Click Video Above To Watch
There Are Multiple Problems With Vaccine Passports
George Gammon and civil rights attorney Robert Barnes discuss the ramifications of a Covid vaccine passport and its legality on a recent Rebel Capitalist Show interview.
Despite the grotesque personal freedom and medical privacy intrusions at stake, it appears big governments around the world are working hard to prime the public for vaccine passports.
Folks, if you’re fully vaccinated — you no longer need to wear a mask.
If you’re not vaccinated yet — go to https://t.co/4MYpWqXVVo to find a shot, and mask up until you’re fully vaccinated. pic.twitter.com/qcyG2WyCG2
— President Biden (@POTUS) May 13, 2021
Get vaccinated or wear a mask until you do. pic.twitter.com/vHKVS0HJmC
— Vice President Kamala Harris (@VP) May 16, 2021
How will they ever be able to tell if someone is vaccinated or not?
If a vaccinated person walks into a California Safeway with their mask off, how long before they are confronted by an employee (or social justice warrior for that matter) and asked to either provide proof of their vaccination record or be asked to leave?
The answer is probably going to be minutes, and there will be controversy. Obviously, the central planner solution is a vaccine passport. It's a passive way to avoid any direct aggression from a dissenter.
These kinds of people like to pick fights, just not directly. And like most bad ideas, history is not on their side, again.
The Nuremberg Code
In 1947, everybody agreed that the age of governmental experimentation on human beings was over.
That, because the Nazis had taken what the USA had been doing with Eugenics and forced sterilization, and other involuntary medical experimentation, like the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, and the Mustard gas exposure testing during World War 2, to a whole new level.
We now see how grotesque scientists in lab coats can become when given that kind of power.
What the Nazis did was a moral horror. But let's not forget that the Japanese also dabbled in human experimentation during World War 2. Japan was responsible for some of the most notorious war crimes carried out during the war. See Unit 731.
Once the war was over, and these shocking war crimes were exposed, the international community embraced a new law, that stated you cannot force anyone to take any medical drug, or medical treatment, without their informed consent. Until now.
The vaccine passports, mandatory vaccines, and conditioning employment, education, and travel requirements
Employment, education, and even travel have constitutional rights to property or liberty. According to Barnes, these liberties are now in jeopardy.
In Barnes's view, the big governments of the world are taking a position that directly assaults the Nuremberg code.
A return to the Carrie Buck Era
According to Barne's, we're going back to the 1920s. Or at least they are trying to push us back into the Carrie Buck era.
The Carrie Buck case was one of the most morally horrendous decisions in our constitution's history. The Supreme Court of The United States essentially greenlit forced sterilization.
Korematsu v. U.S.
The Carrie Buck decision was a slippery slope that led to forced detention camps in the USA during World War 2. Imagine being forced into a detention camp simply based on ancestry? Imagine being deprived of all your rights, and all your property as a result. See Korematsu v. U.S.
According to Barnes, this is exactly what the Global Elites are actively attempting to restore, right now. In the United States, they are using the Jacobson Decision to push their agenda.
The Jacobson Decision
According to Wikipedia, The Jacobson Decision was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The Court's decision articulated the view that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to the police power of the state.
We Do Not Need a system where the white lab coats get to tell everyone what to do
The Carrie Buck Case, Korematsu, and the Jacobson Decision are three morally horrendous and unconstitutional examples of government overreach. The Supreme court even agrees.
And yet, the powers that be are trying to restore it again and go back to a day and age, where a system of white lab coats gets to tell everyone what to do.
The Core Problem
According to Barnes, this roll-back of systematic government over-reach gives unelected white coats, like government scientists, the authority to dictate what we can and can't do. And Robert Barnes believes this is a direct violation of the Nuremberg Code.
The Nuremberg Code and constitutional liberties prevent any level of government from requiring vaccines as a condition of employment, education, travel, or rights.
The Anti-discrimination act against the Disabled
This is specific to the United States. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities and guarantees equal opportunities for individuals with disabilities in employment, transportation, public accommodations, state and local government services, and telecommunications.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) actually covers the core problem with vaccine passports.
For example, if an employer thinks you are sick or treats you as someone who has a medical condition and doesn't allow you employment based on a perceived disability – much like NOT TAKING the vaccine could be perceived as a disability – then the employer must make accommodations.
The vaccine must be essential for your job, for the employer to discriminate against you.
Employers And Educational Institutions Are Violating ADA
The current efforts of employers, educational institutions, and public accommodations, are in direct violation of the laws that protect against discrimination, based on perceived health statistics.
You need clear and convincing evidence that NOT taking the vaccine poses a substantial risk of SEVERE harm to others.
So far there has been only one case that has tested the evidentiary basis of this theory.
The case came before a judge in the western district of Pennslyvania, Judge Dickman, about whether or not the lockdown orders met ADA requirements. And according to Judge Dickman, the lockdown orders never came close to meeting the requirements.
There Is No Evidence That Supports Unvaccinated People Causing Severe Bodily Harm To Others
What's the clear and convincing evidence of substantial risk that a person who doesn't take the vaccine will transmit it to others and is likely to cause them severe bodily harm?
If there was a 1% risk that an unvaccinated person with COVID could cause somebody else severe bodily injury by not taking the vaccine, then that would NOT be high enough to meet the substantial risk requirement under the current law.
This has been tested out repeatedly in disability hearings.
Claimants tend to claim that Y condition will cause X problem. And the judge will say that the claimant needs to show substantial risk and evidence. And that evidence must be clear and convincing.
What's more convincing is a 10%, 20%, 30%, or more risk factor. In other words, there needs to be at least a 10% risk factor that an unvaccinated person is going to transmit the virus in such a way that it is going to kill somebody else.
Reasonable Accommodations Poke Hole In Vaccine Passport Case
The first obstacle a covid passport proponent must accept is that there are reasonable accommodations for a person suffering from Covid. You lock yourself down until you no longer have it.
The only risk the covid vaccine reports to solve is the risk of asymptomatic or presymptomatic transmission.
So the second problem facing the covid passport enthusiast is the lack of asymptomatic transmission data.
It's most likely because these people do not have enough viral load to transmit the virus in the first place.
In other words, you must have covid, not be aware, and transmit it to someone who will be affected in such a way, that it will cause severe bodily harm.
Despite the hype, historical data shows influenza type virus rarely transmits from asymptomatic or presymptomatic carriers to others.
In brief summary of this section, there are two problems the pro-covid passport person must overcome.
Problem #1 – According to the data, there isn't a substantial risk of transmitting Covid to someone else that will cause severe bodily harm if the person transmitting the virus is asymptomatic or presymptomatic.
Problem #2 – The vaccine doesn't meaningfully reduce risk. At least there is no direct evidence to support this claim yet.
Emergency Use Authorize Vaccine (EUA)
The current covid-19 vaccines have been rushed to market. They are authorized under Emergency Use Authorization from the FDA. This does not mean the vaccines have met the relevant and rigorous standards of the FDA. It usually takes years to get FDA approval.
Plus, We've never had a successful, long-term vaccine for coronaviruses.
First-Ever mRNA Vaccine
Moderna, NIAID vaccine is a COVID-19 vaccine authorized by FDA and recommended by the CDC for use in the US for a limited population.
This is new technology. The first-ever mRNA vaccine.
It might turn out to be wonderful and great. It may turn out to have unexpected problems.
Just look at 1976, when authorities rushed a swine flu vaccine that caused 10x more harm than the swine flu pandemic did.
Note, if the video below is broken, then it's because youtube is actively censoring this information. As of this writing, the video works.
The Swine Flu Scare of 1976
Historically speaking, rushing a vaccine has always been a bad idea.
Federal Law
Federal law says that if the vaccine is only authorized for distribution as an emergency vaccine, then it cannot be compelled onto anybody without informed consent. So anybody that is requiring a covid vaccine is violating the specific terms of federal law.
This law has never been adjudicated in court before because no one has ever tried to mandate, force or coerce, or condition access to benefits on an emergency vaccine. An emergency vaccine that has novel technology for a novel virus, to boot.
The Complete Lack Of Any Cost-Benefit Analysis Is Disturbing
One of the more shocking and suspicious points regarding everything related to the covid pandemic policy response and public health intervention was the authority's complete lack of any cost-benefit analysis.
Do we actually think it hasn't been done or they've done it and the data looks bad?
Conclusion
What public figures, politicians, celebrities, mainstream media companies, tech giants, and your pro-covid vaccine neighbors are doing to manipulate and coerce you into taking an experimental covid 19 vaccine is illegal under current law.
Unfortunately, knee-jerk reactions in the real world ignore the law and until these issues are tried in court, expect the coercion tactics to continue.
There is hope. The law is on our side. For now.
Read Global Elites Advance Great Reset Agenda
https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/supreme-court-and-sterilization-carrie-buck
https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-korematsu-v-us
https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm
https://www.npr.org/2015/06/22/415194765/u-s-troops-tested-by-race-in-secret-world-war-ii-chemical-experiments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
Comments are closed.