Connect with us

New Social Compact

Learning from the pandemic to better fulfil the right to health

Published

on

The COVID-19 pandemic has concentrated minds about the resilience of our health care systems and it is challenging member states’ health policies and their effectiveness. In addition, doctors, medical staff and health care staff are under unprecedented pressure. Do we have sufficient medical facilities and supplies to respond to the emergency even when strict containment measures are in place? Can our human right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health be fulfilled under the current circumstances? Are health care workers sufficiently protected and can they manage the immense responsibility placed on their shoulders? In the midst of this tragic pandemic we cannot pretend to have all the answers to these existential questions. But we can highlight some of the fundamentals of a health care system which seeks to meet the needs of the entire population and which builds resilience in order to respond to public health emergencies.

It is obvious that all people have the right to the protection of their health against the pandemic. Universal health coverage creates the basis for this. Broader social protection measures are necessary to address entrenched health inequalities. A focus on gender plays a central role in effective responses. The development of inclusive and resilient health care systems, which is likely to take place under conditions of renewed austerity, should eschew the negative effects on the right to health experienced during the economic crisis of the previous decade.

Universal health coverage

The fulfilment of the right to health is often viewed as an issue about access to health care. During my visit to Greece in 2018, I observed the negative impact of long-term austerity measures on the availability and affordability of health care. I urged the authorities to remove obstacles to accessing universal medical coverage and to increase their efforts to recruit health care staff. The achievement of universal health coverage is one of the targets of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 3 (ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages). According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), universal coverage means that all individuals and communities receive the health services they need without suffering financial hardship. It includes the full range of essential, quality health services, from health promotion to prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, and palliative care.

Efforts to achieve universal health coverage received a boost on 10 October 2019 with the UN General Assembly’s adoption of a high-level political declaration “Universal health coverage: moving together to build a healthier world”, following its approval by world leaders in September. The declaration recognises that health contributes to the promotion and protection of human rights and makes a commitment to covering one billion additional people by 2023 with quality essential health services, with a view to covering all people by 2030. The declaration stresses that strong and resilient health systems, capable of reaching people in vulnerable situations, can ensure pandemic preparedness and effective responses to any outbreak.

It is significant that the declaration specifically covers mental health and well-being as an essential component of universal health coverage and stresses the need to fully respect the human rights of people experiencing mental health problems. Mental health professionals have pointed out that the current pandemic is resulting in a parallel epidemic of fear, anxiety, and depression. The highly stressful environment and the containment measures taken out of necessity place a significant burden on the mental health of the general population. Existing mental health conditions may also worsen further, and opportunities for regular outpatient visits are narrowing. People treated in psychiatric institutions find themselves in an especially vulnerable situation, with diminishing access to care and additional risks of infection. Public Health England has issued detailed guidance on preserving mental health and wellbeing during the coronavirus outbreak.

Civil society representatives have expressed concern that the UN Declaration does not in fact reaffirm the right to health as an entitlement and that it leaves too much discretion to governments in determining the extent of universal health coverage with reference to “nationally determined sets”. Measures to address the needs of migrants, refugees, internally displaced persons and indigenous peoples have also been qualified to be applied “in line with national contexts and priorities”. In addition, NGOs have highlighted funding gaps for universal coverage and the essential role of public health systems in meeting the health care needs of vulnerable populations. It is crucial that the current gaps in universal coverage are not allowed to become obstacles to a comprehensive response to the coronavirus pandemic and the availability of care for all.

In Europe, the unaffordability of health care has been an important barrier to the full realisation of universal health coverage. Significant out-of-pocket payments can result in unmet needs or financial hardship for service users. According to the WHO, this may be the case in the majority of European countries. In my 2019 report on Armenia, I made a connection between low public health expenditure and the difficulties experienced by older people in obtaining specialised treatment and palliative care. During my visit to Estonia in 2018, I noted that 1 in 4 persons above 65 in poor health could not afford care. Doctors of the World (Médecins du Monde) has pointed out that many people belonging to disadvantaged groups may also face issues about health insurance entitlement.

Health inequalities and social determinants of health   

The concerns about the gaps in the reach of universal health coverage in Europe are related to health inequalities between and within countries, and the broader issues of poverty and social determinants of health. The right to health is closely interconnected with other social rights such as the rights to social security and protection, and the right to housing. Since the WHO Constitution defines health as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, it is unlikely that universal health coverage alone would be effective in addressing health needs in a sustainable manner. A broader social rights approach is required.

The landmark health equity status report by WHO Europe from 2019 reveals that health inequalities in Europe have remained the same or have worsened over the last 10-15 years. Although average life expectancy across the WHO European region of 52 countries has increased for both women (82 years) and men (76 years), significant health inequities remain between social groups. Women’s life expectancy is cut by up to 7 years and men’s by up to 15 years if they find themselves among the most disadvantaged groups. Regional inequalities in life expectancy continue to persist or worsen within most countries. It is also worrying that health gaps between socioeconomic groups increase with age.

The report makes a highly useful contribution in identifying social determinants and drivers of the health gap and in so doing maps means of improving the situation. In addition to universal access to health care, social protection, housing, education and employment are significant factors in improving health status. The report recommends integrated solutions based on a combination of interventions. Remarkably, it argues that the most cost-effective means of closing the health divide is increased investment in housing and community amenities.

Unfortunately, affordable housing is in short supply in Europe and the overall spending by governments on social housing stood at only 0.66% of the European GDP in 2017, as I noted in an article in January this year. In December 2019, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to housing, Leilani Farha, sounded the alarm about the current global housing crisis and published guidelines for the practical implementation of the right to adequate housing.

In March, she pointed out that housing had become the front-line defence against the coronavirus as governments relied on people to stay home to prevent the spread of the pandemic. The Rapporteur expressed special concern at homeless people and those living in grossly inadequate housing, often in overcrowded conditions or lacking access to water and sanitation, making them particularly vulnerable to the virus. It is obvious that homeless people should not be penalised for not being able to stay at home during the pandemic. In Scotland, local authorities have made unoccupied student flats and hotel rooms available to rough sleepers in the current situation. A similar positive initiative was undertaken by the UK government in England. Long-term housing solutions for homeless people remain necessary. They will make our societies more resilient against crises and pandemics.  

Gender-responsive approaches to health and equality

Gender is another determinant of health. The differences in health status and needs between women and men are not simply related to biological differences but to the impact of societal gender norms and stereotypes. The WHO has pointed out that factors affecting notions of masculinity and femininity and the way gender roles are defined in societies can have a massive effect on the health of men and women. We need gender-responsive approaches to health which take gender norms and inequalities into account and act to reduce their harmful effects. Progress towards gender equality should have a positive impact on the health of both women and men. Ultimately, gender-responsive approaches based on equality can help transform the gender roles, norms and structures which act as barriers to achieving healthy lives and well-being for everybody.  

The higher average life expectancy of women in comparison with men is usually referred to as the “mortality advantage”. 70% of the European population over 85 are women. However, the additional years are often accompanied with ill health or disability. Women in Europe live on average 10 years in ill health while the figure for men is 6 years. The WHO report on women’s health and well-being in Europe highlights cardiovascular diseases, mental health problems, gender-based violence and cyber-bullying as prevalent health issues among women. Breast, cervical, lung and ovarian cancers pose significant burdens to women’s health. Women consider themselves less healthy than men and report more illness. They are less represented in clinical trials making it more difficult to determine safe dosage ranges and possible side effects of medicines for women. Sexual and reproductive health is another area where gender-specific and human rights-based responses are necessary.    

Norms around masculinity and socio-economic factors are related to men’s risk-taking behaviours and underuse of health services across many European countries. The WHO report on men’s health and well-being in Europe points out that men have unhealthier smoking practices and dietary patterns, heavier alcohol drinking habits and higher rates of injuries and interpersonal violence than women. 86% of all male deaths can be attributed to noncommunicable diseases and injuries, especially cardiovascular diseases, cancers, diabetes and respiratory diseases. Raised blood pressure is a leading risk factor with a higher prevalence than in women. Suicide rates among 30-49-year-old men are five times higher than among women of the same age. Yet men report better subjective health than women and use health services less often than them.

It is reported that the coronavirus has gender-differential effects. The fatality rate for men appears to be up to twice as high as for women. Although we do not yet know the cause for this, it has been suggested that both biological factors and gendered risk behaviours, such as smoking, may be relevant. Gender matters in responses to the pandemic, too. Social distancing or lockdowns at home bear a specific danger to women’s health in terms of a higher risk of domestic violence. Many women victims of violence may experience additional difficulties in seeking help in shelters which have closed down or decide not to seek medical attention for fear of contagion. Women’s exposure to the coronavirus is aggravated by the fact that they are in the clear majority among health care staff and as informal and family carers. It is essential that the prioritisation of the availability of health services during the pandemic does not discriminate on the ground of gender. This also applies to access to sexual and reproductive health care, including abortion.

The WHO European region is the first WHO region to implement strategies on the health and well-being of both women and men in a coordinated way and following a human rights-based approach. Ireland was the first country in Europe to prepare a health policy specifically targeting men already in 2008. Health policies which address both women’s and men’s health in gender-specific ways through the different stages of life are mutually reinforcing and highlight gender as a central determinant of health.

Way out from the crisis

The pandemic is a danger to all of us but there are many groups of people who are in an especially vulnerable position or highly exposed to it. Older persons find themselves in a high-risk group and inter-generational solidarity is now in high demand. Many persons with disabilities rely on the support of others in their daily activities and the continuity and safety of such support must be guaranteed during the crisis. People living in institutions or detention face a high risk of infection and should be afforded protective measures. I have highlighted the situation of immigration detainees and prisoners specifically. Homeless people are extremely vulnerable as stated earlier. The living conditions of many Roma remain inadequate with limited access to water and sanitation. A great number of refugees and migrants find themselves in a similar situation.  

In the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, all population groups should be able to access health care, including medicines and vaccines, without discrimination. Any absolute necessity for prioritisation in terms of limited resources must be based on sound medical evidence and the individual urgency of the required treatment. Everyone’s human dignity must be respected without putting into question the fundamental equality of every person’s life. Focused efforts are required to preserve mental health during the crisis and to ensure the continuity and safety of treatment.  

Positive measures should be applied to mitigate the risks of the pandemic on the health of groups who are particularly vulnerable or exposed to the coronavirus. Such measures should be effective and proportionate and could include, for example, enhanced social support, provision of adequate housing, access to water and sanitation, deinstitutionalisation, anticipated release from custody, facilitated access to protective equipment and coronavirus testing, provision of additional means of communication and the availability of information in accessible formats, among others. Gender-responsiveness should be considered as a regular aspect of the means to counter the pandemic.

I urge governments to alleviate the enormous pressure health professionals, the majority of whom are women, are facing in their work against the pandemic. Their safety at work is crucial and they must have access to effective protective equipment, regular coronavirus screening and antibody testing, and psychosocial support. Health workers and their families should be entitled to childcare arrangements and social protection measures to cover their work-related hazards. Any extraordinary care duties for health professionals not in active service must be necessary and accompanied by strict safeguards for ensuring their safety and well-being.

In the long run, member states should build resilient health care systems which cater to the needs of the entire population and enable robust responses to health emergencies. The achievement of universal and affordable health coverage, including for mental health, is critical for this endeavour. No one should be left behind in health care entitlement. There is a special need to promote deinstitutionalisation, outpatient services and primary health care.     

I urge governments to apply a gender-responsive approach in the implementation of health policies. They should identify and address gender-based health needs and aim to change unhealthy behaviours which are related to harmful gender stereotypes. It is necessary to unleash the potential of health promotion and protection as an effective tool for improving gender equality for both women and men.

Widening inequalities in health status must be addressed through a broader social rights approach. As people’s health and well-being are closely related to the social determinants of health, it is necessary to promote health through integrated approaches which combine universal coverage with protection against poverty, the eradication of homelessness, inclusive education and training, and access to employment. Focused efforts should be made to implement adequate, affordable and long-term housing solutions.

Council of Europe

Continue Reading
Comments

New Social Compact

Grace and a Tennis Celebrity

Published

on

image source: Wikipedia

Among the character traits we cherish in fellow humans, grace is often more noticeable in its absence.  The recent saga of a Serbian tennis player and his manner of entry into Australia and subsequent events come to mind.  A champion athlete cannot help but serve as an ambassador for his country, and in Serbia’s case, after the horrors of the Yugoslavia civil war and its prominent role, it is a country that needs all the help it can get. 

Novak Djokovic is ranked number one in the world and is in Australia to defend his title.  He appears to have lied on his Australian entry form:  False declarations are grounds for revoking a visa, and immigration officials acted.  But as world number one, he is a draw for the tournament … and money talks — he is already scheduled to play his first match as this is written. 

Mr. Djokovic’s lawyers went to court which overturned the immigration officials’ order against him on the grounds they had not followed proper procedure.  Then the immigration minister, Alex Hawke, who had been thinking about canceling his visa actually did.  So it’s back to court.

But it gets worse:  Djokovic has not been vaccinated.  He claims that having had the illness, he is immune.  Scientists have found that to be of short duration.

He also broke isolation rules after he had tested positive, particularly by not isolating himself, thereby endangering his contacts.  Cavalier his behavior maybe, perhaps careless but possibly a sense that rules are not for celebrities, only for lesser mortals.

That it caused a sense of outrage is apparent.  A leaked video has a couple of news anchors discussing Djokovic in not very flattering terms:  “Novak Djokovic is a lying, sneaky asshole”, says one.  Yet the comment also is evidence of a coarseness that has gradually pervaded language.

In the meantime, Mr. Djokovic’s father has his own take on the affair.  He calls it a conspiracy to prevent his son from breaking the previous record of 20 Grand Slam title wins held by Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer because they are all against Serbia.  But Serbia, which still believes in little Jesus and is thus protected, will prevail.

Would aphorisms like ‘a storm-in-a-teacup’ or ‘mountains out of a molehill’ be descriptive?  Not if it’s news across the world.  Yet, if he continues to rant on the tennis court and win, it could be his way of getting rid of nerves, an eternal bugaboo. 

He must have another crucial concern:  the biological clock.  At 34 going on to 35 in five months, and with much younger rivals snapping at his heels, it has to be a race against time to win that 21st major title.

Just like grace notes relieve tedium in music, perhaps Djokovic’s rants relieve the boring baseline game that modern tennis has become.  No more a Frank Sedgman or a Pancho Gonzales charging up to the net to put away a dramatic volley, tennis now needs a grace note, or two, or three …  

Continue Reading

New Social Compact

Age No Bar: A Paradigm Shift in the Girl Child’s Marriageable Age in India

Published

on

Image source: indiatoday.in

India is a country known to have diverse culture, languages, social norms, ethical values, traditional customs, belief system, religions and their personal laws. With personal laws governing succession, adoption, divorce etc, one of the most important aspects governed by the personal laws is Marriage. Indian society has a deep-rooted belief of marriages being the most sacred bond between two people. Every religion of the country gives utmost importance to this sacred bond. Since this bond is of such great importance to the Indian society and to the people of the country, the legal system and the personal laws have made efforts to legalise the sacred bond. There are conditions and requirements laid down for the marriage to be solemnized and get a legal sanction. One such important condition is “age”. According to most of the personal laws and The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 the legal age for a man should not be less than 21 years of age and a woman 18 years of age. Recently the government introduced The Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021 to raise the age of marriage for women from 18 years to 21 years

Introduction of this bill shall prove to be a ray of hope for people struggling to curb the evil of child marriage in our country. One cannot claim progress unless women progress on all fronts including their physical, mental and reproductive health. The Constitution guarantees gender equality as part of the fundamental rights and also guarantees prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sex. This bill would bring women equal to the men as far as the legal age of marriage in concerned. Under the National Family Health Survery-5, it is stated 7% of the girls aged between 15 and 18 years were found to be pregnant and nearly 23% of the girls in the age group of 20 to 24 were married below the age of 18 years. There are researches to point that from 2015 to 2020, 20 lakhs child marriages have been stopped.

In my opinion, increasing the age of women from 18 years to 21 should not be seen solely as an equal opportunity for them to choose their life partners at the same age as that of men, but this is a step taken by the government to eradicate child marriages that still find way in to our society. It should be seen as an effort to bring down maternal mortality rate and infant mortality rate. It shall also try and curb the teenage pregnancies, which are extremely harmful for women’s overall health as well as the infants born out of it. We also have to take into consideration that a large part of our society still lack basic education and awareness about these laws and the advantages attached to it. We as educated citizens of the country should take extra efforts in making people aware and to make them understand about the disadvantages associated with child marriage and the overall consequences their children would face in the future. We should appreciate the efforts taken by the government to tackle gender inequality and gender discrimination adequate measures taken to secure health, welfare and empowerment of our women and girls and to ensure status and opportunity for them at par with men.

*The Views Expressed are Strictly Personal

Continue Reading

New Social Compact

Post Pandemic – What’s Next

Published

on

Setting aside the omicron hysterics leading to marshal law lockdowns, the absurdity of a last chance vaccine or risk a long winter of death; or the charade of standing in a ridiculously long line of humanoids seeking a covid test after being fully vaccinated; the more contagious omicron variant with much milder symptoms, akin to the common cold, looks more and more like a natural vaccine being wind swept across the world. If we are at the beginning of the end of the pandemic as the mountain of positive cases peak and immunity engulfs the herd of humanity, what is the next step for governments, businesses, health officials, and the people of earth?

We have entered our third calendar year with the pandemic, and one must wonder how society will move forward and under what guise and endgame. First, there are many questions on the more immediate future for the everyday person, and secondly, what is the impact of the actions taken by government, big pharma, and healthcare officials throughout pandemic, and lastly, will there be any accountability for the actions taken, whether mandating experimental medicine and the potential long-term implications to one’s physical and mental health, societal lockdowns and the economy, children’s learning and coping, and civil liberties removed.

Close to home, what will happen to our jobs and will those who refused the injections be allowed to return to the workplace that terminated their employment?  How will schools and colleges catch students up after all the disruptions? How emotionally and mentally stable will we be? What of broken marriages and abusive situations, bankruptcies, deaths from missed surgeries and acute care, drug overdoses and suicides. Will people refrain from shopping in-person, attending church, or traveling? Will families heal their rifts over the vaccines and find a way to move forward?

On a more macro level, it was not long ago that we were told one shot was safe and effective. During an April 2021 MSNBC interview, Rochelle Walensky, the Director of the CDC, unequivocally claimed vaccinated people do not carry the virus. President Joe Biden, during a CNN Townhall in July 2021, was emphatic that you cannot get COVID-19 if you are vaccinated.  Now, the vaccinated are being told not to attend restaurants or large gatherings with a tsunami of breakthrough cases, and you are required to go for a third shot and then a fourth new and improved injection currently being formulated. Explicitly, any expert telling you to get vaccinated or take the booster to prevent you from getting COVID or spreading the virus is not being truthful and potentially creating further damage.

The ineffectiveness of the vaccines to prevent COVID is clear; however, no one really knows how safe the experimental medicine will be with forgoing normal clinical research over five years of testing prior to the FDA’s regular approval process. This vaccine may have provided a level of support to make your symptoms better, but it never immunized the subject. Unfortunately, there is preliminary research coming to light that the vaccinated are now more likely to get COVID than the unvaccinated. One might even argue the longevity of the pandemic and viral mutations is now a pandemic of the vaccinated.

It was not long ago that some front-line healthcare workers were saving lives, and then were told they had to take the injection or lose their job. Now, many vaccinated healthcare workers are being infected with COVID-19 and being told they can remain at work or isolate for only five few days; yet the unvaccinated nurses who have not been infected could easily wear a n95 mask and be reinstated to provide care.

Sadly, many businesses and corporations abetted the enslavement of their employees by forcing them to choose between an experimental medicine or lose their job and ability to provide for their family’s survival. A gun was held at their head to take a vaccine that is not effective and perhaps unsafe, and they lost their basic freedom to determine one’s own health and medical treatment. These decisions need to be revisited in the future with ensuing tribunals and inquiries.

In the much bigger picture, a large segment of society has lost touch with reality and descended into a time warp of delusion through the relentless fearmongering fastened with the censorship and intimidation ploys to obey the rules or be labeled an anti-vaxxer conspirator. If science cannot be questioned, it is no longer science. It’s propaganda.

The policies nurtured by the national healthcare agencies and their cohorts on the daily news networks may have created the greatest mental illness ever witnessed where the long-term psychiatric effects evolved into a mass panic of irrationality.

“Mass Formation Psychosis” is a term gaining prominence after Belgian psychologist and statistician Dr. Mattias Desment proffered a theory for what he concludes as a global behavioural phenomenon derived from the coronavirus pandemic. Desment states several things are required to exist if you want a large-scale phenomenon to emerge. First, there needs to be a large population socially isolated that lack social bonds and who experience a lack of sense-making in life. Then it must be coupled with a lot of free-floating anxiety and psychological discontent without people being able to connect it to something – then society is highly at risk for the emergence of the mass phenomenon.

These findings can account for the form of mass hypnosis or a madness that dismisses scientific principles and adopts the government’s noble lies and dominant narrative concerning the safety and effectiveness of the genetic vaccines. What one observes is about 30% of the population is brainwashed and indoctrinated by the bombardment of daily misrepresentations and attack anyone who shares alternative information that contradicts the propaganda they have embraced to the point where families, friends, and workplace networks have been torn apart. The 40% of the population in the middle simply follow along with any alternative information being censored and deemed as anti-vaxxers not following the science or some right-wing conspiracy. The remaining 30% continue to question the narratives and in some cases fight against it.

We can compare the current “Mass Formation Psychosis” to the highly educated German population between the two world wars when they became decoupled into a free-floating anxiety and a sense that things have gone awry. Their attention was then focused by a leader or a series of events onto one small point where they literally went mad. A good percentage of the population got behind the hatred of Jews while a large swath of the nation simply went along, and a smaller percentage of dissenters were exposed and systematically removed. The famous French philosopher, Voltaire warned us of our civil liberties being lost when he said, “Those who can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”   

Parents are being further coerced by the irrational fear of death being obfuscated through the news media to line up your child up for a potential life altering injection that has not come close to being assessed for long health implications. Even when data points to a very low fatality rate among children measuring .002% and young adults at .01%, the FDA throws mud at the wall with announcing a third shot in adolescents 12-15 years old five months after their previous injection.

We are on the cusp of an immense dedication to counselling for mental health and perhaps medical malpractice class action suits at a tremendous cost for many years to come. Imagine your child never seeing their teacher’s face all year as she pronounced words or smiled with encouragement. Imagine some students alone all day in a room on the internet and never socially interacting. Imagine the cost of a child breathing cotton fibers in the mask all day. The unleashed cruelty against our kids is a crime and will have lifelong consequences.    

In a trending microcosm across many jurisdictions, the CEO for OneAmerica, Scott Davison, a $100 billion insurance company located in Indianapolis since 1877, said during a news conference on December 30th, that the death rate is up a stunning 40% among working-age people 18-64; and that the data is consistent across every player in the industry and the highest ever seen in the history of the business. Davison shared just how bad it really is when he said a one-in-200-year catastrophe would be a 10% increase in deaths of this age group so 40% is just unheard of. Most of the claims for death being filed are not classified as COVID-19 deaths.    

During the same conference, Indiana’s chief medical officer said the number of hospitalizations in the state is now higher than before the COVID-19 vaccine was introduced a year ago – a weekly count ending Nov. 8th had 195 reported COVID related deaths where most of these were elderly compared to 1,350 people from other causes. The president of the Indiana Hospital Association added that hospitals across the state are being flooded with patients experiencing many different conditions and noted the average person’s health is now declining. The president confirmed the extraordinarily high death rate, and it was noted that the vast majority of ICU beds were occupied by people with other conditions than COVID-19.

What is responsible for the stunning 40% in deaths? Could it be one’s health condition in decline over the stress of the COVID mandates and lockdowns, or perhaps delayed medical care? Could there be effects from the vaccine? The Governor of Indiana and the various state level experts did not have a clear answer; however, they were clear that the high number of deaths and hospitalizations followed a year after the vaccine rollout.  

Dr. Robert Malone, an internationally recognized scientist/physician and original inventor of mRNA vaccination as a technology and the mRNA platform delivery technologies, including holding numerous patents in these fields with over 100 scientific publications and 12,000 citations, places him in the “outstanding” impact factor. The proven 30-year vaccinologist and inventor of the mRNA technology has recently become known for questioning the safety and bioethics of how the COVID-19 genetic vaccines were developed and forced upon the world.

Malone discovered many short-cuts, database issues, lies told in the developments of the Spike protein-based genetic vaccines; while advocating for drug repurposing and the rights of physicians, and finally the unethical mandates for administering experimental vaccines to adults and children by authoritarian governments being manipulated by large corporations (big pharma, big media, big tech) to such an extent that they no longer represent what is in the best interest of humanity. This once acclaimed doctor has been attacked, censored, and suspended permanently from Twitter for dissenting from reciting the government’s narrative.

Governments, the CDC, FDA, and leading healthcare officials will not willingly relinquish their grip on power and will continue to weaponization of the pandemic and prolong the totalitarian measures to silence scientific opposition and silence political dissention. How much longer will the unvaccinated be the scapegoat for the extended pandemic? Will the unvaccinated ever be allowed back into society to work without this vaccination? Will we ever accept ‘natural immunity’ that provides up to 27 times the immunity against the virus than the vaccine? Will we push injections into young children who are not at risk of death but may be at greater risk from the vaccine? For now, the answer from the top is clear. President Biden on January 4th maintained that COVID-19 to be a pandemic of the unvaccinated. 

One might hope that answers and culpability will take place once society looks back and realizes that the vaccines and mandates caused more damage across all spectrums of society, however it is unlikely anyone will be held accountable. One must consider whether the oppressive pandemic pendulum has swung too far never to swing back where our freedoms are peacefully reinstated. We must keep in mind that the mandates and lockdowns, Big Tech censorship, news media collaboration, and the fear-laden ‘Mass Formation Psychosis’ leading us down a path to a China-like Neo-Marxist society removes any notion that our civil liberties and democracy is preordained. We the people have a choice over collective self-annihilation.    

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Development1 hour ago

Naftali Bennett Highlights Tech and Trade, Bridge-Building and Climate Change

Prime Minister Naftali Bennett of Israel used his address to the Davos Agenda 2022 to highlight the role of digital...

Green Planet7 hours ago

The Meeting Point between Pandemic and Environmental

Humans in the Anthropocene Humans are born from history, on the other hand, history is born from human life. Currently,...

Africa Today9 hours ago

Lithuanians Pave Way for EU’s Legal Migration Initiatives with Sub-Saharan Africa

The European Union is facing a shortage of specialists. The reality of demographic characteristics and the labour market dictate that...

Reports11 hours ago

Nearly half of City GDP at Risk of Disruption from Nature Loss

Cities contribute 80% to global GDP – but they also account for 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Integrating nature-positive...

USA China Trade War USA China Trade War
Americas13 hours ago

Sino-American confrontation and the Re-binarized world

Americans performed three very different policies on the People’s Republic: From a total negation (and the Mao-time mutual annihilation assurances),...

Reports15 hours ago

Labour market recovery still ‘slow and uncertain’

As the COVID-19 pandemic grinds on and global labour markets continue to struggle, the latest International Labour Organization (ILO) report,...

South Asia17 hours ago

India’s open invitation to a nuclear Armageddon

Army chief General Manoj Mukund Naravane said that “India was not averse to the possible demilitarisation of the Siachen glacier...

Trending