The War on COVID-19: Man’s Final Conquest of Nature. The Great Reset Requires “Merging Humans with the Machine”

“Man’s conquest of nature, if the dreams of some scientific planners are realized, means the rule of a few hundreds of men over billions upon billions of men.”

This article has been cross-posted from globalresearch.ca
Original article written by Dr. Nozomi Hayase @ 21st Century Wire (September 28, 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.

***

In 1943, the writer and literature professor C.S. Lewis delivered a series of three evening lectures at King’s College, Newcastle. In the third and final part of his lecture series titled “The Abolition of Man,” he spoke of how science can be misused. A literary giant who is known for his pro-Christian texts linked the progress of science to man’s aspiration to dominate nature. Lewis stated, “Man’s conquest of nature, if the dreams of some scientific planners are realized, means the rule of a few hundreds of men over billions upon billions of men.”

Over half a century later, we are seeing “science”, in the hands of the few, being used to reshape the world.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the disintegration of the global economy which began unraveling in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. In mid 2020, as the economy had yet to recover, the World Economic Forum (WEF) announced its plan for a “Great Reset” to re-engineer the global economy as the world emerged from the pandemic.

Participants in the initiative include international governmental organizations such as the United Nations and its specialized agency the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as well as leading global corporations.

Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of WEF, called the initiative of the Great Reset “The Fourth Industrial Revolution” that opens up a new chapter for human development. Using science and advanced technology such as artificial intelligence (AI), robotics and genetic engineering, its stated goal is said to create a “fusion of our physical, digital and biological identity.”

Merging humans with the machine

Steps toward the merging of digital technologies and biological systems are already taking place with the idea of the immunity passport – a form of documentation that could prove a person has received the required number of shots of an approved Covid-19 vaccine. On August 27, 2021, the WHO released a guiding document for a digital certificate for COVID-19 vaccination status. Funded by organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation, it is intended that this digital information system be used to implement a vaccine passport in every country.

A COVID vaccination certificate system has been already rolled out in Israel, some European countries, and in US cities such as New York and San Francisco. Current uses for the vaccine passport include denying those who are unvaccinated access to restaurants, bars, gyms and trains. This program separates people based on health status and creates a system of medical and socio-economic apartheid.

Government issued QR-code health passes could be used to launch a China style authoritarian government program. With the use of big data, face recognition technology and machine learning, China’s social credit system monitors and regulates people’s behavior. It ranks them based on their ‘social credit’, rewarding ‘good’ citizens, while punishing ‘bad’ citizens.

Now, it looks like  China’s social scoring technocracy is coming to the West. Under algorithmic governance that enforces obedience and conformity, human beings will become automatons, not being able to make independent decisions about their own actions.

Internet of bodies

The enslavement of humanity in cyberspace is not the end goal. The convergence of biological and digital identity will bring about a radical transformation of human beings. Lewis recognized man’s aspiration to control nature would lead to the abolition of our humanity, and that the timing of this change was not far off:

“The final stage is come when Man by eugenics, by prenatal conditioning, and by an education and propaganda based on a perfect applied psychology, has obtained full control over himself. Human nature will be the last part of nature to surrender to Man. The battle will then be won.”

In the digital age, the advancement of technology is opening up many possibilities for human beings to transform themselves. By experimenting with a range of high-tech innovations, teams behind the Great Reset are now seeking to exploit this uncharted territory.

In July 2020, WEF published the white paper titled, “Shaping the Future of the Internet of Bodies: New Challenges of Technology Governance.” A 28-page document introduced the concept of the internet of bodies (IoB) as “the network of human bodies and data through connected sensors”. It explained how these sensors can be attached to human bodies through consumer wearable devices or “implanted within or ingested into human bodies to monitor, analyse and even modify human bodies and behavior.”

Those who are working to bring related products to market claim that the application of IoB could change human beings as a natural concept. Seizing the power of this technology, this can be viewed as an attempt to claim ownership of human bodies, to gain access to the thoughts, emotions and biorhythmic data of individuals. Their vision seeks to create a post-human society by transforming “the human body into a new technology platform.”

Politicization of public health

Capitalising on the ongoing pandemic, while people are kept in fear and uncertainty, the end game is being played out for man’s final conquest of nature. Those who aspire to eradicate the human race in its natural state steer the societal narrative in order to ensnare the population in their web of control.

Since it declared a global pandemic on March 11, 2020, the WHO has quickly positioned itself as the preeminent global health authority. With its own process of gathering data, research and evaluation, the organization has spearheaded global public health efforts, advising countries on how to respond to the COVID-19 crisis. They have published guidance as to how to minimize the risk of spreading, or catching the virus, together with its own website ‘myth-buster’, which purports to debunk what they deem to be unsubstantiated information or “medical misinformation” online.

In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a branch of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), working in partnership with the WHO, began to set guidelines and give recommendations. As new rules and restrictions have been put into place, the concept of ‘public health’ has become politicized.

From face mask policies to “lockdown” measures, corporate media framed the issues in a false dichotomy of liberal and conservative talking points. First, major media networks have dismissed anyone questioning the official pandemic narrative as “conspiracy theorists” and accused them of spreading harmful misinformation to the public. Then they indiscriminately labeled them as “Covid deniers,” and branded them as “far right,” or “Trumpers,” and “anti-science.”

Using the rhetoric of ‘protecting the vulnerable’ and elderly populations from the deadly virus, a moral sentiment was provoked. By flooding the media with images of maskless protesters defying a stay at home order and storming into grocery stores, television cable channels have managed to paint those who questioned the official pandemic response as selfish and reckless individuals who only care about their own individual freedom.

Psychological operation

In this politicization of public health, the liberal intelligentsia has tapped into the Democrats’ prolonged sense of victimhood and their deep seated hatred of Donald Trump. Media have successfully exploited the trauma felt by Democrats and Clinton supporters, endured during Trump’s four years in office, and effectively redirected their frustration and anger towards what is now being presented as a new opponent – the irresponsible, virus spreading “Covidiot” who continues to insist on exercising personal liberty.

Hedged into a narrow political spectrum, the political left has been encouraged to perceive conservatives as causing harm and ignoring the greater good. They see the situation as Republican leaders politicizing the pandemic with “FreeDumb” propaganda, as was expressed recently in this article on CounterPunch.

Meanwhile, those who oppose coronavirus restrictions are made to feel that progressives are infringing on the rights of those who do not agree with them. The dissenters develop animosity toward the Democrats who wear masks, in turn engaging in name-calling, such as ‘a bunch of obedient sheep blindly following the orders.’

What we are seeing now is a sophisticated psychological manipulation being conducted on the public. Psychological operations (PSYOPS) are techniques used by military and police forces to convey selected information to influence the perception of adversaries. It works on the values and belief systems of targeted individuals, manipulating emotions and reasoning to reinforce attitudes and behaviors that are favorable to the agendas of operators. This type of weaponized applied behavioral psychology  has been used by the U.S. military on the battlefield and political spheres in countries like Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, to demoralize enemy troops, foment civil unrest, and gain support of civilians so as to achieve the U.S. military objectives.

Both Americans and Europeans might be naïve to think that this type of operation will not be carried out against them in a domestic setting, yet coordinated intelligence operations have long been used to influence the public.

Throughout the COVID-19 crisis, psychological warfare has been waged against ordinary people in the U.S. and worldwide. Divide and conquer tactics create a fog of war, using algorithms to target people’s vulnerability and exploit their emotions. In this battle, the issue of vaccines has become a key issue to determine which side of the camps one is in, dividing family, breaking up friendships and marriages alike. These efforts have been reinforced by Silicon Valley tech giants who are actively steering and censoring the global discussion and debate on important public health topics, further manipulating the public and conjuring a fierce political fight on the social media platforms.

Battle for a moral narrative

Governments everywhere have been pushing a pro-vaccine narrative with inadequately supported claims of safety and effectiveness in terms of the product’s ability to stop the infection and spread of Covid-19.

For instance, the clinical trials of the experimental injections have yet to be completed (Moderna’s trials go to 2022, Pfizer’s until 2023) and there have been no studies of medium or long-term consequences (authorities insist there is no time to wait for this data because of the severity of the pandemic crisis) and adverse event risk analysis is woefully incomplete.

Also, recent reports have shown that vaccinated people can still transmit the virus, and it has been reported that the so-called “breakthrough” cases, now overwhelming in the most vaccinated countries, may be caused by vaccination. Furthermore, there is now a growing body of literature showing that natural immunity is superior in strength and longevity to vaccine-induced immunity.

Instead of engaging in fact-based debate to address doctors’ concerns and clarify contradictory reports, the Cable News Network invites in various medical experts who act like spokespeople for Big Pharma.

Concerted efforts of the legacy media have been used to suppress information on early treatment that could be beneficial to the public, paving the way for the perception that a vaccine is the only way to end the pandemic. With a message of “we are all in this together,” we were told we need to accept the government’s mandate “for the public good.”

Discourse that is not founded on medical facts and is wrapped up with the concept of public duty seems to have affected prominent liberal intellectuals like Noam Chomsky, and institutions such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) which recently issued a puzzling statement saying that the vaccine mandates further civil liberty.

Their virtue-signalling has influenced public opinion on the political left. Organized networks of self-righteous social justice activists have been quickly formed online to engage in the shaming and guilt-tripping of fellow citizens who dare to question or comment negatively on official policies, or who refuse to take the vaccine.

For instance, comedian and political commentator Jimmy Dore faced backlash on social media when he shared his own experience of adverse side effects after receiving his second dose of the Moderna Covid vaccine. In an interview with podcaster Joe Rogan, he said that people started to call him an ‘anti-vaxxer,’ and that he was pressured not to share any more information about his reactions.

Demonization of unvaccinated

The moral battle that has been engineered maintains its structure through marginalizing a certain population and assigning them negative attributes. From black, indigenous, and people of color, and other immigrants, governments have often used minority groups as a means of social control and source of blame for a country’s domestic problems. In the wake of 9/11, American Muslims were scapegoated for the terrifying reality of terrorism on U.S. soil. Now, in this Covid crisis, the unvaccinated have become a target for demonization. By using the phrase “pandemic of the unvaccinated,” President Joe Biden has portrayed unvaccinated people as those who pose a threat to public health, stopping society from moving forward.

Placing blame on the unvaccinated has helped spread a new type of discrimination. In some hospitals, doctors have begun to refuse to treat the unvaccinated, making those who are vaccinated a priority when resources are scarce. Vilification of those who have not gotten a shot has increased, such as when The Atlantic published an article from former Obama Homeland Security official Juliette Kayyem calling for unvaccinated people to be put on the No Fly List.

This type of discrimination can escalate quickly. Arne Duncan, who served as former President Obama’s Education Secretary for seven years, compared unvaccinated Americans to suicide bombers at the Kabul airport. In his tweet, he noted that anti-mask and anti-vax people “blow themselves up, inflict harm on those around them, and are convinced they are fighting for freedom.”

These wild imaginations have been acted out in other Western countries. In France, a woman who tried to enter a shopping mall without proof of vaccine passport was violently beaten by the security forces.

On the streets of Paris, police are using teargas during their confrontation with the protesters opposing the vaccine passport. Similar scenes can be seen in other countries.

New domestic terrorism

Now, with the rise of the allegedly highly contagious Delta variant, governments are intensifying their fight against the coronavirus. Accompanied by media fear mongering, the drumbeat for ‘the war on Covid-19’ is getting louder.

Earlier this month, on September 9, President Biden announced his intention to expand the executive branch’s power to require all federal workers to get vaccinated, while this mandate does not extend to members of Congress. He also stated his intention to force all private businesses with over 100 employees to get COVID vaccinations or be tested for coronavirus at least once a week.

During his announcement the President heaped even more disdain on the unvaccinated, saying they are “keeping us from turning the corner” and “making people sick, causing unvaccinated people to die.” He then said that the fight against the virus requires defeating those who are reluctant to get a shot, and that he intended to make them roll up their sleeves.

Biden’s forceful Covid-19 vaccine speech came at a time when his administration introduced the government’s new strategy to confront domestic terrorism. Journalist Whitney Webb reported that despite its stated aim of tackling “right-wing white supremacists”, the policy targets anyone who criticizes the government’s authority.

But who are the unvaccinated, now being treated like a dangerous virus that needs to be dispatched? In reality, they are not confined to some fringe element of society. They represent a broad range of professionals including police officers, military members, firefighters, teachers and students. They are physicians, nurses and other ‘essential’ workers who put their lives on the frontline during the pandemic – and are now told to take a jab or lose a job.

Silenced majority

The politicians and media pundits call those who are refusing to take doses “anti-vaxxers.” But many of them are not strictly anti-vaccine. Rather, they are anti government (or corporate) mandating of the vaccine. Most have had other vaccines previously, and vaccinated their children. Many have even taken the Covid vaccine. They are also those who came to a decision that a Covid-19 vaccine is not right for them, whether it is for medical, personal health or religious reasons. They believe in medical freedom and choose natural remedies; to eat wholesome food and work with the body’s innate capacity for healing. They are individuals who are standing up for bodily autonomy with the conviction that the government has no right to inject things that they don’t want into their body.

Mass media depict them as right-wing extremists, but they do not belong to either the left or the right. They are a silenced majority, being betrayed and abandoned by elected leaders and now being pushed into political exile.

Despite health officials calling them anti-science, many of them believe in science and hold a view that science requires rigorous studies and open debate. They are those who have acquired natural immunity because they already had the virus. They are people who were injured after the first dose and the doctor advised not to take a second dose. They are people whose immune systems are compromised and who cannot take a shot, even if they want to. They are parents who are concerned that their little children are categorized as disease reservoirs and do not want to accept medical treatment from manufacturers and healthcare providers that are shielded from legal liability.

While the vaccinated represent a largely privileged class in a society, among the majority of unvaccinated are poor and people of color from marginalized communities. Black people have been showing hesitancy because they distrust the government based on historic injustices like the Tuskegee experiment and other past experience of abuse at the hands of the government.

Awakening human heart

The war on Covid is a war on humanity. In this pandemic crisis, we have been made to be afraid of an invisible virus. The fear has frozen our hearts, making us afraid of our own neighbors. With the practice of social distancing, we have been conditioned to see each other as a threat from which we need to protect ourselves. Now, career politicians who have never once cared about public health are telling us that we have to sacrifice our freedom to bring society back to normal. They are now further dividing us into a new class of ‘vaxxed’ or ‘non-vaxxed’ to make us fight against one another.

With the vaccine mandate and digital ID, the movers of the Great Reset aim to open a new chapter for a society without humanity. Under the slogan “Build Back Better,” political leaders and activists around the world engage in a campaign, promising to create a fairer and greener future. Yet, the system that is built on exclusion of some brothers and sisters, separation and hatred can’t create a truly sustainable world that acknowledges the sacredness of all living beings.

In his book, Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis talked about the concept of progress, saying, “If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road.”

Hence, we can best evolve as a species through each of us returning to a path of nature and choosing to abide by the laws of human nature.

The future of civil society requires human beings who freely lay claim to their responsibility as stewards of this planet. Our willingness to confront our fears with courage can awaken our sense of shared humanity. This is the heart of our democracy that accepts diverse opinions and remains open to our radical differences. Through ordinary people, heart to heart in solidarity, a new network is being created that can bring a triumph of the human spirit.

*

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.

Author Nozomi Hayase, Ph.D., is an essayist and author of WikiLeaks, the Global Fourth Estate: History is Happening. Follow her on Twitter: @nozomimagine

Featured image is from 21st Century Wire

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

Scandal Behind the FDA “Fake Approval” of Pfizer Jab

Corruption and collusions behind the Pfizer/FDA “vaccine” efforts.

This article has been cross-posted from globalresearch.ca
by F. William Engdahl (August 31, 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.

***

The US Government regulator for drugs, the Food and Drug Administration, has just announced that it has voted full approval for the mRNA genetic vaccine of Pfizer and BioNTech, or did they? This supposed new status is being used by the Biden Administration and many states and companies to impose mandatory vaccinations. The notoriously conflicted Biden covid adviser, Tony Fauci of the NIAID, using that ruling, is calling for national mandatory vaccination for the country.

What is not being revealed is the cesspool of corruption and conflicts of interest between the FDA and the major drug companies, including Pfizer, that stand behind the rushed approval. And it’s not full approval for Pfizer’s jab, only for BioNTech’s legally different vaccine.

“…final stamp of approval”?

On August 23 as the FDA announced full approval for the Pfizer mRNA gene-edited substance. Or not quite, when the full papers of FDA are studied. Fauci, whose NIAID has financial interest in the vaccine, referred to the FDA decision as the “final stamp of approval.” It is however anything but final or an impartial, scientific rigorous medical evaluation. Rather it is a politically-motivated decision by an FDA that is corrupt beyond the imagination of most people.

Backtracking on its statement in 2020 that it would hold normal FDA advisory committee hearings with independent experts to discuss the Pfizer application for full approval, now the FDA told the British Medical Journal that they did not believe a meeting was necessary ahead of granting full approval of what is the most controversial vaccine in modern history. The BMJ quotes Kim Witczak, a drug safety advocate who serves as a consumer representative on the FDA’s Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee, “These [FDA] public meetings are imperative in building trust and confidence especially when the vaccines came to market at lightning speed under emergency use authorization.”

Witczak continued with the alarming note, “It is already concerning that full approval is being based on 6 months’ worth of data despite the clinical trials designed for two years. There is no control group after Pfizer offered the product to placebo participants before the trials were completed.” Read that again, slowly. Pfizer tests destroyed their own control group mid-stream! And its six month rollout of the mRNA jab worldwide has resulted in catastrophic side effects which have been totally officially ignored. Is this “science” Dr Fauci?

The refusal of the FDA and its Acting Director, Janet Woodcock, to convene its Drugs Advisory Committee for discussion of the Pfizer and BioNTech decisions is even more shocking as in June three members of that same panel resigned in protest for being disregarded in another drug approval. NPR network reported, “Three experts have now resigned from a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee after the agency approved an Alzheimer’s drug called Aduhelm against the wishes of nearly every member on the panel.” One of the three, Dr. Aaron Kesselheim, in his resignation letter from the FDA Advisory Committee (June 10, 2021), wrote:

“For both eteplirsen and aducanumab, the decisions by FDA administrators to ignore the Advisory Committee’s clear recommendations led to their approval of two highly problematic drugs that offered little evidence that they would meaningfully benefit patients…With eteplirsen, the AdComm (Advisory Committee) and FDA’s own scientific staff reported that there was no convincing evidence that the drug worked; both groups were overruled by FDA leadership… “

Now the FDA refusal to convene their advisory committee for the Pfizer decision is all the more astonishing in light of the fact that the Government Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in its official VAERS data bank for recording vaccine negative effects has recorded 8,508 reports of fatalities following the Pfizer mRNA shot in the past seven months, a number more than for all vaccines combined in the past 30 years.  By denying a public hearing the FDA avoided any discussion of these alarming fatality numbers, let alone the tens of thousands of serious side-effects including heart attacks, blood clots, miscarriages, permanent paralysis following the Pfizer-BioNTech jabs. The public declaration by Fauci before approval that he expected it, is also unethical influencing, but that is the least of the crimes.

Faked Approval

It seems the FDA executed a clever ruse in which it issued separate rulings for a Pfizer Inc.-BioNTech vaccine which is widely used in the USA, and another ruling for the similar vaccine of Pfizer’s German-based partner and developer of the mRNA platform, BioNTech of Mainz. It is only BioNTech that got FDA approval, but conditioned on completion of a series of further tests on select groups including infants, pregnant women and youth, by 2027. The US vaccine, Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine, only got extension of its Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), not full approval!

In their separate letter to Pfizer, the FDA stated,

“…On August 23, 2021, having concluded that revising this EUA is appropriate to protect the public health or safety under section 564(g)(2) of the Act, FDA is reissuing the August 12, 2021 letter of (Emergency Use) authorization in its entirety with revisions incorporated to clarify that the EUA will remain in place for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for the previously-authorized indication and uses…”(emphasis added).

Buried in a footnote in the letter the FDA admits there are two legally separate entities and vaccines—Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 Vaccine and BioNTech GmbH of Mainz with its own vaccine trade-named Comrinaty. The FDA writes that “The products are legally distinct with certain differences…” Legally distinct means two separate vaccines. If you find this confusing it is meant to be. Only under an EUA ruling is Pfizer presently exempt from vaccine liability. Some lawyers are calling the FDA ruse a classic “bait and switch” tactic, a form of fraud based on deception.

US vaccinologist and a developer of the mRNA technique, Dr Robert Malone, has accused the FDA of playing a “bureaucratic shell game” with their supposed early approval of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine. He cites the two separate FDA letters,

“There is a letter for Pfizer and a letter for BioNTech. The New York Times and the Washington Post got it wrong. The authorization is not for Pfizer. The authorization is for BioNTech, and it will only be initiated at the time BioNTech product becomes available…”

Adding to the bizarre irregularities, in their two separate letters, one to BioNTech and another to Pfizer, the FDA repeatedly deletes the location of the vaccine manufacturing they approve. Why that? Is it in China where BioNTech has a joint agreement with Fosun Pharma of Shanghai to jointly produce and market Comirnaty vaccine for COVID-19? Why do they need to hide that location data from the public? Would it expose the entire fraud?

FDA-Pfizer Conflicts of Interest

In 2019 Pfizer made a very conflicted appointment to its board of directors. It took Scott Gottlieb, who had just resigned as head of the FDA three months earlier. If this gives an appearance of a huge conflict of interest, it is. Alongside Gottlieb at Pfizer’s Board of Directors sits Dr Susan Desmond-Hellmann, who headed the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation until 2020. The Gates Foundation is behind every single key part of the covid vaccine rush and owns stock in Pfizer to boot.

Another person who links Pfizer and Gates is Prof. Holly Janes, a bio-statistical expert in Gates’ hometown Seattle, at the Fred Huff cancer research center. Janes is also a member of the FDA Vaccine Committee until 2023. Notably, she co-designed the controversial trials for both Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines for Fauci’s NIAID from her Seattle center, which is also funded by the Gates Foundation.

Janes is Professor at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Division, known as Fred Hutch. Earlier she received Gates Foundation research money for a six year period when she worked for the Gates Foundation from 2006 to 2012 to develop “statistical and study design support for pre-clinical vaccine performance trials.” Prof. Janes also helped develop the program that tracks vaccine data at John Hopkins University.

The person who runs FDA as “Acting Director” is Janet Woodcock. To call her tainted is mild. She has been at FDA since 1986, almost as long as Fauci at NIAID. Woodcock was Biden’s choice to head FDA, but a massive opposition from 28 groups including state attorneys general and citizen groups forced him to name her “acting,” which does not need Congressional scrutiny.

Woodcock was directly responsible for the FDA approval of deadly opioids over the objections of her own scientists and other advisors. Two decades ago as head of the FDA unit responsible, Woodcock was instrumental in the approval of a powerful opioid, Zohydro, even though the FDA’s own scientific advisory committee voted 11-2 to keep the drug off the market because it was unsafe. The online Drugs.com writes, “Hydrocodone (Zohydro) can slow or stop your breathing. Never use Zohydro ER in larger amounts, or for longer than prescribed. .. Swallow it whole to avoid exposure to a potentially fatal dose. Hydrocodone may be habit-forming, even at regular doses.” Woodcock later approved the sale of a high-strength narcotic pill, OxyContin, as “safer and more effective than other painkillers” based on the false claims of the now bankrupt manufacturer, Purdue Pharma. Some 500,000 Americans have since died as a result of opioid addiction.

Woodcock clearly is the key FDA person behind the duplicitous August 23 Pfizer decision, seeing to it that there were no public advisory hearings to review relevant data. It would be relevant to know what discussions or communications went on with her former boss, now Pfizer director, Scott Gottlieb.

Why?

There are many unanswered question in this twisted tale of corruption at FDA and Pfizer. Was this theater rushed through by the Biden Administration to accelerate the forced vaccination of millions of Americans uncertain or skeptical of taking an emergency or experimental jab? Why is there such an incredible pressure from mainstream media and politicians to vaccinate every man, woman and now child in the US? Are the vaccines really safe if there are so many dire cases of adverse events after the Pfizer jab? Why did the FD refuse to allow its independent vaccine committee to weigh in?

It is worth noting that as of August 14 Pfizer does not mandate vaccines for its own employees. Also the Biden White House does not mandate vaccines for its staff. These are all serious issues that demand serious and honest answers.

*

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.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. 

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image is from NEO



seeds_2.jpg

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl
ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2
Year: 2007
Pages: 341 pages with complete index

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”

This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.

The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.