The Case for Vaccine Passports is Feeble and Fading

The arguments given by those supporting vaccine passports sound impressive, but do they really hold water?

Last week I wrote 5 Reasons Why Vaccine Passports are an Ethical Disaster. It was met with plenty of praise and agreement—but more than a few rebuttals as well.

Some who disagreed with me are in open support of compulsory vaccinations; others simply believe that Christians have a moral duty to be vaccinated, whether the shot is mandatory or not. Below I respond to arguments made by those with either viewpoint.

1. “But we already need vaccine passports to travel to some countries.”

It is true that to visit some countries, you are required to present proof that you are immunised against diseases like smallpox, yellow fever or cholera.

But visiting the far-flung jungles of Africa or South America is worlds apart from visiting your local cafe, museum, church, workplace, or a nearby Australian state or territory. This is what the current vaccine passport debate is about.

These are apples-and-oranges comparisons. One is about the right of sovereign nations to determine who enters their borders and under what circumstances. The other is about freedoms that every Australian was born with, such as freedom of movement, association and assembly.

Advocates of vaccine passports are yet to explain why Australians should have these inalienable birthrights held hostage until they give up their medical autonomy.

2. “But flu vaccination is already mandated for entry into nursing homes.”

In some parts of Australia, people wanting to visit a loved one in a nursing home must show proof of an influenza vaccination before entry. Given that the primary purpose of a nursing home is to house and care for the elderly—who are on average much more vulnerable to influenza—there are obvious merits to such policies.

The same is true for ‘no jab, no play’ rules in childcare facilities. You don’t have to agree with these policies (I don’t) to see that the logic is to protect young children who are particularly susceptible to childhood diseases.

But to use this as the rationale for Covid-19 vaccine passports at all venues in the nation—which provide goods and services to people of all ages—is an extraordinary stretch. As such, an extraordinary amount of evidence must be provided by those arguing for it.

We know that while Covid-19 is a deadly disease for some, it is nowhere near as fatal to the general population as influenza is to the elderly. In fact, for the vast majority of people, both the original virus and its variants are no more (or less) dangerous than the flu.

Moreover, we know that while the Covid-19 vaccines reduce hospitalisations and deaths, they do not prevent transmission of the virus.

These facts do not constitute extraordinary evidence for forcing people to take a Covid-19 vaccine.

3. “But privately-owned venues are already allowed to ban smokers.”

Yes, privately-owned venues are allowed to ban smokers, but the minute a smoker removes the cigarette from their mouth, they can enter the venue. A patron visiting a particular establishment without shoes, a collared shirt or ID can likewise tidy themselves and freely enter.

Taking a vaccine is different. Vaccination is a medical treatment that, like all other medical treatments in Australia, is governed by the principle of informed consent.

Even if we entertain the comparison between taking a vaccine and disposing of a cigarette, privately-owned venues are still regulated by the government. A pub or restaurant cannot, for example, decide to exclude people who have HIV/AIDS. In NSW, ‘infectious diseases discrimination’ is against the law: this includes treating someone unequally on the assumption that they have or may acquire an infectious disease.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has so far indicated that the Federal Government won’t force venues to require proof of Covid-19 vaccination for entry: a welcome announcement. What is in question is whether the government should allow this kind of discrimination at all.

A strong case can be made that they should not. Renowned legal scholar Professor Augusto Zimmermann argues that vaccine passports “unconstitutionally impinge on the democratic principle of equality before the law and the free movement of Australian citizens within their own country.”

Whether we turn to Australia’s Constitution and subsequent case law, our nation’s anti-discrimination legislation, or even the ‘tolerance’ and ‘inclusion’ rhetoric that has dominated our airwaves for the last five years—Australian governments should be acting to prevent this kind of medical discrimination.

4. “But the government already mandates other safety measures.”

It has also been argued that since the government has the right to make us wear seatbelts or stop at traffic lights, they should also have the right to make us get a vaccine.

Once again, these situations are chalk and cheese. One of them involves obeying momentary directives; the other requires handing over one’s medical autonomy to the State without any assurance that the State will hand it back again.

Other nations such as Israel are already mandating a third booster shot and planning a fourth. These passports come with no sunset clause. It takes immense—one might argue naive—trust in government to assume that this infrastructure won’t be broadened by present and future governments.

5. “But other countries are already using vaccine passports.”

Other nations are indeed already using vaccine passports. But this has been met with considerable unrest, with mass protests breaking out in cities across Europe—even if corporate media outlets are being deliberately silent about these historical events.

Representative democracy was established so that a nation’s laws would reflect the will of its people. But when political leaders make unilateral decisions under emergency health orders, they effectively bypass the people’s will. Mass protests are an indication that a leader’s decisions may not accurately reflect the will of those who elected them.

The use of vaccine passports elsewhere does not mean Australia will inevitably follow suit. By speaking up on this issue, Australians can and should seek to influence the decision-making of their leaders.

It is also a flawed argument to suggest that Australia should mandate vaccines because other countries are doing so. Other nations allow grown men to marry child brides. Should we do the same? A nation’s laws should not be shaped by global groupthink but by the will of its citizens—ideally guided by God’s moral law.

6. “But vaccine passports will bring us greater freedom.”

The idea that vaccine passports will somehow grant us ‘greater freedom’ is a semantic trick that some political leaders have used and that many have believed and repeated.

It is a semantic trick because what is meant is not greater freedom but greater safety. Driven by exaggerated panic, people hope that vaccine mandates will deliver them freedom from fear or freedom from death. But to be clear, these are functional synonyms for safety.

The civic freedoms endangered by vaccine passports—such as freedom of movement and the right to bodily integrity—have precise definitions. More safety is always possible when we give up civil liberties. After all, one of the safest places in the world is solitary confinement; but that doesn’t make solitary confinement an optimal life choice.

In every case, we must ask whether the freedoms we give up—freedoms that our ancestors bled and died on foreign soil to protect—are worth the safety promised to us in that exchange. And we can hardly have a rational debate about such weighty matters when words are used to conceal rather than reveal someone’s true intent.

7. “But vaccine passports are just temporary.”

I have been asked why I assume vaccine passports will be permanent. But I believe this is the wrong question. A better question would be, why do you assume vaccine passports will be temporary?

At the beginning of 2020, if I had told you that the Australian government would force people to stay inside their homes for months at a time and only be allowed to exercise for an hour a day, would you have believed me?

What if I told you there would be mass unrest with police firing rubber bullets at unarmed protesters? What about state borders being shut at the drop of a hat? Military patrolling the city streets? Governments requiring you to tell them your every move, including—if you are single—which other individual you were liaising with?

Of course, every one of these measures has been justified as being “for the greater good”. But that’s precisely the point. In the name of public health and safety, the government’s role in our lives has only become more intrusive and onerous since the beginning of the pandemic.

It is not ‘acting out of fear’ to warn that the vaccine passports being rolled out now may end up becoming a permanent fixture of daily life. On the contrary, this is an entirely sober and realistic prediction—though one I would be delighted to be wrong about.

For context, in August, the World Health Organisation released an 80-page document providing ‘implementation guidance’ for vaccine passports. They aimed to equip all WHO member states to develop passports that are ‘interoperable’—that is, passports that can be used within and between all of the world’s nations.

Indeed, long before the Covid-19 pandemic began, the European Commission had laid out a roadmap to implement a standard vaccination passport for EU citizens.

There is a global mood for these passports. Governments are spending billions of dollars on them. Again, what would lead us to assume they are temporary?

8. “But no one is suggesting churches should ban the unvaccinated.”

Once again, in response to the question “Who is seriously considering barring unvaccinated people from church?” one could reply, “Who was seriously considering locking Australians inside their homes before 2020 began?”

But in answer to the question, ZimbabweNigeria, and Israel have all variously barred unvaccinated people from worship services.

Moreover, a recent Christianity Today article suggested that although limiting gatherings to only vaccinated congregants would be resisted by many churches, “the idea isn’t new [and] the use of health passes could become commonplace in the coming months.”

In an Australian context, the vocal and widespread opposition to The Ezekiel Declaration suggests that many Australian Christians are willing to exclude unvaccinated people from church services in the name of health and safety.

Before I could finish writing this article, the New South Wales government announced a soon-to-be-confirmed rule that places of worship must use vaccine passports to exclude the unvaccinated.

 

This eleventh-hour development is further evidence—if we needed it—that those still instinctively hoping for government leniency are letting themselves be led up the garden path.

9. “But the vaccines are safe.”

The vaccines have proven safe for the majority of those who have taken them. But this does not mean they should be mandated. Many things are healthy for us—whether vitamins, exercise or vegetables—that governments have no business forcing upon us.

It is important to note, however, that the vaccines have not been safe for everyone. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) reports that nine Australians have lost their lives as a direct result of taking a Covid-19 vaccine—one from Pfizer and eight from AstraZeneca.

(The TGA has received 490 further reports of death following a Covid-19 vaccination, but in these cases, a causal link to the vaccine was not explicitly confirmed).

Some 55,000 adverse events have been reported to the TGA in connection with the Covid-19 vaccines. Most of these were minor and short-lived, but some have been serious. Channel 7 reporter Denham Hitchcock, for example, has suffered debilitating complications since taking the jab.

In the United States, almost 14,000 deaths have been reported following a Covid-19 vaccination through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). This number represents 60 per cent of all vaccine deaths that have ever been reported to VAERS since it was set up in 1990.

Not all VAERS data is bias-free or accurate since reports are made to it voluntarily. But it is also true that reporting a death is a time-consuming task that comes with no personal benefit—and possible scrutiny—for any medical professional who submits it. So 14,000 is likely to be a floor rather than a ceiling for Covid-19 vaccine deaths in America.

In addition to this, some 650,000 adverse events have been reported to VAERS following a Covid-19 vaccination. Most of these are minor, but thousands of miscarriages, heart attacks, and permanent disabilities are included in this number.

Similar data can be seen in the UK’s Yellow Card reporting system and Europe’s EudraVigilance database.

Given that lockdowns, travel bans, and mask mandates were so often justified on the basis that they might save “even one life”, it is ironic if people now justify these deaths and injuries as mere collateral damage in the vaccine rollout.

It is also callous to suggest that any talk of vaccine deaths or injuries will harm the vaccine rollout. These are real people who have died or suffered in life-altering ways. Their lives matter as much as those we are seeking to protect from Covid-19.

10. “But the risk of Covid-19 outweighs the risk of the vaccine.”

It is true that, on balance, the risk posed by the virus outweighs the risk of taking the vaccine. But this fact comes as cold comfort for the person who dies from a vaccine and for the loved ones they leave behind.

This point was well-argued in a recent Caldron Pool article.

Caldron Pool likewise pointed out that human beings are not robots: we approach risk in different ways. Some people are so risk-averse that they never travel by aeroplane; others live for the thrill of BASE jumping or motocross despite the significant dangers of these sports. We all agree that these are decisions people should be free to make themselves, not have imposed on them by others.

Additionally, if given a choice between being killed ‘artificially’ at the hands of another person or by an event of nature that may happen sometime in the vague, unknowable future, most people would choose the latter. This explains why many young, healthy people with robust immune systems prefer to take their chance with the virus rather than the vaccine. This choice should be left to them, not forced on them.

Covid-19 is a highly discriminatory disease that poses particular dangers to the elderly, the immunocompromised, and those with co-morbidities. For such people, taking the vaccine is a no-brainer. But this is an argument for vaccines, not compulsory vaccines.

Let the healthy 18-year-old man who has just a 0.003 per cent chance of dying from Covid-19—but who could die of a vaccine complication—assess his risks each way, free of coercive mandates.

11. “But the unvaccinated could end up killing people.”

The Covid-19 vaccines have been shown to reduce hospitalisations and deaths significantly. But nations with high vaccination rates still see high rates of transmission and infection.

In other words, the benefit of the vaccine is almost entirely personal. It protects the person who takes it and may help slow transmission of the virus, but it cannot prevent them from passing it on to others.

Recent studies show that unlike immunity gained through natural infection, the vaccines do not give mucosal immunity; and that unvaccinated and fully vaccinated people carry similar viral loads.

So people should be encouraged to take the vaccine for their protection. But the idea that being vaccinated will render significant benefits to others is yet to be established. This is a wish; it is not a fact. Therefore, barring unvaccinated people from society is not only unethical; it is also ineffectual.

12. “But the healthcare system will be overwhelmed if you don’t get vaccinated.”

Now that most at-risk people have been vaccinated, the pressure on Australia’s healthcare system is significantly reduced, though modellers and governments remain vigilant.

For someone likely to need hospitalisation if they fall sick with Covid-19, it is a selfless act for them to be vaccinated. But this doesn’t mean it should be made mandatory for all people regardless of their risk profile.

13. “But Christians should give up their rights.”

Through his life and teachings, Jesus made it clear that we are to give up our rights for the benefit of others. Theoretically, this could be applied to freely deciding to get vaccinated. But it certainly doesn’t work for vaccine mandates: Jesus didn’t teach us to demand that others give up their rights for us—which is precisely what proponents of vaccine passports are arguing.

In fact, this teaching of Jesus would only apply to being vaccinated if, by taking the vaccine, I could prevent deaths in others. We are yet to see clear evidence of this in the case of the Covid-19 vaccines.

Furthermore, Jesus taught us to die to ourselves, but this command has limits. It is not ‘Christlike’ for someone to endure abuse, violence or sexual predation at the hands of their spouse. A similar example is Communism, where your rights and property are fully surrendered to the State—but this philosophy led to 150 million deaths. There must be a limiting principle to giving up our rights.

If someone has a very low risk of dying from Covid-19, and if the vaccine will not prevent them from spreading the virus to others, it may not make sense for them to take it. It certainly doesn’t make sense for us to force them to, nor would it be Christlike for us to demand this.

In fact, given that natural immunity has been found to be up to 13 times better than vaccine immunity, it could be argued that the most selfless thing for a young and healthy person to do is to contract the virus naturally and recover.

I often hear the criticism that Christians who disagree with vaccine mandates are selfish for demanding their rights. Actually, I have encountered very few Christians making this point.

Instead, I see Christians seeking to protect the rights and freedoms of those who, for a whole swathe of reasons, may not want or be able to take the vaccine. In making this stand, they are weathering a lot of opposition for the benefit of others; they are applying the teaching of Jesus to die to self.

Unfortunately, there are many today who are not conversant with history. We have had it so good for so long that we don’t understand the importance of civil liberties.

Freedoms are a safeguard, not a luxury. Human liberties protect the weak by restraining the powerful. It is the defence of freedom that has long prevented tyrants from terrorising ordinary people. The worst abuses of history were only made possible when fundamental freedoms were cast aside.

If you shrug off freedoms in the name of ‘loving your neighbour’, know that the neighbours you have chosen to love are the world’s powerful. And it is the powerless who will eventually pay the price. Instead, be like Jesus and sacrifice your popularity to defend the freedoms of others.

By all means, get vaccinated if you will. But don’t force others to: that is a demand we should not make.

By |2021-09-13T10:13:43+10:00September 7th, 2021|Australia, Freedom, Safety & Security|21 Comments

About the Author:

Kurt Mahlburg is Canberra Declaration's Research and Features Editor. He hosts his own blog at Cross + Culture and is also a contributor at the Spectator Australia, MercatorNet, Caldron Pool and The Good Sauce. Kurt is also a published author. His book Cross and Culture: Can Jesus Save the West? provides a rigorous analysis of the modern malaise in Western society and how Jesus provides the answer to the challenges before us.

Kurt has a particular interest in speaking the truths of Jesus into the public square in a way that makes sense to a secular culture and that gives Christians courage to do the same. Kurt has also studied architecture, has lived for two years in remote South-East Asia, and among his other interests are philosophy, history, surf, the outdoors, and travel. He is married to Angie and they live in Sydney's Northern Beaches.

21 Comments

  1. Ben Kolly September 7, 2021 at 7:22 pm - Reply

    Thank you for this well presented article

  2. Dai Hodges September 7, 2021 at 11:41 pm - Reply

    Shame on you for promoting this uneducated and undesirable view.

  3. Bill Muehlenberg September 8, 2021 at 10:40 am - Reply

    Fantastic piece as always Kurt. Keep up the great work.

    • Dorothy Harrison September 8, 2021 at 1:03 pm - Reply

      Awesome read .

  4. Heather Dellaca September 8, 2021 at 11:06 am - Reply

    Praise God for you Kurt. Thank you. Heather Dellaca Esperance.

  5. Heather Dellaca September 8, 2021 at 11:07 am - Reply

    Praise God for you Kurt. Thank you.

  6. Heather Zakrzewski September 8, 2021 at 1:18 pm - Reply

    Thank you Kurt for this great article and very helpful arguments. God’s blessings.

  7. Jeanette McHardy September 8, 2021 at 8:27 pm - Reply

    Excellent research and very constructive article. Thank you Kurt. Hopefully many will read it and learn from it. God bless you.

  8. Laureen Lusby. September 9, 2021 at 2:14 am - Reply

    Spot on, a rational argument without bias or malice.

  9. Lody September 9, 2021 at 7:07 am - Reply

    This is so good! Thank you .

  10. Karen Mace September 9, 2021 at 11:46 am - Reply

    Thank you for this thoughtful and rational argument. If only more Australians would research widely and think critically about the information we are being presented with every day.

  11. El Syd September 9, 2021 at 3:24 pm - Reply

    Very well argued case against vaccine passports. Thanks Kurt.

  12. Chris September 9, 2021 at 5:18 pm - Reply

    We’ve already accepted long term lockdowns and restrictions on things like church services in the name of public safety. Those measures have saved thousands upon thousands of lives. As we open up, if there’s less risk for vaccinated people, why not open up for them first? Why should we have to wait longer to go back to church when those who are vaccinated could meet safely, sooner?

    The argument about whether a passport would be temporary or not is a mute point untill we hear the answer, but are you therefore saying you’re okay with a passport if it has an end date? Or are you afraid to nail your colours to the mast on that one?

    I also don’t buy your answer to the point about the healthcare system being overwhelmed. Even in the middle of lockdown NSW hospitals are struggling, and have plenty of patients who according to your stats should have expected to be a lower risk. Delta’s certainly changed that. Modelling shows that when we open up we’re expecting to see thousands of deaths, even with a good level of vaccination. It’s going to be a tough 6-12 months when we’re going through that, so restrictions should be expected… and if there are restrictions, why not tougher restrictions on those that are the higher risk, like the unvaccinated?

    Lastly, all well and good to say that people might not want a vaccine for ‘all sorts of reasons’. But what about biting the bullet and actually talking about what those reasons are and which ones are valid and which ones are stupid? Or are you commited to the idea that as long as someone’s got a reason, no matter how whack, we should respect that? I for one think it would be much better to encourage people to be sensible and rational. And as much as I believe in freedom, if we all had that attitude and refused a vaccine it would mean a death sentance for plenty of others.

    • PP September 9, 2021 at 7:22 pm - Reply

      “The argument about whether a passport would be temporary or not is a mute point untill we hear the answer”

      I really must disagree with you on this, Chris.

      No government is going to come out and say “this thing is going to be around forever”. Instead, we’ll get soft-pedalled things like “as long as we have need”, which is sufficiently ambiguous to read it as you want. After all, how can a health official put an end date on the system when no end date exists on the pandemic.

      So instead of waiting for an official answer, let’s just look around us instead and reason it out ourselves…

      COVID: It’s rampant in every country on the planet (even New Zealand is still battling things). It’s mutated hundreds of times since it’s launch last year. It’s highly transmissable, and difficult to detect during the infectious stages. It will take a very very long time to eradicate world-wide… and unless we suddenly develop a set of super long-term super effective vaccines, we’re going to suffer outbreaks even in vaccinated populations for the foreseeable future. I’m not stating this with any sense of panic or misgivings by the way… this is just simply the facts of how this virus has and will continue to behave.

      It’s very clear that COVID is not going anywhere any time soon. If COVID is going to remain a risk to the world for the next X years, it makes sense that any passport system will remain active for at least as long. As there’ll be no global COVID D-Day, when will there be impetus on governments to deactivate the passport system and framework?

      It’s pretty straightforward to predict the system will be in use for years. 5-10 years is not an unreasonable guess, given we’re 1.5 years into this already, and still have every country struggling to cope. After 5-10 years have passed… who’s going to remember what life was like before these passports?

      If you want to believe this measure will be temporary, that is of course your opinion to carry. But… I’d be laying long odds against this being the case.

      Just because it seems to matter to you… I am vaccinated… I firmly believe in the good vaccinations do, especially now with COVID. But… I do not want a compulsory vaccine passport system in place. I think the temptation of such a system will be too much, and no government would ever put it down once it exists (billions of dollars of investment agree with me).

  13. Andrew Herbig September 9, 2021 at 5:29 pm - Reply

    Intelligent, balanced and succinct summary of all the evidence that you have to dig for. Thanks for being a leading example of Christ to us in this particular matter.

  14. Chris September 10, 2021 at 10:21 am - Reply

    Thanks. So if it was temporary you’d be okay with it, you just don’t think it will be? I’m not in the game of predicting how long it will last…. you may well be right and hopefully not of course… but for me the pressure on the government should be not to rule it out completely but to give it a time limit. I’m not a fan of a ‘as long as it takes’ sort of thing as you say. If the government was going to say we’re going to do this untill mid 2022, then it would have my support.

    • PP September 10, 2021 at 1:48 pm - Reply

      “So if it was temporary you’d be okay with it, you just don’t think it will be?”

      Exactly!

      The concerning part for me with the this approach is not what happens immediately after passage, but what happens in 1-2 years time.

      Government programs like this tend to generate systems and industries that sustain themselves well beyond their value. Just look at the governments’ COVIDSafe app… it’s still being funded to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars per month, despite being a complete and utter failure.

      Any “passport” type mechanism needs a clear expiry limit in place, and most importantly a defined plan for how the effectiveness of this system would be balanced against the rights of individuals. Historically speaking, governments do not have a great track record of retiring these kinds of things. Just look at the US Patriot Act passed after the Sept 11 attacks in 2001. Despite being initially intended to only last 4 years, this was not retired until 2020!!!

      I can’t think of an equivalent to this vaccine passport system that the government has created and then deactivated in living memory. As such, there is no prior record to point at to provide assurances today.

      • Chris September 10, 2021 at 7:18 pm - Reply

        Yep well said. Surprised the question about a time limit hasn’t been pushed harder. I note Denmark has removed vaccine passport requirements this week after using them for 6 months. Hopefully most countries follow…. A temporary tool to get us through! As you’ve said, I’m not hugely optimistic on that!

  15. jessie skelly September 10, 2021 at 9:02 pm - Reply

    Well done Kurt! Great read brother and well articulated. I always appreciate your perspective. Bless ya

  16. N S September 11, 2021 at 9:15 pm - Reply

    My thought is, how long does these “jabs” last for. I have heard it said, that the Pharma’s providing these “jabs” don’t know. What does that mean? Continual jabs until when? What is that going to look like in our bodies over time? Moderna & others funded ‘jabs’ by Bill Gates, he has stated he convinced the jab to forego the ‘safety tests’ to just get the ‘jab’ out?? Where’s the care or ethics about any detrimental effects on those who suffer or worse still die (under duress to earn a living maybe) by taking these ‘jabs’? Isn’t the human race more precious than ‘just getting it out? And of course, why not? “No ethical safety transparency or personal responsibility required” is there, for these pharma’ creations, just get it out & to heck with human consequences!! SAFETY we say? For who?? How can anyone know how or what may occur, not just now, but way down the track? But if do, it couldnt be bcause of the ‘jabs’? Really, how do you know?.where’s the proven safety checks? Mmm…Tough you may say, as long as others may live (& there is no proof of how long for, or even SAFETY from catching the virus again). There is lot of fear & panic, but where’s the logical ‘safe’ plan for all human kind? You know, sometimes unless it has hurt us personally, we don’t seem to care or even worry too much. But when people, young & full of life, no pre-conditions, can be killed within one day, after taking the ‘jab’ & there are many others, especially elderly?? Why? Because we didnt WAIT to make sure these ‘jabs’ are SAFE? Which is what this is all about isnt it? Keeping SAFE!! Having people SAFE!! Doesn’t SAFETY start first with those who produce these ‘jabs’? BUT, no one has to take responsibility at all (Pharma’s) – they are SAFELY protected to do what they wish?? Cudos to those who survive the ‘jabs’, not just now but for all the future – because we dont really know what is really being injected into our bodies?? But hey, SAFETY for all – except those whose lives are cut short or maimed for the cause! How noble we may think we are!! Pushing a ‘jab’, thinking an NO SAFEL Y produced ‘vaccine creation’ is better, than the SAFETY of all the human race. At least if SAFETY had been NO.1, we would have a better understanding why some may unforunately have fallen!! But we(the human race) dont, do we!!

    PS. Bill Gates has doubled his ‘wealth’ since investing in vaccines not long ago. He isnt the other oligarc (?) that has ‘invested’ in these SAFELY UNTESTED ‘jabs’. Unfortunately too many passes are given to the $$$ & not enough in the security of people’s lives.

    PSS. I purposely chose Bill Gates, becsuse he is the one I know that has openly confessed his guilt without apology.

  17. Lisa September 12, 2021 at 12:42 pm - Reply

    Thank you Kurt for so eloquently writing what many of us have been thinking.
    It was very encouraging, supportive, and helpful to read your words.
    May God continue to further your work.
    Blessings in Christ.
    Lisa Mawson

Leave A Comment