Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

COVID-19

‘Really chilling’: Five countries to test European vaccination card

Published

11 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Michael Nevradakis Ph. D., The Defender

The goal is financial control. There is no legitimate public health purpose. The central bankers are hiding behind a health narrative — policies like lockdown are a way to manage inflation and resource demand when monetary policy is highly inflationary.

Five European Union (EU) countries in September will pilot the newly developed European Vaccination Card (EVC), which “aims to empower individuals by consolidating all their vaccination data in one easily accessible location.

The pilot program marks a step toward the continent-wide rollout of the card, according to Vaccines Today.

Belgium, GermanyGreece, Latvia and Portugal will test the new card in a variety of formats, including printed cards, mailed copies and digital versions for smartphones.

The program aims to “pave the way for other countries by harmonizing vaccine terminology, developing a common syntax, ensuring adaptability across different healthcare settings, and refining EVC implementation plans,” Vaccines Today reported.

The plans will be made public in 2026, “extending the EVC system beyond the pilot phases and enabling broad adoption across all EU Member States.”

According to Vaccines Today, the EVC program seeks to leverage “the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic” and foster “innovation in vaccination management,” with the goal of “taking crucial steps toward a more resilient and health-secure future.”

Vaccines Today described the GDHCN as a “citizen-centered method of storing and sharing data,” rather than a system that relies “solely on public health systems.”

Greece was the first European country to propose the implementation of a vaccination passport, which was eventually adopted as the EU’s “Green Pass.” Greece later became the first EU member state to adopt a digital “Covid passport.”

Greece’s University of Crete is coordinating the EVC project alongside 14 partners from nine countries — and with 6.75 million euros ($7.3 million) in funding from the European Commission’s (EC) EU4Health program. The EC is the EU’s executive branch.

‘Direct threat to our freedom’

Experts who spoke with The Defender said that plans for the EVC pose a direct threat to personal and health freedom and national sovereignty.

Dr. David Bell, a public health physician, biotech consultant and former director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund, said:

The proposed vaccination card reflects an increasing effort to utilize public health tools as a means to concentrate wealth and provide a means to control populations. It is very reminiscent of approaches in parts of Europe pre-World War II, and essentially serves a similar purpose: to exclude individuals who do not follow government instructions from society.

The trial in Europe is an obvious next step after the recent widening of surveillance under the IHR [International Health Regulation] amendments, which greatly increase the likelihood of recurrent lockdowns to enable mandated vaccination as a way to force mass use, and profit-making, from vaccines.

Dutch attorney Meike Terhorst also criticized the pilot program, calling a digital vaccination passport a “direct threat to our freedom and also the sovereignty of any state.”

“All our powers are handed over to the globalists, the group of bankers and investors,” Terhorst said.

Catherine Austin Fitts, founder and publisher of the Solari Report and former U.S. assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development, said plans for the EVC represent “another step toward asserting control of labor and travel, with a goal to controlling resources and assets.”

Fitts said:

The goal is financial control. There is no legitimate public health purpose. The central bankers are hiding behind a health narrative — policies like lockdown are a way to manage inflation and resource demand when monetary policy is highly inflationary.

Experts also tied the rollout of the EVC to warnings from government and health officials about the “next pandemic,” potentially caused by the bird flu or a still-unknown “Disease X.”

According to Fitts:

Many steps are underway to prepare for a bird flu pandemic. Chicken is the most significant source of meat protein.

So far in response to the current bird flu claims, I am told by experts who follow bird flu claims that 99 million birds have been killed in the U.S. and 500 million worldwide. Bird flu vaccines have been shipped to Europe. A vaccine card can be used to try to pressure or force people to take another unnecessary injection.

French science journalist and author Xavier Bazin told The Defender, “For the time being, a vaccination card in Europe is meant to ensure that most children get their vaccination.” However, he said he believes the next step is to try to mandate the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine across Europe.

“Even if they do not succeed with MMR, this kind of card will be perfect when the next ‘pandemic’ hits and they want to mandate an emergency vaccine, like they did with COVID,” Bazin said.

Similarly, Bell said:

WHO and other agencies are clear in their intent to link compliance with centralized health dictates with the ability of people to go about their daily life.

Whilst directly against post-WWII conventions, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the spirit of the Nuremberg Declaration, they have the backing of major international agencies and the corporate interests that have become enmeshed with them over the past two decades.

Experts also pointed out that plans for the EVC have been in the works even before the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The digital vaccination passport is a technical means to override personal freedoms, such as the right to say no to a vaccination,” Terhorst said. “It is a means to turn free human beings into ‘slaves.’ This digital vaccination passport has been planned many years in advance by the globalists.”

Plans for EU vaccination card began in 2018

Development of the EVC began in 2018, according to official EU documents.

That year, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance announced at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF), that it would become the first international nonprofit to partner with the WEF’s Center for the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

“In my opinion, [the EVC] is linked to Gavi’s project of mixing digital ID and vaccination proof,” Bazin said.

In 2019, the ID2020 Alliance, along with Gavi and the Government of Bangladesh, announced a new digital ID program, for which it was later announced that it aimed “to provide biometric-linked digital IDs to infants when they receive routine immunisations.”

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a partner of Gavi, which, in turn, closely collaborates with the ID2020 Alliance, which has promoted the development of digital ID.

According to Vaccines Today, the EVC is necessary because zoonotic diseases — those transmitted from animals to humans — “continue to pose a significant threat to global health.”

“As Europe transitions from emergency measures to long-term COVID-19 management, there is a critical opportunity to strengthen resilience and increase preparedness for future health threats,” Vaccines Today reported, citing the EVC as one such project.

Other EU-level projects in the works, according to Vaccines Today, include “a clinical decision system that provides vaccination recommendations, a screening tool to identify and invite vulnerable populations, an electronic Product Information Leaflet (e-PIL) to enable the transfer of vaccines across countries without having to repackage them, and a modeling and forecasting tool to assess the impact of public health interventions.”

But for Bazin, such efforts have little to do with protecting public health.

“For those who think vaccination is a medical procedure that should always remain a free choice, the European Vaccination Card is really chilling and should be opposed,” he said.

This article was originally published by The Defender – Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

COVID-19

US medical center refusing COVID shots for employees but still promoting to public

Published on

Exert from Medical Musings by Dr. Pierre Kory

Major Covid mRNA policy reversals and awakenings occurred this week within a major U.S health system, a large U.S state, a South American country, and in the UK. The dominoes are starting to fall.

This week a nurse reached out with disturbing descriptions of some major changes she has witnessed inside the Ohio State University Medical Center (OSUMC) system.

OSUMC s a large and comprehensive healthcare organization, with a significant presence in Ohio and a strong focus on research, education, and patient care. It is a massive institution with over 23,000 employees, including:

  • Over 2,000 physicians
  • More than 1,000 residents and fellows
  • Nearly 5,000 nurses

Lets start off with this screenshot of a webpage from OSUMC’s website which provides information to the public as to where they can get Covid-19 vaccines. Check out the highlighted sentence at the bottom of the page:

Wait, what? Ohio State is suddenly no longer offering the Covid-19 vaccine to any of their employees but they are happily offering to inject them into the public? How can such a policy be justified? Why was this change in policy done and why was it done so quietly?

Let’s get this straight. Ohio State’s leadership is now making an institutional decision that employees should not be offerred access to any Covid-19 mRNA vaccine. I am (pretending to be) confused. I mean, if the vaccines could protect patients from being infected by staff members and they were safe to give to staff members, why wouldn’t you do everything possible (like a mandate) to ensure they receive them?

The only possible reason for the action above is that either OSUMC leadership recently discovered that the vaccines: a) do not work or b) are not safe. I think you would agree that, of the two possible answers, the only one that makes sense to explain this abrupt change in policy is B) they are not safe. I say this because if they were safe but instead just didn’t really work very well, Ohio State would not have the incentive to divorce themselves so abruptly and strongly from the recommendations of our benevolent federal government. I believe such an action would pretty quickly and negatively impact federal research funding by the NIH. It is my belief that agency’s money kept the nations 126 major academic medical centers in line throughout Covid, as those CEO’s and Deans are well aware that NIH retaliation in terms of rejecting grant funding if they “dissent” is real and happens (inflated reimbursements from the gov’t was another one of course).

I asked the brave browser AI, “why is Ohio State Medical Center no longer offering Covid-19 vaccines to its employees?” Two sentences jumped out:

  • “Based on the provided search results, it appears that Ohio State Medical Center did offer COVID-19 vaccines to its employees at one point.”
  • “Without further information or clarification from Ohio State Medical Center, it’s difficult to provide a definitive answer on why they may not be offering COVID-19 vaccines to their employees.”

So it must be the case that Ohio State leadership somehow found themselves a stronger financial disincentive to subjecting employees to Covid-19 vaccine injection. Where would such a disincentive come from? Answer: lawsuits. I also suspect that fear of worsening staff shortages from disability and/or death further disrupting operations played a role as well (as you will learn below).

This new policy action (taken very quietly) is absolutely dam breaking to me in terms of progress towards the truth about the mRNA platform getting out to the public. It is also appears ethically reprehensible, i.e. the institution made the decision to keep jabbing the public with a toxic and lethal vaccine while becoming aware that same vaccine is either exposing them to unmanageable legal risks and/or is disrupting their operations by negatively impacting the health of their workforce. Welcome to dystopia.

To see the rest of this article click here.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Trial for Freedom Convoy leaders ends, verdict may take 6 months

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

In her concluding statements last Friday in an Ottawa courthouse, presiding judge Heather Perkins-McVey said that she does ‘not know’ when a decision will be rendered in the Freedom Convoy leaders’ trial.

The trial for Freedom Convoy leaders Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, which was supposed to have been only 16 days long, has now concluded after over a year, with the presiding judge observing that determining a verdict, which could take up to six months, will be “daunting” task.  

In her concluding statements last Friday in an Ottawa courthouse, presiding judge Heather Perkins-McVey said that she does “not know” when she will “be in a position to give my decision,” adding that coming up with a verdict will be “a little daunting.” 

The judge has promised that on November 26, she will be providing an update as to when a decision could be forthcoming.  

The trial has been ongoing for over one year and began on September 3, 2023. As reported by LifeSiteNews, both Lich and Barber face a possible 10-year prison sentence for their role in the 2022 Freedom Convoy.

In an X post on Friday, Lich shared her thoughts on the trial finally wrapping up.  

“Well, that’s a wrap to the Longest Mischief Trial of All Time,” she wrote. 

“The Crown really disappointed me today. His remarks about the Event That Shall Not Be Named (Freedom Convoy) being nothing more than a weekend party are indicative of a level of smugness and elitism that I can never and will never understand,” added Lich.

Both Lich and Barber had attended the hearings in person, travelling from their homes in Alberta and Saskatchewan respectively. Last Friday, however, they attended via video.

The Crown prosecution has held steadfast to the notion that Lich and Barber somehow influenced the protesters’ actions through their words as part of a co-conspiracy. This claim has been rejected by the defense as weak. 

It has also been asserted “that the absence of violence or peaceful nature of the protest didn’t make it lawful, emphasizing that the onus was on the Crown to prove the protest’s unlawfulness.” 

The reality is that Lich and Barber collaborated with police on many occasions so that the protest remained law abiding.  

The Democracy Fund, which is crowdfunding Lich’s legal costs, noted in one of its last legal updates of the trial that it expected the Crown would try to prove the leaders were “co-conspirators,” meaning that accusations placed against one leader automatically apply to the other.

As reported by LifeSiteNews at the time, despite the non-violent nature of the protest and the charges, Lich was jailed for  weeks before she was granted bail. 

Continue Reading

Trending

X