Contact Tracing, Testing and ultimately forced Quarantine are the next big step, we are told, to opening up the economy. Governor Little placed the state of Idaho in a state of extreme emergency and implemented IC 46-601 placing the entire state under martial law. Data gathered since March 26, 2020, reflects that the COVID-19 illness accounts for the death of one person a day in Idaho. Using this current data, it’s hard to consider that Idaho is under an extreme emergency situation (other than the one created by Governor Little’s reaction to COVID-19).
However, Governor Little IGNORING the statistical data announced Idaho will invest $7 million from the federal CARES Act to expand its contact-tracing capabilities, with plans to employ 255 contact tracers statewide to test and trace citizens of Idaho.
The lack of privacy should be of great concern to every American. Parents are especially alarmed by the CDC comments that there would need to be ‘social services’ to wrap around to those who are contacted, tested, and confirmed positive.
Miste Karlfeldt, of Health Freedom Idaho, discusses these concerns with Attorney Colton Boyles of Boyles Law. Together they hope to empower parents by giving them the legal tools to make fundamental decisions for their families. They hope to inspire We The People to stand firm on their natural rights which are protected by the Constitution.
The CDC Contact tracing manual calls on state health departments to provide ‘social services’ support to families that might not have the resources to quarantine in a single room in the house. Single parents and those living in generational living situations are the targets of social service support which could include the removal of uninfected children from the home by social services. (page 37)
Contact Tracing and YOUR KIDS!
The COVID Tracing Manual for Idaho proposes creating five priority levels for testing. At the top of the pyramid is health care workers who have COVID symptoms and residents of nursing homes. At the next level are the inmates and employees of the state’s correctional facilities.
Governor Brad Little says the state needs to also step up its contact tracing abilities. He says Idaho is on its way to having 500 people as CONTACT TRACERS.
A new report out from the CDC shows the death rate from the virus is likely 0.2% -THAT’S 2 TENTHS OF A PERCENT- very similar to what many doctors and scientists have been saying all along. That’s very similar to a bad flu season. At the same time more research is showing the virus is more widespread than believed meaning tens of millions have been exposed and had very mild symptoms or no symptoms.
In addition, the CDC reverses its stance, no longer is the virus believed to stay on surfaces for extended periods of time.
Maybe we shouldn’t be so afraid?? The curve has been flattened. The hospitals were not overwhelmed like what we saw in Italy.
Mission accomplished. It’s time to re-open. Not according to Governor Little!
In fact, he announced May 22 a massive ramp-up of Testing. His power trip completely ignores the data, statistics, and recommendations have changed since the formation of the task force. Governor Little presses on using funds he allocated without legislative input to invade the privacy of the citizens.
1st COMES PRIVACY INVASION via TESTING
Idaho Press Reports;
The strategy, which a governor-appointed task force of both public- and private-sector experts has been formulating over the past month, calls for expanding Idaho’s testing capacity, now at roughly 18,000 to 23,000 tests per week, up to at least 150,000 tests per week.
“The testing demands of COVID-19 are unprecedented,” said Dr. Christopher Ball, director of the Idaho Bureau of Laboratories and co-chair of the testing task force.
Little, at an in-person but socially distanced press conference in the Capitol’s Lincoln Auditorium, said, “A strong economic rebound can only occur with a combination of efforts, and expanded and targeted testing is a big part of our strategy.”
“We have an impressive team of very capable local clinical and laboratory and research experts from across the state helping us navigate this crisis, and I sincerely appreciate their help,” the governor said.
The new strategy lays out five priority groups for testing, with the first two to be targeted right away. “An example of a Priority 1 is any symptomatic health care worker,” Ball said. Another example is residents of nursing homes, whether or not they show symptoms. “For this group, testing that provides a same-day result is ideal,” he said. Priority 1 testing alone is estimated to require about 17,000 tests per week.”
THEN COMES FORCED QUARANTINE THRU CONTACT TRACING
After testing, comes Contact Tracing. What does that involve? This individual took the training to become a certified Contact Tracer and reports on it.
A group of concerned citizens filed to petition for recall. Their filing was approved and they have until August 11, 2020 to return 183,523 signatures.
Those signatures must come from registered voters.
He has shown his inability to listen to the voice of the people by calling in the legislature, elected officials that speak on behalf of the citizens.
He has created martial law and extended it without any clear indication of crisis.
He has taken Idaho from a thriving economy to 100,000’s of individuals without work, closing down small businesses and putting families at risk.
Comments from those participating in the Recall of Governor Little
Not Convinced?
MORE ON THE CDC NUMBERS:
“…If you are under 65, in reasonably good health and do not have a vitamin D deficiency, you have only a tiny chance of dying from COVID-19.
And if you are younger than 34, your chances of dying from the virus are so small as to be almost statistically undetectable.
On the other hand, if you are 85 or older, are in a nursing home, have serious health problems and a vitamin D deficiency, you may be in real danger if you are exposed to the virus — but only a tiny portion of the population is in such a condition.”
The CDC just came out with a report that should be earth-shattering to the narrative of the political class, yet it will go into the thick pile of vital data and information about the virus that is not getting out to the public. For the first time, the CDC has attempted to offer a real estimate of the overall death rate for COVID-19, and under its most likely scenario, the number is 0.26%. Officials estimate a 0.4% fatality rate among those who are symptomatic and project a 35% rate of asymptomatic cases among those infected, which drops the overall infection fatality rate (IFR) to just 0.26% — almost exactly where Stanford researchers pegged ita month ago.
Until now, we have been ridiculed for thinking the death rate was that low, as opposed to the 3.4% estimate of the World Health Organization, which helped drive the panic and the lockdowns. Now the CDC is agreeing to the lower rate in plain ink.
Plus, ultimately we might find out that the IFR is even lower because numerous studies and hard counts of confined populations have shown a much higher percentage of asymptomatic cases. Simply adjusting for a 50% asymptomatic rate would drop their fatality rate to 0.2% – exactly the rate of fatality Dr. John Ionnidis of Stanford University projected.
Delayed surgeries and treatments for profound illnesses
Infringed upon countless important civil liberties
Placed 300 million Americans on house arrest
Not all is lost, the world’s 25 RICHEST individuals have gained $255 billion in the past 2 months
Our Governor has unbridled power is ignoring the Idaho Constitution, suspending almost 200 rules, messing with the election, allocating millions of dollars of funds to invade the privacy of the citizens while ruining the livelihoods of 1000’s
And the censorship keeps the masses naive and hostile
“All these doctors and nurses say COVID is dangerous but these people on Facebook who barely passed high school science say it safe” – troll commenting on a post regarding the CDC estimates
The doctors who have come out to question the narrative have been shut down and censored by the channels that could reach the masses.
Chemicals used for decades in hundreds of consumer products – including DuPont’s Teflon and 3M’s Scotchgard – are hazardous for human health and for the environment. PFOA and its cousin, PFOS, never break down in the environment. They build up in people’s bodies, and can be passed from mother to child in the womb and though breast milk.By the 1970s, DuPont and 3M had used them to develop Teflon and Scotchgard, and they slipped into an array of everyday products, from gum wrappers to sofas to frying pans to carpets. Known as perfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, they were a boon to the military, too, which used them in foam that snuffed out explosive oil and fuel fires.
It’s long been known that, in certain concentrations, the compounds could be dangerous if they got into water or if people breathed dust or ate food that contained them. Tests showed they accumulated in the blood of chemical factory workers and residents living nearby, and studies linked some of the chemicals to cancers and birth defects.
Now two new analyses of drinking water data and the science used to analyze it make clear the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Defense have downplayed the public threat posed by these chemicals. Far more people have likely been exposed to dangerous levels of them than has previously been reported because contamination from them is more widespread than has ever been officially acknowledged.
Moreover, ProPublica has found, the government’s understatement of the threat appears to be no accident. The EPA and DOD have quite deliberately chosen not to use the most advanced tools or to collect the most comprehensive data on contamination, researchers say.
The EPA and the Department of Defense calibrated water tests to exclude some harmful levels of contamination and only register especially high concentrations of chemicals, according to the vice president of one testing company. Several prominent scientists told ProPublica the DOD chose to use tests that would identify only a handful of chemicals rather than more advanced tests that the agencies’ own scientists had helped develop which could potentially identify the presence of hundreds of additional compounds.
“If you were going to spend $200 million testing DoD sites across the country, wouldn’t you want to test for all of the chemicals you know you used?” asked Jane Williams, executive director of California Communities Against Toxics, who has been active on chemical cleanup issues at Defense sites.
“It’s almost like a deliberate thing, where you’re going to tell people their water is safe to drink, and you know that you have a gap in your testing and you know that you haven’t found all of the chemicals in the water.” The new analyses suggest these findings likely represent just a fraction of the true number of people and drinking water systems affected.
Scientists are only now beginning to understand the importance of the information the government is choosing to leave out. Field has found, for example, not only that there are more variations of PFAS compounds, but that some degrade over time into PFOS or PFOA, or, like PFBS, travel faster in the environment, making them predictors for other contaminants soon to come.
“Widespread contamination may be harming the health of millions or even tens of millions of Americans and the government is intentionally covering up some of the evidence,” said Erik Olson, a senior director for health, food and agriculture initiatives at the Natural Resources Defense Council, in an interview. The EPA and Defense Department “have done all they can to sort of drag their feet and avoid meaningful regulatory action in making significant investment in cleanups.”
Unlike nearly every other company in America, pharmaceutical companies have almost no liability for injuries caused by their vaccine products.
By granting immunity from actual or potential liability from injuries caused by vaccines, Congress eliminated the market forces that are generally relied upon to assure the safety of all other products. As the 1986 Act expressly provides: “No person may bring a civil action … against a vaccine administrator or manufacturer in a State or Federal court for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death.” Every pediatric vaccine recommended by the CDC creates for its manufacturer a liability-free captive market of 78 million children with guaranteed payment. So, who is there making sure vaccines are SAFE since manufacturers have no financial incentive do to so.
ICANspent months researching the state of vaccine safety in the United States. The shocking result of this effort was presented to the heads of the National Institutes of Health with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in May of 2017.
The information contained in that presentation has been distilled into an easy to read, thorough white paper that goes through many of the shortcomings and failures of the vaccine safety program. This is PART 2 of that paper.
In 2016, the IOM formally changed its name to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Explained by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) 1, by 1986, the “litigation costs associated with claims of damage from vaccines had forced several companies to end their vaccine research and development programs as well as to stop producing already licensed vaccines.”2
Instead of letting market forces compel vaccine makers to create safer vaccines, Congress granted pharmaceutical companies, financial immunity from injuries caused by vaccines recommended by the CDC. 3 Congress did so by passing the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (the 1986 Act). 4
By granting immunity from actual or potential liability from injuries caused by vaccines, Congress eliminated the market forces that are generally relied upon to assure the safety of all other products.
As the 1986 Act expressly provides: “No person may bring a civil action… against a vaccine administrator or manufacturer in a State or Federal court for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death.”5
The 1986 Act even shields vaccine makers from liability where it is clear and unmistakable that the vaccine in question could have been designed safer. 6As recently explained in a U.S. Supreme Court opinion: [N]o one—neither the FDA nor any other federal agency, nor state and federal juries—ensures that vaccine manufacturers adequately take account of scientific and technological advancements. This concern is especially acute with respect to vaccines that have already released and marketed to the public. Manufacturers… Will often have little or no incentive to improve the designs of vaccines that are already generating significant profit margins.7
Recognizing that the 1986 Act eliminated the incentive for vaccine makers to assure the safety of their vaccine products, the 1986 Act explicitly places this responsibility in the hands of the United States Department of Health & Human Services (HHS).8
As provided in the 1986 Act, HHS is responsible for “research … to prevent adverse reactions to vaccines,” “develop[ing] the techniques needed to produce safe … vaccines,” “safety … testing of vaccines,” “monitoring … adverse effects of vaccines,” and “shall make or assure improvements in … the licensing, manufacturing, processing, testing, labeling, warning, use instructions, distribution, storage, administration, field surveillance, adverse reaction reporting, … and research on vaccines in order to reduce the risks of adverse reactions to vaccines.”9
Since passage of the 1986 Act, the number of required pediatric vaccines has grown rapidly. In 1983, the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule included 11 injections of 4 vaccines.10
As of 2017, the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule includes 56 injections of 30 different vaccines. It is only when the CDC adds a vaccine to its recommended vaccine schedule that the manufacturer is granted immunity from liability for vaccine injuries.
And due to a federal funding scheme, CDC recommended vaccines are then made compulsory to American children under state laws and subsidized by the Federal government for children unable to afford the vaccine.13
The end result is that under the 1986 Act, every pediatric vaccine recommended by the CDC creates for its manufacturer a liability-free captive market of 78 million children with guaranteed payment. This incentive structure is unequal in the marketplace and eliminates the normal market forces driving product safety. Hence the 1986 Act’s transferred essentially all responsibility for vaccine safety from the pharmaceutical companies to HHS.
Read this important letter putting Health and Human Services on notice for failing to conduct proper science to demonstrate vaccine safety. “ICAN lays out the provisions of the (1986 Act) that legally require HHS to conduct science that reduces the risk of all vaccine injury. Failure to do so could result in legal action against HHS on behalf of the American public.” http://www.icandecide.com/white-papers/ICAN-HHS-Notice.pdf
HHS, through the FDA, licenses all vaccines used by the American public. All non-vaccine drugs licensed by the FDA undergo long-term multi-year doubleblind safety studies during which the rate of adverse reactions in the group receiving the drug under review is compared to the rate of adverse reactions in a group receiving an inert placebo, such as a sugar pill or saline injection.
For example:
Enbrel’s pre-licensure trials followed subjects up to 80 months and controls received a saline injection.14
Lipitor’s pre-licensure trials lasted a median of 4.8 years and controls received a sugar pill.15
Botox’s pre-licensure trials lasted a median of 51 weeks and controls received a saline injection.16
And even with these long-term studies, drugs are still often recalled.
While most drugs, like the ones above, are given to sick adults, pediatric vaccines are typically given universally to babies and toddlers. And while pharmaceutical companies remain liable for injuries caused by their non-vaccine drugs, as discussed above, they have no liability for injuries caused by their vaccines.
One would therefore expect that pre-licensure safety testing for vaccines would be more rigorous than that conducted for drugs.
Unfortunately, unlike all non-vaccine drugs licensed by the FDA, vaccines are not required to undergo long-term double-blind inert-placebo controlled trials to assess safety. In fact, not a single one of the clinical trials for vaccines given to babies and toddlers had a control group receiving an inert placebo.
Further, most pediatric vaccines currently on the market have been approved based on studies with inadequate follow-up periods of only a few days or weeks.
For example, there are two Hepatitis B vaccines licensed for one day old babies in the United States – one manufactured by Merck and the other by GlaxoSmithKline. Merck’s Hepatitis B vaccine was licensed by the FDA after trials which solicited adverse reactions for only five days after vaccination.17
Similarly, GlaxoSmithKline’s Hepatitis B vaccine was licensed by the FDA after trials which solicited adverse reactions for only four days after vaccination.18
Follow-up periods of 4 or 5 days are not nearly long enough to detect possible adverse effects such as autoimmune or neurological disorders, seizures, or death. Worse is that since neither of these clinical trials used a control group, it was impossible to scientifically determine if any adverse reaction in the limited four or five day safety review period was even caused by the Hepatitis B vaccine being evaluated.
Similarly, the HiB vaccines manufactured by Merck and GlaxoSmithKline were licensed by the FDA based on trials in which adverse reactions were monitored for only three days and four days, respectively, after vaccination.19
The only stand-alone polio vaccine in the United States was licensed after a mere 48-hour follow-up period. 20
Even more amazing is that unlike every drug licensed by the FDA, the control groups in these vaccine trials did not receive an inert placebo. 21
Rather, the control group was given one or more previously licensed vaccines as the “placebo.”22
This means each new vaccine need only be roughly as safe as one (or in some cases numerous) previously licensed vaccines. Such flawed and unscientific study designs cannot establish the actual safety profile of any vaccine. The real adverse event rate for a vaccine can only be determined by comparing subjects receiving the vaccine with those receiving an inert placebo.
Yet, this study design, required for every drug, is never required before or after licensing a vaccine. It is unacceptable that the FDA licensing process for vaccines fails to assess the safety profile of each vaccine. It is also unacceptable that the FDA does not require the use of inert placebo controls to assure the integrity of even the minimal safety review conducted. As HHS’s own paid experts, the IOM, explains: “Because [vaccine] trials are primarily … for determination of efficacy, conclusions about vaccine safety derived from these trials are limited.”23
CDC has launched a vaccine ‘catch-up schedule’ that has NOT been tested for safety, requiring a five year old to receive 19 vaccines in one month. This includes 6 doses of aluminum-containing injections! Neither manufacturers, nor the CDC has tested for safety to determine the immediate or long-term risk of neurological or immunological damage.
On November 2, 2017, Neil Z. Miller made an online announcement that was guaranteed to shock thousands of parents worldwide.
In a post, written on the popular social media platform Facebook, Miller exposed that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had recently hatched a plan to ensure that ALL children were up to date with their scheduled vaccinations, whether they were vaccinated or unvaccinated . He revealed that the CDC had launched a catch-up program which could cause an unvaccinated 5-year-old to receive as many as 19 vaccinations in one month.
He wrote that:
“The CDC has just launched a program that will calculate a catch-up schedule for children who were not vaccinated on schedule. A 5-year-old child who was not previously vaccinated would be required to receive 19 vaccines in one month, including 6 doses of aluminum-containing injections! This catch-up schedule was NOT tested for safety to determine the immediate or long-term risk of neurological or immunological damage.” (own emphasis)
Following the links provided by Miller, it appears that the CDC table of vaccinations required in their catch-up program had been approved by the following organizations:
Using data taken from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) website, Miller was able to prove that the more vaccines a child received at any given time, the more likely an adverse reaction could occur.
They wrote that:
“… Of the 38,801 VAERS reports that we analyzed, 969 infants received two vaccine doses prior to the adverse event and 107 of those infants were hospitalized: a hospitalization rate of 11%. Of 1,959 infants who received three vaccine doses prior to the adverse event, 243 of them required hospitalization: 12.4%. For four doses, 561 of 3,909 infants were hospitalized: 14.4%.
Notice the emerging pattern: Infants who had an adverse event reported to VAERS were more likely to require hospitalization when they received three vaccine doses instead of two, or four vaccine doses instead of three.”
The researchers continued:
“… Of 10,114 infants who received five vaccine doses prior to the adverse event, 1,463 of them required hospitalization: 14.5%. For six doses, 1,365 of 8,454 infants were hospitalized: 16.1%. For seven doses, 1,051 of 5,489 infants were hospitalized: 19.1%. And for eight doses, 661 of 2,817 infants were hospitalized: 23.5%. The hospitalization rate increased linearly from 11.0% for two doses to 23.5% for eight doses.”
In other words, the more vaccines that an infant received, the more likely they were to suffer an adverse reaction.
Miller and Goldman explained that:
“Of the 38,801 VAERS reports that we analyzed, 11,927 infants received one, two, three, or four vaccine doses prior to having an adverse event, and 423 of those infants died: a mortality rate of 3.6%. The remaining 26,874 infants received five, six, seven, or eight vaccine doses prior to the adverse event and 1,458 of them died: 5.4%.
The mortality rate for infants who received five to eight vaccine doses (5.4%) is significantly higher than the mortality rate for infants who received one to four doses (3.6%), with a rate ratio(RR) of 1.5 (95% CI, 1.4-1.7).
Of infants reported to VAERS, those who had received more vaccines had a statistically significant 50% higher mortality rate compared with those who had received fewer.”
Once again the CDC is recommending vaccines in a schedule for our children without safety testing.Health Freedom Idaho joined 55 organizations respectfully requesting the US Department of Health and Human Services to provide confirmation that certain obligations regarding vaccine safety required under the 1986 Act have been fulfilled or will forthwith be fulfilled. Read the entire notice at HHS Vaccine Safety Responsibilities and Notice Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-31
