Here’s what they are planning: a national health ID. This has been under development by international agencies along with the Gates Foundation for several years. Planning for this is being done by ID2020, an organization supported by Accenture, the Rockefeller Foundation, Microsoft Corp., the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and others. Of note, among the others is an entity named “Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance,” whose support of ID2020 demonstrates the interest of would-be globalist regulators in tying vaccination to identification. This is all being built as part of an ongoing effort to force all of the world’s peoples, Americans not excluded, into a thoroughgoing digital ID scheme.

Of course, this sounds crazy. First, vaccines are always good, aren’t they? Second, there has to be some means of tracking who has and has not been vaccinated, right? Third, naturally, there needs to be some means of proving who you are. Finally, there can’t be some worldwide coordination on all of this, centralizing it and imposing it on everyone without Americans having come to know about it. That would be impossible, right?

Wrong. Far removed from the day-to-day concerns of average Americans, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and national and international government agencies work together to craft policies without notice being given to citizens, without mainstream media reporting, and without legislative oversight. In this case, for more than a decade these groups have collaborated on two tracks of tracking and control: a general-purpose digital ID to track each of the world’s inhabitants, and vaccination-based health IDs to allow governments and NGOs to track the health of citizens. In the age of COVID-19, the world’s would-be technocrat controllers and oligarchs are working to merge this pair of efforts into a single, foundational ID that would be used to constrain and control human activity.

Conditioning, Then Control

A first step toward implementing a vaccine-based ID scheme is conditioning people to accept the idea that they will need to prove their vaccination and health status before being allowed by government to engage in any activities that, heretofore, were exercised without restriction by a free people. This is perfect for the age of COVID-19, when mainstream media organs and government “experts” have worked overtime to instill extreme levels of fear into the American people, forcing them into what amounts to house arrest to fight the “war” on the virus. Now, to regain freedom, it has been suggested that people will need to prove that they have gained immunity to the virus. To this end, Anthony Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and a key member of the Trump administration’s coronavirus task force, admitted that the federal government is considering forcing citizens to use coronavirus immunity cards.

“You know, that’s possible,” Fauci told CNN. “I mean, it’s one of those things that we talk about when we want to make sure that we know who the vulnerable people are and [are] not,” he continued. “This is something that’s being discussed. I think it might actually have some merit, under certain circumstances.”

Importantly, the idea was also floated by Bill Gates, former head of Microsoft and current international supporter of digital ID schemes tied to vaccination. During an “Ask Me Anything” session on the social-media site Reddit, Gates said he supported using immunity IDs. “Eventually we will have some digital certificates to show who has recovered or been tested recently or when we have a vaccine who has received it,” Gates remarked. This is significant, as Gates and his foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, have been among the key players in the decade-old effort to develop both general-purpose digital IDs and vaccine/immunity tracking.

The constellation of efforts Gates has been making around digital identity and vaccination includes funding research at MIT on encoding health and identity data into a quantum-dot based system that can be embedded in the skin. Described by researchers in the journal Science Translational Medicine, the researchers said they had developed an “approach to encode medical history on a patient using the spatial distribution of biocompatible, near-infrared quantum dots (NIR QDs) in the dermis. QDs are invisible to the naked eye yet detectable when exposed to NIR light.” 

The journal translated this into less technical terminology: “McHugh et al. developed dissolvable microneedles that deliver patterns of near-infrared light-emitting microparticles to the skin. Particle patterns are invisible to the eye but can be imaged using modified smartphones. By codelivering a vaccine, the pattern of particles in the skin could serve as an on-person vaccination record.… These results demonstrate proof of concept for intradermal on-person vaccination recordkeeping.”

Records in scientific journal research databases reveal sources of funding for studies such as this one. In this case, funding was provided by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, along with the National Science Foundation, the National Cancer Institute, and the National Institutes of Health here in the United States. Funding sources also included the Youth Innovation Promotion Association of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the China Scholarship Council, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. 

WHO Is the Vaccine ID Granddaddy

Fauci and the NIAID have a history of working with the Gates Foundation on worldwide vaccination programs. In 2010, the World Health Organization launched the “Global Vaccine Action Plan to guide discovery, development and delivery of lifesaving vaccines.” 

“The World Health Organization (WHO), UNICEF, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have announced a collaboration to increase coordination across the international vaccine community and create a Global Vaccine Action Plan,” said the WHO press release announcing the plan. 

It continued: “The collaboration follows the January 2010 call by Bill and Melinda Gates for the next ten years to be the Decade of Vaccines. The Global Vaccine Action Plan will enable greater coordination across all stakeholder groups — national governments, multilateral organizations, civil society, the private sector and philanthropic organizations — and will identify critical policy, resource, and other gaps that must be addressed to realize the life-saving potential of vaccines.”

The leadership council for this initiative included:

• Margaret Chan, director general of WHO;

• Anthony Fauci, director of NIAID, part of the National Institutes of Health;

• Anthony Lake, executive director of UNICEF;

• Joy Phumaphi, chair of the International Advisory Committee and executive secretary of the African Leaders Malaria Alliance; and

• Tachi Yamada, president of global health at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Among these names, readers of The New American may be familiar with Anthony Lake, who previously served as national security advisor to President Bill Clinton. Lake, who had been nominated by Clinton to head the Central Intelligence Agency, infamously wasn’t sure if notorious Soviet spy Alger Hiss was actually a spy. 

Also noteworthy is Margaret Chan, former longtime leader of the World Health Organization. Before taking the reins of WHO, Chan served as director of public health for Hong Kong. There, in 2004, she came under criticism from the city’s Legislative Council for her handling of the original SARS outbreak that led to 299 deaths and considerable economic turmoil for the city. Reporting in 2004, the Hong Kong Standard noted that Chan was “unanimously condemned” by the council for what was described as “dereliction of duty before and during the early stage of the Sars outbreak,” said Tim Pang from the group Society for Community Organisation, a group representing the interests of SARS victims in the city. Chan’s inaction “had a serious impact on public health and global health, which should disqualify her from working for the WHO,” Pang concluded, according the Standard. 

Her record at WHO, where she gained the top job after being boosted by Communist China, as reported by Politico, was also not without controversy. In 2009, under her leadership, WHO promoted the idea that the H1N1 swine flu pandemic would be a worldwide catastrophe. In fact, it proved to be much milder than the WHO health bureaucrats promised, prompting noted German physician and one-time member of the German Parliament Wolfgang Wodarg to note in response, “WHO in cooperation with some big pharmaceutical companies and their re-defined pandemics … lowered the alarm threshold.” The organization pushed a mass vaccination program for the swine flu, and these vaccines proved dangerous in some cases, causing narcolepsy in some, according to Politico. Though judged safe by the likes of the CDC, the swine flu vaccine was viewed with increasing suspicion.

Chan was also known for her deferential treatment of communism. She appeared particularly fond of North Korea, where she noted, according to Reuters, that there were no signs of obesity and that “nutrition is an area that the government has to pay attention [to] and especially for pregnant women and for young children.” This in a country where at least 40 percent of the population teeters on the verge of starvation. She also praised the communist dictatorship’s vaccination programs, Reuters reported. “They have something which most other developing countries would envy,” she said of North Korean healthcare. 

Most recently, Chan has worked with Mike Bloomberg’s Task Force on Fiscal Policy for Health. That effort resulted in an April 2019 “study” calling for all nations to raise taxes by 50 percent on sugary soft drinks, alcohol, and tobacco. She is now part of the Council of Advisors for the China-based globalist organization the Boao Forum for Asia, run by former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Zhou Xiaochuan, former governor of the People’s Bank of China, the communist nation’s answer to the Federal Reserve. At the Boao Forum, she is president of the organization’s Global Health Forum (GHF). The GHF’s first annual conference was held in June 2019, and among the organization’s stated goals was to “advance the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” Among a broad menu of other things, that UN program promises by 2030 to “provide legal identity for all, including birth registration.” This UN program is the framework on which all other world government organizations and NGOs are basing their efforts to build health, vaccination, and digital ID plans and programs.

In its documentation, the World Health Organization’s Global Vaccine Action Plan, led by Chan and Fauci, called for numerous steps, including the use of ID technologies to track those vaccinated. According to the Global Vaccine Action Plan 2011-2020 summary available as a PDF from WHO: “Reaching every community will call for an understanding of the barriers to access and use of immunization; it will also require the underserved to be identified, and micro-plans at the district and community levels to be reviewed and revised in order to ensure that these barriers can be overcome. The rapid expansion of information technology should be leveraged to establish immunization registries and electronic databases that will allow each individual’s immunization status to be tracked, timely reminders to be sent when immunization is due and data to be accessed easily to inform actions. The introduction of unique identification numbers could be a catalyst for the establishment of such systems.” 

Schemes for Global ID Control

Tying vaccine and health data to identification documentation is a twist on an already elaborate, emerging constellation of efforts to subjugate the population of the entire world using a universal digital ID. 

In a 2019 paper, the McKinsey Global Institute (McKinsey) described how a digital ID would take the place of traditional paper IDs. The organization worked with all of the leading players in the development of these ID schemes. “Our understanding of good ID was informed by extensive consultations with our research collaboration partners Omidyar Network, the Open Society Foundations, and the Rockefeller Foundation,” said the McKinsey report. “We also conducted in-depth discussions on the opportunities and challenges associated with digital ID with experts from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Center for Global Development, iSPIRT, the United Nations Development Programme, the World Bank Group’s ID4D initiative, and the World Economic Forum.”

This is a rogues’ gallery of NGOs if there ever was one. The Omidyar Network, for instance, thinks capitalism should be “reimagined,” which is code for being “managed” by planners to “rebalance power,” shifting it from markets to the state and from businesses to workers’ groups in such a way as to explicitly undermine free market economics, which the organization identifies with its bogeyman, the “Milton Friedman-Friedrich Hayek paradigm.” 

In addition to the Omidyar Network, the Open Society Foundations from internationalist mastermind George Soros is the chief NGO involved in the disruption of national sovereignty worldwide, while the Rockefeller Foundation has a deep history of dangerous subversion of individual dignity and rights. The latter organization, to point to just one disturbing example, played a key role in the perpetuation of the eugenics scheme worldwide, including in Nazi Germany. This, of course, sounds preposterous to those unfamiliar with this bit of hidden history. But as pioneering journalist Edwin Black, author of several books on the eugenics movement and Nazi Germany, points out, “The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.” 

These are some of the key organizations that now want to be trusted to guide the creation of a world scheme of digital identification.

Based on their discussions with these and other organizations behind the scheme, McKinsey reported that a “good ID” (a euphemism preferred by the Omidyar Network) would be authenticated digitally, and could be issued by “a national or local government, by a consortium of private or nonprofit organizations, or by an individual entity.” Technologies used for authentication, McKinsey wrote, could include everything from “biometric data to passwords, PINs, or smart devices and security tokens.”

Building a digital ID platform, McKinsey notes, is needed in order to reach the goals outlined by the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development — the same program guiding the efforts of Margaret Chan’s Global Health Forum. 

Describing digital ID as an opportunity — the main theme of the report — Mc-Kinsey pointed directly to the UN program, arguing that the world body’s “Sustainable Development Goals promote legal identity for all, especially birth registration, by 2030. Furthermore, digital ID is increasingly seen as a prerequisite to participate in the digital economy, for example in digital finance. Digital inclusion is considered so important to promote economic development that the United Nations has highlighted digital inclusion as a key enabler for 13 of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals.”

That last bit is promoted by those behind the digital ID schemes as a benefit. People provided with these new digital talismans will be able to get financing, secure jobs, purchase products, participate in democracy, and so forth, according to the prevailing propaganda. 

But the reverse is also true. Without the digital ID, freedom will be revoked. There will be no freedom to work for a living, to purchase property, to move about freely, or to trade for goods or services. The digital ID is, in fact, a scheme to restrict or eliminate individual freedom outright and to provide it only on the authority of some NGO or government agency. 

Turn over enough rocks and you’ll find some of those behind the push for a digital ID admitting that the scheme is actually about controlling people and behavior. While pushing for adoption of digital IDs, McKinsey admits: “Without proper controls, digital ID system administrators with nefarious aims, whether they work for private-sector firms or governments, would gain access to and control over data. History provides ugly examples of misuse of traditional identification programs, including tracking or persecuting ethnic and religious groups. Digital ID, if improperly designed, could be used in yet more targeted ways against the interests of individuals or groups by government or the private sector. Potential motivations could include financial profit from the collection and storage of personal data, political manipulation of an electorate, and social control of particular groups through surveillance and restriction of access to uses such as payments, travel, and social media.”

One of the companies building the technological infrastructure for digital ID schemes is arms manufacturer and security firm Thales Group. Partially owned by the French government, the key division of Thales working on Digital ID is Gemalto, a formerly independent company that Thales acquired in 2017 for $5.4 billion. 

As with every other participant in the digital ID scheme, Gemalto points to its alignment with the UN’s goals in its literature on building a digital ID. And it admits that a future digital identity will be necessary for individuals to engage in activities that, today, don’t require an ID. “Without a robust means of proving one’s identity, exercising one’s basic rights, claiming entitlements, accessing a range of governmental services, and conducting many daily activities could be hampered,” Gemalto warns. 

It should be noted that this is not something coming in the distant, far-off future. Digital IDs are already being implemented. For just one example, in July 2019, Thales launched the Gemalto Digital ID Wallet. In a press release the company described the function of this technology:

With Thales’s new Gemalto Digital ID Wallet, governments will issue a secure digital version of official documents including identity cards, health cards and drivers licenses, available to all citizens on their smartphones. Citizens will therefore be able to prove who they are, both online and in the “real world,” and access their rights and services at the touch of a button. The solution uses multi-layered security techniques and sophisticated encryption to achieve robust protection of personal data, whilst offering users complete control over what information they choose to share, with whom, and when.

Solutions such as this would invariably be tied to various databases housing information about each person. It is a trivial matter to include in such databases information about credit scores, consumer behavior, and more. In China, the population is increasingly controlled by the communist regime’s “social credit score.” Writing for Digital Trends in 2018, Luke Dormehl pointed out that the West is closer to China’s system than many think. Of China’s Orwellian plan, he wrote: “In addition to more mundane areas like whether you pay your community charge on time, the system’s reputational algorithm will also factor in your choice of online friends. That person who complains about how the government is doing its job could suddenly cost you some serious social cred. Befriend too many wrongthinkers and you could quickly find yourself classed as a wrongthinker too.” 

It’s disturbing, and it’s not going to be confined to China. “It’s an idea straight out of the oft-invoked George Orwell dystopia Nineteen Eighty-Four,” Dormehl continued. “But it’s also not wholly unique to China. True, the U.S. government isn’t publicly instituting a Social Credit System, but the idea that digital reputation analysis isn’t something that affects us all in 2018 is patently untrue.” 

While somewhat informal and dispersed today in America, a worldwide digital ID would offer the planet’s would-be ruling class — the international “Deep State” if you will — the opportunity to roll out a communist China-like system for everyone, offering a level of control over people never before possible, or even dreamed of by tyrants of the past.

The Health ID Scheme

One of the key international organizations working to integrate digital ID and health ID is the World Bank, through its Identification for Development (ID4D) scheme. In 2018, the world financial body revealed in a report on its ID4D initiatives that it was receiving key support from certain governments and from a pair of the internationalist and subversive NGOs that are prominent throughout the movement to shackle the world’s people to an ID control scheme. “The work of ID4D is made possible through support from the World Bank Group, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the UK Government, the Australian Government and the Omidyar Network,” the World Bank report notes.

The World Bank calls for the linking of a health ID with existing national IDs into a resulting, all-encompassing digital ID called a “foundational identification.” 

“Integration between foundational identification and healthcare systems has the potential to not only improve the delivery of health services and public health management, but also to strengthen identification systems themselves,” the World Bank report notes. “This is particularly the case where there are strong linkages between identification and civil registration systems, the latter of which already relies on the health sector for birth and death registration. Incorporating foundational systems into healthcare can strengthen and streamline these processes and create further demand for identity documents and civil registration.”

On the latter point, generating citizen demand for more ID documents, the World Bank report is slyly admitting that demand for IDs will be driven by restricting services to only those who already have the ID required. “Where a unique foundational identifier is required to enroll in or access health services, it may increase incentives to obtain the ID, as in Estonia and India,” the report notes. Again, that’s because without the new ID, citizens would be prevented from accessing services.

Of course, the World Bank’s 2018 report also pointed out that a “foundational identification” scheme that incorporates health ID would be “useful” during health emergencies. “Stronger vital statistics generated by CR [civil registration] systems also benefit public health by improving the accuracy and timeliness of important indicators — e.g., mortality, morbidity, maternal and child health, etc. — used in health policy and planning and emergency response to disease outbreaks,” the organization says.

Population Control

As if tracking and controlling people isn’t bad enough, there may be a more sinister population-control plan afoot. Speaking at a TED conference in 2010 on the subject of cutting carbon emissions to prevent global warming, Bill Gates pointed to population control as one area where an impact could be made. Among other things, he singled out vaccination as having a role in population control.

“First we’ve got population,” Gates began. “The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

Now, most people make the reasonable conclusion that vaccines, making people less prone to disease and, therefore, healthier, promote population stability, if not outright growth. But Gates, quite curiously, tied vaccines to population control in this talk. 

Subsequently, Melinda Gates attempted to explain his counterintuitive philosophy on vaccines for population control. In the couple’s 2017 Annual Letter, she wrote: “Saving children’s lives is the goal that launched our global work. It’s an end in itself. But then we learned it has all these other benefits as well. If parents believe their children will survive — and if they have the power to time and space their pregnancies — they choose to have fewer children.”

Credible but also creditably disputed claims, especially in Kenya, that some Gates-related vaccines intervened in human reproduction aside, Gates and his organization are interested in population control. Their work for a decade or more on tying vaccination to identification is clearly part of this agenda. Even taking the generous position of assigning to Gates the possibility that he is attempting to simply improve childhood health and reduce poverty does not remove or make illegitimate concerns about using vaccination and health IDs to track the world’s population, as such a scheme creates a system of control for population technocrats to direct the lives of billions of people in a power grab of unimaginable proportions — and consequences.

At least not everyone in the Trump administration is simply going along with the internationalist plan for the implementation of health IDs. 

Speaking to Laura Ingraham on Fox News, Attorney General Bill Barr said he didn’t like the idea of vaccine IDs and certificates to prove immunity to COVID-19.

“I’m very concerned about the slippery slope in terms of continuing encroachments on personal liberty. I do think during the emergency, appropriate, reasonable steps are fine,” Barr said when asked about vaccine certificates. Asked for more specifics, he continued: “I’d be a little concerned about that, the tracking of people and so forth, generally, especially going forward over a long period of time.”

Opposition aside, if technocrats such as Gates achieve their aims, Americans will not be able to shop, work, travel, or do anything else without their vaccine/health ID, which will almost certainly end up in some sort of technological and possibly injectable form. This likely would then be combined in the future with your credit score and other social scores, becoming an all-encompassing tracking and management technology for the world’s population.

Keep in mind, too, the very important point that plans for a digital ID imposed worldwide are not schemes for the far-distant future. The UN development goals motivating the construction of the ID scheme call for implementation by 2030, just a decade away. But already, much of the infrastructure is in place. From Thales and Gemalto already launching digital ID wallets, to pilot projects in places such as Bangladesh and early digital ID operations in Estonia and India, to name just two of many, the electronic control trap is ready to spring. 

“The technology sector is on a mission to equip everyone on the planet with a digital and online presence,” wrote Gavi Vaccine Alliance CEO Seth Berkely in Nature in 2017. “One of the biggest needs is for affordable, secure digital identification systems that can store a child’s medical history, and that can be accessed even in places without reliable electricity. That might seem a tall order, but it is both achievable and necessary,” he concluded. 

Again, Berkely was writing in 2017. The scheme has made great strides since then, and a pandemic is just what is needed to scare a fearful populace into submission.

Contrary to what the Deep State schemers and planners claim, people receive neither legitimacy nor identity from an NGO- or government-administered database or tracking system. Each person’s natural rights are inherent in their humanity and cannot be subjected in any legitimate way to control, management, and regulation by some oligarchic international bureaucracy. 

A digital ID scheme is nothing more than a means of tracking personal activity and limiting and regulating access and behavior. It is antithetical to a free people. That the plans for this have been and continue to be made at international conferences and behind the closed doors of international agencies and NGOs, unreported by the media and without citizen knowledge or assent, tells you much about their essential nature. 

Technocrat oligarchs and planners are not looking to emancipate the peoples of the world, but to enslave  and control them. Don’t let them. 

Live free — oppose the ID! 

Photo: AP Images

Dennis Behreandt is a research professional and writer, frequently covering subjects in history, theology, and science and technology. He has worked as an editor and publisher and is a former managing editor of The New American.

This article originally appeared in the May 18, 2020 print edition of The New American. To subscribe, click here.