Transcript of the above video:

As the title of this video suggests, we are discussing the G20 and that is the group of 20, that's the number nations; we will get into some analysis and all that here in a moment and we are talking about so-called "vaccine passports". The reason I thought of making this video is I was reading a recent article from the Times of Oman that is, timesofoman.com, the article is titled: G20 leaders agree to introduce COVID "Vaccine Passports". Just the headline there, did any of the people in the G20 countries vote on this or did some guys just go hang out somewhere and decide on this? I am just saying. Quoting directly: "Muscat: In an attempt to have a better response to tackle future pandemic, leaders of the G20 Summit in Indonesia signed a declaration to introduce vaccine passports for their respective jurisdictions." Again, where is the enabling legislation that allows these folks to just go there and say "hey, yeah we're going to do this." Quoting further: "Vaccine passports could create a global verification system to facilitate safe international travel "We acknowledge the importance of shared technical standards and verification methods," We do? Why? I mean have we ever needed that before? Did it particularly work the last two and a half years? Quoting further: "Under the framework of the IHR (2005), to facilitate seamless International travel," well I thought we had pretty seamless international travel, again before the government intervened and shut everybody down. Quoting further: "interoperability, and recognizing digital solutions and non-digital solutions, including proof of vaccinations," read one of the clauses of the G20 Bali Leaders' Declaration." It made me think of that movie The Big Lebowski the Port Huron statement, the original Port Huron statement not the compromised second draft when I read the G20 Bali Leaders' Declaration. Quoting further: "we support continued international dialogue and collaboration on the establishment of trusted global digital health networks as part of the effort to strengthen prevention and response to future pandemics." Again, was the response this last time effective or could it be argued that perhaps the cure was worse than the disease? Quoting further: "which should capitalize and build on the success of the existing standards and digital COVID-19 certificates." Capitalize and build on what success? Britain had this and they got rid of it because it didn't really work. Again, I'm really flabbergasted by the way, I am not even particularly sort of concerned by the way that these folks get together and say this stuff. It's sort of the way the media just kind of throws it out there as, "well this is just a given!" It's like, no it's not. I mean and the weird part is I lived through this, I remember this stuff. This wasn't 100 years ago, this was like 100 days ago that they were dealing with this stuff and really, I really have to question not only the efficacy but the morality of it. Again meanwhile, well okay hold on just a second. I will get into the analysis further.

I got to thinking, I was sitting there, what is the G20? Okay, what is the G20? So I went over to Wikipedia, the sort of fount of conventional wisdom if you will and went to G20, it is the entry under G20 and then under Founding: G20: Quoting directly: "The G20 is the latest in a series of post-World War II initiatives aimed at International coordination of economic policy which include institutions such as "the Bretton Woods twins", the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank and what is now the World Trade Organization. Again, what do any of those things have to do with Public Health? Quoting further: "The G20 was foreshadowed at the Cologne Summit of the G7 in June 1999, formally established at the G7 Finance Minister's meeting on 26th September, 1999 with an inaugural meeting on 15 - 16 December 1999 in Berlin." So it's my understanding G7 was a meeting of Finance Ministers. G20 was kind of promulgated and given birth by that body to be a larger meeting of Finance Ministers. Again what does that have to do with public health? I mean they can say whatever they want about public health but why should the public even listen? I mean are these Public Health experts on any level? Quoting further: "Canadian Finance Minister Paul Martin was chosen as the first chairman and German Finance Minister Hans Eichel was host of the inaugural meeting." That's neat. So I mean the thing that concerns me about this is the precept position of the existence of the vaccine passport would then pre-suppose that you need a vaccine in order to thereby get one which pre-supposes a mandatory nature of vaccines or at least a de facto mandatory nature of vaccines in order to enjoy what in my opinion is the basic human right to travel which is noted in the UN's Declaration of Human Rights, there is a basic human right to travel. It's also noted in the US Constitution, the right to travel for that matter. Many other countries note a basic inherent right of people to travel. It doesn't say a basic right to travel if you have the right paperwork, it's just a right to travel. So to sort of steal away that right and then say well we will give it back to you if you meet these criteria, that's kind of a con, for lack of a better word. I mean I don't really see how that's a great thing. 

Now meanwhile, when this has to do with vaccination, it brings into question issues that came up during the promulgation of what is called the Nuremberg Code which is that look you can't require people to undergo medical treatment without informed consent, Consent. And I am sorry but it's an end-run around consent to say well you don't have to do XYZ but if you don't do it, we're going to just trap you in this country. Look, I understand that there are, and I have talked about it on this channel, there are sovereignty issues associated with allowing foreigners into a given country's jurisdiction who haven't been treated for certain diseases. For example Thailand had a malaria vaccination requirement years ago, certain African countries still have that. I think that's perfectly valid. If a country on a national level says hey we consider this particular health issue to be of a major vital concern, those who want to come in, at least at this time, need to comport with these health requirements or they can't come in. I think that's a perfectly justified exercise of a given jurisdiction's sovereignty, I don't see where there's any problem at all with that. But now, where you have gotten quite honestly people that I have no idea what they have to do with the public health sector, a bunch of presumably Finance Ministers and economic wonks got together and decided to make this Declaration based on what expertise, please enlighten me and I am happy to stand corrected in the comments and do another video if I need to stand corrected. I am happy to do that, but I really don't see where these guys have the expertise to make this declaration in the first place. But sorry, there is something seriously creepy and Orwellian about the notion that "well you don't have international travel rights anymore unless you undergo this digitized documentation process that has to do with"; also something else on top of it, disclosing your confidential medical records. Your history with respect to medical treatment, that's patient confidentiality. Again, major stuff here. These are major philosophical and legal and just basic human right notions that are just sort of being swept aside because they just sort of say "oh well we need interoperability", whatever that means. 

So again, I have got to say G20, I am not really smelling what you are selling on this one and frankly I think we need to take a much longer, harder look at this rather than just let a bunch of Finance Ministers get together and issue a Declaration that we all just sort of say "Okay!"