Are These Findings the Death Blow for Vaccine Passports?

“COVID shots do not prevent infection or spread of the virus”

This article has been cross-posted from globalresearch.ca
Written by Joseph Mercola (September 17, 2021)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

More than 15 studies now show the natural immunity you get after recovering from COVID-19 is far superior and more long-lasting than what you get from the COVID shot

Lawsuits challenge vaccine requirements that fail to accept natural immunity as an alternative to the COVID injection

Todd Zywicki, a law professor at George Mason University in Virginia, sued over the school’s vaccine mandate, which did not recognize natural immunity. The school settled out of court, granting Zywicki a medical exemption. They did not, however, change their general policy to recognize other staff and students who have natural immunity

Some of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed against Rutgers University in New Jersey also object to the vaccine mandate on the basis that they have natural immunity. This lawsuit is still pending

Since COVID shots do not prevent infection or spread of the virus, and COVID-jabbed individuals carry the same viral load when symptomatic as unvaccinated individuals, the argument that vaccine passports will identify and separate “public health threats” from those who are “safe” to be around simply falls apart

*

While governments around the world are going full steam ahead with plans for vaccine passports, two key things have occurred that blow irreparable holes in the whole argument.

First, more than 15 studies now show the natural immunity you get after recovering from COVID-19 is far superior and longer-lasting than what you get from the COVID shot, and secondly, lawsuits have challenged vaccine requirements that fail to accept natural immunity as an alternative to the COVID injection. Other lawsuits highlighting the illegalities of vaccine mandates have also been filed.

The Zywicki Case

As reported by the New York Post,1 August 4, 2021, when George Mason University in Virginia decided to implement a vaccine mandate, law professor Todd Zywicki sued.2 Mason recovered from COVID-19 in 2020 and has natural immunity, as demonstrated by several antibody tests. One of his attorneys, Harriet Hageman, stated:

Common sense and medical science should underpin GMU’s actions. Both have gone missing with this latest effort to force a distinguished professor to take a vaccine that he does not need — not for his own protection nor for anyone else’s safety at Scalia Law School.”

The lawsuit pointed out that people with natural immunity have an increased risk of adverse reactions to the COVID shot — according to one study3 up to 4.4 times the risk of clinically significant side effects — and that the requirement not only violates due process rights and the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, but is not compliant with the Emergency Use Authorization.4

A Win for GMU Professor but No Legal Precedent

August 17, 2021, George Mason University caved before the case went to trial and granted Zywicki a medical exemption to the vaccine requirement.5 Unfortunately, and irrationally, the school did not revise its general policy. As reported by Citizens Journal:6

“The school’s acknowledgment of natural immunity is significant given the serial case of amnesia that seems to have overtaken the world on this basic point of biology.

However, the school still maintains the vaccination requirement for all other members of the GMU community, regardless of naturally acquired immunity. At the time of this writing, the same medical exemption has not been offered on a broader scale.

Furthermore, the lawsuit would have served as an interesting test case for vaccine mandate-related litigation, which will become more prevalent as time goes on. Regardless, the victory still serves as a sliver of hope that some universities will entertain reasonable arguments and that individuals can fight back with litigation …

With the GMU case resolved without trial, many critical legal arguments went untested. For example, does the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause apply to vaccine mandates, or does the state have the ability to suspend such rights when responding to a public health emergency?

How does the reliability of natural immunity affect the constitutionality of policies that fail to recognize it? Can the government simply cherry-pick whatever science it wants to justify its policies? According to the court filing,7

‘The Supreme Court has recognized that the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to privacy. A ‘forcible injection … into a nonconsenting person’s body represents a substantial interference with that person’s liberty[.]’ Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229 (1990).’

Given this precedent, as well as the state’s police powers to suspend individual rights under compelling circumstances, how will this apply to Covid-19 in a low-risk environment such as a college campus?

If the right still holds, how will it apply to city-wide vaccine passport programs, given that Covid-19 is a relatively mild disease? … The move is also mysterious, given the relevance of the matter. As a result, it did not create a binding legal precedent.”

In a statement, lead counsel Jenin Younes with the New Civil Liberties Alliance, said:8

“NCLA is pleased that GMU granted Professor Zywicki’s medical exemption, which we believe it only did because he filed this lawsuit. According to GMU, with the medical exemption, Prof. Zywicki may continue serving the GMU community, as he has for more than two decades, without receiving a medically unnecessary vaccine and without undue burden.

Nevertheless, NCLA remains dismayed by GMU’s refusal — along with many other public and private universities and other employers — to recognize that the science establishes beyond any doubt that natural immunity is as robust or more so than vaccine immunity.”

Other Lawsuits Challenging Schools’ Vaccine Mandates

While not specifically centered around the validity of natural immunity, a lawsuit filed by more than a dozen students and Children’s Health Defense against Rutgers University in New Jersey does include this aspect, as some of the plaintiffs object to the mandate on the basis that they have natural immunity. This lawsuit was filed in mid-August 20219 and is still pending.

Earlier this year, in April 2021, the Los Angeles Unified School District was sued over its vaccine requirement by California Educators for Medical Freedom and the Health Freedom Defense Fund.10July 27, a California court dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, as it concluded the LAUSD had voluntarily abandoned its mandatory vaccine requirement. As reported by The Defender:11

“This is a BIG win — because of the lawsuit, LAUSD represented to the court on the record that it does not have a policy requiring vaccination with EUA products. Since the court has now confirmed the absence of any policy requiring vaccination at LAUSD, all teachers and staff are safe to return to work without vaccination or furnishing proof of vaccination in the fall.”

Time will tell if the Children’s Health Defense case against Rutgers University will bring the legal precedent needed to more effectively thwart this tyrannical trend. Still, even smaller wins like Zywicki’s are important and demonstrate there are ways we can fight back, if only we’re willing.

Natural Immunity Surpasses Vaccine-Induced Protection

While vaccine passports are immoral and unconstitutional in and of themselves, medical science is also proving them useless and irrational. As reported by Daniel Horowitz in an August 25, 2021, article in The Blaze,12 there are at least 15 studies that show natural immunity from previous infection is more robust and longer-lasting than what you get from the COVID shot. He writes:

“The debate over forced vaccination with an ever-waning vaccine is cresting right around the time when the debate should be moot for a lot of people. Among the most fraudulent messages of the CDC’s campaign of deceit is to force the vaccine on those with prior infection, who have a greater degree of protection against all version of the virus than those with any of the vaccines.

It’s time to set the record straight once and for all that natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is broader, more durable, and longer-lasting than any of the shots on the market today. Our policies must reflect that reality.”

We now have data showing vaccine immunity rapidly wanes regardless of variants, but especially when a new variant becomes predominant. According to the Mayo Clinic, as of July 2021, Pfizer’s COVID injection was only 42% effective against infection,13 which doesn’t even meet the Food and Drug Administration’s requirement of 50% efficacy14 for COVID vaccines.

This matches Israeli data, which show Pfizer’s shot went from a 95% effectiveness at the outset, to 64% in early July 2021 and 39% by late July, when the Delta strain became predominant.15,16 Pfizer’s own trial data also demonstrate rapidly waning effectiveness. BMJ associate editor Peter Doshi discussed this in an August 23, 2021, blog.17

By the fifth month into the trial, efficacy had dropped from 96% to 84%, and this drop could not be due to the emergence of the Delta variant since 77% of trial participants were in the U.S., where the Delta variant didn’t emerge until months later. So, even without a predominance of a new variant, effectiveness drops off. In an August 20, 2021, report, BPR noted:18

“‘The data we will publish today and next week demonstrate the vaccine effectiveness against SARS COVID 2 infection is waning,’ the CDC director [Rochelle Walensky] began … She cited reports of international colleagues, including Israel ‘suggest increased risk of severe disease amongst those vaccinated early’ …

‘In the context of these concerns, we are planning for Americans to receive booster shots starting next month to maximize vaccine induced protection. Our plan is to protect the American people and to stay ahead of this virus,’ Walensky shared …

The CDC director appears to all but admit that the vaccine’s efficacy rate has a strict time limit, and its protections are limited in the ever-changing environment.”

You’re Far Safer Around a Naturally Immune Person

Add to this a) the fact that the COVID shots do not prevent infection or spread of the virus and b) the fact that COVID-jabbed individuals carry the same viral load when symptomatic as unvaccinated individuals,19,20 and the whole argument that vaccine passports will identify and separate “public health threats” from those who are “safe” to be around simply fails miserably.

As noted by Horowitz, anyone capable of rational thought understands that a person with natural immunity from a previous infection is “exponentially safer to be around than someone who had the vaccines but not prior infection.”21

As for the unvaccinated who do not have natural immunity from prior infection, well, their status poses no increased risk to anyone but themselves. Conversely, since the COVID shot cannot prevent infection or transmission, and only promises to reduce your risk of serious illness, the only one who can benefit from the shot is the one who got it. It protects no one else.

In fact, you may actually pose an increased risk to others, because if your symptoms are mild or nonexistent, but your viral load high, you’re more likely to walk around as usual. Rather than staying home because you suspect you’re infected and infectious, you’re out spreading the virus around to others, vaccinated and unvaccinated alike.

What Does the Research Say?

In his article, Horowitz reviews 15 studies that should, once and for all, settle the debate about whether people who have had COVID are now immune and whether that immunity is comparable to that of the COVID shots. Here’s a select handful of those studies. For the rest, please see the original Blaze article.22

  • Immunity May 202123 New York University researchers concluded that while both SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination elicit potent immune responses, the immunity you get when you’ve recovered from natural infection is more durable and quicker to respond.

The reason for this is because natural immunity conveys more innate immunity involving T cells and antibodies, whereas vaccine-induced immunity primarily stimulates adaptive immunity involving antibodies.

  • Nature May 202124 This research dispels fears that SARS-CoV-2 infection might not produce long-lasting immunity. Even in people with mild COVID-19 infection, whose anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (S) antibodies levels might rapidly decline in the months’ post-recovery, persistent and long-lived bone marrow plasma cells start churning out new antibodies when the virus is encountered a second time.

According to the authors, “Consistently, circulating resting memory B cells directed against SARS-CoV-2 S were detected in the convalescent individuals. Overall, our results indicate that mild infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces robust antigen-specific, long-lived humoral immune memory in humans.”

  • Nature July 202025 The Nature findings above support findings from Singapore published in July 2020, which found patients who had recovered from SARS in 2002/2003 had robust immunity against SARS-CoV-2 17 years later.
  • Cell Medicine July 202126 Here, they found that most previously infected patients produced durable antibodies and memory B cells, along with durable polyfunctional CD4 and CD8 T cells that target multiple parts of the virus.

According to the authors: “Taken together, these results suggest that broad and effective immunity may persist long-term in recovered COVID-19 patients.” The same clearly cannot be said for vaccine-induced immunity.

  • BioRxiv July 202127 Echoing the Cell Medicine findings above, University of California researchers concluded that “Natural infection induced expansion of larger CD8 T cell clones occupied distinct clusters, likely due to the recognition of a broader set of viral epitopes presented by the virus not seen in the mRNA vaccine.”

We’re Creating a Pandemic of the Vaccinated

If natural immunity is better than vaccine-induced antibodies, you’d expect to see fewer reinfections among those who have already had COVID-19, compared to breakthrough infections occurring among those who got the COVID shot. And that’s precisely what we see.

In a preprint titled “Necessity of COVID-19 Vaccination in Previously Infected Individuals,”28 the researchers looked at reinfection rates among previously infected health care workers in the Cleveland Clinic system.

Of the 1,359 frontline workers with natural immunity from previous infection, not a single one was reinfected 10 months into the pandemic, despite heavy exposure to COVID-19-positive patients.

A second preprint,29 posted August 25, 2021, compared SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity by looking at reinfection and breakthrough rates. Four outcomes were evaluated: SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic disease, COVID-19-related hospitalization and death.

Results showed that, compared to those with natural immunity, SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals who had received a two-dose regimen of Pfizer’s COVID shot had:30

  • A 5.96-fold increased risk for breakthrough infection
  • A 7.13-fold increased risk for symptomatic disease
  • A 13.06-fold increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant
  • A higher risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations

After adjusting for comorbidities, SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals who had received two Pfizer doses were 27.02 times more likely to experience symptomatic breakthrough infection than those with natural immunity.31 No deaths were reported in either of the groups. In closing the authors concluded:32

“This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.”

Majority of Hospitalizations Are Actually in the Vaccinated

The oft-repeated refrain is that we’re in a “pandemic of the unvaccinated,” meaning those who have not received the COVID jab make up the bulk of those hospitalized and dying from the Delta variant. However, we’re already seeing a shift in hospitalization rates from the unvaccinated to those who have gotten one or two injections.

For example, in Israel, the fully “vaccinated” made up the bulk of serious cases and COVID-related deaths in July 2021, as illustrated in the graphs below.33 The red is unvaccinated, yellow refers to partially “vaccinated” and green fully “vaccinated” with two doses. By mid-August, 59% of serious cases were among those who had received two COVID injections.34

new hospitalizations

new severe covid 19 patients
deaths trend

Data from the U.K. show a similar trend among those over the age of 50. In this age group, partially and fully “vaccinated” people account for 68% of hospitalizations and 70% of COVID deaths.35

COVID-19 delta variant hospital admission and death in England

Data36 from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also refute the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” narrative. Between July 6,2021, and July 25, 2021, 469 COVID cases were identified in a Barnstable County, Massachusetts, outbreak.

Of those who tested positive, 74% had received two COVID injections and were considered “fully vaccinated.” Even despite using different diagnostic standards for non-jabbed and jabbed individuals, a whopping 80% of COVID-related hospitalizations were also in this group.37,38

COVID Shot May Harm Immunity in Those Previously Infected

While the authors of that August 25, 2021, preprint39 claim in their abstract that “Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant,” in the body of the article they admit they “could not demonstrate significance in our cohort.”

Unless significance is demonstrated, the finding is basically irrelevant, so I would not rely on this paper if I wanted to argue for vaccination of those with preexisting natural immunity. Besides, there’s research40 showing the COVID shots may actually harm the superior T cell immunity built up from prior infection, especially after the second dose. As reported by Horowitz in The Blaze:41

“Immunologists from Mount Sinai in New York and Hospital La Paz in Madrid have raised serious concerns. In a shocking discovery after monitoring a group of vaccinated people both with and without prior infection, they found ‘in individuals with a pre-existing immunity against SARS-CoV-2, the second vaccine dose not only fail to boost humoral immunity but determines a contraction of the spike-specific T cell response.’

They also note that other research has shown ‘the second vaccination dose appears to exert a detrimental effect in the overall magnitude of the spike-specific humoral response in COVID-19 recovered individuals.’”

Arguments for Vaccine Passports Are Null and Void

FEE.org reported the August 25 findings under the headline, “Harvard Epidemiologist Says the Case for COVID Vaccine Passports Was Just Demolished”:42

“Harvard Medical School professor Martin Kulldorff said research showing that natural immunity offers exponentially more protection than vaccines means vaccine passports are both unscientific and discriminatory, since they disproportionately affect working class individuals.

‘Prior COVID disease (many working class) provides better immunity than vaccines (many professionals), so vaccine mandates are not only scientific nonsense, they are also discriminatory and unethical,’ Kulldorff, a biostatistician and epidemiologist, observed on Twitter …

Vaccine passports would be immoral and a massive government overreach even in the absence of these findings. There is simply no historical parallel for governments attempting to restrict the movements of healthy people over a respiratory virus in this manner.

Yet the justification for vaccine passports becomes not just wrong but absurd in light of these new revelations. People who have had COVID already have significantly more protection from the virus than people who’ve been vaccinated.

Meanwhile, people who’ve not had COVID and choose to not get vaccinated may or may not be making an unwise decision. But if they are, they are principally putting only themselves at risk.”

Positive Signs

arihasanaj tiktok video

While we still have a long and likely hard fight ahead of us, there is reason to be optimistic. In a recent TikTok video,43 a young man named Ari Hasanaj who lives in New York City describes how he printed up posters that say:

“We do not discriminate against ANY customer based on sex, gender, race, creed, age, vaccinated or unvaccinated. All customers who wish to patronize are welcome in our establishment.”

He then went around the city, from one store to the next, asking each owner if they would agree to post the sign on their door to protest NYC’s vaccine passport requirement. A majority said yes. He is now asking others to join him in this effort.

In Denmark, vaccine passports will no longer be used to restrict movement as of September 10, 2021. The health minister, Magnus Heunicke, has stated, though, that the passport system may be reinstated if rising infection rates threaten important functions.

Denmark was among the first to announce the development of a digital vaccine passport, which came into effect in April 2021.44 For months, Danes repeatedly demonstrated against the COVID passes, and it seems the protests eventually had the desired effect. It just goes to show that if enough people resist, tyrannical overreach can be reined in.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Notes

1 New York Post August 4, 2021

2, 7 Zywicki vs George Mason University Case 1:21-cv-00894

3 JAMA Internal Medicine August 16, 2021 [Epub ahead of print]

4, 5, 6, 8 Citizens Journal August 25, 2021

9 Children’s Health Defense vs Rutgers Case 2: 21-cv-15333

10 The College Fix April 10, 2021

11 The Defender August 12, 2021

12, 21, 22, 41 The Blaze August 25, 2021

13 MedRxiv August 8, 2021 DOI: 10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707

14 FiercePharma June 30, 2020

15 CNBC July 23, 2021

16, 17 The BMJ Opinion August 23, 2021

18 BPR August 20, 2021

19, 36, 37 CDC MMWR July 30, 2021; 70

20 NBC News August 7, 2021

23 Immunity May 3, 2021

24 Nature May 24, 2021; 595: 421-425

25 Nature July 15, 2020; 584: 457-462

26 Cell Medicine July 20, 2021; 2(7): 100354

27 BioRxiv July 15, 2021 DOI: 10.1101/2021.07.14.452381

28 MedRxiv June 19, 2021 DOI: 10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176

29, 30, 31, 32, 39 MedRxiv August 25, 2021 DOI: 10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415

33 Twitter Alex Berenson July 18, 2021

34 Science August 16, 2021

35 Evening Standard August 20, 2021

38 CNBC July 30, 2021

40 BioRxiv March 22, 2021 DOI: 10.1101/2021.03.22.436441

42 FEE.org August 30, 2021

43 TikTok September 2, 2021

44 Sundhedsministeriet, August 27, 2021

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com

Egregious Medical Tyranny Holds Patient Hostage in a Hospital and Refuses Her Preferred Medical Treatment – Patient DIES Under Their Protocol

Veronica Wolski was denied specific treatment – AND denied the freedom to leave the hospital.

A tragic unfolding of events has occurred surrounding Veronica Wolski, a freedom activist who has largely expressed her views against masks, vaccines and vaccine mandates.

After falling ill and being sent to the AMITA Health Resurrection Medical Center in Chicago, Illinois, Veronica Wolski was denied her choice in care and was also denied being released of her own free will to a medical team that was already lined up to take care of her illness and her wishes. She passed away on Sunday, September 13, 2021 – allegedly from pneumonia; after weeks of being denied release and denied her preferred treatment of Ivermectin.

The Resurrection Medical Center not only imposed a medical tyranny and abuse of power in withholding preferred medical treatment, but also exercised an egregious amount of authoritative control by preventing the patient from denying their protocol. This is basically like saying if you had cancer, out of all of the available treatments you have at your disposal, but you get admitted to a certain hospital, they are “allowed” to do only their protocol treatment on you, regardless if that is what you want or not. And not letting you leave and instead making you undergo their experiment procedure.

This outrageous misconduct and malfeasance was nothing less than keeping her a prisoner and demanding that she use their protocol, or else.

And as we can see, being forced to use their protocol ended up in a harrowing and heartbreaking ordeal, not only for Veronica Wolski and her loved ones, but also for the individuals vouching for her rights and freedom.

The below videos show two advocates who were trying to stand up to the medical tyranny that undoubtedly led to the death of Veronica Wolski.

Thank you to the Stew Peters Show and Dr. Lee Vliet and Attorney Nancy Ross for bringing this to our attention. Who knows how many others were subjected to this abuse, and ended up dying alone in the hospital while the establishment enforced their unsafe and disturbing “treatment” on unwilling patients.

Killed by Tyranny – Veronica Wolski’s Doctor Speaks Out

Transcript provided below. Some embellishment has been added for emphasis:

Stew Peters: “Well, Americans are witnessing the unthinkable in our hospitals and our healthcare systems around the country as patients seem to be held hostage by doctors driven by a political machine, rather than the upholding of an oath.

Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet MD is president and CEO of the Public Charity Truth for Health Foundation, which can be found at truthforhealth.org and an independent practicing physician actively treating COVID patients and providing educational programs for patients. Community health groups and health professionals.

Dr. Vliet was assisting in the efforts to save the life of Veronica Wolski in Chicago who passed away without ever being provided the treatment she or her advocates were requesting. And Dr. Vliet joins us now.

Thank you so much for being here, we really appreciate it.”

Dr. Lee Vliet: “Thank you, Stew. I’m honored to be able to help in getting the horror out to the public of what happened to Veronica Wolski, in Resurrection Hospital in Chicago last weekend.

Our team was requested by the attorneys to be involved, beginning on Wednesday afternoon. On Thursday afternoon we had a medical care team with critical care, ICU doctor, independent critical care nurses, nurses on the ground willing to coordinate her medical care in the setting, delivery capability for high flow oxygen, IV fluids, medications. Everything she was being denied in the hospital, our team had ready by Friday.

And at every turn, I was personally involved in helping the patient’s power of attorney. Our team was involved and our attorneys were also involved trying to help the patient’s power of attorney, whom you’ll meet later, who was a warrior for Veronica, help her get the patient released from the prison of this hospital, which it had become.

Veronica, I heard, I was conferenced in on a conversation that took place, I heard it, Veronica was asking to be released today. And she was denied, she was pressured into intubation, she refused it; I heard her myself and she asked for the treatment that her power of attorney was fighting heroically. I heard the doctors deny it.

Every single step that the patient requested, that the power of attorney requested, was violated in her legal rights to request treatment. She was denied release even though the power of attorney made it clear she was being released home to hospice, and the patient knew she might die at home, she asked to die in freedom. Not as a prisoner.

And, quite frankly, I heard the doctor brow-beating the patient’s power of attorney on Sunday afternoon saying, “Well, we can’t get hospice here. And that’s not our process, and that’s not what we do.” And I happen to know medically for a fact that what she was telling the power of attorney was not factually correct.

Therefore, in my opinion medically, they willfully denied treatment to this patient. And then the power of attorney learned that afternoon when she finally got into the hospital to see her, that standing outside her door, that they had taken away the IV fluids. And medically, we all know that if you deprive a patient of IV fluids who’s already dehydrated, which her laboratory data showed, then they’re going to go down quickly, no matter how high flow the oxygen is. You can’t deliver it if there’s inadequate fluid volume in the blood stream.

And they had not treated a rising white count bacterial pneumonia – I mean they – the oversight and the negligence medically, was staggering. I have never in my career seen anything as egregious as what our team, our whole team, was witness to from Thursday through Sunday in this situation. And ironically, we were also brought in on other hospital situations in other states, in the same time frame. The same talking points were being used with the patients; the same denial of the patient’s power of attorney access to the patient.

In fact, at one hospital, in Arizona, the patient’s power of attorney was escorted out of the hospital in handcuffs! This medical tyranny has got to stop, and Truth for Health Foundation is fighting that battle. We have a medical censorship defense fund to help doctors like Dr. McCullough and others who have been sued for speaking out. We will defend patients and their families, and their rights to have their power of attorney request honored. And, we know, our team was guiding the resources on the ground in Illinois to set up an entire mobile unit to take care of this patient. And she was denied leaving the hospital under bogus descriptions from the team there.

Stew Peters: “This – this is horrific; what you’re describing. And I – I’m sorry but, with TV and radio, I’ve got part breaks that I’m coming up against right now. Truthforhealth.org is your website. I encourage everybody to go visit that.

Dr. Vliet, thank you so much for being here – I gotta go. Uh, we really appreciate you coming forward and I hope to have you back soon. Thank you so much. God bless you.”

Dr. Lee Vliet: “Thank you.”

EXCLUSIVE! Veronica Wolski’s Power of Attorney Speaks Out After Tyrannical Killing

Transcript provided below. Some embellishment has been added for emphasis:

Stew Peters: “Well, an extremely emotional week in Chicago left us saying goodbye to Veronica Wolski; best known for her signage over the Kennedy Expressway on the People’s Bridge. 

Wolski became the center of controversy when she was denied the medical treatment being requested by her power of attorney, Nancy Ross, who joins us now.

Nancy, I know that it’s been a really emotional couple of weeks, specifically the last 24 hours, so I want to thank you for coming here to talk with us today. We know that you didn’t have to do that.”

POA Nancy Ross: “Thank you, Stew, very much. And thank you to your audience and all those really around the world who have been fighting for Veronica. Veronica always said, “Never be silent.” You know, “Never quit. Never give up.” And she fought to the very end. 

She had a prescription for Ivermectin at home. She’d been requesting to the hospital if she could bring that. My understanding is that was denied.

But I’ll back up. First she became sick, she thought she had a sinus infection, she tested positive for COVID, went home, and two days later had shortness of breath. And went into the hospital. Very quickly she was put on high levels of oxygen, was my understanding. And they began Remdesivir.

She called me, she told me she didn’t want the medicine: “I don’t want this. I want them out.” I have multiple texts from her saying, “Get me out of here.” / “Get me home.” / “Bring me oxygen.” / “Get medical transport. Take me out.”

I didn’t know what was going on. I tried to contact family and friends, and was assured that they were following frontline protocols, and that she would be getting some of the treatment she really wanted. It was all very confusing, very disturbing.

I finally told her, “I’m coming to Chicago. And I’ll help however I can.” She asked me then to be her POA so we can arrange to have after care for her to get her out and to get her after care. And there were so many roadblocks, over the next 10 days. It was, um, it was very difficult.

And um, security escorted me out of the building multiple times. After I’d been invited in. After day 2 they told me I was no longer allowed in the hospital, period. I asked what policy I violated, what had I done wrong? I was there to advocate for her. We sent a demand letter to the hospital with 17 different demands, and we were really trying to work with them. But it was clear that Veronica was being denied some treatments; even some food and nutrition that we had to beg for, over many many days.

Stew Peters: “It seems like she was denied… every human right that we’re inherently promised as Americans. Why – did they ever give you an answer on why you were not allowed to be there advocating for her?

Nancy Ross: “They told me after the 2nd day, that Veronica’s of sound mind. Everyone always assured me; and she is a warrior, as everyone knows, for truth and justice and freedom. She knows – she knows her rights. She was advising them on what, you know, she thought could work best for her, and pleading with them. They said she can speak for herself. That I didn’t need to be there and that further conversations would be with her.

Now I understand, you know, my rights at the time were to help her. I’d called for a patient conference for multiple days. Finally after 4 days, I walked in and they had maybe 8 representatives from the hospital system there to speak with me. And some of our, just even basic concerns just were not, were not met.

And we had private duty nurses who were available to go in and just be caretakers; just to sit with her in isolation. You know, as you know, many COVID patients, you know, they are, they’re isolated. And after 10 days, and certainly after 20 days, we felt like it’s time for her to stop being secluded. And at minimum, she needed loved ones, family, friends, and nurses who could at least just care for her. And be with her. Hold her hand, and try to advocate for her. But that was denied as well.”

Stew Peters: “I just can’t wrap my head around any of this. It – it’s – this is happening in America.

And if the justification for removing you was that Veronica Wolski could speak for herself, then why was it that her demands, her requests that she was speaking for herself, were not honored? And fell on deaf ears? And she didn’t – she was denied the right to try. She was denied the ability to make freedom choices after her own health!

I mean – I don’t, I don’t understand how they can get away – this is criminal! This is absolutely criminal. By every sense of the word.”

Nancy Ross: “On day 2, when I was there, so she would’ve been in the hospital at that point, I believe well over a week, I was able to meet with a very kind infectious disease doctor overseeing her care. And he agreed to prescribe the Ivermectin. Again, even though she had a prescription at home from a different doctor, he agreed to prescribe it in the hospital.

We were, thrilled. We thought we had an – a real advocate there.

And then hours later he was overruled by the AMITA system, who said they are following NIH protocols. And an ethics committee met; we demanded an ethics committee conference. They met without us. We didn’t have a chance to present what we believe was some solid case study.

There also had been a court ruling, in nearby Elmhurst, where a hospital was ordered to give a patient their Ivermectin. My understanding is, that patient came out of a coma after 20 days and is home now playing with her grandkids. Veronica knew this. And she knew that there was hope, and that was denied. She also wanted to be transferred; she wanted to come home on hospice. They told her, oxygen needs were so high she couldn’t leave the hospital. But we felt we had found medical transport to meet her oxygen needs; we had a team ready to care for her. And it seems it was blocked at every turn.”

Stew Peters: “Forgive my ignorance on this, but isn’t there such a thing as AMA – “against medical advice” – that a patient is always afforded the right to just leave? To walk out? I mean, they’re not in jail. She’s not being held in custody. She hasn’t been charged with a crime. And certainly nurses and doctors are not law enforcement. But it seems that they have this unilateral, unchecked authority over patients once they come in and are determined to be “COVID” patients.”

Nancy Ross: “Right. We were told she wouldn’t have oxygen – or may not have oxygen to walk out. I said, “Well, we would have it.” And, by the end, they said, no – no medical transport company, no one will take her, because her – she was so unstable at that point. The needs were so dire.”

Stew Peters: “But you had somebody that would take her. Correct?”

Nancy Ross: “We had, we had an ambulance that said they had the needs that she required. And they said they needed authorization from the hospital, to release her. And we also had a nurse practitioner who was prescribing medications to her, ready on the outside, and many doctors, lawyers. I was blessed to have, just a really incredible team around me. Because I’m – I’m not a medical expert. I’m her friend; I’ve been friends with her for, for some time, and she, you know, she asked for help. I just – I’ve never – I’m just speechless. I’m so sorry.”

Stew Peters: “So you had a hospice – you had an ambulance, rather, that was prepared and ready to take her; you had a practitioner that was prescribing the medications that Veronica Wolski was requesting. All that needed to happen was for authorization from the hospital for her to be released to that equipped ambulance – who said that they were capable of caring for her, and that authorization never came.”

Nancy Ross: “It did not. They said, “We just don’t release her to anybody. We need to know who’s the name of this hospice company? Who is it? Who is it?”

And I did not give the name. I said, “I need to know the proper procedures at the hospital. Who do I talk to for her release?” And, the end of the conversation, it was, “They’re not in till Monday morning at 9.” I said, “She may not make it, till Monday.” And she didn’t. Um, I just have so many questions.”

Stew Peters: “And when you get answers to those questions, would you please come back? Because – [Nancy Ross: “Absolutely.”] – millions of people have the same questions, and demand answers, on – “

Nancy Ross: “They do. If I could help at all, Stew, some – we have very kind people have reached out and said, you know, maybe this will work. You know, initially, when they inform you of the risk of certain medication, like Ivermectin, which, by the way, is issued to other patients at AMITA, for other conditions. It’s just not… um, it’s just not part of their protocol for COVID. It’s not banned. It’s just not part of their protocol. Okay? So when they present you with the risk, you say, “I now have informed consent, thank you very much, I demand to try this. I demand this medication.” Then give them a window. Maybe just 48 hours.

If you want to try budesonide, just 48 hours, to open up my lungs so I can breathe. Waive responsibility to the hospital for that medication, if you have to. You know, not everyone can get lawyers and doctors involved when you’re fighting for your life. But go through those steps. I mean, if you have to go to court. And then I was told you can fire your attending physician. Tell them you want to fire your attending physician in the ICU and have that person replaced immediately, until you can find someone who will listen to you.

Now, this isn’t “wild west” medications we’re talking about. These are, you know, these are some basic things that have shown – have proven results, is my understanding, to help heal COVID patients. And heal them much more quickly than a ventilator.”

Stew Peters: “Yeah. So proven that they have earned a Nobel Prize for saving human life. [Nancy Ross: “Exactly. Exactly.”] Uh, and they are FDA approved. Unlike the Remdesivir, that is part of the NIH protocol, which we think we know why that is happening as well. Horrific.

Really appreciate your courage and for you, as emotional as it must be pulling yourself together in order to come here and answer some of these basic questions. And we hope to hear more from you as you get answers to the many questions that you no doubt have.”

Nancy Ross: “Thank you Stew. And God bless all those who are fighting and all those families who are affected. We’re praying for you and Veronica did not die in vain.”

Stew Peters: “God bless you, Nancy. And no, she did not. Her voice will be heard. Thank you so much.”

I want to expand a little bit on Nancy Ross’s recommendations when in a hospital for an illness; specifically for “COVID”. Their protocols are in place by a deliberate design. From the very same corrupt government/medical/health agencies overseeing the vaccination efforts. As was the struggle that Veronica Wolski and her advocates went through, although there was a doctor who was willing to prescribe the Ivermectin medication, he was ultimately overruled by the health administrators.

This is the bottom line that needs to be addressed when seeking medical care. Veronica was also demanding to use Ivermectin, but it fell on deaf ears. Perhaps a better alternative would be to steer clear of all government funded/public hospitals and seek independent/private physicians with an honest reputation instead if possible; who will actually honor their patient’s wishes. And/or investigate online physicians who will fill out prescriptions and search for pharmacies that will fill them. I would suggest doing this sooner rather than later, so you or your loved one can better be prepared in case of a sudden illness.

Lastly, those who have advocated for the use of Remdesivir and ventilators, you have blood on your hands. There is no better description for the pain and damage you have caused. From the NIH/CDC/FDA/government officials who have approved this protocol (many of who I surmise know exactly what they are doing), to the influencers and social media peddlers/fact-checkers, to the physicians and attendants who have initiated it. 

Anyone who has died using this “treatment” is under the blame of the healthcare system and the government. Likewise, anyone who has suffered ill effects and/or deaths from the incredibly coerced COVID injections have the same groups responsible, along with the pharmaceutical companies.

If you are a doctor, nurse, healthcare worker/administrator, etc. who is just now learning (or have known) about the egregious and heartbreaking tyranny that has led to numerous complications and deaths of hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands of lives due to the illogical and deplorable “rules and guidelines” of these – for lack of a better (yet still politically correct) description – corrupt industries, this is your chance to do the right thing, and refuse to participate.

My heart goes out to these ladies who had to watch as the person they were trying to advocate for fell under the grips of the medical tyrannical authorities who basically imprisoned the patient within their walls and murdered her with their unsafe/dangerous protocols.

My heart also goes out to anyone who has lost loved ones amidst these strange, unethical circumstances. I urge anyone who works within these medical fields to fully contemplate on your choices, and put your life in these people’s shoes. What if the person being held against their will in the hospital was your mother, your father, your child, grandparent, husband, wife…? What if you were held against your own will and denied medical treatment that could have saved your life? Suffering alone and isolated, away from your friends and family, and at the mercy of people “just following orders”?

Is your job worth it? Worth tarnishing your own soul and compassion for fellow human beings that you would be willing to watch them die in the hospital bed? Or will you finally rise up and be brave and realize you don’t want any involvement of these heinous crimes?

Thank you so much to everyone who is speaking out against these malpractices and unbelievably cruel dictatorships. Your bravery and integrity in coming forward shines a light on the steps that we need to take in order to preserve our rights, lives and freedom.

God bless.

Fact checking is extremely important. I want to reiterate not to take everything at face value; no matter what you read, where you read it from, or who you hear it from. And to be clear, do not rely on “fact checking” websites to give you accurate information either. These are just as likely, (if not even more likely…), to feed false information and false debunking accounts to manipulate the reader. Please take everything into consideration before adhering to a certain narrative – and always keep your mind open to other possibilities.

Fair use disclaimer: Some of the links from this article are provided from different sources/sites to give the reader extra information and cite the sources, but does not necessarily mean that I endorse the contents of the site itself. Additionally, I have tried to provide links to the contents that I used from other sites as an educational and/or entertainment means only; if you feel that any information deserves further citation or request to be clarified, please let me know through the contact page.

Featured image by KoalaParkLaundromat from Pixabay

200,000 Unvaccinated Military Members Denied Temporary Restraining Order as Commanders Threaten Those Who Refuse COVID-19 Vaccines

Egregious abuse of power of those in “authoritative” positions.

This article has been cross-posted from globalresearch.ca
Written by Brian Shilhavy / Health Impact News (September 7, 2021)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Several military members told Health Impact News today that their commanders are coercing members of their unit to get the COVID-19 shot TODAY (September 7, 2021) or face the consequences of disobeying a direct order.

One member stated that when they went by the local pharmacy in a drug store, there were many military members lined up to get the shots today, fearful of the consequences if they don’t.

And this is in spite of the fact that military officials are saying publicly that service members still have 2 to 3 months to comply, according to Military.com.

Sailors and Marines Have 90 Days to Get Vaccinated or Face Punishment

2 Sep 2021
Military.com | By Konstantin Toropin

Sailors and Marines now have 90 days to get vaccinated against COVID-19 or risk disobeying a lawful order, a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the maritime branches’ top leaders said in a series ofmessagesreleased Tuesday and Wednesday.

Airmen Have Less than Two Months to Get Fully Vaccinated

7 Sep 2021
Military.com | By Stephen Losey

The Department of the Air Force has set a tight two-month deadline for active-duty troops to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19. Those who don’t get the shot in time could be punished under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Airmen and Space Force Guardians must be fully vaccinated – including a two-week period after a final shot – by Nov. 2, the Air Force said in a press release Friday. Air National Guardsmen and reservists have until Dec. 2.

Apparently the military commanders are following their own schedule, regardless of what is being stated publicly by the various branches.

Lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives have now proposed legislation that would prevent the military from issuing dishonorable discharges for service members who refuse the COVID-19 vaccine.

Lawmakers Try to Ban Dishonorable Discharges for Troops Who Refuse Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccines

2 Sep 2021
Military.com | By Travis Tritten

House lawmakers have backed legislation prohibiting dishonorable discharges for troops who refuse the COVID-19 vaccine, as the Navy gave its sailors 90 days to get the shot this week and the Army and Air Force were poised Thursday to enforce their own timetables.

Legislation sponsored by Rep. Mark Green, R-Tenn., an Army veteran, requires only honorable discharges for anyone who is separated from the military over refusing to be vaccinated. It was added to the fiscal 2022 defense authorization bill, passed by the House Armed Services Committee on Thursday.

“No American who raises their hand to serve our Nation should be punished for making a highly personal medical decision,” Green said in a statement after the committee vote.

However, service members are telling Health Impact News that this is what some of them are being threatened with, dishonorable discharge, while others have said they have been threatened with demotions and being barred from reenlisting.

Judicial System Again Fails to Protect Constitutional Rights of Citizens by Denying 200,000 Unvaccinated Military a Temporary Restraining Order

On August 17, 2021, two military members filed a lawsuit in federal court in the State of Colorado, claiming that they represented 200,000 service members who were not vaccinated for COVID-19, but that they had previously contracted COVID-19 and recovered, and that therefore there was no need to be vaccinated against COVID-19, as they had “natural immunity.”

On August 24, 2021, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin issued a Memorandum for “SENIOR PENTAGON LEADERSHIP COMMANDERS OF THE COMBATANT COMMANDS DEFENSE AGENCY AND DOD FIELD ACTIVITY DIRECTORS” which stated:

I therefore direct the Secretaries of the Military Departments to immediately begin full vaccination of all members of the armed Forces under DoD authority on active duty or in the Ready Reserve, including the National Guard, who are not fully vaccinated against COVID-19. (Source.)

So on August 31, 2021, Todd Callender, counsel for the military Plaintiffs, filed a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to stop this directive from being enforced, which was heard by Judge Raymond P. Moore, who then denied the TRO on September 1, 2021.

The Plaintiffs had expert testimony from an affidavit by Dr. Peter McCullough, stating that “people who have the naturally created antibodies resulting from contracting and recovering from the Virus” should not be vaccinated because “it will do more harm than good.”

Judge Moore rejected his testimony and the evidence provided by the plaintiffs, because it was contrary to what the CDC states.

But Plaintiffs ignore all contrary opinion evidence, including obviously relevant guidance from the Centers for Disease  Control and Prevention (“CDC”) recommending vaccination regardless of whether a person has already had COVID-19 because research has not yet shown people are protected once they recover from the virus.

See Frequently Asked Questions about COVID-19 Vaccination, CDC Website, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html (last visited Sept. 1, 2021).

The Court is not compelled to view Plaintiffs’ evidence in a vacuum or an echo chamber. As a result, the evidence cited by Plaintiffs coupled with their unsubstantiated insistence on their own natural immunity is insufficient to establish a clear and unequivocal right to a TRO under the circumstances of this case. (Read full opinion here.)

Again, to expect relief from COVID-19 vaccine mandates from the judiciary is just not reasonable. The system is rigged. They will quote the CDC, Anthony Fauci, and a whole host of other corrupt government agencies and leaders to deny facts and keep the COVID-19 narrative going that benefits the Pharmaceutical industry and their Wall Street Billionaires and Bankers.

The judiciary works for these Wall Street Billionaires and Bankers, not for the public.

Mass non-compliance is what is needed now, and while there are signs that those in law enforcement and other government agencies are now forming groups to resist (See: Police, Firefighters In LA Form Group To Resist Vaccine Mandates, for example), where are the military commanders who take seriously the oath they took to protect this country and their citizens??

One of the military members that Health Impact News corresponded with today wrote:

As much as I value my uniform, my time in service and fighting back against such obvious abuses of power I’m coming more and more to the realization that this is the new world order, so to speak.

These vaccines aren’t going away no matter how long or how bitterly we fight this in the courts.

It’s time to tell the system to go **** itself and start figuring out how to best take care of ourselves and our families outside of the system.

Our military leadership has no concern for our wellbeing and they have made it clear that they will punish those who can’t see things from their perspective.

I signed up to defend the Constitution and freedom and now my military leadership is intent on violating both. I’m no longer interested in serving my country in this capacity. It’s time to leave while I can still walk to the door.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: Pfc. Shaniah Edwards, Medical Detachment, prepares to administer the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine to soldiers and airmen at the Joint Force Headquarters, February 12, 2021. (U.S. Army National Guard photo by Sgt. Leona C. Hendrickson – Source.)