IT’S OK WHEN BILL DOES IT!
Paul Joseph Watson | February 19, 2021
How Bill Gates Premeditated COVID Vaccine Injury Censorship
By Dr. Joseph Mercola | March 30, 2021
In 2000, everything about Bill Gates’ public persona changed. He morphed from a hardnosed and ruthless technology monopolizer into a soft, fuzzy and incredibly generous philanthropist when he and his wife launched the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.1
It was a public relations coup. May 18, 1998, the U.S. Justice Department, in collaboration with 20 state attorneys, filed an antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft.2 At that time, the company was 23 years old and was ruling the personal computer market. The Seattle Times described the fallout from the antitrust lawsuit:3
“The company barely escaped being split up after it was ruled an unlawful monopolist in 2000 for using its stranglehold on the PC market with its Windows operating system to cripple competitors, such as Netscape’s Navigator Web browser.”
How would the world be different today if the company had been split? Yale law professor George Priest described the antitrust lawsuit as “one of the most important antitrust cases of its generation.”4 In 2002, a court settlement placed restrictions on Microsoft to curb some of its practices for five years.
It was later extended twice and then expired May 12, 2011. The lawsuit had a dramatic effect on “the emergence of an entirely new field called IP (intellectual property) antitrust,” Iowa law professor Herbert Hovenkamp told the Seattle Times.5
Later, large sums donated from the foundation made the news multiple times, including $9.5 million to GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines), a second $7.5 million to GAVI and $6.8 million to the World Health Organization in 2017.6
By June 2020, in the middle of a global pandemic, the Gates Foundation’s donations totaled 45% of WHO’s funding from nongovernmental sources.7 Once mainstream media’s attention was no longer on Gates’ antitrust activities and focused on the philanthropist actions of the foundation, Gates publicly turned his attention to vaccinating the world, long before COVID-19.8
Event 201: A Preplanned Pandemic
In a deep dive into the Gates Foundation’s charitable donations, The Nation found there were $250 million in grants to companies where the foundation held corporate stocks, including Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi and Medtronic. The money was directed at supporting projects “like developing new drugs and health monitoring systems and creating mobile banking services.”9
What Gates had discovered was an easy path to political power, allowing him to shape public policy without being elected to office. In other words, favorable headlines could be bought with charitable contributions.10 One event that Gates has personally supported and participated in was Event 201.11
Writing in The Defender, Robert Kennedy Jr. describes the exercise that Gates organized in October 2019. Many high-ranking men and women with governmental authority participated in Event 201, which coincidentally simulated a worldwide pandemic triggered by a novel coronavirus, just months before SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, changed the world.12
They included representatives from the World Economic Forum, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Johns Hopkins University Population Center, the World Bank, the Chinese government and vaccine maker Johnson & Johnson. During the event, the group developed strategies to control a pandemic, the population and the narrative surrounding the event.
At no time did they investigate using current therapeutic drugs and vitamins or communicating information about building immune systems. Instead, the aim was to develop and distribute patentable antiviral medications and a new wave of vaccines.
As Kennedy reports, Gates spoke to the BBC13 April 12, 2020, and claimed these types of simulations had not occurred, saying “Now here we are. You know we didn’t simulate this; we didn’t practice, so both the health policies and economic policies … we find ourselves in uncharted territories.”
Yet, videos of the event are available14 and Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security released a statement naming the Gates Foundation as a partner in sponsoring the pandemic simulation.15 It seems strange and alarming that a man with the responsibility of running the Gates Foundation and the powerful influence he has over global public policy decisions had forgotten an exercise he organized only six months before the interview.16 Or was it deception?
Uncanny Prediction or Planned Event?
During the pandemic exercise, the global experts “modeled a fictional coronavirus pandemic.”17 After questions arose about whether the exercise had “predicted the outbreak in China,” Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security released a thinly supported statement, saying:18
“… the exercise served to highlight preparedness and response challenges that would likely arise in a very severe pandemic … Although our tabletop exercise included a mock novel coronavirus, the inputs we use for modeling the potential impact of that fictional virus are not similar to nCoV-2019.”
Kennedy characterizes the fourth simulation in Event 201, writing that “the participants primarily focused on planning industry-centric, fear-mongering, police-state strategies for managing an imaginary global coronavirus contagion culminating in mass censorship of social media.”19
The transcript of the fourth simulation shows that the participants discussed communication strategies using dissemination of information and censorship on social media.20,21 Communication strategist Hasti Taghi, who works for a major media company and leads strategic initiatives with the World Economic Forum,22 said:
“So, I think a couple of things we have to consider are even before this began, the anti-vaccine movement was very strong and this is something specifically through social media that has spread.
So, as we do the research to come up with the right vaccines to help prevent the continuation of this, how do we get the right information out there? How do we communicate the right information to ensure that the public has trust in these vaccines that we’re creating?”
The question the group undertook wasn’t how to communicate the truth about the vaccine development, manufacture and distribution, but rather how to “communicate the right information to ensure the public has trust in these vaccines that we’re creating?”
The issue of gaining public trust to take a vaccine was significant in this simulation, even though the U.S. population is well indoctrinated in the perceived value of annual flu shots and childhood vaccinations. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a list of 26 different types of vaccines currently in use in the U.S.
In addition to the long list of recommended childhood vaccinations, there are adult vaccines against shingles, tetanus and pneumococcal pneumonia that are routinely given. Why, then, did the global experts in communication and control believe communicating the “right information” would be necessary to “ensure the public trust”?
Group Calls for Social Media Censorship
This was only one of the highly predictive conversations during Event 201 that played out in 2020 as the global COVID-19 pandemic unfolded. George Gao, director-general, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention,23 predicted:24
“By and long, we have more cases in China and also death cases reported. And also, my staff told me that before there’s misinformation and there’s some belief. People believe, ‘This is a manmade … some pharmaceutical company made the virus,’ so there’s some violations of human … That is because of this misinformation.”
Others agreed with the need for social media censorship as it may pertain to the spread of “disinformation” about the pandemic or vaccines and vaccine injury, without regard to the source. The idea was to remove any information that did not align with the government’s mandates and ideas. Kevin McAleese, who is a communications officer with a Gates-funded agricultural project, said:25
“To me, it is clear countries need to make strong efforts to manage both mis- and disinformation … If the solution means controlling and reducing access to information, I think it’s the right choice.”
During the ensuing conversation, Tom Inglesby, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security,26 replied, “In this case, do you think governments are at the point where they need to require social media companies to operate in a certain way?”27
At each step of the simulation, the global “experts” agreed that information censorship through media platforms would be necessary to control the flow of the “right information” in order for people to willingly follow the leader.
What is interesting about the transcript from Event 201 is that what was planned and shared was frighteningly close to what has happened since January 2020. It may have been a coincidence to predict one or two major public health decisions, but it appears that the group was either phenomenally prophetic or they shaped the decisions and events of 2020 from behind the scenes.
Framing the Vaccine Message to Trigger Action
From the outside, the driving force behind economically devastating lockdowns, warp speed vaccine development and population control and surveillance strategies has been to “flatten the curve” and lower the death rate of SARS-CoV-2. Yet, as I and others have exposed, when these strategies are analyzed, it’s apparent there is more than what meets the eye.
In July 2020, Yale University28 announced a study of the trigger words and phrases that would have a higher likelihood of promoting an otherwise individualistic society to quietly follow mandates (not laws) to control behavior. The phrases tested were believed to be most successful at conveying feelings about health, helping others and fear.
The hope was to manipulate behavior in such a way that it lowered the governmental risk for riots and dissidence. The study was conducted by Yale University using 4,000 participants who were randomized to receive one of 12 different messages. After the message, they were then evaluated to “compare the reported willingness to get a COVID-19 vaccine at three and six months of it becoming available.”29
The primary outcome of the study was to find the right combination of phrases and messaging that would increase the number of people who got the vaccine. The study began July 3, 2020, and the last participant underwent testing by July 8, 2020.30 To date, the results of the study have not been published.
The president of the U.S. announced in July 2020 that there would be an “overwhelming” vaccine campaign launched by November 2020.31 In December 2020, the National Institutes of Health released a COVID-19 vaccination communication recommending behavioral and social science actions that might address vaccine hesitancy and increase the number who take the vaccine, including:32
- Framing accepting a vaccine as a social norm including “promotional materials that induced peer pressure to vaccinate.”
- Encouraging those who vaccinate to share their positive experience on social media.
- Nudging a person into accepting the vaccine by making it convenient and easy, leveraging electronic portals to send messages and using competition, gamification and incentives to encourage behavioral changes.
- Assessing the values of the target audience and then embedding those values into messages about vaccinations. Examples might include being a protector of the community, building on desires to go back to normal activities or as a way of enacting equality and social justice by protecting vulnerable people.
In other words, many of the messages that you’ve been seeing in the media and your doctor’s office have been designed to trigger emotions that would lead you to take the vaccine. These same pressure tactics are not routinely used in the media for some of the more common adult vaccinations including pneumococcal, tetanus, hepatitis or shingles vaccines.
It’s Time to Speak With One Voice and Fight for Freedom
As I’ve written before, what we lose as a society when we acquiesce to these mandates and controls will be exponentially harder to get back. One of the freedoms we give away is allowing our thoughts and beliefs to be censored on social media without fighting back.
It is essential to safeguard your constitutional rights and civil liberties against unlawful overreach, and yet many appear to be willing to give up easily. Although the government has a duty to protect the health and welfare of its citizens, this must be balanced against the loss of civil rights and liberties.
We’re currently facing a battle of freedom versus tyranny. For example, multiple studies have demonstrated that long-term lockdowns are clearly not in the public’s best interest.33,34 Instead, it’s tantamount to abuse. And yet many have gone along with these mandates, which were not laws.
It’s vital to understand that the vast majority of information you consume in mainstream media is carefully designed propaganda that has been crafted from nearly two decades of personal data collected from you.
Although Yale University undertook a study with 4,000 participants for a COVID-19 messaging campaign, that data had been gathered and collated through your use of social media.
As I have carefully identified in many previous articles, this plan will result in a progressive loss of your freedom and liberty that eventually results in tyranny and slavery. It is crucial to be vigilant and seek the truth so that you can understand how to distinguish between fact and a fictional narrative that promises you liberation but eventually enslaves you.
My newest book, “The Truth About COVID-19,” will be available April 29, 2021, on Amazon. In it, I investigate the origins of the virus and how the elite has used it to slowly erode your personal liberty and freedom. In addition, I’ll also show you how to protect yourself against the disease and what you can do to fight back against the technocratic overlords.
Sources and References
- 1 Britannica, Gates Foundation
- 2 The Ringer, May 18, 2018
- 3, 4 Seattle Times, May 12, 2011
- 5 Seattle Times, May 12, 2011, Breakup avoided para 2
- 6 Spears, October 17, 2017
- 7 Devex, June 5, 2020
- 8 The Seattle Times, November 23, 2020
- 9, 10 The Nation, March 30, 2020
- 11, 12, 19, 20 The Defender, March 11, 2021
- 13 YouTube, April 12, 2020
- 14 YouTube, March 13, 2020
- 15, 17, 18 Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security
- 16 Center for Health Security, Event 201
- 21 Event 201, Transcript September 23, 2020, page 9
- 22 Center for Health Security, Hasti Taghi
- 23 Event 201, George Fu Gao
- 24, 25, 27 Event 201, Transcript September 23, 2020
- 26 Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Tom Inglesby
- 28, 29 Clinicaltrials.gov COVID-19 Vaccine Messaging, Part 1, Identifier: NCT04460703 Study description
- 30 Clinicaltrials.gov COVID-19 Vaccine Messaging, Part 1, Identifier: NCT04460703 Study design
- 31 Reuters, July 30, 2020
- 32 National Institutes of Health, COVID-19 Vaccination Communication, starting page 16
- 33 University of Waikato, June 2020
- 34 European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 2021; doi.org/10.111/eci.13484
FDA Warns Dr. Mercola to Stop Writing About Vitamin D
“If scientists and researchers are publishing these studies, how can it be a crime to report their findings? At the end of the day, the CSPI’s attacks on this website amounts to an effort to suppress science itself.”
By Dr. Joseph Mercola | March 15, 2021
In the summer of 2020, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) — a consumer advocacy group partnered with Bill Gates’ agrichemical PR group, the Cornell Alliance for Science,1 and bankrolled by billionaires with ties to Monsanto, the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Family Fund and Bloomberg Philanthropies2 — launched a social media campaign to put an end to Mercola.com.
July 21, 2020, CSPI issued a press release3 in which they accused me of falsely claiming “that at least 22 vitamins, supplements and other products available for sale on his web site can prevent, treat, or cure COVID-19 infection.” This despite the fact that their Appendix of Illegal Claims4 clearly show no COVID-19-related claims exist on any of the product links.
The group also testified in a Senate hearing on the topic of COVID-19 scams and urged the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission to take regulatory action against me.
In an August 12, 2020, email, CSPI president Dr. Peter Lurie5 — a former FDA associate commissioner6 — made the spurious claim that I “profit from the COVID-19 pandemic” through “anti-vaccine fearmongering” and reporting of science-based nutrition shown to impact your disease risk.
Former FDA Official Pulls Strings to Target Natural Health
Seeing how Lurie is a former FDA official, it’s disheartening, but not surprising, that the FDA has now issued us a warning letter7 for “Unapproved and misbranded products related to COVID-19.” Lurie has publicly taken credit for the FDA’s action,8 thereby establishing the potential that CSPI is pulling strings under the new administration through relationships they did not have back in August when they first launched their assault on my free speech.
According to the FDA, vitamin C, vitamin D3 and quercetin products are “unapproved new drugs sold in violation of section 505(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.” The agency is also listing Mercola.com on its Fraudulent COVID-19 Products page.
Lurie seems to be hinting that he also wants federal authorities to remove my StopCOVIDCold site, where you can download a free scientific report detailing the benefits of maintaining appropriate vitamin D levels to protect against viral infections. He’s also urging “state attorneys general to investigate how they may further protect consumers from Mercola’s illegal marketing.”9
“Americans are justifiably concerned about becoming infected with the coronavirus and contracting COVID-19. Being misled to believe that supplements could prevent or treat COVID-19 could cause consumers to fail to take protective measures such as mask-wearing, putting themselves and others at risk, or fail to seek actual medical treatment if sick,” Lurie writes.10
It’s ironic that Lurie dismisses offhand peer-reviewed published science demonstrating certain nutrients can boost your immune function and help lower your risk of severe infection — be it from SARS-CoV-2, the seasonal flu or anything else — and touts mask wearing, which has no published scientific evidence to back its universal use, as one of the most important prevention strategies against COVID-19.
Sadly, this is where we are nowadays. “Trust the science,” they say, while simultaneously promoting scientifically unverified claims and trying to eradicate anyone who simply reports the findings that are actually published in the medical literature that may negatively impact the pharmaceutical industry.
CSPI and FDA Cannot Censor Speech
The CSPI is trying to censor my efforts to educate people on how to avoid vitamin D deficiency which, without doubt, places them at far higher risk of complications and death from respiratory infections. Well, I am not going to allow people to die from COVID-19 and other respiratory infections due to vitamin D deficiency.
In October 2020, I co-wrote a paper together with William Grant, Ph.D.,11 and Dr. Carol Wagner,12 both of whom are on the GrassrootsHealth vitamin D expert panel, demonstrating the clear link between vitamin D deficiency and severe cases of COVID-19. This paper was published in the peer-reviewed medical journal Nutrients.13
With that, I have established my medical and scientific merit, and will continue to express my professional opinions, based on the available science, and defend my freedom of speech as the U.S. Constitution provides for.
The FDA’s warning letter highlights statements in articles on my website that are fully referenced and supported by published science. I am committed to providing truthful information, for free, to anyone that wants it, and I’m all for having a rigorous scientific debate when necessary. CSPI has taken credit for pressuring the FDA to issue this warning letter to suppress free speech. The FDA’s warning letter is simply another attempt by CSPI to smear me with false accusations.
As CSPI well knows, thanks to the U.S. constitution and the first amendment, I have every right to speak publicly on matters regarding health, so this is nothing but another attempt to “cancel” me while concealing its own duplicity. For the record, we have fully addressed the warning letter; the FDA cannot simply stop free speech that CSPI does not like.
This Is NOT the First Time CSPI Has Endangered Public Health
CSPI continues to be a vitamin D denier even though overwhelming evidence points to its ability to reduce the risk of developing severe COVID-19. This isn’t surprising, coming from a Rockefeller-funded organization that pushed deadly trans fats on the American public until the facts became undeniable, at which point they simply rewrote the organization’s history on this subject to hide its past stance.
In 1986, CSPI described trans fat as “a great boon to Americans’ arteries.”14 Two years later, in 1988, they still praised trans fats,15 saying “there is little good evidence that trans fats cause any more harm than other fats” and that “much of the anxiety over trans fats stems from their reputation as ‘unnatural.'” Meanwhile, in the real world, the CSPI’s highly successful trans fat campaign resulted in an epidemic of heart disease.
The CSPI’s role in the promotion of trans fats and its influence on the food industry was discussed in David Schleifer’s article, “The Perfect Solution: How Trans Fats Became the Healthy Replacement for Saturated Fats,”16 in which he noted that:
“Scholars routinely argue that corporations control US food production, with negative consequences for health … However, the transition from saturated to trans fats shows how activists can be part of spurring corporations to change.”
It wasn’t until the 1990s that CSPI started reversing its position on synthetic trans fats, but the damage had already been done, and it never admitted its error. In fact, rather than openly admitting it had misled the public with erroneous claims, CSPI simply deleted sections of its previous support of trans fat from the web.17 Notice how their historical timeline18 of trans fat starts at 1993 — the year CSPI realized the jig was up and they had to support the elimination of trans fat.
CSPI then started raising money for campaigns to stop the heart disease causing substance they first promoted. How diabolical is that? Create the problem and then take money from others for the solution.
This obfuscation was noted by Mary Enig, Ph.D., in a 2003 article, in which she wrote:19
“On October 20, 1993, CSPI had the chutzpah to call a press conference in Washington, DC and lambast the major fast-food chains for doing what CSPI coerced them into doing, namely, using partially hydrogenated vegetable oils in their deep fat-fryers.
On that date, CSPI, an eager proponent of partially hydrogenated oils for many years, even when their adverse health effects were apparent, reversed its position after an onslaught of adverse medical reports linking trans fatty acids in these processed oils to coronary heart disease and cancer …
Thanks to CSPI, healthy traditional fats have almost completely disappeared from the food supply, replaced by manufactured trans fats known to cause many diseases. By 1990, most fast food chains had switched to partially hydrogenated vegetable oil …
Who benefits? Soy, or course … [and] in CSPI’s January, 1991 newsletter, Jacobson notes that ‘our effort was ultimately joined … by the American Soybean Association.’”
Even more egregious is the CSPI’s continued recommendation to eat unsaturated fats like soy and canola oils20 and avoid butter and other healthy saturated fats, saying that “changing fats doesn’t lower the risk of dying.”21
This wholly disregards the compelling evidence showing that industrial vegetable oils, omega-6 linoleic acid in particular, pose significant health risks and contribute to chronic disease. And chronic disease, in turn, impacts mortality.
CSPI Primarily Protects Big Business
This tendency to fall in line with industry science and propaganda has become a trend within CSPI. For example, it wasn’t until 2013 that CSPI finally downgraded the artificial sweetener Splenda from its former “safe” category to one of “caution.”22
In 2016, they downgraded it again, from “caution” to “avoid.”23 Despite that, CSPI continues to promote diet soda as a safer alternative to regular soda, saying it “does not promote diabetes, weight gain or heart disease in the way that full-calorie sodas do.”24
The group has also taken a strong pro-GMO stand and actively undermined the GMO labeling movement,25 which resulted in the U.S. being the only country in the world that does not have clear GMO labeling. In August 2001, the organization actually urged the FDA to take enforcement action against food companies using non-GMO labels, claiming such labels could “deceive consumers.”26
In a similar vein, the group opposes clear labeling of ultraprocessed fake meat. In a May 2018 letter to the FDA,27 CSPI urged the agency “to reject efforts by the United States Cattlemen’s Association to prohibit use of the terms ‘meat’ or ‘beef’ on plant-based and cultured proteins marketed as alternatives to traditional meat.” All in all, it appears the CSPI is completely against the idea of a well-informed public.
The CSPI has also been a promoter of the thoroughly debunked low-fat myth. In 1995, they launched a “1% or Less” campaign that urged everyone over the age of 2 to switch from whole and 2% milk to skim milk (also known as nonfat or fat-free milk) in order to reduce their saturated fat intake.28,29,30
It was another successful campaign that resulted in the doubling of skim milk sales.31 However, just like their trans fat campaign, this was equally ill advised, seeing how research32,33 shows full-fat dairy actually lowers your risk of death from diabetes and cardiovascular causes such as stroke.
CSPI Has Repeatedly Violated Its Mission Statement
Considering the suspected, and in some cases well-verified, health hazards of trans fats, artificial sweeteners, soy, GMOs, low-fat diet and fake meat, CSPI’s intent to protect and advance public health is questionable to say the least.
It seems they’re more interested in protecting profitable industries, and the CSPI’s efforts to destroy companies selling vitamins and supplements with natural antiviral effects34 is simply more evidence of that.
The fact is, they’re seeking to bring an end to Mercola.com because we are such a serious threat to their agenda and they want to eliminate as many of the truth tellers as they can.
How to Optimize Your Vitamin D
While most people would probably benefit from a vitamin D3 supplement, it’s important to get your vitamin D level tested before you start supplementing. The reason for this is because you cannot rely on blanket dosing recommendations. The crucial factor here is your blood level, not the dose, as the dose you need is dependent on several individual factors, including your baseline blood level.
Data from GrassrootsHealth’s D*Action studies suggest the optimal level for health and disease prevention is between 60 ng/mL and 80 ng/mL, while the cutoff for sufficiency appears to be around 40 ng/mL. In Europe, the measurements you’re looking for are 150 to 200 nmol/L and 100 nmol/L respectively.
I’ve published a comprehensive vitamin D report in which I detail vitamin D’s mechanisms of action and how to ensure optimal levels. I recommend downloading and sharing that report with everyone you know.
Sources and References
- 1 Common Dreams January 7, 2019
- 2 Influence Watch CSPI
- 3 CSPI July 21, 2020
- 4 Illegal Claims Pertaining to Mercola Group Products (PDF)
- 5 CSPI July 19, 2017
- 6 CSPInet.org Peter Lurie Bio
- 7 FDA.gov Mercola.com warning letter February 18, 2021
- 8, 9, 10 SCPInet.org March 4, 2021
- 11 SUNARC.org William Grant Bio
- 12 MUSC Carol Wagner MD Bio
- 13 Nutrients 2020; 12(11): 3361
- 14 The Atlantic November 8, 2013
- 15 CSPI, The Truth About Trans Fats 1988
- 16 Academia.edu, The Perfect Solution: How Trans Fats Became the Healthy Replacement for Saturated Fats
- 17, 19 Weston A Price January 6, 2003
- 18 CSPI Timeline for Trans Fat
- 20 CSPInet.org Canola Oil
- 21 CSPInet.org Big Fat Myths
- 22 CSPInet.org June 12, 2013
- 23 CSPInet.org February 8, 2016
- 24 CSPInet.org Sugary Drinks
- 25 Center for Food Safety July 10, 2013
- 26 CSPInet.org August 14, 2001 (archived)
- 27 CSPInet.org May 17, 2018
- 28 The 1% or Less Social Marketing Campaign (PDF)
- 29 The 1% or Less Handbook (PDF)
- 30 CSPI The 1% or Less School Kit
- 31 The 1% or Less Social Marketing Campaign (PDF), Effectiveness Page 2
- 32 The Lancet September 11, 2018; 392(10161): 2288-2297
- 33 American Journal of Clinical Nutrition July 11, 2018; 108(3): 476-484
- 34 CSPInet.org June 4, 2020
UN Food Summit Boycotted Over Gates Influence
By Dr. Joseph Mercola | March 19, 2021
Hundreds of farmers and human rights groups are boycotting the 2021 United Nations Food Systems Summit because they believe it favors agribusiness interests, elite foundations and the exploitation of African food systems.
The Summit claims it is convening to “launch bold new actions to transform the way the world produces and consumes food,”2 but critics say it is biased toward industrial, corporate farming while leaving out those in regenerative agriculture and the knowledge of indigenous people.3
The controversy began right from the start, when U.N. secretary general António Guterres appointed Agnes Kalibata as the event’s head. Kalibata is the former Rwandan agriculture minister who is now the president of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), an organization funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.4
AGRA is essentially a Gates Foundation subsidiary, and while some of its projects appear to be beneficial, most of its goals are centered on promoting biotechnology and chemical fertilizers.
Corporate Interests Dominating Food Summit
After Kalibata was appointed special envoy to the 2021 United Nations Food Systems Summit in December 2019, 176 civil society organizations and farmer groups from 83 countries urged Guterres to withdraw the appointment due to Kalibata’s clear conflicts of interest with corporate interests.
A second statement, signed by more than 500 academics and organizations, also opposed Kalibata’s appointment to, and her organization of, the Summit.5 AGRA is known to promote the interests of agribusiness, leading civil society organizations to argue that Kalibata’s appointment was a clear conflict of interest.
“This concern over Kalibata’s nomination has been largely borne-out by Kalibata’s top-down approach to organizing the Summit and her exclusion of those most affected by food insecurity and malnutrition in the planning process,” according to an August 2020 report by AGRA Watch.6
A dozen individuals representing development banks, academic institutions and the private sector came forward in support of Kalibata, but “11 had past or current connections to the Gates Foundation,” AGRA Watch reported, adding:7
“These findings illustrate the influence of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) on global food and agricultural policy. AGRA Watch has continually documented the role of the BMGF in influencing agricultural development, which has grown immensely in recent years.
That Gates Foundation seeks to exercise influence not only through its funding of projects and shaping of expertise, but also in funding the governance platforms that determine food and agricultural policy. This role of the BMGF in driving policy decisions based on its proprietary and technological model of agricultural development is often overlooked.”
Precision Agriculture, Genetic Engineering Take Center Stage
Concerns that the Summit was dominated by corporate industry heightened when its concept paper included precision agriculture, data collection and genetic engineering as pillars for addressing food security while leaving out regenerative agriculture.
As reported by The Guardian, Michael Fakhri, the U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food, wrote to Kalibata stating that the Summit was focused on “science and technology, money and markets” while leaving fundamental questions about inequality, accountability and governance unaddressed:8
“It [appears] heavily skewed in favor of one type of approach to food systems, namely market-based solutions … it leaves out experimental/traditional knowledge that has the acute effect of excluding indigenous peoples and their knowledge. The business sector has been part of the problem of food systems and has not been held accountable.”
The 300 million-member Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples’ Mechanism announced plans to boycott the Summit and set up a meeting of their own, while others, including Sofía Monsalve Suárez, head of nutrition rights group Fian International, questioned the Summit’s legitimacy:9
“We cannot jump on a train that is heading in the wrong direction … We sent a letter last year to the secretary general about our concerns. It was not answered. We sent another last month, which has also not been answered. The summit appears extremely biased in favor of the same actors who have been responsible for the food crisis.”
Other nutrition experts also expressed the need for the Summit to be more inclusive of initiatives such as agro-ecology and food sovereignty.
Food Group Calls On UN To Sever Ties With WEF
A group of 148 organizations from 28 countries also called on the U.N. to revoke their 2019 strategic partnership formed with the World Economic Forum (WEF). WEF’s involvement with the Summit has been called a form of “corporate hijacking” that would infringe on people’s rights to food and food production. According to the People’s Coalition on Food Sovereignty:10
“The WEF will exploit the Summit to streamline neoliberal globalization, which it has espoused for the past 50 years. It is the perfect venue to push for the role of ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies’ to transform food systems, which the WEF has been championing since 2017.
A corporate-led FSS [Food Systems Summit] would be a great advantage to the political elites and corporate billionaires, enabling them to pose hypocritically as responsible entities that promote healthier diets and climate action.
… The sidelined and marginalized sectors in society — the poor farmers, workers, Indigenous Peoples, herders, pastoralists, fisherfolks, urban poor, women, Dalits, and youth — should replace these corporate moguls in shaping the Summit’s proceedings and reforms.”
Beyond the Summit, WEF’s takeover of the U.N. has been denounced by more than 400 civil society organizations and 40 international networks, which claim it will only accelerate the move toward a privatized, undemocratic global takeover. Monsalve Suárez stated:11
“Corporations in the global industrial food chain alone destroy 75 billion tons of topsoil annually and are responsible for the annual loss of 7.5 million hectares of forest. This destruction, along with other factors, leaves 3.9 billion underfed or malnourished people. The WEF represents the interests of those who destroy the environment and abuse our human rights. It cannot be considered a strategic partner in solving the world’s crises.”
Africa’s Traditional Food Systems Under Attack
Planning documents for the Summit also reveal plans for a “radical transformation shift” in Africa, away from traditional farming practices and toward industrial farming — even describing the potential as the “new oil.”12 The African Centre for Biodiversity (ACB), which released the documents, said the plans recycle the “same false solutions … with the same narrow benefits accruing to a limited number of actors.”13
For instance, one section of the documents is titled “the promise of digital and biotechnologies and the transformation of food systems,” and describes “the significant potential for capturing large economic, social and environmental payoffs from the use of biotechnology products … In West Africa, for instance, farmers can benefit significantly from the adoption of Bt cotton.”14
Technology and development take center stage, along with “strengthening the use of big data” for decisions on things like fertilizer use, genetically engineered crops and “accessing markets.” As noted by U.S. Right to Know:15
“This agenda aligns perfectly with the plans of the agrichemical industry, the Gates Foundation and its main agricultural development program, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, which encourages African countries to pass business-friendly policies and scale up markets for patented seeds, fossil-fuel based fertilizers and other industrial inputs they say are necessary to boost food production.”
“The main problem with AGRA,” Global Justice Now explains, “is that it is laying the groundwork for the deeper penetration of African agriculture by agribusiness corporations,” and:
“The BMGF, through AGRA, is one of the world’s largest promoters of chemical fertiliser. Some grants given by the BMGF to AGRA have been specifically intended to ‘help AGRA build the fertiliser supply chain’ in Africa. One of the largest of AGRA’s own grants, worth $25 million, was to help establish the African Fertiliser Agribusiness Partnership (AFAP) in 2012 whose very goal is to ‘at least double total fertiliser use’ in Africa.”16
Bill Gates Is The Biggest Owner Of US Farmland
The BMGF’s involvement in the Summit is also self-serving, as Bill Gates owns more farmland in the U.S. than any other private farmer, having purchased a total of 242,000 acres — much of it considered some of the richest soil in the U.S. — at a frenzied pace over the past few years.17
Gates, however, isn’t interested in regenerative agriculture but instead is furthering an agricultural agenda that supports agrochemicals, patented seeds, fake meat and corporate control — interests that undermine regenerative, sustainable, small-scale farming. One of the key players in this agenda is the widespread adoption of synthetic meat.
Gates has made it clear that he believes switching to synthetic beef is the solution to reducing methane emissions that come from animals raised on concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).18
The strong recommendation to replace beef with fake meat is made in Gates’ book “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need,” which was released in February 2021.19 In an interview with MIT Technology Review, he goes so far as to say that people’s behaviors should be changed to learn to like fake meat and, if that doesn’t work, regulations could do the trick.20
What many aren’t aware of, however, is that Gates is either personally invested in, or invested in via Breakthrough Energy Ventures, fake meat companies like Beyond Meats, Impossible Foods, Memphis Meats and other companies he actively promotes.21
When asked whether he thinks plant-based and lab-grown meats could “be the full solution to the protein problem globally,” he says that, in middle- to above-income countries, yes, and that people can “get used to it.”22
Small Farmers, Regenerative Agriculture Are The Answer
The U.N. Food Summit is poised to bow down to corporate ideology instead of embracing the small farmers and regenerative practices that have true potential to feed the world and heal the planet. If you’re new to this discussion, you can find the top six reasons to support regenerative agriculture here. As Timothy Wise, senior adviser at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, told The Guardian :23
“A growing number of farmers, scientists and development experts now advocate a shift from high-input chemical-intensive agriculture to low-input ecological farming. They are supported by an array of new research documenting both the risks of continuing to follow our current practices and the potential benefits of a transition to more sustainable farming.”
Sources and References
- 1, 12, 13, 14, 15 U.S. Right to Know March 9, 2021
- 2 U.N. 2021 Food Systems Summit
- 3, 4, 8, 9, 23 Archive Today, The Guardian March 4, 2021
- 5, 6, 7 The Man Behind the Curtain: The Gates Foundation’s Influence on the UN Food Systems Summit (PDF)
- 10 People’s Coalition on Food Sovereignty April 24, 2020
- 11 Fian International January 16, 2020
- 16 Global Justice Now: ‘Gated Development – Is the Gates Foundation always a force for good?’
- 17 Land Report, January 11, 2021
- 18, 19 Market Watch February 16, 2021
- 20, 21, 22 MIT Technology Review February 14, 2021
Education Secretary Sued Over “Unlawful” Facemask Guidance
By Richie Allen | March 13, 2021
The Telegraph is reporting this morning that Education Secretary Gavin Williamson is facing a legal challenge on the guidance that children should wear face coverings in classes.
Lawyers acting for the National Deaf Children’s Society (NDCS) have sent a Letter Before Action to Williamson claiming that the guidance is unlawful and must be changed.
According to the The Telegraph :
Gavin Williamson has been sent a Letter before Action by lawyers acting for the National Deaf Children’s Society (NDCS) who say the guidance is “unlawful” and must be urgently changed.
It comes amid rising pressure on the Government over its latest guidance on masks, which says they should be worn by secondary school pupils in lessons as well as anywhere indoors at school where it is not possible to socially distance.
The NDCS say that face masks create a “wholly avoidable additional barrier” to learning and social interaction for deaf children who need to be able to see the faces of their peers and teachers in order to lip read.
Last Autumn, when asked about facemasks in classrooms, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson said; “You can’t teach with face coverings and you can’t expect people to learn with face coverings.” Johnson didn’t change his mind. The fact is, he’s not in charge. SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) is running the show.
A few dozen scientists, most of whom have strong ties to Bill Gates and his subsidiaries The WHO, GAVI and CEPI, are calling the shots now. It was a bloodless coup and it happened almost a year ago to the day. SAGE mission is to vaccinate every man woman and child in the country.
Covid restrictions and guidelines were never about keeping people safe. They were designed to pressure us into taking big pharma’s experimental mRNA medicine. The Pandemic is a hoax. That should be apparent to everyone now.
Human Rights Watch – Watching What Suits Their Agenda
By Gary Jordan | Wake the F… Up | March 11, 2021
Is there a more egregious attack on human rights than being forced to accept an injection of experimental, toxic junk into your body with the threat of social benefit sanctions, hefty fines and/or imprisonment should you refuse?
Apparently, President Joko ‘Jokowi’ Widodo of Indonesia doesn’t see it that way. Nor do the folks at the George Soros-funded Human Rights Watch.
On Monday, February 15th 2021 a Jakarta Post headline screamed out ‘Get vaccinated or lose your social aid’, sending a message to the poorest of the poor in the archipelago nation that they would suffer the consequences dearly, should they refuse to be administered the Chinese Sinovac Biotech COVID-19 vaccine. Anyone who has ever visited Indonesia knows that ‘social aid’ is in very short supply and that the Indonesian government dole it out sparingly. But if you’re going to coerce and threaten a segment of the population why not start with the most destitute and poverty-stricken, right? At least that’s the idea Jokowi and his gaggle of drug pushers have. As a friend of mine remarked, Indonesia went from being a nation that severely punishes those who do drugs to one that severely punishes those who don’t. Another example of the inverted, upside-down state of our existence in the 2020s to date.
Further into the Jakarta Post article, it’s explained that measures would be put in place to ensure steady vaccine uptake and that those who were not willing to be compliant participants in the ongoing trials would be deemed a hindrance to the campaign and therefore could potentially be hit with heavy fines and possible jail time. Does it matter that even the Food and Drug Administration has expressed efficacy and safety concerns and have gone as far as stating that it would NOT be recommending frontline workers are vaccinated with the Sinovac product? Or does it matter that clinical trials in Indonesia have shown a mere 65% efficacy rate? Of course not. Did you think you were living in 2019 and had the freedom to choose what goes into your body? Have the jab or go to jail! Jokowi’s orders.
Of course, as shocking as it is to think that such freedom is a thing of the past in the thriving and modern predominantly Muslim nation of Indonesia, when you scratch the surface and delve into the previous actions of their Globalist agenda-pushers called politicians, you’ll soon find that they are on the same road to techno-Fascism as the remaining 192 United Nations members states are. As we speak, for example, a well-known artist from the island of Bali sits in a prison cell for supposed ‘hate speech’ after he publicly declared on social media that the COVID-19 tests are inaccurate (something since acknowledged by authoritative sources) and that the Indonesian Doctor’s Association (IDI) were ‘flunkeys’ to the World Health Organization (WHO). Meeting a similar fate was a 19-year-old girl from the island of Kupang who was arrested after she appeared on video setting fire to a face mask and calling the pandemic out as a hoax. Both are victims of one of the world’s most Orwellian laws, known as the Information and Electronics Transaction Act (UU ITE), which has created a modern-day Stasi-like system in Indonesia where neighbours report neighbours for the sins of speaking their minds. This is the wet dream of Indonesia’s notorious CIA-backed ex-Dictator, Suharto. Had he lived to experience his mata-mata (eyes everywhere) police state be so enabled and enhanced by the current technological advancements in his country he would have thought he’d died and gone to heaven. And now, with the introduction of ‘virtual police’ who will directly contact you on your mobile device to warn you that what you are about to post may break the law, it appears the people of Indonesia can do no wrongthink.
I wonder if they agree that the idea of a vaccine mandated, centrally controlled, hive mind, AI driven, Fascist police and military-run Brave New World for the future is just the rant of a crazy conspiracy theorist? Maybe they could ask the Fact-Checkers. After all, when a nation deploys the military to engage in contact tracing and to enforce travel restrictions, as Indonesia has recently done, it’s nothing to be worried about. It’s all for the greater good, right? Best to ignore the fact that the same military which is about to be let loose amongst the public and given unprecedented power over it are the same that have, in relatively recent times, committed human rights abuses that include, but are not limited to, the shooting dead of four young students, the public stripping and hog-tying of dozens of indigenous men for the horrific act of raising a flag, the assassination of two men and the subsequent burning and disposal of their corpses and the rape and torture of sex slaves. What could go wrong?
Sarcasm aside, as someone who has spent over a decade living in Indonesia, I find the state of affairs there extremely worrying. A government that demands an emergency authorized, non approved, low efficacy, potentially harmful, experimental vaccine be administered into the veins of every man, woman and child against their wishes, is a government of occupation – working against its very own people. That same worry is felt by many in the nation with some even resorting to hiding in the woods for fear of being injected. Of course, mainstream media in the country presents these same people as being outsiders and lunatics who have watched too many YouTube videos and ridicules them as subjects of disinformation. We should trace our minds back to recent history, which is littered with stories of demonized persons hiding in the woods for fear of government policy. Perhaps Jokowi and his Big Pharma cartel should be reminded of that.
Perhaps Human Rights agencies should be too.
On receiving the disturbing news of coercion and injection by force in Indonesia, I reached out to several of them, starting with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. To date, I have not had a reply from Amnesty. Human Rights Watch, however, did send me a note from their office in Amsterdam stating that they did not have the capacity to handle individual requests. This I accept as I can imagine an organization of their notoriety receives vast amounts of correspondence from people all over the world who are victims of human rights violations. Nevertheless, I have to ask again; is there a more egregious attack on human rights than being forced to accept an injection of experimental, toxic junk into your body with the threat of social benefit sanctions, hefty fines and/or imprisonment should you refuse?
And if indeed the organization is too busy to investigate this very serious issue in Indonesia, what exactly is keeping them busy? What could be more threatening to the rights of a human being than the accelerated pauperization of social aid recipients or the imprisonment of conscientious objectors? I soon found out the answer to this question was…
Britney Spears.
The state of well being of the multi-millionaire pop princess takes priority over a nation of 275 million people who are about to be turned into guinea pigs. As many people will have heard, Britney Spears was thrust into the spotlight again as a result of a recent documentary that highlighted her plight in regards to her father’s standing as her legal guardian and the implications of this on her career and finances. Poor Britney. Human Rights Watch used this opportunity to jump on the #FreeBritney bandwagon. In their defence, the coverage they had given to the movement did shed light on the issue of guardianship over the many people worldwide who are under the control of others due to mental health or psycho-social issues. Still, it made me take a more in-depth look at Human Rights Watch in specific. As far as I’m concerned, they did not need a random email from myself or anyone else to highlight the horrendous laws which have been passed in Indonesia, threatening the freedom and finances of those who object to being vaccinated. For that reason, they cannot consider themselves serious challengers of Fascist, authoritarian rights-abusing governments who medically terrorize their population. They certainly can’t consider themselves purveyors of human rights when they are turning a blind eye to the arbitrary whims of pharmaceutical cartel-driven establishment policy. So what is the main reason for their ignorance of the current status quo – not just in Indonesia, but in regards to what has been happening worldwide since the COVID-19 cult hijacked our planet?
Have Human Rights Watch stepped forward to voice their disdain when employees of a corporation in the UK called Metropolitan Police were arresting peaceful protestors en masse in London? Were they loudly condemning the presence of 20 agents of the state in Dublin, Ireland when they turned up in cars and riot vans in front of a beauty salon to arrest the owner, who had opened her business during lockdown because she had no other way of earning a living? Were they up in arms over the callous Big Pharma-owned politicians who spat on the faith and beliefs of the people of New York City by eliminating religious exemption to vaccine requirements? Were they vocal when vicious thugs within the Victoria Police Department in Australia were abducting journalists who were reporting on the anti-lockdown street protests? Did they kick up a fuss when perverts, hired by Justin Trudeau’s government in Canada as security guards in mandatory quarantine centers, sexually assaulted detainees? Or how about when a Canadian citizen was forced to skip a potentially life-saving cancer treatment appointment at the demands of malevolent public health officials who insisted he checked into a government detention center? Were they even heard objecting to mandatory quarantine, to begin with?
Have they been heard crying out their disapproval of the apartheid conditions imminent in society as a result of proposed phoney vaccine passports and immunity certificates? Have they condemned the neglect of the unvaccinated in Israel who presently will not be allowed to enter establishments without proof of vaccination via their ‘Green Passport?’ Are they sounding the alarm bells in recognition of the tsunami of discrimination about to be unleashed on unvaccinated people?
No. Tumbleweed. Deafening silence.
These topics matter as much to Human Rights Watch as the penalization of poor Indonesians who are too terrified to come out of the jungle, for fear of being damaged by an ineffective and dangerous vaccine amid credible and very real reports of adverse reactions worldwide.
Where you will be sure to hear the voice of the Human Rights Watch team though is anywhere that the agendas of the Globalists are threatened. Belarus for example. When the dark suits of the IMF and World Bank showed up in mid-2020 and attempted to bribe the nation’s leader, Aleksander Lukashenko, with almost a billion dollars in exchange for permission to destroy the country with lockdowns and COVID-19 restrictions, thus creating absolute dependence on the ubiquitous parasites, Lukashenko refused. What would result was the demonization of the President worldwide in the left-wing bought-and-paid-for mainstream media. At the very forefront of this campaign was Human Rights Watch. As police and security personnel in the nation clashed with protestors, this was suddenly viewed by Human Rights Watch as an act of abuse on civil liberties on behalf of the Belarussian law enforcement personnel. The same, and sometimes even worse, behaviour, when committed by police on anti-lockdown protestors in London, Edinburgh, Berlin, Toronto, or Dublin is ignored though. Why is that? Simply because the demonization of the Belarussian President and his security force is part of the Globalist banking agenda, which serves the interest of Human Rights Watch major donor, George Soros. Why bother with trivial matters such as the greatest attack on civil liberties this century, as is occurring worldwide with tyrannical practices that are being put in place in the name of keeping us safe from a virus with a 99.97% recovery rate? This is of no significance to Human Rights Watch, who are more interested in the agendas of the Open Society Foundation – for example, Black Lives Matter, Transgender rights and anything anti-Russian. Poor Indonesian families be damned. They’ve got more important people to serve, such as the IMF and World Bank billionaires… and Britney Spears of course.
For certain, the last people on the planet that would object to President Jokowi of Indonesia’s forced medical experimentation on his people are the Human Rights Watch crew. 2020 proved to be a year that would see them run off their feet, waging war week after week with Prime Minister of Hungary, Viktor Orban, who refused to allow undocumented immigrants to swarm his country as and when they pleased – much to the detriment of the radical leftist extremist Soros, who was as hell-bent as ever on transforming the tradition and culture of all European nations. An issue of this importance would never allow Human Rights Watch the time to concern themselves with menial points such as bodily autonomy and freedom to choose. In fact, they seemed to develop a case of amnesia on the ‘my body, my choice’ argument that they’ve spouted for decades.
Nuremberg Code-evading practices in Indonesia were no where near as important to Human Rights Watch as the trial of Alexey Navalny, a man who mainstream media dubiously reported had been poisoned on the orders of Vladimir Putin – amidst no evidence of such an incident occurring. The anti-Putin tool of the Globalists would be given massive amounts of attention by them as they ignored the health violations of the pre-dominantly Muslim citizens of Indonesia. It was imperative that a man who once compared Muslims to cockroaches was given higher priority than Muslims that were been subjected to Big Pharma crime and corruption,
The organization’s bias can only be matched by its hypocrisy. When they are not pushing the Globalist anti-Putin agenda then it’s the anti-China rhetoric. In their 2020 end of year report on China they complained;
“In April, authorities in Guangzhou, home to China’s largest African community, forcibly tested Africans for the Coronavirus, and ordered them to self isolate or to quarantine in designated hotels.”
It’s wrong when China does this to Africans, you see, but when Canadian authorities do exactly the same thing to their own citizens and to tourists today, there isn’t a peep to be heard out of Human Rights Watch.
They continue;
“To combat COVID-19, Chinese tech giants developed an app known as the Health Code. Using unknown algorithms, the app generates one of three colours (green, yellow or red), depending on a range of factors such as whether people have been to virus-hit areas. That colour has a wide-ranging impact on people’s lives, including their freedom of movement, as local authorities throughout the country require people to show the app when they move around.”
Once again, if China does this, it’s wrong. However, no mention has ever been made by them concerning, for example, the UK’s NHS Test and Trace app which supposedly serves the same purpose and undoubtedly creates the same restrictions on freedom of movement as the app in China. Nor is there a mention of the ‘Green Passport’ of Israel or the proposed vaccine passports that have been planned in the UK, Ireland and Australia among other nations. The closest we have come to Human Rights Watch addressing the worldwide Fascist takeover of the past twelve months is a special report entitled ‘COVID Free Speech Abuses’, in which the usual suspects, e.g, China, Russia, Egypt, Brazil, Hungary and Belarus are admonished, with no mention of the severe abuses of the pro-Davos leaders on their people, such as Trudeau, Johnson and Merkel.
But all roads lead to Gates. The likelihood of Human Rights Watch questioning vaccine mandates is slim when we delve into their financial records and see that Bill Gates and his ever-present bribes are at work. In my book, The Covid-19 Illusion; A Cacophony of Lies, I cover the inner workings of Gates and show how far his tentacles stretch. It appears he’s found his way into the grubby little paws of Human Rights Watch’s Board of Directors too. In December 2018, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation awarded the NGO a US$200,000 grant for ‘general operating support’. The philanthro-capitalist vaccine vendors have wriggled their way in alongside Soros to keep Human Rights Watch on the straight and narrow, focusing on the goals of the techno-fascist agendas and neglecting the populations of nations that are bound for a vaccine mandated Orwellian dystopia. The only saving grace now is with the people themselves and their desire to reject the Great Reset and all its horrors. For, surely, it will be a cold day in hell before groups like Human Rights Watch concern themselves with anything that remotely resembles human rights if it means disrupting the plans of their wealthy, cash-wielding overlords.
Indeed it may be that Human Rights Watch will fit in just fine with the upcoming techno-Fascist New World Order. Perhaps they will feel right at home with Klaus Schwab, the son of a man who was at one time owned a company referred to as a National Socialist Model Company by the Nazis. They themselves have a history with individuals who greatly admired the Third Reich. Their former senior military analyst, Marc Garlasco, was in possession of a rather large collection of Nazi memorabilia. Perhaps Human Rights Watch don’t consider President Jokowi’s ‘injection by force’ method so abhorrent at all – considering the company they’ve kept in the past.
One thing that’s for certain, it is highly unlikely that their European Media Director, Andrew Stroehlein, will be moved to action by this article – considering he only reads what he agrees with and avoids everything contrary to his narrative. Stroehlein, an active Twitter user, advises his followers, in a pinned Tweet to ‘block early and often’ and singles out ‘fact deniers’ and ‘propagandists for abusive governments’ among those that should be blocked. Firmly entrenched in his echo chamber he tells his followers not to share anything from ‘powerless fools looking for attention’ or to ‘hateful headlines and clickbait’.
I guess when you work for a Human Rights organization that avoids investigating serious human rights violations, you may as well be a Media Director that shuns opinions you disagree with.
Human Rights Watch have fumbled and fidgeted in the face of monstrous crimes against humanity, scoffing at those who called out their Globalist masters for what they are. They are an extension of the cult of COVID-19 that is toying with the world today for evil intentions.
Without a doubt, 2020 was the year the cult that runs the world stepped out of the closet and showed their faces. It was also the year that organizations like Human Rights Watch proved to the world that they have no interest in human rights and are merely a front for political agendas. Going forward we should embrace the fact that once these groups opened the door to the closet, it was firmly latched behind them and the masks slipped off. They now have to be confronted for their atrocities and held accountable for their failure to act on their duties.
thecovid19illusion@protonmail.com
Cuomo and the Failure of Covid Absolutism
By James Bovard | AIER | February 24, 2021
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is falling from grace at epic speed. His administration is now the target of a Justice Department probe for policies that resulted in the death of one out of eight nursing home residents in the state. Regardless of whether the New York legislature impeaches Cuomo, the standard he championed poses a continuing peril.
From the start of the Covid pandemic, the media idolized Cuomo for his “safety through absolute power” mantra. Last March 20, Cuomo imposed a statewide lockdown on 20 million New Yorkers, closing schools and businesses. Cuomo labeled his decree a “pause” and declared: “If everything we do saves just one life, I’ll be happy.” At that point, most counties in New York state had five or fewer people who have tested positive for coronavirus.
Cuomo’s “just one life” standard for lockdowns should have obliterated his credibility. Instead, Cuomo’s maxim was treated as a triumph of idealism and benevolence. Cuomo’s power grab was enabled by media allies that fanned hysteria. As AIER editorial director Jeffrey Tucker recently noted, the New York Times’ Donald G. McNeil Jr. “was the first reporter from a major media venue to stir up virus panic and advocate for extreme lockdown measures… The Times allowed its voice to be used to promote a primal and primitive disease panic, which they surely knew would create a cultural/political frenzy.” Presidential candidate Joe Biden hailed Cuomo last Spring for setting the “gold standard” for leadership on Covid.
After Cuomo swayed the New York legislature to give him “authorization of absolute power,” as the New Yorker declared, he issued scores of decrees, including one compelling nursing homes to admit Covid-infected patients and permitting Covid-infected staffers to keep working at those homes. A New York democratic legislator said that Cuomo was “inclined towards tyranny. But in a crisis that’s what people want.”
A New Yorker profile, entitled “Andrew Cuomo, King of New York,” explained that Cuomo and his aides saw the battle over Covid policy as “between people who believe government can be a force for good and those who think otherwise.” For many liberals and much of the nation’s media, placing people under house arrest, padlocking schools, bankrupting business, and causing two million people to lose their jobs vindicated government as “a force for good.”
MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace declared that Cuomo is “everything Trump isn’t: honest, direct, brave.” Entertainment Weekly hailed Cuomo as “the hero that America never realized it needed until he was on our television screens every night.” As National Review recently noted, local reporters failed to ask questions on his nursing home edict “for months, as the governor held his much-praised daily press briefings about the pandemic. There were literally hundreds of hours of Cuomo press conferences in the first half of 2020 where not a single question was asked about nursing homes.”
The docile media paved the way to Cuomo winning an Emmy award for his “masterful use of television” during the pandemic. The media’s valorization of Cuomo helped make his self-tribute book, American Crisis: Leadership Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic, a bestseller.
Cuomo has always known how to milk the media. When he was Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, he explained to the Washington Post in 1999 how he would fix HUD’s dismal image: “The PR is the most important thing I do … Eighty percent of the battle is communications.” (I christened Cuomo as “the Clinton administration’s most megalomaniacal cabinet secretary in a 2000 American Spectator piece titled, “Andy At It Again: How to Keep Reinventing HUD to Advance Yourself.”) Flash forward to last June, and Cuomo prematurely issued a poster celebrating his and New York state’s victory over Covid. The political art (sold for $14.50 plus shipping and handling) featured a steep mountain symbolizing the rise and fall of Covid cases. The poster was plastered with insipid phrases such as “The sun on the other side, “The power of ‘We,’” “Winds of Fear,” “Follow the Facts,” and “Love Community Support,” and included a jibe against Trump. Though poster sales failed to deter second and third waves of Covid outbreaks, the PR campaign further encouraged the media to focus on Cuomo’s words instead of his deeds.
During the pandemic, “legitimacy” came not from adhering to the U.S. and state Constitutions but from continually invoking “science and data,” as Cuomo did. . Cuomo’s entitlement to absolute power came from modeling concocted by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), a Washington State-based institution bankrolled by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. As investigative journalist Jordan Schachtel noted last week in an AIER analysis, IHME forecasts presumed a death rate 30 times higher than the rate that actually occurred. That horrendous miscalculation sufficed for one governor after another to nullify Americans’ freedom with lockdown orders. Absurd statistical extrapolations forecasting future harm made tyranny irrelevant.
Cuomo describes himself as a “great progressive,” perhaps thereby entitling himself to any power he presumes necessary “for the good of the people,” Bill of Rights be damned. November, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down New York state restrictions that limited religious gatherings to ten or fewer people while permitting far more leeway for businesses to operate, declaring that Cuomo’s rules were “far more restrictive than any Covid-related regulations that have previously come before the Court… and far more severe than has been shown to be required to prevent the spread of the virus.” Cuomo’s allies in the liberal establishment reacted with horror to the limit on his sway. An American Civil Liberties Union official fretted to the New York Times that “the freedom to worship… does not include a license to harm others or endanger public health.” Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe and Cornell professor Michael Dorf babbled that the ruling signaled that the Supreme Court belonged in “the theocratic and misogynist country in Margaret Atwood’s dystopian ‘The Handmaid’s Tale.’”
Cuomo remained revered even though his repressive policies failed to prevent New York from having among the nation’s highest Covid death rates. But a Justice Department probe into his nursing home policies launched last August may be his undoing. New York state reported barely half of the total of more than 12,000 New York nursing home patients who died of Covid. Cuomo’s top aide, Melissa DeRosa, told Democratic legislative leaders that “basically, we froze” when the feds demanded information. “We were in a position where we weren’t sure if what we were going to give to the Department of Justice… was going to be used against us,” DeRosa said according to a leaked transcript.
But Cuomo’s culpability goes beyond hiding corpses. Early in the pandemic, he pushed to include a legislative provision written by the Greater New York Hospital Association to give a waiver of liability to nursing homes and hospitals whose patients died of Covid. A report last month by the New York Attorney General warned, “The immunity laws could be wrongly used to protect any individual or entity from liability, even if those decisions were not made in good faith or motivated by financial incentives.” As the Guardian noted, “Cuomo’s political machine received more than $2 million from the Greater New York Hospital Association (GNYHA), its executives and its lobbying firms.”
But Cuomo’s credibility should have been dethroned long before the latest disclosures. As early as last May, barely two months after the start of the state lockdown, a New York Post columnist groused: “So Gov. Andrew Cuomo killed Grandma and cratered New York’s economy. But he looked good doing it.” Cuomo’s cachet derived almost entirely from media scoring that until recently ignored almost all of the harms he inflicted.
Cuomo and other politicians have used Covid policy lodestars that were akin to crossing the Pacific Ocean with navigators who insisted the earth was flat. Melinda Gates admitted last December: “What did surprise us is we hadn’t really thought through the economic impacts.” The politicians who imposed shutdowns based on data from the Gates’ funded by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation apparently never bothered to estimate the collateral damage from their decrees. Similar myopia spurred crackdowns and restrictions in many states that helped cause the sharpest reduction in Americans’ life expectancy since World War Two.
Unfortunately, there is no indication that either politicians or the media have recognized the authoritarian dangers inherent in governors or presidents claiming a right to boundless power to save “just one life.”
A similar standard is helping justify keeping schools closed in many areas. Teachers’ unions have rallied around the motto: “If one teacher dies, isn’t that too many?” But like Cuomo’s shutdowns, that standard ignores the horrific collateral damage on American children. A Journal of the American Medical Association analysis concluded that shutting down the schools would reduce the current crop of students’ collective years of life by more than five million, based on “lower income, reduced educational attainment, and worse health outcomes.” It remains to be seen how much, if any, the role of the well-being of children plays in school policy in the coming months.
While it is unlikely that the media lapdogs who adore Cuomo and other prominent politicians will admit their follies, the exposure of hard facts may help blunt the next stampede to submission. The Justice Department investigation into nursing home policies that boosted Covid death tolls in New York, New Jersey, Michigan, and Pennsylvania could tarnish some of the nation’s most aggressive Covid lockdowners. Other investigations by the media or private groups could expose far more evidence of misconduct or of gross negligence that boosted Covid death tolls.
In a tour of television talk shows shortly after President Biden was inaugurated, Cuomo recited his latest catchphrase: “Incompetent government kills people.” This intended slapdown of Trump is recoiling badly on the New York governor. If Cuomo is impeached or forced to resign for his Covid fiascos, maybe he could score plenty of media appearances with a new slogan: “Absolute power with impunity kills.”
How the Gates Foundation seeded America’s COVID-19 policy catastrophes
By Jordan Schachtel | The Dossier | February 16, 2021
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is finally facing the heat for his botched and criminally negligent coronavirus response policies, yet no one seems to be asking why Cuomo and select governors made the fateful decisions that led to the excess deaths — and the coverup campaigns — of tens of thousands of senior citizens in New York and elsewhere across the United States.
After being awarded an Emmy and writing a book on his supposedly heroic response to the pandemic, Cuomo is finally receiving the very necessary inquiries into his handling of the crisis. Cuomo is perhaps the most egregious example of abuse and neglect (given his refusal to use the Javits Center or a Navy hospital ship), he is far from the only governor who executed the “nursing home death warrants.” Governor Cuomo was accompanied by the governors of California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and elsewhere.
The common thread seen in the United States is the delegation of state policy to prediction modeling forecasts from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), a Washington State-based institution that is wholly controlled and funded (to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars) by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
In March and early April, politicians were informed by the modeling “experts” at Gates-funded IHME that their hospitals were about to be completely overrun by coronavirus patients. Modelers from IHME claimed this massive surge would cause hospitals to run out of lifesaving equipment in a matter of days, not weeks or months. Time was of the essence, and now was the time for rapid decision making, the modelers claimed.
On two separate April 1 and April 2 press conferences, Cuomo made clear that his policy decisions were based off of the IHME model.
“There is a group that is funded by the Gates Foundation. Thank you very much Bill Gates,” Cuomo said on April 1 in discussing ICU needs and how he was using Gates models to make other healthcare policy decisions.
“There’s only one model that we look at that has the number of projected deaths which is the IHME model which is funded by the Gates Foundation,” Cuomo said on April 2, adding, “and we thank the Gates Foundation for the national service that they’ve done.”
In an April 9 briefing, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer referred to the IHME model in order to project deaths and the PPE resources needed for the supposed surge.
It was the same story with the government of Pennsylvania. The PA Health Department exclusively uses IHME models to forecast coronavirus outcomes.
Governor Phil Murphy, another nursing home death warrant participant, used IHME models to navigate the state’s policy response.
It wasn’t just state governors relying on this data, federal bureaucrats Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx, both of whom have substantial ties to the Gates network, used the IHME COVID-19 forecasting models (which Birx endorsed specifically as the best prediction modeling outfit) to make policy recommendations to states. In her White House briefings, Birx, who simultaneously had a seat on the board of a Gates-funded institution, almost exclusively relied on IHME models to project outcomes.
These models, and the policy decisions that were made by relying on them, set off a chain of events that led to indefinite lockdowns, complete business closures, statewide curfews, and most infamously, the nursing home death warrants.
States across the nation went to extremes, resorting to full bunker mode while waiting for bodies to start dropping in the streets, but the IHME modeling never panned out. Hospital capacity was never threatened. Most states that had created “surge capacity” pop-up health care centers never even used these facilities. IHME, for its part, regularly “adjusts” its models, and has never acknowledged their routine failures to forecast outcomes.
Bill Gates has never discussed the catastrophic failures of his prized “health metrics” forecasting organization, and how it has contributed to the suffering of millions of Americans. Instead, he has seamlessly washed his hands of COVID mania, and has moved on to demanding that the western world sacrifice itself in the name of the latest “crisis” that is climate change.
Bill Gates: Rich nations should shift entirely to synthetic beef In his new book, “How to Avoid a #Climate Disaster,” Microsoft cofounder lays out tech breakthroughs and sweeping policies we’ll need to take on global warming. #vegan #animals #sentientism 
In December, however, Melinda Gates acknowledged that “we hadn’t really thought through the economic impacts “ of demanding that people stay locked in their houses indefinitely, among other policy requests demanded by Gates Inc.
The IHME models that demanded lockdowns and other insane restrictions relied entirely on sketchy COVID-19 data coming from the city of Wuhan, China. The early statistics concerning deaths, hospitalizations, and overall age stratification have not come close to matching the actual data on the virus. For example, IHME used a 3+% death rate when the real number *from* COVID-19 is only around 0.1%. IHME’s risk projections, which they presented as sound science, were all incredibly overinflated.
The buck does indeed stop with the elected leaders who made the fateful decisions to send sick COVID patients into nursing homes, lock down their states, and mask up their citizens in perpetuity, but that’s only half of the story. The bad data they used almost exclusively came from the Gates network, which has trafficked in pseudoscience and has demonstrated complete incompetence and reckless forecasting since the beginning of last year.
`We Don’t Debate with Anti-Vaxxers – Whether They’re Right or Wrong’ – Says BBC
Dr Vernon Coleman MB ChB DSc FRSA | February 12, 2021
At the beginning of what I started off calling the coronavirus hoax, but which I now prefer to refer to as the covid fraud, I expected to see some fairly active debate about the importance of what seemed to me to be a rather over-marketed disease.
The forecasts upon which governments were basing their decisions were clearly over-dramatic and the main forecaster, Neil Ferguson of Imperial College, has a terrible track record – having already been seriously wrong about a great many things.
In 2001, the Imperial team did the modelling on foot and mouth disease which led to a cull of six million sheep, pigs and cattle. The cost to the UK was around £10 billion. The Imperial’s work on this has been described as `severely flawed’. In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would die from mad cow disease. He said that could rise to 150,000 if sheep were involved. In the UK the death total was 177.
In 2005, Ferguson said that up to 200 million people could be killed by bird flu. The total number of deaths was 282 worldwide so he was out by 199 million 999 thousand seven hundred and eighteen. If Ferguson designed a mug he’d put the handle on the inside.
In 2009, Ferguson and his chums at Imperial advised the Government again, and they then warned that swine flu would kill 65,000 people in the UK. In the end swine flu killed 457 people in the UK.
Finally, Ferguson is said to have admitted that his model of the covid-19 is based on undocumented 13-year-old computer code that was intended for use with an influenza epidemic.
And it has been reported that early modelling which helped guide the British Government’s approach in 2020, used Wikipedia – which is edited by all sorts of saddos, wierdos and freaks as well as by people with very particular political agendas to pursue. Read what co- founder Larry Sanger has to say about Wikipedia.
So those of us with some experience in these matters decided that the Government had got it wrong again.
And then on March 19th 2020, the public health bodies in the UK, and the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens, decided to downgrade the coronavirus to flu level. The proof of this is on my website.
Naively, I thought that would be that.
Sadly, I was wrong.
Around the world governments have continued to lie, to deceive and to create fear and the media has aided and abetted the lies. All debate has been suppressed and the many doctors and other practitioners who have spoken up and tried to share the truth have been abused and demonised and had their careers ruthlessly destroyed.
The result is that the millions who doubt the Government’s propaganda and who question the safety and efficacy of the jabs have been disenfranchised by the media.
No media organisation has, in my view, been more egregiously dishonest than the BBC which has exhibited staggering ignorance mixed with prejudice and has forgotten that its job is to report the news not to bend it.
I am tired of them ignoring the science, avoiding debate and demonising those of us speaking the truth. I am convinced they believe that by demonising us they can silence us and more easily sustain the fraud and perpetuate the hoax.
They also seem to believe that they are immune to the consequences of this fraud. Do they think they and their relatives will escape the dangers of these lethal jabs?
The tragedy is that the BBC, funded with public money, deliberately suppresses valuable information that could help its viewers and listeners.
Speaking last autumn a BBC presenter called, Emma Barnett, said `we actually don’t, as a matter of editorial policy, we don’t debate with anti-vaxxers, whether they’re right or wrong. We actually don’t do that.’
There’s the proof of the BBC’s one-sided, corrupt approach to the biggest fraud in history. Right or wrong the BBC suppresses the truth.
Why does the unjustifiably arrogant BBC think it knows better than the science? Who told them that vaccines are so good that there is no need to debate their value, their safety or their effectiveness? Is it a stretch to fear that there’s drug company influence lurking somewhere.
And it’s no stretch to conclude that the BBC won’t allow me live on air to counter its misinformation because I can prove that vaccines kill and injure and often don’t work at all, and that would upset Bill Gates and the Government.
The BBC won’t let me discuss covid-19 because I can prove that masks kill and don’t work, that social distancing and lockdowns do far more harm than good, that the Government policy is arguably responsible for more deaths than covid-19 and that the experimental jabs being so heavily promoted are already killing and maiming thousands of people who have been denied informed consent.
Could it be that the bean counters at the BBC are frightened that the truth might upset the BBC’s cosy relationship with arch pro-vaxxers the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? Gates, remember, has boasted that putting money into vaccines was the best investment he’s ever made.
Why do the BBC staff allow this to happen? Whatever happened to editorial integrity and independence?
I’m not what the BBC would call an anti-vaxxer, I am simply interested in facts and scientific truths, but I can prove that some of the companies making vaccines have over the years been found guilty of fraud and I can prove that billions of dollars have been paid out in compensation to people injured by vaccines.
The BBC isn’t interested in any of those uncomfortable truths. When faced with scores of scientific papers proving that face masks are dangerous, they dig out a scientist who will follow the party line – and then claim that a few quotes trump the inconvenient scientific truths.
Decent broadcasters and journalists would walk away from an organisation which has such oppressive policies – out of tune with an obligation to the public – but they stay for the big salaries and the power and the modest and ethereal fame.
The BBC seems to me to be a propaganda department for, among others, the powerful, rich and fraudulent vaccine industry. They don’t seem to care how many people die as long as they get their fat salaries, fat pensions and a chance to get their picture in the papers occasionally.
Lord Reith would weep.
Many BBC presenters probably don’t know who the hell he was. But he’d weep. He is identified with the BBC’s aims to educate, inform and entertain.
In my view if you deliberately suppress scientific truths that would be inconvenient to one of your financial partners then you deserve all the opprobrium that is available.
Could the BBC and its vast army of reporters and presenters be legally responsible when people who have been denied the truth, fall ill?
I believe so.
The BBC has a legal responsibility to provide both sides of a scientific discussion with a voice but it has deliberately chosen to provide only one point of view.
The BBC is a self-confessed biased organisation and I don’t think it is a stretch to describe it as corrupt. It is, after all, helping Gates get ever richer by silencing, libelling, trashing and attempting to humiliate those trying to reveal the science behind this scam.
The BBC refuses to allow presenters to discuss the downside of vaccination. It is deliberately and knowingly refusing to allow any debate on an issue which affects the health, and possibly the life, of everyone.
Let us not forget, too, that the BBC has financial links with the world’s arch pro-vaxxers – the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation which has interests in a number of vaccine makers – including Pfizer.
In the US the National Vaccine Information Center has so far reported 501 deaths and 10,748 other injuries following the covid-19 jab.
That was before the end of January so I expect its higher now. And don’t forget that in America, as in the UK and elsewhere, they admit that they only receive details of a tiny proportion of the problems after vaccination.
Sadly, the figures from the UK are also horrifying. Officially, more than a third of those having the jab have a reaction. But it’s the serious adverse events that worry me.
UK Government figures show that the Pfizer jab in the UK is already responsible for 107 deaths and 49,472 people injured. In the first few weeks.
If you want to see the horrifying details of the UK government figures they are on my website. Press the health button and the figures are there, near the top in an article entitled `How many are the vaccines killing?’. (Note: Since this video was recorded, there has been an update on the UK Pfizer deaths and injuries. There are now 143 deaths)
This isn’t a vaccination programme. It’s genocide, supported, defended and protected by the BBC. Still, some people are happy. The UK Government is delighted. It will save £600 million in pension payments because of all the old people who’ve been murdered in the last twelve months. And the Financial Times reports that covid-19 deaths, and presumably the jab deaths, will cut £60 billion from corporate pension costs. I have no doubt that the BBC is aware of these figures. After all the Government has appointed, as the new chairman of the BBC, an ex-Goldman Sachs banker – a money man. Goldman Sachs, in my opinion, one of the most corrupt companies in the world has rightly been described as a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity. I’m guessing that the BBC might have welcomed Goebbels as their new chairman if he’d been alive.
Instead the BBC got an ex-Goldman Sachs banker who was appointed by the conservative party and who has allegedly given more than £400,000 to the conservative party. He’s being paid a huge salary and will doubtless get a peerage or a knighthood in due course.
Don’t the coincidences just keep mounting up. You couldn’t make this up. You couldn’t satirise it.
The BBC’s financial partner, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, has financial links to The Guardian, and since BBC job ads often appear in The Guardian, advertising provides a constant source of new, hubristic pseudo journalists. And, of course, the Gates have a huge shareholding in the Pfizer vaccine. Oh what a simple web these conspirators have woven. Whenever the BBC is involved the stench of corruption seems to me to be nauseating.
Bill and Melinda will no doubt be delighted to hear that Pfizer expects to generate $15 billion, or a quarter of its total revenue, from sales of its experimental covid-19 jab. Moreover Pfizer say they expect there to be a long lasting need for covid-19 vaccines to combat new variants and boost waning immune responses.
As far as I know the BBC has failed to tell the public that both the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Authority and Public Health England have received huge sums of money from Gates.
Is there not one person at the BBC with the integrity, the wisdom, the decency, the self- respect to be ashamed that the corporation has allied itself to one of the most reviled men in modern history, and that in doing so they have betrayed themselves, their families and their viewers, listeners and readers?
Corruption, remember, is fraudulent conduct by those in power – often involving money.
If you lay down all the lies the Government has told in the last twelve months they would go round the world twice and end up on the steps outside Broadcasting House. If you give money to the BBC you are buying the bullets to kill your family. There appears to be no end to the lack of integrity at the BBC. Without talent, without honour and without self-respect – that’s the BBC in 2021.
I haven’t seen the BBC warning that the second dose of the jab may well cause worse problems than the first dose. I doubt if you have either.
Nor have I seen them warn that people who are receiving the jab are going to be in real trouble when they next come into contact with a coronavirus. There will be a problem called a cytokine storm or pathogenic priming, their immune systems will overreact and that’s likely to be when there are lots of deaths. Details can be found on my website and in the International Journal of Clinical Practice for October 2020. If there is someone at the BBC who can read they might like to take a look.
The BBC deliberately and cold-bloodedly suppresses the truth about vaccines (because the pro-vaxxers aren’t going to tell you about the dangers) and has financial links with people promoting vaccines.
Is that corruption?
The BBC derides the truth-tellers as conspiracy theorists.
But the BBC itself is now part of a huge conspiracy and a conspiracy which is practice – not theory. Hundreds of BBC staff are involved in a self-aggrandising, self-enriching betrayal of duty. Every truly independent scientist knows that the covid jabs are experimental and hugely dangerous.
Lord Haw Haw and Tokyo Rose would be welcomed into the bosom of the BBC.
The sooner we get rid of this wretched, treacherous organisation the safer and healthier we will all be.
We can easily judge if the BBC has a shred of honesty left. Here is a simple challenge, a chance for the BBC to redeem itself and show that it is prepared to allow debate of the most important health issue in modern times.
I am prepared to debate the fraud, and the vaccination programme, with any combination of Dr Whitty and Dr Vallance and Mr Hancock live on BBC television. I will try to avoid mentioning that Dr Vallance has shares in his former employer vaccine manufacturer and that Dr Whitty has loose financial links with Bill Gates. I will point out that informed doctors know that the death totals for covid-19 have been grossly exaggerated. Indeed, I’m convinced that in the long run the lockdowns will kill far more people than covid-19.
I also suspect that the vaccines may eventually kill as many as covid-19 – though the vaccine deaths will be wrongly blamed on covid-19. And the side effects will be blamed on mutant strains of the virus or the so-called long covid.
One stipulation: the programme must be live.
I doubt if am alone in not trusting the BBC to edit a programme fairly and without bias. I’ll hire a couple of guys to bring a few thousand scientific papers with me as evidence.
Unlike the BBC which too often relies on a quote from an isolated government approved scientist, I prefer to use scientific papers from reputable journals.
Why should they debate with me? Well, I’m medically qualified and I’ve been writing about medicine and drug companies and vaccines for over 50 years. In 1975 my book, The Medicine Men exposed the way the drug industry had bought control of the medical establishment. Ironically, the BBC made a film about that book.
Today, my books sell around the world and have been bestsellers for years. This is no time for false modesty – I have for many years been the world’s leading medical author. My campaigning has in the past changed government policy.
If the BBC prefers someone else for the live debate then that’s absolutely fine with me. I have, in the past, presented scores of programmes for the BBC but I have now absolutely no personal interest in ever going into a BBC studio again.
If the BBC is to salvage anything from its shattered reputation it has to arrange a debate – otherwise everyone will know that what they have long suspected is true: the BBC is a propaganda machine which is paid for by the British public but which has sold its allegiance to the Government and, quite possibly, to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and their massive commercial interest in vaccines. The BBC gleefully defends the medically and scientifically indefensible – preferring, it seems to me, to deceive rather than inform.
They know as well as I do that the debate I have proposed would produce huge ratings. It’s the debate people want to see.
But I doubt if the BBC, or indeed Whitty, Vallance or Hancock, will accept my challenge. It is no idle boast when I say that they are rightly afraid that I will destroy all their arguments and expose the fraud. I have facts and scientific truths on my side.
If they had confidence they would jump at the chance to debate with me but they know they’ll lose and so they’ll ignore the challenge.
However, if they don’t accept the challenge everyone in Britain will know the truth: the BBC and the Government are frightened that their paper thin deceits will not stand up to scrutiny.
What reason, other than cowardice, could there possibly be for rejecting the debate?
Finally, I leave you with these thoughts.
First, through ignorance or a lack of integrity the BBC has suppressed the truth, and silenced and sneered at the truth-tellers. The only things it seems to do well these days is, it seems to me, to lie and cheat.
Second, the Government’s programme has undeniably resulted in huge numbers of deaths from the lockdowns and from the jabs. There will be thousands more deaths from these indefensible policies.
I believe the BBC staff who are guilty of suppressing the truth are responsible for many of these deaths.
Third, of course, the BBC has close links to vaccine company investors.
Remember, John Reith, the BBC’s first director general originally demanded that the BBC inform and educate – as well as entertain.
Current BBC staff have failed miserably to inform and educate or to represent the huge part of the country which has serious doubts about government policies. The BBC has become a crude propaganda machine, with a vast army of squalid and overpaid pseudo journalists spewing out a never ending stream of lies, deceptions and half-truths and sneering at passionate, caring health practitioners who have spoken out, not for money or prestige, but because they believe it is their duty to share the truth even when doing so costs them dearly – leaving their reputations dishonestly trashed by hundreds of scummy, crooked pseudo-journalists.
It has been well-known for years that the BBC is unreliable and dishonest. The BBC’s biased support of the EU and opposition to Brexit was outrageous. But the BBC’s role as a ruthless propaganda tool, fear creator and disinformation medium has become embarrassingly apparent in recent months. When the BBC opens its mouth it’s the voice of Bill Gates which we hear.
We should work together to demand that the BBC licence fee is stopped. Meanwhile, we should all look for legal ways to stop paying it.
As I have shown in precise detail in previous videos there is no doubt whatsoever that the BBC is our mortal enemy.
Don’t watch any of their programmes. Don’t listen to any of their lies. Shun anyone who works there. The BBC has chosen to side with the enemy of the people, to suppress the truth and to distort the news. Ignore their wretched website. If you care about the truth, and about the lives of those around you, then you must fight to see the BBC abolished. The BBC today seems to me to be all about money and power – and oppressing and deceiving the licence fee payers. The BBC, seems to me to specialise in disinformation.
Meanwhile, ask the BBC why they won’t organise the debate I’ve suggested. And avoid paying the BBC licence fee – legally, of course. Share this video with everyone you know wherever in the world they may live. Warn them about the BBC – in my view it is the world’s most scurrilous, most dishonourable media organisation.
Vernon Coleman’s bestselling medical books include `Coleman’s Laws’, `Bodypower’ and `How to stop your doctor killing you’. These are all available on Amazon as paperbacks and eBooks.
Copyright Vernon Coleman February 12th 2021
Featured Video
CDC Rigs COVID Counting System To Prop Up Vax Lies
For more videos go to the Aletho News – Video Category
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Spearheading the Neo-liberal Plunder of African Agriculture
By Colin Todhunter | CounterPunch | January 22, 2016
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) is dangerously and unaccountably distorting the direction of international development, according to a new report by the campaign group Global Justice Now. With assets of $43.5 billion, the BMGF is the largest charitable foundation in the world. It actually distributes more aid for global health than any government. As a result, it has a major influence on issues of global health and agriculture.
‘Gated Development – Is the Gates Foundation always a force for good?’ argues that what BMGF is doing could end up exacerbating global inequality and entrenching corporate power globally. Global Justice Now’s analysis of the BMGF’s programmes shows that the foundation’s senior staff are overwhelmingly drawn from corporate America. As a result, the question is: whose interests are being promoted – those of corporate America or those of ordinary people who seek social and economic justice rather than charity?
According to the report, the foundation’s strategy is intended to deepen the role of multinational companies in global health and agriculture especially, even though these corporations are responsible for much of the poverty and injustice that already plagues the global south. The report concludes that the foundation’s programmes have a specific ideological strategy that promotes neo-liberal economic policies, corporate globalisation, the technology this brings (such as GMOs) and an outdated view of the centrality of aid in ‘helping’ the poor. … continue
About Aletho News’ Name
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
brianharryaustralia on Why Are Gates and Pentagon Rel… brianharryaustralia on Second Stage Terror Wars Sparrow on Biden Regime Blocks Security C… Sparrow on Biden Regime Blocks Security C… Sparrow on Biden Regime Blocks Security C… Sparrow on Biden Regime Blocks Security C… Sparrow on Biden Regime Blocks Security C… Sparrow on Biden Regime Blocks Security C… brianharryaustralia on Biden Regime Blocks Security C… Sparrow on Biden Regime Blocks Security C… ME Dlamini on COVID Fraud – Legal proceeding… roberthstiver on Using ‘Russiagate’ & ‘boun…
Aletho News- In Defence of the Handshake May 12, 2021
- Incredible TEDx Talk on Viral Issue Realities, Short Excerpt here! May 12, 2021
- Why are we being lied to about Covid? There’s no good reason May 12, 2021
- Why Are Gates and Pentagon Releasing GMO Mosquitoes in Florida Keys? May 11, 2021
- Second Stage Terror Wars May 11, 2021
- Biden Regime Blocks Security Council Action on Israeli East Jerusalem Violence May 11, 2021
- Ten Things We Have Learned During the Covid Coup May 11, 2021
- Venezuela: Accusations of Meddling in Colombia Protests ‘Shameful’ May 11, 2021
- Craig Murray Jailed for Eight Months for Contempt of Court Over Alex Salmond Trial May 11, 2021
- Using ‘Russiagate’ & ‘bounties’ logic, anonymous officials claim GRU behind mysterious ‘sonic attacks’ on US spies May 11, 2021
- Putin submits bill for Russia to quit Open Skies Treaty one year after US withdrew from ‘spying agreement’ May 11, 2021
- Keep Weapons Out of Space — ‘The New War-Fighting Domain’ May 11, 2021
- US handing out germ warfare weaponry that could wipe out millions across world, Russian official claims May 11, 2021
- COVID vaccine can worsen disease; mainstream study; not on the evening news May 11, 2021
- CDC Rigs COVID Counting System To Prop Up Vax Lies May 11, 2021
- Covid-19: Fifteen Important Concepts May 11, 2021
- Leading Russiagate conspiracy theorist appointed to key national security role at Biden’s Department of Justice May 11, 2021
- Agent Orange complaint against multinationals including Monsanto and Dow Chemical rejected by French court May 10, 2021
- OffGuardian
- 10 Things We Have Learned During the Covid Coup May 11, 2021
- WATCH: “Brace for Impact” May 10, 2021
- The American Cyber Stasi Will Suppress All Digital Dissent In Biden’s Dystopia May 10, 2021
- Consent Factory
- The Criminalization of Dissent May 3, 2021
- Richie Allen
- If Americans Knew
- Not A Lot Of People Know That
- BBC Complaints May 11, 2021
- If Lettuces Don’t Get It, Tomatoes Will!! May 11, 2021
- Rising Carbon Prices Are Pushing Up Energy Bills May 10, 2021
- Sebastian Rushworth M.D.
- Update on ivermectin for covid-19 May 9, 2021
