Connect with us

COVID-19

‘Really chilling’: Five countries to test European vaccination card

Published

11 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Michael Nevradakis Ph. D., The Defender

The goal is financial control. There is no legitimate public health purpose. The central bankers are hiding behind a health narrative — policies like lockdown are a way to manage inflation and resource demand when monetary policy is highly inflationary.

Five European Union (EU) countries in September will pilot the newly developed European Vaccination Card (EVC), which “aims to empower individuals by consolidating all their vaccination data in one easily accessible location.

The pilot program marks a step toward the continent-wide rollout of the card, according to Vaccines Today.

Belgium, GermanyGreece, Latvia and Portugal will test the new card in a variety of formats, including printed cards, mailed copies and digital versions for smartphones.

The program aims to “pave the way for other countries by harmonizing vaccine terminology, developing a common syntax, ensuring adaptability across different healthcare settings, and refining EVC implementation plans,” Vaccines Today reported.

The plans will be made public in 2026, “extending the EVC system beyond the pilot phases and enabling broad adoption across all EU Member States.”

According to Vaccines Today, the EVC program seeks to leverage “the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic” and foster “innovation in vaccination management,” with the goal of “taking crucial steps toward a more resilient and health-secure future.”

Vaccines Today described the GDHCN as a “citizen-centered method of storing and sharing data,” rather than a system that relies “solely on public health systems.”

Greece was the first European country to propose the implementation of a vaccination passport, which was eventually adopted as the EU’s “Green Pass.” Greece later became the first EU member state to adopt a digital “Covid passport.”

Greece’s University of Crete is coordinating the EVC project alongside 14 partners from nine countries — and with 6.75 million euros ($7.3 million) in funding from the European Commission’s (EC) EU4Health program. The EC is the EU’s executive branch.

‘Direct threat to our freedom’

Experts who spoke with The Defender said that plans for the EVC pose a direct threat to personal and health freedom and national sovereignty.

Dr. David Bell, a public health physician, biotech consultant and former director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund, said:

The proposed vaccination card reflects an increasing effort to utilize public health tools as a means to concentrate wealth and provide a means to control populations. It is very reminiscent of approaches in parts of Europe pre-World War II, and essentially serves a similar purpose: to exclude individuals who do not follow government instructions from society.

The trial in Europe is an obvious next step after the recent widening of surveillance under the IHR [International Health Regulation] amendments, which greatly increase the likelihood of recurrent lockdowns to enable mandated vaccination as a way to force mass use, and profit-making, from vaccines.

Dutch attorney Meike Terhorst also criticized the pilot program, calling a digital vaccination passport a “direct threat to our freedom and also the sovereignty of any state.”

“All our powers are handed over to the globalists, the group of bankers and investors,” Terhorst said.

Catherine Austin Fitts, founder and publisher of the Solari Report and former U.S. assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development, said plans for the EVC represent “another step toward asserting control of labor and travel, with a goal to controlling resources and assets.”

Fitts said:

The goal is financial control. There is no legitimate public health purpose. The central bankers are hiding behind a health narrative — policies like lockdown are a way to manage inflation and resource demand when monetary policy is highly inflationary.

Experts also tied the rollout of the EVC to warnings from government and health officials about the “next pandemic,” potentially caused by the bird flu or a still-unknown “Disease X.”

According to Fitts:

Many steps are underway to prepare for a bird flu pandemic. Chicken is the most significant source of meat protein.

So far in response to the current bird flu claims, I am told by experts who follow bird flu claims that 99 million birds have been killed in the U.S. and 500 million worldwide. Bird flu vaccines have been shipped to Europe. A vaccine card can be used to try to pressure or force people to take another unnecessary injection.

French science journalist and author Xavier Bazin told The Defender, “For the time being, a vaccination card in Europe is meant to ensure that most children get their vaccination.” However, he said he believes the next step is to try to mandate the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine across Europe.

“Even if they do not succeed with MMR, this kind of card will be perfect when the next ‘pandemic’ hits and they want to mandate an emergency vaccine, like they did with COVID,” Bazin said.

Similarly, Bell said:

WHO and other agencies are clear in their intent to link compliance with centralized health dictates with the ability of people to go about their daily life.

Whilst directly against post-WWII conventions, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the spirit of the Nuremberg Declaration, they have the backing of major international agencies and the corporate interests that have become enmeshed with them over the past two decades.

Experts also pointed out that plans for the EVC have been in the works even before the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The digital vaccination passport is a technical means to override personal freedoms, such as the right to say no to a vaccination,” Terhorst said. “It is a means to turn free human beings into ‘slaves.’ This digital vaccination passport has been planned many years in advance by the globalists.”

Plans for EU vaccination card began in 2018

Development of the EVC began in 2018, according to official EU documents.

That year, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance announced at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF), that it would become the first international nonprofit to partner with the WEF’s Center for the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

“In my opinion, [the EVC] is linked to Gavi’s project of mixing digital ID and vaccination proof,” Bazin said.

In 2019, the ID2020 Alliance, along with Gavi and the Government of Bangladesh, announced a new digital ID program, for which it was later announced that it aimed “to provide biometric-linked digital IDs to infants when they receive routine immunisations.”

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a partner of Gavi, which, in turn, closely collaborates with the ID2020 Alliance, which has promoted the development of digital ID.

According to Vaccines Today, the EVC is necessary because zoonotic diseases — those transmitted from animals to humans — “continue to pose a significant threat to global health.”

“As Europe transitions from emergency measures to long-term COVID-19 management, there is a critical opportunity to strengthen resilience and increase preparedness for future health threats,” Vaccines Today reported, citing the EVC as one such project.

Other EU-level projects in the works, according to Vaccines Today, include “a clinical decision system that provides vaccination recommendations, a screening tool to identify and invite vulnerable populations, an electronic Product Information Leaflet (e-PIL) to enable the transfer of vaccines across countries without having to repackage them, and a modeling and forecasting tool to assess the impact of public health interventions.”

But for Bazin, such efforts have little to do with protecting public health.

“For those who think vaccination is a medical procedure that should always remain a free choice, the European Vaccination Card is really chilling and should be opposed,” he said.

This article was originally published by The Defender – Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

COVID-19

Crown seeks to punish peaceful protestor Chris Barber by confiscating his family work truck “Big Red”

Published on

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that the Ontario Court of Justice will hold a hearing at 10:00 a.m. ET on Wednesday, November 26 at 161 Elgin Street, Ottawa, regarding the Crown’s attempt to permanently seize “Big Red,” the 2004 Kenworth long-haul truck relied upon by peaceful Freedom Convoy protestor Chris Barber and his family trucking business.

Constitutional lawyer Diane Magas, who represents Mr. Barber, is opposing the forfeiture.

“The impact of the forfeiture of ‘Big Red’, which is an essential part of the operation of Mr. Barber’s trucking business and is relied upon by Mr. Barber, his family as well as employees, is not what Parliament had in mind when enacting those forfeiture provisions, especially considering the context of a political protest where the police told Mr. Barber where to park the truck and when Mr. Barber moved the truck after being asked to move it,” she said.

Mr. Barber, a Saskatchewan trucker and central figure in the peaceful 2022 Freedom Convoy, depends on this vehicle for his livelihood. The Crown alleges that his truck constitutes “offence-related property.”

The November 26 hearing will address the Crown’s application to seize the truck and will include evidence regarding ownership and corporate title. The Court will also consider an application filed earlier this year by Mr. Barber’s family, who are asserting their rights as interested third parties and seeking to prevent the loss of the vehicle.

Mr. Barber was found guilty of mischief and counselling others to breach a court order following the peaceful Freedom Convoy protest, despite his consistent cooperation with law enforcement and reliance on legal advice during the events of early 2022. At sentencing, the Court acknowledged that he “came with the noblest of intent and did not advocate for violence,” emphasizing that Mr. Barber encouraged calm and compliance.

Mr. Barber said, “‘Big Red’ is how I put food on the table. I followed every instruction police gave me during the protest, and I never imagined the government would try to take the very truck I rely on to earn a living.”

Continue Reading

COVID-19

New report warns Ottawa’s ‘nudge’ unit erodes democracy and public trust

Published on

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has released a new report titled Manufacturing consent: Government behavioural engineering of Canadians, authored by veteran journalist and researcher Nigel Hannaford. The report warns that the federal government has embedded behavioural science tactics in its operations in order to shape Canadians’ beliefs, emotions, and behaviours—without transparency, debate, or consent.

The report details how the Impact and Innovation Unit (IIU) in Ottawa is increasingly using sophisticated behavioural psychology, such as “nudge theory,” and other message-testing tools to influence the behaviour of Canadians.

Modelled after the United Kingdom’s Behavioural Insights Team, the IIU was originally presented as an innocuous “innovation hub.” In practice, the report argues, it has become a mechanism for engineering public opinion to support government priorities.

With the arrival of Covid, the report explains, the IIU’s role expanded dramatically. Internal government documents reveal how the IIU worked alongside the Public Health Agency of Canada to test and design a national communications strategy aimed at increasing compliance with federal vaccination and other public health directives.

Among these strategies, the government tested fictitious news reports on thousands of Canadians to see how different emotional triggers would help reduce public anxiety about emerging reports of adverse events following immunization. These tactics were designed to help achieve at least 70 percent vaccination uptake, the target officials associated with reaching “herd immunity.”

IIU techniques included emotional framing—using fear, reassurance, or urgency to influence compliance with policies such as lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccine requirements. The government also used message manipulation by emphasizing or omitting details to shape how Canadians interpreted adverse events after taking the Covid vaccine to make them appear less serious.

The report further explains that the government adopted its core vaccine message—“safe and effective”—before conclusive clinical or real-world data even existed. The government then continued promoting that message despite early reports of adverse reactions to the injections.

Government reliance on behavioural science tactics—tools designed to steer people’s emotions and decisions without open discussion—ultimately substituted genuine public debate with subtle behavioural conditioning, making these practices undemocratic. Instead of understanding the science first, the government focused primarily on persuading Canadians to accept its narrative. In response to these findings, the Justice Centre is calling for immediate safeguards to protect Canadians from covert psychological manipulation by their own government.

The report urges:

  1. Parliamentary oversight of all behavioural science uses within federal departments, ensuring elected representatives retain oversight of national policy.
  2. Public disclosure of all behavioural research conducted with taxpayer funds, creating transparency of government influence on Canadians’ beliefs and decisions.
  3. Independent ethical review of any behavioural interventions affecting public opinion or individual autonomy, ensuring accountability and informed consent.

Report author Mr. Hannaford said, “No democratic government should run psychological operations on its own citizens without oversight. If behavioural science is being used to influence public attitudes, then elected representatives—not unelected strategists—must set the boundaries.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X