Tag Archive for: Covid 19 restrictions

“NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS”: Fauci Confesses He ‘MADE UP’ Covid Rules Including 6 Feet Social Distancing and Masking Kids

Geller Report and other conservative news sites reported this as early as March 2020 and we were banned, censored and suspended from social media.

Watch Fauci testimony live now:

REVEALED: Dr. Anthony Fauci confesses he ‘made up’ covid rules including 6 feet social distancing and masking kids

  • Fauci said he does not know where the six foot social distancing rule came from
  • He also said that he was unaware of studies recommending masks for kids

By Jon Michael Raasch, Dailymail.Com, 3 June 2024

Bombshell testimony from Dr. Anthony Fauci reveals he made up the six foot social distancing rule and other measures to ‘protect’ Americans from covid.

Republicans put out the full transcript of their sit down interview with Fauci from January just days before his highly-anticipated public testimony on Monday.

They plan to grill him about covid restrictions he put in place, that he admitted didn’t do much to ‘slow the spread’ of the virus.

Kids’ learning loss and social setbacks have been well documented, with one National Institute of Health (NIH) study calling the impact of mask use on students’ literacy and learning ‘very negative.’

And the impacts from social distancing caused ‘depression, generalized anxiety, acute stress, and intrusive thoughts,’ another NIH study found.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, former Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, claimed the six foot social distancing rule ‘sort of just appeared’ and said that he ‘might have’ reviewed studied on masking kids but ‘that’s still up in the air’

Dr. Anthony Fauci, former Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, claimed the six foot social distancing rule ‘sort of just appeared’ and said that he ‘might have’ reviewed studied on masking kids but ‘that’s still up in the air’

Speaking to counsel on behalf of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic earlier this year, Fauci told Republicans that the six foot social distancing rule ‘sort of just appeared’ and that he did not recall how it came about.

‘You know, I don’t recall. It sort of just appeared,’ he said according to committee transcripts when pressed on how the rule came about.

He added he ‘was not aware of studies’ that supported the social distancing, conceding that such studies ‘would be very difficult’ to do.

In addition to not recalling any evidence supporting social distancing, Fauci also told the committee’s counsel that he didn’t remember reading anything to support that masking kids would prevent COVID.

‘Do you recall reviewing any studies or data supporting masking for children?’ he was asked.

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

NIH Scientists Tried to Hide $710 MILLION in Royalties From Vaccine Makers

November 2020 Geller Report: Massive Danish Mask Study Finds MASKS INEFFECTIVE

March 2020: CDC’s own data: Pediatric covid19 vs. pediatric flu: 8 deaths due to flu; no ICU admissions, no deaths due to Coronavirus

JUICING THE NUMBERS: CDC Tells Hospitals To List COVID as Cause of Death Even if You’re Just Assuming or It Only Contributed

Death rates of coronavirus may be HALF initial estimates by world health chiefs, promising study finds

March 19, 2020: Chloroquine effective against Coronavirus

MSNBC Analyst Suggests Using Coronavirus To Prosecute Trump For ‘Negligent Homicide’ — Gets An Assist From Former Democratic Candidate

MEDIA MALFEASANCE: Coronavirus Fatality Rate Reported by the Media Is COMPLETELY INACCURATE

WATCH: Drones over a NYC park yell at pedestrians to “maintain social distancing”

RELATED VIDEO: MTG Destroys Fauci

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Public Health Tyrants Need to Be Quarantined

I’m going to keep pounding away at the fact our public health authorities were wrong about everything regarding COVID.  I’m doing so because they assumed an awful lot of power over our lives and ultimately proved to be destructive.  This should never be allowed to happen again.

They were wrong about masks.  A review of 78 studies shows there is no evidence masks are effective in a pandemic.  There is also no evidence removal of mask mandates caused COVID deaths to go up.  In fact, in Kansas, counties with a mask mandate experienced significantly higher case fatality rates than counties that did not.  So, masks not only did not help, they hurt.  But what did the public health industrial complex do?  Suppress the truth, that’s what.

Public health authorities were wrong about the lab leak theory.  It remains a perfectly good theory, now found credible by the Energy Department and the FBI.  But what did Fauci do?   Government records show he dismissed the lab leak hypothesis as a “conspiracy theory”, gave government grants to proponents of the theory to shut them up, and commissioned a report to publicly discredit the theory.  Fauci rules?  I don’t think so.  CNN and Facebook helped Fauci cover up the truth.

Public health officials were wrong about ivermectin.  The aggregate of studies continues to weigh in favor of ivermectin’s efficacy in COVID cases on mortality and lesser questions.  But public officials deliberately trashed ivermectin – calling it just a ‘horse de-wormer’ – and conspired to keep it from being prescribed.  A group of doctors is now suing to hold officials at the FDA and HHS accountable for their actions.  I hope all the hospitals that threw doctors out for prescribing or advocating for the use of ivermectin get sued, too.

The public health industrial complex was also wrong about the impact of COVID on kids, falsely claiming it was a leading cause of death among young people.  Accidents, drug overdoses, and drownings were far more prevalent.  The truth is only one out of a 100,000 kids and teens died from COVID.  The numbers were never high enough to justify school lockdowns and the self-inflicted ravages of learning loss from closing school doors are now common knowledge.

Public health authorities were also wrong about natural immunity, falsely claiming COVID vaccine immunity was better, as late as in March in congressional testimony.  Fauci is in this story, too, meeting in secret with other U.S. health officials, to get their story straight about how natural immunity was no good despite the scientific evidence showing it was.  Their effort was ultimately futile, though, because evidence keeps piling up that natural immunity is better.

Evidence is also piling up the vaccines were not very effective.  A recent study shows the immune system gets tired and doesn’t produce much of a response after a third dose.  Another study shows the effect of bivalent boosters wears off after two months.  These studies are in addition to the pile of other studies I mentioned in previous commentaries casting doubt on COVID vaccine efficacy.

So many lies, so many cover-ups.  We deserve better from our government officials and politicians.  They’re supposed to be working for us, not lording over us.  I, for one, will never trust them again.  But the Moral of the Story is we need to put up more of a fight when public health authorities and politicians try to steal our liberty for no good reason.  One of the very first things I read about pandemic legal theory is that public health authorities have to make their case in court before taking emergency measures.  That never happened.  They were never put to their proof under oath and cross-examination.  Let’s make sure a full examination of their argument happens the next time these political animals go off the rails.

©2023 Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays

RELATED VIDEO: Katherine Watt: In Her Own Words

No Insurance Payments: The Next COVID Shot ‘Mandate’?

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Delta Air Lines charges a $200 monthly surcharge to employees on the company health plan who do not get a COVID-19 shot
  • The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) announced that public employees in Nevada, along with their adult dependents, would be charged a surcharge on their state health insurance plan if they don’t get a COVID-19 shot by July 2022
  • Mercyhealth, which runs hospitals and health clinics in Wisconsin and Illinois, deducts $60 per month from employees’ wages if they choose not to get the shot
  • By making COVID-19 injections a requirement of a wellness program, companies may be able to skirt legal issues, as they’re “rewarding” members who participate in the program by letting them avoid the premium surcharge hoisted on the unvaccinated
  • While health insurance companies have long charged higher premiums based on factors like smoking, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission requires that penalties not be so large as to be coercive

Those who choose not to get a COVID-19 shot may face higher costs for health care related to COVID-19. For the first 1.5 years of the pandemic, health insurance companies routinely paid for all costs related to COVID-19, waiving deductibles and copays across the board.1 Policies have since changed, with many private insurers no longer picking up the tab for hospitalizations and other costs related to COVID-19.

However, those who haven’t received COVID-19 shots could end up paying the most. While health insurance companies cannot deny health insurance to someone because they don’t get a COVID-19 shot, it’s possible that they could face increased costs — similar to smokers, who also pay a premium for health insurance coverage.

Delta Airlines Paved the Way for Increased Costs

August 25, 2021, Delta Air Lines announced that employees who are on the company health plan who do not get a COVID-19 shot will have a $200 monthly surcharge added. In the two weeks after Delta made the announcement, 20% of Delta’s unvaccinated employees got the injection, raising the company’s injection rate from 74% to 78%.2

The surcharge took effect on November 1, 2021, and by October 29, Delta Air Lines CEO Ed Bastian stated that more than 90% of employees had received the shot.3 In an employee memo, Bastian defended the significant premium hike for unvaccinated employees, stating, “The average hospital stay for COVID-19 has cost Delta $50,000 per person. This surcharge will be necessary to address the financial risk the decision to not vaccinate is creating for our company.”4

Other companies have since followed suit. In January 2022, the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) announced that public employees in Nevada, along with their adult dependents, would be assessed a surcharge on their state health insurance plan if they don’t get a COVID-19 shot by July 2022.5

A September 2021 survey by SHRM found that close to 20% of corporations were considering raising health insurance premiums for employees who don’t get the injection. Among organizations, 13% were considering such a move while less than 1% had actually raised premiums for unvaccinated employees at that time.6

In another example, Mercyhealth, which runs hospitals and health clinics in Wisconsin and Illinois, started deducting $60 per month from employees’ wages if they choose not to get the shot. While Alen Brcic, Mercyhealth vice president of people and culture, called the so-called “risk pool fee” a nominal amount, it drove the health system’s vaccination rate among employees up to 91%, from its previous 70%.7

“A ‘couple of handfuls’ of people quit over the policy and roughly 9% of employees are now contributing to the risk pool. Mercyhealth did provide a very small number of medical exemptions, but no religious exemptions,” NPR reported.8

Wellness Program Loophole Allows Increased Costs for Some

A number of federal statutes — including the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPPA) — prohibit group health plans and insurers from discriminating against individuals based on health factors.

While short-term health plans, which aren’t subject to ACA regulations, can deny coverage to someone because they didn’t get a COVID-19 vaccine, private health insurers cannot. Further, insurers that are part of the individual marketplace cannot charge penalties to those who are not vaccinated.9

However, wellness programs provide a work-around. By making COVID-19 injections a requirement of the company’s wellness program,10 Delta, for instance, may be able to skirt legal issues,11 as they’re “rewarding” members who participate in the wellness program by letting them avoid the premium surcharge hoisted on the unvaccinated.

JPMorgan Chase and Harmons have also used wellness program guidelines as a tool to raise health care premiums for workers who don’t get a COVID-19 shot. “According to federal law, companies are allowed to charge employees different amounts for health care as long as they do it through a program designed to promote healthy behaviors and prevent disease,” NPR reported.12

A wellness program can include virtually anything, from reaching a set number of steps daily to quitting smoking or staying within a certain BMI range. Sabrina Corlette, founder and co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University, told NPR, “Your wellness program could simply be: I’m going to encourage all of my employees to get vaccinated, full stop.

Most employers are doing this to try to have a healthier and more productive workforce … and to spend less on overall health care costs.”13

There are a few caveats. For instance, ACA regulations state that surcharges in employer wellness programs for things such as COVID-19 vaccination status are allowed, as long as they don’t discriminate against people with disabilities.14 NPR broke down wellness program waivers this way:15

“Under federal law, the wellness program must be ‘reasonably designed,’ meaning there’s a reasonable chance the program will improve the health of or prevent disease in the participants. To ensure that wellness programs do not violate discrimination laws, companies must provide waivers for individuals who have medical reasons for not meeting the stated targets or alternative ways for them to satisfy the requirements.

As part of its policy, the Utah grocer Harmons says its insurance premium surcharge of up to $200 per month applies to ‘unvaccinated associates who don’t qualify for an exemption or who chose not to complete a vaccine education series.’”

Rewards and penalties of wellness programs may not exceed 30% of the cost of employees’ health care plans, “calculated as the amount paid by the employee and the employer combined,” except in cases that involve tobacco use — then the penalty may reach 50% of costs.16

Fines for Vaccination Status a Slippery Slope

Governments around the globe have also rolled out fines for refusal of COVID-19 shots. Greece announced it would fine anyone aged 60 years and over who doesn’t get the injection, at a rate of approximately $114 a month.17 The Canadian province of Quebec also announced plans to fine the unvaccinated a “significant” amount.18

“There comes a point where these incentives [are getting] higher and higher and higher until people just can’t afford to not get the vaccine,” Julie Downs, Ph.D., a social psychologist and associate professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, told AAMC. “It does work, but it comes at a cost … [and it’s] very hard in this political environment.”19

Dr. Mark Fendrick, director of the University of Michigan’s Center for Value-Based Insurance Design, described penalties for not getting vaccinated “legally murky,”20 while others have described it as coercion. While health insurance companies have long charged higher premiums based on factors like smoking, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission requires that penalties not be so large as to be coercive.21

One of the principles of the Nuremberg Code is that humans must give voluntary consent when participating in medical experiments, and that consent must be given, among other things, “without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion.”22

Give the emergency use authorization, not approval, the mass jab administration constituted a research trial. While the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 jab received FDA approval August 23, 2021, the injection’s approval represents the fastest approval in history,23 granted less than four months after Pfizer filed for licensing May 7, 2021.24 So for all intents and purposes, it’s still in the research phase.

Daniel Polsky, Ph.D., economist with the Johns Hopkins Blomberg School of Public Health and Carey Business School, further noted that penalties based on vaccination status should not dictate health care coverage, which also should not impose fines that suggest a person is at fault for getting sick. He told AAMC:25

“[For example,] we have this obesity crisis and some people would say, ‘Maybe we shouldn’t pay for care, it’s the person’s fault for being obese or for being an addict. If someone got sick from COVID — we should withhold paying for care.’… That is a slippery slope and not somewhere we should go.”

Natural Immunity Is Ignored

If you’ve had COVID-19, the research is strong that you’re well protected against reinfection. New data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention even show that prior COVID-19 infection, i.e., natural immunity, is more protective than COVID-19 injections.26

Despite this, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) recently upheld a vaccine mandate at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service (CMS), which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The mandate affects 10.4 million health care workers employed at 76,000 medical facilities,27 making no exceptions for those who have natural immunity to COVID-19 due to prior infection.

“You can think about a mandate as the strongest form of incentive,” Dr. Kevin Volpp, director of the Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics at the University of Pennsylvania, told AAMC. “What we’ve seen so far in employer settings where there is a mandate related to keeping your job is that very few employees have not complied.”28

Yet, when researchers reviewed studies published in PubMed, they found that the risk of reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 decreased by 80.5% to 100% among people who had previously had COVID-19.29 Additional research cited in their review found:30

  • Among 9,119 people who had previously had COVID-19, only 0.7% became reinfected.
  • At Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio, the incidence rate of COVID-19 among those who had not previously been infected was 4.3 per 100 people; the COVID-19 incidence rate among those who had previously been infected was zero per 100 people.
  • The frequency of hospitalization due to a repeated COVID-19 infection was five per 14,840 people, or .03%, according to an Austrian study; the frequency of death due to a repeated infection was one per 14,840 people, or .01%.

In short, if you’ve had COVID-19, you’re largely protected from reinfection, and a COVID-19 shot is not only unnecessary but, according to some experts, especially dangerous.31 Penalizing people who refuse a COVID-19 shot they don’t want or need becomes particularly atrocious in such cases. Unvaccinated individuals must have the freedom to remain so, if that’s what they choose, and not be forced into this medical decision by financial threats and coercion.

RELATED ARTICLE: 90-Day Pfizer ‘Bombshell’ Busted in 9 Pages

EDITORS NOTE: This MERCOLA column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

WATCH FREEDOM ON THE MARCH: Thousands of Vehicles in Truck-Led Peoples Convoy on Washington, D.C. beltway

The Democrats will criminalize and prosecute these freedom lovers like they did with the January 6th protesters? Watch tyranny in action.

Needless to say, the enemedia is ignoring this historic movement – at least until they can smear, defame and marginalize them. They are using Ukraine to drown out the massive resistance movement.

Thousands of Vehicles in Truck-Led Convoy Gather in Maryland, Last Stop Before DC Region

HAGERSTOWN, Maryland—Thousands of vehicles in a truck-led convoy gathered in western Maryland on March 4, marking their last stop before heading to the Washington, D.C., region.

By Enrico Trigoso and Mimi Nguyen Ly, The Epoch Times, March 5, 2022:

The People’s Convoy is calling for an end to the federal government’s COVID-19 emergency powers, which have enabled various COVID-19 restrictions and mandates to be imposed over the past two years.

Organizers of the convoy told The Epoch Times that the group has adjusted its plans and are no longer aiming to arrive in Washington on Saturday as previously reported. Rather, they will be staying in Hagerstown, Maryland—about 70 miles northwest of Washington—for Saturday, and will be headed to an unspecified location two miles from the D.C. Beltway area either on Sunday or Monday……

RELATED ARTICLES:

Democrats Demand Big Tech Censor Trump’s Truth Social

Biden’s Banana Republic

Russian Oil And Gas Operations Emit 30 Percent More Methane Than American Producers

North Korea Launches Ballistic Missile, On ‘Unprecedented Pace’ Of Weapons Testing

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there, click here. It’s open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

If Lockdowns and Mandates Failed, Why Are They Still Pushed?

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • In a literature review and meta-analysis of the effects of lockdowns on COVID-19 mortality, researchers revealed lockdowns had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality
  • The Brownstone Institute compiled more than 400 studies showing that lockdowns, restrictions and closures failed to do what was promised
  • A team of 12 researchers from Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Harvard Medical School, the University of Oxford and other institutions outlined key reasons why COVID-19 shot mandates have been counterproductive and harmful
  • COVID-19 injection mandates could lead to reactance and entrenchment, cognitive dissonance, stigma and scapegoating, and distrust
  • If you don’t agree with COVID-19 restrictions and mandates in your area, now is the time to speak out in peaceful protest

Scientists the world over have done a deep dive into the unprecedented lockdowns and injection mandates that characterized the COVID-19 pandemic response. Over and over again, the results confirm what many instinctively knew all along — that these totalitarian schemes didn’t work and may have caused more harm than good.

Despite the writing on the wall, health officials and academics continue to defend the Draconian measures. It’s difficult to admit wrongdoing, especially of this magnitude, but sooner or later it will become widely known that, as Jeffrey Tucker, founder and president of the Brownstone Institute, put it, “these interventions turned a manageable pandemic into a catastrophe.”1

Hundreds of Studies Show Lockdowns Didn’t Work

Public health policies that restrict movement, ban international travel and close schools and businesses, commonly known as lockdowns, were implemented in virtually every country around the globe during the pandemic, beginning in China, then Italy and spreading like wildfire from there.

Simulated computer models conducted by Imperial College London researchers in 2020 suggested that lockdowns would reduce COVID-19 mortality by up to 98%2 — an estimate that had many scholars raising eyebrows, and which did not come to fruition, not even close.

In a literature review and meta-analysis of the effects of lockdowns on COVID-19 mortality, researchers from Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise, Lund University and the Center for Political Studies in Copenhagen, Denmark, revealed lockdowns had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality.

The meta-analysis included 24 studies separated into three groups: lockdown stringency index studies, shelter-in-place order (SIPO) studies and specific non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI) studies. They found:3

“An analysis of each of these three groups support the conclusion that lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality. More specifically, stringency index studies find that lockdowns in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average.

SIPOs were also ineffective, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.9% on average. Specific NPI studies also find no broad-based evidence of noticeable effects on COVID-19 mortality.”

The Brownstone Institute actually compiled more than 400 studies showing that lockdowns, restrictions and closures failed to do what was promised.4 Among them is a study by Dr. Gilbert Berdine, an associate professor of medicine at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center.

It used data on daily mortality rates for COVID-19 to track the course of the pandemic in Sweden, New York, Illinois and Texas, which each used different pandemic responses, and has suggested that lockdowns may turn out to be “the greatest policy error of this generation.”5 This isn’t to say that lockdowns had no noticeable effects, however. While they failed to meaningfully reduce COVID-19 deaths, they took a massive toll on other measures of public health:6

“While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.”

‘Fact Checkers’ Try to Defend Lockdowns

When the Johns Hopkins meta-analysis received some media attention, bringing the dismal results of lockdowns mainstream, “fact checkers” sprung to action to rebut the study.

Among them was the Science Media Centre (SMC),7 variations of which exist in a number of countries, including the U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand, with a reported mission to provide “high-quality scientific information” to journalists. Their mission, as stated on their website, is:8

“To provide, for the benefit of the public and policymakers, accurate and evidence-based information about science and engineering through the media, particularly on controversial and headline news stories when most confusion and misinformation occurs.”

But SMC is not an independent news agency as it claims to be, as it counts among its biggest funders a number of high-level industry players with worldwide agendas, including the Wellcome Trust, GlaxoSmithKline, CropLife International, Sanofi and AstraZeneca.9

Tucker teased out a particularly arrogant commentary in the SMC piece — a comment by Seth Flaxman, an associate professor in the department of computer science at the University of Oxford, who said:10

“Smoking causes cancer, the earth is round, and ordering people to stay at home (the correct definition of lockdown) decreases disease transmission. None of this is controversial among scientists. A study purporting to prove the opposite is almost certain to be fundamentally flawed.”

But categorizing lockdowns as completely without controversy, like the fact that smoking causes cancer, is wrong. Yet, Flaxman’s work is continually cited in defense of lockdowns, even though he has no background in medicine. Tucker wrote:11

“See how this rhetoric works? If you question his claim, you are not a scientist; you are denying the science! … To say that this is not controversial is ridiculous, since such policies had never before been attempted on this scale. Such a policy is not at all like an established causal claim (smoking increases cancer risk) nor a mere empirical observation (the earth is round). It is subject to verification.

… That Flaxman would still claim otherwise after all experience 

Injection Mandates Counterproductive and Harmful

shows that he is not observing reality but inventing dogma from his own intuition. Flaxman might say that he is sure that transmission might have been higher had people not been ordered to stay home, and there might be settings in which that is true, but he is in no position to elevate this claim to the status of ‘the earth is round.’

… The dogma that ordering people to stay home – for how long? – always reduces the spread comes not from evidence but from Flaxman-style modeling plus a remarkable capacity to ignore reality.”

The rapid emergence of widespread COVID-19 injection mandates, vaccine passports and restrictions based on injection status is also unprecedented and led to controversy on ethical, scientific and political grounds.

A team of 12 researchers from Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Harvard Medical School, the University of Oxford and other institutions outlined key reasons why these mandates have been counterproductive and harmful.12

“While vaccine policies have largely been framed as offering ‘benefits’ with freedoms for those who take up a full COVID-19 vaccination series, they include elements that are punitive, discriminatory and coercive, including conditioning access to health, work, travel and social life on vaccination status in many settings,” the preprint paper reads.13

Four domains are explored, with potential unintended consequences of injection mandates outlined as follows:

  1. Behavioral psychology — COVID-19 injection mandates could lead to reactance and entrenchment, cognitive dissonance, stigma and scapegoating, conspiracy theories and distrust
  2. Political and legal effects — Injection mandates could cause erosion of civil liberties, polarization and disunity in global health governance
  3. Socio-economics — Injection mandates could cause disparity and inequality, reduced health system capacity and exclusion from work and social life
  4. Integrity of science and public health — Consequences include erosion of informed consent, trust in public health policy and trust in regulatory oversight

The authors maintain that segregating society into those who have gotten the shots and those who have not, while restricting access to work and education based on injection status, is a violation of human rights that’s promoting social polarization and adversely affecting health and well-being. In light of this, they note:14

“The adoption of new vaccination status policies has provoked a multilayered global and local backlash, resistance and polarization that threaten to escalate if current policies continue. It is important to emphasize that these policies are not viewed as “incentives” or “nudges” by substantial proportions of populations, especially in marginalized, underserved, or low COVID-19-risk groups.

Denying individuals education, livelihoods, medical care, or social life unless they get vaccinated does not appear to coincide with constitutional and bioethical principles, especially in liberal democracies.

While public support appears to have consolidated behind these policies in many countries, we should acknowledge that human rights frameworks were designed to ensure that rights are respected and promoted even during public health emergencies.

… We argue that current COVID-19 vaccine policies should be reevaluated in light of negative consequences that may outweigh benefits. Leveraging empowering strategies based on trust and public consultation represent a more sustainable approach for protecting those at highest risk of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality and the health and wellbeing of the public.”

2006 Study: Lockdowns Don’t Work

In 2006, public health officials went through a list of mitigation actions that could be used in the event of pandemic influenza, along with their potential repercussions.15

Lockdowns, including quarantine and extended school closures, were not recommended, as this overriding principle was explained: “Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted.”

In the case of quarantines, the researchers explained there is “no basis” for quarantining either groups or individuals, as it raises “formidable” problems. “Secondary effects of absenteeism and community disruption as well as possible adverse consequences, such as loss of public trust in government and stigmatization of quarantined people and groups, are likely to be considerable,” they noted.16

Closure of schools beyond 10 to 14 days was also not recommended, unless all other points of contact, such as restaurants and churches, were also closed. But, they noted, “Such widespread closures, sustained throughout the pandemic, would almost certainly have serious adverse social and economic effects.”17

They also advised against cancelling or postponing meetings or events involving large numbers of people, explaining that “cancelling or postponing large meetings would not be likely to have any significant effect on the development of the epidemic” and “… communitywide closure of public events seems inadvisable.”18 Still, Tucker wrote, “a decade and a half later, governments all over the world tried lockdowns anyway.”19

With increasing recognition that lockdowns were useless and COVID-19 injections don’t work as advertised, people are rebelling. COVID-19 shots were supposed to set you free and bring life back to what it looked like in 2019 — no masks, no lockdowns and freedom for everyone, regardless of vaccination status.

Lockdowns, too, were supposed to be a means to an end — an end to the pandemic that, two years later, is still going strong. If you don’t agree with COVID-19 restrictions and mandates in your area, now is the time to speak out in peaceful protest in order to compel positive changes in support of health and overall freedom.

EDITORS NOTE: This MERCOLA column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

HART: Trudeau — ‘Crush’ Those Freedom Loving Mother Truckers!

The all-knowing, Teen Beat Magazine cover-looking son of Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, Justin Trudeau, made a boo-boo. He inherited his prime ministering business from his dad, so he thought things would be easy. The media gives lefties a pass, even if they enjoy dressing in blackface — a lot.

What the junior Trudeau did was to “mis-underestimate” (as “Dubya” Bush, our junior president, used to say), the power of the working people. Until now, the article of faith of those who inherit liberal-elite political positions is that if they just say that they are for the “little people,” the fools will buy it. No one holds them to account for what they actually do. “Words Matter; Actions Do Not” seems to be their creed.

Taking his cue from other hypocritical leftie leaders, Trudeau hid behind his political interpretation of “science” to impose draconian COVID measures on his subjects. He said that by making vaccines mandatory, he was the true hero. He decreed that those truckers, who drive alone in their truck cabs for a living, must get vaccinated so they do not get COVID.

Trudeau and Biden felt they needed to reassert their control over their voters to stop the disconcerting spike in personal freedoms.

Mad at this and other arrogant decisions made by the Prime Minister Junior on High, truckers in Canada formed the largest trucker convoy in history to protest. But the article of faith among woke libs is that the only protests allowed are the BLM kind, where many buildings burn and people die.

James Hoffa and other labor leaders showed their colors, or in this case colours, when they sided with their puppet masters in government rather than truckers. My dad was a truck driver for Campbell 66 back in the day. Their motto, when you could have interesting mottoes, was a camel on the side of his truck that said, “humping to please!” which was also the 1990 Arkansas gubernatorial campaign slogan for Bill Clinton. I learned from my dad to be nice to truckers; they drive the flyover country and know places where no one will find your body.

The old Mafia-like trucker unions cared about their trucker buddies. One of my dad’s trucker friends crossed the other truckers one time and they Tonya Harding’ed his leg, cutting half of it off. Just to make sure everyone remembered the incident, they made the guy go work at IHOP.

The way the corporate left-wing media covers protests is stark. If right-of-center Tea Party folks or truckers protest, they are “insurrectionists.” No one dies and they make their point, but somehow they are “terrorists,” “white supremacists” and “threats to democracy.” If you think about it, peaceful protest is the definition of democracy. Petulant politicians who cry and fake injury like a soccer player are the reasons the common man has to unite and make his reasoned point.

I get that truckers slowing down deliveries hurts the economy. But it makes the broader point, that they grease the wheels of the economy. Trudeau has declared martial law, so he has unchecked power.

Trudeau is getting his first real economics lesson. Without truckers, he could not get his steady supply of Al Jolson-brand blackface. Fittingly, he is down to just a little black shoe polish, just enough to put on two fingers so he can do a small mustache for himself.

Last year we honored health care workers. This year we should honor truckers. And next year under Biden we should honor Taco Bell, the only place you can still get gas for under $5.

The left somehow thinks they are so smart, powerful and concerned about you that they, and only they, can make health care decisions for you and for private enterprise. And they do have a monopoly on this since Democrats Bill Clinton, Andrew Cuomo and Harvey Weinstein perfected the construct of “No Jab, No Job” for female employees. Like many American corporations and now the Canadian government say to the truckers about the vaccine, “put this in your body, or you will never work in this industry again.” Again, this sounds like something Clinton, Cuomo and Weinstein may have said.

COLUMN BY

RON HART

Ron Hart is a syndicated op-ed humorist, award-winning author, and TV/radio commentator; you can reach him at Ron@RonaldHart.com or Twitter @RonaldHart.

RELATED VIDEOS:

Lara Trump: The Canadian Trucker Protest Is Bigger than Canada

Dr. Naomi Wolf Video: Inside the Haunting Covid Zombie Cult.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Crackdown Begins: Canadian Police Send Banks Names Of ‘Freedom Convoy’ Protesters, Accounts Frozen

Canadian Justice minister: If you are part of a pro-Trump movement, you should fear for your bank account

Hal Turner Radio Show – TRUDEAU CAUSES **BANK RUN** IN CANADA

Freedom Convoy Donor Forced To Close Store After Info Leaked In GiveSendGo Hack

The Media Are Going After ‘Freedom Convoy’ Donors

Justin Trudeau Sparks Uproar After He Accuses Jewish MP Of ‘Standing With People Who Wave Swastikas’

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO EXPOSE: FDA Exec Reveals Future COVID Plans

*CLICK HERE TO TWEET OUT THE VIDEO*


Project Veritas released a new video today exposing Food and Drug Administration [FDA] Executive Officer, Christopher Cole, who inadvertently revealed that his agency will eventually announce that annual COVID vaccinations will become policy.

Here are some of the highlights from today’s video:

  • FDA Executive Officer, Christopher Cole: “You’ll have to get an annual shot [COVID vaccine]. I mean, it hasn’t been formally announced yet because they don’t want to, like, rile everyone up.”
  • Cole on President Joe Biden: “Biden wants to inoculate as many people as possible.”
  • Cole on plans to approve vaccine for toddlers: “They’re not going to not approve [emergency use authorization for children five years old or less].”
  • Cole on pharmaceutical companies: “There’s a money incentive for Pfizer and the drug companies to promote additional vaccinations.”
  • Cole on the financial incentive for pharmaceutical companies: “It’ll be recurring fountain of revenue. It might not be that much initially, but it’ll be recurring — if they can — if they can get every person required at an annual vaccine, that is a recurring return of money going into their company.”
  • FDA official statement: “The person purportedly in the video does not work on vaccine matters and does not represent the views of the FDA.”

You can watch the full video by CLICKING HERE.

Why is the FDA potentially hiding the fact that annual COVID shots will be enforced? Is the FDA worried about upsetting the American people with that alleged information?

A lot of questions remain unanswered, and the public deserves to know the truth.


*CLICK HERE TO TWEET OUT THE VIDEO*


Stay tuned for PART 2…coming out tomorrow…

RELATED ARTICLE: Is this Biden’s worst poll YET? Joe’s approval is below 43% in FORTY-SIX states, is in the 30s in swing states Arizona, Florida and Georgia, is only 23% with independents and 16% in Joe Manchin’s West Virginia

EDITORS NOTE: This Project Veritas video report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Denmark Officially Becomes First EU Country To Drop All Domestic COVID Restrictions

Denmark lifted all domestic COVID-19 restrictions on Tuesday, becoming the first member of the European Union to do so, BBC News reported.

Cases are still relatively high in Denmark, but officials have said the high vaccination rate in the country means the virus is no longer a “critical threat,” BBC News reported.

“We have an extremely high coverage of adults vaccinated with three doses,” epidemiologist Lone Simonsen of the University of Roskilde told the AFP news agency, BBC News reported. “With Omicron not being a severe disease for the vaccinated, we believe it is reasonable to lift restrictions.”

With the restrictions rescinded, masks are no longer required to enter a store, restaurant or on public transport, and limits on the number of people gathering indoors and mandatory social distancing measures have ended, BBC News reported. The national contact-tracing app is no longer required, though individual event organizers can opt to make it a condition of entry.

Hospitals and care homes will still mandate the use of face masks in hospitals and care homes, and some restrictions remain for unvaccinated travelers attempting to cross Denmark’s borders, BBC News reported.

“Good morning to a completely open Denmark,” Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen wrote on Facebook, BBC News reported.

“No one can know what will happen next December. But we promised the citizens of Denmark that we will only have restrictions if they are truly necessary and we’ll lift them as soon as we can,” Danish Health Minister Magnus Heunicke told CNN on Monday. “That’s what’s happening right now.”

COLUMN BY

SEBASTIAN HUGHES

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: Biden To Lift Travel Restrictions On Southern Africa

RELATED TWEET:

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.