Forwarded from Creda von Clausewitz
Conditioning the free movement on one’s health status is an unjustifiable restriction to this freedom. By introducing a uniform EU format to certify the fulfilment of this health condition, the Regulation anchors in EU law a barrier to the free movement and breaches the principle of free movement within the EU guaranteed in Article 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
The Free Movement Directive (Directive 2004/38/CE) only allows limitations to free movement in individual cases where it also obliges authorities to notify the person about the reasons for which the restrictions are applied and ensure their access to judicial or administrative redress (Articles 29, 30 and 31). The Legislature visibly left no legal ground for blanket decisions allowing restrictions to the freedom of movement, such as the ones intended by this Regulation.
The inviolable respect for the Four Fundamental Freedoms of Movement in the Union - persons, goods, services and capital - is upheld by numerous decisions of the Court of Justice of the EU. No less than 76 decisions (by 2016) witness to the inalienable nature of the free movement. In none of them has the Court ruled in favour of any limitation to it and definitely not on health grounds.
Furthermore, it is also obvious that the Regulation is reintroducing internal border controls in the Schengen area. The existence of the Digital Green Certificate presupposes it, as its verification would be impossible in the absence of such checks.
Finally, and even more worryingly, the proposal around the Regulation provides no guarantee that it cannot be used for further restrictions, be it on the movement of people within or and across national borders, or any other infringement.
Vote ‘NO’ to the Regulation because it lacks Clear Purpose and has no Legal Certainty
1. Purpose and CertaintyEuropean law must be clear, precise, and have foreseeable implications. It must have a certain purpose. While the “Explanatory Memorandum” alludes to "facilitating free movement", the operational part of the proposal contains no stated purpose.
2. EU Court of Justice asked for objective evidence that the law pursues no other end than the one stated (Giuffrida v Commission [1976] ECR 1395 Case 105/75)While the proposal does not openly state the purpose of facilitating free movement, it provides clear, precise and objective language concerning restrictions to freedom of movement:
Recital 6 refers to those movement restrictions which are “necessary to safeguard public health”, and which are considered a priori proportional and non-discriminatory.Recital 7 tells us that it would be unlawful to restrict movement of people who cannot infect others, as this would “not be necessary to achieve the objective pursued.”
The two above provisions seem to indicate other objectives than facilitating free movement, such as: Restrictions to the movement of healthy peopleAlthough not explicitly recognised by the proposal, border guards must perform checks on all travellers, including those immune, so that they can verify the Green Digital Certificate. In the absence of such checks, the Green Digital Certificate would have no useful effect.
Undue Harmonization of Health PolicyAlthough Article 168(7) TFEU prevents the EU from taking responsibility away from the Member States “for the definition of their health policy and for the organization and delivery of health services and medical care,” Articles 5(1), 6(1) and 7(1) of the Proposal de facto harmonize an aspect of health policy, namely the certification of vaccination, testing and recovery.
3. Real Purposes of the LawThe above standard set up by the Court of Justice is therefore not fulfilled, and the proposal seems to pursue two other purposes than the one seemingly intended: restricting movement and interfering in health policy.
The Free Movement Directive (Directive 2004/38/CE) only allows limitations to free movement in individual cases where it also obliges authorities to notify the person about the reasons for which the restrictions are applied and ensure their access to judicial or administrative redress (Articles 29, 30 and 31). The Legislature visibly left no legal ground for blanket decisions allowing restrictions to the freedom of movement, such as the ones intended by this Regulation.
The inviolable respect for the Four Fundamental Freedoms of Movement in the Union - persons, goods, services and capital - is upheld by numerous decisions of the Court of Justice of the EU. No less than 76 decisions (by 2016) witness to the inalienable nature of the free movement. In none of them has the Court ruled in favour of any limitation to it and definitely not on health grounds.
Furthermore, it is also obvious that the Regulation is reintroducing internal border controls in the Schengen area. The existence of the Digital Green Certificate presupposes it, as its verification would be impossible in the absence of such checks.
Finally, and even more worryingly, the proposal around the Regulation provides no guarantee that it cannot be used for further restrictions, be it on the movement of people within or and across national borders, or any other infringement.
Vote ‘NO’ to the Regulation because it lacks Clear Purpose and has no Legal Certainty
1. Purpose and CertaintyEuropean law must be clear, precise, and have foreseeable implications. It must have a certain purpose. While the “Explanatory Memorandum” alludes to "facilitating free movement", the operational part of the proposal contains no stated purpose.
2. EU Court of Justice asked for objective evidence that the law pursues no other end than the one stated (Giuffrida v Commission [1976] ECR 1395 Case 105/75)While the proposal does not openly state the purpose of facilitating free movement, it provides clear, precise and objective language concerning restrictions to freedom of movement:
Recital 6 refers to those movement restrictions which are “necessary to safeguard public health”, and which are considered a priori proportional and non-discriminatory.Recital 7 tells us that it would be unlawful to restrict movement of people who cannot infect others, as this would “not be necessary to achieve the objective pursued.”
The two above provisions seem to indicate other objectives than facilitating free movement, such as: Restrictions to the movement of healthy peopleAlthough not explicitly recognised by the proposal, border guards must perform checks on all travellers, including those immune, so that they can verify the Green Digital Certificate. In the absence of such checks, the Green Digital Certificate would have no useful effect.
Undue Harmonization of Health PolicyAlthough Article 168(7) TFEU prevents the EU from taking responsibility away from the Member States “for the definition of their health policy and for the organization and delivery of health services and medical care,” Articles 5(1), 6(1) and 7(1) of the Proposal de facto harmonize an aspect of health policy, namely the certification of vaccination, testing and recovery.
3. Real Purposes of the LawThe above standard set up by the Court of Justice is therefore not fulfilled, and the proposal seems to pursue two other purposes than the one seemingly intended: restricting movement and interfering in health policy.
Forwarded from Creda von Clausewitz
The ambiguity thus created between the declared intention to "facilitate free movement" and the objectives transpiring from the operational provisions of the proposal create legal uncertainty. The omission of purpose makes it difficult to determine the implications of this Regulation on the Fundamental Freedoms of citizens. Further assessment and clarification are needed by the Legislator.
Given that both these objectives breach the Treaties, it is hard to see how the EU could adopt such a law without being in breach of its own fundamental principles of law-making.
Vote ‘NO’ to the Regulation – and NO to forced vaccination
1. Compulsory vaccination, as an involuntary medical intervention, constitutes an interference with the exercise of the right to the integrity of the person The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Article 3) guarantees, in respect of medicine and biology, in particular:free and informed consent of the person concerned, according to the procedures laid down by law; andprohibition of eugenic practices.
2. The Oviedo Convention also upholds the principle that any medical intervention should be subject to a patient’s free and informed consent.
3. Any mandatory measures in sensitive areas such as health must be strictly lawful and proportional (EU Charter - Article 52)Unjustified differences in the treatment of people based on their health status could ultimately lead to discrimination under both the EU Charter, European Convention of Human Rights and the European Social Charter.
4. Protection of human health – the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in its Article 168 provides that:A high level of human health protection shall be ensured in the definition and implementation of all Union policies and activities.Union action (...) shall be directed towards improving public health, preventing physical and mental illness and diseases, and obviating sources of danger to physical and mental health.
5. Vaccination CANNOT be mandatory (Council of Europe - Resolution 2361 of 2021) “…with respect to ensuring high vaccine uptake: ensure that citizens are informed that the vaccination is NOT mandatory and that no one is politically, socially, or otherwise pressured to get themselves vaccinated, if they do not wish to do so themselves; and ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated”.
6. Protection of body integrityThe European Court of Human Rights has emphasized that a person’s bodily integrity concerns the most intimate aspects of one’s private life.
7. The Regulation in effect encourages discrimination against those not vaccinatedWhile the Regulation states that it “cannot be interpreted as establishing an obligation or right to be vaccinated” in fact, it promotes such practice. The Regulation encourages the exercise of discrimination against those who “are not part of the target group for which the vaccine is currently recommended, such as children, or because they have not yet had the opportunity or do not wish to be vaccinated”.
It also stipulates that the right to free movement should be subject to limitations against any such group, including but not limited to mandatory testing and quarantine.
Compulsory medical intervention constitutes an interference with this Right.
Vote ‘NO’ to the Regulation – due to it being Bad Legislation
The Regulation does not deserve to become law, based on its performance on Better Regulation standards:
1. No impact assessment is backing the alleged NECESSITY for a Digital Green CertificateThe proposal lacks the usual accompanying Impact Assessment and Public Consultation, and the “Explanatory Memorandum”’ stops short at informing us that there was no time for it.One would expect that if the evidence of necessity, efficiency and effectiveness, benefits for European policy and positive impact on the fundamental rights of the citizens were so inescapable, a brief analysis could easily have been provided in the proposal itself.
Given that both these objectives breach the Treaties, it is hard to see how the EU could adopt such a law without being in breach of its own fundamental principles of law-making.
Vote ‘NO’ to the Regulation – and NO to forced vaccination
1. Compulsory vaccination, as an involuntary medical intervention, constitutes an interference with the exercise of the right to the integrity of the person The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Article 3) guarantees, in respect of medicine and biology, in particular:free and informed consent of the person concerned, according to the procedures laid down by law; andprohibition of eugenic practices.
2. The Oviedo Convention also upholds the principle that any medical intervention should be subject to a patient’s free and informed consent.
3. Any mandatory measures in sensitive areas such as health must be strictly lawful and proportional (EU Charter - Article 52)Unjustified differences in the treatment of people based on their health status could ultimately lead to discrimination under both the EU Charter, European Convention of Human Rights and the European Social Charter.
4. Protection of human health – the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in its Article 168 provides that:A high level of human health protection shall be ensured in the definition and implementation of all Union policies and activities.Union action (...) shall be directed towards improving public health, preventing physical and mental illness and diseases, and obviating sources of danger to physical and mental health.
5. Vaccination CANNOT be mandatory (Council of Europe - Resolution 2361 of 2021) “…with respect to ensuring high vaccine uptake: ensure that citizens are informed that the vaccination is NOT mandatory and that no one is politically, socially, or otherwise pressured to get themselves vaccinated, if they do not wish to do so themselves; and ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated”.
6. Protection of body integrityThe European Court of Human Rights has emphasized that a person’s bodily integrity concerns the most intimate aspects of one’s private life.
7. The Regulation in effect encourages discrimination against those not vaccinatedWhile the Regulation states that it “cannot be interpreted as establishing an obligation or right to be vaccinated” in fact, it promotes such practice. The Regulation encourages the exercise of discrimination against those who “are not part of the target group for which the vaccine is currently recommended, such as children, or because they have not yet had the opportunity or do not wish to be vaccinated”.
It also stipulates that the right to free movement should be subject to limitations against any such group, including but not limited to mandatory testing and quarantine.
Compulsory medical intervention constitutes an interference with this Right.
Vote ‘NO’ to the Regulation – due to it being Bad Legislation
The Regulation does not deserve to become law, based on its performance on Better Regulation standards:
1. No impact assessment is backing the alleged NECESSITY for a Digital Green CertificateThe proposal lacks the usual accompanying Impact Assessment and Public Consultation, and the “Explanatory Memorandum”’ stops short at informing us that there was no time for it.One would expect that if the evidence of necessity, efficiency and effectiveness, benefits for European policy and positive impact on the fundamental rights of the citizens were so inescapable, a brief analysis could easily have been provided in the proposal itself.
Forwarded from Creda von Clausewitz
It is not sufficient to put “green” in a title of a Regulation in order to make it environmentally friendly. The environmental, social and economic impacts should have been properly analysed.
It is not because this Digital Green Certificate will cost the European Union “only” 49 million Euro, that the Legislator does not owe the citizens an explanation on the use of taxpayers’ money.
2. No justification is brought to the PROPORTIONALITY of this actionIf the intended use of the Digital Green Certificate is for the seemingly limited period left of the Covid-19 pandemic, then its proportionality must be questioned.
This is not only about the “only” 49 million Euro supposedly needed for its implementation, but of the whole EU and national effort to adopt and implement a measure that is supposedly very short-lived.
3. No respect for the DIVISION OF POWER under the Treaty – delegated powersThe suspension of the application of the Digital Green Certificate is to take place via a Delegated Act (Article 190 TFEU). This procedure is strictly limited by the Treaty to deciding on “non-essential” aspects of laws.
In the proposal, the decision that the pandemic is over is an ESSENTIAL aspect. This provision further weakens the democratic accountability of the Regulation and makes its consequences arbitrary.
4. The Regulation is marred by UNCERTAINTY and impossible to ascertain accountabilityThe Regulation places important decisions onto doubtful bodies:Health Security Committee (HSC) which is an informal advisory group of the Member States’ Health Ministries and also includes representatives of observer states (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Serbia and Turkey). Such an informal group cannot be entrusted with responsibilities that directly impact EU citizens. (Article 3(6) and Article 7(1) of the Proposal).WHO: Most blatantly, the ultimate trigger of the decision to stop the application of this Regulation is the WHO. It must be underlined that WHO is not part of the EU legal framework, nor have its Director General’s decisions any direct legal implications on EU and its citizens.
5. Uncertainty If the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) declares an international emergency because of any infectious disease with epidemic potential, the European Commission will automatically reimpose the Digital Green Certificate, until the WHO dictates otherwise, with the Member States having nothing to say about it. Member States themselves seem to cede decision-making to the Certificate ‘framework’.
The WHO can declare such an emergency even if there are no deaths. Therefore, the WHO may condemn us to a perpetual global health alert.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, draws attention to this anomaly in its report, “The handling of the H1N1 pandemic: more transparency needed”, 7 June 2010. https://pace.coe.int/en/files/12463/html
6. No Effective Protection against arbitrary lawThe delegation of a permanent power conferred on the European Commission and indirectly on the WHO endangers the principles of legal certainty and of effective judicial protection across Europe. It will be impossible for a Member State by itself to contest the declaration of the WHO’s “health emergency” and therefore the implementation of the Digital Green Certificate.
Similarly, the probability that a citizen of an EU Member State being able to demonstrate in court that an infectious disease with “epidemic potential” which may have appeared on the other side of the world, is not sufficiently serious and that the implementation of the Digital Green Certificate is therefore useless and disproportionate in his regard, is practically nil a priori.
It is not because this Digital Green Certificate will cost the European Union “only” 49 million Euro, that the Legislator does not owe the citizens an explanation on the use of taxpayers’ money.
2. No justification is brought to the PROPORTIONALITY of this actionIf the intended use of the Digital Green Certificate is for the seemingly limited period left of the Covid-19 pandemic, then its proportionality must be questioned.
This is not only about the “only” 49 million Euro supposedly needed for its implementation, but of the whole EU and national effort to adopt and implement a measure that is supposedly very short-lived.
3. No respect for the DIVISION OF POWER under the Treaty – delegated powersThe suspension of the application of the Digital Green Certificate is to take place via a Delegated Act (Article 190 TFEU). This procedure is strictly limited by the Treaty to deciding on “non-essential” aspects of laws.
In the proposal, the decision that the pandemic is over is an ESSENTIAL aspect. This provision further weakens the democratic accountability of the Regulation and makes its consequences arbitrary.
4. The Regulation is marred by UNCERTAINTY and impossible to ascertain accountabilityThe Regulation places important decisions onto doubtful bodies:Health Security Committee (HSC) which is an informal advisory group of the Member States’ Health Ministries and also includes representatives of observer states (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Serbia and Turkey). Such an informal group cannot be entrusted with responsibilities that directly impact EU citizens. (Article 3(6) and Article 7(1) of the Proposal).WHO: Most blatantly, the ultimate trigger of the decision to stop the application of this Regulation is the WHO. It must be underlined that WHO is not part of the EU legal framework, nor have its Director General’s decisions any direct legal implications on EU and its citizens.
5. Uncertainty If the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) declares an international emergency because of any infectious disease with epidemic potential, the European Commission will automatically reimpose the Digital Green Certificate, until the WHO dictates otherwise, with the Member States having nothing to say about it. Member States themselves seem to cede decision-making to the Certificate ‘framework’.
The WHO can declare such an emergency even if there are no deaths. Therefore, the WHO may condemn us to a perpetual global health alert.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, draws attention to this anomaly in its report, “The handling of the H1N1 pandemic: more transparency needed”, 7 June 2010. https://pace.coe.int/en/files/12463/html
6. No Effective Protection against arbitrary lawThe delegation of a permanent power conferred on the European Commission and indirectly on the WHO endangers the principles of legal certainty and of effective judicial protection across Europe. It will be impossible for a Member State by itself to contest the declaration of the WHO’s “health emergency” and therefore the implementation of the Digital Green Certificate.
Similarly, the probability that a citizen of an EU Member State being able to demonstrate in court that an infectious disease with “epidemic potential” which may have appeared on the other side of the world, is not sufficiently serious and that the implementation of the Digital Green Certificate is therefore useless and disproportionate in his regard, is practically nil a priori.
Forwarded from Creda von Clausewitz
The European Commission has reaffirmed (September 9th, 2020) the following:“The rule of law includes (…) legal certainty; prohibiting the arbitrary exercise of executive power; effective judicial protection by independent and impartial courts, effective judicial review including respect for fundamental rights (…). These principles have been recognized by the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. (…)The rule of law has a direct impact on the life of every citizen.Effective national checks and balances upholding respect for the rule of law are key to ensuring that any such restrictions on our rights are limited to what is necessary and proportionate, limited in time and subject to oversight by national parliaments and courts. “https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1602583951529&uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0580
Conclusion: In light of the unprecedented interference with fundamental freedoms which the Regulation will endorse including:The abolition of my inalienable right to decide over my body;The elimination of my other fundamental rights, including the right to free choice, right to consent, right to a dignified life;The eradication Freedom of Movement within the European Union;coupled with the fact that the Regulation promotes discriminatory practises based on a person’s health status, I urge you to VOTE NO on the 27/28 April 2021.
As representatives elected by the people, for the people, it is essential for MEPs to maintain meaningful respect for fundamental rights and civil liberties, even when doing so presents challenges. For the avoidance of doubt, I confirm that when the next European or General Election takes place the paramount, decisive issue I will be concerned with is whether you voted for or against this Regulation. Not only will I not vote for any MEP who votes in favour of this Regulation, but I will relentlessly and vigorously canvass against them. I require a response to this letter, which must include confirmation on how you intend to vote.I await hearing from you and shall follow up upon this communication.
Yours Sincerely
__________________________
Conclusion: In light of the unprecedented interference with fundamental freedoms which the Regulation will endorse including:The abolition of my inalienable right to decide over my body;The elimination of my other fundamental rights, including the right to free choice, right to consent, right to a dignified life;The eradication Freedom of Movement within the European Union;coupled with the fact that the Regulation promotes discriminatory practises based on a person’s health status, I urge you to VOTE NO on the 27/28 April 2021.
As representatives elected by the people, for the people, it is essential for MEPs to maintain meaningful respect for fundamental rights and civil liberties, even when doing so presents challenges. For the avoidance of doubt, I confirm that when the next European or General Election takes place the paramount, decisive issue I will be concerned with is whether you voted for or against this Regulation. Not only will I not vote for any MEP who votes in favour of this Regulation, but I will relentlessly and vigorously canvass against them. I require a response to this letter, which must include confirmation on how you intend to vote.I await hearing from you and shall follow up upon this communication.
Yours Sincerely
__________________________
Forwarded from Creda von Clausewitz
Google Docs
MEP Letter Digital Green Certificate Regulation Final vote 27 and 28 April 2021.docx
INSERT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS HERE Date:
INSERT DATE Re:
European Parliament vote due to take place on 27/28 April 2021 in respect of a regulation for
the issuance, verification and acceptance of interoperable certificates for vaccination,
testing and recovery…
INSERT DATE Re:
European Parliament vote due to take place on 27/28 April 2021 in respect of a regulation for
the issuance, verification and acceptance of interoperable certificates for vaccination,
testing and recovery…
But the mRNAs are authorised. Get it?
"Quercetin, a natural existing polyphenol compound, has shown anticancer capacity for liver, breast, nasopharyngeal and prostate carcinoma but has not been clinically approved yet."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4859676/
"Quercetin, a natural existing polyphenol compound, has shown anticancer capacity for liver, breast, nasopharyngeal and prostate carcinoma but has not been clinically approved yet."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4859676/
PubMed Central (PMC)
Quercetin induces bladder cancer cells apoptosis by activation of AMPK signaling pathway
Quercetin, a natural existing polyphenol compound, has shown anticancer capacity for liver, breast, nasopharyngeal and prostate carcinoma but has not been clinically approved yet. This might be due to lack of clear mechanistic picture. Bladder cancer ...
Informed Consent with Jeremy Hammond
https://anchor.fm/rfkjr/episodes/Informed-Consent-with-Jeremy-Hammond-eup807
https://anchor.fm/rfkjr/episodes/Informed-Consent-with-Jeremy-Hammond-eup807
Anchor
Informed Consent with Jeremy Hammond by RFK Jr The Defender Podcast
Jeremy Hammond and RFK Jr discuss informed consent and how a medical board subverted public health and destroyed a heroic doctor.
Hammond is an independent journalist and political analyst, publisher and editor of Foreign Policy Journal, author of several…
Hammond is an independent journalist and political analyst, publisher and editor of Foreign Policy Journal, author of several…
2020-09_08-Science-Update_FINAL_public-v2.pdf
2.3 MB
2020-09_08-Science-Update_FINAL_public-v2.pdf
About those air flows in hospital toilets..
About those air flows in hospital toilets..
SARSCoV2 replicates in faeces and human manure is spread on crops in some regions of India, which will also leak the virus into the air during this operation. Does this explain the rise of cases in India? I think so. Look at this in combination with this study: "Increase of SARS-CoV-2 RNA load in faecal samples prompts for rethinking of SARS-CoV-2 biology and COVID-19 epidemiology". Read the label at the bottom of the graphs. That's India explained.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344681835_Increase_of_SARS-CoV-2_RNA_load_in_faecal_samples_prompts_for_rethinking_of_SARS-CoV-2_biology_and_COVID-19_epidemiology
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344681835_Increase_of_SARS-CoV-2_RNA_load_in_faecal_samples_prompts_for_rethinking_of_SARS-CoV-2_biology_and_COVID-19_epidemiology
"Therefore, a causative link between LPS [high lipopolysaccharide (LPS) levels in the blood] derived from bacterial colonization and infection of the lungs in COPD patients and COVID-19 severity could also be proposed here. Related to this is the finding that there is a correlation between LPS levels and bacterial loads during pneumonia (Nys et al., 2000). Moreover, compared to former and never smokers with COPD, current smokers are at greater risk of severe COVID-19 complications and higher mortality rate (Alqahtani et al., 2020), and intriguingly, bacterial LPS is an active component of cigarette smoke (Hasday et al., 1999). Increased endotoxin levels are also observed in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) (Pastor Rojo et al., 2007)."
https://academic.oup.com/jmcb/article/12/12/916/6028992
https://academic.oup.com/jmcb/article/12/12/916/6028992
OUP Academic
SARS-CoV-2 spike protein binds to bacterial lipopolysaccharide and boosts proinflammatory activity
Abstract. There is a link between high lipopolysaccharide (LPS) levels in the blood and the metabolic syndrome, and metabolic syndrome predisposes patients to s
"The initial proposal for ‘Vaccine Passports’ was first published on 26 April, 2018 by the European Commission. The proposal, ignored by the mainstream media and was buried deep in a document (read below) dealing with ‘Strengthened Cooperation against Vaccine Preventable Diseases’.
As per the initial roadmap (issued in early 2019) to implement the European Commission’s proposal, the primary action was to “examine the feasibility of developing a common vaccination card/passport” for European citizens that is “compatible with electronic immunization information systems and recognized for use across borders.”
It was planned to get a legislative proposal issued by 2022, in Europe.
The roadmap also focuses on strengthening “existing partnerships” and “collaboration with international actors and initiatives,” and refers to the Global Vaccination Summit that was held in 2019. The attendees and the agenda of this summit is also revealing.
Global Vaccination Summit 2019
The 3 Roundtables
The summit was held on 12 September 2019, in Brussels, Belgium, that was just 3 months prior to the COVID-19 outbreak. The summit was not reported by most of the mainstream media outlets. It was organized by European Commission in cooperation with W.H.O.
The summit was structured around three round tables entitled:
In Vaccines We Trust
The Magic Of Science
Vaccines Protecting Everyone, Everywhere
Noteable Panel Members
The attendees of this summit were political leaders, high-level representatives from health ministries, United Nations, leading academics, health professionals and scientists, non-government and private sectors.
Noteable panel members for these round tables included Dr. Seth Berkley, CEO of GAVI, Nanette Cocero, Global President of Pfizer Vaccines, the Global Vaccine Alliance – an organization that has received vast amounts of funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; and Joe Cerrell, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Managing Director for Global Policy and Advocacy.
https://greatgameindia.com/vaccine-passports-planned-before-pandemic/
As per the initial roadmap (issued in early 2019) to implement the European Commission’s proposal, the primary action was to “examine the feasibility of developing a common vaccination card/passport” for European citizens that is “compatible with electronic immunization information systems and recognized for use across borders.”
It was planned to get a legislative proposal issued by 2022, in Europe.
The roadmap also focuses on strengthening “existing partnerships” and “collaboration with international actors and initiatives,” and refers to the Global Vaccination Summit that was held in 2019. The attendees and the agenda of this summit is also revealing.
Global Vaccination Summit 2019
The 3 Roundtables
The summit was held on 12 September 2019, in Brussels, Belgium, that was just 3 months prior to the COVID-19 outbreak. The summit was not reported by most of the mainstream media outlets. It was organized by European Commission in cooperation with W.H.O.
The summit was structured around three round tables entitled:
In Vaccines We Trust
The Magic Of Science
Vaccines Protecting Everyone, Everywhere
Noteable Panel Members
The attendees of this summit were political leaders, high-level representatives from health ministries, United Nations, leading academics, health professionals and scientists, non-government and private sectors.
Noteable panel members for these round tables included Dr. Seth Berkley, CEO of GAVI, Nanette Cocero, Global President of Pfizer Vaccines, the Global Vaccine Alliance – an organization that has received vast amounts of funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; and Joe Cerrell, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Managing Director for Global Policy and Advocacy.
https://greatgameindia.com/vaccine-passports-planned-before-pandemic/
GreatGameInternational
Vaccine Passports Were Planned Even Before The Pandemic Began - GreatGameInternational
Most of us have heard about 'Vaccine Passports' only after the pandemic, when different governments started emphasizing the requirement of 'Vaccine Passports' for travelling to other countries or even for going to public places. However, the planning for…
53 German actors use irony & sarcasm against Angela Merkel's tyrannical lockdown policies:
https://allesdichtmachen.de/
https://allesdichtmachen.de/
Bill Gates is shown using figurines of humans on a world map to illustrate his proposed global disease alert system
https://www.rt.com/usa/514428-gates-global-alert-system/
Bill Gates calls for global alert system and 'pandemic fire squads' for post-Covid-19 world
https://www.rt.com/usa/514428-gates-global-alert-system/
Bill Gates calls for global alert system and 'pandemic fire squads' for post-Covid-19 world
RT
Bill Gates calls for global alert system and 'pandemic fire squads' for post-Covid-19 world
Social media users are recoiling at Bill Gates' call for a global disease alert system, questioning why a tech billionaire with no medical expertise or elected office is plotting what they fear could become a platform for tyranny.
Forwarded from Dr. Simon
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Fifty three brave German actors stood up against the coronavirus measures and heavily criticized the German government. I subbed one video for you.
Forwarded from Glenn O'Connor
Latest weekly MHRA Yellow Card reports of adverse reactions to the COVID-19 injections:
Reports with a fatal outcome:
Pfizer 334
AstraZeneca 627
Unspecified 12
Total 973
An increase of 126 in 7 days.
Reports with a fatal outcome:
Pfizer 334
AstraZeneca 627
Unspecified 12
Total 973
An increase of 126 in 7 days.