Dear colleagues in the fight against the evil & unjust “Vaccine Passports System”, right now being considered by the European Parliament,

Average: 8 (1 vote)

Dear colleagues in the fight against the evil & unjust “Vaccine Passports System”, right now being considered by the European Parliament,

Please find our weekend counterblast, from the Doctors4CovidEthics group.

You’ll see a series of Open Letters we’ve sent to the European Medicines Agency, expressing our deep concerns about the safety flaws at the heart of the gene-based vaccines, where virus-derived spike protein is caused to be expressed around the bodies of recipients. Spike protein is fusogenic & prompts blood platelets to clump. It should not be a surprise that blood clots, sometimes fatal, following injection.

We’re putting on notice those legislators who are considering whether to vote for this diabolical “vaccine passports“ scheme.

There are numerous, anti-scientific & downright dangerous aspects to this ill thought through scheme:

1. It doesn’t make anyone any safer. Vaccination at best protects the recipient, no one else. So no one gains over their private status quo by showing each other some ‘vaccine passport’.

2. The threatened limitations placed immediately upon the unvaccinated is unquestionably a coercive & illegal pressure. This will prompt some people to get vaccinated against their best interests & a number will thereby be injured or even killed as a consequence. Tragically, some people will needlessly die, who never was at risk of death from the virus.

3. The system that runs it & the database sitting behind it affords those controlling Vaccine Passports & it’s associated algorithms a level of totalitarian tyranny over others that even Orwell & Huxley never imagined.
When instructed by a VaxPass app to show up for a superfluous ‘top-up’ or ‘variant vaccine’, on pain of cancellation of their existing VaxPass, what freedom do they have? None: they are controlled.
And if that same app orders them to bring in their grandchild, as the child’s mother hasn’t, on pain of cancellation not only of your VaxPass but also the kids mother’s, what freedom do they have? It’s none: they are controlled.
Those who say these warnings are overdone are reminded that there is no rationale for these systems at all. Given that, those promulgating them are already beyond the pale.
Just in recent days, Alaska announced that unvaccinated people will no longer be permitted to conduct in person retail shopping.
Be under no illusion, the purpose here is complete control & the motives, while as yet unclear, can only be malign.

Please join with us in sharing these warnings far & wide. It is my sincere hope that readers will be horrified, then repulsed & finally be resolved to oppose & to prevent such a system EVER taking root anywhere near where you, your family & community live. Oppose it with all your might: our freedoms as human beings depends

Thank you sincerely from Doctors4CovidEthics,

Dr Mike Yeadon & friends.


WHO SAGE working group dealing with vaccine hesitancy
October 2014

Objective 1 - A systematic literature review methodology was applied to access and assess both peer-reviewed and grey literature. Interventions relating to hesitancy towards RHT were analysed to obtain greater insights surrounding lack of uptake of available health technologies and to ascertain whether strategies aimed at addressing hesitancy towards RHTs could be adopted to address vaccine hesitancy.

Objective 2 – Characteristics of evaluated interventions were mapped against the SAGE WG Model of determinants of vaccine hesitancy and also grouped according to one of four identified themes which characterise the type of intervention:
i) Multi-component
ii) Dialogue-based
iii) Incentive-based
iv) Reminder/recall-based
Objective 3 - The GRADE approach was applied for grading the quality of evidence of a selection of peer-reviewed primary studies that evaluated interventions; selection was based on the relevance of studies to the fifteen PICO questions set out a priori by the SAGE WG (Table 2). These questions were developed under one of three intervention themes (further defined below):

1) Dialogue-based,



Themulti-componentthemewas excluded in this section because of a preference expressed by the WG to focus on identifying and assessing the impact of single component approaches. However, data were included where a multi- component intervention provided suitable data to assess the effect of its individual component parts. Risk of bias was assessed for each study and the evidence was set out against each individual PICO question.
Theme categories for PICO questions:

i) Dialogue-based, which included the involvement of religious or traditional leaders, social mobilisation, social media, mass media, and communication or information-based tools for health care workers;

ii)Incentive-based (non-financial), which included the provision of food or other goods to encourage vaccination, and;

iii)Reminder/recall-based, including telephone call/letter to remind the target population about vaccination.

There were two outcomes of interest:
1. Outcome 1: Impact on vaccination uptake (behavioural shift);
2. Outcome 2: Impact on vaccine/vaccination knowledge/awareness and/or attitude
(psychological shift).


One wonders why in a report  on vaccine hesitancy they address Reproductive health technologies hesitancy

"3.2 Conclusions and implications( page 133)

"Reproductive health technologies (grey literature only)
Reproductive health strategies were analysed to obtain insights surrounding low uptake of other available health technologies and to ascertain whether strategies aimed at addressing hesitancy surrounding reproductive health technologies could be useful for addressing vaccine hesitancy.
Unlike the vaccine hesitancy search, the majority of interventions aimed to address hesitancy surrounding uptake of reproductive health technologies were primarily focused in WHO AFR and SEAR regions. Many interventions did not focus on a specific reproductive health technology, although male and female condoms featured prominently. Similar to the vaccine hesitancy search, most targeted healthcare workers but also aimed to engage religious and other influential leaders in family planning. The engagement of religious and community leaders as a strategy was common in low income regions.
Many interventions aimed to address contextual issues such as gender norms (often aimed at men) and a high proportion also aimed to address individual/social group influences on reproductive health choices, such as beliefs and attitudes about reproductive health. The majority of interventions were not evaluated but interventions that were evaluated were mostly dialogue-based or multi-component interventions."

"3.3 Opportunities
Despite the large body of literature on the many determinants of vaccine hesitancy, most interventions have focused on individual level issues (e.g., knowledge, awareness) and vaccine/vaccination specific concerns (e.g., mode of delivery, role of healthcare professionals). There needs to be more attention given to understanding and addressing hesitancy at the community level (e.g. social norms).
There is an opportunity to broaden the outcomes of interest when assessing the effects of interventions, in particular, more intermediary outcomes such as changes in knowledge, norms, attitude and awareness. These outcomes might indicate important shifts along the vaccine continuum, either away from or towards acceptance, even if they do not necessarily lead to a change in vaccination uptake. Appreciating where individuals and communities lie on the continuum and what defines this offers another insight to inform intervention design."

"3.5 Implications for research & practice
Vaccine hesitancy is complex and dynamic; future strategies need to reflect and address these complexities in both design and evaluation. In the first instance, implementers must adequately identify the target population and understand the true nature of their particular vaccine and/or vaccination concerns; this will help ensure a well-informed intervention. Recognising that vaccine hesitancy is influenced by very local but also global influences, researchers and implementers should seek a thorough understanding of the dynamic context outside ofimmunisation programmes.
The vaccine hesitancy framework developed by the SAGE working group should prove valuable in future efforts to identify, investigate and address issues that arise and help discern issues of vaccine hesitancy from the more well-known and studied factors influencing vaccination uptake such as access or vaccine supply issues. There is no single strategy that can address vaccine hesitancy; well integrated, multi-component strategies should be promoted and must be accompanied by an appropriate evaluation process. Specifically, implementers must be able to appreciate the influence of individual components which will benefit the immediate operations and the design of future interventions.
Overall, the design and delivery of interventions should try to reflect the following points:

1) Target audiences should be clearly identified and specific issues well researched and understood;

2) Interventions should focus on meaningful engagement (i.e., dialogue-based, social mobilisation) that supports realistic action;

3) Contextual influences, from the individual through to the health system, should be acknowledged and accounted for when choosing strategies; 4) Interventions should be multi-component and seek to address primary determinants of uptake across the different domains of interest; 5) Interventions must be evaluated.

Vaccine hesitancy is an emerging, and evolving area, which is new and needing new, and sometimes yet untried, approaches to effectively address it. Adapting old ways in small ways, will not change the tide."


Mentions grey literature.