Are Coerced COVID-19 Vaccinations Proportionate or Criminal?
Opinion from an anonymous Truth Warrior:
(The views and opinions expressed belong solely to the contributor and do not necessarily represent that of the Truth Warriors community, who are entitled to their own diverse opinions.)
To begin this article, in order to lay to rest the inevitable criticism that I am "telling people not to get vaccinated", I want to state unequivocally my view that any person who wishes to take any vaccine should do so. Ideally, such a decision would be on the basis of fully informed consent and should never happen as a result of any form of coercion.
Why do I mention coercion? If you have never looked into the details of the Nuremberg code, now would be a good time. The essence of this code, developed due to dangerous medical experiments carried out on an unsuspecting public during the second world war, states very clearly that voluntary informed consent is required for any person taking part in a medical experiment. The principle of voluntary informed consent protects the right of the individual to control his or her own body.
Moreover, any person deciding to take part in a medical experiment should have the legal capacity to give consent, and there should be no element of fraud, force, deceit, coercion or duress.
So, a FUNDAMENTAL principle in the Nuremberg Code is that, whether or not a person takes any medication, vaccines included, should be a matter of individual informed choice. Nowhere should coercion be part of the process. Yet everywhere we look today we see coercion, force, propaganda, bribery and very slick and well-funded "persuasion" intended to get people jabbed with a COVID-19 "vaccine".
Early May 2021, Ohio started running a lottery to award USD1 million to each of 5 lucky vaccinated people. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/
New York Mayor Bill de Blasio recently did a news conference promoting vouchers for a Shake Shack burger or sandwich for residents who get their COVID-19 shots.
In Hong Kong we now have lotteries for property in order to "encourage" people to get the jab!
In the UK, a contract worth GBP320 million was awarded to the OMD GROUP LIMITED for "media buying service" - to do advertising around COVID19, and presumably to "encourage" people to get COVID vaccinations. Go to https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Search and search on "COVID 19 media buying"
The information barrage is clearly having an effect. However, according to authorities around the world, the massively funded PR (read propaganda) campaigns seem not to be doing the job that is required. So, we're seeing more and more examples of outright coercion, intended to force people to get injected with the COVID-19 "vaccines".
I have been observing various people from both Hong Kong and elsewhere struggling as to whether or not they should proceed to get the COVID-19 jab. They are struggling because they believe that if they don't get the jab, their freedom of movement or even their ability to hold down a job, will be significantly impaired.
One neighbor told me that he realizes the COVID-19 vaccines have only been approved for emergency use and have not been fully tested for safety. However, he wants to travel to another country in Asia to see his wife but can't do so unless he has proof of vaccination. Clearly under duress, he has taken the jab even though he feels there are significant risks. I saw him today. He looks ten years older, his face grey and drawn. He's angry, and clearly feels violated.
Others (including in Hong Kong) have told me that they are under pressure from their employers to get the jab and are in fear of losing their job if they fail to do so. In New Zealand at the end of April 2021, the government announced that in order to work, people dealing with incoming flights to the country had to have the jab. And, if they came to work without the jab they would then be liable to a $4000 fine and/or jail time. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2021/0094/latest/LMS487911.html
In Canada, regulations are being passed allowing children to be stuck with the jab without requiring parental consent, even though young people are at ZERO risk of dying from COVID-19.
Authorities in Buri Ram Province in Thailand have issued an order requiring everyone to be vaccinated against Covid-19 or risk being jailed for up to two years or fined. People who refuse to be vaccinated may be liable to a maximum two years in prison and/or a fine up to 40,000 baht for breaching Thailand's emergency decree around COVID-19.
Some governments claim that vaccination is not mandatory, but they are obviously working with industry groups to get companies to compel vaccination using threats of withdrawal of services as a lever.
For example, in the US, Anthony Fauci, the chief medical advisor to President Joe Biden, said he expects businesses like airlines and cruise ships to require customers to show proof of getting a COVID-19 vaccine before coming on-board. Vis-à-vis universities he said: "if you want to come into campus and be in in-person learning, you're going to have to show proof of vaccination". Ergo, if you're not vaccinated for COVID-19 you basically can't travel or go to school. https://www.businessinsider.com/anthony-fauci-expects-cruises-airlines-to-require-covid-vaccine-proof-2021-5?op=1
In the UK, on May 19 Sean O'Grady wrote in The Independent that people who have not had the COVID-19 injection should be punished. As he said: "No jab, no job; no jab, no access to NHS healthcare; no jab, no state education for your kids. No jab, no access to pubs, restaurants, theatres, cinemas, stadiums. No jab, no entry to the UK, and much else." In Hong Kong the government "has offered the incentive of further relaxing social-distancing rules if staff and customers of restaurants and other venues are vaccinated"
To be clear, every single one of the above examples violates the Nuremberg principle wherein there should be no element of fraud, force, deceit, coercion or duress. A question that we should ask is a simple one: for a product that is supposed to have so much benefit, and (we are told) so little downside, why would lotteries, free hamburgers, incentives of varying kinds, massive ad campaigns and non-stop cajoling be required?
Why are threats to limit freedom of movement, use of services, and even the opportunity to make a living, being made in order to (literally) force people to get the COVID-19 injection? Wouldn't people just go and get jabbed because they know it's good for them?
As Dr. Peter McCollough recently said, "why (do stakeholders) want a needle in every arm? Why"?
Dr. McCollugh is a Texas based doctor who successfully treated COVID-19 patients and was the lead author in a study published in the American Journal of Medicine that summarized existing drugs already approved and in the market that had success in treating COVID-19 patients. His paper is published here:
Under normal circumstances many would agree that actions to coerce a medical intervention onto the population are nothing short of blackmail. And, as we know, people really don't like to be blackmailed. Perhaps this explains the fact that, despite all the pressure, only 10 per cent of the Hong Kong population have received a first jab. It may also explain the fact that around 40%-50% of employees at the US NIH (National Institute of Health - Dr. Anthony Fauci's organization) have also not been vaccinated against COVID-19, even though they were given priority.
Of course, all these people exercising their right NOT to be vaccinated is pejoratively labelled by many in the media as "vaccine hesitancy". We are told that such hesitancy is childish and does not reflect the supposed reality that vaccines are "safe and effective". In a recent SCMP editorial, the mantra that "vaccines are safe and effective" is repeated, and we are told that "inoculations bring about immunity without causing illness, prevent the spread of the disease".
This, however, ignores the fact that the makers of the various COVID-19 vaccines have stated on the record that these vaccines are not guaranteed to prevent you getting a COVID-19 infection (i.e. they do NOT necessarily inoculate you).
As the Pfizer COVID-19 FACT SHEET FOR RECIPIENTS AND CAREGIVERS states, "the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is a vaccine (sic) and may prevent you from getting COVID-19. There is no U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved vaccine to prevent COVID-19" and "The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine may not protect everyone." https://labeling.pfizer.com/ShowLabeling.aspx?id=14472
Of importance is the fact that we already see many reports of people catching COVID-19 after receiving these very same vaccinations!
Whether or not these injections prevent you infecting others is also a very open question, especially if the criterion for "infection" is a positive PCR Test. See a recent article in China Daily that goes into this problem in detail.
As to the belief that the current crop of vaccines is safe, one must be aware of three facts.
Firstly reports of injury submitted to VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) in the US following COVID-19 vaccines over only 4 months, are higher than all reported vaccine injuries from all vaccines over the past 15 years. As of May 26, 2021, based on a search I did personally in the VAERS database, deaths recorded in that system following COVID-19 jabs now stands at 3,528, with many tens of thousands of injuries. You can check this data for yourself online by visiting https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html (https://vaers.hhs.gov/)
In Europe, the Eurovigilance Website that was launched by the European Medicines Agency in 2012 provides public access to reports of suspected side effects (also known as suspected adverse drug reactions). Their report through May 8, 2021 lists 10,570 deaths and 405,259 injuries following injections of four experimental COVID-19 shots.
According to The Standard, in a recent report Hong Kong already appears to have had 12 deaths occurring post-vaccination for COVID-19. https://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaking-news/section/4/168423/Another-man-died-after-receiving-Sinovac-vaccine
Given the presence of all this information ANY blanket statement about vaccine safety needs to be considered very carefully in the context of real-world data related to the actual impacts of COVID-19 injections. And, importantly, as a person makes a decision about whether or not to get jabbed that person needs to estimate relative risk from COVID-19 vs the risks associated with getting the injections.
Secondly, most people are probably unaware that the COVID-19 injections are currently only in the middle of Phase III trials, which end in 2023. AND, the injections now available have only been given provisional approval. In the US, all the vaccines have EUA (Emergency Use Authorization) only. In the UK, COVID-19 these injections have only been given conditional approval. This is indicated on official documents from the vaccine manufacturers.
For instance, Pfizer's own documentation states: "This EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine will end when the Secretary of HHS determines that the circumstances justifying the EUA no longer exist or when there is a change in the approval status of the product such that an EUA is no longer needed." (i.e. when the FDA actually determines they are both safe and effective).
Of interest is the fact that the vaccines being produced by Johnson & Johnson in the US are coming out with no information on the vaccine inserts i.e. the consumer information inside the vaccine packaging communicating about dosages, side effects, etc. The vaccine inserts are physically in the box, but they are blank. So, anyone injecting themselves with the current crop of vaccines is in fact simply volunteering to participate as a subject in a medical trial.
Also of importance is the fact, probably unknown to most people, that the vaccine companies have been granted immunity from all legal challenges due to injury or death from their vaccines. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html
Why would that be? Makes one wonder, does it not? Perhaps the question we should be asking is; cui bono? - Latin for "who benefits"?
Given the above information, the only basis upon which an intelligent and informed person would accept being injected with any new and not fully tested medical intervention would be if there was a deadly disease sweeping the world for which there is no cure and to which everybody is vulnerable.
Based on the massive amounts of epidemiological evidence gathered over the last 12 months it is clear that this is definitely not the case.
As early as mid-2020 the CDC indicated that COVID-19 has a survival rate of somewhere between 99.6% and 99.8%. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/22/health/cdc-coronavirus-estimates-symptoms-deaths/index.html
Also, the average age of death due to COVID-19 (based on UK data) is 82 years, which just happens to be one year longer than the overall average age of death. COVID-19 will not affect most people, so one cannot claim that the entire population is at risk. Children and young adults statistically have zero risk, and even older people who have met with other corona viruses will in most cases have cross-immunity which protects them from COVID-19. The belief that COVID-19 will "get us all" is not supported by the science or the data. See a recent China Daily Article: https://www.chinadailyhk.com/article/168617#The-COVID-19-gaslighting-express
It is notable that as of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 was no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) in the UK, based partly on the fact that mortality rates were clearly low overall. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid
Thirdly, the belief that there is no cure is also wildly out of place. For instance, Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) with Zinc, used early in a COVID-19 infection, has been very successful in significantly reducing hospitalization and death. So has Ivermectin. "Fact checkers" will tell you that such information isn't authorized by major institutions like the FDA, CDC, or WHO. They will also try to discount any positive results using ad hominem attacks and smears, such as pointing out that a person may have at some time in the past, voiced "anti-vaccine sentiments" (whatever that may be). You can see an example here:
A study which came out in The Lancet mid-2020 supposedly showing that HCQ was dangerous was subsequently withdrawn due to it being fraudulent. Sadly, this withdrawal happened only after the damage was done, and HCQ had been successfully kicked to the curb in many places around the world - up to the point that in some jurisdictions doctors could be jailed for prescribing it!
Despite all this we must remember that science is not about following instructions from bureaucrats or from on-high, but rather doing empirical work and looking at the results. And, mobbing people who present a view that is different to what is politically correct is also not science. What matters is the data and, of course, how that data is interpreted. As of this writing, 248 trials of HCQ used for treating COVID-19 have been completed, by 3,972 scientists, with 378,812 patients. We can see 66% improvement in 26 early treatment trials, 75% improvement in 11 early treatment mortality results, and 24% improvement in 35 randomized controlled trials.
These results are publicly available on a database that is tracking all HCQ studies to date. You can see those studies here: https://c19hcq.com
We must also realize that HCQ, along with Ivermectin (discussed below), are both included in the WHO list of essential medicines! https://list.essentialmeds.org
Of course "fact checkers" will give stern warnings about the fact that for COVID-19 the use of HCQ or Ivermectin is "off label", meaning that they were previously used for treating other diseases and suggesting that therefore they can't be used to treat COVID-19. What they fail to mention is that doctors use all sorts of medicine "off label" all the time! Since Ivermectin and HCQ are both on the WHO list of essential medicines and have been so for a long time - decades in the case of HCQ - the world knows about the safety and dosage of these medicines, which means that even if they don't effectively treat COVID-19, there is no danger to patients from using these medicines. It's better than following official guidelines which were, to all intents and purposes, "do nothing, stay home, and when you turn blue go to the hospital".
The thing is, there really is overwhelming evidence that these treatments are effective against COVID-19.
Ivermectin has been demonstrated to be very effective at treating COVID-19. While the fact checkers would have you believing otherwise, Ivermectin has been used very successfully in many places around the world where media hysteria did not get it banned from the shelves. Just this week, reports coming out of India are demonstrating massive benefits from Ivermectin.
There is already a 97% decline in cases in New Delhi, India. 4 other Indian states that are using Ivermectin now report decreases in cases by 60% to 95%. However, other states that have blocked the use of Ivermectin have increases in cases by several hundred percent - the exponential explosion that everyone is terrified of!
As The Desert Review says in their report, "It is a clear refutation of the WHO, FDA, NIH, and CDC's policies of "wait at home until you turn blue" before you get treatment." https://www.thedesertreview.com/news/national/ivermectin-obliterates-97-percent-of-delhicases/article_6a3be6b2-c31f-11eb-836d-2722d2325a08.html
Before you buy into the line from "Fact Checkers" that these are only "observational studies" and haven't been tested by large scale, randomized control trials approved by the WHO, CDC, NIH, FDA etc. you should know that 56 studies on Ivermectin, 17 of them being Randomized Controlled Trials, have clearly demonstrated very positive effects from Ivermectin. A site doing real-time meta-analysis of all the Ivermectin studies as they get published summarizes the results as follows: "100% of the 17 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early treatment and prophylaxis report positive effects, with an estimated improvement of 73% and 83% respectively".
They also make the point that "The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 56 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 2 trillion (p = 0.00000000000041)." You can check this information yourself directly on their site https://ivmmeta.com
These treatments (and others) have, of course, been available since at least mid-2020, but you may not have even heard of them until right now. The reason is simple. Throughout 2020 and into 2021, anybody trying to share this information (ESPECIALLY professionals working in the field) would find themselves banned on most social media. Mainstream Media would also not publish this information, but rather would engage in so-called "fact-checking" and smears against the people bringing this information to the world. That in itself is a major red flag! We need to ask, why would information that could save (and is saving) tens of thousands of lives around the world be blocked?
In summary, and very importantly, we must understand that COVID-19 is not anything like a "black death", which could strike any one of us down at any moment. It is not everywhere, killing anyone it touches. And the above evidence shows us it is not true that there is a complete lack of any form of effective treatment. This fact alone undermines the very basis of Emergency Use Authorization for all the COVID-19 vaccines!
Therefore, all talk of coercion or making COVID-19 vaccination mandatory should be stopped now before it's too late. Because, when the lawsuits come - and they will come (they have started in Germany, the UK, Canada and other places) - the people on the stand for Nuremberg code violations will be company bosses, doctors, editors and government officials who pushed unsafe and unnecessary medical interventions onto a good-hearted, supportive, yet not-fully-informed public.
Remember, the vaccine manufacturers have already negotiated legal immunity. Let that sink in.