Someone requested that I share this excellent article, so I’ve reposted it from here. The author is anonymous. I’ve made sure to include all the reference links. One point of disagreement is that it’s not the end of human rights, it’s the beginning of us holding on to and restoring respect for human rights.
COVID and the End of Human Rights
Over the past year, the world has changed. In reaction to the apparition of COVID-19, governments around the world have disregarded our fundamental rights. Although one may believe these are exceptional measures, history shows that they have a tendency to become permanent. In the US the Patriot Act, passed in a rush after the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001, took nearly 20 years to expire, while some of its provisions have become permanent. Many of the new COVID-rules renege on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) signed by all major democracies, and it is likely to get worse.
The compulsory lockdowns have eliminated our freedom of movement, whereas the UDHR states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state”.
In December 2020 France even tried to prevent its own citizens from crossing its border with Switzerland, lest they enjoy the freedom of skiing… This is reminiscent of North Korean and Soviet policies. In the UDHR: “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country”.
In many places today you cannot even have a friend over in your own home. For example in Denver, Colorado, a child cannot have a play-date if his or her family happens to have three or more kids. This restriction on gatherings negates the UDHR principles that “Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association” as well as “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation“.
In many “democracies”, we are now forced to wear masks, even outdoors, even though research conducted according to the gold standard of randomized trials finds no benefit to the practice, and the negative consequences are clear. Babies cannot be soothed by the smile of their mother. Toddlers at nurseries have trouble learning to talk as they cannot see the lips of their teachers.
Meanwhile, the experts brave enough to challenge these rules face dangerous retaliation. The German lawyer Beate Bahner was put into a psychiatric ward after she published a lengthy legal analysis of the unconstitutionality of the lockdown measures. France also put the 77 year-old pharmacist Professor Jean-Bernard Fourtillan into a psychiatric hospital after he participated in the COVID documentary Hold-up. This is the same tool the Soviets used against physicist and human right activist Andrei Sakharov in order to “change his mind,” and as a warning shot to others considering similar insubordination to the system.
The few remaining voices willing to risk it all to keep us informed are attacked using tools designed against terrorists, with the UK’s official “Centre for Countering Digital Hate” classifying the “Organic Consumers Association” and others as “promoting extremism that poses a national security risk.”
For Christmas 2020, France passed a law that forbids doctors from contradicting the government-approved narrative. Many have already lost their jobs for disagreeing with the official propaganda, the most famous being the soft-spoken Christian Perronne.
In the US, Judy Mikovits had also been jailed after she did research on vaccine contamination.
The Nazis performed medical experiments on “inferior races”, in the name of the common good.
The Nuremberg code condemned these atrocities. They required that any person that is subjected to a medical experiment has the right to Informed Consent, “without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion”, “The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation”. This right to refuse medical treatments was even incorporated into some countries’ laws, for example in France.
The Nuremberg code is being swept away:
First, COVID vaccines have been tested on humans without preliminary animal studies.
Second, the “Informed” of Informed Consent has been wiped out. The vaccine trials did not allow time to evaluate any long-term side effects, and were not independently reviewed. This is contrary to the established safety practice on past vaccines, and all the more so with the never-approved-before RNA vaccine technology. Europe even had to make an exception in its laws requiring prior evaluation of the risks of genetic manipulation, in order to allow these experimental RNA vaccines on humans.
The risks from the new vaccines are unknown but potentially large. There are indications from the phase 3 trials of the Pfizer vaccine that it could actually increase the risks of death from COVID-19 for older people, in the same way that the dengue vaccine is known to increase dengue mortality for people who never had the disease previously, and as is also the case for the SARS-COV-1 vaccines tested in animals. German epidemiologist Wolfgang Wodarg has also warned that these vaccines could increase infertility due to the similarity between the vaccine target and syncytin, a protein involved in the development of placenta. Lastly, there are risks that the injected RNA could transfer itself, either to other viruses through gene reassortment that could make these more dangerous, or into our own DNA with the help of the reverse transcriptase enzyme, for example if you get vaccinated while infected by a retrovirus. The probability of each shot creating a dangerous new virus may be low, but it should be multiplied by the billions of doses to be administered.
This rush is “justified” through deceit on the real risks of COVID, which is no worse than a typical flu for most people, and similar to a bad flu for the elderly. We also have an effective treatment protocol.
Governments will also have no incentive to track the coming adverse effects, since they have agreed to be on the hook for any vaccine-related injury: they are both judge and party for any liability.
The misinformation in favor of vaccines is compounded by the massive slant of the media, dependent as they are on Big-Pharma’s advertisement money. They also use the best and most powerful psychological manipulation techniques to convince you to get vaccinated. These include shaming and attacking doubters, with unsubstantiated claims that they endanger the rest of us and that they profit from the vaccinated population’s herd immunity.
A milder version of this deliberate disinformation, engendered by systemic corruption, was already used in the case of the H1N1 flu, as the French parliament officially documented (https://www.valeursactuelles.com/politique/grippe-h1n1-le-rapport-de-la-commission-denquete-epingle-le-gouvernement-27435) after the fact.
Third, the “Consent” of Informed Consent will soon be no more than memory. In what amounts to a scientific experiment on all of humanity, the COVID vaccine will soon be compulsory, as NIAID’s head Anthony Fauci is announcing. Governments are already multiplying discriminatory laws against their own citizens who may have reservations about the vaccine.
Similarities with the rules that the Nazis used against Jews are striking. As early as 1936, the Nazis banned Jews from restaurants and swimming pools. France has introduced a law that would ban people unvaccinated to COVID from public transport.
The Nazis kept track meticulously of who was a Jew even before the holocaust. In Spain, there is now a registry listing everyone who refuses the COVID vaccine.
Jews were forced to wear yellow badges in the shape of the Star of David, so they could be easily tracked and forbidden from commingling with the superior Aryan race.
This yellow badge is ready to return in the form of the “CommonPass”, your digital tracking device developed, for you, by the World Economic Forum of Davos and The Rockefeller Foundation, and being tested by several airlines. This app will track you in many other ways beyond COVID, as Singapore has already demonstrated after lying about it. Qantas, the Australian airline, has announced that it will not accept travelers who cannot prove they have been vaccinated against COVID, and foresees that it will soon be compulsory on all other airlines as well. After airlines and probably government buildings, where else will you be forbidden to comingle without the right seal?
Slaves were branded with red-hot irons to denote ownership. This branding of your flesh is expected to make a comeback soon, thanks to the efforts of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. They have developed a quantum dot dye that will be injected with the COVID vaccine to act as an indelible and counterfeit-proof tattooed bar-code. This mark inside your body will prove whether you belong to the right flock or not. Obviously, it could also be used to embed you with any other information that is found relevant to track, for your own good, of course. China’s social credit system sounds benign in comparison…
As you can see for yourself, COVID has brought a massive curtailing of our fundamental rights, and blown up to new heights the discrimination against people whose crime is to have a different opinion about even a single vaccine. Ignoring what the data tells us about vaccines (see appendix 2 below), the process of scientific inquiry and questioning has been banned (see appendix 1 below) so propaganda can flourish.
Please share this link before you can’t, including to those who are still blindfolded.
China has built the “Great Firewall of China” to censor any information that does not please the Communist Party.
The West is catching up quickly. Here is how it works, as five-time Emmy Award-winning investigating journalist Sharyl Attkisson has documented:
Special interests build and pay fake grass-roots movements to cover their tracks (“Astroturf”). They pour money into friendly “fact-checkers”. They pay Wikipedia contributors-for-hire to eliminate opposing views. They use celebrities to spread their message. And they viciously attack anyone who dares contradict them.
The self-appointed “fact-checkers” have actively censored any scientific inquiry into COVID that contradicts the official line.
Whether the World Health Organization (WHO) decides that face masks are counter-productive and governments forbid their use, or instead make them mandatory, the media are cowed into ignoring any different information. Same pattern for the compulsory lockdowns, which the World Health Organization opposed up to October 2019, and which have since provided no benefit but a lot of misery, as the WHO expected back then.
Big Tech, the biggest beneficiary of COVID policies, is there to help. Censorship of non WHO-approved science is the official policy of Google. Among others, it unilaterally terminated Del Bigtree’s account on YouTube. Facebook has an official partnership with the WHO. Obligingly, it censored the page of the Children’s Health Defense. For its part, Twitter labels all links to Dr. Mercola’s website, the number one health website in the US, as unsafe and malicious, fallaciously warning that it can install malware on your computer.
The UDHR states: ”Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
Vaccine Science and Myths
Our immune system has two main components. The cellular immune system which works through T lymphocytes, and the humoral immune system, which works through antibodies. Vaccines primarily activate the humoral immune system. They do provide some temporary protection against certain diseases, which is weaker than the immunity from actually contracting the disease.
However, many myths persist with regards to vaccines. If you are short on time, please read only the first two and the last myths.
Myth #1: Vaccines have minimal side effects, and their benefits vastly outweigh the risks.
It is recognized in the US that vaccines can have large adverse effects, which is why the government set up in the 1980s the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, where victims of vaccine injuries can get compensated.
How large and how frequent are these adverse effects?
In particular, are the outcomes dominated by the benefits of disease prevention or by the negative adverse effects?
Several published articles indicate that the negative actually dominates the positive.
A first study finds that developed countries with more compulsory vaccines have higher infant mortality.
A second study, done by pro-vaccine scientists who thought they would find otherwise, took advantage of the unintended randomness in the administration of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) in Guinea-Bissau in the early 1980s. They found that receiving the vaccines multiplied by 5 the children’s overall probability of dying (the all-cause mortality hazard ratio). Read again: this is not a rich country where there are hardly any infectious diseases left (50% of children died before the age of 5 in this African country). But they still died 5 times faster if they received the vaccine than if they did not (even though they were indeed protected from Diphtheria, Tetanus and Pertussis).
This is the same vaccine that Bill Gates and the WHO are forcing African countries to administer to their children, lest they lose funding for clean water and other health-related projects. This is despite the authors of the study alerting them to these results.
While the negative effects of vaccines seem to outweigh their benefits, there is systematic censorship of any information about their adverse effects.
As reported in the documentary Vaxxed, the administration bribed to silence the Center for Disease Control (CDC) senior scientist and whistleblower Dr. William Thompson, who had been forced to destroy evidence that the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine causes autism, most clearly for children who had been developmentally healthy before the vaccine (“isolated autism”) and for African-American boys.
In another example, after Jon Poling, a neurologist, was able to prove in court that his daughter’s autism had been caused by vaccines, the government sealed the records of the trial, so that no other victim could use the evidence.
Myth #2: Current vaccine laws respect Nuremberg’s informed consent.
Discriminatory laws against people who have reservations against vaccines already exist, forcing many to get vaccinated against their will. Again, the parallel with Nazi Germany is illuminating.
From 1934, Jews could not practice important jobs, including medicine. In many US states, one cannot practice as a healthcare professional if one has an objection to a vaccine. Doctors have medical knowledge, so it is better to fire them than take the risk they may spread thoughtful doubts about any vaccine, of which they have plenty about the COVID vaccine. The UDHR’s principle that “Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment” is flouted.
In 1938, the Nazis expelled Jewish children from public schools.
Similarly, in many countries and US states, children whose parents refuse even a single vaccination, are forbidden to go to public schools, private schools, even home-schools ! This happens while the list of compulsory vaccines is arbitrary and differs widely between countries. Again, the UDHR’s rule that: “Everyone has the right to education” is breached.
Myth #3: Only crazy anti-vaxxers have reservations about any vaccine
Dr. Didier Raoult, the top infectious disease specialist in France, and a supporter of vaccines, opposes polio vaccination in Europe. Indeed, in western countries, the only cases of polio are caused by the vaccine, which uses an attenuated live strain that can mutate back to being virulent. Globally, vaccine-derived-polio now paralyzes more children than the wild virus.
Professor Christian Perronne, who was the head of France’s infectious disease commission, who worked for a vaccine workgroup at the WHO and who is pro-vaccine, has reservations with regards to the new COVID “RNA vaccines”, which he does not consider to be vaccines, but rather experimental genetic therapy.
Myth #4: Current vaccine adjuvants are innocuous
Mercury is a known neurotoxin. In the form of the preservative thimerosal, it used to be common in vaccines. Although it has been removed from most childhood vaccines, it remains in the multi-dose flu vaccines which are given to both children and adults.
Aluminum is another neurotoxin. Today it is the adjuvant of choice for nearly all vaccines. An adjuvant is a chemical that activates the immune system, so that less of the actual vaccine is needed, and manufacturers can save on production costs. In addition to its effects on the brain, aluminum has been shown to cause diseases in humans at the site of the shot. In animals, vaccines containing aluminum have been shown to cause aggressive cancers.
Censorship is again the motto. The “gold-standard” Cochrane study of aluminum in vaccines concludes: “Despite a lack of good-quality evidence we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken.”
Myth #5: Vaccines have been thoroughly tested against placebos.
The gold standard of medical research is the double blind study vs. a placebo. However, vaccine manufacturers often do not use a real placebo (e.g. an inert saline solution) to establish safety, but instead another vaccine or adjuvant that also has adverse effects, so the new vaccine only needs to be no more dangerous than a previously approved one. Regulators also require the safety analysis to be done only over a few days as opposed to years in the case of regular drugs, as you can verify in this vaccine notice.
In addition, whereas there have been some studies for each vaccine individually, there have been no double-blind studies of the whole list of compulsory childhood vaccines imposed by the CDC guidelines, or even of most combination vaccines given in a single shot. This is important, as there are can be interactions between the immune response to multiple threats.
Myth #6: It is better to get more vaccines.
In many countries today, children are subjected to shots against multiple diseases at once. However, this study finds that, the more shots received simultaneously, the worse the reported adverse effects.
Whereas the policy has been to vaccinate against the flu even more than usual during COVID, this study finds that those who had received a seasonal flu shot were 36% more likely to contract coronavirus infection. This is because, as our body specializes against the vaccine target, it becomes less efficient against different pathogens, as was observed in the devastating 1918 Spanish flu pandemic.
Myth #7: Vaccines eradicated smallpox.
As documented by Suzanne Humphries, smallpox had been steadily declining long before the introduction of the vaccine, due to improving hygiene, and vaccination did not change the trend. During the last few years of the disease, the key to the final eradication was not the vaccine either, but the isolation of sick patients, cared for by previously cured patients and not by vaccinated people.
Myth #8: The research on vaccines could not have created dangerous new viruses.
The origin of SARS-COV-2 is still hotly debated.
However, proponents of the natural evolution have not found an animal that carries a close enough virus, whereas they were able to find one for SARS-COV-1 (civets) and MERS (camels). SARS-COV-2 was also extremely well adapted to humans from the first day in Wuhan, as much as SARS-COV-1 had become only at the end of its own epidemic.
On the other hand, there are indications that the virus leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan, and that powerful interests, both in the US and China, have been working hard to hide it.
What we do know is that, just where the epidemic started, Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) researcher Shi Zhengli had infected “humanized mice” with bat coronaviruses that had been altered to bind to the human ACE2 receptor, which is also the target of the bat-derived SARS-COV-2 virus.
The EcoHealth alliance, while receiving money from the Pentagon, was funding the WIV Shi Zhengli’s team. Its president, Peter Daszak, drafted the initial Lancet statement condemning “conspiracy theories that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin”, while asking behind the scenes that this statement appeared to “not be identifiable as coming from any one organization or person” but rather to be seen as “simply a letter from leading scientists.” The Lancet later named Peter Daszak as the head of its “neutral” commission inquiring about the origins of SARS-COV-2. He is also part of the WHO investigation on the same topic.
Meanwhile China has been actively deleting web pages that could link the SARS-COV-2 virus to the WIV lab. This includes unpublished data about the sequencing of bat coronavirus samples collected by the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) on trips to an abandoned copper mine in Yunnan, where six miners contracted a pneumonia-like illness in 2013. All miners exhibited symptoms now associated with COVID-19. These samples also happen to be the closest known genetic sequence to SARS-COV-2.
If SARS-COV-2 was lab-made, for what purpose ? It could have been nefarious, but a more likely explanation was that WIV researchers were working on vaccine development, as suggested (https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other/covid-19-result-of-attempt-to-manufacture-vaccine-against-aids-virus-nobel-winning-scientist-sparks-new-controversy/ar-BB12Sl90) by Nobel prizewinner Luc Montagnier.
Going back to a different disease, there are substantiated claims that the AIDS virus, HIV, was a by-product of a polio vaccination program using chimpanzee kidney cells in Congo, Africa, in 1958. Chimpanzees are known to be the source of the AIDS virus, but this hypothesis has been dismissed with heavy censorship and despite the absence of scientific counter-arguments.
Interestingly, many of the “scientists” who wrote the main pieces opposing the polio-vaccine-origin of AIDS also signed the Lancet statement written by Daszak that discredited the lab origin of SARS-COV-2, in both cases based on rhetorical arguments rather than scientific ones.