Your Voice Matters: State Legislatures Reject All Proposed COVID Vaccine Mandates
According to the National Vaccine Information Center 2021 Annual Report, the only COVID vaccine mandates enacted so far were created by state governors, state or local officials or by private employers.
By National Vaccine Information Center
2021 has been a most extraordinary year, and the filing and passage of state-based vaccine legislation in response to the COVID-19 pandemic has proven to be historic as well.
Even in spite of the sometimes divisive and hostile political climate, active citizen involvement in the legislative process to protect the human right to exercise informed consent to vaccination was the most successful it has ever been.
The nonprofit educational charity National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) reports that during the 2021 legislative session, NVIC analyzed, tracked and issued positions on an unprecedented 473 vaccine related bills in 49 states through the NVIC Advocacy Portal.
This was the highest number of bills in the history of NVIC’s advocacy program, which was established in 2010, and more than double the bills last year.
NVIC provides well-referenced, accurate information to the public about vaccine science, policy and law but does not make vaccine use recommendations. In 2010, NVIC launched the NVIC Advocacy Portal (NVICAP), a free online vaccine choice advocacy network, for the purpose of securing and defending informed consent protections in vaccine policies and laws.
…Highlights from 2021 to date
There are significant positive take-away points from the initial outcomes of the 2021 legislative session:
Out of the 30 passed bills that contained COVID-19 related measures, 29 were bills that had positive elements that protected vaccine informed consent rights and only one restricted rights.
No state legislatures passed bills with COVID-19 mandates. The only COVID-19 vaccine mandates enacted so far were created by state governors, state or local officials, or by private employers.
So far, 20 states have passed some form of protective language from COVID-19 vaccine mandates or vaccine passports in some capacity.
These states are: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Utah. Specific protections are broken out in detail below.
The 2021 legislative session featured 278 bills worthy of NVIC’s support, which is more than any legislative session since the launching of NVIC’s Advocacy Portal in 2010. This is up from only 18 good bills that NVIC supported in 2016.
This is the first year in which NVIC has supported more vaccine-related bills than we opposed, and the ratio of bills supported to bills opposed is more than 2-to-1. An impressive 29 positive bills supporting vaccine informed consent rights passed.
COVID-19 related bills (30)
Many of the bills filed in 2021 attempted to protect people from being mandated to take a COVID-19 vaccine or being discriminated against for not showing proof of vaccination or post-infection recovery, including bills opposing vaccine passports in some form.
In November of 2020, NVIC Advocacy created and shared model language to address the real threat of vaccine mandates and forced vaccination in the states in all areas (society, employment, health care, emergency powers etc.) with NVIC state directors and leaders of groups that work closely with NVIC.
NVIC hosted a leader training session and, subsequently, these dedicated freedom and informed consent leaders reached out to their legislators, which assisted in the filing of bills in 49 states with various types of protection from COVID-19 vaccine passports or COVID-19 vaccine mandates.
One of these bills, which was derived from NVIC model language — Texas SB 1669 — offered the most comprehensive protections of all state bills filed this legislative session.
Although SB 1669 did not pass in Texas, the amazing statements, which were made in public hearings by the bill’s author, Texas doctors and citizens opposing proposed COVID-19 vaccine mandates, helped shift the public conversation for the country.
Read NVIC’s full report on the May 6, 2021 historic hearing, which includes transcripts of selected testimony.
So far, 20 states have passed some form of protective language that prohibit COVID-19 vaccine passports or COVID-19 vaccine mandates in some capacity.
These states are: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Utah.
Of the 30 COVID-19 related bills that passed, 29 were bills that had positive elements that protected informed consent rights and only one restricted informed consent rights. Importantly, no state legislature passed bills with COVID-19 mandates.
Regarding employer COVID-19 vaccine mandates, Montana passed legislation prohibiting this and Arizona passed legislation prohibiting teachers from being forced to be vaccinated in order to keep their jobs.
Prohibiting discrimination or segregation against those declining COVID-19 vaccines or preventing citizens from being required to show documentation of proof of COVID-19 vaccination (or showing a vaccine passport) has been included in bills passed in many states this year.
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas all passed various types of bills prohibiting discrimination or a requirement to show proof of COVID-19 vaccination in certain circumstances.
Students have gained protection from school COVID-19 vaccine mandates in certain circumstances in Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana (disclosure of existing right to decline) Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas.
Requirements to obtain parental consent to vaccinate minor children in certain circumstances have been added in North Carolina and Ohio.
COVID-19 vaccine mandates have been prohibited outright in certain circumstances in Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, New Hampshire, Tennessee and Utah, and new rights to decline COVID-19 vaccines in certain circumstances were added in Arizona, Kentucky and Montana.
Citizens of Iowa and Indiana are protected from having their vaccine status tied to their drivers’ licenses or state identification, and Utah has prohibited specified financial incentives to vaccinate with taxpayer money.
The only state to pass a bill limiting rights was Virginia, which penalizes unvaccinated workers in workman’s compensation benefits if they have COVID-19.
It is important to note that the COVID-19 mandates that are being implemented today have all been through orders by governors, state health or local officials or by private employers. None has been enacted through passage of legislation by elected representatives in state legislatures.
Some of the state governors have issued executive or emergency orders for COVID-19 mandates. These include:
Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont — Executive Order 13D — COVID-19 vaccine mandates for state employees and schools.
Hawaii Gov. David Ige — Emergency proclamation — COVID-19 vaccine mandates for state and county employees.
Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker — Executive Order 22 — COVID-19 vaccine mandates for health care workers and school personnel.
New Jersey Gov. Philip Murphy — Executive Order 253 — COVID-19 vaccines for all school worker.
Oregon Gov. Kate Brown — Executive Order 29 — COVID-19 vaccine mandates for employees of the executive branch.
Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam — Executive Directive 18 — COVID-19 vaccine mandates for state worker.
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee — Executive Order 21-14.1 — COVID-19 vaccine mandates for state workers and health care providers.
Some state health agencies have issued rules or orders for COVID-19 vaccine mandates. These include:
California Department of Public Health director and state public health officer Dr. Tomás J. Aragón — Public Health Order — COVID-19 vaccine mandates for health care workers.
Colorado Board of Health — Emergency Rule 6 CCR 1011-1 Chapter 2, General Licensure Standards and the COVID-19 Vaccine — COVID-19 vaccine mandates for health care workers.
Maine Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and Center for Disease Control and Prevention (Maine CDC) — Emergency Order — COVID-19 vaccine mandate for health care workers.
New York State Department of Health Board and commissioner of health Howard Zucker — order for summary action — COVID-19 vaccine mandates for staff and volunteers at hospitals and nursing homes.
Some local governments or departments have issued rules or orders for COVID-19 mandates. These include:
Denver Department of Public Health and Environment — Denver Public Health Order — August 2, 2021 — COVID-19 vaccine mandates for city and county employees.
Honolulu Mayor Rick Blangiardi — Emergency Order NO. 2021-11 — COVID-19 vaccine mandate for employees and customers of restaurants, bars, gym and fitness facilities and entertainment and recreational settings and proof of COVID-19 vaccination to enter.
Los Angeles Unified School District School Board — School Board File #: Rep-091-21/22, Version: 1 — COVID-19 vaccine mandates for students over age 12.
Los Angeles City Council — Council File Number: 21-0921 — COVID-19 vaccine mandates for all city employees.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio — Emergency Executive Order 225 — COVID-19 vaccine mandate for all entry into indoor entertainment, recreation, dining and fitness settings.
New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell — emergency order — COVID-19 vaccine mandate for indoor dining, indoor fitness, indoor entertainment and performance spaces and certain outdoor performance spaces.
District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser — Mayor’s Order 2021-099 — COVID-19 vaccine mandates for all D.C. employees including health professionals, contractors, grantees and interns.
Some private employers who are already mandating COVID-19 vaccines are Facebook, Google, Microsoft, United Airlines, CNN, Ascension Health, Disney, Amtrak and Goldman Sachs.
Mixing government mandates with employer mandates, the San Antonio Independent School District and superintendent Pedro Martinez enacted an employment policy that all district employees must be vaccinated against COVID-19.
The state of Texas is suing the school district to stop implementation of the mandatory vaccination policy because it is in violation of the Texas governor’s executive order that prohibits COVID-19 vaccine mandates in the state.
There are multiple lawsuits challenging these types of COVID-19 vaccine mandates.
Looming on the horizon are threats of more COVID-19 vaccine mandates from President Joe Biden for federal workers in the executive branch, employers with 100 or more employees and military personnel in the armed forces.
Now more than ever, it is critical that people continue to be involved in the legislative process at all levels of city, county, state and federal government, which includes learning where candidates stand on issues important to your family and voting accordingly, and continuing to educate legislators, your governor and local officials in order to protect informed consent and reject discrimination, segregation and forced vaccination.
Passed bills improving rights to refuse COVID-19 vaccines:
Alaska HB 76 adds the right of an individual, as well as the parent or legal guardian of a minor child, to object to the administration of a COVID-19 vaccine based on religious, medical, or other grounds. Additionally, the legislation prohibits requiring a person, who is declining the COVID-19 vaccine for themselves or a child, to provide justification or documentation for that declination.
Alabama SB 267 prohibits entities from denying benefits, services and access based on vaccination status.
Arizona SB 1825 prohibits public universities or community colleges from requiring or showing proof of receiving COVID-19 vaccines, with the exception of studies being done at a health care institution.
Arizona HB 2898 prohibits school districts and charter schools from requiring teachers or students to receive COVID-19 vaccines.
Arizona SB 1819 allows individuals to decline vaccination orders based on personal beliefs during state of emergency declarations.
Arizona SB 1824 prohibits state and local government from requiring a COVID-19 vaccine or establishing a vaccine passport, and it prohibits EUA vaccines from being mandated.
Arkansas HB 1547 prohibits the mandating of COVID-19 vaccines for two years after FDA licensure.
Arkansas SB 615 prevents any state or local government official from requiring a vaccine passport and prohibits the use of a vaccine passport as a condition for entry into stores or other public venues, travel, education or services.
Florida SB 2006 prohibits government, business and educational institutions from requiring proof of COVID vaccination or post infection recovery. The bill, however, exempts health care facilities, which could leave Floridians vulnerable to being denied health care because of vaccination status.
Indiana HB 1405 prohibits the state from issuing and requiring an immunization passport. This bill was not limited to just COVID vaccines.
Iowa HB 889 prohibits the state from including vaccination status of COVID-19 vaccines on state-issued ID cards. The bill would also prohibit a business or governmental entity from requiring a customer, patron, client, patient or other person invited onto the premises from having to furnish proof of having received a COVID-19 vaccine.
However, NVIC opposed that bill because it specifically excludes health care facilities. This makes people vulnerable to being denied healthcare over a COVID-19 vaccination status.
The only penalty in the bill for a business in violation is that it can be denied grants or contracts funded by the state. There would be no penalty for a business that does not utilize state grants or contracts.
Kansas SB 159 prohibits the use of state general funds to issue or require a COVID-19 vaccine passport without an individual’s consent or deny access because of COVID-19 vaccine status. This was an appropriations bill affecting fiscal years ending through June 30, 2023, for state agencies.
Kentucky SB 8 adds vaccination exemptions for all and for children attending school during a declared emergency, and requires the Cabinet for Health and Family Services to make vaccine exemption forms available.
Louisiana HR 20 directs each licensed day care center, kindergarten, elementary or secondary school, college, university, proprietary school, or vocational school that requires a vaccine for COVID-19 being distributed under and Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to fully inform each student or parent or legal guardian of a student that a COVID-19 vaccine, which has not yet been fully licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, is experimental, and that he or she has a right to refuse the vaccine for reasons of health, religion, or conscience.
Because it is a resolution, it does not enact a new law, nor does it carry any mechanism for enforcement or imposition of a penalty for not complying with the law. This could be helpful if any daycares, schools or colleges try to require COVID-19 vaccines being distributed under an EUA.
Missouri HB 271 prohibits a county, city, town or village which receives public funds from requiring documentation of an individual having received a vaccination against COVID-19 in order for the individual to access transportation systems, services or any other public accommodation.
This section would only apply to local government entities receiving public funds and it does not prohibit private businesses or state government entities from requiring documentation of COVID -19 vaccination.
Montana HB 435 grants COVID-19 liability limits and protects people’s right to refuse a COVID-19 vaccine. If a federal or state statute, regulation, order or public health guidance related to COVID-19 recommends or requires a vaccine, an individual is not required to receive a vaccine and a government entity is not required to ensure employees or agents are vaccinated to meet the standard of care.
Montana HB 501 prevents people from being charged with a criminal trespass violation for not having a vaccine, not providing vaccination status or [not] wearing a mask in a public place by adding a new section to the existing criminal trespassing statute.
Montana HB 702 protects those not wanting to be vaccinated with any vaccine, including COVID-19 vaccines, in many areas by prohibiting government, private employers or a public accommodation from penalizing, segregating, discriminating, withholding goods or services or privileges based on the person’s vaccination status or whether the person has an immunity passport.
There are several exceptions to the protections in Montana HB 702 that NVIC does not support. The law exempts health care facilities from having to comply. Health facilities could require employees, patients or visitors who are not vaccinated or unable to prove immunity to divulge their private vaccination status.
Based on that information, they could implement “reasonable” accommodation measures. There are no definitions or limits for exactly what those reasonable accommodations would look like.
Permitting a medical facility to require visitors to divulge their vaccination status to have access to visit family or friends is discrimination and this new law permits that type of discrimination.
The legislation also exempts nursing homes or long-term care and assisted living facilities from complying with informed consent protections for individuals when compliance would result in a conflict with guidance or regulations from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services.
The bill also exempts the protections from applying to schools or daycare.
New Hampshire HB 220 establishes limited medical freedom regarding vaccination and prohibits governments from compelling a person to receive a COVID-19 vaccine to secure, receive or access any public facility, any public benefit or any public service from the state of New Hampshire or any subdivision.
There are exceptions for which these protections do not apply, including schools or state or municipal health facilities, which can still require vaccination for treatment or for inmates, who can still be compelled to be vaccinated. There are no protections from vaccine mandates by private employers or businesses.
North Carolina HB 96 requires parental consent for minors to be vaccinated with vaccines being distributed under an EUA. COVID-19 vaccines are already starting to receive full FDA approval, so this offers no additional parental consent requirements to COVID-19 vaccines that have been fully licensed.
Current law 90-21.5 in North Carolina already allows any minor to consent to medical health services for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of venereal disease and other diseases reportable under G.S. 130A-135.
Parents in North Carolina should be warned that the North Carolina Health Department is using this current law, that was intended for communicable diseases such as sexually transmitted diseases, to allow doctors to give minors COVID-19 vaccines without parental consent.
The parental consent protection passed in HB 96 will become nonapplicable for any vaccine that moves from an EUA to full licensure.
North Dakota HB 1465, for vaccines being distributed under an EUA, prohibits a state or government entity or private business from requiring documentation of administration of a vaccine, the presence of antibodies or evidence of post transmission recovery, in exchange for access to goods or services.
The limited protections do not apply during a public health disaster or emergency declaration and do not apply to any fully licensed vaccine. The bill also does not apply to a health care provider, including a long-term care provider, or to vaccines required for schools or colleges.
Ohio HB 6 requires written parental consent before a minor can be vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines.
Ohio HB 244 prohibits schools from requiring a vaccine that has not been fully licensed by the FDA and prevents discrimination against those who have not received such a vaccine. This bill will not provide protections from COVID-19 vaccine mandates in schools once the vaccines are fully licensed by the FDA.
The protections provided in the bill do not apply to colleges owned or operated by hospitals. HB 248 is still moving in Ohio and deserves support because it provides protections missing in HB 244.
Oklahoma SB 658 prohibits school requirements for COVID-19 vaccines or vaccine passports as a condition of admittance to or attendance in schools, and prohibits masks for those who have not received COVID-19 vaccine.
It also requires the State Department of Education to require schools to educate parents about vaccine exemptions each time references are made to vaccination requirements.
Tennessee HB 13 prohibits government entities from forcing, requiring or coercing a person to receive COVID-19 vaccines. The protections don’t apply to higher education students in health care, dentistry or pharmacy.
Tennessee SB 858 prohibits a government entity from mandating that a private business or government entity require proof of a COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of entering the premises of the business or government entity, or utilizing services provided by the business or government entity.
Texas SB 968 prohibits all government entities in Texas from issuing a vaccine passport, vaccine pass or other standardized documentation to certify an individual’s COVID-19 vaccination status or to publish or share a person’s COVID-19 vaccine record for a purpose other than health care.
It also prohibits all businesses from requiring a customer to provide any documentation certifying the customer’s COVID-19 vaccination or post-transmission recovery on entry or access to or to receive service from the business. A business that fails to comply is not eligible to receive a state grant or enter into a contract payable with state funds.
Each appropriate state agency shall ensure that businesses in Texas comply and they may require compliance as a condition for a license, permit, or other state authorization necessary for conducting business in Texas.
What the new law does not cover is a prohibition on COVID-19 vaccine mandates by private employers. Texas vaccine informed consent advocates are working to pass a bill in special session to stop private employer mandates.
Utah HB 308 prohibits government mandates for emergency use COVID-19 vaccine only, except for certain individuals in section 4 of the new law, who are subject to mandates even with vaccines being distributed under an EUA.
Also, the prohibition of mandates will expire July 1, 2024. Once the available vaccines are fully licensed by the FDA, protections will not apply. Also, this does not protect employees from employer mandates.
Utah SB 1001 prohibits monies appropriated by the legislature from American Rescue Plans federal funding, or by any other appropriation relating to COVID-19 vaccines, from being used to provide financial incentives, awards, drawings or prizes or any similar incentive to anyone for receiving a vaccination.
Passed bills limiting rights of those refusing covid-19 vaccines:
Virginia HB 1985 allows discrimination against and economic sanction for unvaccinated employees by removing presumption for coverage in workmen’s compensation law for employees, who decline to get the COVID-19 vaccine.
Censorship bills (1)
For a significant win passed in a second special session:
Texas HB 20 prevents social media companies with more than 50 million monthly users from banning users simply based on their viewpoints.
The law also requires social media sites to disclose their content management and moderation policies; implement a complaint and appeals process for content they remove, and provide a reason for the removal and a review of their decision. The law prohibits email service providers from impeding the transmission of email messages based on content.
A social media user could bring an action against a social media platform that violated the bill by censoring and banning the user from the platform. A user proving a violation would be entitled to recover declaratory relief, including costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, and injunctive relief. The attorney general can also take action.
NVIC has been a victim of the type of censorship this new law will prevent in Texas. NVIC’s Facebook page grew from 800 followers in 2008 to 218,000 in 2020. After 39 years of being a highly respected well-known nonprofit charity advocating for vaccine safety and informed consent, NVIC’s 13-year-old Facebook page with over 200,000 followers was permanently deplatformed in March 2021.
NVIC’s Instagram account was eliminated in April 2021 and NVIC’s Twitter account was eliminated in May 2021. Some of NVIC Advocacy’s email subscribers have reported that their email provider has censored email subscription verifications and action alerts.
Vaccine exemptions and mandate bills (5)
Legislators fought hard to stop bills attempting to add more vaccine mandates or restrict or remove vaccine exemptions. Out of 38 bills filed attempting to add more vaccine mandates, restrict or remove vaccine exemptions, only two of the proposed bills passed.
Connecticut HB 6423 eliminates the religious exemption for public and private schools, colleges and day care for the 2022-2023 school year.
The act grandfathers into the exemption individuals enrolled in grades kindergarten or higher who submitted a religious exemption prior to April 28, 2021. It also adds data collection and a review of medical exemptions.
Washington SB 5151 requires outdoor “nature-based” child care provider employees and volunteers to have MMR vaccine.
Oregon HB 2359B would have required health care interpreters to be registered and receive all recommended vaccines. Opposition helped get this offensive section removed before passage of the bill.
On the other hand, three good bills passed that expanded informed consent protections in specialized circumstances.
Montana HB 334 strengthens the medical exemption to vaccination, prohibits the health department from reviewing exemption for the purpose of approving or denying it, and provides privacy protections.
Tennessee SB 1337 prohibits an individual or members of the individual’s household to undergo an immunization as a condition of adopting a child unless the child is under 18 months of age or has significant documented health conditions that would necessitate vaccination of the caregiver or members of the caregiver’s household.
NVIC supports the prohibition of the vaccine requirement on adoption of children but opposes the exceptions to the prohibition.
Utah HB 233 prohibits the Utah Board of Higher Education and institutions within the higher education system from requiring proof of vaccination unless vaccine exemptions are available, and prohibits higher education institutions and local education agencies that offer both remote and in-person learning from requiring a vaccine-exempt student to participate remotely rather than in-person.
The law does not apply to students studying in a medical setting at an institution of higher education. It also does not prohibit employees of the institution from having to show proof of vaccination.
Arizona SB 1353 initially was filed to allow an antibody test in lieu of a rabies vaccination booster for animals, and NVIC supported the bill in that form. Unfortunately, that section was removed as the bill moved forward, but we continued to watch it in case the animal vaccination exception was added back.
This was one of only five bills that we had in the watch category that passed with no positive provisions.
Russell Brand, Don Lemon has no compassion, no kindness, very dismissive of people and has NO idea what people know about the shot nor what their concerns are…
Legal documents filed against Australian government, for crimes against humanity
Read This Criminal Complaint
How to file a Private Criminal Complaint
Latest report from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System :
In total: 726,963 adverse reactions to the jab, including:
15,386 deaths
20,789 permanent Disabilities
8,626 Bell’s Palsy
2,122 Miscarriages
7,267 Heart Attacks
149,000+ ER/Hospitalizations
Crimes Against Humanity Revealed
International Law Expert Todd Callender, JD, talked about the Nuremberg Code and Trial after the Holocaust, War Crimes, Genocide, Homicide, Attempted Homicide, Criminal Assault, Criminal Battery, Fraud Against a Major Disaster, and Racketeering. The criminal action of being involved in a racket.
engaging in a racket
Most of these require the conspiracy between two or more people.
We came up with all of these crimes with evidence.
The Good Club including Oprah Winfrey, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet talked about the world being overpopulated. They met as an expression of philanthro-capitalism, or "Billanthropy" (after Bill Gates), a private gathering of friends and colleagues, who just happen to be the most powerful people in the world, "to share their history and excitement about their philanthropy. It was a group together discussing a range of things they are working on."
It is the most elite club in the world. Ordinary people need not apply. Indeed there is no way to ask to join. You simply have to be very, very rich and very, very generous. On a global scale.
This is the Good Club, the name given to the tiny global elite of billionaire philanthropists who recently held their first and highly secretive meeting in the heart of New York City. The meeting - called by Gates, Buffett and Rockefeller - was held in response to the global economic downturn and the numerous health and environmental crises that are plaguing the globe. It was, in some ways, a summit to save the world.
The existence of the Good Club has struck many as a two-edged sword. On one hand, they represent a new golden age of philanthropy, harking back to the early 20th century when the likes of Rockefeller, Vanderbilt and Carnegie became famous for their good works. Yet the reach and power of the Good Club are truly new. Its members control vast wealth - and with that wealth comes huge power that could reshape nations according to their will.
But there is a potential downside to the growth of these "über donors", especially if the whims of individuals start to take precedence over the expertise of professionals.
"The problem with any Good Club is that all the people might not be 'good'. Or at least not 'good' in universal definitions," said Louise Uwacu, the Rwandan-born founder of the Canadian education charity Positivision.
There is also the issue of accountability. Who votes for the Good Club?
Such sceptical sentiments might spring from the Good Club's decision to meet in such secrecy in New York.
Niall O'Dowd, an Irish journalist broke the story on the website irishcentral.com.
Event 201 took place two months before the bioweapon was created and disseminated in joint collaboration with the Chinese government to purposefully release the COVID weapon in order to cause terror, economic hardship, depression, false imprisonment, injury death to the global population and psychological warfare all under the word “pandemic.” We call it plannedemic.
It required conspirators who used their media apparatus for the purpose of public policy, coercion, forced restrictions, employment restrictions, liberty restrictions all in furtherance of a criminal enterprise To Trick, to coerce, to intimidate, to compel global populations to receive one or more experimental gene therapy shots. I think you understand that these are not vaccines and they are experimental.
Going back to Nuremberg Code which is patently illegal. Informed Consent is one of the deals you have to do but how can you have Informed Consent when the inserts to the package have nothing literally printed on the paper. How can you have Informed Consent when you don’t know what is in these experimental gene therapy shots? They used these shots for the delivery of nanoparticles lipid what is that? These are atomic sized delivery devices. They carry proteins (spike), antigens and viruses designed to make your body react in a certain way.
They use nanoparticles to genetically modify, track, record, control humanity. In completion of the crime is to tag, track, code, bait, measure, restrict, and dominate every person and their rights of everyone on this planet.
That’s the theory of our case. Have you heard of Agenda 21, the agenda for the 21st century. Again, going back to international law, multilateral convention. It started in 1994 the Rio Convention where they said We’re Going to Save the Planet. Save the Planet because humans are the cause of all the crises and problems we have going on here.
Out of that accord came a series of multilateral treaties under Agenda 21 now Agenda 2030. You’ve heard the buzz word Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development requires none of us. We’re not sustainable.
There are three primary missions for Agenda 21. One, the elimination of private property rights. Two the elimination of borders. You can see that there is mass migration around Europe and mass migration here. That really means loss of sovereignty all in furtherance of this One World Government that is largely in place right now. Item three, is a massive reduction in the world’s population.
That sure sounds like a plan, a criminal one in fact. That is why this is all based on conspiracy. We as private citizens cannot prosecute crimes like this exactly but for crimes against humanity there is what they call universal jurisdiction.
What does that mean? It means the crimes are so heinous, so intolerable to society, that anybody has the right to investigate the crime. Anybody has the right to report that crime. And any court, any law enforcement officer, any legislature on the planet has the right to pursue that crime.
We’re here as lawyers trying to help people. We’ve created this form Criminal Complaint and people have downloaded it more than 12,000 times.
American Medical Association Instructs Doctors to Deceive
The Winter 2021 “AMA COVID-19 Guide: Background/Messaging on Vaccines, Vaccine Clinical Trials & Combatting Vaccine Misinformation,” issued by the American Medical Association raises serious questions about the AMA’s adherence to transparency, honesty, ethics and the moral standards to which it will hold its members
The guide lists nine “key messages” the AMA wants doctors to focus on when communicating about COVID-19. This includes stressing the importance of eliminating nonmedical vaccine exemptions, the importance of flu vaccines and COVID shots, and expressing confidence in vaccine development
In the guide, the AMA instructs doctors on how to disinform the public using psychological and linguistic tools. This includes explicit instructions on which words to swap for other more narrative-affirming choices
Word swaps include changing “hospitalization rates” to “deaths,” two terms that are not even remotely interchangeable
Swapping the term “Operation Warp Speed” for “standard process” is another rather egregious misdirection. The two are not interchangeable. In fact, they’re diametrically opposed to one another
The AMA was founded in 1847 and is the largest professional association and lobbying group of physicians and medical students in the U.S. According to the AMA itself, its mission is to promote the art and science of medicine and the betterment of public health.
How then do they explain this “COVID-19 messaging guide,” which explicitly teaches doctors how to deceive their patients and the media when asked tough questions about COVID-19, treatment options and COVID shots?
“It is critical that physicians and patients have confidence in the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines as they become available for public use,” the “AMA COVID-19 Guide” states, adding:
“To overcome vaccine hesitancy and ensure widespread vaccine acceptance among all demographic groups, physicians and the broader public health community must continue working to build trust in vaccine safety and efficacy, especially in marginalized and minoritized communities with historically well-founded mistrust in medical institutions.”
Indeed, the entire guide is aimed at teaching doctors how to foster confidence in the medical profession in general, as it pertains to treatment of COVID-19, but in particular as it pertains to the experimental COVID shots.
The guide provides “suggested narratives” for various engagements, such as when communicating on social media, as sell as “talking points to guide external communications,” such as when being interviewed. It lists nine specific “key messages” that they want doctors to focus on when communicating about COVID-19. These key messages can be summarized as follows:
Express confidence in vaccine development
Stress the importance of vaccines
Highlight the need to combat the spread of vaccine misinformation
Adhere to updated ethical guidance for physicians and medical personnel, which says they have a moral obligation to get vaccinated themselves
Give general vaccine recommendations, such as the recommendation for everyone over the age of 6 months, including pregnant women, to get an annual flu shot
Stress the importance of eliminating nonmedical vaccine exemptions
Highlight the increased availability of flu vaccines, and the importance of getting a flu shot even if you’ve gotten a COVID injection
Highlight the importance of including minorities, both in vaccine trials and as trusted messengers who can “promote social pressure” to get minorities vaccinated and dispel historical distrust in medical institutions
Denounce scientific analyses “predicated on personal opinions, anecdote and political ideologies”
AMA Concerned About Disinformation
(Note: Isn’t it interesting how the VERY SAME people WHO SPREAD DISINFORMATION ACCUSE OTHERS OF SPREADING DISINFORMATION)…
On page 7 of the guide, under the science narrative heading, the AMA declares it is “deeply concerned that rampant disinformation and the politicization of health issues are eroding public confidence in science and undermining trust in physicians and medical institutions,” adding that “Science should be grounded in a common understanding of facts and evidence and able to empower people to make informed decisions about their health.”
To that end, the AMA is calling upon “all elected officials to affirm science and fact in their words and actions,” and for media to “be vigilant in communicating factual information” and to “challenge those who chose to trade in misinformation.”
AMA Then Instructs Doctors on How to Disinform
It’s a disappointment, then, to find the AMA instructing doctors on how to misinform the public using a variety of psychological and linguistic tools. Perhaps one of the most egregious examples of this is the recommended “COVID-19 language swaps” detailed on page 9.
As you can see below, the AMA explicitly instructs doctors to swap out certain words and terms for other, more narrative-affirming choices. Shockingly, this includes swapping “hospitalization rates” to “deaths” — two terms that are not even remotely interchangeable!
It strains credulity that the AMA would actually tell doctors to substitute a factual data point with an outright lie. But with this swap, are they not telling doctors to state that people are dead, when in fact they’ve only been hospitalized with COVID-19?
Hospitalization rate refers to how many people are sick in the hospital with COVID-19, whereas death refers to how many people have died. The first term refers to people who are still alive, and the other refers to patients who are not alive.
Another highly questionable word swap is to not address the nitty, gritty details of vaccine trials, such as the number of participants, and instead simply refer to these trials as having gone through “a transparent, rigorous process.”
Swapping the factual term “Operation Warp Speed” for “standard process” is another outrageous misdirection. The two simply aren’t interchangeable. In fact, they’re actually diametrically opposed to one another. Standard process for vaccine development includes a long process of over a decade and a large number of steps that were either omitted or drastically shortened for the COVID shots.
Following standard process is what makes vaccine development take, on average, 10 years and often longer. Operation Warp Speed allowed vaccine makers to slap together these COVID shots in about nine months from start to finish. You cannot possibly say that the two terms describe an identical process.
The Power of Language
Other language swaps are less incredulous but still highlight the fact that the AMA wants its members to help push a very specific and one-sided narrative that makes power-grabbing overreaches and totalitarian tactics sound less bad than they actually are, and make questionable processes sound A-OK.
Language is a powerful tool with which we shape reality, because it shapes how we think about things. As noted by storyteller and filmmaker Jason Silva:
“The use of language, the words you use to describe reality, can in fact engender reality, can disclose reality. Words are generative… We create and perceive our reality through language. We think reality into existence through linguistic construction in real-time.”
For example, “lockdown” sounds like involuntary imprisonment imposed by a totalitarian regime, which is what it is, whereas “stay-at-home order” sounds far less draconian. After all, “home” is typically associated with comfort and safety.
The same goes for using “COVID protocols” in lieu of “COVID mandates, directives, controls and orders.” “Protocols” sounds like something that is standard procedure, as if the COVID measures are nothing new, whereas “mandates, controls and orders” imply that, indeed, we’re in medical fascism territory, which we are.
How to Steer, Block, Deflect and Stall Inconvenient Questions
The AMA could have instructed its members to simply stick to the facts and be honest — and in some sections, it does do that — but it doesn’t end there. Rather, the AMA provides a full page of instructions on how to steer the conversation, and how to block, deflect and stall when faced with tough questions where an honest answer might actually break the official narrative.
Here’s a sampling of these instructions. I encourage you to read through page 8 of the guide, and pay attention to these psychological tricks when listening to interviews or reading the news.
It’s worth noting that the AMA also stresses that: 1) Doctors are to speak for the AMA, and 2) doctors are NOT to offer their personal views. Speaking for the AMA is listed under “Your Responsibilities” when being interviewed, while not discussing personal views is listed under “Interview Don’ts.”
AMA Is Rapidly Eroding All Credibility
The AMA’s guidance isn’t all bad. Some of its advice makes perfect sense. But the inclusion of language swaps that result in false statements being made, and tools for steering, blocking, deflecting, redirecting and stalling in order to avoid direct answers do nothing but erode credibility and thus trust in the medical community.
Its direct instruction to not share personal views is another trust-eroding strategy. When people talk to their doctor, they want to hear what that doctor actually thinks, based on their own knowledge and experience.
They don’t expect their doctor — or a doctor appearing in an interview — to simply rehash a narrative dictated by the AMA. If we cannot trust our medical professionals to give their honest opinions and give direct answers, there’s little reason to even discuss our concerns with them, and that’s the opposite of what the AMA claims it seeks to achieve.
The AMA is concerned about the proliferation of misinformation and eroding trust, yet it’s telling its members to keep their professional views to themselves and lie about COVID deaths. With this guidance document, the AMA is essentially implicating itself as a source and instigator of medical misinformation that ultimately might injure patients.
Dr. Bryan Ardis criticized the AMA guidance document, pointing out that while the AMA claims it put out the guidance to prevent political ideologies from dictating medicine, it is actually proving that the AMA itself is deferring to political ideology rather than medical facts.
The AMA wants its members to act as propagandists for a particular narrative — using “politically correct language” — rather than sharing information and acting in accordance with their own conscience and professional insight.
“If a doctor’s just going to repeat what the AMA tells them, why have doctors at all? You can get plenty of starving propagandists at any liberal college, but instead we want to turn our medical professionals into ideological zombies with stethoscopes.”
Biden’s approval rating has fallen to an all-time low of 43%. And, 53% of those polled negatively view the job he’s doing as president.
troubling for the Democrats as the 2022 mid-term season gets underway, Biden is polling at his least number so far with Democrats.
Clearly, his policies aren’t resonating with the American people – even those on the left side of the political aisle.
And here’s the big warning sign for the Biden White House. Among Independents, he’s only polling at 37%. That number has liberals shaken as it’s an indication that they could very well lose both the House and the Senate in next year’s elections – not to mention being hurt in elections at the state and local level.
I'm so glad to be living in the free state of Arizona.