) technology platform. Moderna openly refers to its technology as an “operating system … designed so that it can plug and play interchangeably with different programs.” The company even suggests that the unique mRNA sequences it develops for vaccines be viewed as “apps.”
Mixed public reactions to this dispassionate language propelled Reuters, in February, to publish a fact check claiming that Moderna is referring to operating systems only “in a metaphorical sense, not a literal one.”
However, in a 2017 TEDx talk, Moderna chief medical officer Tal Zaqs’ earnest declaration that “we’re actually hacking the software of life” sounded anything but “metaphorical.” Stating that the genetic instructions transmitted by RNA are “critical information that determines what a cell will actually do,” Zaqs characterized his company’s mission as one of introducing or changing “lines of code” for the purposes of “information therapy.”
Other scientists engaged in “mRNA modifications” agree. However, while describing the approach as “powerful,” “dynamic” and “versatile,” they concede that “many aspects. . . remain elusive.”
In fact, despite the hubristic claims of Zaqs and other scientists that this genetic tinkering has no downside, the long-term risks are largely unknown.
Name of the game: centralization and control
Vaccine and drug manufacturers have interpreted the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) decisions to grant Emergency Use Authorization to the Moderna and Pfizer COVID vaccines as a signal the FDA “is open to broader use of the previously unproven [mRNA] technology.”
As a result, mRNA-focused companies are attracting billions in new capital. Reuters reported at least 150 mRNA vaccines and therapeutics are currently in development globally.
As pleased as these medical-pharmaceutical players may be to accrue additional funding and prestige, they are far from the sole beneficiaries of the new technologies’ rollout. Circling back to the centralizing aims of the world’s central bankers, British writer David O’Hagan said, “The combination of biocomputing within the body and external silicone-based technology is foundational to the implementation of transhumanism, a new data-driven economic system, and complete control.”
O’Hagan quotes former investment banker Catherine Austin Fitts, who has warned from the beginning of the pandemic that COVID vaccines are the equivalent of “human ‘operating systems.’”
Paired with the promotion and rollout of related surveillance technologies — including digital tracking devices, vaccine passports, brain-machine interfaces, and planet-wide 5G — Fitts views the vaccines as one component of central bankers’ plan to establish a global control grid.
Addressing the topic of vaccine passports, author and tech company CEO Naomi Wolf cautioned their implementation would mean “literally the end of human liberty in the West.”
In the operating system framework, it is also clear the vaccines are not a matter of “one [or two] and done.” Pfizer’s CEO has already said not only will a third COVID injection “likely” be needed within 12 months of the two initial injections, but that annual coronavirus vaccines are a distinct possibility.
U.S. government contracts (jointly awarded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Defense) for monthly production of up to 330 million prefilled syringes ominously hint at plans for even more frequent “updates” to the operating system.
Unvaccinated individuals — in the U.S. and globally — likely have many different reasons for wanting to take a pass on COVID injections. Recognizing the vaccines have little to do with medicine or health and much more to do with centralization and control is an important step in pushing back against liberty-suffocating restrictions and central bankers’ vision of an all-powerful on-off switch controlling each person’s participation in the financial system and wider society.
By
The head of the Minneapolis Police Department’s homicide division flatly denounced former officer Derek Chauvin’s use of force against George Floyd as “totally unnecessary.”
Lt. Richard Zimmerman testified on Friday about his over three decades of police training and the lethal dangers of the techniques used on Floyd on May 25, 2020.
Chauvin, a white former Minneapolis police officer, is currently facing trial for his role in the killing of Floyd, 46, a Black man, by pressing his knee into Floyd’s neck for over nine minutes as he lay handcuffed on the ground.
“Once you handcuff a person you need to get them out of the prone position as quickly as possible because it restricts their breathing,” Zimmerman said, adding that being handcuffed “stretches the muscles back through your chest and it makes it more difficult to breathe.”
“That would be the top tier, the deadly force,” he said, noting that escalating to such a degree goes against use-of-force training at MPD. “Because if your knee is on someone’s neck, that can kill them.”
When asked if such force was necessary, Zimmerman responded that it was “totally unnecessary” given that any potential threat from Floyd had been subdued.
“First of all, pulling him down to the ground facedown and putting your knee on the neck for that amount of time is just uncalled for,” Zimmerman said. “I saw no reason why the officers felt they were in danger if that’s what they felt. And that’s what they would have to feel to use that type of force.”
Continuing, Zimmerman noted that handcuffing a person quickly alters the permissible use of force that can be used in a situation.
“Once a person is cuffed, the threat level goes down all the way to, they’re cuffed, how can they really hurt you?” he said. “That person is handcuffed, and the threat level is just not there.”
At that stage, the use of force quickly declines, he added.
“If they become less combative, you may just have them sit down on the curb,” Zimmerman said. “The idea is to calm the person down and if they are not a threat to you at that point, you try to, you know, to help them so that they’re not as upset as they may have been in the beginning.”
Derek Chauvin has faced at least eighteen complaints during his 19-year career with the Minneapolis police, including six times in which prosecutors claim the former officer used force against arrestees.
However, these incidents – like George Floyd’s own criminal record – won’t be introduced to jurors in the Chauvin trial so that the defendant isn’t punished for prior misconduct, and is instead evaluated on the charges he faces for the death of Floyd: third- and second-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter.
By Megan Redshaw | The Defender
Employees of the second-largest school district in the U.S. filed suit last week to prevent the district from mandating COVID-19 vaccines as a condition of employment.
California Educators for Medical Freedom, with assistance from the Health Freedom Defense Fund (HFDF), filed a federal lawsuit on March 17 against the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD).
In a press release, HFDF said LAUSD’s vaccine mandate violates federal law and basic human rights by requiring employees to take an experimental vaccine in order to remain employed.
All COVID vaccines available in the U.S. — Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson — are approved under the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). By the FDA’s own definition, that makes the vaccines “experimental” until or unless the FDA licenses them.
School employees alleged in their complaint that the statute granting the FDA power to authorize a medical product for emergency use, 21 U.S.C. § Section 360bbb-3, requires that the person being administered the unapproved product be advised of the benefits and risks, and of his or her right to refuse the product.
The FDA issued a Fact Sheet for Health Care Providers and a Fact Sheet for Recipients and Caregivers for each of the three vaccines approved for emergency use. The fact sheets state, among other things, that a provider must communicate information to the recipient prior to administering the vaccine — including that the recipient has the option to accept or refuse the vaccine.
In their lawsuit, employees allege that Section 360bbb-3 recognizes the “well-settled doctrine” that medical experiments, or “clinical research,” may not be performed on human subjects without the express, informed consent of the individual receiving treatment.
According to HFDF, the fundamental right to avoid imposed human experimentation has its roots in the Nuremberg Code of 1947, which was later ratified by the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki, further codified in the United States Code of Federal Regulations, and adopted by the California Legislature. It says that “no person subject to this state’s jurisdiction may be forced to undergo the administration of experimental medicine without that person’s informed consent.”
Since the adoption of the Nuremberg Code, free nations have recognized that forced medical experimentation of any kind is both inhumane and unethical. “There is no “pandemic exception” to the law or the Constitution,” plaintiffs stated in their complaint.
“This is a very important case for educators all across America and is likely to set a precedent for all of us,” said Michael Kane, New York City teacher and founder of NY Teachers for Choice.
“Sometimes all you need is someone to stand up and say ‘No’ to remind everyone that we are completely within our rights to resist government overreach. And that is what this is — government overreach.”
Kane said the LAUSD teacher’s union “definitely plays a role in all of this” and that LA teachers need to lobby their union and threaten to pull their money from supporting the union if it doesn’t support their right to choose. “Rank-and-file union members must hold their union leadership accountable and force them to represent those who are pro-choice for all medical procedures,” Kane said.
The complaint states that employees of LAUSD last month began to receive communications from Superintendent Austin Beutner and other representatives of LAUSD instructing them to make appointments to get vaccinated.
None of the communications to employees included the information from the fact sheet required by the FDA to be given to vaccine recipients under EAU.
On March 4, guidance from LAUSD human resources was given to employees that stated: “The Moderna vaccine is currently being administered by Los Angeles Unified nurses and other licensed healthcare professionals to Los Angeles Unified employees. You will schedule your appointment […]. You will provide proof of vaccination via the DailyPass for time reporting purposes.”
As The Defender reported on March 10, Daily Pass is a COVID tracking system developed by Microsoft that will scan employees and students using a barcode before they can enter school each day. LAUSD is the first school district to announce that it will require every student and employee to get the Daily Pass, which school officials said will coordinate health checks, COVID tests and vaccinations. Data collected will be reported to public health authorities and other LAUSD healthcare collaborators.
According to the employees’ lawsuit, the process for developing a vaccine normally takes place over a period of years with many different stages of testing, as it may take years for the side effects of a new vaccine to manifest themselves. “No one knows the short, medium, or long-term effects of this medical intervention over 1, 5, 10, or 50 years,” HFDF said.
By mandating experimental COVID vaccines, LAUSD is “forcing employees to choose between providing for their families and being the victim of human experimentation,” said HFDF. “Forced vaccination is not only unethical, but it also violates the tenets fundamental to a free society and must stop.”
In December 2020, Children’s Health Defense published “Vaccine Mandates: An Erosion of Civil Rights?” which examines the history and consequences of vaccine mandates, and what you can do to protect yourself and your family members. The Vaccine Mandates e-book can be downloaded here.