Thursday, November 19, 2020

Gates’ Globalist Vaccine Agenda

Gates’ Globalist Vaccine Agenda: A Win-Win for Pharma and Mandatory Vaccination By Robert F. Kennedy Jr ... thumbnail 1 summary

Gates’ Globalist Vaccine Agenda: A Win-Win for Pharma and Mandatory Vaccination

By Robert F. Kennedy Jr

First posted on GR on April 13, 2020

Vaccines, for Bill Gates, are a strategic philanthropy that feed his many vaccine-related businesses (including Microsoft’s ambition to control a global vaccination ID enterprise) and give him dictatorial control of global health policy.

Gates’ obsession with vaccines seems to be fueled by a conviction to save the world with technology.

Promising his share of $450 million of $1.2 billion to eradicate Polio, Gates took control of India’s National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (NTAGI) which mandated up to 50 doses (Table 1) of polio vaccines through overlapping immunization programs to children before the age of five. Indian doctors blame the Gates campaign for a devastating non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) epidemic that paralyzed 490,000 children beyond expected rates between 2000 and 2017. In 2017, the Indian government dialed back Gates’ vaccine regimen and asked Gates and his vaccine policies to leave India. NPAFP rates dropped precipitously.

The most frightening [polio] epidemics in Congo, Afghanistan, and the Philippines, are all linked to vaccines.

In 2017, the World Health Organization (WHO) reluctantly admitted that the global explosion in polio is predominantly vaccine strain. The most frightening epidemics in Congo, Afghanistan, and the Philippines, are all linked to vaccines. In fact, by 2018, 70% of global polio cases were vaccine strain.

In 2014, the Gates Foundation funded tests of experimental HPV vaccines, developed by Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK) and Merck, on 23,000 young girls in remote Indian provinces.


Approximately 1,200 suffered severe side effects, including autoimmune and fertility disorders. Seven died. Indian government investigations charged that Gates-funded researchers committed pervasive ethical violations: pressuring vulnerable village girls into the trial, bullying parents, forging consent forms, and refusing medical care to the injured girls. The case is now in the country’s Supreme Court.

South African newspapers complained, ‘We are guinea pigs for the drug makers.’

In 2010, the Gates Foundation funded a phase 3 trial of GSK’s experimental malaria vaccine, killing 151 African infants and causing serious adverse effects including paralysis, seizure, and febrile convulsions to 1,048 of the 5,949 children.

During Gates’ 2002 MenAfriVac campaign in Sub-Saharan Africa, Gates’ operatives forcibly vaccinated thousands of African children against meningitis. Approximately 50 of the 500 children vaccinated developed paralysis. South African newspapers complained, “We are guinea pigs for the drug makers.” Nelson Mandela’s former Senior Economist, Professor Patrick Bond, describes Gates’ philanthropic practices as “ruthless and immoral.”

In 2010, Gates committed $10 billion to the WHO saying, “We must make this the decade of vaccines.” A month later, Gates said in a Ted Talk that new vaccines “could reduce population”. In 2014, Kenya’s Catholic Doctors Association accused the WHO of chemically sterilizing millions of unwilling Kenyan women with a  “tetanus” vaccine campaign. Independent labs found a sterility formula in every vaccine tested. After denying the charges, WHO finally admitted it had been developing the sterility vaccines for over a decade.  Similar accusations came from Tanzania, Nicaragua, Mexico, and the Philippines.

A 2017 study (Morgenson et. al. 2017) showed that WHO’s popular DTP vaccine is killing more African children than the diseases it prevents. DTP-vaccinated girls suffered 10x the death rate of children who had not yet received the vaccine. WHO has refused to recall the lethal vaccine which it forces upon tens of millions of African children annually.

[Global public health officials] say he has diverted agency resources to serve his personal philosophy that good health only comes in a syringe.

Global public health advocates around the world accuse Gates of steering WHO’s agenda away from the projects that are proven to curb infectious diseases: clean water, hygiene, nutrition, and economic development. The Gates Foundation only spends about $650 million of its $5 billion dollar budget on these areas.  They say he has diverted agency resources to serve his personal philosophy that good health only comes in a syringe.

In addition to using his philanthropy to control WHO, UNICEF, GAVI, and PATH, Gates funds a private pharmaceutical company that manufactures vaccines, and additionally is donating $50 million to 12 pharmaceutical companies to speed up development of a coronavirus vaccine. In his recent media appearances, Gates appears confident that the Covid-19 crisis will now give him the opportunity to force his dictatorial vaccine programs on American children.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from CHD


Tuesday, November 17, 2020

The ‘Great Reset’: A Technocratic Agenda that Waited Years for a Global Crisis to Exploit

The ‘Great Reset’: A Technocratic Agenda that Waited Years for a Global Crisis to Exploit By Tim Hinchliffe In the face of a global pandemic... thumbnail 1 summary

The ‘Great Reset’: A Technocratic Agenda that Waited Years for a Global Crisis to Exploit

By Tim Hinchliffe

In the face of a global pandemic, an un-elected body of global bureaucrats based in Davos, Switzerland has asked the world to trust its vision of a technocratic “great reset,” knowing full well the public would never go for such a request had it not been for the golden opportunity they’d all been waiting for.

When the head of the World Economic Forum (WEF), Klaus Schwab, announced in June that “Now is the time for a great reset,” it wasn’t the first time he called for it.

In fact, he called on the WEF to start the great reset over five years ago (see video below), but this year he’s saying that COVID-19 is the most urgent reason to restructure all of society and the global economy.

The great reset agenda was already in place long before the coronavirus pandemic, and the WEF was just waiting for a crisis to exploit it.

    Prior to this year, implementing worldwide lockdowns that destroy businesses, wreck the economy, and leave people destitute and stripped of their constitutional rights while trying to enact invasive contact tracing, immunity passports, and otherwise massive bio-electronic surveillance apparatuses would never have been accepted by the citizens of a free society

The so-called great reset is an old ideology touted for decades by globalists like Henry Kissinger, who opined in 2014, “Never before has a new world order had to be assembled from so many different perceptions, or on so global a scale.”

The great reset is the proposed mechanism for setting in motion a new global order, but it wouldn’t be possible to bring forth such a bold plan without a global crisis, be it manufactured or of unfortunate happenstance, that shocks society to its core.

    “The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world to create a healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous future” — Klaus Schwab, WEF

In this story, I will attempt to dissect:

    What types of invasive surveillance technologies will be required by the great reset

    Why the great reset is being re-branded and pushed in 2020

    How the Davos crowd is trying to sell the great reset Utopia

    Who will be asked to give up their privacy for the common good

    When humans become hackable

    Where you have the power to choose

With the arrival of the coronavirus pandemic, the WEF has the perfect excuse to quickly enact its vision for steering society towards a more invasive and intrusive, technocratic future in the name of serving the common good.

The un-elected architects of the great reset envision a Utopian world of inclusivity, equality, and sustainability that will require trust in emerging technologies like AI, 5G, Blockchain, and robotics, in order to usher in their golden dawn.

WEF Great Reset Agenda

Great Reset Will Require Trust in Invasive Surveillance Tech: WEF Promotes Health Passports & Contact Tracing

In order to bring about the great reset, it will require trust in the technology, and to be more specific, the WEF would like to have greater trust in “crisis-relevant tech,” which includes developing digital health passports and contact tracing, under a new form of internet governance.

    “The use of digital technology during the COVID-19 crisis offers clear lessons […] Target mistrust broadly to enable specific crisis-relevant tech” — Daniel Dobrygowski, WEF

“The Great Reset will require new institutions and business models, and new digital technologies to build them,” wrote the WEF Head of Corporate Governance and Trust, Daniel Dobrygowski, in a blog post. “The necessary collaboration, however, is only possible if we solve the digital trust problem,” he added.

According to the Dobrygowski, “The use of digital technology during the COVID-19 crisis offers clear lessons,” one of those being, “Target mistrust broadly to enable specific crisis-relevant tech.”

The WEF openly supports the development of so-called “crisis-relevant tech” as evidenced by its backing the development of health passports, which act as digital records of your health status to determine whether or not you are free to travel or even go outside.

Earlier this year the WEF announced it was supporting the development and launch of CommonPass— a platform whose mission is “to develop and launch a standard global model to enable people to securely document and present their COVID-19 status (either as test results or an eventual vaccination status) to facilitate international travel and border crossing while keeping their health information private.”

    “Contact tracing apps can be powerful weapons against the virus – but they can also be tools for state surveillance” — WEF report

The WEF also lent its support to another health passport initiative called CovidPass, which was built by one of the WEF’s own “Young Global Leaders,” Mustapha Mokass, who used to be an advisor at the World Bank.

CovidPass “uses blockchain technology to store encrypted data from individual blood tests, allowing users to prove that they have tested negative for COVID-19.”

In supporting both CommonPass and CovidPass, the Davos elite have made it clear they want “crisis-relevant tech” like health passports to be part of the great reset solution.

Ask yourself, would the idea of being forced to electronically prove your current health status in order to travel or even leave your own home have been acceptable 10 months ago?

Why is this happening now?

The die was cast years ago, but only now do the Davos elite see a shrinking, yet golden opportunity, to create a new world order out of the coronavirus chaos.

COVID Presents a ‘Shrinking, Golden Opportunity’, Great Reset Is Not a Response to the Coronavirus

In June Prince Charles praised the great reset agenda for its potential to “make people more receptive to big visions of change” after having suffered through “unprecedented schockwaves.”

“We have a golden opportunity to seize something good from this crisis — its unprecedented shockwaves may well make people more receptive to big visions of change,” the prince told the WEF.

    Would the idea of being forced to electronically prove your current health status in order to travel or even leave your own home have been acceptable 10 months ago?

Prince Charles may have let on more than he cared to share, or thought you would notice.

Again, he’s telling you that the great reset was always the plan. COVID-19 is the excuse.

In other words, the coronavirus crisis presents a golden opportunity for the global establishment to further its agenda upon a frightful and angry population that has been so beaten down by the pandemic and subsequent lockdowns that they will have become more susceptible to giving over their freedoms to the idea of greater centralized power and control.

Prince Charles went on, “As we move from rescue to recovery, we have a unique but rapidly shrinking window of opportunity to learn lessons and reset ourselves on a more sustainable path. It is an opportunity we have never had before and may never have again.”

    “We have a golden opportunity to seize something good from this crisis — its unprecedented shockwaves may well make people more receptive to big visions of change” — Prince Charles

The British royal’s words echo those of WEF Director Schwab, who said, “The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world to create a healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous future.”

Again, why is the window of opportunity so narrow? Could the seeds of their grand strategy only flower while the world was distracted and divided amidst the chaos?

The Lure of Utopia Has Many Hooks: Giving Up Privacy & Freedom for the Common Good

Prior to this year, implementing worldwide lockdowns that destroy businesses, wreck the economy, and leave people destitute and stripped of their constitutional rights while trying to enact invasive contact tracing, immunity passports, and otherwise massive bio-electronic surveillance apparatuses would never have been accepted by the citizens of a free society.

But the coronavirus pandemic has opened a “narrow window” for a “golden opportunity,” and once this crisis is over, the Davos club fears that the window may be shut forever.

The WEF admits in its own contact tracing governance framework that “Contact tracing apps can be powerful weapons against the virus – but they can also be tools for state surveillance.”

Yet, the WEF believes that people should balance certain freedoms to serve the common good. It is a global vision without a clear end, and it is one that flies in the face of constitutional republics that protect certain unalienable rights.

    “This new mindset would balance concerns over privacy and other issues with the potential to create value and improve lives” — WEF report

According to the WEF framework, enacting contact tracing technology would “not be easy and will require a new social consensus that embraces the use of technology to resolve problems for the good of all.”

Additionally, “This new mindset would balance concerns over privacy and other issues with the potential to create value and improve lives.”

In order to enact invasive technologies upon the population, citizens of the world will have to realize that it’s for the greater good and that they should change their mindsets to be less concerned about “privacy and other issues” and more excited about “the potential to create value and improve lives.”

    The great reset “will require stronger and more effective governments […] and it will demand private-sector engagement every step of the way” — Klaus Schwab, WEF

Just about every proponent of contact tracing and health passports, including the WEF, all declare that technology should be used and governed ethically, but you hardly see any mention of winning the consent of the people.

Instead, they lobby stakeholders and policymakers to carry the torch in imparting the global vision from the top of the capstone and on-down.

    “As we move from rescue to recovery, we have a unique but rapidly shrinking window of opportunity to learn lessons and reset ourselves on a more sustainable path. It is an opportunity we have never had before and may never have again” — Prince Charles

If the coronavirus were to disappear from the earth today, would the WEF have to wait for a new global crisis, or would it push-on with the same reset agenda, regardless?

According to the WEF director, the great reset “will require stronger and more effective governments […] and it will demand private-sector engagement every step of the way.”

“The world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions,” he added. “We must build entirely new foundations for our economic and social systems.”

In creating order out of the coronavirus chaos, the great reset promises to bring about “a more secure, more equal, and more stable world.”

Is that how they plan to win our trust? By promising us a Utopia if we just go along with it?

Bio-Electronic Surveillance and Hackable Humans

We haven’t even gotten into how the great reset would affect the world’s money system and the role of blockchain and digital payments, but when you look at digital health passports and contact tracing apps, you are looking at sophisticated form of bio-electronic surveillance that the world has never been seen before.

    “We are no longer mysterious souls; we are now hackable animals” — Yuval Harari, WEF

When you combine biological data with advanced computing power, what you get is the ability to hack humans.

Speaking in Davos over the past few years, historian Yuval Harari has stated that “organisms are algorithms” and that “new technologies will soon give some corporations and governments the ability to hack human beings.”

“The power to hack human beings can of course be used for good purposes like provided much better healthcare,” said Harari, adding, “but if this power falls into the hands of a 21st Century Stalin, the result will be the worst totalitarian regime in human history, and we already have a number of applicants for the job of 21st Century Stalin.”

“In Stalin’s USSR the State monitored members of the Communist elite more than anyone else. The same will be true of future total surveillance regimes.”

The great reset calls to restructure every aspect of society, and it can only do so if people trust the increasingly invasive, bio-electronic surveillance technology they wish to deploy.

    “In Stalin’s USSR the State monitored members of the Communist elite more than anyone else. The same will be true of future total surveillance regimes” — Yuval Harari, WEF

The more people know that someone is watching them, the more they will change their behavior. Just being aware that someone is monitoring your every digital transaction, will cause you to conform to certain norms.

As a population grows-up under massive surveillance, it will adapt its behavior to appear normal to society but compliant to authority. Over time, the citizens will police themselves out of fear.

Take a look at Communist China’s surveillance state, and you will see what I mean.

The WEF Wants to Win Your Trust, You Have a Choice

Tyranny arrives in subtle stages. It’s slow at first, but before you realize it even exists, it has already won.

That is what I see happening with the unholy merger of “the great reset” with “the new normal.”

Those who pull the strings have been begging for a global crisis to unleash their worldwide restructuring of society and the economy.

This year, in the face of a global pandemic, an un-elected body of global lobbyists based in Davos, Switzerland has asked you to have faith in their vision of a technocratic Utopia, knowing full well they could never issue such a request had it not been for the golden opportunity they had all been waiting for.

And that is where your power lies, dear reader. It’s your choice.

You can believe the WEF vision shared by some of the world’s most influential bureaucrats, or you can be skeptical of the whole establishment agenda that asks you to just trust the plan.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Tim Hinchliffe is the editor of The Sociable. His passions include writing about how technology impacts society and the parallels between Artificial Intelligence and Mythology. Previously, he was a reporter for the Ghanaian Chronicle in West Africa and an editor at Colombia Reports in South America. tim@sociable.co


Bahaya Suntikan Vaksin dan Imunisasi

Imunisasi: Satu Konspirasi Jika kita melihat sejarah vaksin moden yang dilakukan oleh Flexner Brothers, kita dapat menemukan kegiatan mereka... thumbnail 1 summary

Imunisasi: Satu Konspirasi

Jika kita melihat sejarah vaksin moden yang dilakukan oleh Flexner Brothers, kita dapat menemukan kegiatan mereka dalam penelitian tentang vaksinasi pada manusia telah dibiayai oleh Keluarga Rockefeller.

Rockefeller sendiri adalah salah satu keluarga Yahudi yang paling berpengaruh di dunia, dan mereka adalah bagian dari Zionis Internasional. Dan kenyataannya, mereka adalah pengasas WHO dan badan-badan strategik lainnya :

The UN’s WHO was established by the Rockefeller family’s foundation in 1948 – the year after the same Rockefeller cohort established the CIA. Two years later the Rockefeller Foundation established the U.S. Government’s National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Health (NIH), and earlier, the nation’s Public Health Service (PHS).~ (Dr. Leonard Horowitz, “WHO Issues H1N1 Swine Flu Propaganda”)

Jika dilihat dari latar belakang WHO, jelas bahwa vaksinasi moden (imunisasi) adalah salah satu campur tangan (konspirasi) Zionisme dengan tujuan untuk menguasai dan memperhambakan seluruh dunia dalam “New World Order” mereka.


Apa Kata Para Akademik Tentang Vaksinasi?

“Satu-satunya vaksin yang baik adalah vaksin yang tidak pernah digunakan.”~ Dr. James R. Shannon, mantan pengarah Institusi Kesihatan Nasional Amerika.

“Vaksin menipu tubuh supaya tidak lagi menimbulkan reaksi radang. Sehingga vaksin mengubah fungsi pencegahan sistem imun.”~ Dr. Richard Moskowitz, Harvard University.

“Kanser pada dasarnya tidak dikenali sebelum kewajiban vaksinasi cacar mula diperkenalkan. Saya telah menghadapi 200 kes kanser, dan tak seorang pun dari mereka yang terkena kanser itu tidak mendapatkan vaksinasi sebelumnya.”~ Dr. W.B. Clarke, pengkaji kanser.

“Ketika vaksin dikatakan selamat, keselamatannya adalah istilah relatif yang tidak dapat diertikan secara umum”.~ Dr. Harris Coulter, pakar vaksin.

“Kes polio meningkat secara cepat sejak vaksin dijalankan. Pada tahun 1957-1958 peningkatan sebesar 50%, dan tahun 1958-1959 peningkatan menjadi 80%.”~ Dr. Bernard Greenberg, dalam sidang kongres AS tahun 1962.

“Sebelum vaksinasi besar besaran 50 tahun yang lalu, di negara itu (Amerika) tidak terdapat wabak kanser, penyakit autoimun, dan kes autisme.”~ Neil Z. Miller, pengkaji vaksin.

“Vaksin punca terhadap peningkatan jumlah anak-anak dan orang dewasa yang mengalami gangguan sistem imun, hiperaktif, kelemahan daya ingat, asma, sindrom keletihan kronik, lumpuh, artritis reumatiod, sklerosis multiple, dan bahkan epilepsi. Bahkan AIDS yang tidak pernah dikenali dua dekad lalu, menjadi wabak di seluruh dunia saat ini.”~ Barbara Loe Fisher, Presiden Pusat Informasi Vaksin Nasional Amerika.

“Tak masuk akal memikirkan bahwa anda dapat menyuntikkan nanah ke dalam tubuh anak kecil. Tubuh mempunyai cara pertahanan tersendiri yang bergantung pada vitaliti ketika itu. Jika dalam keadaan sihat, tubuh akan mampu melawan semua jangkitan, dan jika keadaannya sedang menurun, ia tidak akan mampu. Dan anda tidak dapat mengubah kesihatan tubuh menjadi lebih baik dengan memasukkan racun ke dalamnya.”~ Dr. William Hay, “Immunisation: The Reality behind the Myth”.

Dan masih banyak lagi pendapat ilmuwan yang lainnya.

Di Jerman para pengamal perubatan menolak imunisasi campak. Penolakan itu diterbitkan dalam “Journal of the American Medical Association” (20 Februari 1981) yang berisi sebuah artikel dengan judul “Rubella Vaccine in Susceptible Hospital Employees, Poor Physician Participation”. Dalam artikel itu disebutkan bahwa lebih kurang 90% pakar obstetrik dan 66% pakar pediatrik menolak suntikan vaksin rubella.


Apa rahsia di sebalik vaksin dan imunisasi?

Kandungan kimia berbahaya dalam vaksin.

Vaksin mengandung substansi berbahaya yang diperlukan untuk mencegah jangkitan dan meningkatkan keupayaan vaksin. Seperti merkuri, formaldehyde, dan aluminium, yang dapat membawa kesan jangka panjang seperti sakit mental, autisme, hiperaktif. alzheimer, kemandulan, dll. Dalam 10 tahun ini, jumlah anak autisme meningkat dari antara 200 – 500 % di setiap bagian di Amerika.


Babi dalam Vaksin.

Penggunaan asid amino binatang babi dalam vaksin bukanlah berita yang baru. Malah kaum Muslim dan Yahudi banyak yang menentang hal ini karena babi memang diharamkan, seperti dalil dalam Qur’an ayat berikut :

“Diharamkan bagimu (memakan) bangkai, darah, daging babi, (daging haiwan) yang disembelih atas nama selain Allah, yang tercekik, yang terpukul, yang jatuh, yang ditanduk, dan diterkam binatang buas, kecuali yang sempat kamu menyembelihnya, dan (diharamkan bagimu) yang disembelih untuk berhala. Dan (diharamkan juga) mengundi nasib dengan anak panah, (mengundi nasib dengan anak panah itu) adalah kefasikan. Pada hari ini orang-orang kafir telah putus asa untuk (mengalahkan) agamamu, sebab itu janganlah kamu takut kepada mereka dan takutlah kepada-Ku. Pada hari ini telah Kusempurnakan untuk kamu agamamu, dan telah Ku-cukupkan kepadamu nikmat-Ku, dan telah Ku-ridhai Islam itu jadi agama bagimu. Maka barang siapa terpaksa karena kelaparan tanpa sengaja berbuat dosa, sesungguhnya Allah Maha Pengampun lagi Maha Penyayang.”Qur’an surah Al-Maidah (5) ayat 3

Bahkan dalam Perjanjian Lama (Taurat) juga disebutkan :

“Jangan makan babi. Binatang itu haram karena walaupun kukunya terbelah, ia tidak memamah biak. Dagingnya tidak boleh dimakan dan bangkainya pun tak boleh disentuh karena binatang itu haram.”Imamat 11 : 7-8


Bencana akibat vaksin yang tidak pernah diberitakan.

• Di Amerika pada tahun 1991 – 1994 sebanyak 38.787 masalah kesihatan telah dilaporkan kepada Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) FDA. Dari jumlah ini 45% terjadi pada hari vaksinasi, 20% pada hari berikutnya dan 93% dalam waktu 2 minggu setelah vaksinasi. Kematian biasanya terjadi di kalangan anak anak berusia 1-3 bulan.

• Pada 1986 ada 1300 kes pertussis di Kansas dan 90% pesakit adalah anak-anak yang telah mendapatkan vaksinasi ini sebelumnya. Kegagalan yang sama juga terjadi di Nova Scotia di mana pertussis telah muncul sekalipun telah dilakukan vaksinasi universal.

• Jerman mewajibkan vaksinasi tahun 1939. Jumlah kes diphtheria meningkat menjadi 150.000 kes, sementara pada tahun yang sama, Norway yang tidak melakukan vaksinasi, kes diphtheria nya hanya sebanyak 50 kes.

• Penularan polio dalam skala besar, menyerang anak-anak di Nigeria Utara berpenduduk muslim. Hal itu terjadi setelah diberikan vaksinasi polio, sumbangan AS untuk penduduk muslim. Beberapa pemimpin Islam tempatan menuduh kerajaan Nigeria bersubahat dengan Amerika untuk membunuh orang-orang Muslim dengan menggunakan vaksin.

• Tahun 1989-1991 vaksin campak ”high titre” buatan Yugoslavia Edmonton-Zagreb diuji pada 1500 anak-anak miskin keturunan orang hitam dan latin, di Los Angeles, Mexico, Haiti dan Afrika. Vaksin tersebut dicadangkan oleh WHO. Program dihentikan setelah di dapati banyak anak-anak meninggal dunia dalam jumlah yang besar.

• Vaksin campak menyebabkan penindasan terhadap sistem ketahanan tubuh anak-anak selama 6 bulan hingga 3 tahun. Akibatnya anak-anak yang diberi vaksin mengalami penurunan ketahanan tubuh dan ramai yang meninggal dunia berbanding penyakit-penyakit lain. WHO kemudian menarik vaksin-vaksin tersebut dari pasaran di tahun 1992.

• Setiap program vaksin dari WHO dilaksanakan di Afrika dan Negara-negara dunia ketiga lainnya, selalu saja ada jangkitan penyakit-penyakit berbahaya di lokasi program vaksin dilakukan. Virus HIV penyebab Aids diperkenalkan ketika program WHO bersama komuniti homoseksual melalui vaksin hepatitis dan masuk ke Afrika Tengah melalui vaksin cacar.

• Disember 2002, Menteri Kesihatan Amerika, Tommy G. Thompson menyatakan, tidak merancang memberi suntikan vaksin cacar. Dia juga mencadangkan kepada anggota kabinet lainnya untuk tidak meminta pelaksaanaan vaksin itu. Sejak vaksinasi diterapkan pada jutaan bayi, banyak dilaporkan berbagai gangguan serius pada otak, jantung, sistem metabolisme, dan gangguan lain mulai mengisi halaman-halaman jurnal kesihatan.

• Vaksin untuk janin adalah punca encephalomyelitis, dengan indikasi terjadi pembengkakan otak dan pendarahan di dalam. Bart Classen, seorang doktor dari Maryland, menerbitkan data yang memperlihatkan bahawa kadar penyakit diabetes berkembang secara signifikan di New Zealand, setelah vaksin hepatitis B diberikan di kalangan anak-anak.

• Vaksin meningococcal merupakan ”Bom jangka bagi kesihatan penerima vaksin.”

• Anak-anak di Amerika Syarikat mendapatkan vaksin yang berpotensi membahayakan dan dapat menyebabkan kerosakan yang kekal. Berbagai macam imunisasi misalnya, Vaksin-vaksin seperti Hepatitis B, DPT, Polio, MMR, Varicela (Cacar air) terbukti telah banyak mengorbankan anak-anak Amerika sendiri, mereka menderita sakit saraf, anak-anak cacat, diabetes, autisme, autoimun dan lain-lain.

• Vaksin cacar dipercayai boleh memberikan imunisasi kepada masyarakat terhadap cacar. Pada saat vaksin ini dilancarkan, sebenarnya kes cacar sudah sedang menurun. Jepun mewajibkan suntikan vaksin pada 1872. Pada 1892, ada 165.774 kes cacar dengan 29.979 berakhir dengan kematian walaupun adanya program vaksin.

• Pemaksaan vaksin cacar, dimana orang yang menolak boleh dijatuhkan hukuman, dilakukan di England tahun 1867. Dalam 4 tahun, 97.5% masyarakat berusia 2 sampai 50 tahun telah divaksinasi. Setahun kemudian England merasakan epidemik @ wabak cacar terburuknya dalam sejarah dengan 44.840 kematian. Antara 1871 – 1880 kes cacar meningkat dari 28 menjadi 46 per 100.000 orang. Vaksin cacar tidak berhasil.


Mengapa vaksin gagal melindungi tubuh terhadap penyakit?

Walene James, pengarang buku Immunization: the Reality Behind The Myth, mengatakan respon inflamatori penuh diperlukan untuk menciptakan kekebalan nyata. Sebelum pengenalan vaksin cacar dan beguk, kes cacar dan beguk yang menimpa anak-anak adalah kes tidak berbahaya. Vaksin mengganggu tubuh sehingga tubuh kita tidak menghasilkan respon inflamatory terhadap virus yang disuntik.

SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) meningkat dari 0.55 per 1000 orang pada 1953 menjadi 12.8 per 1000 pada 1992 di Olmstead County, Minnesota. Puncak kejadian SIDS adalah umur 2 – 4 bulan, waktu dimana vaksin mulai diberikan kepada bayi. 85% kes SIDS terjadi di 6 bulan pertama bayi. Peratus kes SIDS telah naik dari 2.5 per 1000 menjadi 17.9 per 1000 dari 1953 sampai 1992. Peningkatan kematian akibat SIDS meningkat pada saat hampir semua penyakit anak-anak menurun karena kesedaran kebersihan dan kemajuan perubatan kecuali SIDS. Kes kematian SIDS meningkat pada saat jumlah vaksin yang diberikan kepada bayi naik secara meyakinkan menjadi 36 per anak.

Dr. W. Torch telah merekodkan 12 kes kematian pada anak-anak yang terjadi dalam 3,5 – 19 jam selepas imunisasi DPT. Dia juga melaporkan 11 kes kematian SIDS dan satu yang hampir mati 24 jam selepas suntikan DPT. Semasa dia mengkaji 70 kes kematian SIDS, 2/3 korban adalah mereka yang baru divaksinasi mulai dari 1,5 hari sampai 3 minggu sebelumnya.

Tidak ada satu kematian pun yang dihubungkan dengan vaksin. Vaksin dianggap hal yang mulia dan tidak ada berita negatif apapun mengenainya di media utama karena ia begitu menguntungkan bagi perniagaan farmasi.

Ada alasan yang kukuh untuk percaya bahwa vaksin bukan saja tak berguna dalam mencegah penyakit, tetapi ia juga kontraproduktif karena melemahkan sistem ketahanan yang meningkatkan risiko kanser, penyakit kurang ketahanan tubuh, dan SIDS yang menyebabkan cacat dan kematian.


Adakah imunisasi menurut Islam?

Ada! Bahkan Rasulullah sendiri yang mengajar dan mencadangkannya.

Imam Bukhari dalam Shahih-nya men-takhrij hadits dari Asma’ binti Abi Bakr:

Dari Asma’ binti Abu Bakr bahwa dirinya ketika sedang mengandung Abdullah ibn Zubair di Mekah mengatakan, “Saya keluar dan aku sempurna hamilku 9 bulan, lalu aku datang ke Madinah, aku turun di Quba’ dan aku melahirkan di sana, lalu aku pun mendatangi Rasulullah Shalallaahu alaihi wasalam, maka beliau Shalallaahu alaihi wasalam menaruh Abdullah ibn Zubair di dalam kamarnya, lalu beliau Shalallaahu alaihi wasalam meminta kurma lalu mengunyahnya, kemudian beliau Shalallaahu alaihi wasalam memasukkan kurma yang sudah lumat itu ke dalam mulut Abdullah ibn Zubair. Dan itu adalah makanan yang pertama kali masuk ke mulutnya melalui Rasulullah Shalallaahu alaihi wasalam, kemudian beliau men-tahnik-nya, lalu beliau Shalallaahu alaihi wasalam pun mendo’akannya dan mendoakan keberkahan kepadanya.

Dalam shahihain –Shahih Bukhari dan Muslim– dari Abu Musa Al-Asy’ariy, “Anakku lahir, lalu aku membawa dan mendatangi Rasulullah Shalallaahu alaihi wasalam, lalu beliau Shalallaahu alaihi wasalam memberinya nama Ibrahim dan kemudian men-tahnik-nya dengan kurma.” dalam riwayat Imam Bukhari ada tambahan: “maka beliau SAW mendoakan kebaikan dan memdoakan keberkahan baginya, lalu menyerahkan kembali kepadaku.”

Bayi dilahirkan dalam keadaan kekurangan glukosa. Bahkan apabila tubuhnya menguning, maka bayi tersebut dipastikan memerlukan glukosa dalam keadaan yang cukup untuknya. Berat bayi saat lahir juga mempengaruhi kandungan glukosa dalam tubuhnya.

Pada kes bayi pramatang yang beratnya kurang dari 2,5 kg, maka kandungan zat gulanya sangat kecil sekali, dimana pada sebagian kes malah kurang dari 20 mg/100 ml darah. Adapun anak yang lahir dengan berat badan di atas 2,5 kg maka kadar gula dalam darahnya biasanya di atas 30 mg/100 ml.

Kadar semacam ini berarti (20 atau 30 mg/100 ml darah) merupakan keadaan bahaya dalam ukuran kadar gula dalam darah.

Hal ini boleh menyebabkan terjadinya berbagai penyakit, seperti bayi menolak untuk menyusu, otot-otot bayi lemah, aktiviti pernafasan terganggu dan kulit bayi menjadi kebiruan, kontraksi atau kejang-kejang. Kadang-kala boleh juga menyebabkan sejumlah penyakit yang berbahaya dan lama, seperti insomnia, lemah otak, gangguan saraf, gangguan pendengaran, penglihatan, atau kedua-duanya.

Apabila hal-hal di atas tidak segera diatasi atau diubati maka boleh menyebabkan kematian. Padahal ubat untuk itu adalah sangat mudah, yaitu memberikan zat gula yang berbentuk glukosa melalui infus, samada melalui mulut, mahupun pembuluh darah.Majoriti atau bahkan semua bayi memerlukan zat gula dalam bentuk glukosa seketika setelah lahir, maka memberikan kurma yang sudah dilumat boleh menjauhkan sang bayi dari kekurangan kadar gula.

Disunnahkan tahnik kepada bayi adalah ubat sekaligus tindakan pencegahan yang memiliki fungsi penting, dan ini adalah mukjizat kenabian Muhammad SAW secara perubatan dimana sejarah kemanusiaan tidak pernah mengetahui hal itu sebelumnya, bahkan kini manusia tahu bahayanya kekurangan kadar glukosa dalam darah bayi. Tahnik sebaiknya dilakukan oleh orang-orang yang beriman kepada Allah, atau dapat pula dilakukan ayah atau ibu sang bayi.

Imunisasi yang selama ini digembar-gemburkan oleh Zionis dapat memberi masalah yang sangat serius bagi kehidupan penduduk dunia. Mereka yang bertujuan untuk menjadikan bangsa lainnya berada di bawah kekuasaan mereka dengan berbagai cara. Kini saatnya kita membuka mata dan bertanya pada hati nurani kita dengan berbagai propaganda yang mereka lakukan. Bahkan Allah telah menyuruh kita berhati-hati terdadap berita dari mereka :

“Hai orang-orang yang beriman, jika datang kepadamu orang fasik membawa suatu berita, maka periksalah dengan teliti agar kamu tidak menimpakan suatu musibah kepada suatu kaum tanpa mengetahui keadaannya yang menyebabkan kamu menyesal atas perbuatanmu itu.”Qur’an surah Al-Hujuraat (49) : 6


Bahaya Tersembunyi Dalam Vaksin


Apakah Vaksin Itu?

Vaksinasi telah menjadi tulang belakang kesihatan masyarakat sejak dulu. Apabila penyakit berjangkit, vaksinasi muncul dalam benak kita. Ia adalah suntikan kesihatan yang dianggap doktor (bahkan badan-badan kesihatan negara) sangat penting sebagai pelindung dari serangan penyakit.

Tujuan Vaksinasi adalah meniru proses penularan penyakit alami dengan kaedah tiruan. Vaksin itu sendiri adalah suntikan yang mengandung berbagai jenis racun yang dimasukkan ke dalam tubuh. Jika anda menyangka vaksin dapat membasmi kuman atau bebas dari kuman, dugaan anda meleset.


Cara Membuat Vaksin

Vaksin dihasilkan dari kuman (atau bagian dari tubuh kuman) yang menyebabkan penyakit. Sebagai contoh vaksin campak dihasilkan dari virus campak, vaksin polio dihasilkan dari virus polio, vaksin cacar dihasilkan dari virus cacar, dll. Perbezaannya terletak pada cara pembuatan vaksin tersebut.

Terdapat 2 jenis vaksin, hidup dan mati. Untuk membuat vaksin hidup, virus hidup dilemahkan dengan melepaskan virus ke dalam tisu organ dan darah binatang (seperti ginjal monyet dan anjing, embrio anak ayam, protein telur ayam dan itk, serum janin lembu, otak kelinci, darah babi atau kuda dan nanah cacar lembu) beberapa kali (dengan proses bertahap) hingga kurang lebih 50 kali untuk mengurangi potensinya.

Sebagai contoh virus campak dilepaskan kedalam embrio anak ayam, virus polio menggunakan ginjal monyet, dan virus Rubela menggunakan sel-sel diploid manusia (bagian tubuh janin yang digugurkan). Sedangkan vaksin yang mati dilemahkan dengan pemanasan, radiasi atau reaksi kimia.

Kuman yang lemah ini kemudian dikuatkan dengan Adjuvan (perangsang anti bodi) dan stabilisator (sebagai pengawet untuk mempertahankan khasiat vaksin selama disimpan). Hal ini dilakukan dengan menambah ubat, antibiotik dan bahan kimia beracun ke dalam campuran tersebut seperti: neomycin, streptomycin, natrium klorida, natrium hidroksida, alumunium hidroksida, alumunium fospat, sorbitol, gelatin hasil hidrolisis, formaldehid, formalin, monosodium glutamat, pewarna merah fenol, fenoksietanol (anti beku), kalium difospat, hidrolysate kasein pankreas babi, sorbitol dan thimerosal (raksa). (Menurut Pusat Pengawasan dan Pencegahan Penyakit (CDC) US juga menurut Psician’s Desk Reference).

Campuran virus atau bakteria, bahan kimia beracun dan bagian tubuh binatang yang berpenyakit inilah yang disuntik ke dalam tubuh anak atau orang dewasa ketika mendapatkan vaksinasi. Menurut CDC US, bahan tambahan dicampurkan ke dalam vaksin untuk meningkatkan reaksi imun, mencegah pencemaran mikrob dan memperkuat formula vaksin, serta untuk memastikan vaksin tersebut stabil, bebas kuman dan aman. Namun benarkah anggapan ini?


Bagaimana Vaksin Dihasilkan?

Macam-macam vaksin:

– Vaksin DPT (Difteria, Pertusis dan Tetanus)

– Vaksin DtaP (Difteria, Tetanus, dan Acellular Pertusis)

– Vaksin MMR (Campak, Beguk dan Rubela)

– Vaksin Polio hidup oral (OPV)

– Vaksin Polio tidak aktif (IPV)

– Vaksin Hepatitis B

– Vaksin Hib

– Vaksin Varicellazostrer (Cacar Air)

– Vaksin Cacar

Dalam buku The Consumer’s Guide to Childhood Vaccines, Barbara Loe Fisher, pengasas dan presiden pusat informasi vaksin nasional (yang didirikan untuk mencegah kerosakan tubuh dan kematian akibat vaksin melalui pendidikan umum) menjelaskan proses pembuatan vaksin sebagai berikut :

Vaksin Cacar : Perut anak lembu dicukur kemudian diberikan banyak torehan pada kulitnya. Kemudian virus cacar dititiskan pada torehan itu dan dibiarkan bernanah selama beberapa hari. Anak lembu tersebut dibiarkan berdiri dengan kepala terikat supaya tidak dapat menjilat perutnya. Kemudian anak lembu itu dikeluarkan dari kandang dan dibaringkan di atas meja. Perutnya memburuk dan bernanah, nanahnya diambil lalu dijadikan serbuk. Serbuk itu adalah bahan vaksin cacar, virus yang kebetulan terdapat pada anak lembu itu terbawa ke dalamnya. (Walene James, Pengarang Immunization: The Reality Beyond the Myth)

Reaksi Tubuh Terhadap Vaksin

Apabila ramuan vaksin tersebut memasuki aliran darah anak. Tubuhnya akan segera bertindak untuk menyingkirkan racun tersebut melalui organ ekresi atau melalui reaksi imun seperti demam, bengkak atau ruam pada kulit. Apabila tubuh anak kuat untuk meningkatkan reaksi imun, tubuh anak mungkin akan berhasil menyingkirkan vaksin tersebut dan mencegahnya terjangkit kembali di masa yang akan datang. Akan tetapi jika tubuh anak tidak kuat untuk meningkatkan reaksi imun, vaksin beracun akan bertahan dalam tisu tubuh.

Timbunan racun ini dapat menyebabkan penyakit seperti diabetes pada anak-anak, asma, penyakit neurologi, leukimia, bahkan kematian mendadak. Ratusan laporan mencatat kesan sampingan jangka panjang yang buruk berkaitan vaksin seperti penyakit radang usus, autisme, esenfalitis kronis, skelerosis multipel, artritis reumatoid dan kanser. Sebagian vaksin juga diketahui menyebabkan kesan sampingan jangka pendek yang serius.

Pada 12 Julai 2002, Reuters News Service melaporkan hampir 1000 pelajar sekolah dibawa ke hospital setelah disuntik vaksin Ensefalitis di timur laut negara China. Para pelajar itu mengalami demam, lemah, muntah dan dalam beberapa kes terkena serangan jantung setelah divaksinasi.

Kerosakan Tubuh Akibat Vaksin

• Menurut analisa bebas dari data yang dikeluarkan Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) di US, pada tahun 1996 terdapat 872 tragedi yang dilaporkan kepada VAERS, melibatkan anak-anak dibawah 14 tahun yang disuntik vaksin Hepatitis B. Anak-anak tersebut dibawa ke wad ICU hospital karena mengalami masalah kesihatan yang mengancam nyawa. Sebanyak 48 anak dilaporkan meninggal setelah mendapatkan suntikan vaksin tersebut.

• Informasi kesihatan juga dipenuhi contoh yang mengaitkan vaksin dengan timbulnya penyakit. Vaksin telah dikaitkan dengan kerosakan otak, IQ rendah, gangguan konsentrasi, kemampuan belajar kurang, autisme, neurologi.

• Vaksin beguk dan campak yang diberikan pada anak-anak misalnya telah menyebabkan kerosakan otak, kanser, diabetes, leukimia, hingga kematian (sindrom kematian bayi mendadak).

• Kajian tahun 1992 yang diterbitkan dalam The American Journal of Epidemiology menunjukkan peningkatan kematian anak-anak meningkat hingga 8 kali ganda pada jangka waktu 3 hari setelah mendapat suntikan vaksin DPT.

• Kajian awal oleh CDC US mendapati anak yang menerima vaksin Hib berisiko 5 kali lebih mudah mengidap penyakit tersebut dibandingkan anak-anak yang tidak mendapatkan vaksin tersebut.

• Pada tahun 1977, Dr Jonas Salk (Penemu vaksin Polio salk) mengeluarkan kenyataan bersama ilmuan lain bahwa 87% dari kes Polio yang terjadi sejak tahun 1970 adalah akibat dari vaksin Polio.

• Di US sebelum tahun 1980 terdapat 1 dari 10.000 anak menderita autisme. Pada tahun 2002 Institut Kesihatan Negeri US mencatat peningkatan angka tersebut menjadi 250 dari 10.000. Kini persatuan orang tua penderita autisme Amerika memperkirakan peningkatan kes autisme ± 10% per tahun. Vaksin yang mengandungi raksa diyakini sebagai penyebabnya.

• Menurut Boyd Haley, pengurus program kimia Universiti Kentucky dan pakar logam beracun berkata ”Thimerosal mampu meresap di protein otak, ia sangat beracun bagi saraf dan enzim” Haley pun terlibat dalam penelitian pada bulan Ogos tahun 2003, mendapati banyaknya kandungan raksa pada penderita autisme, yang dapat dianalisa melalui kadar raksa pada rambut mereka yang bermaksud etil raksa dari thimerosal telah meresap ke dalam otak dan organ tubuh lainnya sangat bepotensi menyebabkan kerosakan sistem saraf dan mengganggu fungsi ginjal.

• Menurut San Jose Mercury News (6 Julai 2002), seorang dari sepuluh anak-anak dan remaja US mengalami kelemahan fizikal dan mental, menurut pengamatan tahun 2000 terdapat pertambahan mendadak angka kecacatan pada penduduk usia muda. Sedangkan pada tahun sebelumnya data menunjukkan peningkatan kecacatan pada anak-anak.

• Sampai usia 2 tahun, anak-anak Amerika dilaporkan telah menerima 237 mikrogram raksa melalui vaksin. Kadar ini melebihi had yang ditetapkan Organisasi Perlindungan Alam US yaitu 1/10 mikrogram per hari.

• Sebuah penemuan di Amerika menunjukan bahwa vaksin Hepatitis B mengandungi 12 mcg raksa (30 kali ganda dari had), DtaP dan Hib mengandungi 50 mcg raksa (60 kali ganda dari had) dan Polio mengandungi 62,5 mcg raksa (78 kali ganda dari had).

• Di US hari ini kes asma, diabetes dan penyakit auto imun pada usia anak telah meningkat 20 kali lganda dari tahun sebelumnya. Gangguan konsentrasi telah meningkat 3 kali ganda.

• Setiap tahun 25.000 bayi Amerika mengalami kematian mendadak. Vaksinasi adalah penyebab terbesar kematian mendadak. Jepun telah meningkatkan usia penerima vaksin sehingga 2 tahun kemudian angka kematian mendadak turun drastik di negara itu (Cherry, et al, 198

• Sweden menghentikan vaksinasi batuk kokol pada tahun 1979 karena ternyata wabak penyakit ini terjadi pada anak-anak yang telah mendapatkan vaksinasi. Setelah itu penyakit ini menjadi penyakit ringan tanpa kes kematian. Hal ini secara nyata menunjukkan bahwa vaksin sebenarnya menyebarkan penyakit.

• Pada tahun 1975, Jerman menghentikan kewajiban vaksin Pertussis, dan jumlah anak yang mengalami penyakit itu turun drastik. Pada tahun 2000 jumlahnya turun sampai 10%.

Bukti di atas menjadikan vaksinasi layak dipersoalkan. Fakta-fakta menjelaskan bahwa vaksin tidak meningkatkan kesihatan anak-anak. Tetapi anehnya vaksin terus-menerus dibuat dan diwajibkan kepada masyarakat.

Sarat Dengan Kimia Beracun

Dapat dikatakan semua jenis vaksin mengandungi racun. Dalam banyak keadaan bahan tambahan vaksin (penguat, peneutral, pengawet dan agen pembawa) jauh lebih beracun daripada komponen virus atau bakteria dalam vaksin tersebut. Misalnya agen penyebab kanser iaitu formaldehid dan thimerosal dapat merosakkan otak.

Tidak ada orang tua yang berfikir untuk memberi makan anaknya dengan formaldehid (pengawet mayat), raksa atau alumunium fosfat. Akan tetapi dengan suntikan vaksin bahan-bahan ini masuk secara langsung ke dalam aliran darah.

Berikut adalah informasi mengenai risiko kesihatan yang ditimbulkan oleh sebahagian bahan beracun utama dalam vaksin, yang disusun dari berbagai sumber termasuk dari Persatuan Pemerhati Vaksin Australia:

• Alumunium: dapat meracuni darah, saraf,pernafasan, mengganggu sistem imun dan saraf seumur hidup. Dinyatakan sebagai penyebab kerosakan otak, hilang ingatan sementara, kejang dan koma. (Catatan: dalam jumlah sedikit tidak beracun dan mungkin bermanfaat bagi tubuh. Namun kadarnya dalam vaksin amat tinggi, sekitar 0,5%)

• Ammonium Sulfat: dapat meracuni sistem pencernaan, hati, saraf dan sistem pernafasan.

• Ampotericin B: Sejenis ubat yang digunakan untuk mencegah penyakit kulit. kesan sampingannya adalah menyebabkan pembekuan darah, bentuk sel darah merah menjadi tidak sempurna, masalah ginjal, kelesuan dan demam dan alergi pada kulit.

• Beta-Propiolactone: diketahui menyebabkan kanser, meracuni sistem pencernaan, hati, sistem pernafasan, kulit dan organ genital.

• Kasein: pelekat yang kuat, sering digunakan untuk melekatkan label pada botol. Walaupun dihasilkan dari susu, di dalam tubuh kasein dianggap protein asing yang beracun.

• Formaldehid: penyebab kanser. Bahan ini lebih berbahaya dibanding sebagian bahan kimia lain.

• Formalin: Salah satu turunan dari formaldehid. Formalin adalah campuran 37%-40% formaldehid, air dan biasanya 10% metanol. Formalin adalah peringkat ke 5 dari 12 bahan kimia yang paling berbahaya.(Enviromental Defense Fund, US)

• Monosodium Glutamat (MSG): bagi orang yang alergi pada MSG mungkin akan mengalami perasaan seperti terbakar di belakang leher, lengan dan punggung atau mengalami sakit dada, sakit kepala, lesu, denyut jantung cepat dan kesulitan bernafas. Menurut Badan Pengawas Ubat dan Makanan (FDA) US, suntikan glutamate dalam haiwan menyebabkan kerosakan sel saraf otak.

• Neomycin: antibiotik ini mengganggu penyerapan vitamin B6. Kekurangan vitamin B6 dapat menyebabkan epilepsi dan cacat mental.

• Fenol: digunakan dalam pembuatan disinfektan, pewarna, industri farmasi, plastik dan bahan pengawet. Fenol dapat menyebabkan keracunan sistemik, kelemahan, berpeluh, sakit kepala, muntah-muntah, gangguan mental, syok, hipersensitif, kerosakan ginjal, kejang, gagal jantung atau ginjal dan kematian.

• Fenoksi Etanol (anti beku): menimbulkan bau badan tidak sedap, kerosakan pencernaan, kebutaan, koma dan kematian.

• Polysorbate 20 dan Polysorbate 80: bahan yang meracuni kulit atau organ genital.

• Sorbitol: menyebabkan kerosakan sistem usus.

• Thimerosal: merupakan unsur ke 2 yang paling beracun kepada manusia setelah uranium. Dapat merosak otak dan sistem saraf juga dapat membawa pada penyakit autoimun.

12 Hal Yang Harus Diperhatikan

1. Doktor tidak mampu menjamin keselamatan dan keberkesanan vaksin.

2. Keselamatan vaksin belum diuji dengan benar.

3. Vaksinasi didasarkan pada prinsip yang tidak kukuh, sehingga dapat dipersoalkan.

4. Vaksin mungkin tercemar.

5. Kesan sampingan jangka panjang yang serius.

6. Menimbulkan penyakit yang seharusnya dapat disembuhkan.

7. Tidak dapat melindungi dari penyakit menular.

8. Vaksin berhubungan dengan wabak penyakit.

9. Vaksin tidak dapat dipercayai – vaksin tidak menghalang terhadap penyakit tetapi menghalang terhadap kesihatan.

10. Doktor dan profesional kesihatan jarang melaporkan kesan buruk vaksin.

11. Doktor menolak vaksinasi.

12. Vaksinasi lebih mengutamakan keuntungan daripada mengubati.

Para Doktor dan Ilmuan Membantah Vaksinasi

• • “Terdapat banyak bukti yang menunjukkan imunisasi terhadap anak lebih banyak merugikan dari pada manfaatnya.” (dr. J Anthony Morris, mantan Ketua Pengawas Vaksin

• • “Ancaman terbesar serangan penyakit anak-anak datang dari usia pencegahan yang tidak efektif dan berbahaya melalui imunisasi besar-besaran.” (dr. R. Mendelsohn, Penulis (How to Raise A Healthy Child In Spite Of Your Doctor dan Profesor Pediatrik).

• • “Semua vaksinasi berfungsi mengubah tiga situasi darah kepada ciri-ciri kanser dan leukemia…Vaksin DO dapat menyebabkan kanser dan leukemia.” (Profesor L.C. Vincent, penggagas Bioelektronika).

• • “Data rasmi menunjukkan vaksinasi berskala besar di US gagal memberikan kemajuan yang signifikan dalam pencegahan penyakit yang seharusnya dapat ia lindungi.” (dr. A. Sabin, pengembang vaksin Polio Oral, dalam kuliahnya di hadapan doktor-doktor Itali di Piacenza, Itali, 7 Disember 1985).

• • “Selain telah nyata banyak kes kematian akibat program ini, terdapat juga bahaya jangka panjang yang hampir mustahil diukur dengan pasti…Terdapat sejumlah bahaya dalam seluruh prosedur vaksin yang seharusnya mencegah penggunaan yang terlalu banyak atau tidak wajar.” (Sir Graham Wilson dalam The Hazards of Immunization).

• • “Dengan mengenepikan fakta bahawa vaksin berpeluang besar tercemar virus binatang yang dapat menyebabkan penyakit serius pada masa depan. Kita harus mempertimbangkan apakah ada vaksin yang benar-benar berfungsi sebagaimana tujuan asalnya.” (dr. W.C. Douglas dalam Cutting Edge, Mei 1990).

• • “Satu-satunya vaksin yang selamat adalah tidak menggunakannya sama sekali.” (dr. James A. Shannon, Institut Kesihatan Nasional, US)

• • “Vaksinasi adalah produk kesalahan dan kebodohan yang tidak dirancang dengan baik. Ia seharusnya tidak mendapat tempat dari segi kebersihan mahupun perubatan. Vaksinasi tidak ilmiah, keyakinan yang membawa maut dan mengakibatkan kesengsaraan yang berpanjangan.” (Profesor Chas Rauta, Universiti Perugia, Itali di dalam New York Medical Journal, Julai 1899).

• • “Imunisasi terhadap cacar lebih berbahaya dari pada penyakit itu sendiri.” (Profesor Ari Zuckerman, WHO).

• • “Tidak ada satupun vaksin yang telah dibuktikan keselamatannya sebelum diberikan kepada anak-anak.” (Pakar bedah umum, Leonard Scheele di Konfrensi AMA, US 1955).

Vaksin Bukan Penyelamat

“Ilmu perubatan menerima pujian yang berlebihan bagi sebahagian kemajuan dalam bidang kesihatan. Ramai orang percaya keberhasilan dalam menangani penyakit menular pada abad terakhir terjadi seiring dengan penciptaan imunisasi. Sebenarnya, Kusta, Tifoid, Tetanus, Difteria, Batuk kokol, dll telah menurun sebelum ditemukan vaksin untuknya – iaitu merupakan hasil dari penjagaan kebersihan dan peningkatan kualiti makanan serta air minum.”(Dr. Andrew Weil dalam Health and Healthy)

Bahaya IMUNISASI!

Imunisasi merupakan cara terbaik untuk melindungi anak dari berbagai macam penyakit. Anda mendengar hal ini dari doktor, media massa, brosur di klinik, atau rakan-rakan anda. Tetapi, apakah Anda pernah berfikir kembali tentang tujuan imunisasi? Pernahkah anda meneliti lebih lanjut terhadap isu-isu dan cerita mengenai sisi lain imunisasi (yang tidak pernah dimaklumkan oleh doktor)?

Serangkaian imunisasi yang terus digiatkan hingga saat ini oleh pihak-pihak yang katanya demi ‘menjaga kesehatan anak’, patut dikritik dari segi kesihatan mahupun syariat. Teori pemberian vaksin yang menyatakan bahwa “memasukkan bibit penyakit yang telah dilemahkan kepada manusia akan menghasilkan pelindung berupa anti bodi tertentu untuk menahan serangan penyakit yang lebih besar”. Benarkah?

Tiga Mitos Menyesatkan

Vaksin begitu dipercayai sebagai pencegah penyakit. Hal ini tidak terlepas dari adanya 3 mitos yang sengaja disebarkan. Padahal, hal itu berlawanan dengan kenyataan.

1. Effektif melindungi manusia dari penyakit.

Kenyataan: Banyak penelitian perubatan mencatat kegagalan vaksinasi. Campak, beguk, polio, terjadi juga di pemukiman penduduk yang telah diimunisasi. Sebagai contoh, pada tahun 1989, wabak campak terjadi di sekolah yang mempunyai vaksinasi lebih besar dari 98%. WHO juga menemukan bahwa seseorang yang telah divaksin campak, mempunyai kemungkinan 15 kali ganda untuk mendapat penyakit tersebut daripada yang tidak divaksin.

2. Imunisasi merupakan sebab utama penurunan jumlah penyakit.

Kebanyakan penurunan penyakit terjadi sebelum diperkenalkan imunisasi secara menyeluruh. Salah satu buktinya, penyakit-penyakit berjangkit yang boleh membawa maut di US dan England mengalami penurunan sebesar 80%, itu terjadi sebelum ada vaksinasi. The British Association for the Advancement of Science menemukan bahawa penyakit anak-anak mengalami penurunan sebesar 90% antara 1850 dan 1940, dan hal itu terjadi jauh sebelum program imunisasi diwajibkan.

3. Imunisasi benar-benar selamat bagi anak-anak.

Yang benar, imunisasi lebih besar bahayanya. Salah satu buktinya, pada tahun 1986, kongres US membentuk The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, yang mengakui kenyataan bahawa vaksin dapat menyebabkan cedera dan kematian.

Makhluk Mulia Vs Haiwan

Allah telah menciptakan manusia dalam bentuk yang sebaik-baiknya. Manusia merupakan khalifah di bumi, sehingga merupakan ashraful makhluqaat (makhluk termulia). Mengingat keunggulan fizikal, kecerdasan, dan jiwa secara hakiki, manusia mengungguli semua ciptaan Allah yang ada. Manusia merupakan makhluk unik yang dilengkapi sistem ketahanan alami yang berpotensi melawan semua mikrob, virus, serta bakteria asing dan berbahaya.

Jika manusia menjalani hidupnya sesuai petunjuk syariat yang berupa perintah dan larangan, kesihatannya akan tetap terjaga dari serangan virus, bakteria, dan kuman penyakit lainnya.

Sedangkan orang-orang kafir, menganggap adanya kekurangan dalam diri manusia sebagai ciptaan Allah, sehingga berusaha sekuat tenaga memperkuat sistem pertahanan tubuh melalui imunisasi yang bercampur najis dan penuh dengan bahaya.

Manusia merupakan makhluk yang punya banyak kelebihan. Terdapat perbezaan yang ketara antara manusia dengan haiwan. Apa yang ada padanya tidak cocok bagi haiwan, demikian juga sebaliknya. Namun, orang-orang atheis menyamakan haiwan dengan manusia, sebab mereka menganut teori evolusi manusia melalui kera yang sangat “menggelikan”.

Oleh karena itu, mereka percaya bahawa apa yang dimiliki haiwan dapat dimasukkan ke dalam tubuh manusia. Jadi, sel-sel haiwan, virus, bakteria, darah, dan nanah disuntikkan ke dalam tubuh manusia. Logik setan ini adalah menjijikkan menurut Islam.

Imunisasi digembar-gemburkan sebagai suatu bentuk keajaiban pencegahan penyakit, padahal faktanya cara itu tidak lebih hanya sebagai projek penjana wang para doktor dan perniagaan farmasi. Dalam kenyataannya, imunisasi lebih banyak menyebabkan bahaya kepada kesihatan. Bahkan, mengganggu proses-proses alami yang ada dalam ciptaan-Nya. Dengan paparan ini, orang tua mana yang berasa gembira dan senang hati untuk memberikan imunisasi pada anaknya?

Saturday, November 14, 2020

Transhumanism - Dr Carrie Madej warns of the nanotechnology usedl in vaccines

Dari blockchain ke nanotech #vaccine#genocode #alter #patented #luciferase #digitalcode Human2.0 Transhumanism - Dr. Carrie Madej warns of t... thumbnail 1 summary

Dari blockchain ke nanotech #vaccine#genocode #alter #patented #luciferase #digitalcode Human2.0

Transhumanism - Dr. Carrie Madej warns of the #nanotechnology used in the rushed vaccine.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/alfaedah/permalink/2812763755647136/



The Dangers of Blockchain-Enabled “Immunity Passports” for COVID-19

The Dangers of Blockchain-Enabled “Immunity Passports” for COVID-19 A Legal, Public Health, and Technical Perspective By... thumbnail 1 summary

The Dangers of Blockchain-Enabled “Immunity Passports” for COVID-19


A Legal, Public Health, and Technical Perspective

By Elizabeth M. Renieris, Dr. Sherri Bucher, and Christian Smith

Image for post

Despite limited backing from civil society or public health experts, as well as warnings from historians and bioethicists, technologists are racing ahead to build and deploy digital certificates that would allegedly let individuals “prove” whether they have recovered from the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), have tested positive for antibodies, or have received a vaccination, should one become available. One such initiative is based on a combination of an emerging W3C standard for Verifiable Credentials (VCs), non-standard decentralized identifiers (DIDs), and distributed ledger technology (DLT) or “blockchain.”¹

In this article, we examine why such proposed technological interventions lack sufficient supporting scientific and public health evidence or legitimacy. As a result, we believe such interventions, if adopted or implemented by public authorities, would pose an unjustified interference with, and serious threat to, our fundamental human rights and civil liberties, in violation of the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality. In this article, we outline our concerns from a legal, public health-based, and technical perspective.

A Legal Perspective

Blockchain-enabled “immunity certificates” or “immunity passports” for COVID-19, if implemented by public authorities, would have serious consequences for our fundamental human rights and civil liberties. The introduction of these artifacts could interfere with our right to privacy; freedoms of association, assembly, and movement; our rights to work and education; and otherwise seriously limit our freedom and autonomy, even where not compulsory. For example, while not expressly mandated by law, individuals in post-lockdown China must be able to produce a “green” QR code of health status on their mobile device in order to access public transportation, enter workplaces or residences, and more, and have virtually no way of challenging the automated determinations of status.

While drastic measures that interfere with fundamental rights may be justified in extraordinary circumstances, such as a pandemic, under most international human rights and civil liberties laws, they must first satisfy a three-part test. The interference must be: (1) in accordance with or prescribed by, law (i.e. the legality principle), (2) necessary to achieve a certain aim (i.e. the necessity principle), and (3) proportionate to the aim pursued (i.e. the proportionality principle). These principles have specifically been reaffirmed in jurisdictions around the world in the context of COVID-19, including by the Israeli Supreme Court (that a measure is unconstitutional unless it is prescribed by law) and the European Data Protection Supervisor (that a measure must be necessary and proportionate).

In addition, as related to initiatives that have a strong public health component, the science underlying any extraordinary claims in regard to an alleged need to suspend human rights and civil liberties must be data-driven and evidence-based. That is to say, the efficacy of a proposed intervention is closely linked to its necessity — it’s hard to argue something is necessary without any evidence that it would work or do what it purports to do. This principle was recently reaffirmed by the French data protection regulator CNIL, which observed that a mobile contact tracing app known as “StopCovid” could only be deployed if its usefulness for managing the crisis is sufficiently proven and if certain guarantees to its efficacy are provided.

The legality principle does not necessarily require a specific law authorizing the interference in question. However, in the absence of a bespoke legislative measure, there must be some other existing legal framework that provides sufficiently clear and precise rules to govern the use of the technology — a framework that is adequate to ensure individuals have advanced notice of and can foresee its application.

At this time, we know of no specific or general legal frameworks which would provide individuals with sufficient clarity and precision as to how any data processed in connection with such blockchain-enabled immunity credentials would be governed or processed, or that could provide individuals with sufficient safeguards or protections in respect of their use. To the contrary, blockchain raises a host of critical, open questions about privacy, data protection, liability, and accountability, among others, which remain wholly unanswered at this stage. Thus, it is hard to argue that the proposed interference would be in accordance with, or prescribed by, law.

Even if the proposed immunity credentials could satisfy the legality test, it is hard to argue they are necessary or proportionate interventions, as further outlined below.

A Public Health Perspective

There are at least three reasons why, from a public health perspective, immunity passports are an unwise option to pursue: (1) current SARS-CoV-19 antibody tests are highly unreliable and the immune response to COVID-19 is poorly understood; (2) a COVID-19 vaccine is a long way off; and (3) while some have suggested that the International Certificate of Vaccination for Yellow Fever serves as an example of “immunity certification” that is nearly identical, or similar to, that proposed for COVID-19, there are crucial differences in the public health context for yellow fever vs. COVID-19, discouraging immunity passports for the latter.

Current SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests are highly unreliable

There is currently more unknown than known, in regard to COVID-19. This is due, in large part, to the fact that the COVID-19 pandemic is being fueled by a novel pathogen, SARS-CoV-2, which only recently emerged within the human population. There has simply not been time for the scientific community to characterize the human immune response to SARS-CoV-2, or to generate sufficient evidence in regard to the sensitivity and specificity of antibody tests. We currently lack accurate, population-based estimates of prevalence and incidence of COVID-19 due to severe constraints in the ecosystem for the provision of widespread diagnostic testing. This, in turn, results in an inability to calculate the predictive values for COVID-19 antibody tests. Without a reliable estimate of predictive validity, COVID-19 antibody test results cannot be trusted.

The most troubling problem, currently, in regard to COVID-19 antibody tests is an inability to determine the rates of “true positive” and “true negative” results. In particular, although hundreds of COVID-19 antibody tests have been developed, the reliability of these tests, to accurately detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, even within the blood samples of persons who have been previously diagnosed with COVID-19, via nasal swab diagnostic testing, is unreliable, and highly capricious. If COVID-19 immunity certificates were currently available, and issuance of these immunity credentials was dependent, in large part, on existing COVID-19 antibody test results, then an undetermined number of individuals with “false negative” results would be unjustly denied immunity certification. The opposite problem occurs with “false positive” results, in which persons who have never been infected with SARS-CoV-2 might mistakenly be issued immunity certification when, in fact, they have not previously suffered from COVID-19, and are still vulnerable to exposure, themselves, as well as spreading the disease to others.

No one knows if, or how, exposure to SARS-CoV-2 confers subsequent immunity

Even if a highly sensitive and specific SARS-CoV-2 antibody test, with high predictive validity, eventually emerges, pinning immunity certification efforts on an individual’s antibody test results is problematic, for other key reasons. For example, it is unknown, at this point in time, whether infection with SARS-CoV-2 confers subsequent immunity. Fundamentally, this means that, even if SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are detected in a person’s blood sample, it is currently unclear if this indicates that the person is actually “immune” to SARS-CoV-2, and/or protected from future COVID-19 illness.

Most likely, as is typical for exposure to similar pathogens, some immunity is conferred as a result of infection with SARS-CoV-2. However, many additional questions remain with regard to: a) how COVID-19 disease severity and progression is related to the development of immunity; b) the manner by which individual demographic or contextual determinants (e.g., gender; race; ethnicity; socioeconomic status) may, or may not, mediate the human immune response for the development of detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies; and c) if, in fact, immunity does develop after infection, how long it lasts. In order to find the answers to these critical questions, the scientific evidence-base regarding the human immune response to SARS-CoV-2 exposure must be much better characterized, preferably via data gathered from a series of large, representative (e.g., across gender; racial, and ethnic groups), population-based studies. This has not yet been accomplished.

The long, winding, and uncertain road to a COVID-19 vaccine

In addition to natural exposure to a pathogen, immunity to infectious diseases can also be conferred via vaccination. There are a tremendous number of infectious diseases for which there is a broad and deep evidence-base in regard to the course of the illness, diagnosis, and treatments, as well as good characterization of both disease-related and/or vaccine-initiated immune responses. As a result, there are also a vast number of virulent infectious diseases for which safe and effective vaccines have been developed. COVID-19, however, is not one of these.

There are myriad scientific challenges presented by the development of a safe and effective SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, and numerous technical hurdles to be surmounted prior to global distribution. While several vaccine development and testing initiatives are underway around the world, none has generated sufficient peer-reviewed data with regard to safety or efficacy. Vaccine development is a notoriously laborious process with very high rates of failure, and coronaviruses are particularly tricky in this regard. At best, it is highly unlikely that we will have a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine available for widespread global distribution prior to 2022 and even then, it would have to be delivered in an almost unprecedented global immunization campaign due to the pandemic nature of the crisis.

The only precedent for such a Herculean global health effort is the eradication of smallpox, and more recently, attempts to eliminate polio, both of which required many years and billions of dollars in investment, as well as collective global mobilization toward a common goal. Thus, most consensus, within the scientific community, is that, despite vigorous on-going international efforts by a wide variety of partners to develop an effective vaccine to prevent COVID-19 illness, we are still a long way off. Linking COVID-19 immunity passport efforts, then, to either antibody testing or vaccination, is not supported by the existing evidence-base.

The Yellow Fever vaccination card is not a roadmap for COVID-19 immunity passports

A comparison of the public health landscapes for yellow fever vs. COVID-19 reveals that these two infectious diseases have much less in common, than one may initially believe, in terms of support for the concept of immunity passports. Among dozens of vaccine-preventable diseases, yellow fever is the only infectious disease for which the World Health Organization advocates for universal proof of vaccination (i.e. immunity), and only for the limited purpose of traveling to/from particular global regions. The International Certificate of Vaccination for Yellow Fever or “Yellow Card” (Carte Jaune), which verifies that a traveler has been vaccinated against the severe, mosquito-borne, viral illness, is required for entry to 40 countries/territories in sub-Saharan Africa and South America.

In contrast to yellow fever, COVID-19 has been confirmed in 185 countries/territories and every continent with the exception of Antarctica. Thus, with regard to global endemicity, and, perhaps contagiousness, COVID-19 is less comparable to yellow fever, and more comparable to the measles, prior to the availability of a safe and effective vaccine. Currently, however, even within the context of a well-characterized disease and decades-old effective measles vaccination, there is no requirement or calls for a “Measles Immunity Passport.”

Yellow fever is an extremely well-characterized tropical infectious disease, with a long history of scientific study and a deep repository of biomedical knowledge; the antibody response is also extremely well-characterized. A safe and effective vaccine for yellow fever has been available for 80 years. A single yellow fever vaccine confers lifelong immunity. Citizens are only required to receive the vaccination if they plan to travel to a yellow fever endemic country. In contrast, as previously noted, the human immune response for SARS-CoV-2 is very poorly understood, and currently, there is no safe or effective vaccine.

Yellow fever incidence and prevalence are tracked within a well-established and highly organized global surveillance system; diagnosis, treatment, and control strategies are supported by agreed-upon standards, guidelines, and lead partners such as the World Health Organization, whose recommendations and policies align with other national and regional affiliates such as the Centers for Disease Control. There are strong networks of laboratories, established diagnostic, preventative, treatment, and immunization protocols, and a robust supply chain for essential commodities related to yellow fever diagnosis, treatment, and vaccination.

Due to the swiftness of the COVID-19 pandemic, lack of an established repository of biomedical knowledge for the novel pathogen SARS-CoV-19, fear and anxiety kindled by its rapid global spread, and political machinations during this acute, first wave of the disease, stakeholders at the global, regional, national, and local levels have not coalesced around clear leadership in terms of developing established international standards and guidelines for COVID-19. Supply chains for essential commodities such as swabs and reagents for COVID-19 diagnostic testing, personal protective equipment, and medical equipment (e.g., mechanical ventilators and oxygen) are significantly strained. How could partners and stakeholders coalesce around a viable immunity certification process, whether paper-based, digital, or otherwise, amid such uncertainty, a lack of evidence, and paucity of tools like reliable diagnostic and antibody tests, or safe and effective vaccines on which to anchor immunity status?

Yellow fever and COVID-19 are both frightening infectious diseases with severe disease states resulting in extreme illness and significantly increased risk for mortality.² But there is a key difference with regard to the yellow fever virus vs. SARS-CoV-2 when it comes to the relative benefit of requiring immunity certification. The yellow fever virus is a mosquito-borne pathogen with a profound risk of spread from endemic to non-endemic regions in an era of rapid global travel and connections among international hubs.³ The primary function of the yellow fever international certification of vaccination is to prevent the spread of this disease into non-endemic settings. By contrast, COVID-19 is a viral respiratory illness already classified as a pandemic. Immunity passports will, in no way, put this particularly terrible genie back into the bottle.

Looking forward, even limited use of immunity credentials, such as among particular “high risk” or “essential” sub-groups (e.g., health care providers; factory workers; farm laborers), within a context of more reliable antibody testing, or an effective vaccine, is still troubling. Immunity passport efforts, as related to infectious diseases, come with a wide variety of potentially devastating moral and ethical consequences, as outlined in detail by historians and bioethicists. The historical precedence for “acclimation” to yellow fever, prior to the advent of a vaccine, was fraught with numerous ethical challenges and deleterious impacts, particularly for vulnerable populations–enslaved persons, the poor, migrants, and economic refugees.

A poorly executed immunity certification effort, particularly when not grounded in an established scientific and public health knowledge base, and when tied to the ability of people to economically support themselves and their families, is often rife with corruption, desperation, and perverse incentives, such as intentional self-infection with a potentially deadly disease. The risks of exclusion and stigmatization are only amplified where a public, immutable ledger is part of the solution. Thus, from a public health perspective, the relative utility of a COVID-19 immunity certificate as compared to the yellow fever vaccination card, is of little benefit and riddled with risks. On the contrary, the relative risks of a certificate or credential requiring the use of blockchain far exceed any potential benefits to public health.

A Technical Perspective

COVID-19 “immunity passports” based on a combination of Verifiable Credentials (VCs), decentralized identifiers (DIDs), and blockchain, would be an excessive and disproportionate technical means of achieving any limited public health outcomes. The technical architecture is arguably a product of premature standardization, speculative requirements, and highly experimental technologies, rather than the harmonization of existing, widely deployed, and battle-tested solutions. As a result, there is ample reason to question whether they are adequate to support credentials that would play a critical role in public safety.

First, VCs, DIDs, and related APIs are largely built on web technology such as HTTP and URLs, which generally presume internet connectivity and online use. In fact, the entire purpose of web protocols is online communication of documents and data. However, the primary need for immunity credentials would not be online but rather for safeguarding in-person interactions, where there is a risk of transmission. Credentials for in-person use would ideally be designed to work on mobile devices similar to contactless payments such as Apple Pay. However, the web standards on which VCs are based offer nothing to support this capability. Potentially suitable communication methods such as NFC and Bluetooth are not directly compatible with the internet protocols underlying the Web. Aside from being a poor fit for mobile devices, offline use of W3C VCs and DIDs is a non-trivial problem to solve, because the nature of both the Web and DIDs is to link to remote documents or data. Ensuring offline usability requires eliminating dependencies on remote resources, such as public keys linked to blockchains.

A second major gap in such an approach is the lack of a proven method of private key management for end users. Proponents of the VC/DID method do attempt to address public key management with blockchains. However, blockchain solutions have failed to provide credible methods of private key management. Without this, users are subject to elaborate inconveniences that also negate the security assurances expected from credentials. The use of a blockchain typically only addresses the management of public key material and, in doing so, creates additional obstacles to offline credential use and verification, while facilitating potential collusion, passive surveillance, and re-identification through data inference.

A third issue is the lack of well-defined security protocols. The scope of the W3C recommendations are currently quite limited — the VC specification merely provides a data model, not a complete protocol or end-to-end solution. Early versions of APIs in development for exchanging VCs currently leave important security features such as subject authentication optional. While not every use case for credentials requires this type of authentication, implementers have been inconsistent about using the feature correctly. Combined with the lack of viable private key management, this means there is currently no strong assurance that the presenter of a credential is its subject. Elaborate identity proofing measures are pointless if the means of conveying such proof are vulnerable and easy to exploit. Effectively, the door is wide open for improperly borrowing or stealing these credentials. Using a hypothetical immunity credential based on the VC standard, an infected person could feasibly impersonate a vaccinated person, creating a false sense of security while the virus is spread.

This last point — security — deserves special consideration with respect to the use of blockchains. It has long been recognized in the field of cryptography that haphazardly copying techniques from one protocol to another leads to security flaws. The idea of blockchain, however, takes the peril a step further by attempting to generalize an entire protocol designed to solve the very specific problem of electronic cash. It is wrongly believed that security characteristics of cryptocurrency are universally lent to any problem one might address with a distributed ledger. In practice, blockchains have turned out to share common vulnerabilities with run-of-the-mill IT infrastructure, while creating new and equally concerning problems for privacy and data protection.

The challenge posed by these gaps and the false generalization of blockchain cannot be overstated. Security protocols are notoriously difficult to design and prone to subtle, hard to detect flaws, while also being relatively easy to circumvent. Before entrusting any technology to protect people from the spread of infectious disease, it should be subjected to rigorous formal analysis and security review. At this stage, W3C VC, DIDs, and related technologies have not yet undergone sufficient scrutiny.

Even if the standards become more mature, this approach to any kind of immunity-related credentials will likely still be disproportionate and excessive. There are myriad other permutations of digital certificates, traditional public key infrastructure (PKI), and even other kinds of databases that don’t raise the same concerns as a distributed ledger. Moreover, it is unclear why you would ever need a global public registry of any kind in connection with immunity classifications or status, particularly in light of the risks outlined above. In fact, because ledgers are logically centralized and actually a single point of failure, any problems with the ledger, including collusion or malicious attacks, could compromise the ability of individuals to produce or manage their credentials. This could result in severe interferences with their fundamental rights, while offering limited recourse or accountability for parties involved in maintaining the ledger.

Concluding Remarks

At this stage, based on the state of public health and scientific evidence surrounding COVID-19, we remain unconvinced that “immunity passports” or even immunity certificates are possible, let alone desirable. Should they become possible, we are also unconvinced of their necessity, given the limited precedent for such artifacts among other infectious diseases. And even if they should become possible and necessary, we believe the use of VCs, DIDs, and blockchain in connection with their issuance would be excessive. Finally, we would be skeptical of any solutions put forward by private sector actors, without significant public sector, civil society, and other stakeholder engagement.

The prospect of severely curtailing the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals through ill-thought-out plans for “immunity passports” or similar certificates, particularly ones that would leverage premature standards and a highly experimental and potentially rights-infringing technology like blockchain, is beyond dystopian. We urge law and policymakers to think twice before entertaining such industry-driven, technology-first solutions to complex public health and humanitarian crises. Rather, we should pursue more ethical, scientifically sound, and human rights-preserving alternatives spearheaded by a diverse group of stakeholders, and which rely on tested and proven technologies that exist within a clearer legal framework. If ever there was a time to avoid moving fast and breaking things, this is it.

¹ CCI, self-described as “a direct response to the many calls for an ‘immunity passport,’” is led by for-profit companies eager for a use case for their as-yet unadopted technologies. Notably, participants do not include any public health experts.

² Among patients who suffer from severe yellow fever disease, there is a 30%-60% mortality rate. While the estimated overall mortality rate of COVID-19 and accurate mortality estimates for those who suffer from severe illness are still emerging, the prognosis is bleak among patients who require mechanical ventilation due to severe COVID-19 illness. In both diseases, survivors often face a long period of recovery with additional complications.

³ Non-immune humans infected with yellow fever in sub-Saharan Africa or South America who travel to Europe, North America, or Asia, and are subsequently bitten by an uninfected mosquito in the non-endemic country, can serve as vectors for rapid spread of the disease among in previously unaffected regions.

Elizabeth M. Renieris (@hackylawyer) is the founder & CEO of HACKYLAWYER, a privacy expert (CIPP/E, CIPP/US), fellow at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, and a Technology & Human Rights fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.

Dr. Sherri Bucher is Associate Research Professor of Pediatrics at Indiana University School of Medicine, and Adjunct Associate Special Professional in maternal-newborn-child health at Eck Center for Global Health, University of Notre Dame.

Christian Smith is the CEO and co-founder of Stranger Labs. Previously, he led a research engineering team developing privacy enhancing technologies at MIT, and built open source software and implemented emerging identity standards and security protocols at Anvil Research.

"Berfikir tanpa kotak"

Ar Ra'isul Mutakallim, Tabligh Ki Zabaan (Lidah Tabligh) Hadrat Maulana Umar Palanpuri Rahmatullahu 'alaihi berkata: "Orang yang kuat adalah orang yang sanggup bertahan dalam arus kerosakan. Orang yang lebih kuat adalah orang yang sanggup melawan arus kerosakan. Namun orang yang paling kuat adalah orang yang sanggup merubah arah arus kerosakan hingga menjadi akannya arus kebaikan.”

“Dajjal bersama tenteranya mempunyai kekuatan yang amat istimewa dan amat tersusun. Begitu juga Yakjuj dan Makjuj membuat huru-hara di seluruh dunia. Kehebatan mereka tiada siapa yang dapat melawan dan orang beriman berundur dengan hanya makan zikir dan tasbih."

"Allah zahirkan kudratnya hanya dengan labah-labah yang kecil dijadikan asbab untuk menggigit tengkuk-tengkuk mereka hingga mati. Mayat mereka begitu busuk diseluruh dunia. Orang beriman tidak tahan terus berdoa pada Allah. Allah ta'ala hantarkan hujan dan banjir menghanyutkan mereka ke laut. Inilah yang akan berlaku di akhir zaman nanti."

"Amalan dakwah memisahkan hak dan batil seperti air menghanyutkan sampah dari emas dan logam-logam yang lain. Namun pekerja² agama jika wujud cinta dunia dalam hati mereka seperti emas dan disaluti logam-logam lain, maka banyak masalah yang akan timbul.”