If the brave and the bold had not steadfastly resisted the propaganda and the totalitarianism, then the world would be in a much different place today – oppressed by vaccine passports, endless booster requirements, slavery and death. Without the growing health freedom movement, populations would be subject to the constant threat of societal segregation, loss of parental rights, censorship, intimidation and discrimination in the workplace, and intellectual suicide. In fact, America could very easily be dealing with quarantine camps if it weren’t for widespread awareness and resistance to the medical tyranny.

Quarantine camps were originally planned for U.S. communities

As medical tyranny was placated in the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) rolled out a series of totalitarian policies that fundamentally altered daily life, ranging from insidious mask mandates, social distancing insanity to discriminatory business closures, travel restrictions, plexiglass barriers and societal segregation for those who did not submit to deadly medical experiments.

However, these measures, which were already draconian in their impact, were only a fraction of what was originally planned. An ignored CDC document reveals that a far more extreme and authoritarian approach was in the works — one that would have involved widespread isolation of individuals who were deemed “high-risk” in government-controlled quarantine camps. These quarantine camps were to be erected out of existing communities. People’s homes and property rights were to be seized, as families were set to be separated and cordoned off in different homes in the community.

In July 2020, the CDC quietly released the plan titled, “Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian Settings.” This document, which remained on the CDC’s public website until March 2023, outlined a disturbing proposal to create nationwide isolation camps for individuals deemed “vulnerable.” This plan would have seen people forcibly separated from their families, their communities and even their religious practices, all in the name of “public health and safety.”

The plan — never fully implemented but disturbingly detailed — called for the forced relocation of “high-risk” individuals to what were effectively quarantine zones, under the CDC’s concept of “shielding.” These “green zones,” as the document described them, would isolate older adults and people with serious underlying health conditions, physically separating them from the general population to prevent them from coming into contact with individuals who were deemed “low-risk.”

The CDC’s proposal was not limited to households but extended to entire neighborhoods and even camps or sectors, which would have been scattered across the country. These camps were to house up to 50 high-risk individuals per zone, with strict controls over movement and a single-entry point for food and supplies. The plan even discussed the need for dedicated staff to monitor these zones and ensure that individuals adhered to strict isolation protocols.

Architects behind quarantine camps must be exposed

While the CDC stressed that the “shielding approach” was not meant to be coercive, it quickly acknowledged the inherent psychological dangers of such isolation. The document warned that being cut off from family, faith and community could lead to emotional distress, depression and even suicide among those confined in the zones. In fact, the CDC outlined procedures for preventing suicides and ensuring that the mentally ill in isolation were assigned caregivers to avoid neglect and abuse.

Perhaps most shockingly, the document included no provisions for legal appeals or any form of due process for those who were deemed “high-risk.” There was no mention of legal counsel or any recourse for individuals who disagreed with being forcibly removed from their homes or communities. The plan essentially outlined how individuals could be imprisoned without trial or representation under the guise of protecting them from a virus.

The document’s language is chilling, with deranged government officials assuming absolute control over individuals’ movements, families and rights. It suggests a system where the government could decide who lives and who is isolated based on public health determinations. This raises profound ethical questions about the role of government in dictating personal lives, as well as the capacity for abuse when such powers are unchecked.

The CDC’s quarantine camp plan, had it succeeded, would have been the ultimate realization of a medical police state. The removal of this plan from public view in 2023 does not erase the truth of its existence, the planning behind it, or the chilling implications of what could have been. Full disclosure of these maniacal plans must be made available to the public, and the architects must be publicly shamed, so that this never comes close to happening again.

Sources include:

• Brownstone.org
• Web.archive.org
• AHRP.org

Confidential Pfizer documents leaked by Project Veritas show that Big Pharma had “evidence that suggests patients who received a (COVID-19) vaccine are at an increased risk of myocarditis.”

Meanwhile, heavily redacted CDC documents obtained by the Children’s Health Defense (CHD) via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request indicate that the agency provided an undercounted figure of post-COVID-19 vaccination myocarditis cases to Israel’s Ministry of Health in early 2021.

The latest revelations come as Germany, Japan and other governments are raising questions about the significant numbers of severe adverse events recorded in individuals following the administration of the vaccines.

“This study clearly shows that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine provides almost no benefit to children and adolescents, but does increase their risk of myocarditis and pericarditis,” said Dr. Brian Hooker, CHD’s chief scientific officer. “It begs the question: Why does the CDC continue to recommend these unlicensed shots for kids? Where is the data they use to support their statement that the benefits of these vaccines outweigh the risks?”

The Pfizer vaccine provided children and teens in England with only about 14 to 15 weeks of protection against the virus, as per a preprint study of over 1.7 million children ages five to 15.

Moreover, researchers investigating the safety and effectiveness of Pfizer’s vaccine in fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated, and unvaccinated children and teens, also found cases of myocarditis and pericarditis only in vaccinated children. The study found that vaccinated children required slightly fewer emergency room visits and hospital stays, but that those outcomes were extremely rare in children and teens across all groups.

COVID-19 vaccine provides almost no benefit to children, study reveals

Public health agencies in the United Kingdom and the U.S. granted authorization to the Pfizer vaccines based on clinical trials that measured immunogenicity and efficacy against infection.

Their research confirmed that even in 2021, when the vaccine was first authorized for children and teens, that age group did not face a high risk for COVID-19-related serious outcomes, including death or the need for emergency care, hospitalization or critical care.

The researchers tested the effectiveness of the first vaccine dose versus no vaccine and of two doses versus a single dose. They matched each vaccinated child with an unvaccinated one, and participants were matched by age, sex, region, prior COVID-19 testing and childhood vaccination status.

Of the 1,262,784 children in the adolescent part of the study, vaccinated and unvaccinated, there were only 72 emergency room visits, 90 COVID-19 hospitalizations and no deaths. There were nine cases of pericarditis and three cases of myocarditis, all in the vaccinated group.

Among all of the children in the vaccinated versus unvaccinated group, there were no emergency visits, only six hospitalizations and no deaths related to COVID-19. There were three cases of pericarditis, all in vaccinated children.

The researchers concluded that in adolescents, the vaccine reduced the rate of hospitalization more than it increased the risk for myocarditis and pericarditis, but for children, the increased risk of pericarditis was higher than the reduction of risk for hospitalization.

Visit VaccineInjury.news for similar stories. Watch this video featuring a discussion on COVID accountability. This video is from the Sanivan channel on Brighteon.com.

Sources include:

• ChildrensHealthDefense.org
• Brighteon.com