COVID Corruption Media Articles
Below are key excerpts of revealing news articles on COVID corruption from reliable news media sources. If any link fails to function, a paywall blocks full access, or the article is no longer available, try these digital tools.
For further exploration, delve into our comprehensive Coronavirus Information Center.
Almost 500 U.S. service members have been discharged so far for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine. But that number is likely to climb as the various military branches continue the process of dealing with those who are refusing to get vaccinated against COVID-19, or have requested exemptions. The Navy said on Tuesday that it has discharged 23 active-duty sailors for refusing the coronavirus vaccine. The Air Force, as of January 21, has discharged 111 active-duty airmen. As of January 20, the Marine Corps had discharged 334 Marines. The Army is the only service that has not yet initiated separations for active-duty personnel for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine. But in a news release earlier this month, the Army said it had relieved six active-duty leaders, including two battalion commanders, from their positions for refusing the vaccine. The Army also said it had issued almost 3,000 general officer written reprimands to soldiers for vaccine refusal. The 2022 National Defense Authorization Act, which President Joe Biden signed into law in December, prohibits service members from being dishonorably discharged for refusing to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Last summer, the Department of Defense announced that it would make COVID-19 vaccination mandatory for all service members—active-duty, National Guard and Reserves. Around 98 percent of active-duty service members are fully vaccinated, according to the Department of Defense.
Note: This 3-minute video features a hearing where data was given by Dept. of Defense whistleblowers reporting on the health of US soldiers. The data clearly shows that neurological problems among troops increased by 10 times (1,000%) over previous years. Other disease also had major increases. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on coronavirus vaccines from reliable major media sources.
Pfizer Inc wants to intervene in a Texas federal lawsuit seeking information from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration used in licensing the company's COVID-19 vaccine, a litigation move that plaintiffs who are suing for the data say is premature. Pfizer's lawyers at DLA Piper told U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman on Jan. 21 it wanted a role in the proceedings to help the FDA avoid "inappropriately" disclosing trade secret and confidential commercial information. On Tuesday night, the group of doctors and scientists who sued last year over public access to the FDA's Pfizer licensing records said in a court filing that the company's bid to jump into the lawsuit was untimely because the plaintiffs have not challenged any redactions to requested records. Earlier this month, the judge ordered a fast-track release of hundreds of thousands of documents, calling the case "of paramount public importance." U.S. government agencies control the release of information under federal public-records laws, but companies can challenge and even sue to block the disclosure of certain details. The FDA earlier drew criticism over its plan to release 500 pages a month in response to the lawsuit from Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, a production schedule that would take more than 50 years to complete. In its filing, Pfizer said the company supports public disclosure of FDA records "to promote transparency and the public's confidence in the vaccine."
Note: For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on Big Pharma corruption and coronavirus vaccines from reliable major media sources.
Austrian lawmakers on Thursday voted 137-33 in favor of a COVID-19 mandate that requires all residents 18 and older to be vaccinated. The mandate, which will go into effect on February 1, will allow fines of up to $4,000 for noncompliance. Officials said the mandate is necessary since Austria's vaccination rate is one of the lowest in Western Europe. Our World Data reported that 74 percent of the country is vaccinated. Austria ... has had four lockdowns. AP reported that police will routinely check vaccination status, and those who cannot show proof of vaccination will first receive a warning and then be fined $685 if they don't comply. Chancellor Karl Nehammer said the government also plans to send unvaccinated individuals vaccine appointments and will be fined if they don't show up. Vaccination exemptions will be made for pregnant women, people who cannot get vaccinated for medical reasons and people who have recovered from coronavirus somewhere in the past six months. There will also be $1.59 billion invested into incentives to encourage unvaccinated people to get the shot. Since the mandate was first announced, there have been large protests in Vienna, drawing more than 40,000 people. The mandate is the first of its kind in Europe. Italy and Greece made the COVID-19 vaccine mandatory for ages 50-plus and 60-plus, respectively. The Austrian mandate is expected to stay in place until January of 2024.
Note: Greece is also issuing monthly fines to older people who don’t get a vaccine. The government can now mandate what is put in your body when we don't even know the long-term effects. Is this is moral and ethical? For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on coronavirus vaccines from reliable major media sources.
In the pages of The BMJ a decade ago, in the middle of a different pandemic, it came to light that governments around the world had spent billions stockpiling antivirals for influenza that had not been shown to reduce the risk of complications, hospital admissions, or death. The errors of the last pandemic are being repeated. Memories are short. Today, despite the global rollout of covid-19 vaccines and treatments, [the] data underlying the trials for these new products remain inaccessible to doctors, researchers, and the public—and are likely to remain that way for years to come. This is morally indefensible for all trials, but especially for those involving major public health interventions. Pfizer’s pivotal covid vaccine trial was funded by the company and designed, run, analysed, and authored by Pfizer employees. The company and the contract research organisations that carried out the trial hold all the data. And Pfizer has indicated that it will not begin entertaining requests for trial data until May 2025, 24 months after the primary study completion date. The lack of access to data is consistent across vaccine manufacturers. Regulators and public health bodies could release details such as why vaccine trials were not designed to test efficacy against infection and spread of SARS-CoV-2. Had regulators insisted on this outcome, countries would have learnt sooner about the effect of vaccines on transmission and been able to plan accordingly.
Note: For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on coronavirus vaccines from reliable major media sources.
Previous infection with the coronavirus appeared to provide stronger protection against the Delta variant than did vaccination in a large sample of patients, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported. Scientists analyzed testing, surveillance and immunization data from the [New York and California] to gauge the level of protection offered by vaccines and previous infection. During the week beginning May 30, 2021, vaccinated people who had not experienced Covid had the lowest risk of coronavirus infection and hospitalization, followed by unvaccinated people who had been previously diagnosed with Covid. By the week beginning Oct. 3, however, vaccinated people with a prior diagnosis fared best against the Delta variant. Unvaccinated people with a history of Covid also had lower rates of infection and hospitalization than those protected by vaccines alone. Waning of vaccine-derived immunity may explain why vaccinated people were less protected from infection with the Delta variant than those who had a prior diagnosis. A recent study of employees at the Cleveland Clinic suggested that ... vaccination does not add much benefit to a prior bout for the first many months.
Note: The full article is strongly biased towards vaccination, yet the data shows that prior exposure to COVID often provides better protection than the vaccines, whose protection clearly wanes over time. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on coronavirus vaccines from reliable major media sources.
Previous infection with the coronavirus appeared to provide stronger protection against the Delta variant than did vaccination in a large sample of patients, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported. Scientists analyzed testing, surveillance and immunization data from the [New York and California] to gauge the level of protection offered by vaccines and previous infection. During the week beginning May 30, 2021, vaccinated people who had not experienced Covid had the lowest risk of coronavirus infection and hospitalization, followed by unvaccinated people who had been previously diagnosed with Covid. By the week beginning Oct. 3, however, vaccinated people with a prior diagnosis fared best against the Delta variant. Unvaccinated people with a history of Covid also had lower rates of infection and hospitalization than those protected by vaccines alone. Waning of vaccine-derived immunity may explain why vaccinated people were less protected from infection with the Delta variant than those who had a prior diagnosis. A recent study of employees at the Cleveland Clinic suggested that ... vaccination does not add much benefit to a prior bout for the first many months.
Note: The full article is strongly biased towards vaccination, yet the data shows that prior exposure to COVID often provides better protection than the vaccines, whose protection clearly wanes over time. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on coronavirus vaccines from reliable major media sources.
The Supreme Court’s ruling last week shutting down the Biden administration’s effort to enlist large employers in its vaccination campaign, experts said, would trigger a new wave of uncertainty about how companies keep workers safe from Covid-19. Now Starbucks, with 9,000 U.S. coffee shops and 200,000 workers, has become one of the first major retailers to backtrack on vaccine plans since the ruling. Starbucks told its employees in a memo on Tuesday that they would no longer be required to be fully vaccinated or submit to weekly coronavirus testing. Just two weeks earlier, the company had detailed the requirement and set a deadline of Feb. 9. The Supreme Court’s decision did not prohibit companies from keeping their vaccine rules in place, and many will continue rolling out stringent Covid-19 safety protocols, especially as Covid case counts remain high. Starbucks’s move to drop its vaccine-or-test deadline highlights how the court’s ruling has put the responsibility for determining vaccination rules squarely on employers. And companies face a patchwork of federal, state and local laws, which range from vaccine mandates that are stricter than the federal government’s to laws blocking companies from requiring workers to wear masks. Retailers and their advocates had been among the most vocal critics of the federal government’s vaccine rule, saying it would have exacerbated their struggles to hire or hold on to workers when millions of unemployed Americans remain on the sidelines of the job market.
Note: For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on coronavirus vaccines from reliable major media sources.
The pandemic has made the world's wealthiest far richer but has led to more people living in poverty, according to the charity Oxfam. Lower incomes for the world's poorest contributed to the death of 21,000 people each day. But the world's 10 richest men have more than doubled their collective fortunes since March 2020, Oxfam said. Oxfam typically releases a report on global inequality at the start of the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos. That event usually sees thousands of corporate and political leaders, celebrities, campaigners, economists and journalists gather in the Swiss ski resort for panel discussions, drinks parties and schmoozing. However for the second year running, the meeting (scheduled for this week) will be online-only after the emergence of the Omicron variant derailed plans to return to an in-person event. Danny Sriskandarajah, Oxfam GB's chief executive, said the charity timed the report each year to coincide with Davos to attract the attention of economic, business and political elites. "This year, what's happening is off the scale," he said. "There's been a new billionaire created almost every day during this pandemic, meanwhile 99% of the world's population are worse off because of lockdowns, lower international trade, less international tourism, and as a result of that, 160 million more people have been pushed into poverty." "Something is deeply flawed with our economic system," he added.
Note: BBC sadly fails to mention it is not the pandemic that has caused all of this, but the lockdowns. 21,000 a day, which is one million every 50 days, died as a result of the lockdowns. 160 million humans fell into poverty a result of these lockdowns, not to mention the huge increase in suicides, murders, domestic abuse, shuttered small businesses, and more. Even if a million lives were saved by the lockdowns, was it worth these tremendous costs? For more, see summaries of deeply revealing news articles on the coronavirus from reliable media sources.
Last night, U.S. Senator Roger Marshall received Dr. Anthony Fauci’s unredacted FY2020 financial disclosures. The financial disclosures contain a wealth of previously unknown information. For example, the Fauci household’s net worth exceeds $10.4 million. During the pandemic year of 2020, their household income, perks and benefits, and unrealized gains totaled $1,776,479 — including federal income and benefits of $868,812; outside royalties and travel perks totaling $113,298; and investment accounts increasing by $794,369. Fauci earned $434,312 in cash compensation (FY2020) outearning all 4.3 million federal employees including the president and four-star generals in the U.S. military. Between 2010 and 2020, Dr. Fauci earned cash compensation of $3.7 million from his federal employer. NIH does still not disclose Fauci’s current salary (FY2022) or last year’s salary (FY2021), despite comment requests for the information. Therefore, Fauci earned an estimated total of roughly $900,000 during the period. Federal employees have a lucrative amount of paid time off, subsidized healthcare, pension benefits and a myriad of other perquisites. For example, after just three-years, a rank-and-file federal employee receives 44 days of paid time off. Dr. Fauci has held a federal job for 55 years. When Fauci retires he’ll reap a retirement pension estimated at $350,000 per year, the highest in federal history. With cost-of-living increases, Fauci would receive over $1 million during his first three years of retirement.
Note: After Forbes was pressured by the NIH, the column of the author of this article, Adam Andrzejewski, was terminated not long after it was published. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on government corruption and the coronavirus from reliable major media sources.
After raking in enormous profits from its coronavirus vaccine in 2021, the U.S.-based pharmaceutical giant Pfizer has kicked off the new year by hiking the prices of more than 120 of its drugs, resulting in significantly higher costs for patients amid a deadly pandemic. That's according to a new report released Thursday by Patients for Affordable Drugs (P4AD), which found that pharmaceutical companies have raised the prices of 554 medicines this month alone. Pfizer led the way with 125 price hikes to start 2022, leading P4AD to label the company the industry's "poster child for greed." "Due to sales of its Covid-19 vaccine, which is set to be the best-selling drug of all time, Pfizer shattered profit records in 2021. Projected sales for 2022 are $54.5 billion—more than double the previous record for one-year sales for a prescription drug," the report notes. "To put this into perspective, AbbVie's Humira previously held the spot with $19.8 billion in sales, and Pfizer’s best-selling product just prior to the pandemic achieved worldwide revenues of $5.8 billion." "Despite this record revenue in 2021," the report continues, "Pfizer began 2022 with price hikes on seven of its 10 best-selling drugs," including its pneumonia vaccine (up 6.9%), a breast cancer medication (up 6.9%), and a treatment for people with cardiovascular disease (up 6%). "These hikes of 5% or 6% can translate into thousands of dollars in higher costs for patients," P4AD notes.
Note: See also a Forbes article asking why physicians aren’t challenging outrageous pricing for medical costs. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on Big Pharma profiteering from reliable major media sources.
Like many paediatricians, Dani Dumitriu braced herself for the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus when it first surged in her wards. She was relieved when most newborn babies at her hospital who had been exposed to COVID-19 seemed to do just fine. But hints of a more subtle and insidious trend followed close behind. Dumitriu and her team ... had more than two years of data on infant development — since late 2017, they had been analysing the communication and motor skills of babies up to six months old. Dumitriu thought it would be interesting to compare the results from babies born before and during the pandemic. The infants born during the pandemic scored lower, on average, on tests of gross motor, fine motor and communication skills compared with those born before it. It didn’t matter whether their birth parent had been infected with the virus or not; there seemed to be something about the environment of the pandemic itself. Lockdowns ... have isolated many young families, robbing them of playtime and social interactions. Stressed out and stretched thin, many carers also haven’t been able to provide the one-to-one time that babies and toddlers need. Worryingly, [biophysicist Sean] Deoni has found that the longer the pandemic has continued, the more deficits children have accumulated. “The magnitude is massive — it’s just astonishing,” Deoni says of the findings, which are now under revision in JAMA Pediatrics.
Note: For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on the coronavirus and health from reliable major media sources.
On Tuesday, Republicans on [a] House Committee ... released a letter that paints a damning picture of U.S. government officials wrestling with whether the novel coronavirus may have leaked out of a lab they were funding ... and then keeping the discussion from spilling out into public view. The newly released notes ... first obtained through the Freedom of Information Act by BuzzFeed News and the The Washington Post ... suggest that the scientists Fauci consulted initially considered that possibility to be much more serious than the paper let on. As they discussed what to present to the public, the scientists determined that questions of potential lab origin might prove more trouble than they’re worth. Virologists Michael Farzan and Robert Garry told Fauci ... the virus might have leaked from the Wuhan lab. The major feedback [from a] Feb 1 teleconference was: 1. Don’t try to write a paper at all. 2. If you do write it, don’t mention a lab origin as that will just add fuel to the conspiracists. Jeremy Farrar, an infectious disease expert ... sent around notes, including to Fauci and Collins, summarizing what some of the scientists had said. Farzan ... “is bothered by the furin site and has a hard time explaining that as an event outside the lab." [One virologist commented that] "further debate about such accusations would unnecessarily distract top researchers from their active duties and do unnecessary harm to science in general and science in China in particular.”
Note: For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on government corruption and the coronavirus from reliable major media sources.
It’s not public what Dr. Fauci’s salary was last year or this year. (The latest published salary is from FY2020.) It’s not public what stocks and bonds Dr. Fauci bought and sold in 2020 or 2021, as he influenced Covid policies. It’s not public what Fauci received – or didn’t receive – in royalties. (There are up to 1,000 current and former NIH scientists receiving royalties.) Each payment could be a potential conflict of interest. Yes, all this information resides with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), but isn’t “public knowledge,” despite Dr. Fauci’s claims otherwise in his sworn U.S. Senate testimony yesterday. These facts are known because an organization I lead, OpenTheBooks.com, is suing NIH for production of those records. In fact, NIH admits it holds approximately 1,200 pages relating to Fauci’s financial information and conflict of interest disclosures. Transparency advocates say that NIH should post these documents online immediately. At Forbes, last January, I published an OpenTheBooks’ investigation that Fauci was the most highly compensated federal employee and out-earned the President and four-star generals in the U.S. military. NIH is holding 1,200 pages of Fauci disclosure information, the agency will only produce 300 pages per month and not even begin to produce documents until February 1st. What else will the public discover about Dr. Fauci with an additional 1,200 pages of disclosure? For example, did Fauci’s early knowledge of the Covid-19 outbreak influence any of his financial trading?
Note: After Forbes was pressured by the NIH, the column of the author of this article, Adam Andrzejewski, was terminated not long after it was published. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on government corruption and the coronavirus from reliable major media sources.
European Union regulators warned that frequent Covid-19 booster shots could adversely affect the immune response and may not be feasible. Repeat booster doses every four months could eventually weaken the immune response and tire out people, according to the European Medicines Agency. Instead, countries should leave more time between booster programs and tie them to the onset of the cold season in each hemisphere, following the blueprint set out by influenza vaccination strategies, the agency said. The advice comes as some countries consider the possibility of offering people second booster shots in a bid to provide further protection against surging omicron infections. Earlier this month Israel became the first nation to start administering a second booster, or fourth shot, to those over 60. The U.K. has said that boosters are providing good levels of protection and there is no need for a second booster shot at the moment, but will review data as it evolves. Boosters “can be done once, or maybe twice, but it’s not something that we can think should be repeated constantly,” Marco Cavaleri, the EMA head of biological health threats and vaccines strategy, said at a press briefing on Tuesday. “We need to think about how we can transition from the current pandemic setting to a more endemic setting.”
Note: For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on coronavirus vaccines from reliable major media sources.
The director for the CDC publicly acknowledged in a CNN interview that the COVID-19 vaccine is not effective at preventing transmission of the virus. In a segment on CNN with Wolf Blitzer, Walensky said that while the vaccines are doing very well to protect against serious illness and death, what they cannot do anymore is stop transmission. “Our vaccines are working exceptionally well. They continue to work well for Delta with regard to severe illness and death. They prevent it," Walensky said. The following statement is more notable, however, as it is one of the only times the CDC has acknowledged that the vaccines are not capable of stopping the spread of the virus. "...what they can’t do anymore is prevent transmission" ... Walensky stated.
Note: Why did many officials state emphatically early on that vaccines were the only thing that would stop the pandemic when they do not stop transmission of the virus? Doesn't this show the vaccine mandates were a sham? A BMJ (British Medical Journal) article states “Vaccines aren’t preventing onward transmission by reducing the viral load—or amount of SARS-CoV-2—in your body.” For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on coronavirus vaccines from reliable major media sources.
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla on Monday said two doses of the company’s vaccine may not provide strong protection against infection from the Covid omicron variant, and the original shots have also lost some of their efficacy at preventing hospitalization. Bourla, in an interview at JPMorgan’s health-care conference, emphasized the importance of a third shot to boost people’s protection against omicron. “The two doses, they’re not enough for omicron,” Bourla said. “The third dose of the current vaccine is providing quite good protection against deaths, and decent protection against hospitalizations.” Bourla said omicron is a more difficult target than previous variants. Omicron, which has dozens of mutations, can evade some of the protection provided by Pfizer’s original two shots. Two-doses of Pfizer’s or Moderna’s vaccines are only about 10% effective at preventing infection from omicron 20 weeks after the second dose. A booster dose ... is up to 75% effective at preventing symptomatic infection and 88% effective at preventing hospitalization. However ... the U.K. Health Security Agency also found that boosters are only 40% to 50% effective against infection 10 weeks after receiving the shot.
Note: What happened to the 95% effectiveness touted highly in the beginning? Why weren't we told that the vaccines could lose most of their efficacy over time? Does this mean we'll need a new vaccine with every new variant? And of course, this means more billions flowing into the pockets of big Pharma. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on coronavirus vaccines from reliable major media sources.
A federal judge in Texas on Thursday ordered the Food and Drug Administration to make public the data it relied on to license Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, imposing a dramatically accelerated schedule that should result in the release of all information within about eight months. That’s roughly 75 years and four months faster than the FDA said it could take to complete a Freedom of Information Act request by a group of doctors and scientists seeking an estimated 450,000 pages of material about the vaccine. The court “concludes that this FOIA request is of paramount public importance,” wrote U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman. The FDA didn’t dispute it had an obligation to make the information public but argued that its short-staffed FOIA office only had the bandwidth to review and release 500 pages a month. While Pittman recognized “the ‘unduly burdensome’ challenges that this FOIA request may present to the FDA,” in his four-page order, he resoundingly rejected the agency’s suggested schedule. Rather than producing 500 pages a month — the FDA's proposed timeline — he ordered the agency to turn over 55,000 a month. That means all the Pfizer vaccine data should be public by the end of the summer rather than, say, the year 2097. Aaron Siri of Siri & Glimstad, who represents the plaintiffs, in an email said the decision "came down on the side of transparency and accountability." His clients ... have pledged to publish all the information they receive from the FDA on their website.
Note: Why did almost no major media pick up this important article? And read this revealing article on 800 individuals who Pfizer reported withdrew from their vaccine studies, some because of health problems which could have been caused by the vaccine. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on coronavirus vaccines from reliable major media sources.
Millions of doses of a new, cheap coronavirus vaccine will soon be available in India, and they will arrive with one distinction neither Moderna nor Pfizer can claim: They’re patent-free. The new CORBEVAX inoculation, which was developed in Texas with decades-old technology and little support from the U.S. government, received emergency use authorization last week from India’s drug regulation agency. The researchers behind the vaccine stand with little to gain financially. “We don’t own any intellectual property,” said Dr. Peter Hotez, a researcher who helped lead the vaccine’s development. Human rights campaigners are pressuring pharmaceutical companies to transfer new vaccine technology to speed global access to shots. And while doubts linger about CORBEVAX ... its development, outside the path of typical pharmaceutical development and stripped of the same financial incentives for inventors, represents a model for others. About 59 percent of the world’s population has received at least one dose of a vaccine. But fewer than 9 percent of residents in low-income countries have received a dose. To this day, countries like India remain without access to the mRNA vaccines produced by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, which have largely been purchased and distributed by wealthy countries. Boosters, and even fourth doses, are being administered in rich countries before access to first and second doses are available worldwide.
Note: In this time of crisis, why is big Pharma raking in huge profits while wonderful researchers like this are offering their findings free of charge? Why in every recent pandemic do the rich get richer while the financially disadvantaged suffer. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on coronavirus vaccines from reliable major media sources.
A year ago, just two doses of a Covid-19 vaccine — or even one, in the case of Johnson & Johnson’s formulation — were thought to offer sufficient protection against the coronavirus. On Wednesday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expanded eligibility for boosters to adolescents and backed away from describing anyone as “fully vaccinated” because two shots no longer seem adequate. Instead, one’s vaccination status will now be “up to date” — or not. It’s no surprise that many Americans are wondering: Where does this end? Are we to roll up our sleeves for booster shots every few months? Scientists are reluctant to predict the future. But in interviews this week, nearly a dozen said that whatever happens, trying to boost the entire population every few months is not realistic. Nor does it make much scientific sense. For starters, persuading people to line up for shots every few months is probably a losing proposition. Just as important, there are no data to support the effectiveness of a fourth dose of the current vaccines. If the coronavirus settles into a flulike seasonal pattern, as it seems possible, “you can imagine a scenario where we simply give boosters before the winter each year,” Dr. Hensley said. Lessons from flu season also suggest that frequent vaccination is unlikely to be helpful. Giving the flu vaccine twice a year “has a diminishing return, and so it may not make sense to do vaccination so frequently,” said [epidemiologist] Ben Cowling.
Note: Could it be that this is what big Pharma has been hoping for all along - forever boosting? And if it’s all free, you won’t even see how billions of your tax dollars are flowing into the pockets of the elite. Could this be why the Australian government on their website stated they are securing 195 million doses of COVID vaccine boosters for their population of 25 million? For more, see this revealing article. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on coronavirus vaccines from reliable major media sources.
The digital Covid vaccination certification, or “passport,” is a mobile app that instantaneously affirms the vaccinated status, Covid test results, birth date, gender, and/or other identifiers of its holder. The information is usually mosaicked in a QR code, read by a proprietary scanner, and linked to a government registry. Led by New York, California, and Louisiana, as many as 30 states are rolling them out. The Biden administration announced last spring that it would wrangle them under national standards but so far it hasn’t. Internationally, the EU and a growing number of countries are adopting them, from repressive regimes like Bahrain to democracies like Denmark. Twenty U.S. states have banned the passes, and hashtags like #NoVaccinePassports are proliferating. “Spoiler alert,” tweeted British DJ ... Lange. “They are not planning on removing vax passports once introduced. This is just the first step to get you conditioned to accepting government restrictions in your daily life via your mobile phone. This digital ID is going to expand to all aspects of your life.” New York, for one, is not expecting to mothball the technology when Covid wanes. State bureaucrats are “exploring how the platform could be retrofitted to verify other types of records and credentials.” The surveillance technologies of the War on Contagion are inherited from the War on Terror, and the software is encoded with the same forever-war mentality: Both fight risk rather than actual threat.
Note: For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on coronavirus vaccines and the disappearance of privacy from reliable major media sources.
Important Note: Explore our full index to key excerpts of revealing major media news articles on several dozen engaging topics. And don't miss amazing excerpts from 20 of the most revealing news articles ever published.
