The virus, censorship, corruption, and everything else.

In a recent interview, Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft, unveiled a "blockchain-based vaccine passport" that is scannable on smartphones. I assume he's talking about IBM's "Digital Health Pass", which is now available for use in at least 450 airlines. The question is: Are airlines going to be using it? If so, which are and which aren't? Which countries are gonna give it a go? Which are gonna say no? Can they say no?

People — both religious and non-religious — are concerned. You see, in the Bible, there is something called 'The Mark of the Beast'. The Bible describes it as some sort of mark that one has to bear in order to buy, sell, or do anything. If you don't have it, regardless of your social class, you can't do certain things.

People are equating vaccine passports with 'The Mark of the Beast' but can you blame them? The two seem to have a lot of similarities, especially with the recent news: A video of a New York family getting kicked out of an establishment for failing to show proof they got the shot has recently gone viral. Furthermore, employees from all sorts of organizations, once considered "essential" and "heroic", have been fired for refusing to take the shot. Vehemently opposed to where New York appears to be heading, thousands of New Yorkers recently took to Manhattan streets to protest against the passes, chanting words like, "We will not comply!" and "Freedom!" Similar protests are happening all across the globe in Australia, France, Italy, Canada, and more.

Without the proposed vaccine passports, tax-paying civilians won't be able to go into restaurants, gyms, and other establishments that comply. Maybe it starts as a QR code on a smartphone and then eventually integrated into a fashionable ring until eventually, it evolves into a tiny, unnoticeable, convenient chip that you never have to think about again. What once was considered a "conspiracy theory" may not be inconceivable, being as the Pentagon recently unveiled a tiny pill-sized biomarker sensor that goes under the skin, which if successful, aims to detect viruses and other changes in the body. Over time, as the technology develops, what else can we expect it to detect or sense? Will governments mandate their citizenry to get it as well? What other functions could be included? And what are the possible issues that may arise? What can we do to prevent them?

San Francisco and Los Angeles have mandated vaccine IDs in order to enter bars, gyms, and etc (and they are not alone, New York was one of the first — Blasio referred to the vaccine "the key to NY"). Joe Biden recently made a speech about mandating vaccines for businesses with over 100 employees. Of course, not every business is complying — some joke they are going to lay off people until they have 99 — meanwhile others are getting ready to put up one hell of a fight. Lawsuits upon lawsuits coming to a court near you, thanks to President-elect.

Are the vaccine passports truly the beginning of the 'Mark of the Beast'? And what does that mean for all of us moving forward?

Multiple states have vowed litigation against the federal government's overreach.

Why? Maybe they're religious, maybe the whole thing goes against their deeply held beliefs. Maybe they believe it goes against the Constitution. Whatever it is, the whole situation is concerning enough to people that they would quite literally quit their jobs if it mandated them to get it as a requirement for employment, forming groups and pooling resources to fight the measures. Uh oh, are we creating a bigger problem than necessary? How did we get to this?

"Last year's heroes, this years unemployed." Powerful words written on cardboard, held by nurses in protest of experimental Covid vaccine mandates.

Nurses are using their social media accounts to share their unique experiences and going viral with accounts that directly counter the mainstream narrative that hospitals are full of unvaccinated people. One nurse on TikTok said that the reason why "hospitals are in full capacity" doesn't necessarily mean they are out of beds or that all the beds are full of sick people, she said it was because nurses are quitting in droves because of the vaccine mandates so they didn't have enough hands.

Nurses have claimed on video their Covid units are filled with fully vaccinated and/or injured, and another pointed out that according to John Hopkins data (which she shows in her video), hospitals all across the country have been operating at usual capacity all along. Regardless of what you believe, it seems that a "hub" of "correct" information and data might not be a good idea as long as outliers, such as in these cases, exist. Because they tend to get censored or labeled as spreaders of misinformation if their claims don't fall under the "proper" narrative despite having proof to back up their claims.

Is truth only truth if it agrees with the authority's version of things? Why haven't mainstream covered any of them? Why have they not amplified their voices?

You may be wondering: How do we know these women and men are healthcare workers like they say they are? How do we know we can trust their word — that what they claim is true?

If you look at their past posts, if they have public profiles, they will often post something about their job. I've seen them post videos in hospitals prior to the pandemic and during, fully masked and in PPE. Unless they are filming some show and are all actors, the dated photo and video evidence their social media accounts provide are as good as any and can definitely be held as proof in the court of law if need be. The dog and cat posts, selfies, and touching captions about their families or their kids' first day of school, as well as the personalized comments from friends and families, are all very convincing. These aren't bots — these are real people, with very real lives, and very real stories.

They post real-time updates, they show their faces. They don't hide behind cyber masks or cloth masks. They are putting themselves out there, putting their reputations on the line, to share important information that the majority of the general public seems to have no idea about. Some internet sleuths have even gone viral for digging up and providing cold hard proof, in video, to double-check hard to believe claims.

There are thousands, if not more, of these healthcare professionals speaking out. I was able to find them through an ex-registered nurse's account turned whistleblower by the name of Erin. Erin went undercover in Elmhurst Hospital in New York during the peak of the pandemic and found troubling things about the state and the hospital's protocol, all of which she explains and lays out in a Youtube video published by Journeyman Pictures. Upon the advice of a lawyer, Erin bravely went undercover using hidden cameras so she could prove her claims.

When I discovered her, Erin had 200k plus followers on her Instagram until they deleted her account for the content she was posting. Why? Because "it went against official health guidelines" (I found the new account she made where she confirmed this). Despite being "careful" as she called it — by censoring keywords such as Covid, Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine when talking about hospitals she worked in that used the treatments with great success — she still got deleted. Instagram's AI was able to recognize those words, automatically putting clickable stickers on every post containing them to prompt users to check "official guidelines" instead.

Erin was often fact-checked, labeled as spreading dangerous misinformation as if her real, first hand and proven experiences as a healthcare worker couldn't possibly be true if it went against "official guidelines" from the CDC or the WHO.

On her old account (her new account is now at over 135k followers) she had a post where she called on brave healthcare professionals all over the globe to follow suit in going undercover, share their personal experiences and stories, and do their own whistleblowing. Feeling curious, I looked through comments and ended up spending hours, which turned into days, just reading everyone's stories and accounts and determining as best as I could if they were telling the truth. I found no real reason to believe that they weren't.

For instance, I look at one nurse who is concerned about her hospital and colleagues not respecting The Hippocratic Oath which she swore upon; I see that in early 2020, even before lockdowns, she was posting selfies of herself in a hospital setting. On a post where she is showing herself wearing a mask and PPE in a hospital, I read her caption. Paraphrasing, it says something cute and light, like "Life as a Covid nurse is truly fashionable". I check the date and sure enough, its dated in the middle of 2020 after the world shut down indefinitely. The few comments it received appear to be from family members and friends, some of whom were private accounts.

In her bio are the words "RN". She has some 500 plus followers and she's following more accounts than is following her. I look at who she is following and I see that we are both following Erin and a few other similar accounts like National Geographic, CNN, Bloomberg, and etc.

In truth, I questioned if it's a lie or if it could be, but as I continue to do more digging, I see other posts of hers with her coworkers who are also Registered Nurses. I click on their Instagram accounts. I do the same thing with every public account that dares speak out against the mainstream narrative and come to a similar conclusion: these are actual nurses and healthcare professionals and I have no reason to disbelieve what they claim. I think of myself: Would I lie in a situation like this? Would I fabricate such a story? I wouldn't, would you?

Nurses going against the mainstream narrative have come together in protest and have shared their experiences of neglect, medical malpractice, unjust discrimination against the unvaccinated, rates of fully vaccinated patients in their units, and vaccine injuries, yet no mainstream news source covers any of it. Why?

Every time I see a story about the pandemic on CNN for instance, a source I once trusted to get all of my information from, they always seem to be talking about unvaccinated people being at fault and keeping things from going back to normal and how everyone getting the jab is gonna put an end to it all. People aren't buying it. "Hard to believe or trust", they say, when the likes of CNN have not covered anything that may go against the unilateral narrative — the "official guidelines" — and are now supporting mandating the product in order to participate in society.

"If you try to force a mandate on people, there's a tendency to resist. If you try to force people to take a vaccine, it's not a good public health strategy. Public health should be based on trust," says Dr. Martin Kulldorff, Harvard Medical professor and epidemiologist.

Why won't generally trusted sources like CNN cover this? Do they think these nurses and experts are all liars? Quacks? Conspiracy theorists? Do they have any proof that they aren't telling the truth? Have they even tried to get any? Why is it that CNN and the likes are only giving us one side of the story? Does it have to do with who they funded by?

'The unvaccinated are at fault for this entire pandemic', according to well-known hosts and media personalities. CNN's Don Lemon has said unvaccinated people should have certain rights taken from them for refusing the shot. Late-night show host Jimmy Kimmel said that unvaccinated should be last in line to receive medical treatment for anything. Have they forgotten that before the vaccine was available, everybody was unvaccinated? How could all fault lie in the unvaccinated then, if everyone was unvaccinated at the start of the pandemic and prior to the production of the vaccine?

The unvaccinated didn't start or create this pandemic. Everyone simply fell victim to its existence. So why is it that unvaccinated people — even those who are naturally immune after having survived it — are at fault for this entire thing? When the vaccine doesn't stop transmission, hospitalization, or death? Sure, it may help some, but if they can't acknowledge all the breakthrough infections, the thousands of real testimonials, and the thousands of adverse reactions and deaths reported on various vaccine injury reporting systems, can they truly be trusted to give people the absolute truth? After all, the difference between the truth and propaganda is impartiality.

If it was truly about health and people's safety, wouldn't we celebrate those who are naturally immune after infection and fund studies to determine the factors that contributed to their quick recovery? Natural immunity according to a recent study from Israel with over 700,000 participants, confers 13 to 27 times better protection than the vaccines.

CDC director, Rochelle Walensky, recently admitted that "recent developments and data from our international colleagues in Israel show that vaccine efficacy wanes with time and with each variant that arises, therefore boosters will likely be necessary" (paraphrasing here). Weighing risk and benefit, if natural immunity recognizes variants, offers better and longer protection, why then would those previously infected need to provide proof of vaccination if breakthrough infections after full vaccination aren't as rare as previously touted? And if the vaccines don't actually prevent transmission? (It was found that vaccinated and unvaccinated carry similar viral loads.)

Did you know that providers were getting paid up to $80 to administer vaccines? Where do you think the money is coming from? Have people urging others to get vaccinated because it is so "easy" and "free" thought about how something could truly be free if providers are getting paid to administer it? It's free, but someone is paying for it. Who — how — have any idea? And why? These questions are important to ask when people's livelihoods, health, and rights are being threatened. This is not a matter of personal opinion.

When providers are getting paid to administer a product with no actual long-term studies or data on its safety, this makes them more likely to push and market the product, providing incentive for them. Financial incentive also makes it more difficult to admit when something goes wrong with a customer or patient. Could this be the reason why testimonials on injuries and even death shortly after administration aren't making it on the news? People have the right to be fully informed about a medical product that is practically being forced on them.

I've been seeing testimonials about young healthy men developing heart problems (myocarditis is a known side-effect of the vaccines) and sometimes even dying from it after getting the vaccine after their schools mandated it. People say it's rare, they complain why the injury is even being shown to them, saying it's too hard to hear or watch therefore they'd rather not know. To them these people and their stories are insignificant, after all, they got the vaccine and they're fine. What do they care about some young athlete or two from other states or countries? What do they care about some thirteen-year-old girl who developed neurological problems immediately after her second shot? It's just a few cases. Or is it? Hundreds and thousands of adverse cases and deaths have been reported in VAERS and VigiAccess, and yet Marin County in California is moving forward with vaccinating 5 to 11-year-olds despite this age group not being at a significant risk whatsoever to the virus.

It's common knowledge politicians, presidents, congressmen and women, senators, are lobbied by pharmaceutical companies through "donations". There are audited public receipts.

Opensecrets.org, a non-profit, nonpartisan research group based in Washington, D.C., that tracks the effects of money and lobbying on elections and public policy also known as The Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), shows that President Biden, President Trump, Bernie Sanders, and more, received millions of dollars from pharmaceutical companies in 2020 alone. What do these three men have in common? They all use their influence to tell (even mandate) the American people to get vaccinated. Do you think the money has anything to do with it?

Bernie Sanders is always talking about climate change. How we need to do something, yet he accepted large donations from pharmaceutical companies who are known to be one of the biggest polluting industries today. Pharmaceutical practices taint our waters with dangerous concentrations of toxic substances that cannot yet effectively be filtered out.

The images of beaches and oceans littered with non-biodegradable syringes aren't a very pretty sight either. If this industry and its products are polluting the lifeblood of our planet — our Oceans — could the product be polluting our bloodstreams as well? What do you think? Can a heavily polluting industry and practice truly create a healthy, vitality-inducing, well-being enhancing product?

"If it was so good you wouldn't have to force it on people. Don't expect people to willingly comply when you're threatening them with the loss of livelihood and opportunity, even going as far as barring entrance to certain places they would've had access to prior. We never did that with the flu," one frustrated commenter writes in response to the President's vaccine mandate.

"Heart disease kills more people every year than Covid ever did and yet we aren't not mandating obese people to only eat salads at restaurants or to skip out on soda. We're not banning deep-fried foods. We're not mandating at least 30 minutes of exercise every day. So — is it really about health?" A nutritionist turned popular health blogger writes.

"Pharmaceutical companies are multi-billion dollar companies for a reason. Only a fool actually believes the vaccines were ever free," says a fitness influencer.

"I am not anti-science. I am anti-medical tyranny. I am anti-tyranny," says a protester.

Pfizer had to pay billions of dollars to the DOJ for mislabeling and misleading information on their products. They paid out the largest settlement in history for fraud. It is not a conspiracy theory, this is a fact. They have been guilty and known to bribe doctors and officials as well. Can we really trust them to do the right thing with our health all the time, given their history?

Therapeutics that are showing a lot of promise and cost less than $5 and are now being suppressed and censored by social media sites like Instagram, Youtube, Tiktok, Facebook, and "official organizations" because it goes against "official guidelines". Could profiteering and conflicts of interest be involved somehow?

The official protocol, Remdesevir, costs over $3k and the one a group of experts all over the world (who have actually healed Covid patients) is fighting and advocating for, show better success and costs less than 5 bucks. These experts claim they have the data and the peer-reviewed papers to back it all up, but still, they are continuously ignored by the likes of CNN despite having the receipts, experience, and accreditation to back it all up.

Ivermectin is the drug. Strangely enough, the FDA and mainstream media sources told people and made them believe that Ivermectin was but a "horse dewormer" and "dangerous for humans". What they failed to mention was that there are actually two versions of the drug — one for humans, and one for horses. Considered safer than aspirin, Ivermectin won a Nobel Prize in 2015 because of its success in treating humans. Data from Uttar Pradesh, India, which included it in their protocol at the snubbing of WHO guidelines in comparison to its neighbors who didn't, is noteworthy. Check it out here.

Question: Why did the FDA lead people believe that Ivermectin is a dangerous horse-dewormer when there is a Nobel prize-winning human-grade version that is considered safer than aspirin? Why did Rolling Stones publish a now-debunked story about "gunshot victims being unable to be treated due to the influx of Ivermectin poisoning"? (It was debunked by the Northeastern Health System of Sequoyah. They made a statement saying that the Rolling Stone insider (Dr. Jason Mcelyea) is not affiliated with them and they have not treated anyone with Ivermectin intake complications.) Still, Rolling Stone maintains the drug is "usually for horses", failing to mention its safer than aspirin, Nobel prize-winning human counterpart.

Censorship. If you try to talk about any of this on social media sites like Instagram and Youtube, they may just delete you if not shadowban you. Have moderators forgotten that science is never settled and is constantly evolving? And shouldn't individual voices and experiences matter in piecing together the puzzle, in order to come to understanding?

Something is wrong when people cannot say certain words or talk about certain topics that affect us all because "it doesn't go against official guidelines". Who is making the guidelines and are we sure, at any given moment, that they can be trusted?

No one is claiming that just because alternative methods for healing or dealing with the situation exist, that means those same methods will work for everyone. Why aren't more people trusted to be intelligent enough to determine what goes and doesn't go into their unique bodies?

"What happened to 'my body my choice'?" an influencer asks.

The desire of Big Tech to "protect people from misinformation" is noble until it becomes tyrannical, which could be happening now. Add this censorship to vaccine passports and you get a social credit system nobody agreed to and a reality akin to a Black Mirror episode.

If you advocate for the rights of women to get an abortion, for the legalization of marijuana, psychedelic mushrooms, then you must also advocate for the rights of people to refuse a medical product they don't want. You can't be "my body, my choice" but ignore one of the greatest overreaches to that ideal.

There are good, justified reasons why people are hesitant or flat-out refuse. Polyethylene glycol (PEG), a main ingredient in both Pfizer and Moderna for example, is a petrochemical and has shown evidence of genotoxicity. Considered a potential cause of anaphylaxis in some adverse reactions to the vaccine, it's also called one of "The Dirty Dozen" as it is often tainted with Ethyloxide (EO) and with known carcinogens.

Another reason, like mentioned, is the fact that the pharmaceutical industry is historically corrupt and responsible for copious amounts of environmental pollution. Some people simply live lifestyles that are not aligned with the experimental medical product and proposed solution. In addition, those who were vaccine injured in the past are especially outspoken. Should they be prevented from living a normal life and participating in society because their internal guidance tells them not to comply and take the vaccine? Meanwhile, others have disorders that would make taking the vaccine dangerous and potentially deadly. Yet already, a few with Guillain-Barre Syndrome have spoken out, saying that they lost opportunities and access to places because they were unable to show proof they were vaccinated.

When natural immunity confers stronger and longer-lasting protection and recognizes variants, and the other option wanes in efficacy and doesn't recognize variants, why are vaccine passports being required of those naturally immune? Wouldn't boosting the immune system naturally with non-invasive therapeutics be the more economical option then?

People aren't gonna back down. They are pissed off. They've been silenced and prevented from telling their truth. This is never gonna go away — things aren't going to go back to normal unless mandates and proof of vaccinations are nullified. Inciting a civil war by disregarding medical freedom, bodily autonomy, human rights, the Nuremberg Code, The Hippocratic Oath, or the Constitution isn't gonna make it all better or increase GDP.

We are gonna have to live with this virus. We can't avoid it forever, just like we can't avoid the flu, which weirdly enough practically disappeared during the pandemic. Our health measures eradicated the flu but somehow didn't work for Covid. Did the PCR tests that were never intended to test for infectious diseases have anything to do with it?

The CDC's announcement of a new PCR test that "could differentiate between the flu and Covid" sounds like an admission that it wasn't able to differentiate between the two. That would explain why the flu disappeared throughout the entire Covid pandemic.

According to people and nurses, false positives happened often, and simply changing the PCR test sensitivity made all the difference.