Category Archives: #mRNA Vaccines

The Media Has Covered Up Government Tracking of The Unvaccinated

Posted on by

by Dr. Joseph Mercola

While the fact-checkers are burning the midnight oil to hide these truths, here’s why you could be tracked and end up experiencing negative repercussions in other areas of your life due to your vaccination status. The red flag: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) refused to answer these questions.

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • In mid-February 2023, I reported that the U.S. government has secretly been tracking those who didn’t get the  Covid vaccine or are only partially vaccinated, through a previously unknown surveillance program.
  • Within days, fact-checkers tried to debunk the idea that individual people are being tracked, or that these data could be misused by the government or third parties.
  • COVID “vaccination” status was not considered a private medical matter at all during 2021 and 2022, yet mainstream media now want you to believe that your COVID vaccine status is protected by medical privacy laws.
  • Your medical data are not nearly as private as you think. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) is rife with exemptions when it comes to your privacy. Federal agencies such as the U. S. Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, are exempt from the privacy clauses and can access identifiable data—especially if there’s an outbreak of infectious disease, be it real or fictitious.
  • Government agencies and a number of third parties or “covered entities” can also use several loopholes to re-identify previously de-identified patient data.

In mid-February 2023, I reported that the U.S. government has secretly been tracking those who didn’t get the COVID vaccine or are only partially vaccinated, through a previously unknown surveillance program designed by the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), a division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.1

Within days, fact-checkers were burning the midnight oil trying to debunk the idea that individual people are being tracked, or that these data could be misused by the government or third parties.

Strangely enough, the most egregious “misinformation” example USA Today’s fact checker could find was a social media post that “generated nearly 200 likes in less than a month.”2 Two hundred likes? To most influencers, that’s nothing, especially not over the course of 30 days.

Why is USA Today stressing over a post with 200 likes? Seems a bit panicky if you ask me. Reuters also came out with a fact check and, like USA Today, Reuters claimed there was a lack of “context:”3

“New diagnostic codes that describe a patient as under-immunized against COVID-19 were introduced to help doctors identify patients potentially at risk for more-severe COVID and to help health officials track vaccine effectiveness and mortality statistics, among other public health questions, not for U.S. government tracking of unvaccinated individuals, as some are claiming online.

“The codes in an individual’s medical record, like all personal health information, are protected by U.S. privacy law and could only be analyzed at the group or population level uncoupled from individual identities …”

Your Medical Records Are Far From Private

As is so often the case, the fact-checkers are the ones taking the issue out of context or, rather, not presenting the full picture. The fact is, your medical data are not nearly as private as you think. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) is rife with exemptions when it comes to your privacy.

Federal agencies such as the U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have every right to access identifiable information, as they are exempt from the privacy clauses, and they’re particularly justified to access your private vaccination data if there’s an outbreak of infectious disease, be it real or fictitious. As noted in the HHS’s and CDC’s HIPAA guidance:4

“Balancing the protection of individual health information with the need to protect public health, the Privacy Rule expressly permits disclosures without individual authorization to public health authorities authorized by law to collect or receive the information for the purpose of preventing or controlling disease, injury, or disability, including but not limited to public health surveillance, investigation, and intervention …

“[T]he Privacy Rule expressly permits PHI [protected health information] to be shared for specified public health purposes. For example, covered entities may disclose PHI, without individual authorization, to a public health authority legally authorized to collect or receive the information for the purpose of preventing or controlling disease, injury, or disability …

“Further, the Privacy Rule permits covered entities to make disclosures that are required by other laws, including laws that require disclosures for public health purposes.”

Loopholes Allow the Re-Identification of Personal Data

Government agencies and a number of third parties or “covered entities” can also use several loopholes to re-identify previously de-identified patient data. As explained in a CDC Public Health Law document detailing the lawful sharing of private medical data:5

“While HIPAA limits the use and disclosure of health information, it also permits certain secondary use exceptions for public health purposes. HIPAA provides certain circumstances under which patient data can be disclosed to health departments without patient authorization.

“Under HIPAA, providers may disclose identifiable patient data (protected health information or PHI) if required by law, allowing states to pass legal exceptions to HIPAA restrictions.

“Providers may also disclose PHI to health departments without patient authorization for public health activities, such as communicable disease reporting, or to a public health authority to prevent or control disease, injury, or disability under the public health exemption. A covered entity may access, use, and disclose PHI for clinical research without an individual’s authorization if:

1. “It obtains documentation of waiver of individual’s authorization by an institutional review board or a privacy board.

2. “The PHI is necessary for this research.

3. “The research is using PHI of decedents.

“Providers may disclose EHI [electronic health information] without patient authorization when the data have been ‘de-identified’ … but still permits re-identification by providers or regional health information organizations through randomized patient source codes should a public health alert or case report become necessary.

“Finally, providers may disclose a ‘limited data set,’ including dates and zip codes, without authorization and still re-identify patients if they maintain patient codes derived from certain identifiers.”

So, can your vaccination status be accessed by federal health agencies? Yes. Can that information be identifiable? Absolutely yes. Does that mean that you, as an individual, could be surveilled and/or get caught in a forced vaccination dragnet or end up experiencing negative repercussions in other areas of your life due to your vaccination status? Probably.

U.S. “privacy” laws certainly make allowances for such scenarios, and considering the behavior of the government over the past three years, it would be naïve to believe they would never use your vaccination data against you.

Reuters Muddies the Water

Reuters also muddies the water in other ways. For example, the fact check stresses that medical providers have used the general code Z28.3 (which represents “under-immunized”) since 2015, and that “these codes are not used with purposes beyond monitoring and reporting diseases and mortality statistics or for insurance billing.”

While it’s true that the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code Z28.3 has been around for years, the new sub-codes that track COVID vaccine status were added in mid-September 2021 during an ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting, and during that meeting, they specified that “there is interest in being able to track people who are not immunized or only partially immunized.”

Below is a screenshot of page 194 of the agenda6 distributed during that meeting. There’s no ambiguity here. The new ICD-10 codes were added for the specific purpose of “tracking people” who are not vaccinated or only partially vaccinated against COVID-19.

They didn’t say they wanted to track “general population data.” They specifically said “people” are to be tracked. They also clearly state that this tracking is “of value for public health”—and again—the keywords “public health” open the door to federal health agencies accessing identifiable data.

Epoch Times Photo

Moreover, additional sub-codes specify the “why” a person chose not to get the COVID shot or stopped getting boosters. Those codes are listed in the screenshot below, under Z28.3 Under-immunization Status.7

Epoch Times Photo

The use of “delinquent immunization status” under code Z28.39 also tells us something about where this is all headed. “Delinquent” means being “neglectful of a duty” or being “guilty of an offense.” Is refusing boosters a criminal offense? Perhaps not today, but someday, it might be, and these codes lay the foundation for that kind of medical persecution.

All Missed Vaccinations Will Be Tracked

Another tipoff that these codes will become part and parcel of the biosecurity control grid, even if they’re not used in this way now, is the fact that code Z28.39—”Other under-immunization status”8—is to be used “when a patient is not current on other, non-COVID vaccines.”9

In other words, they have already begun tracking ALL of your vaccinations, not just the COVID shot, and they can use the Z28.3 sub-codes to identify why you refused a given vaccine.

They’ve also added a billable ICD-10 code for “immunization safety counseling,” which explains the codes detailing “why” you refused a vaccine. So, if you didn’t get a vaccine due to a “personal decision” (code Z28.2), or due to “personal beliefs or group pressure” (code Z28.1), then your doctor can bill your insurance for regurgitating vaccine propaganda and trying to change your mind.

These Codes Could Be Put to Good Use

Giving credit where credit is due, Reuters Fact Check did point out a potentially beneficial purpose for the new ICD-10 codes:10

“[Eric Burnett, who specializes in hospital and internal medicine at Columbia University] said the ICD-10 codes could also help track data on vaccine efficacy, including comparisons between vaccination statuses of hospital or ICU [intensive care unit] patients with COVID, or patient mortality data based on vaccination status.”

That would be great, but the risk of these data being misused by the government is, I believe, greater than the possibility of them being used to protect the public from dangerous mRNA shots, seeing how overwhelming amounts of data showing harm are already being willfully ignored.

The CDC Refuses to Answer Questions About the New Codes

Another red flag is the fact that the CDC has refused to answer questions about how it intends to use the new ICD-10 codes. In mid-February 2023, nine House Republicans sent a letter to the CDC demanding answers to these five questions:11

  1. “Why did the CDC and National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) decide to start gathering data on why Americans chose not to take the COVID-19 vaccine?
  2. “How do the CDC and NCHS intend to use these new COVID-19 vaccination ICD codes?
  3. “What steps are the CDC and NCHS taking to ensure that Americans’ private health information contained in the ICD system is protected?
  4. “Will the CDC and NCHS confirm that they have not, will not, and cannot create a database of Americans based on their COVID-19 vaccination status?
  5. “Can the CDC and NCHS confirm that private companies do not have access to lists of Americans’ COVID-19 vaccination status through the ICD system, or any other database overseen by the CDC and NCHS.”

As reported by The Daily Signal on Feb. 28, the CDC—for some reason—does not want to answer these questions:12

“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention told The Daily Signal that it ‘will not be tracking’ the reasons Americans give for refusing to take a COVID-19 vaccine … Meanwhile, congressional Republicans told The Daily Signal that the CDC failed to respond to their questions by a deadline last week.

“‘Two weeks ago, we sent a letter to the CDC demanding answers about its new COVID-19 vaccine database,’ Rep. Josh Brecheen, R-Okla., told The Daily Signal in a statement …

“‘The CDC is stonewalling us and refusing to respond. Why won’t the CDC explain why it’s gathering data about Americans’ personal choices? House Republicans are not afraid to use the budgetary process to keep the CDC accountable to the American people,’ Brecheen warned.

“House Republicans raised the alarm about the CDC’s involvement with the World Health Organization’s recently codified International Classification of Disease, or ICD, codes related to COVID-19 vaccination status, which went into effect last April. The codes enable the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to collect data on the reasons Americans refuse to take one of the vaccines …

“‘The ICD codes were implemented in April 2022, however, the CDC/NCHS does not have any data on the codes and will not be tracking this information,’ Nick Spinelli, a CDC spokesman, said in an emailed statement. ‘The codes are developed and managed by the World Health Organization to enable healthcare providers to track within their practices …’”

The End Goal Is a Global Database for the Vaccine Passport System

The mention of the WHO brings me to my next point, which is that all of this information will likely, eventually, be transferred into a global vaccination database. Hence the reason why the WHO develops and manages the ICD-10 codes. It’s to allow for the “harmonization” of health care across the world.

Incidentally, the fact that the WHO develops and manages these codes also means that the WHO has approved these new codes that track vaccination status, and we already know that the WHO is working on a global vaccine passport.

To work properly, a global vaccine passport system needs a global vaccination database, and there’s no telling what privacy measures, if any, such a database might end up with. What we do know is that white papers13 and proposed legislation14 published during the COVID era that discusses health tracking and/or vaccine passports have stressed that privacy concerns must be relaxed or dropped altogether to ensure global biosecurity.

We also saw how COVID “vaccination” status was not considered a private medical matter at all during 2021 and 2022. In many places, you had to disclose your status and show proof that you’d been vaccinated. Yet mainstream media now want you to believe that your COVID vaccine status is protected by medical privacy laws. What a joke.

As noted by Dr. Robert Malone in a Jan. 25, Substack article, this vaccine passport system is being put into place right under our noses, and it would be incredibly naïve to think that these new ICD-10 codes are not part of that scheme:15

“The administrative state is busy building a vaccine passport system that will be active before most Americans are aware of what is being done to them. No one is going to knock on your door asking for your vaccine status because they already know …

“They don’t need approval from Congress or the courts because we have given them the information through our health care providers. The CDC is the governmental organization tasked with tracking the vaccine status of individuals.

“They already have the records, as well as updated booster information. They just need to tweak a definition here and there or get President Biden to keep the COVID-19 public health emergency in place indefinitely and the vaccine passports will be a fait accompli.”

A Data Collection Dragnet

As of Jan. 1, 2014, the U.S. government required public and private healthcare providers to adopt and use electronic medical records (EMR) if they wanted to qualify for full Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement.

The government also financially incentivized physicians and hospitals to adopt electronic HEALTH records or EHR.16 The difference between EMR and EHR is that EHR provides a far more comprehensive patient history than EMR, as it contains a patient’s medical history from more than one medical practice.

In essence, EHR is what you get when doctors share your medical data to create one comprehensive file that covers all your interactions with the medical system. While that sounds good in theory, Big Pharma immediately seized the opportunity to misuse it by placing drug ads within the EHR system.

This in turn has driven up medical costs and resulted in poor prescribing decisions that put patients at risk.17 Patients are also directly targeted with drug marketing through patient portals.

Physicians and hospitals who adopted EHR got paid extra. Between Jan. 1, 2011, and Dec. 31, 2016, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) paid out EHR incentive payments to hospitals totaling $14.6 billion.18 Meanwhile, those who chose not to capture, share, and report clinical data on patients were financially penalized through reduced Medicare reimbursements.19,20

Needless to say, these “sticks” and “carrots” led to the rapid adoption of both EMR and EHR, both of which government requires if it wants the power to control the population through medicine, and we now know that’s exactly what government intends to do.

Transhumanism Is Being Implemented Through Food and Medicine

At the end of September 2022, President Biden laid out a “bold goal” to “end hunger and increase healthy eating and physical activity by 2030” through a federally-backed “Food Is Medicine” campaign.21

Integrating food and nutrition with health care so that food and health policies are under one umbrella will facilitate the creation of new policies, funding, and control over both areas. Eventually, food purchases and health records will be linked to your vaccine passport/digital identity, which also holds your educational records, travel records, work records, and bank accounts.

That this “Food Is Medicine” campaign has nothing to do with promoting real nutrition or whole food is obvious, as that same month Biden also signed the “Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Bio-manufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bio-economy.”22

This specifies that biotechnology and genetic engineering be used to transform the food and medical industries to promote a transhumanist agenda. It’s all about creating fake, synthetic, and genetically manipulated foods and tinkering with the human genome.

On a larger scale, this plan is also promoted by the World Health Organization, which is trying to seize power over health care globally through International Health Regulation amendments and the Pandemic Treaty. For more information on that, see “Pandemic Treaty Will Usher In Unelected One World Government.”

The WHO is also seeking to put food, medicine, and climate under one umbrella. This would allow it to control the global population in any number of ways, as a climate issue could be positioned as a public health issue, or a food issue, and vice versa. In other words, people could be forced to eat bugs instead of beef because it “benefits the climate.” Private vehicle use could be restricted because it helps lower vehicular pollution that endangers public health, and so on.

So, to bring us full circle back to where we started, while the media are now trying to lull you to sleep with “promises” that there’s nothing nefarious about tracking the unvaccinated or “under-vaccinated,” think long and hard before you close your eyes to the possibility that this is all part of biosecurity-based totalitarian control grid.

Originally published April 18, 2023, on Mercola.com

◇ References:

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author

Rejecting World Health Organization Monopoly Power Over Global Public Health

Posted on by

Last month the World Council For Health, published a comprehensive document outlining its rationale for condemning the World Health Organization’s proposed amendments to International Health Regulations (2005) and the pandemic treaty/accord to significantly expand the control of the World Health Organization (WHO) over global public health responses and thinking via a) amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005), and b) a pandemic treaty/accord (WHO CA+).

The Conclusion Section of their document is provided below. Click Here For The Complete Document

The aim of many proponents of the amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) and the pandemic treaty/accord WHO CA+ is to increase compliance with sensible obligations under the IHR (2005) and to avoid national interests from impeding efficient responses to infectious disease emergencies by handing unprecedented power to the WHO and enabling further centralization of political control. What these advocates do not take into account is that handing more power to the WHO, at this point, equals handing more, not less power to the special interests (national and private) that have, unfortunately, compromised the organization and impeded efficient responses to several infectious disease emergencies as well as other global health issues in the recent past.

What they also do not take into account is that any excessive concentration of power or monopoly power in the hands of a few without a popular mandate and constitutional control mechanisms to restrain it, by nature, leads to abuse of power, undermines and compromises democratic processes, corrupts science, curtails choice, suffocates competing solutions, enables control over the flow of information and stifling of dissent.

The proposed IHR amendments and the pandemic treaty – if agreed upon – will inevitably be used to advance the interests of a few powerful actors that have compromised the WHO at the expense of others.

They can use these instruments to replace international collaboration with undemocratic centralized dictates, to encourage censorship, and to legitimize a cartel that imposes on populations interest-driven health products that generate profits over those that work best – under the disguise of equity.

International collaboration and sharing to benefit global health cannot be improved by assigning undemocratic concentrated power to an unelected, unaccountable, and compromised supranational organization.

That is why the amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) discussed in Chapter II and the pandemic treaty (WHO CA+) as outlined in its zero draft must be opposed and rejected when they are put to a vote in either May 2023 or May 2024. Should they pass, countries need to opt out of the revised Regulations within 10 months and need to reject ratification of the treaty. In addition, prudent legislative and educational measures, as outlined in Chapter V of this document, should be introduced, passed, and implemented to counter any monopolization or attempts at monopolization, to safeguard democratic ideals, and to benefit public health.

How Pfizer Bribes Led to Vaccine Mandates

Posted on by

Pfizer paid undisclosed sums to groups advocating for vaccine mandates, bypassing the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Dr. Joseph Mercola

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • In 2022, Pfizer became the first drug company in history to break $100 billion in annual sales. That year, Pfizer spent $2.8 billion on ads, an increase of $800 million from 2021
  • But Pfizer’s success isn’t due to direct ads. It’s because a) the U.S. government spent $1 billion of taxpayers’ money to promote the experimental COVID jab, and b) Pfizer paid millions to consumer, medical, and civil rights groups that lobbied for COVID jab mandates on Pfizer’s behalf
  • Special interest groups paid by Pfizer to push for COVID jab mandates and coercive vaccine policies include the Chicago Urban League (which argued that the jab mandate would benefit the Black community), the National Consumers League, the Immunization Partnership, the Advertising Council, and a long list of universities and cancer, liver diseases, cardiology, rheumatology, and medical science organizations
  • April 19, 2023, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revised its COVID jab guidance. The original monovalent mRNA shots are no longer recommended for use in the U.S. Instead, the CDC recommends people 6 years old and older get an updated bivalent mRNA COVID shot, even if they’ve not completed the monovalent series
  • While the World Health Organization seems to be backing off from endless COVID boosters for all, there’s clear evidence that mRNA gene therapy is here to stay. mRNA “vaccines” are in the works for influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), shingles, genital herpes, and cancer, just to name a few

Thanks to its experimental gene therapy injection for COVID-19, in 2022, Pfizer became the first drug company in history to break $100 billion in annual sales. 1 But its mere existence didn’t ensure Pfizer’s success.

No, massive media promotion and government-backed coercion did that. Not only did the U.S. government pay news media a staggering $1 billion to promote and build public confidence in the experimental jab, but as reported by Russell Brand in the video above, Pfizer also poured billions of dollars into advertising.

In 2022, Pfizer spent $2.8 billion on ads, an increase of $800 million from 2021. On top of that, Pfizer also paid big bucks to consumer, medical, and civil rights groups to lobby for COVID jab mandates. Journalist Lee Fang reviewed this in his interview with Brand (video above) and in an April 24, 2023, Substack article. 2 As Fang told Brand:

“San Francisco … in September of 2021, enacted a very kind of strong mandate with no exemption for prior immunity … or … natural immunity. Pfizer was not playing a visible role here. They didn’t comment on any of the articles. They weren’t really talking to the press.

You saw consumer groups, civil rights groups, patient groups, doctors groups, and public health organizations, all saying these mandates are necessary, even though there wasn’t a lot of scientific evidence to support the basis that we needed these mandates. [The shots] were sold to us with the claim that they would stop transmission of the virus.

You had this coalition of community groups saying we need the mandate. Well, I’m taking a look at new disclosures that show that many of those organizations, these third-party organizations … were taking funds from Pfizer while lobbying for these controversial policies …

[The drug industry doesn’t] have to disclose how much they’re spending on television, how much they’re spending on TikTok ads, how much they’re giving to these front groups, or these doctors groups, or these public health groups that set the nature of the debate.

They appear in the news media, they create events, and they create a discourse that looks authentic, that looks organic, but it benefits the bottom line of their benefactors — companies like Pfizer.

And the vaccine debate … has shaped our lives in the last three years of the pandemic. But it’s also not that unique in the sense that every major pharmaceutical company in the United States engages in these practices. They pressure regulators, they spend so much money on direct-to-consumer advertising.

And really, they kind of just dominate the entire public policy debate. So we can talk about a lot of other special interest groups, but Pharma is unique [in terms of] the raw amounts of money they spend to control the entire public sector, on regulatory policy, on everything, in terms of how it affects medicine …”

Dozens of Health Care Organizations Called for Mandates

Special interest groups paid by Pfizer 3 to push for COVID jab mandates and coercive vaccine policies include the Chicago Urban League (which argued that the jab mandate would benefit the Black community), the National Consumers League, the Immunization Partnership, the Advertising Council and a long list of universities and cancer, liver diseases, cardiology, rheumatology, and medical science organizations.
“Pfizer didn’t have to take a prominent stand to argue for vaccine mandates, which would have been an obvious conflict of interest. They paid others to push the mandates for them.”

Each of these organizations received anywhere from several thousand to hundreds of thousands of dollars from Pfizer in 2021 alone. Is it any wonder, then, that more than 50 major healthcare organizations called for vaccine mandates that year, including for their own workers? 4 I don’t think so.

Pfizer didn’t have to take a prominent stand to argue for vaccine mandates, which would have been an obvious conflict of interest. They paid others to push the mandates for them. Of course, Pfizer and the U.S. government are also in partnership, as acknowledged on Pfizer’s Political Partnership page. 5

New COVID Jab Guidelines Issued

In related news, on April 19, 2023, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revised its COVID jab guidance. 6, 7, 8 The original monovalent mRNA shots are no longer recommended for use in the U.S. Instead, the CDC recommends people 6 years old and older get an updated bivalent mRNA COVID shot, even if they’ve not completed the monovalent series.

The update comes on the heels of the World Health Organization’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization’s (SAGE) meeting in late March 2023, during which they decided that continued injection efforts should be focused on getting boosters into the arms of the elderly and those with underlying conditions, including young children, young adults and pregnant women with diabetes, heart disease or immunocompromising conditions. As reported by the WHO: 9

“For the high-priority group, SAGE recommends an additional booster of either 6 or 12 months after the last dose, with the timeframe depending on factors such as age and immunocompromising conditions.

All the COVID-19 vaccine recommendations are time-limited, applying for the current epidemiological scenario only, and so the additional booster recommendations should not be seen as for continued annual COVID-19 vaccine boosters …

Separate from the roadmap, SAGE also updated their recommendations on bivalent COVID-19 vaccines, now recommending that countries can consider using BA.5 bivalent mRNA vaccine for the primary series.”

Pfizer Intent on Replacing Conventional Vaccines With mRNA

But while the WHO seems to be backing off from endless COVID boosters for all, there’s clear evidence that mRNA gene therapy is here to stay — unless enough of us wake up and refuse them all. For example, as reported by BioProcess International, Pfizer is pushing mRNA as an alternative to current flu vaccines: 10

“Last September, Pfizer initiated a Phase III study of its messenger RNA (mRNA) based flu vaccine, following a 2018 partnership with a then little-known German biotech BioNTech. In 2020, both BioNTech and mRNA were thrown into the global spotlight due to a successful COVID-19 vaccine, developed by Pfizer and BioNTech in just nine months.

Now Pfizer is leveraging a similar approach to mRNA beyond COVID through a roadmap that aims to reduce bureaucracy and increase collaboration.

According to Pfizer’s VP of mRNA Commercial Strategy & Innovation and Global Pandemic Security Lead Jane True … mRNA-based vaccines have the ability to replace current technologies in the long-term.”

Moderna also launched an mRNA flu jab trial in the fall of 2022. 11 We now know the COVID shot doesn’t protect you against SARS-CoV-2 infection or transmission, so why would anyone believe the flu shot will be any different? Are they tweaking it somehow to block infection? Or will it be a repeat of COVID — all risk and no benefit?

There’s cause for additional concern when it comes to mRNA flu shots because they’ve already admitted that the viral strains targeted can and will be updated on the fly in the middle of the flu season, should it turn out that the flu strains selected in February are a mismatch to the circulating strains that following winter. 12

The industry wants you to believe that changing the antigen has no bearing on the potential side effects, but they have no evidence to support that assertion. Whenever you change the antigen, you run the risk of new side effects, because not all viral antigens affect your immune system the same way.

New mRNA Shots Are Being Fast-Tracked

In addition to mRNA-based flu shots, several other ones are also in the works, and several are being fast-tracked. For example, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is fast-tracking Moderna’s mRNA shot for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), which is based on the same platform as the COVID jab.

At present, there’s no approved vaccine available for RSV, and the reason for that is because none were ever able to pass trials. As with coronavirus, previous efforts to develop an RSV vaccine met with failure as test subjects had a pesky tendency to die or become seriously ill when exposed to the wild virus, thanks to paradoxical immune enhancement (PIE), also known as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE).

By fast-tracking Moderna’s mRNA RSV shot, the FDA is completely ignoring the possibility that they may be creating an avalanche of ADE-related illness from the COVID shot. Adding another injection for a respiratory virus that has historically been associated with ADE could be extremely risky, yet they’re moving full steam ahead.

Moderna’s personalized cancer shot is also being fast-tracked, both in the U.S. 13 and the European Union. 14  mRNA shots for shingles and genital herpes are also in the works. 15 Overall, the entire industry, and governments around the world, seem hell-bent on transitioning to mRNA-based gene therapy for just about everything.

Putting Patients in the Driver’s Seat

On a final side note, I recently interviewed Laura Bartlett and Greta Crawford, founder of protocolkills.com, about how to put patients back in the driver’s seat when they’re admitted to the hospital. I hope to run their interview on May 7; you won’t want to miss it.
A key “weapon” in your arsenal to put yourself squarely in the driver’s seat is a novel informed consent document that specifies the treatments that you do NOT consent to, such as mRNA injections and other vaccines, remdesivir and other deadly COVID-19 drugs, and mechanical ventilation for COVID-19. It also specifies the COVID treatments you DO request and consent to, such as oxygen, nutrition, hydration, ivermectin and other remedies.

It’s basically a document that lists your current consent wishes, and it needs to be written, signed and notarized BEFORE you go to the hospital. It must also be entered into your medical record, so that everyone involved in your care has access to it and know what your wishes are.

Bartlett and Crawford have developed a template for this document that you can use and amend as you wish. This strategy is also being promoted by Dr. Mary Talley Bowden. You can find the template here. I will be offering a revised template that is modified to make sure you don’t get disease-producing food while in the hospital loaded with LA (linoleic acid).

This form is basically one of the most effective ways to protect yourself against harmful treatments in the hospital that can kill or permanently disable you.

Hospital staff are REQUIRED to follow your written directives. So, having this notarized document entered into your electronic medical record, sent to the hospital CEO and given to any doctor that treats you could literally save your life and prevent you from being taken “hostage” if you’re ever hospitalized. The KEY is to have this document ready BEFORE you go into the hospital.

Vaccine makers like Pfizer are using every possible means to ensure their products are forced on the population, but patients still do have rights. We must exercise those rights to the fullest, and this is the most effective way I have ever encountered to do that.

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this article is based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

It is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.