SOUTH DAKOTA BANS VACCINE PASSPORTS

https://twitter.com/govkristinoem/status/1384869831674142722?s=19

"Entry into human B cell lines occurred in a FcγRII-dependent and ACE2-independent fashion indicating that ADE [ANTIBODY DEPENDENT ENHANCEMENT] of virus entry is a novel cell entry mechanism of SARS-CoV." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X06009534

"T cell responses are largely unaffected by the variants. While it is not anticipated that circulating memory T cells would be effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection, it is plausible that they can reduce COVID-19 severity"
https://europepmc.org/article/PPR/PPR290585

This is the EU Commission study which clearly says SARSCoV2 replicates in bacteria & is eliminated by antibiotics which it lists. Why are they keeping it out of the Journals?

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

Proportion of the population who have survived Covid19 so far:

https://brandnewtube.com/watch/we-are-the-resistance-and-we-will-win-this-war_yz96TU5OWcAKIEC.html. Video version. What a true hero this man of truth is.

Infection & illness are not the same.

I’ve always understood that being immune doesn’t guarantee that you cannot be infected: but it does ensure that you won’t develop clinical illness.

I’ve heard used the phrase ‘sterilising immunity’ & that’s supposed to be the situation in which even infection isn’t possible.

Think about it: the energetic costs to maintain the vigilance required to ensure that you cannot get infected is astonishing. You’d need circulating antibodies & maintained numbers of T-cells directed towards every conceivable infectious disease threat. I’m not sure it’s even doable. If you needed to maintain high concentrations of antibodies (circulating & secreted) against a couple of dozen pathogens, there’s literally insufficient room in your serum for all of them!

Me, I’d settle for immunity - prevention of illness - any day. I can maintain immunity against a wide range of pathogens at an affordable energetic cost, and it’s doable. I don’t need to keep antibody levels up high because I’ve long-lived memory B-cells ready to boost antibodies very quickly.

We do need an expert on this specific aspect! Anyone?

Cheers
Mike

Civilians as guinea pigs for the military

2017: "DARPA-funded teams will be required to demonstrate their integrated platforms in five simulations during the planned four-year program [up to 2021] ; they will initially test their platforms using pathogens of their choice, but ultimately they will test using DARPA-selected pathogens, including two demonstrations in which the identity of the pathogen will remain opaque to the teams until the 60-day clock starts. To ensure the developed platforms can produce a quality product with a viable pathway for regulatory review, each team will be required to complete a Phase I clinical safety trial before the end of the program.
A benefit of the nucleic-acid-based approach to limiting the spread of infection is that the genetic constructs introduced to the body would be processed quickly and would not integrate into an individual’s genome. Similarly, the antibodies produced in response to the treatment would only be present in the body for weeks to months. This is consistent with DARPA's intent with P3, which is to safely deliver transient immunity to a virus, halting the spread of disease by creating a firewall.
“Our country asks our military Service members to deploy globally and provide humanitarian assistance in all manner of high-risk environments. We owe it to them to develop the best protections possible,” said Hepburn, a U.S. Army physician who previously served as Director of Medical Preparedness on the White House National Security Staff. “If we’re successful, DARPA could take viral infectious disease outbreaks off the table as a threat to U.S. troops and as a driver of global instability.”

https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2017-02-06a

"no jab for me

Statements in this site are substantiated with facts that can be argued in a court of law. Click on the hyperlinked sections to direct you to primary sources such as CDC, WHO, FDA documents.

Anyone trying to take down this site will be named as codefendant in Nuremburg 2.0 for being an accomplice to crimes against humanity. That includes social media. Lawyers are standing by."

https://nojabforme.info/

David "isolating the virus" of Goliath.

Hi Robin, I was wondering if you can give me a hand to spread information about an action I put in place regarding the ongoing discussion at the European Parliament on the EU Digital Green Certificate. The vote is on 28 April, MEPs are making their minds up and compiling voting lists right now. It is a fast track procedure: the regulation proposal was presented only on 17 March and on 25 March the Parliament said yes to the fast track. No public consultation! I think every single EU citizen should write to these elected representatives to say NO to this regulation. I prepared a text and a list of email addresses that people can copy-paste into their email clients to send emails on their own personal behalf. No personal data collected and no mailbombing via a bot/website. Can you HELP me please? Here is a short text for your consideration and the link: 📣📣 Hello everybody, right now we are going through a major turning point at EU level with members of the European Parliament discussing their position on the European Commission proposal for a standardised EU "digital green certificate" that makes it easier for EU member states to legitimise and put in place restrictions based on "showing the papers" for vaccines and PCR and similar tests. The idea is to have a digital system (complete with QR codes) that can be used to link the exercise of personal freedom to certificates. I think this is extremely dangerous and one more step towards the situation as it is in Israel. Members of the European Parliament are deciding right now how to vote, please ✏️ WRITE TO THEM! NOW! There are instructions on how to do so here: https://cryptpad.fr/pad/#/2/pad/view/vNg+14FUNjv3Bid5p4cpB5Hg4uOQV3IRDy6-a9V6kko/ SCROLL DOWN TO SEE THE INSTRUCTIONS. It is a copy-paste operation, please note that this is more effective than mailbombing using petition websites because you are contacting Parliament Members personally. PLEASE HELP! Also, if you can volunteer a translation in Dutch please contact me! 📣📣 THIS IS URGENT! VOTE IS ON 28 APRIL!! ⏰⏰⏰⏰

"The European database of suspected drug reaction reports is EudraVigilance, which also tracks reports of injuries and deaths following the experimental COVID-19 “vaccines.”

Their report through April 10, 2021 lists 6,662 deaths and 299,065 injuries following injections of four experimental COVID-19 shots:
Their report through April 10, 2021 lists 6,662 deaths and 299,065 injuries following injections of four experimental COVID-19 shots:

Total reactions for the experimental mRNA vaccine Tozinameran (code BNT162b2, Comirnaty) from BioNTech/ Pfizer: 3,760 deaths and 134,606 injuries to 10/04/2021

Total reactions for the experimental mRNA vaccine mRNA-1273 (CX-024414) from Moderna: 1,801 deaths and 13,426 injuries to 10/04/2021

Total reactions for the experimental vaccine AZD1222 (CHADOX1 NCOV-19) from Oxford/ AstraZeneca: 1,086 deaths and 150,863 injuries to 10/04/2021

Total reactions for the experimental COVID-19 vaccine JANSSEN (AD26.COV2.S) from Johnson & Johnson: 15 deaths and 170 injuries to 10/04/2021

https://theduran.com/6662-dead-299065-injuries-european-database-of-adverse-drug-reactions-for-covid-19-vaccines/

UK WILL ASK FOR VACCINE PASSPORTS TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY FROM MAY 17TH

The Department for Transport wants an official certification scheme that gives British travellers a document they can show at borders overseas in place by May 17.
In a separate development, a European medical agency recommended that fully vaccinated travellers should be able to sidestep tests and quarantine.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/04/21/covid-passports-proving-vaccine-status-released-summer-holidays/

Great lead-in, thank you, Matteo!

Below, I copy a Open Letter from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr & his Children’s Health Defence team. Please use & SHARE this & ANY INFORMATION IN THE LINKS to influence EVERYONE YOU KNOW & CAN REACH TODAY & TOMORROW.

I cannot express how urgent AND important this is. If against all advice, common sense & natural justice, they pass laws bringing in “Vaccine Passports”, it is THE END OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY.

The MEPs are generally not technical people & probably believe there’s nothing which can’t be changed with a little lobbying and a rule change.

Not this one. A common Vaxpass database will afford TOTALITARIAN control to those running that database & associated algorithms.

Those not vaccinated will be coerced into getting vaccinated, even those at NO RISK FROM THE VIRUS.

That’s a reckless act from notionally democratic representatives.

Because, know this: these gene-based, spike protein-expressing ‘vaccines’ have a thromboembolic (blood clots & bleeding) risk which is a magnitude WHICH IS COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE.

Bluntly, coercion is certain to result in some healthy people DYING for absolutely no good reason.

Vaxpass does NOT MAKE OTHERS SAFER.

Dr Mike Yeadon
 
 
Freedom needs no pass

Dear All,
This is a second urgent call from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Children's Health Defense Europe asking for the rejection of the Green Pass (Green Digital Certificate) following our highly publicised letter of 22nd March 2021 on this important subject.
A pass to liberty is, in its nature, a guarantee of discrimination.
An amendment for rejection has been introduced and members of Parliament will vote next week (after Monday 26th). You could make the difference.
Please join Children's Health Defense and take action now.
Call those who are pushing for a Green Pass and wake them up. You'll find on our website a file with everything you need to lobby your legislator. This file will allow you to search all the Members of the European Parliament by country, expert committee, and you can even find if they voted for or against the accelerated procedure of the Green Pass.
A group of lawyers and scientists has demonstrated in a compelling legal analysis that this proposal is a “disproportionate, inefficient and unfair obstacle to the free movement of European citizens”, in particular given the incomplete and inaccurate scientific claims it relies on for its justification.
There are more and more groups fighting for our health and freedom ie. read the recent decision of the Weimar court, banning corona-measures in schools and the letter of Doctors4CovidEthics to the European Medicines Agency.
When it comes to making a better future for us and our children, every little step in the right direction matters.
Thank you for your commitment.

A Nevada teen was put in a coma, placed on a respirator and underwent three brain surgeries after developing blood clots about one week after getting the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
https://childrenshealthdefense.salsalabs.org/4-21-21defender

URGENT Letter Template to MEPs - !! Email them before 27/28 April 2021 !!

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 to facilitate free movement during the COVID-19 pandemic (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulation”)

Dear MEP,
Before the 25th March 2021, I strongly urged you to vote NO on accelerating the examination procedure for the Regulation, in this regard I am aware that the vote concluded in support of acceleration:

I commend and thank those of you who voted against the acceleration of this oppressive and totalitarian legislation. For those of you that voted to accelerate this process, it behoves you to clearly understand the ramifications of further support for the proposed regulation.

Coerced vaccination and medical interventions are crimes against humanity and violation of the following charters, international treaties and judgements:

1) Nuremberg Code: https://t.co/CKjXH8MF99?amp=1

2) UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (art.6). https://t.co/pvymVUMCHb?amp=1

3) UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (art. 7). https://t.co/nt3w6CSxVz?amp=1

4) UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (art. 3). https://t.co/cF0U92BY5k?amp=1

5) The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Article 3), in respect of medicine and biology, in particular:

free and informed consent of the person concerned, according to the procedures laid down by law; and prohibition of eugenic practices.

6) The World Medical Association (WMA) International Code of Medical Ethics states: "A physician shall: respect a competent patient’s right to accept or refuse treatment." https://t.co/LtGfRVU94G?amp=1

7) The Oviedo Convention: Article 5

8) Council of Europe - Resolution 2361 of 2021

The Regulation sets without doubt the most dangerous precedent around liberty and freedom of movement since the inception of the Irish free state, it is extremely worrisome that all Fine Gael and Fianna Fail Members of Parliament sought fit to vote to accelerate the examination procedure around this Regulation.

I previously advised you that I considered your vote as to whether you would agree to a fast-track review of this Regulation to be one of the most defining decisions you would make during your tenure as an Irish Representative within the European Parliament. I continue to hold this position.

I understand that the vote to pass or otherwise the Regulation has now been scheduled for 27/28 April 2021. Having considered the Regulation in detail, I urge you to VOTE NO to this Regulation for reasons which include the following:

Vote ‘NO’ to the Regulation due to underlining critical aspects of the PCR Test:

1. The PCR test detects specific segments of genetic material present in SARS-CoV-2. However, a PCR test cannot distinguish between live and dead viruses. Therefore, a positive PCR test fails to provide any information about the infectiousness of an individual. Used in isolation, it does not prove that the person is actively infected, or sick, or can infect others (Jefferson et al, 2020).
2. People infected with SARS-CoV-2 can be infectious for a short period before the onset of symptoms of COVID-19 and for approximately eight days after the onset of symptoms. Due to the sensitivity of PCR tests, inactive viral fragments can be detected in nasal swabs for up to 83 days from the onset of disease (Jefferson et al, 2020).
3. It is possible for a person to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 when they do not have the virus, due to errors within the PCR test protocol. False positive results can also occur from contamination when taking the sample, when handling it in a laboratory, when testing asymptomatic individuals and due to equipment errors (Craig, 2021).
4. The “primers” (short genetic sequences) used in PCR tests may not accurately detect SARS-CoV-2, particularly when only a single primer is used (Borger et al, 2020). The PCR test could confuse genetic material from the human genome or from other coronaviruses for SARS-CoV-2 (Craig, 2021).
5. The “cycle threshold” - the number of times genetic material is amplified - is important when interpreting PCR test results. If the cycle threshold (Ct) value is low (e.g. below 25), this indicates that there is a lot of viral genetic material and therefore it is more likely that the virus is active. If the Ct value is high (e.g. above 30), it is more likely that the infection is no longer active (Jefferson et al, 2020)
If there is no active virus, a person is not infectious.
In November 2020, a group of scientists conducted a review of the Corman-Drosten paper (Corman et al., January 2020), which set the standard for global PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2,. The scientists who conducted the review concluded that ‘the Corman-Drosten paper is severely flawed with respect to its biomolecular and methodological design’(Borger et al., 2020). The concerns raised in this review have yet to be properly addressed by the authors. In January 2021, the World Health Organisation issued technical guidance for PCR testing which outlined the limitations of PCR testing and the risk of false positives (WHO, 2021). In light of the above considerations, the validity and usefulness of current PCR testing regimes, particularly when testing asymptomatic people, must be called into question. The scientific evidence clearly shows that the PCR test cannot provide reliable results about the Covid-19 infection. Therefore, the fundamental assumption of reliability for diagnosing Covid-19 on which a PCR test Green Digital Certificate would be based is incorrect and might lead to unfair and discriminatory treatment of the bearer, who would see their fundamental freedom of movement barred on a doubtful scientific basis.


Vote ‘NO’ to the Regulation because it does not “facilitate” Free Movement but prevents it:

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.