Harvard & Stanford Medical Professors Strongly Condemn “Vaccine Passports”

Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a Harvard medical professor, epidemiologist and vaccine expert alongside Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, (two founding members of The Great Barrington Declaration) a physician and professor at Stanford Medical school recently published a piece in the Wall Street Journal condemning the idea of vaccine passports, a measure that seems to be gaining traction in multiple countries.

By Arjun Walia | Collective Evolution

These vaccine “passports” would allow those who have been vaccinated to travel without being subjected to quarantine measures, and perhaps go to concerts, enter certain restaurants, schools, sports arenas, and other public buildings that those who are not vaccinated will not be allowed to enter, it appears. It looks like these passports are going to be digital, once you’ve received your shots, you get a phone app or a document that you will flash to gain entry. Who knows what freedoms previously enjoyed will be unavailable to the unvaccinated? We have yet to see how this will all roll out.

According to the professors,

Covid vaccine passports would harm, not benefit, public health. The idea that everybody needs to be vaccinated is as scientifically baseless as the idea that nobody does. Covid vaccines are essential for older, high-risk people and their caretakers and advisable for many others. But those who’ve been infected are already immune. The young are at low risk, and children — for whom no vaccine has been approved anyway — are at far less risk of death than from the flu.

 The public has lost trust in officials in part because they’ve performed poorly — relying on lockdowns to disastrous effect — and in part because they’ve made clear their distrust of the public. Trust, after all, is a two-way street. Coercive vaccination policies would erode trust even further. Even well-informed people may legitimately wonder: Why are they forcing me to take this shot if it’s so good for me?

Vaccine passports are unjust and discriminatory. Most of those endorsing the idea belong to the laptop class — privileged professionals who worked safely and comfortably at home during the epidemic. Millions of Americans did essential jobs at their usual workplaces and became immune the hard way. Now they would be forced to risk adverse reactions from a vaccine they don’t need.

Keep in mind that these two professors are not against vaccination. In their article they make their belief quite clear that vaccines are very important and have saved millions of lives.

If you’re interested in learning why so many people, doctors and scientists will not take the vaccine, I recently wrote an article that goes a little more in-depth into that topic, which you can read here.

Why This Is Important

I recently wrote an article about Dr. Suneel Dhand, an internal medicine doctor with a hefty following on YouTube. In one of his most recent videos he makes the same point as the professors above regarding prior infection.

I’m not aware of any vaccine out there which will ever give you more immunity than if you’re naturally recovered from the illness itself…If you’ve naturally recovered from it, my understanding as a doctor level scientist is that those antibodies will always be better than a vaccine, and if you know any differently, please let me know.

As I’ve pointed out before in several of my articles, there are multiple studies hinting to the point these doctors are  making, that those who have been infected with covid have immunity, and may have immunity for decades. There are studies that suggest infection to prior coronaviruses, which prior to COVID-19 circled the globe infecting hundreds of millions of people every single year, can also provide protection from COVID-19. Keep in mind, the estimated number of people infected is, like other viruses, highly likely to be much more than the numbers we seen have from testing.

According to a new study authored by respected scientists at leading labs, individuals who recovered from the coronavirus developed “robust” levels of B cells and T cells (necessary for fighting off the virus) and “these cells may persist in the body for a very, very long time.” This is just one of many examples, I thought I’d put it in here for reference.

Furthermore, we must keep in mind that the COVID-19 has a 99.95-99.97% survival rate for people under the age of 70, and 95% for people above that age.

The Takeaway

There has been wide scale disagreement amongst global citizens about the measures being taken with regards to COVID-19. On one hand, greater control, health surveillance and centralized power is being pushed in accordance with keeping people ‘safe’ from a virus with a very high survival rate. On the other hand, people are feeling as though their personal experience and everyday view of this virus and what health effects it is really causing don’t line up with the extreme measures. We have a split in our global community whereby many citizens’ desires and will are not being represented by the government and their decisions, and they feel as though by not participating in extreme measures, they will lose access to living life to the fullest. Furthermore, lockdowns may be responsible for more deaths than COVID.

Can we truly accept that controlling everyone’s lives and what they can and can’t do is the best thing to do with an extremely low mortality virus? Does this indicate the level of fear we have towards life? The issues with our general health? If the worry is straining health care systems, are we seeing the limitations of how our rigid social infrastructures can’t be flexible and maybe it’s time to look at a new way of living within society? Perhaps a new way built on a completely different worldview?

Things clearly aren’t as black and white as government and mainstream media is making them out to be, this is quite clear as we see a great deal of division among people, doctors and scientists. On top of this, there is an extreme amount of censorship taking place on science and opinions that oppose government and mainstream narratives. When this is the case, I believe it becomes even more clear that the correct thing to do would be for health authorities to simply make recommendations rather than impose mandates on the population.

This article (Harvard & Stanford Medical Professors Strongly Condemn “Vaccine Passports”) was originally published on Collective Evolution and is published under a Creative Commons license.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *