Indian authorities have arrested at least 75 Kashmiri political leaders and activists in anticipation of an uprising following the triumph of an alliance of Kashmir’s regional political parties in a local election, a senior police official unveiled.
Those arrested included pro-independence leaders and members of the banned Jamat-e-Islami group, who were rounded up in what the government described as preventive custody, the official told Reuters on the condition of anonymity.
The detentions challenge the verdict of the people, said Imran Nabi Dar, spokesman for regional party, the National Conference, and a key member of the alliance.
The District Council election that ended early this week was the first such exercise since the government of India’s ultra-nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi revoked the special status of the Muslim-majority region under its control last year.
Authorities in New Delhi then waged a crackdown on opposition activists in the restive region and rounded up hundreds of people in purported efforts to forestall protests and violence.
The alliance’s latest victory confirms that Kashmiris have not accepted Modi’s decision to end Kashmir’s special status, said Omar Abdullah, a former chief minister and head of the National Conference.
Following their release from prolonged detention, Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti, chief of the Jammu and Kashmir People’s Democratic Party, announced the alliance in October aimed at seeking a peaceful restoration of Kashmir’s autonomy.
Meanwhile, the elections in Kashmir appear to have paved the way for other electoral processes in the volatile region. However, many say this ballot has made people of Kashmir politically aware of the fact that New Delhi is trying to thrust such an electoral process in order to create the impression that normalcy has taken hold after it stripped Kashmir of its autonomy, without actually working on building trust and bridging the gaps.
India last year scrapped the semi-autonomy of its part of Kashmir. New Delhi unilaterally introduced a slew of laws that locals say are aimed at shifting the region’s demographics and economically disempowering local residents.
Modi’s government revoked the New Delhi-controlled Jammu and Kashmir’s special status last year and claimed at the time that ending Kashmir’s special status was necessary for closer integration of the territory into the rest of India.
New Delhi’s approach towards the region has been widely criticized as being an extension of its tolerating instances of egregious discrimination and occasional deadly attacks against Muslims on the mainland.
Kashmir has long been a flash point between India and Pakistan, which have fought three of their four wars over the disputed Himalayan territory. Both countries rule parts of Kashmir while claiming it in full. Thousands of people have been killed since early 1990s.
Palantir has won a huge contract to continue its work on the NHS Covid-19 Data Store. But the British public will have no way of knowing how the private information the company has been granted access to will be used.
The potentially illegal two-year deal, which began on December 12, was awarded under the Crown Commercial Services G-Cloud 11 Framework, a ‘streamlined’ – i.e. much-accelerated – system typically used for minor contracts, which doesn’t require a tender to be published. Under the terms of the agreement, the store will rely on Palantir’s Foundry data until at least December 2022.
The store was established in March to manage Covid-19 data and inform the government’s response to the virus. Palantir was one of several tech firms hired for the project, for the princely sum of £1, and ever since has been granted access to sensitive data such as patients’ ages, addresses, health conditions, treatments and whether they smoke or drink, among other private information.
Such information is clearly a highly valuable commodity, exclusive oversight of which is fraught with opportunity for abuse, but Whitehall insists any personally-identifying details are aggregated or anonymized prior to being shared with Palantir et al.
Despite these reassurances, the deal did not go unchallenged – not least because the contracts underpinning the deal weren’t published until June, mere hours before a legal action brought by political campaigning website openDemocracy and law firm Foxglove to secure their release was due to commence.
A very secret weapon
An even cursory review of Palantir’s operations starkly underlines why so many should be concerned about its involvement with the NHS, and its access to such intimate patient particulars.
Co-founder Peter Thiel’s inspiration for the company was a desire to repurpose the fraud recognition systems of PayPal – which he also co-founded – for defense and security applications. Most established investors weren’t interested in his pitch, but it caught the attention of In-Q-Tel, the little-known venture capital wing of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which gifted the start-up US$2 million in 2004.
A decade later, Palantir was valued in the billions and pulling in hundreds of millions of dollars annually, primarily from US government agencies, including the CIA, Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Special Operations Command.
The company’s ‘Gotham’ platform pools these entities’ disparate and sprawling databases and allows for the effective sorting, management and cross-referencing of information contained therein.
These capabilities can be put to predictive purposes – for example, soldiers in Afghanistan used the tool to combine maps, intelligence reports, and reports of roadside bombings to plan missions. As a result, Bloomberg dubbed Palantir the War on Terror’s “secret weapon,” and Gotham also became of intense interest to law enforcement agencies the world over.
Due to the veil of secrecy surrounding Palantir’s commercial activities, the total number of forces employing the technology globally is unknown – although the company isn’t only opaque about what services it provides to which clients, but has been outright dishonest at the nature of its government partnerships in the past.
Usage metrics
In 2018, it was revealed police in New Orleans utilized Palantir software to trace targets’ ties to gang members, link suspects’ criminal histories, analyze social media, and forecast the likelihood individuals would commit crimes or become a victim thereof.
Several high-profile convictions of violent, murderous drug gangs were secured in the process, although it was operated in total secrecy for five years until exposure by tech website the Verge, with even the city council totally unaware.
The tendency toward concealment may at least in part be attributable to public outcry over predictive policing programs, which exhibit seemingly invariable racial bias. Even algorithms that do not specifically use race as a metric have been found prone to this prejudice, due to the inclusion of ancillary variables such as socio-economic background, education, and location.
Still, significant light was shed on how authorities use Gotham, and what information it collates, in September 2020, when two Los Angeles Police Department training documents – ‘Intermediate Course’ and ‘Advance Course’ – used to instruct officers on the workings of the system were leaked.
The data collected on citizens – both law-abiding and those with criminal records, or suspected of having committed a crime, or even being connected in any way to individuals who have – includes sex, race, names, contact details, addresses, prior warrants, mugshots, surveillance photos, personal relationships, past and current employers, and even tattoos, scars, piercings and other identifying features.
According to an ‘LAPD Palantir Usage Metrics’ document, in excess of 5,000 officers – accounting for half the Department’s members – had access to Gotham in 2016, and in that year, they collectively ran around 60,000 searches through the system in support of over 10,000 cases.
Such a cutting-edge service doesn’t come cheap, with subscriptions running to millions of dollars annually. This sizable investment comes despite questions hanging over Palantir’s predictive policing effectiveness, which may suggest the software’s value to authorities doesn’t necessarily lie in its crime-fighting prowess.
Official figures indicate violent crime rates remained virtually unchanged in Los Angeles from 2009 to 2019, while aggravated assaults increased. However, non-violent crime did fall over the same period, in particular burglary and vehicle theft.
‘Without any safeguards
Troublingly, crucial portions of Palantir’s NHS contract are entirely redacted, including sections titled “limit of parties’ liability,”“authorised user groups,” and “data integration and analytics capability for self-service” – which covers how many “authorised users” are permitted to create and modify tools designed using the data, and the data sets involved.
In other words, the public presently has no way of knowing precisely what private information Palantir has been granted access to, how it will be used, and with who and what it can be shared with.
Shocking stuff indeed, yet the mainstream UK media and lawmakers alike have been almost entirely silent on what should at the very least be the subject of intense national debate. Amazingly, the company’s name has been mentioned a grand total of twice in parliamentary debates over the course of 2020, and only once in a critical context.
This wall of establishment silence stands in stark contrast to the US, where legislators – including Senator Elizabeth Warren – have prominently raised privacy concerns over Palantir’s participation in ‘HHS Protect’, a program launched by the Department of Health and Human Services to track the spread of coronavirus. Under its auspices, the company harvests data from a variety of federal, state and local government sources, healthcare facilities, colleges, and more.
“The inclusion of Protected Health Information in this database raises serious privacy concerns,” a coalition of Democratic senators wrote in July. “Neither HHS nor Palantir has publicly detailed what it plans to do with this, or what privacy safeguards have been put in place, if any. We are concerned that, without any safeguards, data in HHS Protect could be used by other federal agencies in unexpected, unregulated, and potentially harmful ways.”
While ministers claim life in the UK will begin returning to “normal” around Easter 2021, the length of the deal places Palantir in a position of immense and entirely unaccountable privilege at the heart of an institution which theoretically provides vital services to every British citizen, for the next two years and potentially beyond.
Readers may wish to ask themselves who or what their elected representatives are truly working for, and which interests they ultimately serve – or better yet, pose these queries to parliamentarians directly.
Kit Klarenberg is an investigative journalist exploring the role of intelligence services in shaping politics and perceptions.
Maybe you have some sense that something fishy is going on? Same. If it’s not one thing, it’s another.
Coronavirus lived on surfaces until it didn’t. Masks didn’t work until they did, then they did not. There is asymptomatic transmission, except there isn’t. Lockdowns work to control the virus except they do not. All these people are sick without symptoms until, whoops, PCR tests are wildly inaccurate because they were never intended to be diagnostic tools. Everyone is in danger of the virus except they aren’t. It spreads in schools except it doesn’t.
On it goes. Daily. It’s no wonder that so many people have stopped believing anything that “public health authorities” say. In combination with governors and other autocrats doing their bidding, they set out to take away freedom and human rights and expected us to thank them for saving our lives. At some point this year (for me it was March 12) life began feeling like a dystopian novel of your choice.
Well, now I have another piece of evidence to add to the mile-high pile of fishy mess. The World Health Organization, for reasons unknown, has suddenly changed its definition of a core conception of immunology: herd immunity. Its discovery was one of the major achievements of 20th century science, gradually emerging in the 1920s and then becoming ever more refined throughout the 20th century.
Herd immunity is a fascinating observation that you can trace to biological reality or statistical probability theory, whichever you prefer. (It is certainly not a “strategy” so ignore any media source that describes it that way.) Herd immunity speaks directly, and with explanatory power, to the empirical observation that respiratory viruses are either widespread and mostly mild (common cold) or very severe and short-lived (Ebola).
Why is this? The reason is that when a virus kills its host, it cannot migrate. The more aggressively it does this, the less it spreads. If the virus doesn’t kill its host, it can hop to others through all the usual means. When you get a virus and fight it off, your immune system encodes that information in a way that builds immunity to it. When it happens to enough people (and each case is different so we can’t put a clear number on it) the virus loses its pandemic quality and becomes endemic, which is to say predictable and manageable. Each new generation incorporates that information through more exposure.
This is what one would call Virology/Immunology 101. It’s what you read in every textbook. It’s been taught in 9th grade cell biology for probably 80 years. Observing the operations of this evolutionary phenomenon is pretty wonderful because it increases one’s respect for the way in which human biology has adapted to the presence of pathogens without absolutely freaking out.
And the discovery of this fascinating dynamic in cell biology is a major reason why public health became so smart in the 20th century. We kept calm. We managed viruses with medical professionals: doctor/patient relationships. We avoided the Medieval tendency to run around with hair on fire but rather used rationality and intelligence. Even the New York Timesrecognizes that natural immunity is powerful with Covid-19, which is not in the least bit surprising.
Until one day, this strange institution called the World Health Organization – once glorious because it was mainly responsible for the eradication of smallpox – has suddenly decided to delete everything I just wrote from cell biology basics. It has literally changed the science in a Soviet-like way. It has removed with the delete key any mention of natural immunities from its website. It has taken the additional step of actually mischaracterizing the structure and functioning of vaccines.
So that you will believe me, I will try to be as precise as possible. Here is the website from June 9, 2020. You can see it here on Archive.org. You have to move down the page and click on the question about herd immunity. You see the following.
That’s pretty darn accurate overall. Even the statement that the threshold is “not yet clear” is correct. There are cross immunities to Covid from other coronaviruses and there is T cell memory that contributes to natural immunity.
Some estimates are as low as 10%, which is a far cry from the modelled 70% estimate of virus immunity that is standard within the pharmaceutical realm. Real life is vastly more complicated than models, in economics or epidemiology. The WHO’s past statement is a solid, if “pop,” description.
However, in a screenshot dated November 13, 2020, we read the following note that somehow pretends as if human beings do not have immune systems at all but rather rely entirely on big pharma to inject things into our blood.
What this note at the World Health Organization has done is deleted what amounts to the entire million-year history of humankind in its delicate dance with pathogens. You could only gather from this that all of us are nothing but blank and unimprovable slates on which the pharmaceutical industry writes its signature.
In effect, this change at WHO ignores and even wipes out 100 years of medical advances in virology, immunology, and epidemiology. It is thoroughly unscientific – shilling for the vaccine industry in exactly the way the conspiracy theorists say that WHO has been doing since the beginning of this pandemic.
What’s even more strange is the claim that a vaccine protects people from a virus rather than exposing them to it. What’s amazing about this claim is that a vaccine works precisely by firing up the immune system through exposure. Why I had to type those words is truly beyond me. This has been known for centuries. There is simply no way for medical science completely to replace the human immune system. It can only game it via what used to be called inoculation.
Take from this what you will. It is a sign of the times. For nearly a full year, the media has been telling us that “science” requires that we comply with their dictates that run contrary to every tenet of liberalism, every expectation we’ve developed in the modern world that we can live freely and with the certainty of rights. Then “science” took over and our human rights were slammed. And now the “science” is actually deleting its own history, airbrushing over what it used to know and replacing it with something misleading at best and patently false at worst.
I cannot say why, exactly, the WHO did this. Given the events of the past nine or ten months, however, it is reasonable to assume that politics are at play. Since the beginning of the pandemic, those who have been pushing lockdowns and hysteria over the coronavirus have resisted the idea of natural herd immunity, instead insisting that we must live in lockdown until a vaccine is developed.
That is why the Great Barrington Declaration, written by three of the world’s preeminent epidemiologists and which advocated embracing the phenomenon of herd immunity as a way of protecting the vulnerable and minimizing harms to society, was met with such venom. Now we see the WHO, too, succumbing to political pressure. This is the only rational explanation for changing the definition of herd immunity that has existed for the past century.
The science has not changed; only the politics have. And that is precisely why it is so dangerous and deadly to subject virus management to the forces of politics. Eventually the science too bends to the duplicitous character of the political industry.
When the existing textbooks that students use in college contradict the latest official pronouncements from the authorities during a crisis in which the ruling class is clearly attempting to seize permanent power, we’ve got a problem.
Jeffrey A. Tucker is Editorial Director for the American Institute for Economic Research. He is the author of many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press and nine books in 5 languages, most recently Liberty or Lockdown.
A radical bill proposed by the French Government that would see unvaccinated people refused basic services such as public transport has been put on ice after a massive backlash.
The proposed law mandates that citizens have proof of a negative COVID test or “preventative treatment, including the administration of a vaccine” in order to “access transport or to some locations, as well as certain activities.”
French Health Minister Olivier Véran publicly postponed the bill in an announcement Tuesday evening.
“Because there needs to be trust for the French people to go and get vaccinated of their own free will, because we’re still in a state of sanitary crisis … the government won’t present the text [to the National Assembly] for several months, before we’re out of the crisis,” Véran stated.
The bill was lambasted by political figures across the spectrum, with conservative MP Fabien Di Filippo labelling it “vaccine blackmail.”
RN leader Marine Le Pen branded the vaccine measure “essentially totalitarian.”
“In a backhanded way, this bill does not aim to make vaccinations mandatory, but will prevent anybody who doesn’t comply from having a social life,” she said.
RN party spokesman Sebastien Chenu called the plan a “health dictatorship,” while centrist senator Nathalie Goulet said the draft was “an attack on public freedoms.”
Guillaume Peltier, deputy leader of the center-right LR party, warned that the law would allow the government to “get all the power to suspend our freedoms without parliamentary control.”
France’s vaccination program, set to get underway on Sunday, will not be mandatory, but a majority of 55% of citizens say they will not get the shot.
As we previously highlighted, France has imposed some of the strictest lockdown measures in Europe, with citizens having to fill out a form every time they leave their home.
Former British PM Tony Blair is calling for millions to be vaccinated with a single dose in a radical acceleration of the vax programme and also for the roll-out of health passports. But what, exactly, is his medical expertise?
‘Listen to the experts.’ ‘Follow the science.’ Two phrases we’ve heard ad nauseam in 2020.
But who qualifies as an ‘expert’ or ‘scientist’ is highly selective. A whole host of medical and scientific professionals who have argued against lockdowns as an anti-coronavirus strategy have been dismissed as ‘cranks’: we saw that quite clearly in the way the distinguished authors of the Great Barrington Declaration were treated.
By way of contrast, those with no qualifications in ‘the science’ have been elevated as public health gurus, simply because they are pro-lockdown and espouse the ‘official narrative’.
The most obvious example of these double standards is Bill Gates, a rather geekish multi-billionaire American computer software tycoon with a nice line in sweaters who is regarded as the ‘go-to’ man by leading news channels on what we should do next about Covid-19.
Gates’ funding of public health bodies and university departments – and media outlets too – is extraordinary. But that shouldn’t hide the fact that he is not a qualified doctor. Yet criticise Gates’ interventions and you’ll be screamed at by the very same people who say we shouldn’t be listening to experienced medical/scientific professionals who take a very different view. And so it is with Anthony Charles Lynton Blair.
‘The Blair Creature’ – to give him Peter Hitchens’ wonderful nickname – has emerged, on the day before Christmas Eve, to call for as many people as possible in Britain to get a special New Year present. “The aim should be to vaccinate as many people as possible in the coming months,” Blair writes in The Independent.
The target should be to cover a majority of the population by the end of February. “We should consider using all the available doses in January as first doses, that is, not keeping back half for second doses,” he continues. That’s despite the two vaccines in question only being licensed on the basis that people receive two doses.
Let’s remind ourselves of Tony Blair’s qualifications for giving advice on vaccination programmes. Er, he doesn’t have any. He studied law at Oxford where he played in a pop group called Ugly Rumours. He became a barrister, not a doctor or scientist. Then of course he went into politics, bombing various countries.
Yet here he is pontificating as if he’s some kind of world expert on vaccine programmes. But rather than focus on his lack of qualifications in immunology, the same ‘centrist’ crowd (many of whom hurled rather large stones at the genuine experts who did oppose lockdowns), laud the intervention of ‘The Blair Creature’. Tony is speaking, so we all must stop whatever we’re doing and listen.
Really? I’ll only start listening to Blair’s advice when those Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that he assured us could be assembled and launched within 45 minutes turn up. Why on earth should we trust someone who launched an illegal war based on false accusations?
This is not even about the vaccine. It’s about loud ‘this is what needs to be done’ statements on Covid-19 coming from people who have no medical education, while those who do are being sidelined for not toeing the ‘party line’.
It’s not just mass ‘single dose’ vaccinations by the end of February that Blair is keen to see rolled out. He wants health passports too. “Prepare for a form of health passport now,” he says. “I know all the objections, but it will happen. It’s the only way the world will function and for lockdowns to no longer be the sole course of action.”
This is another example of ‘it’s not what is said, but who says it’ in operation. For several months, a number of commentators (myself included) have warned about the roll-out of health passports and how our freedom to travel, attend sports and cultural events, or even go to the shops could be dependent on us possessing one.
But we were dismissed as ‘conspiracy theorists’ or worse, even though the World Economic Forum has been enthusiastically promoting such schemes.
Now Tony Blair, the great idol of those who spend their lives calling others ‘conspiracy theorists’, says that health passports “will happen”. Got that? “Will happen.” Not ‘might happen’, or ‘will happen if governments and the public decide they’re a good thing’, but “will happen”.
There is not meant to be any debate on the matter. The Davos elites have decided. We plebs are merely expected to wait in line for our jabs, and then gratefully receive our health passports without which we won’t be able to do things we took for granted just 12 months ago.
Following ‘doctor’s orders’? Or implementing a dystopian ‘Great Reset’ political agenda with terrible consequences for personal liberty? You decide.
Neil Clark is a journalist, writer, broadcaster and blogger. His award winning blog can be found at http://www.neilclark66.blogspot.com. He tweets on politics and world affairs @NeilClark66
If the Gateses and the Faucis and the representatives of the international medical establishment get their way, life will not return to normal until the entire planet is vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. What many do not yet understand, however, is that the vaccines that are being developed for SARS-Cov-2 are unlike any vaccines that have ever been used on the human population before. And, as radically different as these vaccines appear, they represent only the very beginning of a complete transformation of vaccine technology that is currently taking place in research labs across the planet. This is a study of The Future of Vaccines.
For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.
For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).
TRANSCRIPT
Since the dawn of the corona crisis, we have been told over and over that the world has changed forever.
MARIA VAN KERKHOVE: What we’re going to have to figure out, and I think what we’re all going to have to figure out together, is what our new normal looks like. Our new normal includes physical distancing from others. Our new normal includes wearing masks where appropriate. Our new normal includes us knowing where this virus is each and every day, where we live, where we work, where we want to travel.
DUCEY: What we’ve gone through and the challenges that I’m sharing with you really is Arizona’s new normal. And it’s our new normal for the foreseeable future. I really want ask people to get their heads around that.
JUSTIN TRUDEAU: This pandemic has provided an opportunity for a reset. This is our chance to accelerate our pre-pandemic efforts to reimagine economic systems that actually address global challenges like extreme poverty, inequality and climate change.
This “New Normal” with which we are being threatened brings with it great uncertainty. Uncertainty over work. Uncertainty over travel. Uncertainty over what our lives will look like on the other side of this “Great Reset.”
But there is one thing that we can be certain about: If the Gateses and the Faucis and the representatives of the international medical establishment get their way, life will not return to normal until the entire planet is vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2.
GATES: It is fair to say things won’t go back to truly normal until we have a vaccine that we’ve gotten out to basically the entire world.
ZEKE EMANUEL: Realistically, COVID-19 will be here for the next 18 months or more. We will not be able to return to normalcy until we find a vaccine or effective medications.
ANTHONY FAUCI: So, if we get the overwhelming majority of people taking the vaccine, and you have, on the one hand, an effective vaccine, on the other hand, a high degree of uptake of the vaccine, we could start getting things back to relative normal as we get into the second and third quarter of the year, where people can start thinking about doing things that were too dangerous just months ago.
This message has been repeated so frequently and so consistently by public health officials, political “leaders” and media commentators that many have begun to believe it. And now, the public is being prepared for an unprecedented global vaccination campaign. Taking the form of a military operation . . .
GENERAL GUSTAVE PERNA: It is this effort that I can look you in the face and say to you, “E.U.A. [Emergency Use Authorization] comes, 24 hours later vaccines will be distributed out to the American people and be ready for administration.”
. . .the plan is to rush a new generation of experimental vaccines to market and deliver them at “warp speed” before any long term testing has even been attempted. What many do not yet understand, however, is that the vaccines that are being developed for SARS-Cov-2 are unlike any vaccines that have ever been used on the human population before.
And, as radically different as these vaccines appear, they represent only the very beginning of a complete transformation of vaccine technology that is currently taking place in research labs across the planet.
For almost the entirety of 2020, a traumatized public has been told that nothing resembling our pre-corona lives will return until there is a COVID vaccine.
So it is no surprise that the same media sources that have been promoting this talking point would celebrate the hopeful pronouncements of the Big Pharma manufacturers regarding their COVID vaccine candidates.
BECKY QUICK: Welcome back to Squawk Box everybody. We have some breaking news from Pfizer. Meg Tirrell joins us right now. Meg, good morning.
MEG TIRELL: Good morning, Becky. This is the news that we’ve been waiting to hear.
Pfizer and BioNTech reporting the first results from their phase 3 vaccine trial saying that in this interim look the vaccine showed to be more than 90 percent effective.
JAKE WHITTENBERG: Well, we begin with breaking news this morning. The push to find a coronavirus vaccine. This morning, Moderna says its vaccine is more than 94 percent effective.
TIM STENOVEC: Vaccine headlines are rolling in. One of AstraZeneca’s doses stopped an average of 70 percent of patients from falling ill and that even rose to 90 percent with additional regimens now the head of the government’s operation warp speed is saying that quote hopefully vaccinations in the u.s will start in less than three weeks.
But lost amid the hype of this media-led celebration are some sobering facts.
Firstly, these news stories were not generated on the back of publicly accessible data, but literal corporate press releases. This announcement-by-press-release style of corporate self-reporting was immediately exposed as a sham when AstraZeneca was found to have given an “unintentionally” lower dose to one group of trial participants and then touted the results of that smaller dose group without clarifying the confusion.
FRANCINE LACQUA: I’m not really sure what to make of this AstraZeneca-Oxford trial there’s confusion about whether it’s 60 efficacy whether it’s 90 what exactly happened.
ANDREW PEKOSZ: Well it is a little bit unclear, but let’s start with what we think we know. which is some of the patients that were in their phase three clinical trial ended up getting a half-dose of their of the initial inoculation and it turns out that the group that got that half dose followed by a boost had a much higher rate of protection from covid19 disease than the group that got the dosing schedule that the company wanted to give to everybody
Secondly, the “success” of these vaccines is not being measured by their ability to prevent infection with SARS-CoV-2, as many in the general public believe, but merely to lessen the severity of the symptoms associated with COVID-19, like coughs and headaches.
ANJALEE KHEMLANI: Do you anticipate that the first sets of vaccines out the door will be more of a less effective blocker of the virus?
FAUCI: Well that’s the primary—that’s a great question, and that’s the primary endpoint of most of the virus, is to prevent clinical disease. To prevent symptomatic disease, not necessarily to prevent infection.
Thirdly, the studies are touted as involving tens of thousands of people, but in Pfizer’s trial, only 170 of them were reported as being “diagnosed with COVID-19” during the trial. Of those, 162 were in the placebo group and eight were in the vaccine group. From this, it is inferred that the vaccine prevented 154/162 people from developing the disease, or “95%”. But as even the British Medical Journalpoints out, “a relative risk reduction is being reported, not absolute risk reduction, which appears to be less than 1%.”
Fourthly, the trials are still ongoing. Although several countries have now issued “emergency use authorization” allowing these companies to begin distributing these vaccines to the public, the stage III trials of the vaccines are ongoing, with several of the planned “endpoints” for the data not being collected for 24 months after injection. As a result, as even the UK’s own “Information for UK Healthcare Professionals” pamphlet regarding Pfizer’s vaccine points out, “Animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been completed,” meaning that, “It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility.”
Even more chillingly, it is not healthcare professionals who are leading the charge to deliver this vaccine to the world, but the military
MURRAY BREWSTER: He commanded Canada’s NATO mission in Iraq. Now he’s in charge of making sure Canadians get the COVID vaccine.
TRUDEAU: Major General Dany Fortin will be heading up the logistics and operations within the centre.
RICHARD PASCOE: You know, we’re about to turn the corner here into 2021 and I think the American public should be very proud of what the army and the Department of Defense and our partners on the science side have done to bring these vaccines to the market.
BREWSTER: How much more involved the military will get is unclear. Public Health is still developing its plan. Defense Minister Harjit Sajjan acknowledges it is not beyond the realm of possibility in some parts of Canada troops could be running clinics and administering vaccine.
And most importantly, as incredible as this headlong rush to push an experimental vaccine on the majority of the world’s population is, it is even more incredible when it is revealed that Moderna and Pfizer’s vaccines are not, in fact, “vaccines” as anyone in the general public understands them. They are mRNA vaccines, a novel method of vaccination that has never before been approved for human use.
RHIJU DAS: So the concept of an RNA vaccine is: Let’s inject the RNA molecule that encodes for the spike protein.
ANGELA RASMUSSEN: It’s making your cell do the work of creating this viral protein that is going to be recognized by your immune system and trigger the development of these antibodies.
DAS: Our bodies won’t make a full-fledged infectious virus. They’ll just make a little piece and then learn to recognize it and then get ready to destroy the virus if it then later comes and invades us.
[. . .]
DAS: It’s a relatively new, unproven technology. And there’s still no example of an RNA vaccine that’s been deployed worldwide in the way that we need for the coronavirus.
RASMUSSEN: There is the possibility for unforeseen, adverse effects.
AKIKO IWASAKI: So this is all new territory. Whether it would elicit protective immune response against this virus is just unknown right now.
To be sure, the new mRNA vaccines work on an entirely different principle than any other vaccine that has ever been used on the human population. In order to understand that, it is important to understand the history of vaccine technologies.
The concept of “inoculation” has been around for centuries, with one of its earliest instances in China several centuries ago, where dried-out scabs of lightly infected smallpox sufferers were powdered and then blown up the nostrils of healthy people. The procedure aimed to infect the patient with a mild strain of smallpox, thus conferring immunity on them. This practice was brought over to Europe via Turkey and was eventually adopted around the world.
“Vaccination” developed in the late 18th century when Edward Jenner discovered that those who had been exposed to cowpox—a less virulent relative of smallpox—were themselves immune from smallpox. He “vaccinated” a boy with a cowpox vesicle from a milkmaid and then inoculated him with smallpox two months later. The boy did not develop smallpox, and the procedure was hailed as a breakthrough of medical science. The term “vaccination,” derived from the Latin word for cow, eventually came to refer to the general process of introducing immunogens or attenuated infectious agents into the body in order to stimulate the immune system to fight infections.
But this is not how mRNA vaccines function. In contrast to vaccination, which involves introducing an immunogen into the body, mRNA vaccines seek to introduce messenger RNA into the body in order to “trick” that body’s cells into producing immunogens, which then stimulate an immune response.
ELENA GUOBYTE: Two types of genetic vaccines are being investigated for COVID-19: mRNA and DNA. mRNA needs to reach the cytoplasm of host cells, while DNA needs to enter the nucleus. Then this genetic material gets taken up by the cell’s machinery, and the cell expresses the spike protein. These spike proteins are then recognized by the immune system, hopefully stimulating a protective response.
PAUL OFFIT: So the way this is going to work, the mRNA vaccine is—it’s the mRNA that codes for that coronavirus spike protein. You’re inoculated with that small little piece of genetic material. That genetic material then enters your cells and is is translated into a protein—in
this case, the coronavirus spike protein—which is then excreted from the cell. So, in essence, your body makes the spike protein and then your body makes antibodies to the spike protein, all because it’s been instructed to do that. Your cells have been instructed to do that by this little piece of messenger RNA.
NARRATOR: Protein factories in the cytoplasm, called ribosomes, bind to the messenger RNA. The ribosome reads the code in the messenger RNA to produce a chain made up of amino acids. There are 20 different types of amino acid. Transfer RNA molecules carry the amino acids to the ribosome. The messenger RNA is read three bases at a time. As each triplet is read, a transfer RNA delivers the corresponding amino acid. This is added to a growing chain of amino acids. Once the last amino acid has been added, the chain folds into a complex 3D shape to form the protein.
Any and all questions about this rushed, experimental vaccine technology are being labeled by the pharmaceutical manufacturers and the corporate press that runs on their advertising dollars as “anti-vax misinformation” and being actively censored. But despite the straw man argument that opposition to the vaccine comes solely from ignorant members of the public who are worried about being “injected with mircochips,” there are genuine concerns about the long-term safety of these vaccines coming from within the scientific community, and even from whistleblowers from within the ranks of the Big Pharma manufacturers themselves.
On December 1st, the former chair of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Health Committee, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, joined Dr. Michael Yeadon, a former Vice-President and Chief Scientific Officer at Pfizer Global R&D, to file a petition calling on the European Medicine Agency to halt the Phase III clinical trials of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine until they are restructured to address critical safety concerns associated with this experimental technology.
DEL BIGTREE: There is a petition now to try and stop the vaccine from being released in Europe and stop the trials in their tracks until some serious errors are fixed. The complaints are the potential dangers, if they are not rectified, of this vaccine. Let me very quickly just read through these before I bring on my next guest.
Here are the four major elements that are being pointed out by Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon.
The formation of so-called “non-neutralizing antibodies” can lead to an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real, “wild” virus after vaccination. This so-called antibody-dependent amplification, ADE, has long been known from experiments with corona vaccines in cats, for example. In the course of these studies all cats that initially tolerated the vaccination well died after catching the wild virus.
The mRNA vaccines from BioNTech/Pfizer contain polyethylene glycol (PEG). 70% of people develop antibodies against this substance – this means that many people can develop allergic, potentially fatal reactions to the vaccination.
The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women.
The much too short duration of the study does not allow a realistic estimation of the late effects. As in the narcolepsy cases after the swine flu vaccination, millions of healthy people would be exposed to an unacceptable risk if an emergency approval were to be granted and the possibility of observing the late effects of the vaccination were to follow. Nevertheless, BioNTech/Pfizer apparently submitted an application for emergency approval on December 1, 2020.
We’ve just updated you that that vaccine has been approved for the UK as we speak.
[. . .]
BIGTREE: What is it that people can do what—your fellow scientists and doctors—what do we need to do to make sure we don’t make one of the greatest scientific errors in human history?
WOLFGNG WODARG: Protect yourself and protect all your neighbors and friends so that they don’t get this vaccine. and you have to be—you have to show up, you have to tell the politicians that you will blame them for what they do with this. I think what what’s happening, it’s a great betrayal. We are betrayed. And people who betray normally are punished, and we won’t forget this if they go on doing this with us.
Before the combined weight of the pharmaceutical manufacturers, global health bodies, governments and the corporate media combined to suppress any questions about this unprecedented rush for a globally-distributed, experimental vaccine, there were widespread calls for caution from within the heart of the scientific community.
Even mainstream publications like Scientific American were compelled to note back in June of this year that there are reasons for concern over the way the COVID-19 vaccines are being rushed to market:
Telescoping testing timelines and approvals may expose all of us to unnecessary dangers related to the vaccine. While preclinical trials to evaluate the potential safety and efficacy of vaccine candidates are likely to include tens of thousands of patients, it is still unclear whether that number will be large enough and a trial will last long enough to evaluate safety for a drug that would be administered to so many. The US alone plans to vaccinate hundreds of millions of people with the first successful candidate. One serious adverse event per thousand of a vaccine given to 100 million people means harm to 100,000 otherwise healthy people.
The potential dangers of these vaccines—not just the mRNA vaccines that hijack your body’s cells to begin producing proteins to stimulate an immune response, but vaccines like AstraZeneca’s that uses a chimpanzee adenovirus to express the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein—are numerous. Not only do these vaccines present the potential for the antibody-dependent enhancement phenomenon that makes people more susceptible to the wild virus after having been vaccinated against it—which is a problem common to previous coronavirus vaccine candidates—but their potential impact on fertility has, even by the UK government’s own admission, not been tested at this point and remains “unknown.”
But even more fundamental than these particular safety concerns about these particular vaccines is the way that this fanatical, reckless and unprecedented headlong rush to push (and potentially even mandate) these vaccines on billions of people worldwide—women and children, young and old, healthy and unhealthy alike—is setting the most dangerous public health precedent in the history of humanity, a precedent that threatens to undermine our most cherished health freedoms in the name of a panic-induced “emergency.”
One of these core freedoms is the ability to refuse an experimental medical procedure, a freedom that was acknowledged in the Nuremberg Code of 1947 and enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states that “no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.”
Despite the fact that the clinical trials surrounding these experimental vaccines are ongoing and that the FDA itself admits that there is “currently insufficient data to make conclusions about the safety of the vaccine in subpopulations such as children less than 16 years of age, pregnant and lactating individuals, and immunocompromised individuals” and “risk of vaccine-enhanced disease over time, potentially associated with waning immunity, remains unknown,” governments around the world are contemplating making these vaccinations mandatory, or compelling people to take them against their will by restricting their access to public life until they subject themselves to this medical experimentation.
ANCHOR: It’s a controversial idea that could end up being the law: “no jab, no job,” with some businesses considering making the COVID-19 vaccine mandatory for employees.
CHRISTINE ELLIOTT: There may be some restrictions that may be placed on people that don’t have vaccines for travel purposes, to be able to go totheaters and other places. But that will be up to the individual person to decide.
JO LING KENT: So here’s how it works: The app gives you a health pass to show before you go into big stadiums like this to streamline the process to make it safer and faster to get to your seat.
TRACY GRIMSHAW: Alan, when there is a vaccine are you going to require all of your passengers to be vaccinated before they get on a plane?
ALAN JOYCE: Yeah we are looking at changing our terms and conditions to say for international travellers that we will ask people to have a vaccination before they can get on the aircraft.
The threat of forcing or compelling people to become unwilling guinea pigs in an ongoing medical experiment is immoral on its face. But even the prospect of enforcing such mandates would entail the erection of a surveillance and tracking system that further threatens basic rights and liberties. After all, in order to determine who has been vaccinated—and thus who is allowed to board an airplane or access a stadium or enter a store with a vaccine policy—there will need to be a system for identifying and tracking each vaccine recipient.
Whereas in days past, such tracking systems might have worked with identification papers, special badges to identify people’s status or other outwardly identifying marks, in the modern age, such schemes will take the form of digital apps and other technologically advanced methods for tracking, categorizing and identifying billions of people and their movements in real time.
There are already apps like IBM’s Digital Health Pass and CLEAR’s Health Pass that envision a world where our biometric ID will be linked via our smartphones to our health data in order to grant or deny access from public spaces and public events
NARRATOR: Here’s how Jane opens the CLEAR app and verifies her identity with a photo and real-time health insights. CLEAR’s developed touchless technology can take her temperature and confirm Jane is Jane so she can walk in with confidence
NARRATOR: Your COVID-19 status will efficiently display as green, amber or red, dependent on your test results. This allows us to go about our daily activities in a safer way. We can all use health passport ireland in many ways, such as travel, hospitality, education, health care, construction, offices, entertainment, visits and much, much more.
Once the COVID vaccines are widely distributed, it would simply be a question of linking one’s vaccination record to the health pass app to prevent the unvaccinated from accessing any given space.
And while this future—sold through glossy corporate advertising but rejected by the vast majority of the public—may seem like a science-fiction dystopia, such systems are already being used to control the movements of people in China, where access to certain building or the ability to leave one’s own neighbourhood can be restricted to those whose phone-based apps show a “green” immunity status.
Worse, the COVID vaccine presents governments, intelligence agencies and corporations that have a direct interest in suppressing dissent, monitoring dissidents and controlling their populations with the perfect opportunity to make such systems a permanent fixture of daily life. After the immediate “threat” of the declared public health crisis subsides, the public is already being warned that these apps will be transitioned seamlessly into general monitoring of the population.
ANCHOR 1: Well during the summer spike, Palm Beach County launched something called a Combat COVID app. they spent a huge chunk of CARES Act money to do it. The app can alert you if you come into contact with a COVID positive person.
ANCHOR 2: The problem is it only works if there’s widespread use and there isn’t. So was this just a big waste of money?
[. . .]
DANIELLE WAUGH: Palm Beach County officials would not make anybody available for an interview for this story but I did get a written statement from a county spokesperson, who tells me they will still have use for this app even after the pandemic is over. He says they plan on transitioning its functions to be a more general community app.
As chilling as these “immunity passports” opening the door for governments to implement persistent digital tracking of their entire population is, it represents only the most visible privacy invasion that is being enacted on the back of this unprecedented vaccine rollout.
As viewers of the “Who Is Bill Gates?” documentary will know, these smartphone apps and voluntary reporting mechanisms will eventually be replaced by an even more invasive technological means of certifying vaccination. Not the “microchip” strawman that the fact checkers use to attempt to debunk these concerns, but the verifiable existence of a program to develop quantum dot tags to instantly identify who has received a given vaccine.
Late last year, Gates once again turned to Robert Langer and his MIT colleagues to investigate new ways to permanently store and record the vaccination information of each individual. The result of their research was a new vaccine delivery method. They found that by using “dissolvable microneedles that deliver patterns of near-infrared light-emitting microparticles to the skin,” they could create “particle patterns” in the skin of vaccine recipients which are “invisible to the eye but can be imaged using modified smartphones.”
Rice University describes the quantum dot tags left behind by the microneedles as “something like a bar-code tattoo.”
So who was behind this development? As lead researcher Kevin McHugh explains:
“The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation came to us and said, ‘Hey, we have a real problem—knowing who’s vaccinated [. . .] So our idea was to put the record on the person. This way, later on, people can scan over the area to see what vaccines have been administered and give only the ones still needed.”
Experimental vaccine technologies. Rushed testing. Mandates and health apps. And, eventually, quantum dot tags and biometric IDs. The future that is coming into view on the back of this COVID nightmare is truly dystopian.
But as worrying as all of this, the most worrying aspect is the precedent that it sets for a new era of biosecurity. An era in which public health authorities will claim to have the right to force rushed, untested and experimental technologies on the public in the name of public “health.”
At the moment, these new technologies—like mRNA vaccines which reprogram cells to produce antigens or the DNA vaccines that seek to insert foreign genetic material directly into the cells’ nucleus and that even biotech giant Moderna admit “have a risk of permanently changing a person’s DNA”—are still understood by the public as “vaccines.” But they bare as little resemblance to the vaccines that have previously been given to the public as Edward Jenner’s cowpox vaccine bore to the old Chinese art of blowing smallpox scabs up the nose. And the medical technologies that are emerging now will once again utterly transform our understanding of “vaccines.”
One such technology is being actively developed by Profusa, Inc., a company that in 2016 received a $7.5 million grant from DARPA—the research and development agency of the US military—to “develop implantable biosensors that can continuously monitor multiple body chemistries.” Earlier this year, Profusa announced a study that will examine how the company’s technology—including a “wireless reader that adheres to the skin and collects and reports tissue oxygen levels” and a 3mm string of hydrogel, which can be inserted under the skin with a syringe and programmed to send “a fluorescent signal outside of the body when the body begins to fight an infection”—can be used to “develop an early identification system to detect not only disease outbreaks, but biological attacks and pandemics up to three weeks earlier than current methods.” The study is expected to be completed next year.
Hydrogels—networks of crosslinked polymer chains—are increasingly being turned to by proponents of these new technologies as potential delivery devices for drugs, cells, proteins, and bioactive molecules. In 2013, for instance, a team of European researchers announced a novel method for injecting a vaccine-containing hydrogel sphere to a spot beneath the skin, which could be released at a later time by swallowing a “stimulusresponsive biohybrid material.” Touted as a “remote-controlled vaccine delivery system,” the researchers proved their concept by injecting mice with a hydrogel containing human papillomavirus vaccine and later giving them a pill containing fluorescein, which dissolved the hydrogel mesh and released the vaccine. The research on this vaccine delivery method continues, with a Chinese team publishing research just this year on a self-adjuvanted hydrogel which “had both adjuvant potential and the ability to sustained release antigen.”
As viewers of the “Who Is Bill Gates?” documentary will know, the idea of implanting remote-controlled vaccines in large populations has been around since at least 2012, when, according to MIT Technology Review, Bill Gates personally asked MIT researcher Robert Langer to create an implantable birth control device that could be turned on or off remotely. The resulting device—a wireless birth control microchip that, as the National Post noted in 2014, “can be turned on and off with a remote control and that is designed to last up to 16 years”—was developed by Microchips Biotech, now part of Daré Bioscience, and has so far received $17.9 million in grant funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
From biolectronics to nanorobotics to synthetic biology, ever more incredible technologies are being pioneered that, whether or not they are marketed to the public under the catch-all term of “vaccine,” will operate in ways that are fundamentally unlike anything before used on the human population.
University of Ottawa researchers are working on creating “edible vaccines.”
Researchers at Harvard Medical School are developing autonomous DNA nanorobots capable of transporting molecular payloads directly into cells.
A team of scientists at Johns Hopkins University are working on shape-changing microdevices called “theragrippers” that can reside in the GI tract to aid in extended drug delivery.
Nanobots. Shape-changing bioelectronic devices. Remote-controlled vaccines. This is not the stuff of science fiction but of science fact, and the precedent that is being set during the COVID era to rush experimental and unproven medical technologies into use on the back of a declared crisis is the same precedent that could be used to foist these injectable technologies on the public in the future.
And, as Catherine Austin Fitts—former United States Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and founder of Solari, Inc.—explains, these injectables are part of an elaborate system of biological, economic, and political control that is being bankrolled into existence by powerful special interests.
CATHERINE AUSTIN FITTS: So let me go through where I think he’s going. I think where they’re going—and they’re they’re prototyping tons of technology, so I don’t think they have it yet—but where they want to go is they want to download a Microsoft Office system into your body, into your brain, and hook it up to the Jedi cloud contract and the Amazon Cloud contract at the CIA. And if they can get seven people seven billion people hooked up directly to their cloud contracts and use viruses—I mean, it’s very clever—use viruses to keep those updates coming. You know, just keep those updates coming.
So you saw my most recent article, “The Injection Fraud.” I think it’s a fraud to call these vaccines they’re not vaccines, they’re not medicine. But I think it’s the exact same model you used in the computers and the ideas. Just like Bill Gates made it possible for the intelligence agencies to get a backdoor into our—you know, our data—and our computers. They want a backdoor into our mind and it’s very hard if you haven’t if you haven’t looked into the creepy technology, the Charles Lieber kind of technology, it’s hard to fathom but we’re beginning to fathom it.
[. . .]
So what we have are people who have unimaginable liabilities for what they’ve done in the health area and what they’ve done in the financial area. And what they’re trying to do is they’re trying to do two things: one is to load an operating system into our bodies—I call it the injection fraud because they’re calling it a vaccine and under law a vaccine is medicine, this is not medicine, so to me what they’re up to is a fraud. And then the second thing they’re trying to do is implement contract tracing so they they can have—before they get the operating system in everybody they can have complete control. You know, kidnap you, put you in prison with no warrants, break into your house, take your kids.
And I keep saying to people: “Do you notice that it’s the people who flew Epstein Air who all want contract tracing? Why is that?” You know, why would you want the people who did Epstein Air to be able to come into your house and kidnap your kids?
Despite the protestations of those like Bill Gates who have a financial interest in these experimental vaccines, and the Big Pharma corporations that are selling these vaccines, and the governments that are being bribed by the international public health cartel to purchase these vaccines and pressure their public to accept them, and the corporate media who relies on these Big Pharma corporations for their advertising dollars, some facts about these novel coronavirus vaccines are indisputable:
They are the most rushed vaccines ever developed.
The manufacturers have been given total immunity from liability if their experimental vaccines cause injury.
The clinical trials testing the safety of these injections are not finished, meaning that every member of the public who takes one is now a human guinea pig in an ongoing medical experiment with the population of the planet.
The Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines are themselves part of an experimental class of injection that has never before been given to the public;
These vaccines have not been tested for their ability to prevent infection or spread of SARS-CoV-2 and are not intended to do so.
And there is absolutely no long-term data about these vaccines to determine what their effects may be on fertility, the potential for pathogenic priming, or any other serious adverse reaction.
That this represents the most reckless and brazen experiment in the history of the world is undeniable on its face. Never before have billions of people been pressured to submit to a completely experimental, invasive medical procedure on the basis of a disease with a greater than 99% survival rate.
But large-scale, emergency vaccination campaigns have been tried before with sobering lessons about the danger of such a wide-scale experiment that are being deliberately ignored right now.
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, hundreds of millions of people were injected with polio vaccines that, years later, were discovered to have been contaminated with SV40, a cancer-causing virus found in the rhesus monkey kidney cells that were used to create the vaccine.
In 1976, twelve soldiers at Fort Dix were diagnosed with swine flu. This kicked off a round of public health hysteria that led the US government to mandate that every citizen in the country be vaccinated. In the end, only one soldier at Fort Dix died of the swine flu and no one outside of the base even tested positive for it, but the emergency immunization program went ahead. It was brought to an abrupt end after hundreds who had received the rushed vaccine began to display severe neurological disorders.
MIKE WALLACE: Remember the swine flu scare of 1976? That was the year the U.S. government told us all that swine flu could turn out to be a killer that could spread across the nation, and Washington decided that every man, woman and child in the nation should get a shot to prevent a nation-wide outbreak, a pandemic.
Well 46 million of us obediently took the shot, and now 4,000 Americans are claiming damages from Uncle Sam amounting to three and a half billion dollars because of what happened when they took that shot. By far the greatest number of the claims – two thirds of them are for neurological damage, or even death, allegedly triggered by the flu shot.
During the hysteria over swine flu in 2009, GlaxoSmithKline rushed a vaccine called Pandemrix to market in several European countries that was later associated with increased risk of narcolepsy. Years later, it was admitted that the 2009 flu season was no deadlier than any other flu season, but the British Medical Journal revealed that the body that advised the WHO on the declaration of the public health emergency that caused governments to purchase billions of dollars of vaccines was itself populated by advisors with direct financial ties to the Big Pharma vaccine manufacturers.
In each of these cases, the public was told to “follow the science,” and in each of these cases an unknown and perhaps unknowable number of people paid for that blind faith with their health. Now the revolver is once again being put to our heads and, with an assurance that that revolver probably contains a lot of empty chambers, the public is being asked to play Russian Roulette in the name of “trusting the science.”
NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON: I think we’re in the middle of a massive experiment worldwide. And that is—
STEPHEN COLBERT: —And we’re the guinea pigs?
TYSON: Maybe. The experiment is: will people listen to scientists?
Surely those who wish to be the test subjects in this ongoing experiment should be free to make themselves into guinea pigs for the Big Pharma manufacturers. But every mandate or compulsion to force the vaccine on an unwilling recipient sets a dangerous precedent, a precedent that will one day lead to a tracked and surveilled population unable to resist the next generation of injectable bioelectronics.
This is not a game, this is not a test. Billions of people are being asked to participate in a gigantic experiment, not just an experiment in medical technology, but an experiment in compliance and blind trust.
The pressure to say yes and to go along with the crowd in this experiment is enormous. But if we lose the freedom to say “no” to this, then we may lose control over our bodily autonomy—and, ultimately, our humanity—forever.
We’ve seen this movie before, and it ended with the largest power grab in world history.
“It’s just a travel ban.”
“It’s just two weeks to stop the spread.”
“It’s just for non-essential workers.”
“Just wear a mask. It will allow for society to reopen.”
“It’s just a ‘pause’ on non-essential activities and businesses.”
2020, the year that will be defined by corona hysteria and unprecedented global power grabs, is coming to an end, and the simulation is apparently resetting. The conversation surrounding coronavirus mania has somehow reverted back to square one, with:
“It’s just a travel ban to the UK.”
Social media and news feeds are now rife with prominent politicians, “public health experts,” commentators and reporters discussing the merits of a travel ban to the United Kingdom, after reports surfaced that the Brits have discovered a new strain of the coronavirus, which is being advertised as 70% more infectious (!) than the last variant. According to the “public health experts,” it’s time to panic again, and take dramatic action to stop this virus.
Over 40 countries have now decided — following the reported discovery of the new variant of the coronavirus — to impose travel bans from the United Kingdom. With that has come a new pressure campaign in the United States, led by the likes of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and other lockdown advocates, to launch a new round of travel restrictions.
It seems that so many across the political spectrum have learned absolutely nothing from the pandora’s box of tyranny that was opened up at the beginning of the year, following the failure of travel bans to stop the spread of a respiratory virus with a 99.9% recovery rate.
Like it or not, the United States is a very interconnected nation, serving thousands of international flights per day. The U.S. is not New Zealand. We are not a tiny island nation that can just cut itself off from the rest of the world at a moment’s notice. If there’s a virus reportedly spreading across the Atlantic, it’s probably already here, too.
Additionally, many in the corona hysteria space seem to not understand the rudimentary science behind mutations. They’re seemingly too busy panicking and demanding further restrictions to be thoughtful about what to do next.
If a virus has mutated into an even more transmissible form, that can mean that the virus has become less lethal. This also means that mitigation and suppression pseudoscience measures, such as lockdowns, masks, curfews, and the like have even less of a chance of working this time around, given that they did not work to slow or stop the spread with a less transmissible variant.
If a disease with an approaching 99.9% recovery rate is becoming more transmissible, and possibly even less lethal, the idea that we should take dramatic, sweeping action to “fight” it is absolutely preposterous. Before corona madness, anyone who advocated for a travel ban to stop seasonal influenza or the common cold would have been laughed out of the room. The discourse surrounding “stopping the spread” of a virus has become so nonsensical and pointless, yet at the same time, these people and organizations are credentialed as “experts,” when their record of absolute failure would demonstrate otherwise.
We need to stop the spread of corona hysteria by rejecting any and all restrictions in the name of fighting a virus. Stop empowering government bureaucrats and “public health experts” to run roughshod over our lives. As we observed over the course of the year, a travel ban can fast transform into a devastating lockdown, when the travel ban inevitably fails in its mission. The only path forward involves advocating solely for a full reopening and a restoration of individual rights, not more restrictions in the name of stopping a virus that we have no control over.
In this three-part series we will exam the transformation from COVID lockdowns to climate lockdowns. In Part I we established a timeline of the dark side of the environmental movement and now we’ll be looking into the specifics of what a climate lockdown really means, and what impact current lockdown measures have had on the environment. In Part III we will see how it fits into the bigger picture of sustainable development as described by international organizations such as the United Nations and what can be done to derail this agenda.
As we saw in Part I of this series, the environmental movement has a dark streak running through it. Many of the architects of the movement hold a Malthusian, eugenics-obsessed view of the world and their fingerprints are all over the growing call for a global climate lockdown. A movement based on the best of intentions is once again being hijacked to centralize power and eviscerate human rights.
With that established it is time to closely examine what exactly Mariana Mazzucato is proposing when she threatens a climate lockdown. In her view, and those on whose behalf she writes, humanity must be willing to undergo a total restructuring of society at the hands of the elite in order to save the planet or continue to live in lockdown. The brave new world she envisions is a sort-of technocracy, a government based on the management of society by unelected technical experts. Ultimately, this vision is less about driving electric cars and switching to a plant-based diet and more about a hostile takeover of the world’s resources.
The Calls for A Climate Lockdown Begin
With Mazzucato’s questionable climate science already addressed it’s time to move on to investigating her criticisms of society as we know it. But first we need to understand where this message is coming from. Mazzucato’s story comes to us from Project Syndicate, a news organization which distributes “high-quality commentaries to a global audience.” The publishing of these commentaries is made possible by funding from George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Mastercard Foundation, and the Google Digital News Initiative among others. Let’s just say her view doesn’t exactly represent the disenfranchised or any grassroots movement.
Mazzucato’s opinion piece is more of a threat than anything else. She believes we are living through a series of crises during the “disease of the Anthropocene,” an anti-human echo from her environmental forefathers, that center around the climate, economic and social inequality, and public health. Neither government nor the private sector are capable of addressing such catastrophic situations in her estimation so we must undergo a “green economic transformation” or else be locked down like prisoners until the problem is resolved.
What she has to say on what would happen during a climate lockdown itself is actually quite brief:
Under a “climate lockdown,” governments would limit private-vehicle use, ban consumption of red meat, and impose extreme energy-saving measures, while fossil-fuel companies would have to stop drilling. To avoid such a scenario, we must overhaul our economic structures and do capitalism differently.
The brevity of this proclamation is curious as these propositions for reducing carbon emissions and “going green” are nothing new. Environmentalists have been advocating for these changes for decades now, though notably without the need for literally confining people to their homes. The bulk of the article is dedicated to the overhaul of the economy, revealing her true message to the masses.
The Future In Her Eyes
This transformation entails building whatever an “inclusive, sustainable” economy is and requires that government assistance to the private sector be reigned in. Not by stopping the public-private revolving door, upholding justice through the legal system, enabling a free market, or simply ending taxpayer bailouts, but continuing all of these practices so long as the government attaches strict conditions to how that money is used. Governments should also add new taxes on raw materials and legislate “job guarantees” into existence somehow. Under this system the political and economical elite still siphon off money from the lower classes, but by dictating that “firms need to listen to trade unions and workers’ collectives, community groups, consumer advocates, and others” this fascist system will solve the problem of inclusivity.
The state must also continue to steer the course of finance through investments. When the financial crisis hit in 2008 it wasn’t the cozy relationship between Washington and Wall Street that kept money circulating through the financial sector rather than entering the larger economy, but “bad investments” on the government’s part. Bad because they didn’t invest long term in eco-friendly energy like wind power or support green infrastructure projects according to her. She gives no explanation as to how these investments would allow money to flow into Main Street.
When looking for positive examples of state investments she cites New Zealand’s “Wellbeing Budget” and the Scottish National Investment Bank (SNIB). The Wellbeing Budget is the name given to the New Zealand federal government’s fiscal budget for the year 2019 and represented a shift away from making monetary decisions based on GDP and towards spending based on “wellbeing”. It made for an excellent public relations move which portrayed a government concerned about the wellness of its people but in reality transferred many budgetary decisions to experts and bureaucrats rather than elected officials, a hallmark of a technocratic society. New Zealand has enacted one of the world’s harshest lockdowns in the name of the coronavirus which may be why it gets a nod here.
The SNIB is set to launch by the end of 2020 and while she doesn’t mention it in her article, Mazzacuto has played a key role in developing this institution. This state-owned institution will offer grants, soft loans, credit guarantees and co-investments to companies in pursuit of certain missions. These missions are still being finalized but aim to mimic the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals which center around climate change, shifting demographics, and economic inclusion. Like New Zealand’s Wellbeing Budget, the SNIB framework ultimately takes power out of the hands of the public and into the hands of a technocratic elite. The figures who will run the SNIB and direct it’s funds will be unelected and unaccountable to the public but will use taxpayer funds to steer the direction of the economy nonetheless.
These examples are the blueprints all nations should be using according to Mazzucato. In a follow-up interview with the Irish Times, she makes it unambiguously clear that central economic planning is the proper role of government:
This crisis, and the recovery we need, give us an opportunity to understand and explore how to do capitalism differently. This requires a rethink of what governments are for: rather than simply fixing market failures when they arise, they should move towards actively shaping and creating markets to take on society’s most pressing challenges… This will secure the direction of travel we want – green, sustainable, and equitable.
Given her connections to some of the world’s most powerful people it is highly unlikely that “we” refers to the common man. It seems clear that she is speaking on the behalf of the elite behind the scenes.
Mazzucato’s final claim, dropped out of nowhere and without citation or follow-up, is that an economy centered around renewable energy is the antidote to our otherwise disastrous future. She then menacingly reminds the reader that “radical change is inevitable,” so either go along with their plan, or face climate lockdowns while they do it anyway.
How Have Lockdowns Impacted The Climate So Far?
With much of the world under house arrest, carbon dioxide emissions declined in the first half of 2020 as one would expect. Correspondingly, air pollution dropped off in many industrialized areas. This was touted as a victory for the climate, especially when photos of the Himalayas, free of their usual smog in India, went viral. This was a relatively short-lived victory however as numbers began rising again in the second half of the year.
While air pollution dropped more plastic waste has ended up in our oceans than ever before. Disposable face masks have been worn, and disposed of, in the billions this year and are contributing to environmental degradation, littering in public places, and increasing the levels of microplastics in the oceans. Takeout dining has been a staple for many during lockdown which has meant single-use plastics have become more prevalent and sadly ended up in in the sea in increased numbers as well.
More studies and information will surely come out in the months and years ahead but as of now this is the picture we have of the climate in a locked down world and it isn’t very convincing that by continuing these practices the world will be free of man’s impact on it. The desire for clear skies, clean air, and habitable oceans are all noble and improvements can and will be made but the idea that in order to achieve these things we need society reshaped at the hands of a shadowy elite is still insane and speaks to a larger agenda at play.
The Big Picture
When looking into the environmental impact of lockdowns there is a chilling refrain in the mainstream media. The initial decrease in emissions is cheered on but the rebound is seen as a sign that while the current lockdowns are doing some good it just isn’t enough (see here, here, here, here, here, and here to see that message repeated).
What is needed according to these writers and groups is a reengineering of society. This Great Reset will come at the expense of the many, to the benefit of the few. In the final installment of this series we will see how climate lockdowns and the reconfiguration of society fits perfectly into the big picture that the elite have in mind.
Recently, a landmark study was conducted by Dr. James Lyons-Weiler and Dr. Paul Thomas. The study compared vaccinated children and unvaccinated children and was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health on November 22, 2020 after being peer reviewed.
Dr. Weiler, a research scientist and co-author of the study, was recently interviewed by Activist Post Contributor Spiro Skouras. In the interview, Weiler breaks down the data from the study which indicates children who were vaccinated showed a higher rate of medical office visits and experienced an elevated rate of medical symptoms ranging from Asthma and behavioral issues, to ADHD and Anemia.
In this report, Spiro interviews Dr. Paul Thomas, a prominent pediatrician in Portland, Oregon who also co-authored the study and used 10+ years of data from his medical practice to conduct the study.
Shortly after the vaccinated versus unvaccinated study was published, five days in fact, the Oregon State Medical Board held an emergency meeting declaring that Dr. Paul was an immediate threat to his patients and the public and suspended his medical license.
In this must-see interview, Dr. Paul addresses the accusations leveled against himself and his practice, in addition to breaking down in detail the study’s findings. Dr. Paul also weighs in on the CDC recommended vaccine schedule and the experimental Covid vaccine.
The US congress just passed their Covid stimulus bill, or the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021” to give its official title. So what’s actually inside it? What has just been passed into law?
The answers to that is “nobody really knows”, least of all the members of congress, who passed the law without reading it, as they so often do. It’s the longest bill in US history, at over 5500 pages and it sailed through the voting mostly sight unseen.
We’ve downloaded a copy of the full document and will embed it for those of you patient or masochistic enough to tackle the whole thing. We’ve read some already, and will point out the highlights:
“Foreign aid” is a big winner. Egypt is getting $1.3 billion, Sudan, Israel and Ukraine get over 500 million each, and many other countries around the world sizeable contributions, much of which will be spent on “defense”. Which is to say sent straight back to America via massive arms purchases.
Not all the money being sent overseas is for buying weapons, some is for backing coups. Venezuela and Belarus get special mention here, each getting their own section of the bill detailing how terrible their “illegal regimes” are. There’s also a large section on “combating Chinese influence”.
For some reason there’s another section on copyright law, which makes illegal streaming copyrighted content a federal crime, punishable by up to three years in prison.
Nearly 300 million is put aside to develop influenza vaccines and prevent a future influenza pandemic.
4 BILLION dollars for the Gates-funded GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance.
Vaccine “misinformation” is also a concern, and the bill provides for a pro-vaccine propaganda campaign – or rather a “PUBLIC AWARENESS CAMPAIGN ON THE IMPORTANCE OF VACCINATIONS”
So – huge amounts of foreign aid, support for various coups, totally irrelevant copyright laws, provisions for pro-vaccine propaganda campaigns… it’s not your typical “stimulus bill” so far, is it?
Civil forfeiture is a massive unjustified threat to property and due process rights. As the third edition of Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture shows, most state laws still stack the deck against property owners and give law enforcement perverse financial incentives to pursue property over justice.
Proponents claim forfeiture is an important crime-fighting tool, but new research finds otherwise: There was no increase in crime after New Mexico abolished civil forfeiture and the profit incentive in 2015. Strong forfeiture reform does not sacrifice public safety.
As states and Congress look for ways to create a fairer criminal justice system, one reform everyone should be able to agree on is ending civil forfeiture and the perverse profit incentive that fuels it.
By Jacob Sullum | From the January 2021 issue of reason
When cops invaded Ginnifer Hency’s home in Smiths Creek, Michigan, they seized TV sets, ladders, her children’s cellphones and iPads, even her vibrator. “They took everything,” she told state legislators a year later. The July 2014 raid turned up six ounces of marijuana.
Hency, a mother of four with multiple sclerosis, was using marijuana for pain relief based on her neurologist’s recommendation, as allowed by Michigan law at the time. … continue
Almost three years ago science entered a new dark age.
Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford University and co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, seems to agree. He has been compiling a list of the examples of anti-science we have unfortunately become used to.
I have listed his thoughts so far but the list is continually expanding... continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 