How to AVOID being vaccinated

[GMB1961]

If a vaccine comes out and it appears to do more damage than good here is a way around it for you.

STEP 1. Do not 'refuse' a vaccine otherwise you'll be considered belligerent. Instead you can politely decline their services by doing the following.
STEP 2. Ask the doctor if the vaccine has MRC-5 in it (they all do, these are aborted fetal cells and other DNA). If it does, you have the right to decline.
STEP 3. Also ask if there is a possibility of a "latrogenic reaction" (an adverse reaction caused by multiple compounds or drugs interacting with each other) from the vaccine (they all do). When the doctor says, "Yes it does", that's your "Get Out of Vaccine Jail Free Card". Thanks the doctor for their offer and walk away.
Remember, doctors have sworn the Hippocratic Oath (which is to do no harm) and they MUST honour it. This is how we can legally (and respectfully) decline their offered mandated services and there is absolutely NOTHING they can do about it! Now you know!

We can only but try this to see if it works .
Peace friends.

[norman]

By that way of thinking, I'll not expect a doctor to come to my door then.

Most likely a couple of medical students and a couple of armed soldiers to protect them.

At least 5 years ago, an ex army pub landlord told me that the army had changed the mock-up environments (on the Salisbury Plain) that they train new recruits on from mockup Afghan villages to mockup British council estates (public/project housing).

I've run a few scenarios through my head since then but I didn't think of forced 'vaccination' before.

Also, I noticed several years ago, that all the new ( post Blair ) doctor's surgeries in the small towns around here had one design feature in common. They all look like fortresses with high imposing outer walls and a central sanctuary only accessible from within the building.

[thepainterdoug]

I have to imagine that if they would actually arrest people in open spaces seen alone not wearing a mask, then they would be just as forceful in their determination to vaccinate you. i dont think they will be asking

[Metaphor]

Sounds good, all in all, but this will probably not be carried out by oath-sworn doctors.

[Dorjezigzag]

Posted by GMB1961 (here)
If a vaccine comes out and it appears to do more damage than good here is a way around it for you.

STEP 1. Do not 'refuse' a vaccine otherwise you'll be considered belligerent. Instead you can politely decline their services by doing the following.
STEP 2. Ask the doctor if the vaccine has MRC-5 in it (they all do, these are aborted fetal cells and other DNA). If it does, you have the right to decline.
STEP 3. Also ask if there is a possibility of a "latrogenic reaction" (an adverse reaction caused by multiple compounds or drugs interacting with each other) from the vaccine (they all do). When the doctor says, "Yes it does", that's your "Get Out of Vaccine Jail Free Card". Thanks the doctor for their offer and walk away.
Remember, doctors have sworn the Hippocratic Oath (which is to do no harm) and they MUST honour it. This is how we can legally (and respectfully) decline their offered mandated services and there is absolutely NOTHING they can do about it! Now you know!

We can only but try this to see if it works .
Peace friends.

I'm probably a good person to input on this thread because I have been avoiding vaccines all my life. As a child, they gave me a tester and I reacted severely and so I have never had a vaccine. I have travelled a lot and worked in many countries where certain vaccines were required by the employers but I always managed to not have the vaccine and keep the job. I have had quite a few diseases and so I could prove by blood tests that I had the antibodies. Mostly I would just explain my condition and they did not want to go there.

I think you make a good point Most Doctors are scared of being liable for any damage that they inflict and some do have a sense of honour around the Hippocratic oath and just basic respect of peoples beliefs.

The current propaganda around the covid vaccine may make things a little more tricky now, some may feel confident of no liability for any damage and feel more pressure from the authorities for not vaccinating than vaccinating against someone's will.

If not having a vaccine means I become a second class citizen with fewer rights for travel, work opportunities etc etc then so be it, but you can be sure I will fight for my rights, stripped from me for my bodily predicaments and spiritual beliefs.

I honestly believe this is or at least on the road to the soul disconnection vaccination that Rudolf Steiner spoke about and my seriousness about this fight is based on that belief. If the scenario paintingdoug envisions comes about then they will have to put a bullet in my head before they put a needle in my arm and of course if the act of aggression is enacted upon me I will practice self-defence to the best of my ability.

I have thought long and hard about this and enforced vaccinations is my line in the sand.

I see both sides of the argument but I do not believe in the excessive lockdowns and enforced mask use but I am going along with it, it is not so much of a sacrifice for me at least for now. I can understand people who are on the front lines fighting this though, especially if it is destroying your business or such like.

I'm sure there are many people like me out there that feel as strongly as I do and will not take this lying down.

[Karen (Geophyz)]

Posted by Dorjezigzag (here)

Posted by GMB1961 (here)
If a vaccine comes out and it appears to do more damage than good here is a way around it for you.

STEP 1. Do not 'refuse' a vaccine otherwise you'll be considered belligerent. Instead you can politely decline their services by doing the following.
STEP 2. Ask the doctor if the vaccine has MRC-5 in it (they all do, these are aborted fetal cells and other DNA). If it does, you have the right to decline.
STEP 3. Also ask if there is a possibility of a "latrogenic reaction" (an adverse reaction caused by multiple compounds or drugs interacting with each other) from the vaccine (they all do). When the doctor says, "Yes it does", that's your "Get Out of Vaccine Jail Free Card". Thanks the doctor for their offer and walk away.
Remember, doctors have sworn the Hippocratic Oath (which is to do no harm) and they MUST honour it. This is how we can legally (and respectfully) decline their offered mandated services and there is absolutely NOTHING they can do about it! Now you know!

We can only but try this to see if it works .
Peace friends.

I'm probably a good person to input on this thread because I have been avoiding vaccines all my life. As a child, they gave me a tester and I reacted severely and so I have never had a vaccine. I have travelled a lot and worked in many countries where certain vaccines were required by the employers but I always managed to not have the vaccine and keep the job. I have had quite a few diseases and so I could prove by blood tests that I had the antibodies. Mostly I would just explain my condition and they did not want to go there.

I think you make a good point Most Doctors are scared of being liable for any damage that they inflict and some do have a sense of honour around the Hippocratic oath and just basic respect of peoples beliefs.

The current propaganda around the covid vaccine may make things a little more tricky now, some may feel confident of no liability for any damage and feel more pressure from the authorities for not vaccinating than vaccinating against someone's will.

If not having a vaccine means I become a second class citizen with fewer rights for travel, work opportunities etc etc then so be it, but you can be sure I will fight for my rights, stripped from me for my bodily predicaments and spiritual beliefs.

I honestly believe this is or at least on the road to the soul disconnection vaccination that Rudolf Steiner spoke about and my seriousness about this fight is based on that belief. If the scenario paintingdoug envisions comes about then they will have to put a bullet in my head before they put a needle in my arm and of course if the act of aggression is enacted upon me I will practice self-defence to the best of my ability.

I have thought long and hard about this and enforced vaccinations is my line in the sand.

I see both sides of the argument but I do not believe in the excessive lockdowns and enforced mask use but I am going along with it, it is not so much of a sacrifice for me at least for now. I can understand people who are on the front lines fighting this though, especially if it is destroying your business or such like.

I'm sure there are many people like me out there that feel as strongly as I do and will not take this lying down.

The last time I received a flu vaccination I got dreadfully sick. I have not had one since and I have not had the flu even when I was around others who had it. I do not feel this vaccination is safe or well tested for all populations so for me this will also be my line in the sand. I will not take it.

[pueblo]

Posted by thepainterdoug (here)
I have to imagine that if they would actually arrest people in open spaces seen alone not wearing a mask, then they would be just as forceful in their determination to vaccinate you. i dont think they will be asking

My own view is that they will not go down the mandatory vaccine route, what are they going to do? arrest you and strap you to a bed while Dr. Mengele gives you the jab?

All they have to do is simply make life (almost) unliveable without their poison vaccine.

No Covid Vaccination Passport?? No problem but forget working, forget medical care, forget travel, forget shopping in public, forget access to government services, forget education...etc etc

All done for the greater good of society in the holy name of 'Bio-Security'!

[Bill Ryan]

I'm greatly distrustful of any possibility of 'forced" vaccinations, but in practice the "forcing" would be very hard to implement.

Much more likely would be to make it "voluntary" (in many countries), but then add on constraints of inconvenience such as no air travel without a certificate, no medicare without a certificate (just maybe), no sports events without a certificate, and so on. Those restrictions could be argued as "justified", and therefore might be tolerated by the public and agreed by the politicians.

More serious constraints, such as not being able to renew one's drivers licence or open a bank account, would be far harder to justify with any medical logic.

And medically speaking, it's very hard to argue that 100% of the population needs to be vaccinated — even if you're Tony Fauci or Bill Gates. If the vaccine "works", 80% would definitely bring the R0 (virus reproduction rate) to less than 1, which [medically] is the whole idea. That means the virus dies out.

What that means, in summary, is that 80% of the population being vaccinated should satisfy any government. That might be all pretty dreadful for at least some of those people, but pragmatically speaking the goal of almost everyone reading this is probably just not to be among that 80%.

[norman]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
I'm greatly distrustful of any possibility of 'forced" vaccinations, but in practice the "forcing" would be very hard to implement.

Much more likely would be to make it "voluntary" (in many countries), but then add on constraints of inconvenience such as no air travel without a certificate, no medicare without a certificate (just maybe), no sports events without a certificate, and so on. Those restrictions could be argued as "justified", and therefore might be tolerated by the public and agreed by the politicians.

More serious constraints, such as not being able to renew one's drivers licence or open a bank account, would be far harder to justify with any medical logic.

And medically speaking, it's very hard to argue that 100% of the population needs to be vaccinated — even if you're Tony Fauci or Bill Gates. If the vaccine "works", 80% would definitely bring the R0 (virus reproduction rate) to less than 1, which [medically] is the whole idea. That means the virus dies out.

What that means, in summary, is that 80% of the population being vaccinated should satisfy any government. That might be all pretty dreadful for at least some of those people, but pragmatically speaking the goal of almost everyone reading this is probably just not to be among that 80%.

I agree with your logic entirely, on the basis that we have got their intentions right, in the first place.

There are plenty of signs around that we may be over optimistic in thinking we can take their word for what they plan. A "reset" is a nice millennial friendly term they can sell politically into the self destruction malaise. The reality here in the UK is that our National Health Service has ceased to exist as anything other than a COVID centric enforcement army/bureaucracy. Ironically, they wouldn't even have to change the big splash letters if they renamed it the National Hospice Service.

What if they came right out and used the word Cull ?

And, just for a thought experiment, run that word through our thinking about everything we now see going on, and everything we would then expect to see going on a bit later.

A friend commented like this today;

If the plan is for a cull rather than sterility my guess would be to inoculate then have deaths attributed to a new peak of a fictitious mutant strain.

This is of course pure speculation.

I replied;

you . .

"If the plan is for a cull rather than sterility my guess would be to inoculate then have deaths attributed to a new peak of a fictitious mutant strain."

On the basis that is ALREADY what's going on, I wouldn't really call that speculation.

[Franny]

People will certainly want to avoid this vaccination if they can.

Joseph Farrell is back with the best of this weeks News and Views from the Nefarium where he offers his view on the vaccines. Pay particular attention to the part where he talks about the widespread adverse reactions to the vaccine starting at 11:00. They will be so severe that the in the UK they are accepting bids to develop an AI system to track expected high volume of adverse drug reactions and to assure no details of those reactions are missed. They already know the vaccinations are going to injure and kill a huge number of people. They are moving to make sure it happens by vaccinating a large number and that it is recorded for posterity. He also mentions that reactions will include a 97% sterility rate in women and that they will claim that the adverse reactions will be made to appear as if the pandemic is getting worse.

He has a link to the Health Rangers site and Mike Adams refers to an article from RFK Jr.'s Children's Health Network, so I will post that article which I think is well worth a read.

NEWS AND VIEWS FROM THE NEFARIUM NOV 19 2020

There's been a lot of hoohaa about the corona-virus vaccine... but there are some warning signs you might want to consider:

The shocking reason why Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine requires storage at -70C … because it contains experimental nanotech components that have NEVER been used in vaccines before

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=SFUArTHf2iw

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/n...-says-moderna/

The shocking reason why Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine requires storage at -70C is because it contains experimental nanotech components that have NEVER been used in vaccines before

Components of mRNA Technology “Could Lead to Significant Adverse Events in One or More of Our Clinical Trials,” says Moderna
Children's Health Defense Team
August 06, 2020

Summary:

• mRNA vaccines undergoing Covid-19 clinical trials, including the Moderna vaccine, rely on a nanoparticle-based “carrier system” containing a synthetic chemical called polyethylene glycol (PEG).
  
• The use of PEG in drugs and vaccines is increasingly controversial due to the well-documented incidence of adverse PEG-related immune reactions, including life-threatening anaphylaxis.
  
• Roughly seven in ten Americans may already be sensitized to PEG, which may result in reduced efficacy of the vaccine and an increase in adverse side effects.
  
• If a PEG-containing mRNA vaccine for Covid-19 gains FDA approval, the uptick in exposure to PEG will be unprecedented—and potentially disastrous.
  
• Moderna documents and publications indicate that the company is well aware of safety risks associated with PEG and other aspects of its mRNA technology but is more concerned with its bottom line.

A dozen Covid-19 vaccines are undergoing clinical trials, leading a crowded field that now numbers approximately 170 candidates. Several of the U.S. contenders—Moderna, Pfizer/BioNTech and Arcturus Therapeutics—are deploying never-before-approved messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, an experimental approach designed to turn the body’s cells into viral-protein-making factories.

A key technical challenge is to get the vaccines’ bulky RNA “payload” into the cells intact—without it breaking down prior to arriving at its destination. In other words, mRNA vaccines will not work without an in-built delivery mechanism that enables the mRNA to shove its way into a cell’s cytoplasm. The chosen solution is to use trendy biotech “carrier systems” involving lipid nanoparticles (LNPs). LNPs “encapsulate the mRNA constructs to protect them from degradation and promote cellular uptake” and, additionally, rev up the immune system (a property that vaccine scientists tamely describe as LNPs’ “inherent adjuvant properties”). The LNP formulations in the three Covid-19 vaccines are also “PEGylated,” meaning that the vaccine nanoparticles are coated with a synthetic, nondegradable and increasingly controversial polymer called polyethylene glycol (PEG).

… Moderna acknowledged the potential for its proprietary LNPs—and PEG—to produce “systemic side effects,” …

In the corporate prospectus supporting Moderna’s stock market launch in late 2018 (an initial public offering that set a record for the biotech industry), the company was frank that its technical approach has numerous risks. Specifically, Moderna acknowledged the potential for its proprietary LNPs—and PEG—to produce “systemic side effects,” particularly given the scientific literature’s documentation of these types of side effects for other LNPs. In comments not generally seen by the public, Moderna stated (p. 33):

[T]here can be no assurance that our LNPs will not have undesired effects. Our LNPs could contribute, in whole or in part, to one or more of the following: immune reactions, infusion reactions, complement reactions, opsonation reactions, antibody reactions . . . or reactions to the PEG from some lipids or PEG otherwise associated with the LNP. Certain aspects of our investigational medicines may induce immune reactions from either the mRNA or the lipid as well as adverse reactions within liver pathways or degradation of the mRNA or the LNP, any of which could lead to significant adverse events in one or more of our clinical trials. [Emphases and links added]

Far from expressing concern over clinical trial participants’ welfare, that section of the prospectus concluded that any one of these problems “could materially harm [the company’s] business, financial conditions, and prospects.”

Investigators who once assumed that the polymer was largely inert are now questioning its biocompatibility and warning about … adverse immune responses that include probably underdiagnosed life-threatening anaphylaxis…

“Stealthy” PEG

PEG is widely used in drugs, personal care products, lubricants, gels (such as ultrasound gel), food additives and more. For example, PEG is a notorious ingredient of the controversial Bayer laxative MiraLAX, a medication used for constipation and to prep individuals for colonoscopy. Many parents of chronically constipated children have accused MiraLAX of provoking severe neuropsychiatric symptoms in their offspring, including mood swings, rage, phobias and paranoia.

The biopharma and vaccine industries appreciate PEG for its capacity to endow nanoparticles with stealth properties, which allow the particles to evade detection by the immune system and make an end run around the body’s ordinary defenses. In recent years, however, PEG has come under increasing scrutiny. Investigators who once assumed that the polymer was largely “inert” are now questioning its biocompatibility and warning about PEGylated particles’ promotion of tumor growth and adverse immune responses that include “probably underdiagnosed” life-threatening anaphylaxis (also called hypersensitivity). These undesirable responses have, on occasion, halted clinical trials. In addition, case studies highlight “underrecognized” cross-reactivity between PEG and polysorbates (surfactants/emulsifiers present in many products, including some vaccines), meaning that individuals may experience dangerous hypersensitivity to both. As a result, some scientists argue that it is time to develop alternatives to replace PEG. U.S. and Dutch researchers declared in 2013:

[T]he accumulating evidence documenting the detrimental effects of PEG on drug delivery make it imperative that scientists in this field break their dependence on PEGylation.

Drug company concerns center on a different issue: PEG-specific immune responses can actually reduce the efficacy of PEG-containing therapeutics. It must have worried many in the pharmaceutical industry when a 2016 study in Analytical Chemistry reported detectable and sometimes high levels of anti-PEG antibodies (including first-line-of-defense IgM antibodies and later-stage IgG antibodies) in approximately 72% of contemporary human samples and about 56% of historical specimens from the 1970s through the 1990s. The researchers confessed that the results were entirely unexpected. They also confirmed that sensitization to PEG could be induced through exposure to PEGylated drugs or could be “pre-existing” in individuals never treated with PEGylated drugs but “most likely . . . exposed to PEG through other means.”

Unfortunately, while four out of five doctors already regularly prescribe PEGylated drugs, only one out of five are aware of the potential for anti-PEG antibody responses and only a third even know that PEG is in the drugs that they are prescribing.

PEG and Covid-19 vaccines

The population’s increased exposure to PEG-containing products makes it “natural to assume” that anti-PEG antibodies will continue to be both widespread and “inevitable.” However, if one of the PEGylated mRNA vaccines for Covid-19 gains FDA approval, the uptick in exposure to PEG will be unprecedented—and potentially disastrous.

Unfortunately, while four out of five doctors already regularly prescribe PEGylated drugs, only one out of five are aware of the potential for anti-PEG antibody responses and only a third even know that PEG is in the drugs that they are prescribing. A Vanderbilt University researcher agrees that there is a widespread lack of recognition that PEG hypersensitivity is possible, much less that it manifests on a regular basis. Moreover, while it could be very important to screen patients for anti-PEG antibody levels “prior to administration of therapeutics containing PEG”—including vaccines—such testing is currently only available in research settings and not commercially.

mRNA vaccines are not the only vehicle for PEG involvement in Covid-19 vaccine production. For example, researchers at Germany’s Max Planck Institute report developing a process for Covid-19 vaccine production to purify virus particles at “high yield.” The process involves adding PEG to a virus-containing liquid and passing the liquid through membranes: “The high PEG content causes the viruses to attach themselves to the cellulose surface” while the impurities “flow straight through the membranes.”

Pre-Covid-19, researchers were also praising PEG as an inexpensive additive helpful for addressing vaccine storage challenges, particularly for vaccines that use genetically engineered adenoviruses; they noted that up to 80% of the cost of vaccination programs “is due to the cold chain problem (that is, keeping vaccines cold)” and that PEG can increase the vaccine half-life from seven to over 30 days at room temperature. Three of the Covid-19 vaccines undergoing clinical trials (Johnson & Johnson, Oxford and CanSino) are adenoviral vector vaccines.

… admitted that anti-PEG antibodies present significant challenges to the clinical efficacy of PEGylated therapeutics …

Down and dirty

As the excerpts from the Moderna prospectus illustrate, Moderna scientists are fully aware of PEG-related safety concerns. Addressing the efficacy side of the equation, a mid-2019 study by authors who “are or have been employees of Moderna, Inc. and receive salary and stock options from Moderna, Inc.” likewise admitted that anti-PEG antibodies “present significant challenges to the clinical efficacy of PEGylated therapeutics and will require strategies to overcome [their] effects.” Nonetheless, with the “incredibly high” corporate stakes surrounding Covid-19 vaccine development, Moderna’s published reservations about PEG and its LNP technology have not stopped it from contesting (thus far unsuccessfully) the LNP patents of its competitors or glossing over side effects in its initial Covid-19 clinical trials. In its prospectus, Moderna admits only that “unacceptable health risks or adverse side effects” could make it difficult to recruit or retain clinical trial participants and that an “unfavorable benefit risk ratio could “inhibit market acceptance” if their product proceeds to market.

The stakes are even higher for the individuals that governments and companies will target to receive a vaccine. Covid-19 vaccine developers have not disclosed whether they are taking any steps to screen their clinical trial participants for anti-PEG antibodies or whether they are doing anything to mitigate the potentially life-threatening risks of hypersensitivity reactions. If almost three-fourths of the U.S. population has anti-PEG antibodies, then these are far from trivial questions.

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.

[Lunesoleil]

Posted by Franny (here)
Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=lF5XAsG5lEw

We were many in France to listen to his message with the French translation. We really need to wake up, it reminds me of the dissident film, we are spectators of a story unfolding before our eyes.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=qBHJU2pYjws

Wonderful speech by Robert Kennedy JR

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=9sW0OmzcmL0

[XelNaga]

Hi Friends,

Did someone check what is written in your country's constitution concerning this problem we are facing?

For example, in constitution of Serbia it is written that: "person can not be subjected to any form of medical experiments or any medical procedure without his/hers personal consent". So, no mandatory vaccines for us. Unless they try to make changes to our constitution, but that will not go easy, we will burn the country before we allow them to do something like that.

The only question posed there is, are in the eyes of law, minors considered persons. Some believe that this also applies to them, while others believe that this applies only to persons above 18 years of age.

Kind regards..

[rgray222]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
I'm greatly distrustful of any possibility of 'forced" vaccinations, but in practice the "forcing" would be very hard to implement.

Much more likely would be to make it "voluntary" (in many countries), but then add on constraints of inconvenience such as no air travel without a certificate, no medicare without a certificate (just maybe), no sports events without a certificate, and so on. Those restrictions could be argued as "justified", and therefore might be tolerated by the public and agreed by the politicians.

More serious constraints, such as not being able to renew one's drivers licence or open a bank account, would be far harder to justify with any medical logic.

I don't think it is legally possible, at least in the USA to mandate vaccinations for the entire population. That said they can certainly make life difficult if you refuse. I did notice that Biden said last night that he would like to vaccinate all 330 million Americans. He said those that would not vaccinate would be having a "failure of judgement" and would be "rejecting science".

My feeling is, if you want a vaccination take one but nobody should be forced to undergo any medical procedure against their will regardless of the consequences.

I posted this the other day on the Pfizer Covid Vaccine Frenzy thread. It appears that the process of making life difficult for those choosing not to vaccinate has already started.

How Ticketmaster Plans to Check Your Vaccine Status for Concerts

Monday's news that pharmaceutical company Pfizer's early results on a new COVID-19 vaccine showed a 90% efficacy rate on an initial clinical trial have given concert professionals hope that the business can start mounting a return in 2021. As part of that preparation, Ticketmaster has been working on a framework for post-pandemic fan safety that uses smart phones to verify fans' vaccination status or whether they've tested negative for the coronavirus within a 24 to 72 hour window.

Many details of the plan, which is still in development phase, will rely on three separate components -- the Ticketmaster digital ticket app, third party health information companies like CLEAR Health Pass or IBM's Digital Health Pass and testing and vaccine distribution providers like Labcorp and the CVS Minute Clinic.

Here's how it would work, if approved: After purchasing a ticket for a concert, fans would need to verify that they have already been vaccinated (which would provide approximately one year of COVID-19 protection) or test negative for coronavirus approximately 24 to 72 hours prior to the concert. The length of coverage a test would provide would be governed by regional health authorities -- if attendees of a Friday night concert had to be tested 48 hours in advance, most could start the testing process the day before the event. If it was a 24-hour window, most people would likely be tested the same day of the event at a lab or a health clinic.

Once the test was complete, the fan would instruct the lab to deliver the results to their health pass company, like CLEAR or IBM. If the tests were negative, or the fan was vaccinated, the health pass company would verify the attendee's COVID-19 status to Ticketmaster, which would then issue the fan the credentials needed to access the event. If a fan tested positive or didn't take a test to verify their status, they would not be granted access to the event. There are still many details to work out, but the goal of the program is for fans to take care of vaccines and testing prior to the concert and not show up hoping to be tested onsite.

Ticketmaster would not store or have access to fans' medical records and would only receive verification of whether a fan is cleared to attend an event on a given date. Different states will have different requirements. The main role of companies like health pass companies will be to collect data from testing and medical providers and deliver status updates to partner companies in a secure, encrypted way that complies with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

Source: https://www.billboard.com/articles/b...-breakthrough/

[norman]

The Social Credit Score system being tested ( and used ) in China is where this is going. The Test and Trace app for covid is the global roll out of it for all of us.

But, as David Icke puts it, it's the Totalitarian Tip Toe, they don't want to drop the whole thing on us in one go. Well, actually, they can't, it would snarl up and crash their whole project.

The division between compliance and resistance becomes amplified to the extreme by the Social Credit Score system. It's perfection in selecting the half billion or so humans they want to keep around as service suppliers to themselves is pure evil genius. From my own perspective, the human traits genetic reduction that is implied, under the surface, is the opposite of healthy evolution and future building. So strikingly so that the division the system creates will eliminate everyone but the selected hive drone 'slaves' of the most incredible dystopia you can't even imagine yet.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=wP321Miy7zQ

[Karen (Geophyz)]

Does the US Constitution allow mandatory vaccinations:

The Supreme Court has unequivocally answered this in the last century: yes.

In 1904, the Supreme Court heard the case of a Massachusetts anti-vaccinationist. He claimed that his liberty was invaded when the state of Massachusetts subjected him to criminal penalty for refusing to submit to vaccination. He argued that a compulsory vaccination law was unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to his inherent right to care for his own body and health in whichever way he felt best; and that the execution of such a law, no matter for what reason, he felt was an assault. The opinion of the Court was handed down in 1905, striking down all of the anti-vaxxer’s arguments. The Constitution of the United States does not guarantee absolute liberty from government intervention, the Court explained, and it does not import an absolute right into each person to be wholly freed from government restraint.

“There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy. Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others.”

In a prior decision in 1890, the Supreme Court explained the origin of restricting liberty for health and safety:

“The possession and enjoyment of all rights are subject to such reasonable conditions as may be deemed by the governing authority of the country essential to the safety, health, peace, good order and morals of the community. Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act according to one's own will. It is only freedom from restraint under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others. It is then liberty regulated by law."

In 1922, the Supreme Court again reiterated this stance in the case of a Texas anti-vaxxer, reminding us, “it is within the police power of a State to provide for compulsory vaccination.”

This year, Congress will consider enacting federal laws to mandate vaccination in the United States. The reason why the federal government is considering intervention is that 17 states have allowed exemption from vaccination requirements based on religious or philosophical beliefs. These states include all six considering infanticide this year: Virginia, New York, Vermont, New Mexico, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.

https://townhall.com/columnists/mari...tions-n2542592

[genevieve]

Here's what Anna Von Reitz posted today.

FROM ARTICLE: “Update--Situation Red Dot”
http://annavonreitz.com/


The Fix is also in to turn each and every one of you into a "patented GMO Product" wholly owned by the vicious criminals in back of the whole current fiasco.

Here is what the Nuremberg Code has to say about it:

Article 6, Section 1: Any preventive, diagnostic, and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. [Hard to get on FB or on the Mainstream "news".] The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.

Article 6, Section 3: In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual's informed consent.

Peace Love Joy & Harmony

[Constance]

ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

[Open Minded Dude]

Posted by GMB1961 (here)
If a vaccine comes out and it appears to do more damage than good here is a way around it for you.

STEP 1. Do not 'refuse' a vaccine otherwise you'll be considered belligerent. Instead you can politely decline their services by doing the following.
STEP 2. Ask the doctor if the vaccine has MRC-5 in it (they all do, these are aborted fetal cells and other DNA). If it does, you have the right to decline.
STEP 3. Also ask if there is a possibility of a "latrogenic reaction" (an adverse reaction caused by multiple compounds or drugs interacting with each other) from the vaccine (they all do). When the doctor says, "Yes it does", that's your "Get Out of Vaccine Jail Free Card". Thanks the doctor for their offer and walk away.
Remember, doctors have sworn the Hippocratic Oath (which is to do no harm) and they MUST honour it. This is how we can legally (and respectfully) decline their offered mandated services and there is absolutely NOTHING they can do about it! Now you know!

We can only but try this to see if it works .
Peace friends.

Problem: It is NOT going to be doctors that vaccinate you forcefully in many cases ITSHTF. It's gonna be police, hired nurses, military, compliant paramedics, etc.

[Michi]

I imagine that some kind of peer social pressure campaign will be used, started off by the media and by opinion leaders to facilitate "enforcing the vaccination".
It's kind of social credit score system in China but rolled out in a "democratic way".

Look at the movie "The Giver" which gives you a peak view into what's in the pipeline.
(This is just my high octane speculation.)

[TomKat]

The controllers see the human population as livestock. A tranquilizer dart may prove more effective than argument.