3 September 2021 | Gates Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation, key promoters of a global digital citizen number, have funded the World Health Organization’s latest digital vaccination certificate guidelines. Defence and digital security company Thales had recently called such a certificate a precursor for universal mobile-digital identity.
On 27 August, the World Health Organization (WHO) published a guideline addressed to member governments on the implementation and technical specifications of digital immunization certificates, titled “Digital Documentation of COVID-19 Certificates: Vaccination Status: Technical Specification and Implementation Guidelines.”
The effort was funded not from the WHO budget, but by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, Estonia, Kuwait, and another foundation.
It is also interesting to note the large role played by the World Bank. The WHO thank twelve of their staff and consultants for reviewing and commenting on the document. The World Bank is important because it has the power to get the poorer of the world’s countries to implement these policies through conditions on World Bank aid, which most of them receive in one form or another.
I have long argued that the increasingly obsessive division of people into vaccinated and unvaccinated, and the proof requirements introduced for this purpose in the form of benefits for the former and harassment of the latter, serve to pave the way for universal digital identity proofs, which people will have to provide in the near future at every turn.
Precursor to universal digital identity
I have recently written about how the defence contractor Thales – as if to prove this point – has described digital vaccination passports as a precursor to universal mobile digital identity proofing in posts on its website aimed at government customers.
As if that were not enough confirmation, it now emerges that with the Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation two of the most important financiers and operators of the ID2020 initiative are funding the World Health Organization’s harmonization efforts regarding digital immunization certificates.
ID2020 aims to give everyone in the world a unique, biometrically-linked digital identity by 2030, which will be usable (and probably required) for many different public and private purposes. Ultimately, these will be interconnected mega-databases in which all people are uniquely identified with a number and their biometric characteristics in a machine-readable way, making all information about them easily retrievable from anywhere in the world.
The World Health Organization notes, after revealing the financiers of the guideline, that their preferences have not influenced the content. Indeed, no employees of the financiers are among the many who are thanked for cooperation. However, that the preferences of the Gates Foundation, the most important private donor of the WHO, do not play a role when the WHO publishes a guideline would be news. Four-fifths of WHO’s finances depend on private donors.
To cross-check, I looked at another WHO guideline referenced in this one. a November 2020 “Guidance on developing a national deployment and vaccination plan for COVID-19 vaccines.” No funders are named there, and promptly the Gates-funded vaccination alliance Gavi – also a member of ID2020 – is listed with the guideline’s authors and staffers of the Gates Foundation are thanked for review and comments. Clearly, WHO is not as saintly as it pretends to be about avoiding conflicts of interest when working with major funders.
As far as the content of this digital vaccine passport guidance is concerned, the text could be from the Gates Foundation itself. There is a coy acknowledgement here and there that little is yet known about the safety and duration of protection of vaccines. Nevertheless, the basic assumption is that the only legitimate reason not to be vaccinated is possible intolerance or the like. The problem of possibly indirectly bringing about compulsory vaccination is artfully danced around
Accordingly, the only related aspect that is mentioned as a possible ethical problem of requiring vaccination passes to participate in activities or to gain access to public areas is that people who cannot be vaccinated might be disadvantaged.
However, they do come close to admitting the problem when they state:
“”Individual vaccination status is private information, and protections need to be in place to ensure that no individual is forced to disclose or publicly display a DDCC:VS [immunization certificate N.H.] to access any public area or activity. (18) Such a practice and/or the lack of a DDCC:VS itself may result in the stigmatization of individuals without a DDCC:VS and may exacerbate the risk of harms.”
What the German authorities and other governments are currently doing and planning in terms of using immunization records is diametrically opposed to this WHO guidance. However, these governments can be confident that the WHO or other major organizations will not reprimand them, because the somewhat hidden admonition is easily recognizable as only a fig leaf with which the WHO covers its nakedness in matters of human rights and human dignity, in case some unintended audiences like me and you should read this document.
Much in the document would fail to make sense, if one would take the admonition seriously, because half of the guidance is about the (forced) proof of vaccination with the argument of health protection for others. (The other use class being documentation of vaccination status to ensure proper medical treatment for the subject).
The two quoted sentences are almost the only ones that come close to admitting the problem of compulsory vaccination. The WHO does not seem to have its own guidance on this. Gates and Rockefeller would certainly not have had money to spare for such a guidance. Rather, a footnote (18) refers to a paper of the Swiss National COVID-19 Science Task Force, which is irrelevant for countries other than Switzerland.
There is one more place where the problem of compulsory vaccination is indirectly addressed: if the lack of digital proof of vaccination brings great disadvantages, people might get vaccinated for whom it is not healthy – even according to health authorities. According to this guideline, what people themselves think is good for them cannot matter. The issue of agency and the basic right to decide about your body is not worth a single sentence.
Extension to other diseases
The directive holds some very good news for all ID2020 promoters such as the Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation: digital proof of immunization can later be extended to prove vaccination status with respect to other diseases, it says.
It seems almost bizarre that the inclusion of information on immunity from surviving a covid infection is explicitly not considered in the document, with the argument that not enough is known about the duration of immunity after going through the disease. It is admitted elsewhere that this is not known for vaccination either. However, recently some scientific evidence has been provided that vaccine protection wears off much faster than protection from a natural infection that has been overcome.
However, if everyone who has already been through an infection were to be put on an equal footing with those who have been vaccinated, the whole campaign with the vaccination certificates could quickly lose steam, because relatively soon almost everyone might have to be considered protected. The obligation to provide proof of vaccination by means of a vaccination certificate would lose its purpose in such a case.
The absurd way in which the government in Germany and others deal with those who have recovered fits in with this. Officially, only those who can prove their infection with a PCR test from the time of infection are considered recovered. There are reliable tests with which an earlier infection can be detected retrospectively. In addition, there is strong evidence that immunity lasts longer after surviving infection than after vaccination. Nevertheless, those who have been subsequently detected as having recovered are not recognized as such under the Seuchenschutzgesetz (Protection Against Infection Act). And worse even, the status of those with PCR evidence of an infection is limited to six months, while for those vaccinated it has been open-ended so far.
These are more of the many apparent follies surrounding vaccination and testing that can be nicely sorted under the heading: does not make sense except for promoting digital vaccination passes and implementing ID2020 (for which it makes a lot of sense).
Note: The content of this article would have nicely fit in my forthcoming book “Endspiel des Kapitalismus” (The Endgame of Capitalism), if it had become known before going to press. It fits in Part 3: The Endgame of Capitalism” in the chapter “ID2020: A number for every world citizen”.
Translated with support of www.DeepL.com from the original German blog article.