Wednesday, July 1, 2020

HOW TO REFUSE VACCINATION IF IT BECOMES MANDATORY

For those of us who believe vaccines to be unsafe and not properly tested, news coming out that plans are underway to mandate vaccination for COVID-19 is troubling.

Bill Gates, a man who everyone knows has the biggest financial stake in all this, has said that we won’t go back to normal until a vaccine has gotten out to the entire world.

Many world leaders are ready to follow Gates’ playbook, like Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau who stated, “Normality as it was before will not come back full-on until we get a vaccine for this.”

And now some officials on the ground, those who are directing the logistics of a vaccine rollout, are telling us how imminent these plans may be. Let’s listen to the words of Dr. Allison Arwady, the head of Chicago’s Public Health Department, who tells us “We’ve already bought the syringes, we already know where it’s going to happen…”:

Defying Mandatory Vaccination 

In order to understand how you would be able to defy any initiatives that would attempt to force you or any of your family members to take any vaccines, or ingest or have anything injected into your body for that matter, it is important to grasp one of the most basic principles underlying life on Earth: each of us as individuals are free and sovereign beings. The only way someone can have any power over us is by our consent. Mostly without knowing it, we have consented to the entire political and legal structure that we believe has power over us. If you would like to dive more deeply into the broader discussion of this, please take a look at my series of articles on Natural Law here.

Keeping it within the context of mandatory vaccination, I would like to introduce you to Jerry Day, whose website FreedomTaker serves as a resource for those who would like to come to a better understanding of their sovereignty as individuals and learn about the practical defense of their innate liberty in our current society.

In the video below, Day gives a strong indictment against the Bill Gates/WHO vaccine agenda and its inherent risks to each of us personally, and explains what we need to do if we ever find ourselves being coerced by our government and medical establishment into taking a vaccine:

The first thing we must do is state our position clearly and on the record to those people who administer vaccines. We are certainly not protected if we haven’t even stated our position. You will see links to two free download documents at FreedomTaker.com. The first document is a requirement that all medical service and vaccine providers sign for you, to acknowledge the risks of vaccines, that they are causing that risk by offering vaccines, and that they accept full personal liability to pay for all damage they cause by administering a vaccine.



Of course, if vaccines were safe and effective, they would not hesitate to sign a liability agreement… [but] they know they are doing harm, so most likely, they will refuse to sign that document, and refuse to be responsible for the harm they cause. That refusal to sign is evidence that they know that vaccines have risk, and you therefore are fully within your rights to refuse the vaccine regardless of any legal mandates. That type of document is referred to as a ‘Conditional Acceptance.’ You agree to have a vaccine if they agree to pay for all damage you suffer. They will refuse to sign it. And that gives you the right to refuse their vaccine, because they failed to meet your reasonable requirements of safety.

Jerry Day helps us here to bring the matter back into the real-world situation: the actual person who is physically administering the vaccine is rightly seen as the one who needs to assume responsibility for any consequences of their actions, rather than simply being a compliant cog of a faceless medical industry. It is not hard to see that, once we all start to make those who are simply ‘doing their job’ carrying out the orders from above personally responsible for their actions, by and large they will not follow through and the whole control mechanism and ability to mandate anything falls apart.


The Takeaway

Perhaps the day will not come when you will be faced with having to refuse mandated vaccines for yourself or your family. However, coming to understand a way in which you can assert your inherent right of self-protection can be very empowering. Not only does it help give you confidence that you can assert your will in such a circumstance, it can broaden your understanding of your inalienable sovereignty. I believe if each of us is able to strengthen our sense of personal sovereignty and see that we are all co-creators of our collective experience, we will be much closer to bringing the world of our dreams into reality.


Sunday, April 5, 2020

facial recognition now in use in Washington State

A bill permitting the use of facial recognition technology with certain restrictions has been signed into law in Washington State.

Governor Jay Inslee signed the new bill on March 31 after it was passed by the Washington State House of Representatives on March 12 by a vote of 27 to 21 in favor. The new law will come into effect next year. 

The new legislation will limit the "unconstrained use of facial recognition services by state and local government agencies" because it "poses broad social ramifications that should be considered and addressed."

Under the new law, state and local government agencies "may use facial recognition services to locate or identify missing persons, and identify deceased persons, including missing or murdered indigenous women, subjects of Amber alerts and silver alerts, and other possible crime victims, for the purposes of keeping the public safe."

Before developing, procuring, or using facial recognition technology, a state or local government agency must file a notice of intent with a legislative authority and produce an accountability report.

The new legislation has won the support of Microsoft president Bill Smith, who praised it in a recent blog post

"This balanced approach ensures that facial recognition can be used as a tool to protect the public, but only in ways that respect fundamental rights and serve the public interest,” wrote Smith.

Washington's state agencies are not permitted to use facial recognition based on a person’s “religious, political or social views or activities,” or “participation in a particular noncriminal organization or lawful event,” or “actual or perceived race, ethnicity, citizenship, place of origin, immigration status, age, disability, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or other characteristic protected by law.”

Use of facial recognition technology in the United States is not currently governed by any federal rules. Washington is the first state to pass legislation to allow the constrained use of facial recognition technology, while elsewhere in America, some have moved to ban it. 

In 2019, San Francisco, Oakland, and Berkeley, California, and the Boston, Massachusetts, suburbs of Somerville and Brookline all moved to ban the use of the new technology.


Tuesday, March 3, 2020

COVID

Snohomish County was state’s ground zero, analysis suggests

A genetics and infectious disease expert studied the DNA of individual cases to trace transmission.

Trevor Bedford (Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center)

Trevor Bedford (Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center)

By Mike Carter / The Seattle Times

SEATTLE — A genetics and infectious disease expert at Seattle’s Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center said Tuesday that additional analysis of the spread of the novel coronavirus, using genetic markers, has led to him conclude that as many as 570 Washington residents may have contracted the virus, many of them without knowing it, and have been spreading it through the community with Snohomish County as the outbreak’s center.

Trevor Bedford posted some of his initial findings on Twitter over the weekend, concluding that the genetic relationship between the first confirmed case of the disease — a Snohomish County man hospitalized in Everett in January — caused by the virus COVID-19 was so genetically similar to the second case reported on Feb. 23 that they almost certainly came from the same source.

Bedford said that the transmission likely began with an individual whose infection was missed because early guidelines limited testing to individuals who had traveled from China. He concluded, however, that the coronavirus, also known as SARS-CoV-2, was moving quietly through the community, a fact health officials acknowledged Monday as they declared a health emergency and announced six people have died from the disease in Washington.

On Monday, in a new string of tweets elaborating on his earlier observations, Bedford stated that the initial case in January — which he refers to as WA1 — likely “infected someone who was missed by surveillance due to mild symptoms and a transmission chain was initiated at this point in mid-Jan.”

Since then, Bedford believes, the virus has been moving through the community at a rate in which the number of cases doubled roughly every six days. Bedford concluded that rate of infection, taking into account a projected margin of error, would mean that there are as many as 570 infected individuals as of Sunday, and that number is growing. One of Bedford’s colleagues, using another method of tracking and projecting infections, came up with a more conservative estimate of 330 infections since roughly Jan. 15.

The first case reported in Snohomish County is the nexus from which Bedford said the virus will continue to spread, likely into more dense urban areas.

“We believe this particular transmission chain will have a foci in Snohomish County,” he wrote “We’re working as fast as possible to understand extent of spread in the greater Seattle area.”

Bedford said his recent analysis remains preliminary, and that he will refine his findings as more data becomes available.

Talk to us

  • You can tell us about news and ask us about our journalism by emailing newstips@heraldnet.com or by calling 425-339-3428.
  • If you have an opinion you wish to share for publication, send a letter to the editor to letters@heraldnet.com