Attenborough and his climate cohorts are scaring the young into mental illness
By David Seedhouse | TCW Defending Freedom | November 10, 2021
THE BBC last week re-published yet another video article – Climate Change: The Facts – featuring David Attenborough. It shows scenes of calamity and collapse and has a single main message: ‘Act now or we are all doomed.’
Despite its title, there is no attempt whatsoever at a balanced analysis of ‘the facts’. The video includes a comment from the discredited Michael Mann, whose faulty algorithm created the famous ‘hockey stick‘ chart of supposed global warming that so exercised Al Gore and Greta Thunberg – who has no scientific credentials, or arguably any right at all to be included in a ‘fact-based’ video.
Towards the end of his presentation, Attenborough declares: ‘We now stand at a unique point in our planet’s history, one where we must all share responsibility both for our present wellbeing and for the future of life.’
Hyperbole, hubris, hysteria … but no humility. We have apparently become the gods of ancient Greece, able to control all aspects of life, including the planet.
It is unclear how we all have responsibility for ‘the future of life’, which managed very well before humans existed and, according to experts of Attenborough’s ilk, will inevitably change according to the laws of evolution in any case.
However, we surely do have responsibility towards each other, especially not to cause unwarranted alarm, and to support the mental health of our young people, which according to many reports is at a nadir.
One large survey found that nearly 60 per cent of young people approached said they felt very worried or extremely worried about the climate issue.
More than 45 per cent said such feelings affected their daily lives. Some 75 per cent thought the future was frightening, while 56 per cent think humanity is doomed.
Take a minute to digest this. The survey, led by Bath University in collaboration with five other universities, spanned ten countries. It amassed responses from 10,000 people aged between 16 and 25 and found that a staggering majority are so scared and depressed that they feel they have no future.
This devastating situation has not happened spontaneously. Nor is it a rational response to the actual evidence. Rather it is the result of years of uninhibited scaremongering by older people who prefer to be part of a lucrative alarmist club than set a decent example of balanced reasoning.
Most traditional societies revere and respect their elders, for their life experience and wisdom. And in return the elders quietly and calmly protect the young, beneficently pointing to the good things in life that may come.
This seemingly timeless human – and indeed animal – circle of life has come close to breaking with astonishing speed. Many of our prominent elders, who should be sage, measured and knowing, are behaving like reckless toddlers in a sandpit they think is all theirs.
They spent 2020 and much of 2021 locking young people away from their schools, their friends, and their elderly relatives, terrifying them with useless masks and distancing to ‘protect’ them from a virus that poses hardly any risk to them.
These thoughtless adults constantly say how much they care for the future of humanity but show, with every poorly-researched exaggeration, that they don’t give two hoots for the psychological wellbeing of the young who actually are the future.
Whether through guilt, ignorance, psychological bias or just the misplaced desire to show how powerful they are, such infantile elders display little awareness of the damage they are causing. And if they have even an inkling of how they are harming the young, they show no restraint.
Their imagined certainties do not exist. We do not know everything there is to know about viruses and we certainly do not know everything about the climate of a vast and complex planet. We cannot possibly say with any confidence what will happen to us, and we cannot control Nature. Nor should we try.
Young people do not need to be saved by anyone, not least these false prophets of doom. They need the wherewithal to live fulfilled lives – with knowledge, curiosity, social support, friendships, honesty and, above all, the modesty to accept human limitations, without self-righteous hectoring from older adults who have lived most of their own lives in circumstances where the future held promise rather than terror.
Those such as David Attenborough and the rest of the climate establishment presumably have the best of intentions. But their obsession with controlling the uncontrollable has completely blinded them to the awful damage their blinkered obsessiveness has caused our young.
They have abjectly failed to provide sensible information and an inquisitive, questioning environment. They should be setting an example of gentle wisdom, where problems are solved by open minds. Instead, they have caused a huge avoidable mental health crisis, and have barely noticed what they have done.
One Brave ICU Physician Reporting Covid-19 Vaccine Injuries Leads to a Dozen More
11 sworn declarations from physicians across the country reflect the disregard public health agencies have for Covid-19 vaccine safety
By Aaron Siri | November 1, 2021
One act of bravery begins to snowball. Dr. Patricia Lee “risked it all” to step forward, after being ignored by public health officials, to reveal the serious series of harms she witnessed from Covid-19 vaccines in her intensive care unit. With that one act, my firm has now been contacted by more than a dozen other physicians. Attached are 11 declarations from physicians across the country attesting to serious harms from Covid-19 vaccines.
These physicians, like Dr. Lee, reached out to public health authorities at the CDC, FDA, and NIH for over ten months only to have their concerns dismissed or ignored. These agencies typically respond by saying that VAERS is not showing a safety signal so there is nothing to worry about. If you don’t already know, VAERS is the system that the CDC and FDA say cannot show that a vaccine causes an injury, but yet can show a vaccine is safe. Meaning, heads they win, tails you lose.
Worse, many of these physicians were injured by a Covid-19 vaccine themselves and despite being physicians, the physicians from whom these injured physicians sought treatment also typically dismissed their injuries. And they are physicians seeking help from fellow physicians!
The story most of these physicians tell is like that of Maddie de Garay who, despite being in a wheelchair and needing a feeding tube through her nose, was told it was psychological. These physicians were, incredibly, almost all initially told the same. Only after seeking treatment from physicians that they knew from work or medical school, were many of them believed. If physicians are dismissed as “making it up,” imagine what the average individual without medical knowledge and access must deal with after a Covid-19 vaccine injury.
Public health authorities tell us to trust doctors. If individuals have concerns about the vaccine, they say: “speak with your doctor.” These very doctors are now telling health authorities there is a serious problem. They have been telling these health authorities for months in myriad correspondences. And the 11 declarations attached are likely a small sampling – after all, Dr. Patricia Lee’s letter was only released on this Substack when only had a few hundred subscribers. It nonetheless started a snowball of physicians reaching out with similar stories which is growing by the day.
It should not be that public health authorities listen to physicians only if they parrot their preferred messaging regarding Covid-19 vaccines. To the contrary, physicians should especially be listened to when their clinical experience directly opposes that messaging. But the experience of these physicians, and the many more who have contacted my firm, evidence precisely the opposite is true.
These doctors, like most doctors, are the last individuals that want to admit that a Covid-19 vaccine caused their patients or their own injuries. And they are the last to want to publicly make such an admission. Truly. But reality does not afford them these luxuries. The injuries they report are all too real and devastating. As detailed in the attached declarations (click image below), most of the injured physicians can no longer work or are severely restricted in their ability to work.
The lesson yet again is that civil and individual rights should never be contingent upon a medical procedure. Never. Requiring informed consent – which means giving every American the ability to give or withhold consent without coercion – is the last and final backstop to the dangers that result when we permit the government to decide what must be injected or placed into or onto our bodies. This is no hyperbole as the current state of affairs is that you cannot sue the manufacturers for Covid-19 vaccine injuries, cannot see the data underlying the licensure of the vaccine, cannot discuss Covid-19 vaccine injuries on social media, and cannot say no to the vaccine if you want to keep your job or attend many universities. Whatever your views are on the Covid-19 vaccine itself, every American should reject letting the government decide what medical procedures they must engage in to participate in civil society.
Letter with Physician Declarations to CDC, FDA and NIH
Response and Email Exchange with CDC, FDA and NIH Regarding the Letter
The old saying was right: kill your television
(and your smartphone)
By Richard Hugus | November 8, 2021
A month ago, illegal and criminal coercion toward covid injections in the workplace was announced by the Biden Administration. Many have lost their jobs for rightly refusing this unsafe, ineffective, and possibly life-changing medical procedure. Now it has been announced by the pharma-owned FDA and CDC that children 5 to 11 years old may be given the shot. Comments from the public and renowned doctors and scientists were overwhelmingly against this, but as with so may other boards across the country, the officials at the table voted unanimously in favor, as if they never heard a thing. This shot will now be mandated in spite of the fact that older children who have already been injected have experienced heart problems and other serious reactions, including death. Neither of these age groups have ever been in danger, and the shots can only hurt them. Next it will be children newborn to 4. What are we to make of a government willing to sacrifice children to pharmaceutical company profits, or ends even worse?
Coerced injections, worthless for their stated purpose, and now provably harmful, are clearly a means to some end. This might include social control through digital passports, totalitarian surveillance, the re-engineering of humanity through genetic manipulation, the reduction of the world’s population (a longtime dream of eugenicists), hooking people up to the “internet of bodies”, or all of the above. One thing is certain — none of this was ever about public health. That lie is impossible to believe as we watch health care workers being fired, leaving hospitals understaffed; as news of injection injuries is censored; as ER doctors ignore injection injuries and fail to report them; as the medical establishment is seen to be under the obvious control of politics and corporations; as goalposts are moved, new rules invented, and definitions changed; as sanitation workers are let go and garbage piles up in the streets; as fire fighters and first responders are put on “leave without pay;” as workers across the country lose their jobs and can no longer provide for themselves or their families; as mental health declines from isolation, fear, and stress; as natural immunity is suddenly no longer recognized; and as effective medicines are withheld while harmful medicines are protocol. The goal is apparently not to promote public health, or indeed social order, but to destroy it. One might think that government would respond to the obvious deterioration of society, but the last two years have shown that this is actually what governments want. This is a war from the inside out. Our own government is trying to kill us.
We have been fed a string of lies 20 months long, but lies over time have a way of wearing thin. In the attempt to explain contradictory evidence, official explanations become more and more elaborate, and the more this happens the easier it is for us to see both the lies and the liars. Our great advantage is that the truth doesn’t need the vast resources of states and corporate media to be told. When it came to the point where the state was forced to just censor the truth outright, this was just another lesson for us. The bigger the coverup, the more obvious the crime. Clarity grows every day.
The tyranny we are facing didn’t just start in March 2020. We are in the midst of a system that had already surrounded us when the “pandemic” operation began. This is why such an obvious hoax gained so much territory so quickly across the world. The operation itself was carefully planned, but it was built on an established foundation. For almost 60 years — counting back to the John F. Kennedy assassination — the world has been subjected to a long list of planned attacks in which black operators created a traumatic public event, manipulated the public into believing the event was carried out by a selected patsy, and made desired institutional changes on the basis of that event. The September 11, 2001 attack seemed the pinnacle of any ambition these operators could possibly have, until covid 19 came along and somehow struck 193 countries with the same catastrophic results all at the same time. Manufactured case and death statistics then started rolling in, videos of people dying in the streets were produced, and the narrative of a terrible, unprecedented public health emergency was everywhere around us. The real event was seasonal respiratory illness hyped as a “pandemic”, with maybe a dash of real bioweapon thrown in. The patsy was bats in China spreading a mysterious deadly virus. And the deep institutional change looks like a wholesale re-organization of national economies, resources, and populations to suit the one-world-government fantasy of Vanguard investment bankers, secret cabals, and the openly conniving Davos elite. Far more people were immediately killed by health care policy and medical malpractice in the early days of the covid operation — for example, the elderly sent to die in nursing homes, the ventilator murders — than the 3,000 who died on September 11. Without death and gore, there is no trauma, and the scale of this op required plenty of trauma. As intended in the 9-11 operation, the US proceeded with a series of wars against the enemies of Israel. As intended in the Covid 19 operation, the oligarchs have proceeded to destroy economies worldwide. 9-11 led to millions of deaths; covid 19 (the operation) will bring many more.
Dark actors with evil schemes have been honing their craft throughout history, but have never been able to fool more people than in the age of Edward Bernays, mass media, and social engineering. Today, a world-shaking falsity can be created out of thin air. The 1969 “moon landing” is a good example. Fortunately that psy-op was carried out without mass murder. It was an astounding feat. From the battleship Maine to the Reichstag fire to the Gulf of Tonkin, to “weapons of mass destruction”, to the 7-7 London bus bombing, to 9-11, to the Boston Marathon bombing, to the Las Vegas hotel shooter massacre, to the January 6 “insurrection”, and scores of other entrapments, fakes, and shootings; served by a veritable industry of crisis actors, informants, patsies, undercover police, agents, infiltrators, provocateurs, assassins, and spies; huge lies have been relentlessly sprung upon an unwitting, crisis-weary public, and the lies have succeeded for the most part because people can’t believe anyone would commit crimes of such magnitude.
Perhaps it’s time to rethink our relationship to the source of much of this manipulation — the TV screen. We literally are not seeing something real when it comes to us through this medium. The image on the screen is not reality. It may easily show us what someone else wants us to believe. The format is a wide open field for propagandists. Our personal experience is limited. TV makes our experience seem almost unlimited and we come to believe this expanded experience is authentic. We have been seduced by media and technology to such an extent that today much of our “reality” is not even real — it is virtual. It all comes down to epistemology — what is real and what we actually know is one of the central questions of philosophy. But as a practical matter, gaining knowledge through our own direct experience, dealing with people face to face, being there in person, interacting with the natural world in our immediate (non-mediated) surroundings, is overwhelmed by the simulacra that we get from electronic media. Like junk food, electronic media is pervasive and addictive. We are not physically or psychologically prepared to deal with it. We are simply not capable of ‘knowing’ all the people, places, ideas, and events brought to us in the avalanche of content on the internet. The hosts of the virtual world, like Facebook and Google, are happy to see us occupied on smart phones and social media with a previously unimaginable circle of hundreds of “friends.” We may even organize with our hundred friends to break Facebook and Google into a thousand pieces, but silicon valley doesn’t care because they gain so much more from collecting and selling our data. Technology once seemed to be there to make life easier, but then it quietly enslaved us. To fight technocracy — that is, government which derives its power from technology — we have only to look at the technocrats’ means of control — QR codes, data bases, surveillance cameras, license plate readers, algorithms, artificial intelligence, body scanners, microchips, video games, blockbuster movies, cable TV, smartphones, and credit scores — and get them one by one out of our lives. It is certainly within our means to get rid of the devices we ourselves carry. Are you opposed to “vaccine passports”? Then don’t carry or own the smartphone that makes them possible.
Facebook recently announced it wants to change its name to “Meta”, the Latin word for ‘beyond.’ To the forward-thinking predators running Facebook, the “metaverse” is the next frontier in the attempt to capture and control human minds. With a VR (virtual reality) headset, one actually believes he’s in a given program, and may even believe he’s interacting with the program. The next step will be a no-headset, or wireless, VR platform. Since the oligarchs want to use those of us who survive the Frankenshots as slave labor, they would want us to be more than just passive batteries in a pod with cables stuck to our heads, as in The Matrix. Mobile humans having reality fed to them wirelessly would be a huge improvement. Perhaps the technology for that is contained in the “vaccines”, with their strange magnetic effects, so far unacknowledged and unexplained. Indeed, this may be why Bill Gates said that “unfortunately everyone on the planet will have to be vaccinated.” Obviously, the privileged few can’t have unauthorized humans walking around in their own reality!
The ongoing operation for the digital enslavement of humanity is insane. We are not a Frankenstein experiment. We are not software programs. We are not computers. We are not ones and zeros. We are not transhuman. We are miracles created by God, not to be tampered with. It is time to de-digitize the world around us and return to our spiritual connections and our humanity. Like government, technology is there to serve us, not the other way around. Like government, technology is not to be trusted. When government and technology are working together, the potential for abuse increases exponentially. To save ourselves, both of these forces must be permanently put in their place.
These days many of us are in the streets protesting. The benefit of this is not that we might attract the attention of politicians who hold us in contempt, but that we see and talk to each other in person, and give those on the sidelines strength in seeing healthy and strong opposition to the madness. When it comes time to actually confront the authorities, they will have no choice but to listen, and they aren’t going to like it. On the way to that day, and perhaps in order to reach it, we have to get 60 years of very sophisticated, highly manipulative media programming well out of our heads. Hoaxes and false flags will then be immediately obvious, and will no longer be used against us. The “pandemic” and the cast of characters fomenting this two year atrocity will disappear like a bad dream. It’s as if we can beat this monstrosity simply by evolving.
Seizing Everything: The Theft of the Global Commons – Part 2
By Iain Davis | OffGuardian | November 8, 2021
The population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension on morality.”
– Garret Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons”
In Part 1 we explored the ongoing process of defining of the global commons and the claim of the stakeholder capitalists they they should be the “trustees” both of the commons and society. We are now going to look at how systems have been established to enable those stakeholders to seize them.
We should be mindful of what “global commons” means for the Global Public Private Partnership (GPPP). For them it means possession of everything: every resource on the planet, all land, all water, the air we breath and the natural world in its entirety, including all of us.
PRINCIPLES OF THE GLOBAL COMMONS
The notion of the “global commons” sprang from an amalgam of two principles in International Law. The Tragedy of The Commons (ToC) and the Common Heritage of Mankind (CHM).
In his 1968 paper on the ToC, the U.S. ecologist and eugenicist Garrett Hardin, building upon the earlier work of the 19th century economist William Forster Lloyd, outlined the population and resource problems as he saw them. He said “a finite world can support only a finite population; therefore, population growth must eventually equal zero.”
While logically this is ultimately true, if a whole raft of assumptions are accepted, the point at which zero population growth becomes necessary is unknown. The evidence suggests we are nowhere near that limit. Eugenicists, like Hardin, have claimed and continue to claim that the Earth faces a population problem. There is no evidence to support their view.
Hardin theorised that when a resource, such as land, is shared in “common,” people acting in rational self-interest will tend to increase their use of that resource because the cost is spread among all. He called this type of thinking a tragedy because, if all act accordingly, he maintained that the resource would dwindle to nothing and everyone suffer as a result.
Hardin insisted that this tragedy could not be averted. Therefore, as human beings were, in his eyes, incapable of grasping the bigger picture, the solutions were “managed” access to resources and “population control.”
While Hardin’s elitist ToC concept suggested regulated, enclosed (private) access to “common” resources, the Common Heritage of Mankind (CHM) rejected the idea of enclosure (privatisation). CHM instead advocated that a special group should be created by international treaty as “trustees” of the global commons. Seen as more “progressive,” it was no less elitist that Hardin’s concept.
The philosophical concept of CHM emerged onto the global political stage in the 1950’s but is was the 1967 speech by the Maltese ambassador to the U.N., Arvid Pardo, which established it as a principle of global governance. This eventually led to the 1982 U.N. Convention on Law of the Sea (LOSC).
Citing the CHM, in Article 137(2) of the LOSC, the U.N. declared:
All rights in the resources of the Area are vested in mankind as a whole, on whose behalf the Authority shall act.”
That “Area”, in this case, was the the Earth’s oceans, including everything in and beneath them. The “authority” was defined in Section 4 as the International Seabed Authority (ISA). Article 137(2) of the LOSC is self contradictory.
The legal definition of “vested” implies that the whole of humanity, without exception, has an absolute right to access the global commons. In this instance, those commons were the oceans. While the legal definition speaks of ownership, “vested” seems to guarantee the no one can lay any individual claim to ownership of the oceans or its resources. Access is equally shared by all.
Supposedly, this alleged right can never be “defeated by a condition precedent.” This is repudiated entirely by “on whose behalf the Authority shall act.”
Who among the billions of Earth’s inhabitants gave the ISA this alleged authority? When were we asked if we wanted to cede our collective responsibility for the oceans to the ISA?
This authority was seized by U.N. diktat and nothing more. It is now the ISA who, by a condition precedent, control, limit and license our access to the oceans.
This is the essential deception at the heart of GPPP’s “global commons” paradigm. They sell their theft as stewardship of the resources vested in all humanity, while simultaneously seizing the entirety of those resources for themselves.
SEIZING THE GLOBAL COMMONS: THE OCEANS
When interpreted by International Law, the CHM appears to place the private ownership of the global commons, suggested by the ToC, beyond the reach of government stakeholder partners. They should have no more right to these riches than anyone else. Legal challenge to any claim should be a relatively straight forward process for any concerned individual or group to make one.
This is not even a remote possibility. International Law, as it pertains to the global commons, is a meaningless jumble of inconsistencies and contradictions that ultimately amounts to “might is right.” For anyone to challenge the GPPP’s claim they would need to retain a legal team capable of defeating the UN’s and a judiciary willing to find in their favour.
The “law” is ostensibly designed to leave us imagining that we have “protected” rights and responsibilities towards these shared resources. Whereas, if subjected to any reasonable scrutiny, the legal notion of the global commons looks more like a diversion to facilitate a robbery.
If we look at the ISA’s record of stakeholder engagement we quickly find their Strategic Plan for 2019 – 2020. This succinctly outlines how the scam operates:
In an ever-changing world, and in its role as custodian of the common heritage of mankind, ISA faces many challenges… The United Nations has adopted a new development agenda, entitled ‘Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.’[…] Of most relevance to ISA is SDG 14 — Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources.”
The shared resource – global commons – of the Earth’s oceans are not freely accessible to humanity as a whole anymore. Rather, the ISA determine who gets access to oceanic resources based upon Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Effectively they have turned access to the global commons into a new market.
The most vital questions we must ask is how these allocation decisions are made and by whom. This will reveal who controls these new highly regulated markets. The ISA state:
States parties, sponsoring States, flag States, coastal States, State enterprises, private investors, other users of the marine environment and interested global and regional intergovernmental organizations. All have a role in the development, implementation and enforcement of rules and standards for activities in the Area”
In addition, the ISA will:
Strengthen cooperation and coordination with other relevant international organizations and stakeholders in order to… effectively safeguard the legitimate interests of members of ISA and contractors… The rules, regulations and procedures governing mineral exploitation… are underpinned by sound commercial principles in order to promote investment… taking into account trends and developments relating to deep seabed mining activities, including objective analysis of world metal market conditions and metal prices, trends and prospects… based on consensus… that allows for stakeholder input in appropriate ways.”
The Global Public Private Partnership (GPPP) of governments, global corporations (other users of the marine environment), their major shareholders (private investors) and philanthropic foundations (private investors) are the stakeholders. They, not us, will have an input to ensure the rules, regulations and procedures will promote investment that will safeguard their interests.
In the space of a few short decades, broad concepts have evolved into principles of International Law which have subsequently been applied to create a regulatory framework for controlled access to the all the resources in the oceans. What was once genuinely a global resource is now the sole province of the GPPP and its network of stakeholder capitalists.
THE GLOBAL COMMONS ARE GLOBAL
We should be wary of falling into the trap of thinking the GPPP comprises solely of the western hegemony. The stories we are fed about the global confrontation between superpowers are often superficial.
While there are undoubtedly tensions within the GPPP, as each player jostles for a bigger slice of the new markets, the GPPP network itself is a truly global collaboration. This doesn’t mean that conflict between nation states is impossible but, as ever, any such conflict will be fought for a reason absent from the official explanation.
[click to enlarge]
SDG’s led to net zero policies and they stipulate, among a swath of enforced changes, the end of petrol and diesel transport. We are all under orders to switch to electric vehicles (EVs) which the vast majority won’t be able to afford. In turn, this means a massive increase in demand for lithium-ion batteries.
Manufacturing these will require a lot more cobalt which is widely considered to be the most critical supply chain risk for producing EVs. The World Bank estimate that the growth in demand for cobalt between 2018 and 2050 will be somewhere in the region of 450%. To say this is a “market opportunity” is a massive understatement.
The ISA have granted 5 cobalt exploration contracts to JOGMEC (Japan), COMRA (China), Russia, the Republic of Korea and CPRM (Brazil). When located deposits become commercially viable, as they undoubtedly will, the corporate feeding frenzy can begin.
Corporations, such as the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin, with its wholly owned subsidiary UK Seabed Resources (UKSR), are also among the many ISA stakeholders. UKSR received their exploration license for the South Pacific in 2013. As an ISA exploration contractor, UKSR stakeholders are free to submit their recommendations for amendments to the ISA regulations governing their own mining operations.
For example, the ISA stated that mining corporations should provide a financial guarantee that would cover “unexpected costs, expenses and liabilities.” Lockheed Martin didn’t like this at all and so suggested a slight change. They recommended the addition of the following:
The Guarantee is not to cover costs, expenses and liabilities incurred as a result of tortious liability for environmental damage.”
This was presumably because, in their pursuit of SDG “protection” of the planet, Lockheed Martin don’t wish to be liable for the environmental damage they will inflict upon it in the process. This risk of this is high because the proposed method for “scraping the seabed” will almost certainly destroy it.
Fortunately for UKSR and other stakeholders like COMRA, the ISA’s is committed to regulations which promote sound commercial principles and safeguard their commercial interests. Destroying the seabed is a risk worth taking but not if you have to pay for it.
When it comes to fighting climate change, human life is even cheaper. Nearly all cobalt is currently mined from Africa’s copper belt and more than 60% of the world supply comes from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It is clawed from the Earth by tens of thousands of child slaves.
This poisonous torture dramatically shortens the abject misery of their suffering on this Earth. However, it does mean other young people like Greta Thunberg can inspire more fortunate children to mobilise on social media, using their fully charged devices, to save the planet.
Only the commercial viability of deep-sea reserves seems capable of saving the cobalt mine slaves. Alas, it is difficult to envisage how deep see reserves will become viable until land based reserves near exhaustion.
This openly condoned child abuse has been ongoing for years. A fact which the world’s media admits but never mentions when it eulogises about the green revolution.
The estimated 94,000 tonnes of cobalt in the Clarion Clipperton Zone (CCZ) of the Eastern Pacific alone represents 6 times the known land based reserves. With total deep sea reserves estimated to be worth between $8 – $16 trillion, as we progress towards a carbon neutral economy, deep sea mining is an inevitability. Regardless of the environmental cost.
All the real environmental issues are to be ignored as the world embarks upon a transition to a new global economy based upon one highly questionable theory: namely anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
THE GLOBAL COMMONS NEW MARKET(S)
This transition to the green economy will see myriad new markets created as the Earths “common” resources are converted into proverbial investment gold mines. Cobalt scraped from the seabed is just one example, there are thousands more.
The GPPP will have exclusive access, and thus control, over these new, essential resources. The investment opportunities are endless. It is this prospect, not any concerns for the Earth or humanity, that is driving the seizure of the global commons.
The GPPP have recognised that if they can squeeze something into the “global commons” they can then control of it. Consequently, the list of alleged “commons” continues to grow, as the the GPPP seek more control over more of the planet and everything on it.
In 1996 the late John Perry Barlow, from the Electronic Freedom Foundation, presented a Declaration for the Independence of Cyberspace to the annual Davos conference of the World Economic Forum (WEF). It perhaps seems odd that the GPPP wanted to hear this radical, libertarian call for governments around the world to leave cyberspace unregulated.
However, as I stress in my book Pseudopandemic, the intent of ideas, political and economic philosophies or social doctrines is not what interests the GPPP. Rather, it is how those ideologies can be exploited to achieve their goals.
In making his address Barlow was, perhaps inadvertently, laying the groundwork to include cyberspace as part of the “global commons.”
As we shall discuss shortly, the GPPP already had a plan in place to appropriate everything defined as a global commons. It was this prospect which enthralled the assembled Davos (GPPP) crowd.
In their 2015 Davos executive summary the WEF illustrated how the GPPP manipulate narratives to reshape the context of our daily lives.
In this case, the objective was to institute the precepts for their claimed jurisdiction of cyberspace.
What is clear is that we are confronted by profound political, economic, social and, above all, technological transformations… resulting in an entirely ‘new global context’ for future decision-making… The World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting provides an unparalleled platform for leaders to develop the necessary insights, ideas and partnerships to respond to this new context…
Based on the principle that a multistakeholder, systemic and future-oriented approach is essential in this new context, the issues to be addressed through sessions, taskforces and private meetings at the Annual Meeting 2015 include… The inability to significantly improve the management and governance of critical global commons, most notably natural resources and cyberspace.
We have considered the example of the oceans and their resources, but the process for creating regulated markets for all commons is the same. First something must be levered into the category of the global commons. Once declared to be among the “shared resources all life relies upon,” some GPPP quango is appointed to oversee access to the new regulated market.
This body will be formed to serve the stakeholders capitalists who will then have exclusive access to and control of that resource.
In accordance with the U.N. definition “stewardship of the global commons cannot be carried out without global governance.” Global governance is formally convened via the process of stealing the global commons. The entire operation is founded upon sustainable development.
THE AGENDAS FOR SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL COMMONS
As mentioned previously, this plan has been in-place for decades. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are set in Agenda 2030 as way-points along the path to completion of the plan for the 21st century: Agenda 21.
When GPPP stakeholders say they are committed to SDG’s they mean Agenda 2030, in the short term, and ultimately Agenda 21. Agenda 21 has a lot to say about what it calls “human settlements.” It lays out how they will be planned, constructed and managed by a public-private partnership. However, in constructing human settlements, human beings do not appear very high on the priority list.
Objective 5.29 states:
In formulating human settlements policies, account should be taken of resource needs, waste production and ecosystem health.”
Resource allocation, waste management and environmental protections are the prerequisites for “human settlements.” Not the welfare of humanity.
The GPPP will oversee the construction or allocation of our settlements. Objective 7.30. d. states:
Encourage partnerships among the public, private and community sectors in managing land resources for human settlements development.”
All land, not just the commons, will be managed by the GPPP. Again, subsequent Agenda 2030 SDGs have provided the justification for the land grab.
Objective 10 of Agenda 21 states:
The broad objective is to facilitate allocation of land to the uses that provide the greatest sustainable benefits and to promote the transition to a sustainable and integrated management of land resources”
Clearly this raises issues of private land ownership and use. Not just among householders but by industry, farmers, train companies or any other private land owner. The trick in holding on to land will be to secure its designation as having a “sustainable” purpose. This allocation will need to be agreed by the GPPP, so friends in high places will be key.
Agenda 21 demands, under “Activities” in section 7.29, that all nations must develop:
A comprehensive national inventory of their land resources in order to establish a land information system in which land resources will be classified according to their most appropriate uses and environmentally fragile or disaster-prone areas will be identified for special protection measures.”
If the place where you live is deemed to be environmentally fragile, and we are told the whole planet is, then the GPPP will follow section 7.30. h and implement:
Practices that deal comprehensively with potentially competing land requirements for agriculture, industry, transport, urban development, green spaces, preserves and other vital needs.”
This will involve the creation of “protected areas.” Among many of their authoritarian powers, this means that the GPPP will have control of all drinking water. Water sources automatically become “protected areas” under Agenda 21, for the good of our “health.”
Activity 18.50 it states:
All States, according to their capacity and available resources, and through bilateral or multilateral cooperation, including the United Nations and other relevant organizations as appropriate, could implement the following activities:.. Establishment of protected areas for sources of drinking-water supply.”
By exploiting the deception of “sustainable development” a planetary system of global governance, under the auspices of the GPPP, is currently being established. This is “build back better,” the “Great Reset,” the “Green New Deal” or whatever the GPPP choose to sell it as.
It means GPPP dominion over absolutely everything. We truly will own nothing, although it seems unlikely that many of us will be happy about it.
Those who do not understand, or do not wish to admit the reality of this global coup d’état, are quick to point out that Agenda 21 – and 2030 – are not legislation. Nation-states are not compelled to go along with any of it. This observation fails to appreciate what “global governance” is.
Global governance is not the setting of either policy or legislation. It is the creation of policy agendas which individual nation states may or may not implement as policy or subsequent legislation. It can only have teeth if nation states comply.
The problem we face is that nation states are “partner organisation,” some might say junior partners, within the GPPP. While they remain sovereign entities they do not act as such. We only need look at how global markets are created by Agenda 21 to see how all nation states have willingly collaborated in the sustainable development scam.
In Agenda 21 the declared “Basis for Action” at section 8.41 states:
A first step towards the integration of sustainability into economic management is the establishment of better measurement of the crucial role of the environment as a source of natural capital… A common framework needs to be developed whereby the contributions made by all sectors and activities of society, that are not included in the conventional national accounts, are included… A programme to develop national systems of integrated environmental and economic accounting in all countries is proposed.”
The clearly stated plan, written in 1992, was to create “natural capital” to shift “sustainability into economic management.” All sectors and all society will be involved in this effort to transform nature into economic capital.
This will include the oversight of the “activities of society,” such as our use of cyberspace, which are “not included in the conventional national accounts.” The global commons in other words.
It doesn’t matter if Agenda 21 (2030) has legislative authority or not. All the matters is the complicity of legislative authorities. They are in full compliance.
Agenda 21 proposed the development of “national systems of integrated environmental and economic accounting in all countries.” This was envisaged to complete the transformation of the Earth and all of its natural resources into a centralised system of economic control.
As Whitney Webb explored in her excellent article, Wall Street’s Takeover of Nature Advances with Launch of New Asset Class that is precisely what has happened. By once again misusing the concept of the global commons, the GPPP has created Natural Asset Companies (NACs). These will allegedly:
Preserve and restore the natural assets that ultimately underpin the ability for there to be life on Earth.”
This allusion to caring for the global commons all sounds wonderful but when we consider its impact upon the oceans depths, for example, it is really just the creation of new markets. Concern for environmental destruction barely registers.
THE METRICS OF THE GLOBAL COMMONS
Clearly, the objective of NACs is to secure GPPP stakeholder’s exclusive access to resources which, hitherto, weren’t “owned” by anyone. Michael Blaugrund, the Chief Operating Officer of the New York Stock Exchange, admitted as much:
Our hope is that owning a natural asset company is going to be a way that an increasingly broad range of investors have the ability to invest in something that’s intrinsically valuable, but, up to this point, was really excluded from the financial markets.”
To put this into perspective, the current, total GDP of the whole planet is approximately $94 trillion. By converting the Earth into an asset portfolio, nature is projected to be worth $4000 trillion. More than 40 times world GDP. Needless to say, this is one hell of an investment opportunity.
The transformation of the global economy is well underway. The entire GPPP is, understandably, committed to the project. What disagreements that exist only extend to who gets what. There is no opposition to the new global economic model. As Webb pointed out:
The ultimate goal of NACs is not sustainability or conservation – it is the financialization of nature, i.e. turning nature into a commodity that can be used to keep the current, corrupt Wall Street economy booming under the guise of protecting the environment and preventing its further degradation.”
NACs will enable investors to acquire assets primarily in developing nations, as multinational corporations and financial funds hoover up former global commons and other resources. However, the financialization of nature is global, transforming the Globe into a bull market.
This will be achieved using Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics. Assets will be rated using environmental, social and governance (ESG) benchmarks for sustainable business performance. Any business requiring market finance, perhaps through issuing climate bonds, or maybe green bonds for European ventures, will need those bonds to have a healthy ESG rating.
A low ESG rating will deter investors and the project or business venture won’t get off the ground. A high ESG rating will see investors rush to put their money in projects which are backed by international agreements. In combination, financial initiatives like NACs and ESGs are converting SDG’s into market regulations.
This centralises authority over the global economy, placing it in the hands of the GPPP. Speaking in July 2019, then Governor of the Bank of England (BoE) and soon to be U.N. special envoy for Climate Action, Mark Carney, simply stated:
Companies that ignore climate change and don’t adapt will go bankrupt without question.”
Later, speaking at the Green Horizons Summit in November 2020, jointly hosted by The City of London Corporation, the Green Finance Institute and the World Economic Forum, Carney, acting in another role as UK Prime Ministerial Finance Adviser on COP26, said:
“Transition plans will reveal the leaders and laggers on the road to Glasgow… We will not get to net zero in a niche, it requires a whole economy transition.”
The leaders in the new global economy will be those selected by the GPPP through the appropriate rating of their issued securities. The laggers will be weeded out via the same mechanism. They will go bankrupt without question.
All business, not just global corporations, will be required to “adapt” to the new SDG based economic system. This isn’t some projection of what the future global economy will look like, it has already happened. While the world has been obsessing over the pseudopandemic the GPPP has initiated a global revolution.
At the eventual COP26 summit in Glasgow, Mark Carney, allegedly speaking as the U.N envoy – or perhaps as a Board Trustee of the World Economic Forum, it’s hard to say – launched something he called GFANZ:
The architecture of the global financial system has been transformed to deliver net zero. We now have the essential plumbing in place to move climate change from the fringes to the forefront of finance so that every financial decision takes climate change into account … [This] rapid, and large-scale, increase in capital commitment to net zero, through GFANZ, makes the transition to a 1.5C world possible.”
The UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rishi Sunak, followed up Carney’s statement with the declaration of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ). The plan is to initially “align,” (force) 40% of the world’s current financial assets, amounting to $130 trillion, to commit to the transition towards a decarbonised global economy. The UK government press release reported:
The UK has convened over 30 advanced and developing countries from across 6 continents and representing over 70% of global GDP to back the creation of a new global climate reporting standards by the IFRS Foundation to give investors the information they need to fund net zero.”
All this is necessary, according to Carney, Sunak and all the other GPPP leaders, to control the Earth’s climate. They really imagine, or rather want you to imagine, that they can tweak the temperature of the Earth by centralising their authority over the world’s economy.
As Whitney Webb accurately observed on Twitter:
GLOBAL GOVERNANCE OF EVERYTHING
GFANZ is largely based upon double accounting and financial slight of hand. There isn’t really any commitment to actually reducing GHG emissions. The major banks will still be free to invest in fossil fuels while it remains profitable.
Once again the mainstream critics, or at least those reported by the financial MSM, utterly fail to understand what they are looking at. They fantasise that it is all about “saving the planet” or creating a greener economy for the good of all.
It is not, and it never was. It is about centralising financial and economic power.
It doesn’t matter if the numbers don’t add up. The real environmental impact is totally irrelevant. All that matters is that a mechanism is created by which the upper echelons of the GPPP hierarchy can firstly rescue and then extend their authority and control. That is the primary objective and until the pet economists and media commentators grasp this, they will never see that which is staring them in the face.
Presumably they still believe it is just an incalculable coincidence that this transformation has occurred just in time to save the failed IMFS (international monetary and financial system.) The GPPP have simply struck lucky. Saving the planet just happens to require exactly the same economic and financial restructuring needed to cover up the complete collapse of their former control structure.
At the 2019 annual G7 bankers symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, just four months before the first cases of COVID 19 were reported, the second largest investment management firm in the world, BlackRock, presented their report Dealing With The Next Downturn to the gathered G7 central bankers. They reported:
Unprecedented policies will be needed to respond to the next economic downturn. Monetary policy is almost exhausted as global interest rates plunge towards zero or below. Fiscal policy on its own will struggle to provide major stimulus in a timely fashion given high debt levels and the typical lags with implementation… Conventional and unconventional monetary policy works primarily through the stimulative impact of lower short-term and long-term interest rates. This channel is almost tapped out.”
Unable to either spend or tax their way out of trouble, BlackRock admitted that, for the GPPP, the existing IMFS was a finished. This was the source of their power and therefore, if they were to retain their “authority,” a new system was required.
Mark Carney, on this occasion speaking as the governor of the BoE, affirmed BlackRock’s assessment:
Most fundamentally, a destabilising asymmetry at the heart of the IMFS is growing… a multi-polar global economy requires a new IMFS to realise its full potential. That won’t be easy… the deficiencies of the IMFS have become increasingly potent. Even a passing acquaintance with monetary history suggests that this centre won’t hold… I will close by adding urgency… Let’s end the malign neglect of the IMFS and build a system worthy of the diverse, multipolar global economy that is emerging.”
All agreed that a new IMFS was urgently needed. There was no time left to lose. In their paper BlackRock suggested that the new financial order could be created by “going direct:”
Going direct means the central bank finding ways to get central bank money directly in the hands of public and private sector spenders… enforcing policy coordination so that the fiscal expansion does not lead to an offsetting increase in interest rates.”
This was a revolutionary concept. Central banks theoretically served solely as the bank for commercial banks and government. Their official role was to invest in government bonds and manage settlements between commercial banks using central banks reserves called “base money.” The money you and I use every day is “broad money.” It had always circulated in the economy separately from base money.
Base money had never before been used to directly stimulate or manipulate broad money markets (in theory). With their going direct plan BlackRock were suggesting a mechanism by which it could. Effectively placing central banks in charge (enforcing policy coordination) of government fiscal policy: government taxation and spending.
Going direct represents a fundamental change in the nature of our political systems. It suggests that elected governments are no longer in charge of spending. It appears to be the establishment of taxation without representation: the end of any notion of democracy.
BlackRock added that going direct would be required if an “unusual conditions” arose. The center couldn’t hold, an extraordinary catalyst was needed to bring about the transformation.
In yet another remarkable and, for the GPPP, incredibly fortuitous coincidence, the U.S. “repo market” floundered just a month later. This delivered the necessary unusual condition, triggering BlackRock’s plan.
Things became extremely unusual just a few months later as the world was plunged into a global pseudopandemic. In response, by March 2020, going direct went into overdrive.
BlackRock said that going direct would only be required while the “unusual condition” persisted, although the nature of the arrangement would require a “permanent set-up.” Once fiscal policy objectives were achieved, which were also monetary policy objectives, the temporary permanent set-up could then move on to the “exit strategy” placed on the “policy horizon”.
We now know what that policy horizon is. It is the transformation of the IMFS, the seizure of the global commons, the financialization of nature and the establishment of a central financial body that rules it all. This process is more commonly referred to a “sustainable development” or the contruction of the green economy.
Mark Carney – formerly of Goldman Sachs & the Bank of England
ONE RING TO RULE THEM ALL
Prior to his GFANZ proclamation, in November 2020, Rishi Sunak stated that the UK intended to issue the world’s first sovereign green bond. The UK Government decreed that it would make reporting to the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TFCD) mandatory for all UK businesses by 2025. Sunak added that this would encourage investment in new technologies “like stablecoins and Central Bank Digital Currencies”.
The UK Government added:
The UK will become the first country in the world to make Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) aligned disclosures fully mandatory across the economy by 2025… The UK will also implement a green taxonomy — a common framework for determining which activities can be defined as environmentally sustainable.”
The UK government’s pretence that it was in control of this initiative was comical. The Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics which determine ESG asset ratings, and the development of NACs, aren’t managed by the UK, U.S. or any other elected government. These financial levers are firmly rooted in the private sector.
GPPP leaders like the Bank for International Settlements, national central banks, BlackRock, Vanguard and WEF partners like Deloitte, PwC, McKinsey and KPMG are controlling these investment strategies. Governments are just junior, facilitating partners in the Global Public-Private Partnership.
The TCFDs are evaluated in response to a company’s “sustainability report.” According to the Financial Stability Board (FSB), the sustainability report “describes a company’s or organization’s impact on society, often addressing environmental, social, and governance issues.”
The TDFD assessment determines the ESG rating of its assets. This will be the deal maker, or breaker, whenever it wants to raise capital investment.
The sustainability report standards are set by the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) foundation. The IFRS foundation states that it is a non profit, public-interest organisation.
It sets agreed accountancy standards in 140 jurisdictions for both public and private organisations. Its jurisdictions include the U.S., the EU, the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, China and Russia.
However its claim to operate in the “public interest” is not supported by its own statements. The IFRS foundation also reports:
IFRS Standards are set by the International Accounting Standards Board and are used primarily by publicly accountable companies—those listed on a stock exchange and by financial institutions, such as banks.”
The International Accountancy Standards Board (IASB) is a private-sector organisation. Currently 12 people supposedly decide upon the IFRS standards which stipulate the sustainability report requirements for businesses and other organisations, including governments, across the planet.
Under the chairmanship of Mark Carney – he’s a busy man – the Financial Stability Board (FSB) created the TCFD in 2015:
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) announced today it is establishing an industry-led disclosure task force on climate-related financial risks.. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) will develop voluntary, consistent climate-related financial risk disclosures for use by companies in providing information to lenders, insurers, investors and other stakeholders.
Five years later it was again Carney who, knowing that the “center cannot hold,” announced the consolidation and unification of the whole system at the COP26 summit. Inline with GFANZ, the IFRS announced the next step in the process, with the creation of its International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB.)
The head auditor at PwC, Hemione Hudson, said:
The launch today of the International Sustainability Standards Board is an important step towards achieving a global common approach to ESG related disclosure standards. Harnessing the power of the financial markets to play a leading role in the transition to a net zero economy… Reporting standards are a critical component to achieving this”
We can now see how the whole system will work.
Every business, every project they wish to embark upon, every initiative they plan and every policy they pursue must adhere to SDGs. Their compliance to the agreed agenda will be measured via their “sustainability report.”
The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) will judge their performance. Their ESG subcommittees, such as the International Sustainability Standards Board, will approve the relevant ESG rating for that business.
The private investment ratings agencies like Deloitte who are “members” of the IFRS and, by definition, the GPPP, will effectively control every business’s investment strategy and thus their operations. Deep-sea mining, cybersecurity, digital currency innovation, exploitation of the global commons and anything else ordained as “sustainable” will receive the corresponding ESG rating.
All of this is centrally controlled through the TCFD system, operated by the FSB. They will be able to select who prospers and who doesn’t. The FSB secretariat is “hosted” and funded by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and is based at BIS headquarters in Basel, Switzerland.
Not only are the central banks, under the authority of the BIS, going direct and funding global fiscal policy, they are intent upon controlling all business, all commerce and all finances. They are seizing the global commons, financializing nature and moving beyond the old IMFS to establish true global governance.
If we don’t act. If we simply allow the puppets in our so-called governments to maintain their GPPP positions then the BIS, the central banks and other “valued stakeholders” are going to seize everything on this Earth. We will be beholden to them for the resources that “all life relies upon.”
If we allow that to happen then, just like the forgotten souls abandoned to the brutality of the cobalt mines, we will all be slaves.
8 Top Leaders in Field of Medicine Say Don’t Trust Science
By Fred Burks | WantToKnow
Throughout the pandemic, we were told by the powers that be to trust the science. But science is a process, not a person in whom we can place our faith. This process always produces meaningful data about how the world works, yet correctly interpreting that data isn’t always easy or possible. And for a variety of reasons, official interpretations of scientific data appear broadly untrustworthy. When science is used by powerful interests to support questionable policies, it ceases to be a tool for the betterment of all mankind.
Why do these eight top leaders in the field of medicine say that the science is not to be trusted?
- Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) – “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.”
~~ Taken from this webpage on a U.S. National Institute of Health website - Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of the Lancet (considered to be one of the most well respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world) – “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Science has taken a turn towards darkness.”
~~ Taken from this webpage on a U.S. National Institute of Health website - Dr. Fiona Godlee, 16 years as editor-in-chief of The BMJ – “It’s estimated that 70 per cent of the retractions are based on some form of scientific misconduct. I think we have to call it what it is. It is the corruption of the scientific process.”
~~ Taken from this webpage on the website of the CBC (Canadian Broadcast System) - Kamran Abbasi, current executive editor of The BMJ – “Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. COVID-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health.”
~~ Taken from this webpage on the website of The BMJ (formerly British Medical Journal) - Dr. Raeford Brown, chair of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Committee on Analgesics and Anesthetics – “Congress is owned by pharma. The pharmaceutical industry pours millions of dollars into the legislative branch every single year. In 2016, they put $100 million into the elections. That’s a ton of money.”
~~ Taken from this webpage on the Yahoo! News website - Assistant Professor Ray Moynihan, one of the leaders of a campaign sponsored by The BMJ to separate medicine from big Pharma – “When we want to decide on a medicine or a surgery, a lot of the evidence we used to inform that decision is biased. It cannot be trusted … because so much of that has been produced and funded by the manufacturers of those healthcare products.”
~~ Taken from this webpage on the website of the Sydney Morning Herald - A group calling itself CDC Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research, or (CDC SPIDER), put a list of complaints in writing in a letter to CDC Chief of Staff. The members of the group have elected to file the complaint anonymously for fear of retribution – “It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests … and Congressional intent for our agency is being circumvented by some of our leaders. What concerns us most is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception. These questionable and unethical practices threaten to undermine our credibility and reputation as a trusted leader in public health.”
~~ Taken from this webpage on the website of The Hill - Dr. Herbert L. Ley Jr, head of the FDA in the late 1960s – “What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it is doing are as different as night and day.” He complained further that during his 18‐month tenure he had been under “constant, tremendous, sometimes unmerciful pressure” from drug industry officials.
~~ Taken from this webpage on the New York Times website
For more specific details on how science has been corrupted, explore a 10-page summary of former NEMJ editor-in- chief Marcia Angell on this webpage. For concise summaries of revealing major media articles on corruption in science, see this webpage. See also the Great Barrington Declaration on better ways of dealing with COVID-19 signed by over 50,000 scientists and medical professionals. By spreading the word on this message from top leaders in the health field, we can make a difference. Thanks for caring.
Government’s Own Data Proves COVID-19 Shots Are Causing Blood Clots, Heart Disease, and DEATH
Apparatchiks who should be arrested immediately for lying to the American people and causing massive deaths and injuries through the COVID-19 vaccination program
By Brian Shilhavy | Health Impact News | November 4, 2021
There are currently two different and opposing narratives in the public regarding the safety of the COVID-19 shots.
One view claims they are safe, and the other view claims they are not.
Both views cannot be true. One view is correct, and one view is wrong.
The view of the pharmaceutical companies producing the shots and earning great profit from them is that they are safe, and this view is backed up by the U.S. Government regulatory agencies and the officials who lead them.
Here is their official statement through the CDC, as of November 1, 2021.
Source
Please note that in order for the pharmaceutical companies and the government health agencies to make a claim that COVID-19 “vaccines” are “safe,” there must be a safety monitoring system in place in order to make such a claim. Otherwise, their claims would be without basis, because nobody would know whether those claims are true or not.
The CDC admits this in this statement on their website. And they go on to explain that this safety monitoring system is called VAERS, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.
Based on the VAERS reporting system, the CDC goes on to state:
Serious adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination are rare but may occur.
For public awareness and in the interest of transparency, CDC is providing timely updates on the following serious adverse events of interest:
They then list four adverse events they have noticed from VAERS, and also make a statement regarding deaths.
Here are the four adverse events they admit are recorded in VAERS:
- Anaphylaxis after COVID-19 vaccination
- Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) after Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen (J&J/Janssen) COVID-19 vaccination
- CDC and FDA are monitoring reports of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) in people who have received the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine.
- Myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination are rare.
- Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare.
Notice how they frequently use the word “rare” to describe these adverse events following COVID-19 vaccinations. But how many people even know about these “rare” side effects prior to receiving a COVID-19 shot?
Two of the side effects are only linked to one of the three FDA authorized COVID-19 “vaccines,” the J&J shot, which is the one least used.
The nice thing about the Government VAERS database is that it is open to the public, and anyone can search it. I use the MedAlerts front end to search the database, and you can find that here.
So anyone around the world can do their own search of the data in the VAERS database and fact-check the CDC’s claims, which represent the view of the pharmaceutical industry and the government health agencies and their heads.
And that’s what I am going to do in the rest of this article.
Please note that I am not dealing with the issue of under-reporting in VAERS in this article. Everyone admits that the data in VAERS is vastly under-reported, which is why when the CDC states that an adverse reaction that they admit is seen in VAERS is “rare” based on how many doses of the vaccine have been distributed, we should not take their statement at face value, because they actually do not know how rare it is.
So I am only going to deal with the available data to fact-check their claims, the very same data that they are using.
What I am going to do is compare the data on adverse reactions to the COVID-19 shots to the data recorded for the past 30 years for all other vaccines, as this will be a truer “apples to apples” comparison, and it is also a simple one that anyone can search themselves.
At the end of this analysis of the available data, nobody in the pharmaceutical industry or in the government health agencies can say that the data is wrong, because it is their data. They also cannot claim ignorance, because the statements they make regarding the “safety” of these COVID-19 vaccines is based on this data in VAERS, according to their own published statements.
And what we will see when we look at the data as compared to all other data from non-COVID-19 vaccines, is that they are lying, and that the COVID-19 vaccines are most definitely causing blood clots, heart disease, and deaths.
If they are lying, then they are complicit with causing these crippling injuries and deaths, and they should all be arrested immediately for being complicit to mass murder.
CDC Claim: Deaths following COVID-19 Shots are “Rare”
Let’s begin with deaths, since this is obviously the most serious adverse event following COVID-19 vaccination.
Here is the CDC claim as of November 1, 2021:
Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 423 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through November 1, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 9,367 reports of death (0.0022%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines. However, recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and TTS, a rare and serious adverse event—blood clots with low platelets—which has caused deaths pdf icon[1.4 MB, 33 pages].
Notice that according to the CDC the only “plausible causal relationship” between a COVID-19 vaccine and death is with the J&J shot, which is linked to blood clots. And they claim that this is among 9,367 reports of death following COVID-19 shots for the past 10 months.
I am not even sure where they get this number of “9,367” from, because when we search the VAERS database for deaths following COVID-19 shots, it returns a value of 17,619. (Source.) If we exclude all the foreign reports, we still get a different value than what they are stating, with 8,068 deaths. (Source.)
So they are applying some other kind of filter to get this death count, it would seem.
For the purpose of this analysis in this article, I am going to use ALL the data in VAERS and not filter out anything, since we already know the data is vastly under-reported.
Now to determine if these reports of deaths are “rare,” let’s look at how many deaths there are from ALL vaccines that are NOT COVID-19 vaccines for the past 30+ years.
The easiest way to do this is to simply run a search for all deaths in the database, and then subtract the deaths from the COVID-19 vaccines, which as I stated above is 17,619.
Here is the result: 26,680 deaths from ALL vaccines in the database as of October 22, 2021, which covers a period of over 30 years.
17,619 of those deaths are following COVID-19 vaccines for the past 10 months. That means that for all other vaccines over the past 30 years, there have only been 9,061 deaths recorded, about 300 deaths per year. But into October of 2021, there have been already been 17,619 deaths following COVID shots.
Does this sound “rare,” or is this a national catastrophe where heads should roll and people should be locked up in jail and prosecuted?
And remember, this is THEIR DATA! They know this.
And now they are targeting children 5 to 11 years old.
Fetal Deaths
Also, the CDC and the FDA are recommending the COVID-19 shots for pregnant women, claiming it is safe for them.
But is it? What does their own data in VAERS report about fetal deaths following COVID-19 injections of pregnant women?
Through October 22, 2021 they have recorded 2,369 cases where the mother lost her baby after receiving a COVID-19 shot. (Source.)
How does that compare with fetal deaths in pregnant women following ALL vaccines that are NOT COVID-19 vaccines for the past 30+ years?
For the past 30+ years there have been 2,192 cases where the mom being given a vaccine lost her baby, about 73 a year. (Source.)
But this year, 2,369 unborn babies have already died following a COVID-19 shot injected into the pregnant mother.
Does this sound “safe” to you? Would pregnant women continue getting COVID-19 shots if they knew these statistics in the government’s own database?
CDC Claim: Blood Clots from COVID-19 Shots are “Rare”
The admission that the CDC makes for COVID-19 vaccines causing blood clots is:
Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) after Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen (J&J/Janssen) COVID-19 vaccination is rare. As of October 27, 2021, more than 15.5 million doses of the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine have been given in the United States. CDC and FDA identified 48 confirmed reports of people who got the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and later developed TTS. Women younger than 50 years old especially should be aware of the rare but increased risk of this adverse event. There are other COVID-19 vaccine options available for which this risk has not been seen. Learn more about J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and TTS.
To date, two confirmed cases of TTS following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (Moderna) have been reported to VAERS after more than 401 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines administered in the United States. Based on available data, there is not an increased risk for TTS after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.
What the CDC is clearly doing here is only reporting one kind of blood clot, Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS). They claim that this is the only kind of blood clot they found, and it is only 48 cases with J&J, and 2 cases with Moderna.
But there are many kinds of blood clots, so we should not just limit our search for only TTS. If we just search for ALL cases involving any kind of “thrombosis” following COVID-19 shots, we get a value of 13,930 cases of blood clots. (Source.)
When we search for each of the 3 FDA authorized COVID-19 vaccines where blood clots are recorded along with deaths, we get 626 total deaths when blood clots are present: 381 deaths for Pfizer, 118 deaths for Moderna, and 127 deaths for J&J.
So this horrible side effect is not related to only one manufacturer.
How does this compare with cases of “thrombosis” from ALL vaccines that are NOT COVID-19 vaccines for the past 30 years? With the available data we find only 489 cases of any kind of thrombosis for ALL vaccines for the past 30+ years, resulting in only 18 deaths. (Source.)
This is not a “rare” event following COVID-19 shots. This is criminal.
And frontline doctors are confirming that they are seeing high rates of blood clots in patients who have been vaccinated for COVID-19.
Canadian doctors were the first ones to blow the whistle on this. This past July we published an interview with Dr. Charles Hoffe, a doctor who has been practicing medicine for 28 years in the small, rural town of Lytton in British Columbia, Canada.
He was the first one to state publicly that these blood clots were not rare, as he tested vaccinated patients in his province in Canada and found that 62% of them had evidence of small blood clots.
The blood clots we hear about which the media claim are very rare are the big blood clots which are the ones that cause strokes and show up on CT scans, MRI, etc. The clots I’m talking about are microscopic and too small to find on any scan. They can thus only be detected using the D-dimer test. (Source.)
Since then an emergency medicine doctor, Dr. Rochagné Kilian, has come forward to tell the public what she was seeing in fully vaccinated patients, and the high rate of blood clots. She lost her job in order to bring this information to the public, so it is well worth listening to.
This is on our Rumble and Bitchute channel.
CDC Claim: Heart Disease from COVID-19 Shots is Rare
Here is what the CDC admits for heart disease following COVID-19 shots:
Myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. As of October 27, 2021, VAERS has received 1,784 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis among people ages 30 and younger who received COVID-19 vaccine. Most cases have been reported after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna), particularly in male adolescents and young adults. Through follow-up, including medical record reviews, CDC and FDA have confirmed 1,005 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis. CDC and its partners are investigating these reports to assess whether there is a relationship to COVID-19 vaccination. Learn more about COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis.
Notice that they admit to 1,784 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis in people under age 30, and yet still choose to call these events “rare.”
Again, myocarditis and pericarditis are just two kinds of heart diseases, so let’s select all cases where a “carditis” is listed as an adverse event following COVID-19 shots. When we expand the search of the available data, we find 9,859 cases of cardits, resulting in 136 deaths and 327 permanent disabilities. (Source.)
This is a lot more than what the CDC is telling us, because they only included 2 kinds of “carditis.”
How does this compare with reported cases of “carditis” following ALL vaccines for the past 30+ years that are NOT COVID-19 vaccines?
For the past 30+ years there have been only 913 cases of “carditis” following ALL vaccines, resulting in only 95 deaths, about 3 deaths per year. (Source.)
Heart disease following COVID-19 shots is most certainly not rare! Young people, especially athletes, are having heart attacks in record numbers this year, as almost every day now we are seeing news reports of young, healthy athletes having heart attacks, like this professional hockey player who was in the news yesterday. There’s a list of athletes dying, mostly from cardiac arrest, here.
America is Run by Criminals and Mass Murderers
Your government is lying to you. They have this data, because it is their data. They know all of this.
But who will bring them to justice?
Sadly, these people in government who run the “health” agencies are simply pawns and puppets in these crimes against humanity.
The real decision makers who are guilty of mass murder are in corporate America. We have already shown how each of the pharmaceutical companies that currently have a COVID-19 “vaccine” authorized by the FDA also employ a former FDA Commissioner. See:
All 3 FDA-Authorized COVID-19 Vaccine Companies Employ Former FDA Commissioners
Charles Hugh Smith published an article today highlighting just how corrupt and evil corporate America has become.
Some excerpts:
It’s becoming a routine story: a whistleblower emerges with copious documentation, revealing the ethical / managerial rot at the very top of Corporate America icons. Recently it was Facebook that was revealed as devoting far more resources to masking corporate guile than to actually improving longstanding ethical and quality issues.
Now it’s Pfizer’s fast and loose treatment of supposedly rigorous protocols that’s been heavily documented. The prestigious British Medical Journal (BMJ) stated that the whistleblower provided “The BMJ with dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails.” BMJ Investigation: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial.
The purpose of playing fast and loose is to maximize profits regardless of any other factors. And while corporations exist to maximize profits, the trend in Corporate America is to sacrifice everything to maximize profits and keep the putrid sewage hidden from regulators, the media and the public.
This isn’t about profit, it’s about hiding the rot that has seeped into every nook and cranny of Corporate America. The foundation of the stock market’s extreme valuations is corporate profits, and the stock market bubble is now the precarious foundation of the entire U.S. economy: should the bubble pop, everyone knows the economy and the financial system will both crash.
The usual corporate strategy–defame the whistleblower and blow smoke to cover the rot–loses traction when the rot is documented by internal memos, recordings, etc. It’s difficult for the lackeys of Corporate America to dismiss the British Medical Journal as just another tin-foil-hat outlet of “fake news,” especially with all the documentation now made public.
Lost in the obsession to profiteer and hide the rot is the notion that corporations have responsibilities to the public and their customers/users, not just to greedy managers and shareholders. These responsibilities have been tossed into the muddy ditch.
Regulations only exist in name in America. Corporate America plays by its own rules. Corporate America is no longer regulated in any consequential fashion, as the list of Pfizer’s actions reveal:
— Participants placed in a hallway after injection and not being monitored by clinical staff
— Lack of timely follow-up of patients who experienced adverse events
— Protocol deviations not being reported
— Vaccines not being stored at proper temperatures
— Mislabelled laboratory specimens, and
— Targeting of Ventavia staff for reporting these types of problems.
The last item appears in virtually every whistleblower case: the corporation doesn’t rush to fix its glaring ethical and quality issues, it rushes to silence the whistleblower and “manage the narrative” to protect its precious profits. Never mind that the public pays the price for corporations saying one thing and doing another, for hiding what they dare not let regulators, users, customers and patients learn about their practices and behind-closed-doors goals.
The Prime Directive of Corporate America is to hide the rot that’s permeated the entire corporation, starting at the top.
We shouldn’t be too surprised that Corporate America is rotten to the core–the entire status quo is rotten to the core. Ethics and regulations are annoyances to be skirted, and if some random regulator catches insiders in the act, the corporation pays an inconsequential fine and then returns to BAU–business as usual, rotten to the core.
Any citizen who desires to be well-informed would be well-served to read this report closely: BMJ Investigation: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial.
He goes on to write about an amazing database someone has put together which documents all the “Corporate fines and Settlements” over criminal cases since the 1990s. Pfizer, for example, has paid out over $8 BILLION in fines for criminal activities over the years.
As further documentation, I am honored to share a remarkable data base of Corporate Fines and Settlements from the early 1990s to the present compiled by Jon Morse. Here is Jon’s description of his project to assemble a comprehensive list of all corporate fines and settlements that can be verified by media reports:
“This spreadsheet is all the corporate fines/settlements I’ve been able to find sourced articles about, mostly in the period from the 1990s up to today (with a few 80s and 70s). This is by far the most comprehensive list of such things online. At least that I could find, because the lack of any decent list is what made me start compiling this list in the first place.”
What’s noteworthy is the sheer number of corporate violations of laws and regulations–thousands upon thousands, the vast majority of which occurred since corporate profits began their incredible ascent in the early 2000s–and the list of those paying hundreds of millions of dollars in fines and settlements, which reads like a who’s who of Corporate America and Top 100 Global Corporations.
I encourage you to open one of the three alphabetical tabs at the bottom of the spreadsheet on Google Docs and scroll down to find your favorite super-profitable corporation.
Many have a long list of fines and settlements, and many of the fines are in excess of $100 million. Many are for blatant cartel price-fixing, not disclosing the dangers of the company’s heavily promoted medications, destroying documents to thwart an investigation of wrong-doing, etc.
In other words, these were not wrist-slaps for minor oversights of complex regulations— these are blatant violations of core laws of the land.
Jon offered this commentary on Corporate America’s slide to the bottom of the moral cesspool:
“With the increases in concentration of wealth there has been a culture of idolizing wealth, one example is how prosecutors no longer find it appropriate to put bankers and CEOs in jail. I think one side-effect of the culture changing has been an increased willingness to break the law to increase profits.
The settlements with the banks along with the ongoing investigations have shown that virtually every market is being manipulated; the stocks, metals markets, LIBOR, FOREX, everything. The companies would only break so many laws if they felt they would have a reasonable chance of getting away with it; they would also need a reason to do it, which is provided by the infinite growth model our economy is based on.”
Thank you, Jon, for compiling a tremendously important and valuable database, and for connecting this staggering list of violations to the cultural worship of maximizing private gains at any cost. I am reminded of socio-economist Immanuel Wallerstein’s description of the current system of central-state/private-corporation collusion as “a particular historical configuration of markets and state structures where private economic gain by almost any means is the paramount goal and measure of success.”
Read the full article here.
It is time to STOP the killer COVID-19 vaccine campaigns, and way past time to round up all of these murderers and lock them up.
These talking heads on TV use what is called an “appeal to authority” to try and convince the public to get these shots. The data and the science is NOT on their side, and they are not nearly as intelligent as they want you to believe they are.
I know there is great risk right now in refusing the COVID-19 shots for some people, as your livelihood and means to earn income could be at stake.
But this is NOT a sustainable path we are on, and at some point those who refused the shots are going to be needed again, and chances are you will, at some point, be able to earn income again.
Just remember one indisputable FACT:
If you risk getting a COVID-19 shot, you could die or become crippled with very serious injuries. Deaths and injuries are happening at a record pace, and they are not “rare” as is being claimed, based on the data.
If you do not take a COVID-19 shot, you cannot die from that shot.
It really is that simple.
Parents who subject their children to these shots are guilty of child abuse, and attempted murder. Keep your children home, and safe, no matter what the cost, if you truly love them.
Featured Video
“Trump’s presidency is at risk of being destroyed” Col Douglas Macgregor
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Infertility: A Diabolical Agenda
Dr. Joseph Mercola | July 9, 2022
“Infertility: A Diabolical Agenda,” is the fourth vaccine-related documentary by Dr. Andrew Wakefield. It tells the story of an intentional infertility vaccine program conducted on African women, without their knowledge or consent.
While it’s been brushed off as a loony conspiracy theory for years, there’s compelling evidence showing it did, in fact, happen, and there’s nothing to prevent it from happening again. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ offers ‘limited’ shield against ballistic missiles: Defense official
- Ukraine Seeks to Provoke a Nuclear Conflict: Zakharova
- US squares up to China over Panama Canal
- Monroe Doctrine 2.0: ‘Great Reset’ for US Imperialism?
- Nuclear Apartheid: Iran’s Rise Exposes the NPT Fraud and the West’s Israel Exception
- Continued US maritime piracy will face ‘practical, unprecedented’ response from Iran
- China discovers 225 large, medium-sized crude oil, natural gas fields from 2021 to 2025: Ministry of Natural Resources
- No More Bombs for Iran, Economic War Instead?
- “Trump’s presidency is at risk of being destroyed” Col Douglas Macgregor
- Iran has legal right to act in Hormuz, holds US responsible for disruptions: UN mission
- If Americans Knew
- Born during Israel’s genocide: Gaza’s child survivors bear the scars of war
- Who are the women and girls behind Gaza war’s horrific casualty toll?
- Beloved Gaza doctor detained “indefinitely” without charge – Daily Update
- By Week’s End, Trump’s War Will Be Plainly Illegal
- CBS News Reportedly Ousts London Bureau Chief Over Differences With Bari Weiss Over Gaza Coverage
- State Department Says US Is in Conflict With Iran ‘At the Request’ of Israel
- What ceasefire? Israel won’t stop killing in Gaza, Lebanon – Daily Update
- Palestinians in Gaza Want to Rebuild Food Systems. Israel Isn’t Letting Them.
- Under Trump, Green Card Seekers Face New Scrutiny for Views on Israel
- Sheep Theft Sent Shockwaves Through a Palestinian Village. Then, a 12-year-old Boy Was Shot Dead
- No Tricks Zone
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
Aletho News 