Coronavirus

[Dachsie]

Dachsie Comments: Florida governor DeSantis appears to be riding the fence and doing the old political mumbo jumbo talk. "You decide." Then he goes on to support providing the "data" and letting the medical people and the patients decide based on all the data and all the treatment options.

In this video, the topic is Regeneron, an experimental, EUA - Emergency Use Authorization medicine containing monoclonal antibodies. (Dr. Peter McCullough uses Regeneron as one of his treatments for patients with whom he has had best success with EARLY outpatient treatment. Once the patient goes into the hospital, the best of doctors have much more limited treatment options for their patient.)

The problem I have with Governor DeSantis is that the truth about the "data" is that it has been deliberately falsified and manipulated data from the beginning of the "pandemic" and that has been proven. GIGO Garbage In Garbage Out. The WHO, the CDC, the FDC, the AMA-type USA medical establishment, and all federal, state and local governmental public health agencies have pushed and participated in not only relying on the fraudulent data but also have contributed to the creation of the garbage data.

The "thing" that the patient has and that requires medical treatment is NOT KNOWN. It could be and is many different "things." One thing we know for sure is that SARS CoV 2 has never been isolated and there is no such one discreet thing as "Covid 19" and there is no such thing as strains of or variants of these unknown things.

One other untrustworthy little thing being continually inflicted on the people is the "vaccines" that are not only not vaccines but are increasingly being shown to be a "perfectly designed bioweapons" to effect worldwide profound population reduction.

(See quality coverage of this PLANdemic with many articles provided by Dr. James Fetzer, PhD, here... )

https://jamesfetzer.org/page/2/?s=bioweapon

_________________________________

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGSJJvWuFRI



‘Even Dr. Fauci Acknowledged It’: DeSantis Promotes Monoclonal Antibody Treatments For COVID-19

4:01 video runtime

85,505 views

Sep 4, 2021


Forbes Breaking News

759K subscribers

On Monday, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) continued to promote monoclonal antibody treatment.

[Dachsie]

Source"

Andrew Carrington Hitchcock email show announcement Sept. 6, 2021



ACH (1596) Mallificus Scott And Shelley Tasker – The Limeys #37 – Are You Brainwashed By The Covid Cult?
by achitchcock

https://cldup.com/F3azePytoX.mp3

1:13:44 audeo runtime

[Dachsie]

Thie Business Insider article link provided courtesy of Jon Rappaport.

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021...r-you-to-know/

Do you have the Delta Variant? It’s illegal for you to know
Sep
6
by Jon Rappoport

The latest piece of sheer insanity from the US government

by Jon Rappoport

September 6, 2021



businessinsider.com/covid-patients-cant-know-which-variant-infected-them-delta-2021-8

You aren't legally allowed to know which variant gave you COVID-19 in the US, even if it's Delta

Aria Bendix
Aug 23, 2021, 7:02 AM


A COVID-19 testing site in Paris. REUTERS/Gonzalo Fuentes


Aria Bendix
Aug 23, 2021, 7:02 AM
coronavirus test nasal swab
A COVID-19 testing site in Paris. REUTERS/Gonzalo Fuentes

Most people with COVID-19 in the US are legally prevented from knowing which variant infected them.
That's because sequencing tests have to be federally approved for results to be disclosed to doctors or patients, and most are not yet.
Lab scientists say the process of validating the tests for approval is too costly and time-consuming.
See more stories on Insider's business page.

Insider Healthcare: The latest healthcare news & analysis

Sam Reider, a musician from San Francisco, got a call from the California Department of Public Health in June. Though fully vaccinated, Reider had recently tested positive for COVID-19 after teaching music at a summer camp. The health department asked him to take a second test at a local Kaiser Permanente.

Reider assumed it was because authorities wanted to find out whether he had a Delta infection. He, too, was curious — but when he got the test results back, he was surprised to learn that doctors couldn't give him any information about his variant.

"When I got the follow-up from Kaiser, they said it's positive, but they didn't have any of the sequencing information," Reider told Insider. That "felt odd to me," he said.

Several legal barriers prevented Reider and his doctors — as well as nearly all Americans who have tested positive for the coronavirus — from knowing which variant was to blame.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service (CMS), which oversees the regulatory process for US labs, requires genome-sequencing tests to be federally approved before their results can be disclosed to doctors or patients. These are the tests that pick up on variants, but right now, there's little incentive for the labs to do the work to validate those tests.

"I don't think there's a lot of motivation, quite honestly, to get that done," Kelly Wroblewski, director of infectious diseases at the Association of Public Health Laboratories, told Insider.

Some patients, however, feel they're being denied access to their own health information.

In some cases, knowing which variant is involved in an infection could inform how patients do their own contact tracing, since it informs how likely they are to have spread the virus others. (If it's a Delta infection, for instance, they may want to notify a much wider circle of family and friends.)

Other patients, like Ryan Forrest, a 30-year-old in Midland Park, New Jersey, are simply curious to figure out how they were infected.

Forrest tested positive for COVID-19 after attending an indoor wedding in July. He said he didn't have any personal interactions with the wedding's "patient zero," so he's still wondering how he got sick — especially since he was vaccinated in March. Knowing that the Delta variant infected him could clear up confusion, he said.

"It would have been nice to know just for curiosity more than anything else," he said.

Wroblewski said she "totally understands" that feeling.

"I would be curious. I think anybody would be curious," she said. "The important thing to recognize is it's a liability for laboratories to release the information."

It's arduous and time-consuming to validate a sequencing test



Researchers sequence coronavirus samples at the microbiology laboratory of the University Hospital of Badajoz in Spain on April 15, 2021. Javier Pulpo/Europa Press/Getty Images

So far, Wroblewski said, more than 50 public labs in the US are capable of sequencing coronavirus samples to detect variants. But she's not aware of any labs that have completed the validation process to get federal approval.

"The process of validating a next-generation sequencing test is burdensome," Wroblewski said. "It takes a lot of time. It takes a lot of data. It takes a lot of resources. And the thing about the variants is that variants of concern and of interest are constantly changing, so you would have to do a whole validation every time you have a variant."

For a sequencing test to be validated, a manufacturer needs to collect data to show that the test does a good job of detecting a specific variant, then request emergency authorization from the Food and Drug Administration. Alternatively, laboratories can validate their sequencing tests "in house," meaning they collect the same data so CMS can approve their test.

"The letter of the law from CMS is that if you don't go through this full validation process, you cannot release the results with patient identifying information," Wroblewski said. One major exception, she noted, is if epidemiologists need to disclose a person's variant information over the course of contact tracing.

Validating a test for a single variant could take weeks to months, she added.

"To keep up with it in real time, when it doesn't influence a decision you're going to make on how you treat a patient, just isn't very useful," Wroblewski said. "It's satisfying curiosity more than it's really benefiting a patient."

A more concerning variant could push scientists to disclose information to patients

[IMG]https://i.insider.com/5f9056422e0e6f0018dd7b1f?width=600&format=jpeg&aut o=webp[/IMG]
Physicians assistant Tom Bui administers a COVID-19 test at Temple Dieu Ngu in Westminster, California, on October 16, 2020. Photo by Jeff Gritchen/MediaNews Group/Orange County Register via Getty Images

The main purpose of sequencing, Wroblewski said, is to detect new variants and understand whether they challenge the effectiveness of vaccines, treatments, or diagnostic tests. Down the line, she said, labs also hope to get better at understanding whether certain variants cause more severe outcomes in certain populations, such as pregnant women or the elderly.

But right now, variants haven't fundamentally changed the way people protect themselves from COVID-19. Though the Delta variant is the most contagious version of the virus yet, masks and social distancing still reduce its spread. And COVID-19 vaccines continue to offer good protection against severe disease and death.

"At this point, unless we see something that truly is going to direct your therapeutic choice at an individual patient level, there's not a lot of benefit to a physician or a patient in knowing you have Delta," Wroblewski said. "There's nothing differently that a physician is going to do to treat that patient."

That makes it hard to justify the time and expense of a validating a test, she added — particularly when those resources could be used to do more sequencing.

"If we see later there's going to be true impact on a therapeutic that's used to treat SARS-CoV-2, then yes, we'll very likely change our approach," Wroblewski said. "But at this moment, we're not there yet."

[monty]

I really like this guy's no nonsense outlook on economics. Maneco64. He talks about the carbon scam here:
(278) Carbon Neutrality Will Mean a Cold and Miserable Winter for Europeans. - YouTube

Here is a report on the switch from Coronavirus back to Climate Change

The IPCC Report & the Pivot from Covid to Climate

Kit Knightly

The latest IPCC report on climate change was released last week, and has signalled a sea-change in the ongoing “big issue”. The Pandemic was fun while it lasted, but it’s time it faded back and we got on with the next stage.

That’s not just my interpretation either, they are quite literally saying it themselves.

Usually, when there’s a big narrative shift looming, you can find one key article that tells you everything you need to know about the plan. For the IPCC report, it’s this iNews article by Andrew Marr. Where he literally uses the phrase “hinge to climate from Covid” several times:

There is a great turn coming, a change in the terms of political debate, a period of hinge. We are swinging from the many months of coronavirus obsession into an autumn which will be dominated, rightly, by the climate emergency. But much of what we have learned from Covid-19 – about the state, authority, journalism and civil society – is directly applicable to what’s coming next.”

The media have, naturally, been full of headlines on the IPCC report, with varying degrees of alarmism and insanity.

“It’s now or never!” screams the Guardian as a “climate reckoning” is upon us. The Sun calls it a “full fledged arson attack on the planet!”

But none of them outline just what the next few months have in store for us better than Marr. The goblinoid face of the establishment, who nauseatingly cheered on Blair in Iraq, can always be relied upon to keep on message. He’s always right there saying the right thing at the right time. And this piece is no exception.

He headlines “Treat people like grown-ups and they will fight climate change like Covid-19”, adding [our emphasis]:

Education works. We are following the science and as we continue to do so, we will successfully tackle climate-change issues in the same way we faced down the coronavirus.”

He never outright states what this “same way” is, exactly, but it’s not really hard to imagine what he means. His article isn’t about the future, anyway, it’s all about the past.

It’s tracking the tools deployed during the “pandemic”, and how effective they were. A performance review for the politicians and “journalists” who have successfully parlayed a “virus” that poses almost zero danger to the general public into a full-fledged remodelling of society.

He points out how politicians under-estimated how willingly people would leverage their freedoms:

To begin with [Western leaders] worried that voters would not accept restrictions on their liberties for the greater good. By and large, they were wrong. […] This shaped how Germans, Americans, the French and British – and many more – responded, and allowed societies to change direction faster than anyone would have predicted.”

How easily the media were able to spread misinformation that controlled public opinion:

The media, so often blamed for almost everything, found new ways to explain complex scientific arguments in ways that most people understood.”

And how these lessons can be applied to messaging on climate change going forward:

This is a core lesson that needs to be learned, as we hinge from Covid to climate. Public understanding of science has become a security issue. Without it, there will be no public support for the hard decisions on transport, heating and land use.”

The whole thing reads that way, like a cross between a press release and a progress report. Appearing a blithe opinion piece to the uninitiated, but having a clear second layer of meaning to those who know how to read it.
There are throwaway lines propping up globalism (“how little nature notices national borders”), and brief praise for China’s authoritarian government vs the West’s “slapdash” approach and “tardy lockdowns”, but those are B plots.
The story here is “hey guys, this all worked much better than we thought it would, we could do the same thing for climate change”.

Does this mean that the pandemic is over?

Not “over”, but certainly on the decline. It’s obvious that the press are prepping the groundwork to leave Covid behind, and turn their focus to the next stage of the Great Reset.

But, all that said, it will be a difficult sell. Harder than Covid, in some ways, because people are so much more used to climate alarm calls. For want of a better word, they have become somewhat immune to it.

What’s more, the establishment clearly knows this, because they’re keeping the pandemic warm on the backburner. Ready to bring it back to the boil should the need arise.

We’re being told the disease will be endemic, but that “Delta has changed the endgame” and that “herd immunity is impossible”
The pandemic is becoming a new forever war, akin to the war on terror. We won’t ever win it, but it will disappear from headlines until they need to shock or distract people.

Marr, for example, doesn’t declare the pandemic over, instead he says:

The pandemic is not, of course, yet over. It will end raggedly and slowly; and politicians who proclaim victory will quickly sound foolish[…]it will probably feel as if we have beaten this thing.

Before adding the ubiquitous riders that will keep the “threat” of the Covid alive in the public imagination:

The Delta variant may be the most contagious virus ever [and] can reinfect the double-vaccinated […] Britain is going to face a period of “bumpiness” in transmission rates and uncertainty about the near future […] the winter may be tough […] Booster jabs will become routine.”

There’s clearly a plan in place. He practically spells it out, claiming Covid19 will be pushed off the front pages…

Though not every day…this will be bumpy. There will be sudden scares about the emergence of a possible new variant somewhere unexpected; and urgent questions about biosecurity at Heathrow. There will be stories about outbreaks in care homes, or a sudden spike in infections in particular age or ethnic groups.

Do you see what he’s saying yet?

The pandemic isn’t over, it will just “feel” like it is, while they fill the front pages with big red numbers about climate change.

If people don’t respond to those big red numbers the way they should…well, there just might be another variant. Maybe a racist one.
The pandemic has served its purpose, but they won’t end it yet. Not until they’re sure everyone is good and scared of something else.
So what comes next?


It’s not hard to see exactly where this all leads. Mostly because they’re telling us.

Establishment voices have already talked about “climate lockdowns”, and the UK’s Science Advisor Patrick Vallance wrote, last week, about how:

nothing short of transforming society will avert catastrophe”

This isn’t new. This has been bubbling along in the background for months (I have already written two articles about it), but the message is being refined into a simple three-step process:

1. Point out all the ways Covid and climate change are similar.
2. Emphasise that Climate Change is much more of a threat than Covid. Use the word “existential. A lot.
3. Argue that since we were willing to change to fight Covid, we should do the same for climate.[optional]

You can see it in Marr’s article.
The comparison:

The interesting thing is that so much of the world’s experience during the pandemic relates quite closely to the climate crisis – our human interrelatedness, the importance of effective governance, the centrality of science and its communication.

Followed by the “covid is worse” [my emphasis]:

Of course, the two challenges are different. So far, a little over 4.3 million people have died from Covid. Australian and Chinese academics estimate that around five million people are dying each year from the effects of climate change […] Suffice it to say that even if the Delta variant is the most infectious disease mankind has so far faced, the climate emergency is at another level – a reshaper of geography, highly unpredictable and, in short, existential for the planet and its inhabitants.

Patrick Vallance does the same in his article in the Guardian, and then again in The Times. There are several others along the same lines, such as this one from the Hill, or this one from the International Monetary Fund.
It’s also apparent that the same tactics of demonising any opposition and attempting to turn it into an opportunity to virtue-signal will be used. There are lots of articles comparing “covid denial” and “climate denial”, or otherwise attempting to politicise the issue.
So, the way they’re going to talk about (or should we say say “market”?) climate change action is fairly clear. But what are these hypothetical actions going to be?

Are we seeing any hints as to what this “transformation of society” might entail? Or what these “tough decisions” could be?

Well, there were whispers of climate lockdowns, but they have died away since the outraged reaction. There’s always talk of other schemes, like limiting flights, outlawing beef and “personal carbon allowances”, but these are hardly new.

Andrew Marr’s article contains a couple of hints. But the only specific policy he mentions is forcing households to replace their boilers (“at a high cost to millions of families”), and this somewhat creepy allusion to the importance of the Deep State:

A final lesson is that Westminster and the state are two very different things. The state includes the NHS, national science labs, networks of experts […] I now feel we should spend less time on the distracting national puppet show and more time thinking about what I might delicately call the deeper sources of authority.”

(Attacking democracy for hampering “drastic efforts” is a concerning trend, one to watch out for)
Mostly, though, the mainstream voices are being very quiet on specifics. I suspect partly to stop the spread of what Marr calls “an outbreak of conspiracy theories in new media”, but mostly because they’re not sure exactly what they want to do yet, and they don’t believe the majority mentally prepared enough.

The COP26 Climate Summit in Glasgow, this November, will be something to keep an eye on. Expect a lot of scary stories in the weeks leading up to it, and then a lot of “policy recommendations” in its wake.
We’re pivoting to climate change guys. Great Reset Phase II is upon us

[monty]

Source"

Andrew Carrington Hitchcock email show announcement Sept. 6, 2021



ACH (1596) Mallificus Scott And Shelley Tasker – The Limeys #37 – Are You Brainwashed By The Covid Cult?
by achitchcock

https://cldup.com/F3azePytoX.mp3

1:13:44 audeo runtime

I went to the grocery store this morning. I noticed nearly everyone was masked up, in the store and on the sidewalks. The brainwashing is very effective.

[Dachsie]

Yes, I could see this coming. The good news is the SCAMdemic has failed. Too many facts have come forward.

The bad news is "geoengineering" and chemicals from chem-trails are part of climate change. Think weird forest fires, hurricanes following programmed path, and floods and droughts everywhere.

[Dachsie]

Monty - "I went to the grocery store this morning. I noticed nearly everyone was masked up, in the store and on the sidewalks. The brainwashing is very effective. "

I think some people are not particularly brain-washed but think they be afforded some little layer of protection from whatever may be coming out of vaccinated people.

[monty]

Monty - "I went to the grocery store this morning. I noticed nearly everyone was masked up, in the store and on the sidewalks. The brainwashing is very effective. "

I think some people are not particularly brain-washed but think they be afforded some little layer of protection from whatever may be coming out of vaccinated people.

I suppose that could be a factor.

[Dachsie]

Refer to posting number #1957 for back story on this. Very sad that the deep state part of our government has bad M.D.s doing evil deeds for pay.


Twitter Refuses To Remove Tweets By Maddow, Other Leftists Promoting Debunked ‘Ivermectin Overdose’ Hoax Story
"NHS Sequoyah has not treated any patients due to complications related to taking ivermectin. This includes not treating any patients for ivermectin overdose.”

https://nationalfile.com/twitter-refuses-to-remove-tweets-by-maddow-other-leftists-promoting-debunked-ivermectin-overdose-hoax-story/

[Dachsie]

https://jamesfetzer.org/2021/09/the-...cial-contract/




The Orwellian Vaccine Passport Agenda Relies On The Lie Of The “Social Contract”


The Orwellian Vaccine Passport Agenda Relies On The Lie Of The “Social Contract”

September 6, 2021 James Fetzerblog
Tyler Durden's Photo
BY TYLER DURDEN
THURSDAY, SEP 02, 2021 – 11:20 PM

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

There is a fundamental question that needs to be asked when examining the vaccine passport issue, and what I find is that almost no one in the mainstream is tackling it directly. The question is this:

Is it legally and morally acceptable to constrict the rights and economic access of people in order to force them to submit to an experimental “vaccine”, or any other medical procedure for that matter?

Furthermore, who gets to decide what medical procedures are acceptable to enforce? Who gets to be the all powerful and benevolent overseer of every human being’s health path. I ask this because I don’t think many people realize the future repercussions of allowing governments or corporations (the same thing these days) to dictate covid vaccinations. It doesn’t stop there; in fact, we have no idea where this stops once the Pandora’s box is opened.

For example, the primary argument of the covid cult and the establishment in favor of vaccine passports is the “social contract” fantasy. They claim that because we “live in a society”, everything we do affects everyone else in some way, and because we are all interconnected in our “collective” we are thus beholden to the collective. In other words, the collective has the “right” to micro-manage the life of the individual because if the individual is allowed to make his/her own decisions they might potentially cause harm to the whole group.

In case you are not familiar with this philosophy it is an extension of socialism and cultural Marxism, and it stands at the very core of vaccine passport propaganda. I have actually had public debates with pro-socialist people in the past who have tried to defend the merits of socialism and every single time the argument comes down to one singular disconnect – I say that if a group of people want to go off and start their own little socialist community they have every right to…as long as it is VOLUNTARY. Then if it fails and collapses it doesn’t matter because it doesn’t affect me or anyone else who did not want to participate.

The problem is that these Socialists/communists/Marxists/collectivists simply do not grasp the notion of voluntarism. They believe that people need to be forced into doing the right thing or helping others, and they are the people that get to decide what the right thing is and who gets the help. They are the people that get to decide what freedoms are acceptable and what freedoms are inconvenient to their agenda. When they say “We live in a society…”, what they really mean is “You live in OUR society, and WE will determine what is best for you.”

When I argue that a socialist community should be voluntary, they inevitably argue that people will not commit to such a system voluntarily so they must be forced to do what is best for the “greater good”.

In terms of vaccine passports, the collectivist social contract is a key element. They claim that being unvaxxed is not a personal freedom because the unvaxxed are a risk to the lives of everyone else. The social contract is therefore violated because by making a personal life choice you are endangering the rights of others.

It’s interesting though how the covid cult is made up of people that do not apply the same logic to other health issues like abortion. I mean, there is zero substantiated evidence to support the claim that unvaccinated people are any more of a threat to the lives of others than vaccinated people are, and we will get into that in just a moment. But, when we talk about an abortion, we are talking about a personal medical decision that leads to the direct and observable death of another innocent human being with his/her own rights. Abortions end the lives of over 800,000 unborn people per year in the US, far more than covid supposedly does.

“My body my choice” apparently only applies to killing babies, but not to people who do not want to become guinea pigs for a mRNA cocktail with no long term testing to prove its safety.

Imagine though if we reversed the scenario and applied the broad social contract argument to something like children and population? A collectivist/leftist member of the global warming cult could also argue that abortion should be legally mandated, because having a child or “too many children” increases carbon emissions and this puts society “at risk” even further (again, with no proof to support the claim). By allowing the social contract narrative to go unchecked, we open the door to horrific new oppressive measures and a complete erasure of our autonomy.

I think it’s safe to say that the “social contract” ideology is highly selective and hypocritical. The covid cult does not care about saving lives, they only care about their ideological narrative and the power to make people submit to it. But let’s dig even further into the reasoning behind the social contract claim. Who is actually dying because of unvaccinated individuals, which according to state vax statistics make up around 50% of the US population?

The average Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) of covid is a mere 0.26% according to dozens of studies and the government’s own numbers. Meaning, unvaxxed people are not even a remote threat to 99.7% of the population. Around 40% of all covid deaths are made up of people in nursing homes with preexisting conditions, which means that we do not know if they actually died of covid or due to the health problems they were already suffering from. The pool of people who might be affected by the unvaxxed grows smaller and smaller…

And what about the ridiculous contradiction that arises when we talk about the mandate narrative verses the passport narrative? If masks and vaccines actually work, then how is an unvaxxed or unmasked person a threat to a vaxxed person? If the vaccines and masks don’t work, then why use them at all, and why demand forced vaccinations through passport measures?

Mainstream propaganda asserts that the unvaxxed will somehow become petri dishes for new mutations that will harm vaccinated people. There is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, there is more evidence that suggests it is vaccinated people that will trigger mutations and variants. The media says that this is not cause for any concern, but if it’s not then neither should we be concerned about mutations that gestate in the unvaxxed population, if there are any.

The fact of the matter is that more and more scientific evidence is proving that the experimental vaccines are NOT effective and that the unvaxxed are actually safer from covid regardless of the variant or mutation.

The true infection numbers within the US are impossible to know because up to 59% of people that catch covid and spread it are asymptomatic according to the CDC. They never know that they have it so they are unlikely to test for it. That said, it is clear that many millions of Americans have dealt with the virus and now have a natural immunity to it (I happen to be one of them). Establishment elitists like Anthony Fauci refuse to acknowledge natural immunity as a factor, and they say that ONLY people who are vaccinated are qualified to receive a passport. Why?

Multiple studies are being released from countries with high vaccination rates like Israel that completely contradict Fauci’s narrative on natural immunity. Israel has a vax rate of around 63% according to government stats, but scientific evidence they have released shows that vaccinated people are 13-27 times more likely to contract covid and 8 times more likely to be hospitalized when compared with people who have natural immunity. It almost appears as if the mRNA vaccines make people MORE susceptible to the virus rather than less susceptible.

Recent data released from the state of Massachusetts supports this concern. In the month of July, MA reported at least 5100 covid infections, all people who were fully vaccinated. Over 80 of them died, which is a much higher death rate than among the unvaccinated. In my county of 20,000 people, which has a low vaccination rate and no mask mandates, there were only 17 total covid deaths in the first year year of the pandemic.

This begs the question: Why take the mRNA cocktail at all? What is there to gain? Well, there is nothing to gain in terms of health safety. Even if you happen to be part of the 0.26% of people at risk from covid, you are better off in the long run taking your chances with natural immunity than getting the jab.

The answer to the question is not about health, but about denial of access. Government’s and their corporate partners are trying to make it so you MUST take the vaccine in order to participate in normal social activities, or even to keep a job. Not only that, but the process goes on forever because every year there will be new variants and new booster shots. The only reason to take the vaccine is to keep at least a handful of your freedoms and to avoid poverty and starvation.

Here is where we must go back to the original query presented at the beginning of this article:

Is it legally and morally acceptable to constrict the rights and economic access of people in order to force them to submit to an experimental “vaccine”?

The covid cult will say that private business rights trump individual rights so companies should be allowed to discriminate against employees based on their vaccination status. But then again, what we are facing in most cases are NOT private businesses but conglomerates that are funded by government bailouts and that are colluding directing with governments to enforce the passport agenda. So I would have to say no, these businesses do not have a legal right to feed on public tax dollars and then claim they are private entities that have the freedom to invade the medical privacy of employees and customers.

And since when do collectivists actually care about private business rights, anyway? More hypocrisy…

If we are talking about small and medium business with no government stimulus then the issue gets more tricky. In many states and other countries the businesses are only enforcing passports because if they don’t they will be punished by the government. In this case the private business rights argument goes out the window. The covid cult respects business independence only when it suits them.

Frankly, it is small businesses that are being hurt the most by the covid mandates and the extra costs involved just in enforcing the passports in their own establishments is going to bury them. Any small business owner that voluntarily supports the passport rules must have a financial death wish.

In terms of government, the covid cult will claim that there are Supreme Court precedents for legal enforcement of vaccinations. Honestly, I don’t care, and neither do millions of other Americans. A bunch of high priests in black robes do not get to dictate my independent health decisions; I make those decisions and there’s nothing that they can do about it. This is where we have to come to terms with the morals and principles involved – The lives of others are in no way affected by my decision to refuse to comply with vaccine passports. And just because a group of people have irrational fears about the threat of covid does not mean people with more discernment about the facts should be required to make them “feel better” or feel safer.

The bottom line is this: Our freedoms are more important than your paranoid fears, and we will not comply. We do not subscribe to your false social contract, and you are in no position to dictate the terms of our “society”. Don’t like it? You are more than welcome to leave the country and start a vaccinated Utopia somewhere else. We’ll see how that works out for you in the long run.
Please follow and like us:
error
fb-share-icon
Tweet
fb-share-icon
views: 18
Brandon Smith, communism, group interest, individual subservient to group, Marxism, social contract, totalitarianism, Tyler Durdern, Zero Hedge