While victims of the witch trials were usually tried by courts that weren’t directly linked to the church, some argue that the church is also to blame due to the nature of the accusations during such proceedings.
Catholic priests in the German city of Eichstätt have recently acknowledged the demise of around 400 people who were tortured and killed there between the 15th and the 18th century after being accused of witchery, The Independent reports.
Having promised to install a memorial plaque, Gregor Maria Hanke, the town’s bishop, described the events as a “bleeding wound in the history of our church,” with the newspaper pointing out that his church “has kept its mouth quite firmly shut on the matter for 400 or so years.”
“It’s good that they’ve done something but of course it’s not nearly enough,” said Wolfram Kastner, the man “credited with the Eichstätt diocese’s examination of its past,” and who launched his campaign back in 2017 after discovering “the original interrogation transcripts” in the city.
While victims of witch trials were usually tried by courts that weren’t directly linked to the church, the newspaper notes, campaigners say the church is also to blame, due “to the doctrine about witches and the devil” being used during such proceedings.
“The church was scared of the Reformation and the witch trials were a means to combat it,” said Hartmut Hegeler, a retired German pastor who started a campaign in 2011 that has witnessed over 50 towns apologising “for the part they had to play in witch burning.”
Hegeler also added that back then, people who turned away from Catholicism were “labelled as being in a league with the devil” and it worked.
December 25, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Subjugation - Torture, Timeless or most popular | Germany, Human rights |
Leave a comment
Dr. Anthony Fauci, the epidemiologist revered almost religiously as a hero by mainstream media outlets and Democrat politicians, has admitted that he lied to Americans to manipulate their acceptance of a new Covid-19 vaccine.
The intentional deception involved estimates for what percentage of the population will need to be immunized to achieve herd immunity against Covid-19 and enable a return to normalcy.
Earlier this year, Fauci said 60-70 percent – a typical range for such a virus – but he moved the goalposts to 70-75 percent in television interviews about a month ago. Last week, he told CNBC that the magic number would be around “75, 80, 85 percent.”
When pressed on the moving target in a New York Times interview, Fauci said he purposely revised his estimates gradually. The newspaper, which posted the article on Thursday, said Fauci changed his answers partly based on “science” and partly on his hunch “that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks.”
“When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,” Fauci said. “Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.”
Fauci added that he doesn’t know the real number but believes the range is 70-90 percent. He said it may take nearly 90 percent, but he won’t give that number because Americans might be discouraged, knowing that voluntary acceptance won’t be high enough to reach that goal.
The article was published on Fauci’s 80th birthday, which was celebrated in the nation’s capital as “Dr. Anthony Fauci Day” after being proclaimed as such by Washington’s Democrat mayor, Muriel Bowser. CNN and other media outlets covered the occasion glowingly, including Fauci being surprised with a “serenade” by emergency medical workers as he left his office at the National Institutes of Health on Wednesday. A CNN video of the serenade included an audio clip of President-elect Joe Biden and his wife, Jill Biden, singing the birthday song.
You have been a beacon of scientific thinking and enlightenment during “these dark ages” of ignorance and superstition. Thank you!
— Mehmet Guvendi (@guvendi_mehmet) December 24, 2020
But the doctor’s changing story on herd immunity is only the latest in a series of Covid-19 flip-flops, including 180-degree shifts on such core issues as whether members of the general public should wear masks and whether children should be sent back to school.
Just as his tone on herd immunity changed, his view on prospects for a return to normalcy shifted dramatically. A few days before the November 3 presidential election, he echoed Biden’s gloomy Covid-19 outlook and implied that the Democrat challenger would deal with the crisis more seriously than would President Donald Trump. After the election, he turned far more optimistic.
Of course he does, remember when he said face masks don’t work and he doesn’t recommend them, then now he says they do and are essential? The fact that people still listen to these experts is the most worrying thing.
— Dan Mitchell (@theantifitPT) December 24, 2020
“This is not the first time that Fauci has admitted to deceiving the public for utilitarian purposes in regard to coronavirus,” journalist Ari Hoffman tweeted. Another observer agreed, pointing out Fauci’s flip-flop on masks. “The fact that people still listen to these experts is the most worrying thing,” he said.
Setting expectations for getting economic activity back to normal is virtually impossible without realistic projections for the vaccination rate that would provide herd immunity. Dr. Moncef Slaoui, chief scientific adviser for the Trump administration’s vaccine rollout, said in late November that “true herd immunity” would take place without about 70 percent of Americans inoculated, which might be achieved by sometime in May 2021.
Fauci’s admitted Covid-19 deception is symptomatic of how government officials “infantilize the American people,” one commenter said. “We’re going to be in trouble when we don’t have Trump to blame everything on and people have to find a way to cope.”
But the doctor remains a superstar in the minds of many Americans, with some Twitter users calling him a “beacon of scientific thinking and enlightenment during these dark ages of ignorance and superstition.”
Radio host John Ziegler offered a theory as to how Trump got the blame for 326,000 US Covid-19 deaths, while following Fauci’s policy advice, while the doctor was elevated by the media as a hero and genius. “Fauci is really loved because it is perceived he took down Trump, not Covid,” Ziegler said.
The most insane COVID media narrative… Dr. Fauci is a hero/genius.But the USA response he led was a disaster.And Trump, who did everything Fauci told him, is responsible for over 300,000 deaths!Fauci is REALLY loved because it is perceived he took down Trump, not COVID!
— John Ziegler (@Zigmanfreud) December 24, 2020
December 25, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, United States |
Leave a comment
The intent to “build a dam and have boats going just by the bottom of the Chernobyl reactor” as part of the E40 project has been called “unbelievable” by one nuclear physicist.
A massive infrastructure project to create a waterway connecting the Black and Baltic seas may pose a potential risk to millions of people in Ukraine, due to its proximity to the most infamous nuclear disaster in history, the Guardian reports.
According to the newspaper, plans for the 2,500-km long waterway – coined E40 – involve dredging the Pripyat riverbed, which “snakes within 2.5km” of the ruins of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. Dredging has already taken place “in at least seven different places, five of which are within 10km of the reactor.”
That work, which reportedly began in July after Ukrainian dredging company Sobi won the tender for digging up 100,000 cubic metres of sediment, defies the recommendations of the International Atomic Energy Association, which says the Chernobyl exclusion zone should be left undisturbed.
Now, several NGOs, such as Save Polesia, WWF, and BirdLife argue that the 2015 feasibility study for the project, carried out by the Maritime Institute of Gdansk, “failed to properly look at the implications of radioactive contamination from dredging inside the exclusion zone.”
“Constructing the E40 will have a radiological impact on the construction workers and the population depending on the rivers… the IAEA recommends to leave the contaminated sediments in the Kyiv reservoir in place, to avoid exposure of the population downstream. In this context the construction of the E40 is not feasible,” a French NGO Association pour le Contrôle de la Radioactivité dans l’Ouest (Acro) said following research commissioned by the Frankfurt Zoological Society.
Nuclear physicist and Acro chairman Dr David Boilley also told the newspaper that “the fact they want to build a dam and have boats going just by the bottom of the Chernobyl reactor” is simply “unbelievable.”
“This is the most contaminated part of the exclusion zone,” he said.
Meanwhile, Dmitrij Nadeev, a manager at Sobi, reportedly said that the company “did commission research on radiation and took soil samples.”
“Analysis showed that the work can be done safely, but all workers were provided with personal protective equipment (PPE) and dosimeters. During the work, scientists took daily water samples downstream of the dredger,” he explained.
The Chernobyl nuclear disaster struck on 26 April 1986, when an explosion at the station’s Reactor 4 contaminated a vast territory.
Nearly 3,000 square miles of northern Ukraine and parts of Belarus have been depopulated as a result, with 1,000 square miles considered off-limits as an exclusion zone due to elevated levels of radiation.
December 24, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Nuclear Power, Timeless or most popular | Ukraine |
Leave a comment
In this three-part series we will exam the transformation from COVID lockdowns to climate lockdowns. Part I we established a timeline of the dark side of the environmental movement. In Part II we looked into the specifics of what a climate lockdown really means and what impact current lockdown measures have had on the environment. Now 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.
The time has come to step back and look at the bigger agenda of what’s behind climate lockdowns. The groundwork for Mazzucato’s proposals have already been laid and seeded into the public consciousness. This agenda goes by many names and has many faces but at it’s core it is a deception which promotes sustainable development to combat climate change through organizations like the United Nations.
The deception rests on the successful deployment of the Hegelian Dialectic, also known as problem, reaction, solution. In this case governments and institutions have deemed climate change to be the most pressing issue facing civilization (create the initial problem), the public then demands protection and aid in combating this problem (manage the public reaction), and lastly come to the rescue with sustainability goals (sell the pre-planned solution) which can be brought in without any resistance.
It is through these central pillars that we will conclude this series and present solutions for derailing this dystopian vision of the future.
The Truth About Sustainable Development
Though her work is presented as an opinion piece, Mazzucato is simply promoting a larger agenda. The agenda is pushed through everything from The Green New Deal and The Paris Agreement to The Great Reset crafted by the World Economic Forum and the United Nation’s 2030 Agenda (formerly Agenda 21). These are the instruments which serve as tools for the elite to spread their globalist philosophies. Those familiar with these organizations and accompanying legislation are rightly skeptical of presidents and prime ministers mixing with hedge fund managers, CEOs, European royalty, unelected technocrats, and career bureaucrats to dictate the future of the world. Supposedly this is done in the interest of saving the planet but a closer look at what’s behind these agendas tells a very different story.
At the core of these visions of the future is sustainable development. The United Nations and it’s acolytes in the mainstream media promise a world where economic growth still flourishes without harming the environment, so long as the world adopts their 17 goals for sustainable development. These goals include No Poverty, Zero Hunger, Affordable and Clean Energy, and Quality Education. When presented in this simple way it is difficult to find issue with those goals. After all, who doesn’t want a world where poverty has been eradicated and children aren’t going hungry?
While photos of smiling African children or wind turbines against a pastoral background usually accompany reporting on the goals there is little context given to the history or players involved in their creation. How these goals will actually be achieved is a question mostly left unanswered as well. Once these issues are addressed one really wonders if this agenda is what they say it is, or if there’s more to the story.
So where did the term sustainable development come from and how did it become the core of the United Nation’s goals for the future of mankind? In 1983, Agenda 21 began taking shape in the UN as part of the Brundtland Commission who’s goal was to unite the world on a path towards sustainable development. What came out of this commission was a work called Our Common Future which popularized the term sustainable development and defined it as, “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Short, sweet, and without substance.
The commission conveniently featured a cadre of people close to the Rockefeller Family, who’s fingerprints on the environmental movement can be found everywhere. It was headed by Gro Harlem Brundtland, a member of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission who would go on to become the Prime Minister of Norway; oil man and Rockefeller associate Maurice Strong; Italian politician Susanna Agnelli who’s brother Gianni considered David Rockefeller to be in his inner circle; former EPA head William Ruckelshaus who ran in the same circles in Washington D.C. as Nelson and David Rockefeller; and Canadian environmentalist Jim MacNeil who co-authored Beyond Interdependence, a work on sustainable development for the Trilateral Commission.
The United Nations’ Plans For The Future
The agenda was updated and made public in the form of a 300-page document in 1992 at the UN’s Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and was adopted by 178 governments. The agenda was expanded upon in the 1995 report, Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA) which elaborates on how society needs to be transformed in the name of sustainability. These works leave no stone unturned when it comes to reshaping the world but there are three factors that are of particular use for creating a control grid: the abolishment of private property, population control, and total resource management.
Perhaps the most far-reaching transformation is with regards to private property which will largely be prohibited. They explain that, “Property rights can still be allocated to environmental public goods, but in this case they should be restricted to usufructual or user rights. Harvesting quotas, emission permits and development rights… are all examples of such rights.” This in essences turns over all land, resources, and property to be managed and distributed by bureaucrats who will usher the rural and suburban populations into designated urban spaces. In the United States the map of habitable zones will look something like this (more background on this map here). The smart cities of the future will be unbearably dystopian.
One interpretation of Agenda 21 includes population control as part of the equation. To maintain current standards of living in North America the authors of the GBA estimated that the world population would need to be one billion, two to three billion if “frugal European standards” were desirable. The implicit choice there is that either those standards of living must become a thing of the past or that much of the world’s population will need to be done away with. The authors do not mention how we would return to those levels but with eugenicists like the Rockefellers in support of this agenda it is frightening to imagine the possibilities.
The ability to inventory the world’s production and consumption of any and all resources was a desired but far-off dream of the technocrats of the early 20th century. This dream was closer to being possible in the mid-90s when the GBA stated their goal to:
Expand or promote databases on production and consumption and develop methodologies for analyzing them… Assess the relationship between production and consumption, environment, technological adaption and innovation, economic growth and development, and demographic factors… Identify balanced patterns of consumption worldwide.
The language used here makes this sound like a boring exercise in record keeping but this banal language, when put in the context of a plot like Agenda 21, becomes much more nefarious. Researcher Rosa Koire has been studying the UN’s environmental agendas for decades and calls this cataloging, “The action plan, the blueprint to inventory and control all land, all water, all plants, all minerals, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all information, all energy, all education, and all human beings.” In today’s technologically-driven world, and with the growing Internet of Things, this is a very real possibility.
It became clear in 2015 that 2021 was an unrealistic goal and the agenda once again received a facelift and became Agenda 2030. The agenda outlined in Agenda 21 was reframed as the UN’s Sustainable Goals, 17 interlocking items meant to serve as the blueprint for a sustainable future. They can be read about in great detail and are very appealing on the surface. The catch is that the technocrats in charge of pushing this agenda have to be trusted and as has been outlined previously, and well-documented in other places, this is a huge ask.
A Look At The Green Economy
These technocrats are also asking to be in charge of world finances. Both the World Bank and International Monetary Foundation were spawned from the United Nations and represent, among other institutions and central banks, the financial arm of the elite.
Those in support of this agenda perpetually claim that capitalism has failed us and that along with this reorientation towards sustainability the foundations of our economy will need to change. Patrick Wood, in his seminal book, Technocracy Rising outlines how this will work in the green economy of the future:
It is plainly evident today that the world is laboring under a dysfunctional system of price-based economics as evidenced by the rapid decline of value in paper currencies. The era of fiat (irredeemable paper currency) was introduced in 1971 when President Richard Nixon decoupled the U.S. dollar from gold. Because the dollar-turned-fiat was the world’s primary reserve asset, all other currencies eventually followed suit, leaving us today with a global sea of paper that is increasingly undesired, unstable and unusable. The deathly economic state of today’s world is a direct reflection of the sum of its sick and dying currencies, but this could soon change.
Forces are already at work to position a new Carbon Currency as the ultimate solution to global calls for poverty reduction, population control, environmental control, global warming, energy allocation and blanket distribution of economic wealth. Unfortunately for individual people living in this new system, it will also require authoritarian and centralized control over all aspects of life, from cradle to grave.
What is Carbon Currency and how does it work? In a nutshell, Carbon Currency will be based on the regular allocation of available energy to the people of the world. If not used within a period of time, the Currency will expire so that the same people can receive a new allocation based on new energy production quotas for the next period.
Because the energy supply chain is already dominated by the global elite, setting energy production quotas will limit the amount of Carbon Currency in circulation at any one time. It will also naturally limit manufacturing, food production and people movement.
The elite know this is coming and have already positioned themselves accordingly. Al Gore has already profited nicely off his green investments; members of the Rothschild family are backing sustainability; the Rockefellers have divested from fossil fuels without hurting their net worth; companies like Tesla have made people rich in the name of being eco-friendly. As a matter of fact, a bank (discussion begins at 39:41) has already been set up to facilitate this transition into a new economic paradigm.
It’s another case of new boss, same as the old boss. With most private property rights gone, bodily autonomy in the hands of the ruling class, and complete centralization of the economy there is really nothing outside of the grasp of the elite in this system.
How To Derail Sustainable Development
The cynicism held by those behind this agenda is astounding. They believe that humanity is so distrustful and irresponsible that every facet of their existence must be restricted and controlled. This doesn’t even touch on the eugenicist beliefs held by many within their ranks who would rather see most people simply done away with so they can live in a world unspoiled by their inferiors.
While the fight against such an overarching plan may seem impossible there is a part each person can play in resisting this nightmarish takeover of the world. If the problem is framed as a battle of David v. Goliath, in which the dismantling the UN or wresting away the fortunes of the Gates and Rockefellers of the world are the goals, then the task seems insurmountable. The much simpler resolution to this problem, and one which allows everyone to do their part, is to just opt out and build anew.
It is pure myth to assume that these bureaucracies need to exist or that the billionaires need to have the power that they claim to hold. It is simply a choice to walk away and disavow the system. There are problems in society that need addressing and there are certainly environmental issues that need fixing but these can be handled in a decentralized fashion. To think that a technocratic elite knows what’s best for each man, woman, and child on the planet better than they themselves is ridiculous. Instead we need a free market of ideas, innovations, and technologies where individuals and communities can voluntarily collaborate to create the solutions. A world where mankind works hand-in-hand, not as mortal enemies, could lead to levels of advancement and abundance of society unthinkable by these psychopathic elite.
Once this is understood on a wide scale the work can begin on a large scale. However, nobody has to wait that long as there are already individual tasks that can be done. Some examples:
– Look for signs of these agendas being deployed in your community and push back. Local Agenda 21 serves as the vehicle for taking the larger agenda of the United Nations and reformulating their goals to make them adoptable at the local level.
– If these goals are rolled out it will be much harder to connect with like-minded people in the smart cities of the future. Form Freedom Cells and other voluntary groups to organize, share skills, build community, etc.
– The mainstream media collaborates with the United Nations and governments around the world and therefore cannot be trusted to tell the truth on these issues. Find alternative sources of information on these matters.
– The Internet of Things will be used to spy on the public and under sustainable development goals they will be used to ration resources. Do not allow these devices in your home. Instead, go off the grid or turn to decentralized technology.
– Central planning of the food supply in the Soviet Union and in Communist China led to widespread famine and starvation and yet this is the model the UN hopes to replicate. Grow your own food and support your local farmers. Decentralizing the food supply is critical to preventing food shortages while helping to build community.
– Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and all the other tech giants all collaborate with the United Nations to push this agenda. Opt-out of these controlled platforms and move towards open-source alternatives.
– When the Dollar, Euro, Yuan, etc collapse the central banks will have controlled digital currencies at the ready. To insulate yourself from the fallout it is worth considering diversifying away from fiat currency. Precious metals, cryptocurrency, local currencies, cash, barter systems, and real assets are all alternatives.
– Take steps to become more self-sufficient. The less you have to rely on technocratic institutions, the state, controlled technological platforms, banks, pharmaceutical companies, etc the less they can interfere with your life.
– Digital censorship is a serious threat to freedom so please share this information. Spread links to websites like this, host documentary screenings, start a book club, distribute USBs loaded with information, bring up Agenda 2030 in conversation, etc. There really is no wrong way to do this last one!
This list is hardly exhausted and will mean different things to different people but that’s really the point. Nobody is better suited to direct your life than you. As we all learn, share, and grow this destructive agenda can be dismantled while a beautiful new chapter of humanity begins.
December 24, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, United Nations, WEF |
Leave a comment
Let me boil this down for you. Claiming a new “mutant strain” of SARS-CoV-2 is 70% more deadly than the original, computer modelers in the UK have advised Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, to lock down the country at a much stricter level.
The computer model was concocted at the Imperial College of London. The accompanying text actually admits it’s too early to tell whether the mutant strain is a major threat.
Nevertheless, Boris Johnson has issued the new vast lockdown order. [1] [2]
Who is on television promoting the need for the lockdown? None other than Neil Ferguson, the disgraced and failed computer modeler. [3] [4]
He didn’t author the new model/study at the Imperial College, but he’s now the face of the “science.”
Ferguson’s prior model predicted 500,000 COVID deaths in the UK and 2 million in the US would occur by last summer. This absurd and criminal estimate directly influenced Boris Johnson and Donald Trump to declare states of emergency, and abandon plans to keep their national economies open.
Then Ferguson violated his own lockdown recommendations by carrying on an affair with his mistress, who lived in her separate home with her husband.
And now he’s back, on television, warning citizens about the new “mutant strain” of the virus and the need for a higher level of lockdown.
Other scientists are outraged at the latest computer model; they are demanding to see the actual evidence of the increased threat. They’re saying they don’t even understand what “70% more deadly than the original strain” means.
How much more economic devastation can the people of the UK take?
Here is my original piece on Neil Ferguson, written as his prior computer model was being trashed—but followed by political leaders in the US, UK, France, and Germany. Buckle up:
Neil Ferguson: the ghost in the machine [5]
Why do governments salute when he predicts a pandemic and tells them to lock down their countries?
Does anyone care about his past?
Why does he still have a prestigious job?
Who is he connected to?
by Jon Rappoport
Neil Ferguson, through his institute at London’s Imperial College, can call the shots on a major percentage of the global population.
He’s Mr. Genius, when it comes to projecting computer models of epidemics.
Fellow experts puff up his reputation.
According to the Business Insider (4/25) [6], “Ferguson’s team warned Boris Johnson that the quest for ‘herd immunity’ [letting people live their lives out in the open in the UK] could cost 510,000 lives, prompting an abrupt U-turn [massive national lockdown in the UK]… His simulations have been influential in other countries as well, cited by authorities in the US, Germany, and France.”
Not only cited, not only influential, but swallowed whole.
Business Insider continues: “On March 23, the UK scrapped ‘herd immunity’ in favor of a suppression strategy, and the country made preparations for weeks of lockdown. Ferguson’s study was responsible.”
There’s more. A lot more.
Same Business Insider article: “Dr Deborah Birx, coronavirus response coordinator to the Trump administration, told journalists at a March 16 press briefing that the Imperial paper [Ferguson’s computer projection] prompted the CDC’s new advice to work from home and avoid gatherings of 10 or more.”
Ferguson, instigator of LOCKDOWN. Stripping away of basic liberties. Economic devastation.
So let’s look at Ferguson’s track record, spelled out in the Business Insider piece:
“Ferguson co-founded the MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, based at Imperial, in 2008. It is the leading body advising national governments on pathogen outbreaks.”
“It gets tens of millions of dollars in annual funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and works with the UK National Health Service, the US Centres for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC), and is tasked with supplying the World Health Organization with ‘rapid analysis of urgent infectious disease problems’.”
Getting the picture?
Gates money goes to Ferguson.
Ferguson predicts dire threat from COVID, necessitating lockdowns—thus preparing people to accept a vaccine. The vaccine Gates wants.
Ferguson supplies a frightening computer projection of COVID deaths—to the CDC and WHO. Ferguson thus communicates a rationale for the Gates vaccine plan.
National governments surrender to WHO and CDC. LOCKDOWNS.
Business Insider : “Michael Thrusfield, a professor of veterinary epidemiology at Edinburgh University, told the paper he had ‘déjà vu’ after reading the [Ferguson] Imperial paper [on COVID], saying Ferguson was responsible for excessive animal culling during the 2001 Foot and Mouth [mad cow] outbreak.”
“Ferguson warned the government that 150,000 people could die. Six million animals were slaughtered as a precaution, costing the country billions in farming revenue. In the end, 200 people died.”
“Similarly, he [Ferguson] was accused of creating panic by overestimating the potential death toll during the 2005 Bird Flu outbreak. Ferguson estimated 200 million could die. The real number was in the low hundreds.” HELLO?
“In 2009, one of Ferguson’s models predicted 65,000 people could die from the Swine Flu outbreak in the UK — the final figure was below 500.”
So you have to ask yourself, why would anyone believe what Ferguson has been predicting in this COVID hustle?
Are his fellow experts that stupid?
Are presidents and prime ministers that stupid?
And the answer is: This is a monumental covert op; some people are that stupid; some are caught up in the op and are afraid to say the emperor has no clothes; some are aware of what is going on, and they want to destroy national economies and lead us into, yes, a new world order.
Gates knows he has his man: Ferguson. As the recipient of tens of millions of dollars a year from the Gates Foundation, Ferguson isn’t about to issue a model that states: COVID is nothing to worry about, let people live their lives and we’ll be all right. The chance of that happening is on a par with researchers admitting they never properly identified a new virus as the cause of illness in 2019, in Wuhan. [7]
In order to justify injecting every man, woman, and child in the world with heavy metals, synthetic genes that alter genetic makeup, a host of germs, and who knows what else, Gates needs A STORY ABOUT A DEADLY VIRUS THAT NECESSITATES SHUTTING DOWN AND IMPRISONING THE PLANET, ACHIEVING A CAPTIVE AUDIENCE.
He’s got the story, all dressed up in a computer model, composed by a man with a past record of abject and devastating failures.
Neil Ferguson is the ghost in the machine. The machine is the World Health Organization and the CDC. The man behind the ghost is Bill Gates.
SOURCES:
[1] https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13524419/new-covid-strain-london-cases-double/
[2] https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/flawed-data-model-from-imperial-college-blame-for-latest-uk-lockdown/
[3] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9074765/Professor-Lockdown-Neil-Ferguson-warns-Tier-Four-needed-Easter.html
[4] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9073767/Professor-Neil-Ferguson-key-role-Boris-Johnsons-dramatic-U-turn-Christmas.html
[5] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/04/30/the-british-corona-middle-man/
[6] https://www.businessinsider.com/neil-ferguson-transformed-uk-covid-response-oxford-challenge-imperial-model-2020-4
[7] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/04/29/covid-two-vital-experiments-have-never-been-done/
December 24, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, France, UK, United States, WHO |
Leave a comment
Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
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.
Watch on Archive / BitChute / LBRY / Minds or Download the mp4
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.
SOURCE: What the New Normal Looks Like After Covid-19
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.
SOURCE: Arizona Gov. Ducey Holds Coronavirus Briefing
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.
SOURCE: Coronavirus: Trudeau tells UN conference that pandemic provided “opportunity for a reset”
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.
SOURCE: Bill Gates on his 2015 ‘virus’ warning, efforts to fight coronavirus pandemic
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.
SOURCE: Dr. Zeke Emanuel On The Return To ‘Normal’
DOUG FORD: The hard fact is, until we find a vaccine, going back to normal means putting lives at risk.
SOURCE: Ontario announces $20 million for COVID-19 vaccine research
JUSTIN TRUDEAU: This will be the new normal until a vaccine is developed.
SOURCE: PM Trudeau on modelling data and federal response to COVID-19 – April 9, 2020
GAVIN NEWSOM: As I said: normal it will not be, at least until we have herd immunity and we have a vaccine.
SOURCE: California Gov. Newsom Holds Coronavirus Briefing
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.
SOURCE: Fauci: We’ll Get Back to Normal Gradually After Vaccine; You Don’t Know How Effective Vaccine Is for You
NORMAN SWAN: The only thing that will really allow life as we once knew it to resume is a vaccine.
SOURCE: Life will only return to normal when there’s a coronavirus vaccine, Dr Norman Swan says
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.”
SOURCE: General Perna says vaccine distribution will begin 24 hours after Emergency Use Authorization
. . .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.
This is a study of The Future of Vaccines.
You’re tuned in to The Corbett Report.
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.
SOURCE: Pfizer, BioNTech announce Covid-19 vaccine candidate is 90% 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.
SOURCE: BREAKING: Moderna coronavirus vaccine “more than 94% 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.
SOURCE: AstraZeneca-Oxford Vaccine Found Effective in Preventing Covid
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
SOURCE: AstraZeneca Vaccine Trial Likely Needs a Restart: Johns Hopkins
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.
SOURCE: Fauci Happy if Vaccine Permits Infection w/ Fewer Symptoms
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 Journal points 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.
SOURCE: Senior military commander to lead Canada’s COVID-19 vaccine distribution
SAMANTHA GALVEZ: Operation Warp Speed is a Department of Defense / CDC operation to distribute 300 million vaccines to the US.
MATTHEW YIENGST: As soon as the FDA authorizes an emergency use, if they chose to do so, we will move vaccine to all jurisdictions within 24 hours.
SOURCE: Adams County native plays vital role in military operation to distribute vaccine
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.
SOURCE: Operation Warp Speed and US Army Role in Vaccine Distribution
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.
SOURCE: Senior military commander to lead Canada’s COVID-19 vaccine distribution
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.
SOURCE: Can Scientists Use RNA to Create a Coronavirus Vaccine?
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.
SOURCE: Coronavirus Vaccines – An Introduction
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.
SOURCE: How Do mRNA Vaccines Work?
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.
SOURCE: From DNA to protein – 3D
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.
SOURCE: Health Expert: “Stop COVID Vax Experiments”
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.
SOURCE: Coronavirus: Businesses considering making vaccine mandatory | 9 News Australia
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.
SOURCE: COVID-19 vaccine won’t be mandatory, but those who don’t get it could face restrictions: Elliott
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.
SOURCE: NBC Nightly News Broadcast (Full) – December 7th, 2020 | NBC Nightly News
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.
SOURCE: Qantas boss says COVID-19 vaccination compulsory for international flights
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
SOURCE: CLEAR Health Pass
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.
SOURCE: Health Passport Ireland
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.
SOURCE: Palm Beach County COVID app: Big investment, few users
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.”
SOURCE: Who Is Bill Gates?
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.
SOURCE: 60 Minutes Mike Wallace Exposes the 1976 Swine Flu Pandemic Vaccine Injuries
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?
SOURCE: Neil deGrasse Tyson On Coronavirus: Will People Listen To Science?
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.
The choice is ours . . . but for how much longer?
December 23, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
The dark story of the CIA running death squads in Afghanistan recently broken by the Intercept follows a very long pattern of US foreign policy going back to the 1960s.
According to The Intercept, “Beginning in December 2018 and continuing for at least a year, Afghan operatives believed to belong to an elite CIA-trained paramilitary unit known as 01, in partnership with U.S. special operations forces and air power, unleashed a campaign of terror against civilians.” This unit carried out night raids in which they reportedly killed civilians, including children. In one night raid alone, targeting a religious school known as a madrassa, 12 children were killed.
The use of such death squads to kill civilians is shocking, but it is not at all surprising given the US’ long-time use of death squads to destroy insurrectionary movements in the developing world. Indeed, it is fair to say that it is standard operating procedure for the US.
The very idea for the modern use of death squads traces its roots back to the early 1960s when US General William P. Yarborough first conceived of them as an instrument to advance US economic interests by violently destroying the progressive social movements in Latin America which began to emerge at the time in response to the Cuban Revolution and the Second Vatican Council which inspired the rise of Liberation Theology and the focus on uplifting the poor.
However, as an article by the Wilson Center notes, the idea of death squads goes back even farther than the 1960’s, reflecting “decades of accumulated experience, beginning with the US effort to squelch Filipino independence after the War of 1898. It also reflected European imperial practices, including the British in Malaya and French in Algeria.”
General Yarborough’s idea of institutionalizing death squads in the modern era was motivated by a desire to get around the growing human rights concerns of the international community by having unofficial, secret military outfits which could give plausible deniability to both the US government and the government of US client states. In other words, they would, in the words of General Yarborough, be a “hidden weapon . . . of hired killers” which would carry out the dirty war which the regular troops “cannot do officially.”
The US would first try out its death squad program in Colombia to destroy the progressive movement there being led by radical peasants, trade unionists and Liberation Catholic priests. These death squads continue to this day.
The US would go on to utilize death squads in other Latin American countries, most famously in El Salvador. Most notably, the US-backed death squads in El Salvador would carry out the murder of Archbishop Oscar Romero, declared a saint by Pope Francis, in 1980, and then the murder of six Jesuit priests in 1989 – these high-profile murders of clergy would punctuate the beginning and the end of the brutal Salvadoran civil war which would claim the lives of 75,000 Salvadorans.
In Honduras, the US has utilized death squads for decades to suppress various left-wing and progressive movements there as well as to harass neighboring states such as Nicaragua and its Sandinista-led government. As writer T.J. Coles explains, under President Ronald Reagan, the US “launched psychological operations against domestic leftism in Honduras. This involved morphing a special police unit into a military intelligence squad guilty of kidnap, torture, and murder: Battalion 316. Inducing a climate of fear in workers, union leaders, intellectuals, and human rights lawyers is a way of ensuring that progressive ideas like good healthcare, free education, and decent living standards don’t take root.”
While Battalion 316 was disbanded in the early 1990s, the US created a new death squad unit after the successful US-backed coup in Honduras in 1989 to suppress left-wing anti-coup groups in that country. As Coles explains, with funding by the US Southern Command, “the 250-person Special Response Security Unit (TIGRES) was established near Lepaterique. The TIGRES are trained by the U.S. Green Berets or 7th Special Forces Group (Airborne) and described by the U.S. Army War College as a ‘paramilitary police force.’” The TIGRES continue to operate in Honduras today with significant US support.
But the US has not limited its use of death squads to Latin America. Thus, it would go on to use death squads in Vietnam as part of the CIA’s infamous Phoenix Program through which around 20,000 Vietnamese were assassinated.
The US would also use death squads in Iraq after the 2003 invasion, openly referring to its program there as the ‘Salvador Option’. The ‘Salvador Option’ was brought to Iraq by retired US Colonel Jim Steele who had helped develop the death squad program in El Salvador in the 1980’s.
In Iraq, the US unleashed Shia death squad units against “the Sunni population as well as the insurgents and their supporters and anyone else who was unlucky enough to get in the way. It was a classic counterinsurgency,” the Guardian reported. “It was also letting a lethal, sectarian genie out of the bottle. The consequences for Iraqi society would be catastrophic. At the height of the civil war two years later 3,000 bodies a month were turning up on the streets of Iraq — many of them innocent civilians of sectarian war.”
For some time, the US was also carrying out the ‘Salvador Option’ in Syria in an attempt to destabilize the Assad government there.
The most recent revelations about the CIA-backed death squad unit in Afghanistan demonstrates that America’s deadly imperial project continues into the 21st century. This project is a reactionary one, designed as it is to suppress independent, anti-colonial movements, many times with goals to create more economically just and equitable societies.
For all of its chest-thumping about spreading human rights and democracy throughout the world, the US, at heart, remains the preeminent force in the world against national liberation, and the means it uses to carry out this retrograde project is nothing less than horrifying.
Daniel Kovalik teaches International Human Rights at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, and is author of the recently-released No More War: How the West Violates International Law by Using “Humanitarian” Intervention to Advance Economic and Strategic Interests.
December 23, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Subjugation - Torture, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Afghanistan, CIA, United States |
Leave a comment
As the victim reportedly recalled, the home he was being taken to had a room where “the nuns served drinks and food to the men and in the other corner the children were raped”.
Nuns who were working at a now-defunct Catholic children’s home in Germany ended up being accused of providing their young charges to politicians, priests and wealthy men to abuse, the New York Post reports.
According to the newspaper, the accuser is a child rape victim who litigated successfully for compensation earlier this year over the abuse he endured, “beginning at 5 years old in March 1963”.
The victim, who is 63 years old today, recalled how he was being “literally dragged” by the nuns to the home of Rudolf Motzenbacker, then a Speyer diocese official, where he was routinely subjected to sexual abuse.
“There was a room where the nuns served drinks and food to the men and in the other corner the children were raped,” court records reportedly said. “The nuns earned money. The men present donated generously.”
The victim also recalled how he would sometimes “run back to the home in blood-smeared clothes”, with blood running down his legs, adding that, prior to him leaving the place in September 1972, he “had been sexually abused about a thousand times”.
The children’s home was shut down in 2000, while Motzenbacker, in whose house the abuse was taking place, passed away in 1998.
The victim was reportedly awarded a total of 25,000 euros by courts, with the man inquiring “But what’s the use of the money?”, saying that his “marriage is broken” and so are his “bones, liver and kidneys”.
December 23, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Timeless or most popular | Human rights |
Leave a comment
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.
December 23, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, United Nations |
Leave a comment
When it comes to telling whoppers about climate change, weather extremes and any number of climate-related catastrophes, the United Nations has no equal. Their latest (2020) report proves this beyond any doubt.
Recently released is the UN’s report, dramatically titled: Human Cost of Disasters: An Overview of the Last 20 Years (2000-2019). This report stems from the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) and its Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED).
The report Foreword tells us that:
“This report focuses primarily on the staggering rise in climate-related disasters over the last twenty years.”
This is followed by the not unexpected attack on developed nations:
“But the odds continue to be stacked against them in particular by industrial nations that are failing miserably on reducing greenhouse gas emissions to levels commensurate with the desired goal of keeping global warming at 1.5 ̊C as set out in the Paris Agreement.”
The hyperbole continued:
“It is baffling that we willingly and knowingly continue to sow the seeds of our own destruction, despite the science and evidence that we are turning our only home into an uninhabitable hell for millions of people.”
Any reader of this report will immediately see this is not a dispassionate, empirically-based document prepared by scientists who have carefully scrutinized the available literature on natural disasters. Rather it is the product of activists and alarmists, using hyperbole and silly phrases such as: “staggering rise in climate-related disasters”; “failing miserably on reducing greenhouse gas emissions” and “turning our only home into an uninhabitable hell.”
Apparently, the UN’s version of “the science and evidence” is not the same as the version embraced by the wider and more credible scientific community.
As always, the UN’s extreme alarmism is accompanied by the anticipated “tipping point” and “Last Chance” to avoid those “disastrous consequences” that simply never happen.
Here is a typical example:
“If we do not change course by 2020, we risk missing the point where we can avoid runaway climate change, with disastrous consequences for people and all the natural systems that sustain us.”
Anyone reading this UN report would do well to compare it with NOAA’s Dr. David Legates’s summary of the many failed predictions from climate alarmists.
In yet another tedious attempt to link carbon dioxide emissions with imaginary global warming and any natural disaster, we are told:
“This is clear evidence that in a world where the global average temperature in 2019 was 1.1oC above the pre-industrial period, the impacts are being felt in the increased frequency of extreme weather events including heatwaves, droughts, flooding, winter storms, hurricanes and wildfires.”
This should be enough for any sensible person to dismiss the report as more UN propaganda from officials who rely on the likelihood that few politicians will check their claims against actual data. The same UN officials know that the media, many politicians and Green NGO’s will continue to promote this alarmist nonsense.
The UN seriously expects everyone to believe that:
- We actually know what the pre-industrial global temperature was;
- We were able to measure the pre-industrial global temperature to an accuracy of 0.1oC;
- We have accurate records of global natural disasters over the last several centuries;
- Everyone will embrace the climate alarm nonsense that has been served up by the UN since 1988.
Incredibly, the UN produced a graph in 2020 that showed how climate-related disasters have actually declined:
Yet the UN’s latest report tells us there has been a “staggering rise in climate-related disasters.”
Director of the Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) Dr. Benny Peiser has observed how:
“The UNDRR’s own data shows that climate-related disasters have actually been declining for 20 years.”
He added:
“The United Nations must immediately withdraw this report and apologize for misleading the public.”
I doubt there is much chance of that happening.
Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. is a well-respected scientist and recognised expert on natural disasters. He has criticised the UN report, saying that its data on disasters from the last century are flawed and therefore unreliable.
Pielke, along with other reputable scientists, has acknowledged that there has been an increase in financial loss due to natural disasters but this is not attributable to any increase in extreme weather events. Common sense (and insurance companies) should tell us we are seeing an increase in population with more people having more wealth and more assets to lose.
Additionally, financial losses due to natural disasters will inevitably increase as more people with more wealth and assets choose to live in accident-prone areas such as bushland, floodplains, earthquake-prone areas, eroding and subsiding coastlines.
Despite this increase in financial loss, Dr. Bjorn Lomborg points out:
“When you adjust damage costs for size of economy, which even the UN Sustainable Development Goals insists you should, the relative cost of disasters is declining, not increasing.”
We have reliable data from the last 30 years showing how the relative cost of disasters has declined:
Additionally, the UN’s own data show the number of deaths from natural disasters has almost halved in the last 20 years, compared to the number of deaths between 1980 and 1999:
In fact the global population has increased by more than 70% since 1980 whilst the death risk has fallen by around 60%.
Returning to the UN report’s dramatic and factually incorrect statement:
“This is clear evidence that in a world where the global average temperature in 2019 was 1.1oC above the pre-industrial period, the impacts are being felt in the increased frequency of extreme weather events including heatwaves, droughts, flooding, winter storms, hurricanes and wildfires.”
This is sheer nonsense. So what do the real data show?
During recent decades, heatwaves in the US remain far less frequent and severe than was the case during the 1930s.
Here is the Annual Heat Wave Index for the USA (1895 – 2015)
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Cold-related mortality remains a more significant and persistent problem, both in the UK and internationally. There are 20 times as many cold-related deaths as heat-related deaths worldwide, and the UK has had 35,000 cold-related deaths a year on average over the past 5 years.7
Gasparrini et al. (2015) in a study into Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperatures concluded:
“Most of the temperature-related mortality burden was attributable to the contribution of cold.”
Many of those deaths are attributable to people who have not been able to afford the rising costs of electricity or have no access to inexpensive, reliable electricity in their countries.
The UN report, with its obsession over imaginary dramatic global warming, ignores temperature data from satellites and radio-sondes. The UN also ignores reliable surface temperature data and paleo-data that contradict the report’s alarmism.
For instance, Rydval et al. (2017) constructed an 800 year paleo-temperature record for Scotland, showing no unusual recent warming:
Studies of past global temperature estimates show there is no evidence for any change in the globally-averaged near-surface temperature over the last 100 years.
There are over 90 peer-reviewed, published papers that dispute any claims of unprecedented global-scale modern warming.
In summary, there has been no detectable long-term increase in heat waves in the US or anywhere else in the world. Record high temperatures were recorded long before the widespread use of hydrocarbon fuels.
The UN report claims that we are seeing an increased frequency of droughts. This claim is also without any empirical foundation.
The Palmer Drought Index for the US has data going back over 100 years:
Apart from the 1930’s “Dust Bowl” years, there is no long-term trend in either dryness or wetness in the US and this remains true globally.
Cook et al. (2015) found that Mega-droughts during the past 2,000 years were worse and lasted longer than current droughts and data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) show no trend in the proportion of the globe in drought since 1950:
The UN report claims that we are seeing an increased frequency of flooding. This claim is also without foundation.
Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. observed:
“The good news is U.S. flood damage is sharply down over 70 years. Remember, disasters can happen any time…. But it is also good to understand long-term trends based on data, not hype.”
The UN’s current report contradicts the IPCC’s earlier report in which Hartmann et al. (2013) concluded:
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that globally there is no clear and widespread evidence of changes in flood magnitude or frequency in observed flood records.”
Hartmann et al. (2013) added:
“The results of this study, for North America and Europe, provide a firmer foundation and support the conclusion of the IPCC that compelling evidence for increased flooding at a global scale is lacking.”
Hirsch and Ryberg (2012) noted that, in none of the four regions defined in their study, was there strong statistical evidence for flood magnitudes increasing with increasing carbon dioxide levels.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02626667.2011.621895 The UN report said we are seeing an increased frequency of hurricanes. This claim is also without foundation.
Drs. Loehle and Staehling (2020) noted:
“We analysed the historical record of Atlantic basin and US landfalling hurricanes, as well as US continental accumulated cyclone energy to evaluate issues related to trend detection.”
They reported:
“Hurricane and major hurricane landfall counts exhibited no significant overall trend over 167 years of available data, nor did accumulated cyclone energy over the continental USA over 119 years of available data.”
https://www.thegwpf.com/no-trend-in-hurricane-activity-in-167-years-new-empirical-study-shows/
This is in agreement with findings from Drs. Pielke, Maue and Weinkle who reported:
“The analysis does not indicate significant long-period global or individual basin trends in the frequency or intensity of landfalling TC’s of minor or major hurricane strength. The evidence in this study provides strong support for the conclusion that increasing damage around the world during the past several decades can be explained entirely by increasing wealth in locations prone to TC landfalls, which adds confidence to the fidelity of economic normalization analyses.”
Dr. Judith Curry points out that:
“Ever since Hurricane Katrina in 2005, any hurricane causing catastrophic damage has been seized upon by climate alarmists as evidence of the horrors of global warming.
As if the record-holding hurricanes from the 1920’s through the 1950’s never happened.”
She added:
“I used to be concerned about ‘consensus enforcement’ on the topic of climate change. Now I am concerned about ‘alarmism enforcement.”
The UN report says we are seeing an increased frequency of wildfires. This is also without foundation.
Long-term satellite monitoring provides reliable data on global wildfires and, in contrast to UN alarmism, NASA has shown that between 2003 and 2019 global wildfires have declined by around 25%.
NASA has produced maps with fire locations and extent. These are based on observations from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) carried on the Terra satellite.
The National Interagency Fire Centre (NIFC) has provided data that support MODIS observations:
The UN promotes alarmist political/ideological nonsense about natural disasters and the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The UN’s obsession with “reducing greenhouse gas emissions” begs the question:
Why do we need to reduce emissions when current levels are amongst the lowest in 500 million years and all life on the planet would benefit from more atmospheric carbon dioxide?
Another question might be:
How do we know when the UN is telling lies?
Answer: Usually when they release a report about climate change.
Dr. John Happs M.Sc.1st Class; D.Phil. John has an academic background in the geosciences with special interests in climate, and paleoclimate. He has been a science educator at several universities in Australia and overseas and was President of the Western Australian Skeptics for 25 years.
December 23, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | United Nations |
Leave a comment
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.
Vaccinated Vs. Unvaccinated: The Study The CDC Refused To Do — Interview with Dr. Weiler
https://www.activistpost.com/2020/12/vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-the-study-the-cdc-refused-to-do-interview-with-dr-weiler.html
Vaccinated vs Unvaccinated Study PDF
https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.107/7mw.a02.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/ijerph-17-08674.pdf
It’s Here! The Vaxxed vs Unvaxxed Study!
https://informedchoicewa.org/education/its-here-the-vaxxed-vs-unvaxxed-study/
Dr. Paul Approved
https://www.drpaulapproved.com/home28493553
Freedom To Choose
https://www.paulthomasmd.com/freedomtochoose.html
Anti-vaccine Portland pediatrician’s license suspended; cases include boy hospitalized with tetanus
https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/12/anti-vaccine-portland-pediatricians-license-suspended-cases-include-boy-hospitalized-with-tetanus.html
Prominent Anti-Vaccine Pediatrician Dr. Paul Thomas Has License Suspended by the Oregon Medical Board
https://www.wweek.com/news/state/2020/12/05/prominent-anti-vaccine-pediatrician-dr-paul-thomas-has-license-suspended-by-the-oregon-medical-board/
Pediatrician Paul Thomas Has 15,000 Patients—and He Tells Them the Measles Vaccine Might Cause Autism
https://www.wweek.com/news/2019/03/20/pediatrician-paul-thomas-has-15000-patients-and-he-tells-them-the-measles-vaccine-might-cause-autism/
Follow Spiro on BitChute bitchute.com/channel/spiro/ Follow on Twitter https://twitter.com/o_rips
December 22, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | Human rights, United States |
Leave a comment
Aletho News
Aletho News 