Suspicious activity: Bill Gates reveals a plan to issue “Certificates” for COVID patients
(NaturalHealth365) The COVID-19 pandemic has commanded its fair share of the media recently. As of Monday April 15, the world has reportedly seen over 2 million confirmed cases of the viral disease, with over 127,000 of these cases resulting in deaths. But as Big Pharma and health officials ramp up their efforts to end the spread of SARS-CoV-2, we’re seeing a new trending topic hit the headlines: coronavirus vaccine certificates.
Some people even suggest that the name “COVID” stands for “certificate of vaccination ID.”
Microsoft founder and former CEO Bill Gates – who after 34 years with the company surprisingly stepped away from the tech giant just one month ago – is now doubling down on his efforts to not only fund the development of a COVID-19 vaccine, but to garner support for a systematic method of tracking data of people who have (or have not) had either the disease or an immunization against it.
Bill Gates: People should have to PROVE they’ve recovered from or immunized against COVID-19
In an unprecedented, Orwellian step toward social control and data collection, the billionaire is publicly advocating for the use of technology that would keep track of who’s been immunized against SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19), or who’s had the infection and since recovered (and therefore has antibodies from their own immune system that protects them against the virus).
According to media watchdog PolitiFact, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has for years “funded research into invisible ink technology that could accompany vaccines to strengthen vaccination record-keeping.” This research began in 2016 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). PolitiFact goes on to admit that “Gates has said he supports the idea of a national tracking system to monitor the virus that causes COVID-19.”
“Eventually, what we’ll have to have is certificates of who’s a recovered person and who’s a vaccinated person,” Gates says bluntly in a recent interview with Chris Anderson of TED. He goes on to suggest that this information would be used to control where people go in their community and around the world, so as to protect countries that “won’t have [the novel coronavirus] under control.”
Do NOT ignore the health dangers linked to toxic indoor air. These chemicals - the 'off-gassing' of paints, mattresses, carpets and other home/office building materials - increase your risk of nasal congestion, fatigue, poor sleep, skin issues plus many other health issues.
Get the BEST indoor air purification system - at the LOWEST price, exclusively for NaturalHealth365 readers. I, personally use this system in my home AND office. Click HERE to order now - before the sale ends.
You can see the video in full from TED’s YouTube channel here:
To be fair, no diagnostic test is 100% accurate. But as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) acknowledged in a March 15, 2020 fact sheet for healthcare providers, both false positive and false negative results for COVID-19 testing are possible, and even suspected in some cases.
What that means:
- False positive = a person does not have COVID-19 but, their test results say they do.
- False negative = a person does have COVID-19 but, their test results say they do not.
The main diagnostic test for COVID-19 (2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel), as well as the only test currently authorized by the FDA to detect antibodies against the novel coronavirus (also known as a serological test, which detects the body’s immune response to the virus rather than the virus itself) are both available under a statute known as Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). That means these tests, by definition, have “not undergone the same type of review as an FDA-approved or cleared [test.]”
In other words: it’s yet to be determined how accurate these tests are. And just how much inaccuracy are we supposed to accept if we’re using the tests to determine whether people can or can’t travel, work, or move about in their community?
As for COVID-19 immunization – will it be mandated? If a person can’t “prove” they already had and recovered from the virus, will they be forced to get the vaccine? We don’t know the answers to these questions, but like many, we are deeply concerned about the potential precedences this pandemic may be setting.
Here are at least two ways novel coronavirus can be stopped that vaccine-pushers do NOT want the public to know about
Despite all these unknowns, world leaders seem to be working hard to normalize this idea of mass vaccinations and proof of immunization for all. Even Justin Trudeau, Canadian Prime Minister, warned that there will be no return to normalcy without a COVID-19 vaccine – which could take the better part of 18 months.
But are vaccines really our only saving grace?
To find our answer, we have to look beyond what mainstream media is willing to focus on. As we reported on last week, doctors in the United States and elsewhere are indeed finding significant success in treating patients with COVID-19 with the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine (brand name Plaquenil). But what news outlets are overlooking is that hydroxychloroquine requires the trace mineral zinc in order to work!
As you may know, zinc is a powerful antiviral, antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and immune-boosting element and has even been shown to block the replication of SARS-coronavirus in past studies.
Another promising treatment that doesn’t involve vaccinations is high-dose intravenous vitamin C therapy. This powerful anti-inflammatory and antioxidant agent has been used with great success in China and is also being used in U.S. hospitals for people fighting COVID-19 infections.
Newsweek and other outlets seem reluctant to suggest that vitamin C therapy will be useful for anything other than a stand-in treatment until COVID-19 vaccines are available. But we’re not so willing to write off these natural remedies yet…
…and given the alacrity with which people are welcoming Gates’ vaccine data tracking agenda, we don’t suggest you write them off, either.
Sources for this article include: