Jon Rappoport – No More Fake News Aug 30, 2021
In this article, I’m cutting through a few miles of new verbiage circulating on the issue of refusing the COVID vaccine.
People have recently announced “an extraordinary discovery”: there is a legal way to reject the vaccine. “It’s still experimental,” they say, even after the FDA just fully approved it, and under federal law, a person has the right to refuse an experimental medicine.
So…take a breath, let it out, take a step back, and consider the following:
Since the moment COVID vaccines were launched, a person has been able to refuse them. Since they were first mandated, a person has been able to refuse them.
“Mandate” means: if you refuse, you pay the price.
Consequences. You’re fired from your job. You can’t enter certain restaurants. And so on.
After the August 23 FDA approval of the Pfizer shot, nothing in that regard has changed. You can refuse the shot, but you take the consequences.
Even in the Army (so far), they can’t hold you down and force the needle into your arm. They put you in a cell, they discharge you dishonorably, they court martial you; whatever.
Perhaps a lawyer can argue that the consequences of refusing the shot are egregious, too severe, are tantamount to “forcing the shot,” but that is a different issue. I would like to see that issue raised.
But let’s not confuse huge numbers of people by telling them they now have a clear path to refusing the shot. That clear path has always existed (with perhaps the exception of prisons and nursing homes and hospitals where some people were forced to take the shot illegally).
What people are dealing with is, how can I avoid the consequences of refusing the shot?
I’ve suggested strategies that entail getting employers wrapped up in answering probing detailed questions about financial and legal responsibility for vaccine injuries—
But the ultimate bottom line is the individual refusing the shot, No Matter What.
In my MANY articles about vaccines, detailing how they are dangerous, destructive, ineffective, and unnecessary, my aim has been to bring people closer to making their own stand.
That is what this is all about: No Matter What.
It’s a test of faith, conviction, courage.
Will you refuse the vaccine no matter what?
Believe me, I support all sorts of legal case filings and challenges to vaccine mandates. I don’t care how slim the chances of success are.
But in the end, every individual has to decide what he will accept and what he will reject.
No matter what the consequences are.
We are the cure. This is the war.
—
Jon Rappoport
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
You ignored the poor. They are told, get shot up or lose your job. If they lose their job they become homeless (they don’t get benefits if they refuse the jab). If you become homeless in the uk, you will die. So, they’re given the choice of the jab (which may kill them) or certain death. And these people make up the majority.
Much rubbish. All you need to do is ask for a full and detailed list of what is exactly in the vaccine. You’ll find plenty to object to on moral, ethical and personal safety grounds.
First off, they won’t officially tell you what’s in the jab, 2nd, they won’t provide you with indendent advice on the contents.
I’d also suggest forcing the big pharma creator to sign a legal contract, your guarantee of safety. Of course, they won’t do this. We hear about prisoner abuse because they won’t be jabbed. There’s going to be a huge amount of litigation and the thicko sheeple will be picking up the bill.
The only way for refuseniks to say no to the vaxx is to point-blank refuse it. The US anti-draft movement of the 1960s didn’t end the draft in the courts which the establishment owns and controls, it ended the draft in the streets where the people acting together is the bigger force and that forced the end of the draft.
Wordplay only empowers the vaxx while only forceful resistance will end it. The difference between saying no and trying to say no is that trying to say no will never be accepted. You must enforce your “No!” or let them kill you.
Tell your employer or anyone else that “your Doctor advised you not to take the shot”. It is not even lying, since many Doctors HAVE said don’t get the shot. Then, you are not admitting to refusing it. The medical reason is confidential. The employer or business refusing you service or sacking you is then taking a risk that they are discriminating against you.
I’ve read many accounts that the FDA did not pass / legalize the Pfizer vaccine (gene therapy) which is still being administered under the EUA (with no liability whatsoever to Pfizer). What the FDA did was approve a so-called similar product “Comirnaty” produced by BioNTech. “Comirnaty” which does extend a liability to the maker is currently not available. So the FDA pulled a fast one and the MSM / Corporate Autocracy / Government immediately jumped on it.
Comments???
Also, it is clear, that people have various comorbidities, neural / metabolic disorders, which this gene therapy can exacerbate, nevermind getting these side effects when one was formerly healthy. The doctrine of separation of church and state has been thoroughly trashed throughout this Plandemic. Churches have reneged their holy promise and the state has mandated unConstitutional Executive fiats.
The sacred “My Body” “My Choice” has also been violated. Big Pharma has corrupted the system in concert with censorship by the government and Big Tech by removing prophylactic and preventative treatments (HCQ, Ivermectin, etc.) off the table to allow for an EUA on their poisons.
it is recommended in case dutyful entering
supermarkets only with vaxin PP : DONT
TRUST THE VAXED ! USE STICKS +STONES !
BETTER IN NIGHTTIME : SMASH + BURN
THE SUPERMARKETS ! KILL THE GUARDS !
@ CARL JONES
YOURS SORRY IS RUBBISH TOO !
WHY a Jab in the first place? A healthy Immune system does not not help.
MM: You are correct.
Carl Jones is right. They cannot force you to take something which they will not even inform you to what is in it and what it could do to you.
Here is a lawyer’s View
Where is this government evidence? What is actually in the vaccines? Where all liability with respect to disclosure and risks has been summarily waived by our governments, on what basis can there be for any reliance on any government or industry assertions as to what is in the vaccines, and what the likely risks and results are to be? Where is the vaccine tracking evidence? Where is the evidence as to the medical risks from the vaccines without the actual tracking evidence with the vaccines?
Why do this? Without any valid medical scientific evidence who can say that the virus is a significant threat in its original or present form to the population at large? Where is there any scientific, medical, or rational justification that everyone must be vaccinated? From what danger or risk? According to the US CDC’s own data, and despite all of their exaggeration of death and case numbers with their own spurious PCR testing methods, their own figures showed that with the Covid virus in its most lethal form last year, that if you were under 20 and caught the virus you had a 98.98% survival rate. So why risk that group with the “untested” vaccines? If you were in the 20 to 50 age group, you had a 99.97% survival rate. So why risk that group as well? If you were in the 50 to 70 age group, you had a 99.5% survival rate, and why risk that group? Most of the victims were well over 70, had pre-existing, serious immune-compromising conditions, and likely would not have died without those conditions. They were a clearly defined, easily identified segment of the population and could have easily been protected from getting seriously sick with the virus or from dying from it, both by segregation and by utilizing the proven HCQ and Ivermectin treatment protocols, which in fact our governments suppressed. So why are they so insistent that everyone be vaccinated?
Where is the evidence to show that unvaccinated people are alleged “super spreaders” or are the main or most serious spreaders of the residual Covid virus, or of any virus? There is none.
What of employer complicity in the government denial of informed consent rights???
What of government complicity in inducing employers to coerce people into getting jabbed with the vaccines?
What therefore is the actual RISK of unvaccinated people compared to vaccinated people in the workplace getting sick with the virus or infecting anyone else? There is no evidence of any greater risk.
How is that risk determined and defined? What are the parameters? What are the actual risks with Covid now and to whom? What are the risks with the vaccines?
The governments and media say that unlike other viruses, like influenza, the consequences of catching COVID-19 if a person has not been vaccinated are severe. Where is the evidence for this assertion? There is none.
Where is the evidence from the now very low incidence of severe cases, well over 90% of which are now from vaccinated people, to concluding that the unvaccinated constitute a greater risk of sever consequences? There is none. Also once again, how do they determine and define “risk” here, and what are the parameters?
Where is the evidence that vaccines allegedly created to address the Covid 19 virus are in any way effective to stop the spread of that virus, and also are effective to protect people and stop the spread of alleged Covid variants, which they were not even designed to address? There is none.
Our governments claim they do not know how long vaccinations will last, and whether or not an annual booster shot may be required. Furthermore, they do not know the extent to which the vaccines are stopping any transmission of the virus in the workplace or anywhere else. Our governments claim not to know, but if they actually do then they are not disclosing the actual risks of the vaccines. The vaccine risk issue ought to be central in any court proceeding. It is the elephant in the room. It may take a bevy of independent, intelligent and honest world experts to help move any court in the West to overrule the adverse government policies on tort, constitutional or human rights grounds, and any such action would be fraught with extensive delays, a great deal of technical nitpicking from the government and industry lawyers, tons of fake media manure, and likely huge interference in the system by the “top down” brass which is behind all the ongoing Covid atrocities and lies, and which control the very governments who appoint the judges. However, in any proceeding, these officious bodies should first have to justify their impositions over a person’s basic rights and prove there are greater risks to those who have been vaccinated from those who have freely chosen not been vaccinated. The government would have to disclose their data in this respect, and the only data they have is fiat data, which in any independent system would not withstand any real scrutiny without bringing it into total disrepute. They would also have to disclose their data regarding the risk and harms from the vaccines, which they presently claim they have not been tracking, which is not only inexcusable, but deadly to any defence. So that data you can be sure is being cooked right now.
In Canada people are wondering if the illustrious Charter of Rights and Freedoms, can be used to fight the employer and university impositions regarding the vaccines? My view is that if it can be shown through statements by people in our governments, and with any government policies, that there are inducements or threats coming from any government body for such coercive employer polices to be imposed in the private workplace, then that government body would also have to be named in the action for the Charter to apply. By knocking down the government directive or policy with the Charter, any human-rights defense of the private employer would be very thin, because Human Rights tribunals do base their decisions on Charter standards. Also, there would likely be more exposure for the employer regarding the other grounds such as constructive dismissal claims and union grievance proceedings and arbitrations. In Vriend, the Supreme Court of Canada held that, while pure “private activity” is not subject to the Charter, “laws that regulate private activity” [. . .] obviously [are]..”]
Once court proceedings commenced there would be interim applications before an actual trial, and It is likely that a Canadian court would rule that unvaccinated workers could retain their positions if they did not have contact with the vaccinated, and if laid off they could possibly get interim relief and even some reinstatement rights subject to a final determination in a trial.
What makes all of this seem like something out of Kafka or Gilbert & Sullivan and seem totally absurd, it is the vaccinated who are supposed to be safe not only from getting the virus, but also from those spreading it around. In a rational world you would think that would be the actual purpose of the vaccines. Yet, employers say they are afraid to expose their vaccinated workers to those who have been vaccinated for fear they may get infected. We ask, therefore, what is the purpose of the vaccines if they give no one any assurance to be “safe”. The governments respond and say that the vaccines make the people taking them “more safe”, but by their own very unstable numbers, not one is not safe enough to protect them from getting sick with the virus, and they claim they are 17% to 42% “effective”. This also means the vaccines are anywhere from 58% to 87% non-effective, with an every increasing non-effectiveness as more in that vaccinated alleged majority get sick with the virus.
What they mean is that there is a lower chance of getting the virus if you are vaccinated, and by reducing that incidence they say they can reduce the spread. That may be true, but they have to have a means of asserting such percentages, but they are not tracking the vaccinated and the unvaccinated, at least as far as I know in my own province for this purpose. That is the only way you can make such an assertion as to “effectiveness”, and everything now appears to be point to the fact that they do not want an unvaccinated control segment of the population to compare to the harms being visited on the vaccinated people with the side effects and most certainly in any comparison to the next Coronavirus to come around.
If, for instance, the people who are being hospitalized now are actually suffering from the Covid “Delta” variant, the evidence is that they are mainly those who have been vaccinated, and their numbers in the hospitals are disproportionately far higher than those who have not been vaccinated. This evidence in itself must be terribly foreboding to the government authorities pushing the vaccines on the unsuspecting people, and is a dire warning or very bad things to come from the vaccines for the next flu season.
With these facts there is no real evidence that the non vaccinated are any worse spreaders of the virus than the vaccinated in the workplace or anywhere else.
However, using the spurious justification standards of our governments, the fact that the overwhelming number of Delta-variant hospital cases are those who have been vaccinated, would indicate that it should be the unvaccinated who ought to be protected from the vaccinated. The evidence indicates that it is the vaccinated who are likely more prone to be spreaders of the virus, likely because of the harms done by the vaccines to their immune systems. According to government reasoning, it is they who should stay home while the unvaccinated should be free to do what they want.
Apart from any issue of who is to be protected from who, it may be the case that in the following months we find that it is the vaccinated who have become actual super spreaders.
If unlike me you have not organized yourself to last the next 2 years until the jabbed die off, perhaps you could buy a boat and sail the Pacific. OR you could die trying to hang on to the debt ridden lifestyle and possessions you currently have, believing that lifestyle will return. Your choice.