The Swiss have voted to keep vaccine passports by a clear majority. I live in Switzerland (but cannot vote), and in this essay I’ll present some analysis of why this outcome may have occurred.
Firstly, what was the vote actually about? It was a referendum on whether to keep the COVID law, which authorised (among other things) the implementation of the vaccine passport and contact tracing systems. As such, although passports are effectively a form of coercion, this wasn’t directly a vote on mandatory vaccination. There were two sides: ‘No’, meaning scrap the law and end the passports, and ‘Yes’, meaning keep it.
That’s all in theory. In reality, of course, the vote is already being used by politicians to argue for lockdowns for the unvaccinated (about one third of the population).
So – what went wrong for the ‘No’ side? I believe there were at least three factors that fed into each other:
- Unlike the British Government, the Swiss government doesn’t release the core data you would need to argue against the vaccine passport policies.
- For the second time in a row, the ‘No’ campaign chose its messaging very poorly. The campaign they ran was unconvincing.
- Like elsewhere, the news is dominated by the Government’s own narrative-building efforts and uncritically accepted reports – even nonsensical claims. In particular, public health officials have been spreading misinformation by convincing people the unvaccinated are unsafe to be around even if you’re vaccinated (which makes no sense if you also believe the vaccines are highly effective).
I will analyze each factor below.
Despite this, we should recognize the possibility that how people voted had nothing to do with any campaigns or policies, but simply reflects their pre-existing vaccination decisions. As we can safely assume almost nobody voted ‘Yes’ while also choosing to be unvaccinated (as this would simply be a vote to impose expensive and awkward restrictions on themselves indefinitely), we must also assume, given the results, that almost everyone who chose to take the vaccine also chooses to try and force other people to take it.
The psychology of this is probably core to the state of the world right now and deserves a much closer look. However, today I’ll make the simplifying assumption that campaigns and arguments do have at least some impact and analyze it through that lens.
Unavailable data
The simplest and most ideologically neutral arguments against vaccine passports is that they are:
- Illogical, because they imply the vaccinated have to be protected from the unvaccinated, which suggests the vaccines do little to suppress infection which in turn suggests there’s little point in protecting the vaccinated from the unvaccinated.
- Ineffective, because Covid vaccines aren’t sterilizing so they allow infectious vaccinated people to wander around spreading infection, quite possibly without realising it. Thus they won’t impact case numbers and this seems to be born out by case curves.
- A form of mandate, which is immoral because you’re forcing people to take a substance they don’t need/think could be unsafe, and they might be right.
To prove (2) you need to have data on the rate of infection among the vaccinated. In England the population can not only see this data, it’s also made available in both the Government’s preferred “adjusted” form and also in its pre-adjusted form. The UKHSA explains the adjustments, the data is age stratified, can be tracked over time and we can even watch the public arguments between different government agencies as they debate how that data should be presented and used. Thus you can point at it and show that the vaccinated get Covid and spread it, and show that the claims of efficacy rely on huge statistical “adjustments” combined with assumptions about group psychology, as the raw data actually shows negative effectiveness.
In Switzerland, like in most of the world, none of this has happened because the Government’s Covid dashboard simply doesn’t provide data on vaccination rates for anything except hospitalisations and deaths. End of story. Unless you’re willing to use foreign data to argue against a local policy, the matter being voted on simply could not be opposed using a data-backed argument of any kind. Of course, it couldn’t be supported with data either, but people remember the claims that vaccines are highly effective against infection.
To prove (3) you would need reliable data on vaccine injuries. No such data exists. Although the Swiss Government does collect reports of adverse events, these data suffer from the same problems as the same data in other countries, namely, rampant under-reporting and a steadfast refusal by the medical establishment to take the reports seriously. My fiancé has several friends who have been injured by the vaccines here (Moderna seems to be quite aggressive compared to AstraZeneca – I don’t know anyone in the UK reporting injuries). None of them has received any kind of help from the medical system. One went to a doctor and was surprised when the doctor said she had the exact same type of problem (missing periods); the advice was simply to go home and wait to see if it got better on its own. That was months ago but it never did get better. Meanwhile several friends of mine reported that the vaccines made them so sick they were confined to bed for a day each time they got the jab. Again, no reports were filed at any point. This experience aligns with this series of interviews with hospital workers, where several nurses assert that doctors are systematically discounting any possible connection between vaccination and illness, even when patients say directly their problems started right after vaccination. This sort of thing is not exactly confidence-building in the quality of the safety data.
Regardless, for whatever reason – perhaps their ads would be blocked if they raised it – the ‘No’ campaign stayed away from the topic of safety and personal choice.
Bad messaging
Just like the first time the Swiss voted on Covid measures, the ‘No’ campaign was primarily run by a group called the Friends of the Constitution. As the name implies this is not actually a dedicated anti-Covid campaign group and I’ve felt both times that the campaigns have been quasi-hijacked by this group’s pre-existing agendas and interests.
The messaging by ‘No’ boiled down to three points:
- Covid measures are mass surveillance.
- Say no to divisions in society.
- Say no to endless measures.
Of these points, really only the third feels like it has any force, and it’s primarily a vague assertion about what the Government might do in future. While I personally believe endless measures are pretty much where we’re at now already, a lot of people still think all this has some sort of near-term end date. And while the passports have created very large and obvious divisions in society, these are – from the perspective of the vaccinated – a division by choice, one that the “divided” could choose to end by getting the jab. And because the shots are free and the Government/media more or less refuses to acknowledge the possibility that a negative cost:benefit ratio might exist for anyone, the vaccinated can see no logical reason why anyone would refuse. So while this language tries to make it sound like other kinds of within-living-memory social division (e.g. racism), it’s not. It’s a unique thing more akin to religious conflicts than anything else.
The message about mass surveillance is especially problematic. The difficulties with logic and honesty during Covid times are not entirely restricted to the public health world. There are two parts to this: passports and contact tracing. The passport system is not actually a form of mass surveillance with the current infrastructure, and contact tracing isn’t being done at the moment, hasn’t been for some time, and when it was it was done using local data collection that was only provided to the Government if a case was actually detected. Moreover, the claim that this is all about mass surveillance is effectively a claim it’s not about fighting Covid. That’s a very serious allegation but isn’t made with any accompanying evidence to prove it, ignores that the infrastructure built so far actually works hard not to engage in mass surveillance, and, finally, ignores the fact that the Government already has mass surveillance infrastructures anyway.
Let me flesh out the claim I just made about vaccine passports, as it’s probably not obvious why I think that. The QR codes are large and high density because they contain all the data of the certificate itself, meaning that the apps that read them don’t have to contact any remote server to verify the certificate. Moreover, the apps are open source, no data is saved locally, all the technical documentation is available, it is distributed also outside of the app store (on Android), and you could even make your own version of the verifier app if for some reason you suspect the version being distributed through the app stores doesn’t match the code being made available. But if that was happening, it would be prima facie evidence of a conspiracy so at that point you could just reveal it. NB: The infrastructure doesn’t have to be designed this way, yet it is.
So this argument has to boil down to “but it could be changed in future”. Yes, it could, but that would get noticed and would then probably trigger another referendum in which mass surveillance would actually be the primary topic – and also the ‘No’ campaign wasn’t making that claim: it was saying these systems are already mass surveillance. It would be especially difficult to convert passports into mass surveillance because the software engineers behind the scheme already proved no such surveillance is required for the scheme to ‘work’, using whatever public health definition of work they think they’re achieving. Moreover, such an infrastructure could just as easily be put into place using cell tower records and banking systems, and in fact this has already been done a long time ago. Governments around the world routinely track their citizens in all sorts of ways, including at scale. Showing us how that infrastructure worked is how Edward Snowden ended up in Russia. They really don’t need vaccine passports on top of that.
A vaccine passport system is an especially illogical form of mass surveillance because – even if it did work the way the campaigners implied – all it would tell governments is what bars, restaurants and events people happen to visit, which is not especially important information, and compliance is already quite low so they wouldn’t even get reliable records of that either. My guess is I get checked about half the time I go out. The rest of the time the business owners don’t bother asking.
Overall, I can’t shake the feeling the campaign group behind ‘No’ might contain a lot of people for whom privacy and surveillance are just their thing, and they came to see Covid as a way to raise funds on which their preferred messaging and campaigning could ride coat-tails. The end result has been an ineffective and unconvincing campaign even to the people it should strongly appeal to. And it didn’t convert anyone who has already taken a vaccine.
Lack of reliable news
The U.K. is a little unusual in that someone’s launched a news site that challenges the public health establishment (this one). I’m often reminded of the problems conventional journalism has when British friends send me links to BBC News stories, like the story they published about the Swiss referendum by Imogen Foulkes.
She starts by presenting a cartoon made by one guy, posted on one billboard in one station, specifically in order to troll a set of anti-mandate protestors, as an example of “Swiss yes campaign posters”. In reality, there wasn’t a Swiss ‘Yes’ campaign, and the report goes downhill from there. A few paragraphs later, she is blaming large data errors in the BBC’s graph of cases on Switzerland, saying: “Countries do not always release figures every day, which may explain some of the sharp changes in the trendlines.” In fact, the Swiss Government does release data every day and its dashboard shows no such data errors – the flaws were introduced by the BBC or the university it’s sourcing this information from. Foulkes quotes a 23 year-old who thinks the vaccine passport means “I can know everyone in here is safe, because they are all vaccinated, tested, or recovered” without pointing out that this is wrong, then she tries to ‘fact check’ a student who correctly points out she’s at little risk of Covid by claiming she might get “serious and long term” health consequences from an infection. Actually less than ~2.5% of people still report any symptoms of Long Covid 12 weeks after infection and those seem to mostly be psycho-somatic. Covid especially isn’t serious for young students and it’s misinformation to claim otherwise – but Foulkes isn’t done! She just keeps going and claims there aren’t enough hospital beds or staff in Switzerland, although the Government’s own statistics show that the country has unusually large capacity margins, with ICU usage usually being below 80% of capacity (most countries run at more like 90-95% utilization), which has at any rate fallen by half compared to what it was at the start of the pandemic – and astoundingly the article just keeps getting more and more deceptive. That was by no means a complete fact check. This is one of the reasons the reputation of ‘fact checkers’ is circling the drain: if they actually cared about misinformation, keeping up with the BBC’s output alone would consume all their time.
The situation worldwide is hardly any better. People who may have doubts about the integrity of public health narratives in the U.S. are more or less forced to rely on a handful of websites – such as the Brownstone Institute – and a couple of bloggers: Alex Berenson, an ex-NYT journalist, and El Gato Malo, a firebrand who mixes Covid analysis with outspoken political advocacy while also pretending to be a cat (many of his articles are quite good, but needless to say, quirky). The U.S. CDC doesn’t release information about vaccine effectiveness in anything close to a useful form, and, bizarrely, actually has commercial conflicts of interest because it turns out to be a holder of patents on vaccine technology, which it licenses for profit to the very same pharma companies the U.S. Government is supposed to be regulating.
Switzerland sits somewhere in the middle. It does have conventional media outlets that are sometimes public-health-skeptical, but they are ultimately the work of conventional journalists and thus do very little original research, preferring to focus on social commentary. For example, they generally won’t search the scientific literature or raw data to double check arguments made by the public health agency, as happens often on this site. For sceptical news there is the Swiss Policy Research site, which has published some good articles, and in particular documented a long litany of false claims and incorrect statistics published by Swiss media. There is also Corona Transition, which functions more like the Daily Sceptic. Nonetheless, being brand new sites with few resources, all such new outlets struggle to get the same level of readership as existing newspapers and TV stations.
So the lack of detailed data, news no more reliable than anywhere else and a very high level of trust in government, means the quality of debate about public health measures is quite low. It’s thus easier for the Government to pass off various unfounded assertions as ‘facts’.
Conclusion
Despite the above, there are some reasons to be positive. The percentage of the population that voted against the measures is very large, even if not a majority. In no way can it be said this is a fringe concern. Although there was no official ‘Yes’ campaign, in reality the might of the entire establishment, including the Government, media, academia, the civil service and the medical community, have pretty much all been doing an endless ‘Yes’ campaign for the last two years – and still around 40% of the people who voted rejected their arguments. Additionally, from reading comments and talking to people, a major motivation for those who voted ‘Yes’ was the belief that they faced a choice between vaccine passports or more lockdowns. Thus the vote can also be interpreted, if you wish, as a vote against lockdowns.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I think looking at the reasons why they voted yes is a red herring. Even if they had voted against mandates, I believe the vote would have been rigged otherwise. There is no way they are going to let people have a say on this. Only the cabal is deciding on these issues now.
Sorry to butt in but I find myself unable to comment on the next article above, Coralgate, which shows zero comments an hour after being posted.
Computer clutch?.
Reported to mods 17.30.
Someone fooked up, that coral article appeared the next after the round-up & reported to be posted at midnight-ish, the comments box was available, then a little while ago it jumped as the last article looks like human error.
Oh well, so long as it’s not ‘just me’.
Those old enough to remember electricity power cuts, whether due to tech problems or Industrial Action, will recall going next door to see if it was a general local problem in which case, as a callow youth, it was down the pub with some candles to be served hand pump beer with a mechanical till leaving the folks back home shivering in the cold and dark.
Happy Days.
Old enough? That still happens here, except we don’t have close neighbours, we just sit out.
Was it for the same reason that the Americans “voted” for Biden?
No. That was simply because the alternative was also a jabbering idiot.
What’s known as an ‘Irishman’s Choice’.
Jabbering idiot or a dead man still walking, now that’s some choice.
Heaven forbid you should have a brilliant narcissist in charge.
If you have ever lived in Switzerland you know that the people here are vile and very nasty deep inside. On the surface maybe they have this innocent village people look. Don’t be fooled by that.
Also in general not a single vaxxed person will give up their earned privileges by letting the unvaxxed free.
Because the Swiss are in support of the global biosecurity revolution which hands over totalitarian control to handful of global oligarchs.
They don’t mind being their slaves as long as they can host their institutions and manage their money.
Also the country is host to the WHO and Bill Gates’ ‘Global Alliance for Vaccination and Immunisation’.
And the Bank for International Settlements, while we’re about it.
I wish people would stop slagging off “the Swiss” in general, when 38% of the population telling the government it could shove its existing passport law was probably a much better result than would be achieved in Britain at the present time.
And it also has the WEF run by Klaus Slob, a best mate of Bill Gates.
I am trying to find a Split by Canton on the vote. Has anyone found one?
I ask because there may well have been a distinct difference between voting between the French and German speaking Cantons ( and maybe Italian). I would expect the German speaking ones to be solidly behind the passports. Not so much the ‘Lac Leman’ Cantons.
I believe that only two cantons voted against, Schwyz & Appenzell Innerrhoden which are both conservative rural regions in the German speaking eastern part of the country. As a matter of interest, Schwyz is one of the founding cantons and the Swiss national flag is derived from the canton’s banner whilst Appenzell was the last canton to grant women the right to vote.
Another interesting piece of information about Switzerland…the idea that its role as a banking centre goes back to the Knights Templar is complete hooey. It actually goes back to organised crime boss Meyer Lansky in the early 1930s.
This is what you want:
https://www.bk.admin.ch/ch/d/pore/va/20211128/can650.html
If you analyse by language-speaking area, I would be very interested to see what you come up with. I would expect the German-speaking cantons to be more against the passports, but we shall see.
at first glance it looks like there is no ‘language’ split, but there is a much larger proportion in favour in the metro area rather than the country cantons. I think this reflects the position globally.
So if one follows this logic can they have a vote on whether or not to slay the first born?
Yes. That’s what democracy is apparently. Whatever is expressed in a vote by 50% of those casting votes + 1, is perfectly legitimate.
Let’s just say the two Sundays scheduled for the 2022 French presidential election, separated by a fortnight, frame Easter (Pâques) neatly.
The Question should be: Did Switzerland vote for Vaccine Passports, or did the largest minority vote for Vaccine Passports? Other questions should include.
I’ve read somewhere the turnout was less than 68%, so 60% of 68% of the electorate voted against the constitution I’d put money, most of them being socialist sympathizers. Of course, they were given the official Covid-19 narrative, meaning it was uninformed state sponsored terrorism! i.e., a large minority of ignorant, frightened commies who’d vote for their own euthanasia if it was party policy.
Not to mention, they are clearly people of low IQ who don’t deserve a vote if they can’t work out how illogical vaccine passports are.
I seem to recall similar arguments being put forward by people unhappy with the outcome of the Brexit referendum.
Nah, they were all for democracy, It’s why they wanted another vote. I however am firmly against democracy despite voting leave.
Brexit is a red herring. In or out of the EU, the UK government would still be shafting its own people.
Turnout was 66%.
I stand corrected sir.
“ I’d put money, most of them being socialist sympathizers”
I see you’ve been dipping into ‘The Simple-Minded Idiot’s Guide to the World’ – again.![🙂](https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/15.0.3/svg/1f642.svg)
Yeah I borrowed your copy if that’s ok?
“ I’d put money, most of them being socialist sympathizers” aka authoritarian,
i.e. ‘people of low IQ’
It’s correct. Followup surveys show the no vote was occurring mostly amongst SVP voters (right wing conservatives) and 82% of SP voters (socialist party) voted yes.
Don’t vote = don’t count especially as nobody can claim their vote will be wasted.
I know this is really way off-topic of this article, I would have posted in the round-up but no one would see it there.
Sweden gets first ever transgender minister, Lina Axelsson Kihlblom becoming the minister of higher education and research.
Why would a young child associate a sexual stereotype with its own sex? And why would you appoint a mentally ill person with the education of the nation’s children? I hate to be misogynist, but this only seems to happen in countries run by women. Evidently, the parents of this person are the cause for its confusion.
This sort of shite is all part of the overall plan to bring about both a moral and financial collapse of Western nations. Its been pushed in our universities for decades. The PC, cancel culture, diversity to the point of nonsense, sexualisation of children.. it goes on and on.. and it didn’t come out of nowhere.. it was planned by a tiny group of extremely wealthy/powerful individuals..
Of course & its purpose is to destroy traditional family values, the largest road bump to globalism is traditional Christian conservative values, family, (man-woman-children) local community & country (patriotism).
Sweden – home of the Little Goblin of Doom.
The new Swedish Minister of Schools, Lina Axelsson Kihlblom, said:
“Trans people have always existed, will always exist and we are no longer ashamed. We are the new normal,” she wrote in 2018 in a column published by public television SVT. Her portfolio includes primary and secondary schools.
“In a book published in 2015 (“Are you going to love me now?”), Lina Axelsson Kihlblom, divorced and mother of two adopted children, recounts having grown up as a girl in a boy’s body and having undergone sex reassignment surgery. ‘she was 25 years old.”
There should not be referendums on such matters. People simply do not have balanced information given it is heavily weighted towards the pro-lockdown, pro-vaccine, pro-passport lobby. The ballot might not be rigged but the concept is.
Because there was no real discussion, transparency, truth, consultation, exchange of views, freedom of choice, or lack of coercion. Much like the whole world, really. This was a plebiscite to rubber-stamp a vicious agenda in an artificially-created atmosphere of threat and fear.
This was a plebiscite to rubber-stamp a vicious agenda in an artificially-created atmosphere of threat and fear.
That has been the role of Parliament in this country.
Pfizer CEO just now – “vaccinated unlikely to suffer severe symptoms from new variant” –
Yesterday -” new variant likely to have milder symptoms”
lol
Don’t they only have 40 % vaccine uptake and we’re supposed to believe over 60% want to introduce a passport that’ll stop them living life?
That’s 60% per cent of those who voted, which was only 65% of the adult population.
The only positive thing here I see is this: https://www.20min.ch/story/unter-35-jaehrige-wollten-zertifikat-bodigen-aeltere-siegten-an-der-urne-373912951311
But that is far outweighed by the inability of the majority to see that ANY discrimination is just WRONG.
And that this instrument is such a discrimination, abishes rhe inalienable individual right of bodily autonomy, establishes a medical apartheid, which will eventually catch up with them as well and/as it can now be expanded widely and ad infinitum.
“Nur die duemmsten Kaelber waehlen ihren Schlaechter selber.”
And the Swiss now hold that title. Officially and irrevocably.
The editor of Die Ostschweiz newspaper has also written a good piece. The newspaper covers the eastern German speaking cantons including Appenzell Innerrhoden which was one of only two cantons to vote against. Incidentally, the local Appenzell cheese is without equal!
https://www.dieostschweiz.ch/artikel/die-grenzen-der-direkten-demokratie-5YAbBBd
The quickly aging population in rich countries is precisely what enables this new totalitarism. The old people seem to have an illusion that they are not dependent on the younger generations because they are so very affluent. Well, I say just wait a couple decades and see how it works out when it’s payback time.
we should recognize the possibility that how people voted had nothing to do with any campaigns or policies, but simply reflects their pre-existing vaccination decisions.
This is true and the case pretty much everywhere now.
It is probably the real masterstroke, prepared by the ever more prevalent cancer of identity politics and the resulting resorting to solely ad hominem attacks on that basis, rather than discussing the arguments:
the creation of an ever larger main identity of ‘the vaccinated’ vs an ever smaller of ‘the unvaccinated’, similar to those of Brexiter and Remainer.
Which is why neither will end well, let alone be successful.
The salvation could be the shrinkage of the former due to natural and/or gene therapy created attrition, and due to more and more people joining the latter by refusing their boosters (see Israel).
Has the shagnasty Jeremy Vine got out of bed yet?
If he has he wants putting straight back in it..
Was there ever some expectation that direct democracy would somehow yield a positive result? Surely the most obvious thing about the last couple of years is that the majority is utterly terrified and will do anything to save their own bacon. The point is that we shouldn’t really care.
Dear Mike Hearn
Thanks for a brilliant article. At last one could read intelligently and pick over the arguments and observations. It’s really good to read a critical article too.
Like you, I’m not completely disheartened by the Swiss vote: at least a million people voted against the law. Let’s see how it goes from here.
It surely has to be time for violence now!?
talkRADIO
14 minutes ago
Greece will make Covid vaccines mandatory for people aged 60 and over.
Anybody over the age of 60 that refuses to get a jab will be fined £85 a month.
Oh crap. But the fools who get jabbed to avoid the £85 will be jabbed some more anyway. Everyone’s freedom is worth more than that. Greeks, to Thermopylae!
I guess the tax payers get to pay for it once if they use it and twice if they don’t
Fuckin hell.
This is why Sweden didn’t need to be attacked – they have already accepted the idea of govern me harder daddy – https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/11/sweden-get-covid-vaccine-passport-chip-hand-video/
Look at this- I don’t know how you verify this but this person seems to be saying that the vote was AGAINST the pass up until 4 minutes before the vote ended & then it changed -from 61% AGAINST the pass to 61% FOR. Apparently there were a number of matters to vote on and this was the only one which changed in this way
https://twitter.com/PedroGo24233917
Beware any photo or video evidence in the digital era, that said, I don’t trust the integrity of any vote or poll in the 21st century.
Unlike the author, I could (and did) vote against vaccine passports on principle, although I am myself vaccinated. I think you are right about the vote being principally to prevent further lockdowns, rather than in support of the vaccine passport itself. I think many Swiss see it as the only way of restoring any kind of freedom in the current climate – although that freedom has already evaporated if you happen to be travelling from the UK now, however many times you have been vaccinated (unbelievably, you face 10 days quarantine). I also think that there is an element of “Well I got vaccinated to open things up, not because I actually want it, so why can’t you?”. I think a further complication was the fact that the vote was not purely about vaccine passports, it also included other covid measures.
A majority supporting something does not make it right.
In the early 1930s pretty much the whole British establishment admired Hitler.
During the war people across the whole continent helped to load the murder trains.
The evil ideologies of that era were all justified on the overall grounds of public safety.
Most people supported them, or failed to act against them.
Whatever they may have said afterwards.
This evil of our time has to be resisted too.
I woke up in the night and decided that my role in the Resistance is that I will not wear a mask on the train.
Complying means I would not be true to myself.
I have found that it has needed moral courage (albeit not courage by the standards of our ancestors) but I have done it.
Small acts of Resistance are needed.
Nice article.
I don’t know how Imogen Foulkes gets away with it. She has been mailing it in as the BBC Swiss correspondent for all the time I have lived in Switzerland (nearly 11 years). I have read her articles on a number of topics and her day to day interactions with random Swiss people she meets on the street seem completely fabricated, compared to my experiences of Swiss people.
Interesting to note that the day after the vote BAG (Swiss Health Authority) announced that Moderna was not suitable for under 30 year olds.
PS does anyone know of any Swiss skeptical groups other than MassVoll!?
Thoroughly frightening string on Twitter explaining the expected mechanisms (plural) impacting pregnant women
https://t.me/s/robinmg
I’m afraid you have your head in the sand. Denial won’t make this go away.
There are biologically plausible reasons to anticipate this would happen & we were warned about it by several groups who weren’t bullied into silence.
1. We know that spike protein has pro-thromboembolic properties. That’s why there are clotting & bleeding events observed with all the vaccines. Obviously a “class risk” as they all cause expression if spike protein. Some of it circulates. Clots in almost every vessel & organ system has been associated w vaccination in VAERS.
The greatest uplift over background is pulmonary embolism (450X). Several are 100X background.
Why would the placenta be spared thus problem? I don’t think it is spared. When is the vulnerability greatest? 3rd trimester, when baby is drawing huge quantities of oxygen and nutrients, while needing to eliminate waste products, all accomplished via placenta. We know defects in placenta raise pregnancy loss greatly, especially late stage.
Additionally, there’s a 2nd toxicity risk: autoimmune attack on the placenta. Because syncytin-1 is weakly related to spike protein (good evolutionary reasons for that & few know that syncytin-1 is encoded by a gene which is viral in origin. It’s been joked that “had our ancestors not been infected by a particular virus, we’d still be laying eggs!”. So there is a familial relatedness between these proteins. With vaccination comes not only immune responses to spike, but also to syncytin-1. That’s been shown in women.
The only thing we don’t know is “does this matter? Does it raise risks of infertility or late fetal loss & perinatal mortality.
I seriously fear that we’re getting the answers to these questions IN REAL TIME. The vaccine pushers are conducting experiments on women & their unborn children, without consent, in breach of the Nuremberg Code.
Official Data shows huge increase in cases of Ovarian Cancer, and Deaths of New-Born Babies have hit Critical Levels; are the Covid-19 Vaccines to blame?
Data published by Public Health Scotland shows that cases of ovarian cancer in 2021 are much higher than the 2017-2019 average, and deaths of new-born babies have reached the upper warning threshold indicating factors beyond random variation may have contributed to the deaths…
https://dailyexpose.uk/2021/11/30/huge-increase-in-ovarian-cancer-and-new-born-deaths-covid-jab/
I don’t think the Swiss are as honest as they like to make out. Didn’t their banks make huge profits from particularly distasteful activities during WW2?
This wasn’t a single-issue vote on vaccine passports. I think people are reading too much into it. It was bundled with various other things such as widening the eligibility for welfare payments to people who were adversely affected by COVID, changes to voting rules to keep people “safe” and free COVID testing paid for by the federal government. It would have been odd if it hadn’t passed. https://www.edi.admin.ch/edi/de/home/dokumentation/abstimmungen/covid-19-gesetz.html
I mean, the vax passports are what matter to the No side, but the Yes camp would have seen it as a range of measures.
Some things should never be mandates. Whether, or how, they are voted on is not the main issue.
Houston Methodist doctor who is standing up for “right to try” and “off label” use of ivermectin. She has treated over 2,000 for covid, none hospitalized. Methodist hospital revoked her hospital privileges. Search youtube video id KVwm-KJvGzk and listen what she says. Get your Ivermectin while you still can! https://ivmpharmacy.com
The only place we see any wins against this juggernaut is America. Pockets of real pushback in courts and especially Florida. In the academics and De Sanctis.
Aside from that, it’s a seriously depressing picture.
Just the first domino to fall across the “developed” world. Just about everywhere the same dumb turkeys are queuing up for Christmas.
Sounds like not enough people were injured by these so-called vaccines.
Did people really think that the financial centre for the cabal would fall? Just look at their history.
I respect the Swiss for several reasons;…
Firstly because they had the amazing sense to keep (almost) out of two World Wars by being ‘bankers to the world’! All the rich people and Governments could not risk losing their private accounts! Honour to ‘the Gnomes of Zurich’!
Secondly, because they managed to escape the tentacles of the EU, despite all the pressure – I don/t know how…
Thirdly, because they are a small enough tightly-knit people to be able to hold, and to act upon, national referenda!
This is not about health it’s about the impostion of a global tyranny on the back of a manufactured medical emergency .. it’s about global Chinafication
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLTuS6tke4344WQD-vbvUTg
Please share far and wide this video needs to go viral
NO to digital medical passes .. Do NOT Consent .. Do NOT comply