The world is changing fast and to keep up you need local knowledge with global context.
Vaccine mandates in 2022 – A failure of leadership
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation sponsor just about every deceptively credible source cited in support of vaccination and vaccine mandates, Pfizer’s claims about their vaccine’s efficacy are demonstrably false. Companies introducing mandatory vaccination are violating their employee’s bodily integrity – and effectively rendering jobless those who refuse. And to top it all, human beings are scientifically proven to naively and credulously accept whatever initial evidence is dished up to them – meaning that globally, political, academic and scientific leaders are stuck in Beta and Delta Covid-19 response mode, unable to adapt to emerging evidence showing how much of the global hoo-hah is built on a house of straw, let alone Covid-19 posing much of a threat. Read on for an alternative reality to the one we’re dished up every day. And then decide for yourself. – Chris Bateman
Vaccine mandates in 2022 – A failure of leadership
In 1993, researchers at Harvard University conducted an experiment in which the subjects were asked to read a series of statements that were colour-coded to indicate if they were true or false. Unsurprisingly, those subjects who were placed under time pressure or purposefully distracted during the exercise made errors in their recollection of the veracity of the statements. However, it was surprising that the errors were not random. When placed under any sort of pressure, the subjects presumed all of the statements were true, irrespective of their colour-coding. The lead researcher, Daniel Gilbert said of the way we form beliefs: “People are credulous creatures who find it very easy to believe and very difficult to doubt.”
A second experiment, in 1994, asked study subjects to read messages about a warehouse fire. Some mentioned the fire starting near a cupboard of paint cans and pressurised gas cylinders so that the subjects presumed a connection. Five messages later, subjects received a correction message that the cupboard was in fact empty. However, in answer to questions about the fire, the subjects continued to mention negligence in leaving paint and other flammable objects nearby. It turns out that, for evolutionary reasons, our brains, by default, trust what we are told.
These two experiments perhaps offer the only acceptable explanation for why certain South African leaders, CEO’s and vice-chancellors, implemented mandatory vaccination policies and if we are kind to them, perhaps this is also an explanation for why they persist in implementing these policies.
Reading the definition of “Vaccine” in the Occupational Health and Safety Direction, it is clear that when it was drafted back in May 2021, the Department of Health thought a vaccine was coming that would inoculate patients against infection and contribute to the attainment of herd immunity. If that vaccine existed, and was safe, it could make the workplace safer.
By the time companies started implementing the policies, it was clear to those who were paying attention that the vaccines did not reduce viral transmission and that mandating vaccination would not make the spaces in which they were applied any safer. Since then, three things have happened that should have been the nail in the coffin of mandatory vaccination. Firstly, omicron underlined the fact that Covid was no longer (and probably was never) the healthcare emergency that it had been advertised to be by those seeking to profit from it. In addition, the public contrived to share early treatments that healthcare bodies mysteriously refused to introduce. The controversy around Andrew Hill’s meta-analysis of Ivermectin and Dr Peter McCollough’s appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast shone a light on these issues.
Secondly, evidence in the form of scientific studies and real world data proved that the vaccines do not reduce transmission or infection and do not contribute to herd immunity. Policy after policy mentioned “incontrovertible evidence” in support of the vaccines without referencing such evidence and when employees asked to see it, the companies and Universities were unable to supply it.
Finally, safety concerns reached alarm levels as the various vaccine adverse events reporting systems from around the world were overwhelmed with reports of adverse events, including deaths, related to the vaccines. Those concerns have now reached a crescendo as a result of a slew of events impacting sportsmen and women, the public reporting the events on social media (#VaccineSideEffects) and the damning evidence emerging from the access to information releases on the Pfizer clinical trials earlier this month. The data showed that Pfizer knew of a host of vaccine side effects – ‘sudden death’ included – that were not disclosed and whose very existence regulators were denying.
Under immense pressure and fear, leaders of these institutions were motivated to believe the initial claims that the coming vaccines would protect against infection and transmission and to this day are reluctant to abandon that belief. Universities announced coming vaccine policies long before they had passed through the proper internal approval channels. CEOs waxed lyrical about “moral” obligations to force people to compromise their bodily integrity. Statements were made about dangerous misinformation that dripped in condescension and worse when one considers the answer to the question, “Who are the actual individuals who, like lemmings, will march to their deaths if we don’t shut up the PANDAs of this world?”
When those who had made the initial claims that “the vaccines protect against infection” segued to “the vaccines prevent serious illness and death”, then to “the vaccines prevent hospitalisations and death,” then to “they prevent death” and finally to “they are the best option we have,” it proved too difficult for many leaders to adapt to the new reality. They have instead retreated into ever shrinking echo chambers.
Many things have changed over the last few months. For one thing, we know because the FDA’s attempts to hide the Pfizer data for 75 years failed and that efficacy of the vaccines against transmission was not an endpoint in the trial. This means that the actual clinical trials told us nothing about how effective the vaccine was in preventing transmission, despite the claims made in this regard. What followed was a series of observational studies, which are considered low quality evidence, and these on balance showed that the vaccines did not prevent infection or transmission, left the vaccinated with the same viral loads as the unvaccinated and had negative efficacy against infection (being vaccinated made you more likely to contract the Omicron variant). As bigger waves in many countries across the world were experienced after the rollout of vaccines than before, despite millions of vaccinations having been administered, the game was finally up. The vaccines clearly do not prevent a person from becoming infected and they do not reduce transmission of the virus. No one who denies this reality deserves to be in a leadership position.
Last week, one of South Africa’s top law firms announced that from 1 April those who are not “fully vaccinated” will not be allowed into the firm’s offices. That’s 1 April 2022! This is after Medi-Clinic, an actual hospital where people go when they are sick rather than when they want to buy a house or get divorced, abandoned their mandatory vaccination policy. Other companies, like Momentum have also been brave enough to realise the error of their ways. The law firm’s ban applies not only to unvaccinated staff, but to anyone coming to their offices. What’s more, the definition of “fully vaccinated” (i.e. which vaccines are acceptable and how many of them you have to have had) is “in the discretion of the firm”.
Old Mutual was one of the first companies in South Africa to opt for mandatory vaccination, announcing their scheme in November 2021. The Policy birthed a vibrant employee resistance movement. Recently, their CEO, Ian Williamson, announced that, under threat of losing their livelihoods, 16,000 employees have taken a COVID-19 vaccine. At last count in 2018, Old Mutual had 31,000 employees, although a figure of 22,000 has also been referenced. Either way, thousands of people working for Old Mutual, who have had months to get vaccinated, appear to be prepared to lose their jobs in order to avoid vaccination.
Old Mutual of course had to find a way to keep those employees. It decided to allow unvaccinated workers to come to the office provided they get a PCR test. Ironically, the Disaster Management Act no longer requires people who test positive to isolate. They must, in addition, be symptomatic. There is therefore no doubt that Old Mutual’s new requirement has no basis in science but is merely a further coercive measure. The amendment was met with this response from those who had been forced to take the injection.
A few days later, an employee penned a stirring piece containing the following:
“[The workforce is] divided, demotivated and angry, no matter which side of the divide they lie.” “Having to work with (or for) someone who wanted you either violated or homeless, is not to be forgiven.” “Pleas from the staff to take recent data and research into consideration as well as the lack of vaccine effectiveness against Omicron, natural immunity, the ability to work from home, potential short and unknown long term risks, personal experiences with adverse effects – all fell on deaf ears.”
The situation is reminiscent of that described in a piece that went viral in 2021 describing the demise of a fictitious insurance company and as the Old Mutual employee notes,
“The great irony of this lose-lose situation is its timing – two more months and it would have been obvious that the vaccines don’t work against Omicron, and that Omicron isn’t a public health emergency.”
Williamson, however, still sees gas cylinders at the fire. He says his stance is supported by expert advice Old Mutual took from Professor Salim Abdool Karim. Karim was of course the leader of the Ministerial Advisory Committee, he holds patents in vaccine technology and has been vociferous in his support of vaccines. He is a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation which is, together with another Gates-sponsored institution, GAVI, the largest contributor to the World Health Organisation and a major investor in vaccine technology. That same organisation has pumped grants of about R46 million into CAPRISA, the organisation of which Karim is the director. Karim is also Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) of the University of Kwa-Zulu Natal which has received approximately R150 million in grants from the Gates Foundation and he is also an Adjunct Professor at Harvard and Cornell Universities, which have also received millions from the Gates Foundation. Karim has served as the president of the South African Medical Research Council, a government body that has received over R350 million in grants from the Gates Foundation. Of course, Old Mutual did not turn to Karim as a neutral advisor. They turned to a single source known for his support of vaccines.
To be clear, Old Mutual is not alone. TheRedList.co.za keeps a tally of all of the companies who maintain mandatory vaccination policies. The National Black Consumer Council recently singled out Woolworths for its plans to introduce mandatory vaccination, prompting other organisations to join the call for a boycott.
A number of Universities have also tried to implement policies for students, even though there is no law that permits them (the Directions only apply to employees). Where actual policies have been implemented, there have been protests and lawsuits.
UCT has been talking up mandatory vaccination since September 2021 when its Senate, a body that has no power to introduce such measures, announced that it had voted in favour of a mandate. The Press ran with the narrative that students would need to be vaccinated long before the Council had even met to discuss the matter. In December, the University held “student engagement sessions” in which unreferenced pro-vaccine information was presented by individuals with conflicts of interests, ranging from Gates Foundation funding to pharmaceutical industry ties, that were never disclosed. Although the University encouraged students to “follow the science”, when challenged by PANDA to present the science they claimed to be relying upon, the University was unable to respond.
In January, the UCT Law Students Council was forced to apologise for spreading misinformation that a mandatory vaccination policy had been approved for UCT. In fact, there is no such policy in place at the University, and if a policy is implemented as planned later this year, human rights organisations have already put the University on notice that litigation will follow. Parents have also stated that they will sue for recovery of fees they paid in advance.
In a post-Omicron world, with mandates falling the world over, the writing was on the wall and someone at UCT obviously thought it time to appease the funders. The University’s communication and marketing department released a media statement that got about as much attention as the final credits of the Cats movie. In it, they dutifully repeated the mantras “COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective,” and severe side effects are “very rare”. Even after the fraud involved in the Pfizer vaccine clinical trials has been reported in medical journals, the statement claims that, “[T]he studies published to support the use of COVID-19 vaccines have been conducted within the same ethical, regulatory and operational framework that is required for all new medical products.”
There is only one scientific reference provided in the UCT statement. This is a research article from June 2021 that notes that, “most trials only reported efficacy in the group of participants followed more than two weeks after the last vaccination and only reported adverse events for a confined time. Accordingly, we may look at biased results.” The paper also admits that in all of the studies that looked at all-cause mortality (which would take into account not only vaccine efficacy, but also vaccine side effects), the data was found to be compatible with a finding of zero efficacy for the vaccine. Hardly data that supports mandating the vaccine!
Instead of giving us a bibliography of the science they relied on, UCT instead supplied a list of sources that they say provide accurate information. The cast of characters behind these “reliable sources” of information is unsurprising. The Gates Foundation funds the first “reliable” source, the UCT Institute of Infectious Disease and Molecular Medicine. Other funders include the South African government, the Wellcome Trust, Discovery, AstraZeneca and Merck. Global Citizen, the second “reliable” source, is an advocacy organisation with no medical or scientific qualifications that is funded by the Gates Foundation, actively supported by “global citizens” Bill and Melinda Gates. The third “reliable” source is the Desmond Tutu Health Foundation which, in 2021 alone received more than R190 million from … you guessed it … the Gates Foundation. Is it surprising that all of these organisations say the same thing and that they produce information that is consistently pro-vaccine? Of course not. As in the case of Old Mutual, UCT doesn’t recommend these sources because they are reliable or independent. They are effectively the same source and UCT recommends them because it knows those sources will agree with mandates.
As more and more adverse events are linked to the vaccines, companies and institutions that coerced or forced their employees to be vaccinated are increasingly exposed to liability. The state of the current science is such that they will not be able to show an impartial court that these vaccines make the workplace safer or that the limitation on individual fundamental rights is commensurate with the mild advantages that are still claimed for the vaccines. In this regard, the latest mantra is, “The vaccines are not perfect but they are “the best we can do.” “The best we can do” is the new, “Flatten the Curve,” the new “Build back better” – a vacuous phrase designed by think tanks like the World Economic Forum. Shooting rubber bands at the stars is useless at stopping an alien invasion, but it is “the best we can do”.
Mandatory vaccination was never a good idea. It is fundamentally wrong. It is not only fundamentally wrong to hold someone down and inject them, it is also wrong to threaten them with losing their livelihoods. In a country where about 50% of the working population is unemployed, imposing a vaccine passbook is tantamount to holding them down and forcibly injecting them. Mandatory vaccination is, however, not only morally wrong, it is also senseless in the context of COVID. The vaccines we have quite clearly do not prevent infection or transmission and therefore cannot possibly make the workplace a safer place.
Leaders who implement mandatory vaccination in March 2022, when the evidence before them is clear, do not deserve to be in leadership positions and there will be a swift reckoning for them potentially involving a high financial price. Our message to those leaders who implemented these policies and have not yet abandoned them is this: remember that you are a credulous creature programmed not to doubt and to believe what you’ve heard.
- ‘Too much too late’ – mandatory vaccination
- Mandatory vaccination, passports make no sense in SA context – Gauteng anaesthetist
- Nick Hudson of PANDA on recent events indicating that, finally, the tide behind the official Covid-19 narrative may be turning
Cyril Ramaphosa: The Audio Biography
Listen to the story of Cyril Ramaphosa's rise to presidential power, narrated by our very own Alec Hogg.