Washington’s Tennis Court Rules

Politics, not Science, Prevented Novak Djokovic from Participating in the US Open

Guest Editorial by David Marks

David Marks is a veteran writer and documentary film producer. He was the originator and lead investigator for the BBC/PBS co-production of Nazi Gold – revealing the role of Switzerland in World War II – and one of the most widely viewed documentaries on television. David’s new book, "The Way," is an interpretation of the Chinese classic, the Tao Te Ching, available at LaoTzu-TheWay.org

---

One of the world’s great tennis players, Novak Djokovic, was prohibited from playing in the paramount U.S. tournament of the year. Although in July he went to London and won the championship at Wimbledon, his unwillingness to be vaccinated precluded his travel to the United States.

As the US Open comes to a conclusion without Djokovic, there is growing understanding of the effects of COVID-19 and its variants, but U.S. government immigration policy has intentionally lagged in light of this knowledge. For over two years, the Center For Disease Control, the Federal Drug Administration and US officials have made highly questionable pronouncements about the ability of COVID-19 vaccines to prevent transmission and illness. This has driven restrictions that have inconvenienced and punished the unvaccinated, without having any impact on the pandemic.

Promoting vaccines has been a central factor in almost all US government decisions since the disease first appeared. And even as their effectiveness in stopping transmission became doubtful, this position has remained entrenched.

Vaccine manufacturer Pfizer originally claimed their product was over 94% effective after a second dose. Along with the assertions of other vaccine developers, even with additional boosters, these findings were steadily proven to be inconsistent at best. An increasing number of so-called breakthrough cases indicated vaccines were not stopping viral infection — the core measure of effectiveness — particularly from the new variants that quickly emerged. Even as the CDC became aware that the virus was not contained by vaccines, the Biden administration elevated its tirade against those who refused vaccination with unprecedented hostility and inflammatory rhetoric within the context of a public health crisis.

The Pandemic of the Unvaccinated is a term that broadcasts a baseless premise. It has stigmatized nearly half of the US population and continues to be used as a tool to promote indiscriminate government policy. Its invocation has only added further division and animosity to what should be a sober, considered debate about possible benefits and risks of vaccination.

Defining Vaccines

Both the White House and CDC knew that the vaccines were not at all meeting promised expectations, but they failed to change policy. It was more convenient to adjust the meaning of the term, and indeed the CDC did just that, altering the definition of vaccines on their website. The original page about Vaccines and Immunizations, said a vaccine is, "A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease." The revised page, as of September 2021, says, “A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.” This not-so-subtle change fit with the embarrassingly poor results, and decreased the apparent hypocrisy in public explanations and denials.

Ongoing scientific research revealed that response to vaccines was not even close to the beneficial results proclaimed by pharmaceutical giants and the White House; and most Americans still don’t know the truth. In October of 2021, a study proved that viral loads were no different in vaccinated or unvaccinated people with COVID-19. This key finding, in accord with other data that proved the vaccines inefficacious, was virtually ignored.

By the end of 2021, the CDC knew the vaccine would also have a minimal capability in stopping infection from the new Omicron variant. However the White House push for inoculation did not stop. At the beginning of 2022, President Biden prefaced his relentless campaign for vaccination by admitting, “If you are vaccinated and boosted, you may get COVID” — but without any scientific basis, continued to blame the unvaccinated for the suffering in the pandemic.

The CDC Seemingly Awakens to Reality

With increasing public pressure and a flurry of pending lawsuits, the CDC’s most recent COVID recommendations no longer differentiate the approach to prevention or treatment based on a person’s vaccination status. The guidance states that current vaccines provide minimal protection against infection and transmission.

Despite the CDC’s admission, the Biden administration has not stopped promoting vaccines as the primary means of diminishing or ending the pandemic. The claim that they could still prevent serious illness and death deflects away from the more important challenge of stopping infection.

Although there is conflicting data on the general efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines regarding serious complications, one detail is indisputable: those with the greatest risk of hospitalization or death from COVID-19, from early on in the pandemic until now, have been patients with other life-threatening conditions or those in high-risk populations for all illness — whether they are vaccinated or not.

As millions of people with multiple vaccinations continue to be infected, the vaccine’s inability to affect transmission has become obvious in public and private spheres. Scientists have shown that the sub-variants of Omicron prove to be highly resistant to vaccines. And even with the recognition that previous inoculation efforts have failed completely, the pharmaceutical industry and the White House are preparing to distribute the next generation of COVID vaccines.

Politics Disguised as Protection

In this bizarre climate where facts don’t matter, the federal government continues to require international travelers without a U.S. passport or permanent residency to have a current COVID vaccine in order to enter the country. Because vaccine effectiveness has not been addressed openly, and reliance on inoculation can still be presented by the government as central to fighting the pandemic, this policy continues.

It is blatantly apparent that conditional entry into the United States has nothing to do with risk of illness to anyone, particularly healthy athletes like Djokovic. Though unvaccinated, Djokovic has had COVID-19, and widely accepted studies indicate that his natural immunity would give him greater and longer resistance than any COVID vaccine, particularly against new variants. There is no scientific basis for claiming he would be creating a unique risk to anyone, including himself.

It is not difficult to see that the regulation that prohibits Djokovic from competing in the U.S. Open is political rather than scientific. This policy ignores all available research and data, including the CDC’s admission about the vaccine’s limitations. So if it is not based on science or health, who does this prohibition benefit or protect?

A reasonable conclusion is that an open admission by the U.S. government that vaccination had no impact on the course of the pandemic — would be politically devastating. This revelation would begin to awaken an entranced public — and increase calls for an inquiry into the continuing motivation for government agencies to respond to the COVID-19 outbreak by narrowly focusing on vaccines as a panacea.

An examination of the decision-making process of the CDC and the FDA would additionally expose the history of the financial influence of pharmaceutical companies on policies that have adversely effected all Americans. This relationship has had a devastating impact on the pandemic; the protocols in responding to a health crisis should have been continually reviewed and revised by an open, independent body.

Any honest evaluation of the response to the pandemic reveals that politicians and bureaucrats continue to play with objective facts. The unvaccinated have remained convenient scapegoats, blamed and punished for no other reason than to cover for the errors and misdeeds of the U.S. government.

Sadly, Djokovic, whose stance is noble, honorable and heroic, is a pawn in this game.