Reality Check: “100 day vaccines” are NOT possible
By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | March 11, 2022
Neatly nestled behind the Ukraine headlines plastered all over the front pages, this past week has seen the World Health Organization meeting to discuss the global legislation to empowering the WHO to combat “future pandemics”.
The first consultation was held on March 1st. The EU passed a motion authorizing the bloc to negotiate such a treaty on March 3rd.
Nobody knows exactly what the hypothetical international regulations – dubbed the “Pandemic Treaty” – would entail, but there are hints.
It’s almost certainly going to involve some kind of international vaccine passport, possibly based on the SMART Health Cards currently rolling out all across the US.
It’s also interesting to note that this treaty is being developed in parallel to the UK “reforming” their Human Rights Act 1998 into a new “UK bill of rights” which seeks to prevent the “abuse” of “rights culture” and place a new emphasis on “social responsibility”.
However, the specifics will remain a mystery until the final proposal is published later this year.
One thing we do know though, is that a big part of the proposed “strengthening” of our pandemic response will be increased funding and resources for developing vaccines even faster than the Covid vaccine.
This aim was announced at the recent Global Pandemic Preparedness Summit in London, where the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced their “100 Days Mission”.
CEPI, for those who don’t know, is a foundation jointly funded by (among others) the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum, whose stated aim is “to develop vaccines to stop future epidemics”.
The 100 Days Mission, which already has its own website and a trending hashtag (#100DaysMission), is pretty much exactly what it sounds like.
In future CEPI wants to produce new vaccines for unknown emerging diseases – what they call Disease X – within 100 days of the pathogen being isolated.
They’ve already secured 1.5 BILLION pounds sterling to further this effort.
Let that percolate.
Over a billion pounds to produce vaccines for a disease that – as yet – does not even exist, and may never exist.
This looks like a further step in the process, begun by the ‘pandemic’ narrative, of redefining everything we previously understood about how infective agents and vaccines interact.
Covid, let’s remember, was a disease-narrative totally removed from all social, scientific and historical context to create a fluid, agenda-driven alternate reality. And it looks as if this is intended to be the ‘new normal’.
Here’s a little refresher course on just how fast the Covid vaccines sped through the usual scientific process:
- The virus was allegedly discovered in December.
- It was fully genetically sequenced by January 10th 2020.
- The paper that all the PCR tests were based on was peer-reviewed in less than 24 hours.
- After decades of failure, the human race produced a dozen effective coronavirus vaccines in less than three months.
- These vaccines were then “safety tested” in less than six months.
All told, from ‘discovering’ the virus to getting the vaccine(s) approved for use on people, it took 300 days.
This process normally takes at least 3-10 years.
It usually takes at least 5-10 years to bring a fully-tested vaccine to market. A paper by Pronker et al, “Risk in vaccine research and development quantified” (PubMed 2013), estimates the average development time for a new vaccine to be over 10 years.
Simply put, it has never been possible to make a vaccine for a new disease in 1000 days, let alone 100.
The speed with which the covid vacines were produced is totally unprecedented in the history of vaccines.
The idea you could further reduce this unprecedented time frame, and produce a safe and effective vaccine in only 100 days is frankly absurd. It’s surreal. Fictional.
For one thing, the vast majority of candidate vaccines don’t work.
The Pronker paper, found that of all potential vaccines products being researched, only about 6% ever actually hit the market.
So, back in the real world, a vaccine manufacturer will go through that 5-10 year process knowing there is a ~94% chance there will be nothing to show for it in the end.
After decades of trying they haven’t managed to produce a vaccine against AIDs, or the flu, or malaria or many other common diseases. These are conditions they know and (allegedly) understand, but they cannot make vaccines for them.
So, in that old world of veridical reality, even if you managed to make a vaccine in 100 days, the odds are it either won’t produce immunity, or it will but will also produce harmful side effects, or maybe it will do literally nothing.
Now, granted, science and technology are not static. We are always moving forward and making progress… but that’s irrelevant to this issue, because even if vaccine manufacturing technology really did take a huge leap forward just in time to battle covid, you still can’t produce a safe vaccine in 100 days, or even 300 days – because the process NEEDS time.
It takes time to test rigorously, it takes time – a lot of it – to a assess long term side effects. The clue is right there in the name.
No amount of new tech is going to permit you to know the ten-year effects of a vaccine in under three months.
With the public eye fixed on Ukraine, and Covid now firmly in the collective unconsciousness’s rearview mirror the powers that be are trying to normalise what was, inherently, an abnormal, unreal (if not impossible) process. To make it easier “next time”.
We’ve already seen Bill Gates lament that the vaccine was too slow, and he was partially right. The Covid story didn’t keep people hypnotized enough to secure everything they needed, in part because their “vaccine” rollout took almost a year.
But for the future “Disease X” waiting in the wings, it will officially only take three months, and the fear will still be fresh. The fact the process will be completely incompatible with reality or sense will not matter in the slightest.
To be clear: You cannot develop a “safe and effective” vaccine for a brand new disease in three months.
You can’t do it in one year.
And if in the future they claim to have done so, they will be lying.
Financial conflicts within government advisory groups
JCVI – don’t bite the hand…
Health Advisory & Recovery Team | February 25, 2022
There’s a well known expression “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.” It can be taken literally – if an animal bites the hand that feeds it, it won’t get fed. In the business or academic world, it means don’t upset your funder. It’s obvious really – if you do, they won’t fund you anymore. The bigger the amount received, the less of a good idea it is to upset the funder.
The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) “advises UK health departments on immunisation.”[i] The JCVI has a sub-committee specifically to advise on COVID-19 vaccines. The chair of the JCVI, Professor Andrew Pollard, recused himself from all JCVI COVID-19 meetings because he is involved in the development of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine at Oxford University – where he works. This was done to avoid any “perceived conflict of interest.”
Professor Lim Wei Shen was appointed chair of the JCVI sub-committee on COVID-19 vaccines. In August 2021, he stated categorically that 12-15 year olds would not be offered COVID-19 vaccines.[ii] Barely 6 weeks after that statement, 12-15 year olds were offered jabs.[iii] Barely 6 months later, on February 16th, 2022, the sub-committee issued a statement saying that, although 5-11 year olds are “generally at very low risk of serious illness from the virus”, they would be offered 2 doses of the Pfizer mRNA jab.[iv] This recommendation occurred despite the trials in children not being due for completion until May 2026.[v] We have previously noted that Professor Lim has a substantial conflict of interest: he has direct responsibility for material levels of funding received by his department from Pfizer.
At the time of writing, the most recent minutes for the sub-committee meetings are from May 2021. The sub-committee and main JCVI minutes report “Declarations of Interest” for the committee members. The Code of Practice describes the JCVI as “an independent Departmental Expert Committee and a statutory body.”[vi] Independent being the word of interest. One would expect this to mean “free from conflicts of interest”, but a closer look revealed that this was not the case.
The COVID-19 sub-committee of the JCVI has 15 core members (1 lay member). None of the members of this sub-committee declared conflicts of interests. Five of the 14 non-lay members provided additional information in their ‘non-declaration’ that revealed conflicts of interest. One, for example, declared funding from “the National Institute for Health Research, the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust and Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation”, but didn’t consider any of that vaccine funding as a conflict of interest. A cursory search on the remaining nine members revealed that six had conflicts of interest – from running a COVID-19 vaccine trial to being their organisation’s representative for Pfizer. One member failed to declare that he leads the Pfizer Vaccine Centre of Excellence in Bristol.
The members work for organisations, which collectively have received approximately $1,000,000,000 – one billion dollars – from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The Gates Foundation aims to “accelerate the development and commercialization of novel vaccines and the sustainable manufacture of existing vaccines.”[vii] No doubt the Gates Foundation would have welcomed the sub-committee’s decision.
The majority of the COVID-19 JCVI sub-committee members have conflicts of interest. These members don’t seem to realise that their research or institution receiving huge sums of money from pharmaceutical companies and/or the Gates Foundation is a conflict of interest.
Has this committee truly been able to provide an independent assessment of the risk and reward of the main products of interest of the Gates Foundation? Or has it made a decision to not bite the hand that feeds it?
Read full article here:
- [i] https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/joint-committee-on-vaccination-and-immunisation#conflict-of-interests
- [ii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RS1v7jN94w
- [iii] https://www.england.nhs.uk/2021/09/nhs-rolls-out-covid-19-jab-to-children-aged-12-to-15/
- [iv] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/jcvi-updates-advice-on-vaccinations-for-5-to-11-age-group
- [v] https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04816643
- [vi] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/224864/JCVI_Code_of_Practice_revision_2013_-_final.pdf
- [vii] https://www.gatesfoundation.org/our-work/programs/global-health/vaccine-development-and-surveillance
The Lie That Net Zero is ‘Settled Science’
By Chris Morrison | The Daily Sceptic | February 22, 2022
Historically, the claim of consensus is the first refuge of the scoundrel; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.
Michael Crichton, PhD, MD, author, screenwriter and academic
Humans cause all or most of the changes in the climate by burning fossil fuel. We must stop using the most efficient fuel we have, one that supplies 85% of our energy needs, and sign up for a so-called Net Zero future. The rich will get richer, since they will control state-mandated transfers of once-productive capital into new untried technologies, and the poor will get poorer. Holidays, personal travel and energy will be rationed (for the masses), while meat-free diets will be the order of the day. There are disadvantages, admit the green, politically motivated zealots, but it has to be done. The Earth is on fire – the science is settled.
Except that it isn’t. The idea that humans are largely responsible for climate change is an unproven hypothesis. The claim that it is ‘settled science’ on which all specialists in the field agree is a political con. Over 40 years, climate models have produced wildly inaccurate warming forecasts that have never been right.
The political narrative of global warming got going in the 1980s, following the failure of the 1970s global cooling scare. The warming narrative had a good ride for 15 years, until the recent warming started to run out of steam. Over the last seven years, there has been a standstill in temperatures. This is part of what lies behind the recent rebranding of bad weather as ‘extreme’, and unscientific attempts to link solo events to long-term aggregate climate change. Record high temperatures among the jet aircraft at Heathrow, record “gusts” of wind off isolated sea cliffs – all are used to craft a political Armageddon narrative.
At the heart of the debate, or rather the public non-debate, is the role of carbon dioxide as a warming gas. CO2 does warm the planet and the Earth would be about 33°C cooler without it and the other greenhouse gases. But its warming properties become less effective as more of it enters the atmosphere. Doubling atmospheric CO2 does not double the warming – a point which the IPCC accepts. Climate models guess that such doubling causes global temperature to rise in a range from 1.5°C to 6°C. Recent scientific work suggests this estimate is way too high. The simple ‘settled’ science deduction that rising CO2 levels automatically lead to significantly higher temperatures fails to take much account of natural climatic variations. In addition, little cause and effect between CO2 and temperature can be seen in current, historical or geological records.
CO2, methane and ozone, along with the much more common water vapour, produce a greenhouse effect of reflecting heat back to the Earth only within certain bands on the infrared spectrum. This has led some scientists to suggest that CO2 becomes ‘saturated’ once it reaches a certain level. Most of the heat that is going to be trapped is already being radiated back by the CO2 molecules evenly distributed in the existing atmosphere.
It is fascinating science, but it is conducted away from mainstream media, most political circles and the Earth Sciences/Geography university departments. It is the last that seem to provide many of the vocal scientists promoting the ‘settled science’ narrative. Such ground-breaking work holds out the promise of a better understanding of the role of CO2 in the atmosphere. Only a blinkered following of a political agenda can explain why it is ignored.
The idea that the science surrounding changes in the climate is settled goes back a long time. In 2006, the BBC ran a one day seminar in secret to decide on its future climate editorial policy. The meeting was crucial in plotting future editorial guidelines. According to the former Sunday Telegraph journalist Christopher Booker, the new guidelines “would allow it to make its coverage of any issues relating to climate change more actively partisan than ever”. Booker continued: “Its obligations to remain impartial could be put aside, it argued, on the grounds that the official orthodoxy was now so overwhelmingly accepted that any dissent from it could be dismissed as too insignificant to be worthy of notice.”
In 2013, John Cook came up with the suggestion that 97% of scientists believed that humans cause global warming. Mr. Cook is a green activist, who runs a site called Skeptical Science with the intriguing strapline: “Getting sceptical about global warming scepticism”. His notion was given a huge boost when Barack Obama tweeted that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is “real, man-made and dangerous”. In fact the 97% figure, which is still widely quoted today, was quickly debunked. It was found that of the 12,000 abstracts rated, only 0.5%, or 65 papers, suggested that humans were responsible for more than 50% of global warming.
Since scientists differ widely in their view on the human contribution to climate change, the attempt to put a number on a so-called consensus is futile and meaningless. But it makes a good headline. Step forward Mark Lynas, with a recent raise on 97% to 99%. In fact, his study found only that 99% of scientists failed to explicitly quantify the effect humans were having on the climate.
Mr. Lynas has had a lively career in green activism and journalism, first coming to attention in 2001 when he threw a pie into the face of the sceptical climate economist, Bjørn Lomborg. He was behind the PR stunt in 2009 when the Government of the Maldives met under water to draw attention to rising sea levels. Happily, this is not a problem for the Maldives, since overall the islands have grown in recent years. In 2007 he wrote an article in the Guardian reporting on the possibility of global warming producing fuel air bombs caused by oceanic methane eruptions. These would be equivalent to 10,000 times the world’s stockpile of nuclear weapons, he claimed.
These days, Mr. Lynas is the Communications Strategist and Climate Lead for the Alliance for Science, a non-profit operation linked with Cornell University. Its primary source of funding is said to be the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – another case, it appears, of following the money to find the billionaires pushing their pet green narratives and causes.
Following the Money on Climate Change Media Coverage
By Chris Morrison | The Daily Sceptic | February 20, 2022
The Associated Press (AP) is assigning another two dozen journalists across the world to cover ‘climate issues’. AP Senior Vice President Julie Pace described the move as a “far reaching initiative that will transform the way we cover the climate story”. Over 20 of the journalists will be new hires and they will be funded by an $8m gift from five billionaire philanthropic organisations, including the Left-wing Rockefeller Foundation. The money is just the latest in a series of such gifts and AP reports that 50 writing jobs are funded from these sources.
AP is not the only large media company to collect such hand-outs. The BBC and the Guardian regularly receive multi-million dollar contributions from the trusts of wealthy philanthropists. It is estimated that Bill Gates has given over $300 million over the last decade to a wide variety of media outlets. Faced with plummeting paid readers and advertisers, mainstream legacy media seems eager to tap a new revenue stream.
The money is spread wide across such media. This month, the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting received $1.5 million from Rockefeller to “expand coverage of under-reported and/or inaccurately reported critical public health information”. The Quadrivium Foundation, run by Democrat power couple James and Kathryn Murdoch, is also paying climate wages at AP. On its website, the Foundation notes that it also invests in Climate Central, using meteorologists as “trusted messengers” of the links between extreme weather and climate change. Since it is not possible to link individual weather events to long term climate change with any scientific certainty, this aim looks to be a waste of money, or perhaps not.
‘Trusted messengers’ seems to be a phrase much in vogue around philanthropic operations. Last October, Rockefeller gave $4.5 million to Purpose Global, a non-profit company that aims to help corporate clients with their “cultural intelligence”. The money was given in support of facilitating a “communication network of trusted messengers”. This would “amplify accurate information and combat mis- and dis- information on COVID-19 vaccines”. In September 2020, the Gates Foundation gave the Guardian $3.5 million to “support” its regular reporting on global health. Likewise, the Global Health Security Team at the Telegraph is Gates-funded.
Old school journalists might be a little happier to see less of the ‘trusted messenger’ stuff and more of the requirement to investigate. But critical inquiry of climate change science has been more or less banned from many mainstream outlets. This is despite the fact that the hypothesis that humans cause all or most global warming is unproven, and many scientists look more to natural causes for long term change. Predictions – often termed evidence – of future warming, are based on climate models that have never provided an accurate forecast in the last 40 years. Global warming started to run out of steam two decades ago, and it has been at a standstill for the last seven. When Google Adsense banned the main climate web page tracking accurate satellite data showing the standstill, the interest was confined to just a few outlets, including the Daily Sceptic.
One of the largest suppliers of cash for climate change is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the BBC and the Guardian are two of its favourite giftees. The Guardian has received upwards of $20 million over recent years starting with £6m in 2011 to establish a “millennium Development Goals” feed that provides “compelling evidence-based content”. During the last decade, Gates has given at least $20 million to help fund the BBC World Service and $5.5 million for the Corporation’s Media Action charity.
In that time, the software tycoon, once treated with great suspicion for early monopolistic tendencies, has become a prized ‘talking head’ across the BBC for epidemics, vaccines and anti-meat diets. His recent scary tales of climate change, “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster”, was recently given five airings on prime time Radio 4.
Elsewhere, there are prizes for the best behaved – sorry – most distinguished climate journalist. Every year, the foundation of BBVA, a Spanish bank heavily involved in financing Net Zero projects, hands out €100,000 to the lucky recipient. Last year it went to Marlow Hood of Agence France-Presse, who describes himself as the “Herald of the Anthropocene”, the latter being a political renaming of the current Holocene era. In 2019, Matt McGrath of the BBC pocketed the cash, while in 2020 the award went to – no great surprise – the Guardian.
Much of the BBC money appears to support advocacy in the developing world, although the terms of specific grants are sometimes hard to understand. A letter from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in August 2019 describing the purpose of a $2.03 million grant to the BBC reads as follows: “To help us learn deepen our underpinning of processes and user journeys for different sets of women’s empowerment collectives, develop use cases for where digital can help amplify effects bring efficiencies, and close gender gaps for women”.
No doubt when this non-sensical gibberish was translated into understandable English, the money was spent wisely.
The Next Step for the World Economic Forum
BY ROGER KOOPS | BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE | FEBRUARY 20, 2022
It has been obvious since early 2020 that there has been an organized cult outreach that has permeated the world as a whole. It’s possible that this formed out of a gigantic error, rooted in a sudden ignorance of cell biology and long experience of public health. It is also possible that a seasonal respiratory virus was deployed by some people as an opportunity to seize power for some other purpose.
Follow the money and influence trails and the latter conclusion is hard to dismiss.
The clues were there early. Even before the WHO declared a pandemic in March 2020 (at least several months behind the actual fact of a pandemic) and before any lockdowns, there were media blitzes talking about the “New Normal” and talk of the “Great Reset” (which was rebranded as “Build Back Better”).
Pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Moderna, and Astra-Zeneca were actively lobbying governments to buy their vaccines as early as February 2020, supposedly less than a month after the genetic sequence (or partial sequence) was made available by China.
As a person who spent his whole professional career in pharmaceutical and vaccine development, I found the whole concept of going from scratch to a ready-to-use vaccine in a few months simply preposterous.
Something did not add up.
I knew of the names with which everyone has become familiar. Bill Gates, Neil Ferguson, Jeremy Farrar, Anthony Fauci, and others had either been lobbying for or pursuing the lockdown strategies for many years. But still, the scope of the actions seemed too large to even be explained by those names alone.
So, the fundamental questions that I have been asking myself have been why and who? The “Why” seems to always come back to issues besides public health. Of course the “Who” had the obvious players such as the WHO, China, CDC, NIH/NIAID, and various governments but there seemed to be more behind it than that. These players have been connected to the “public health” aspect but that seemed to be only scratching the surface.
I am not an investigative journalist and I would never claim that role, but even I can do some simple internet searches and start to see patterns evolve. The searches that I have done have yielded some very interesting “coincidences.”
If I give you the names of the following people – Biden, Trudeau, Ardern, Merkel, Macron, Draghi, Morrison, Xi Jinping – what do you think that they have in common? Yes, they are all pampered and stumble over themselves, but that is also not the connection.
One can see very quickly that these names certainly connect to lockdown countries and individuals who have ignored their own laws and/or tried in some way to usurp them. But, there is more to it than that and I will give a hint by providing a link with each name.
- Joseph Biden, President, United States
- Boris Johnson, PM of United Kingdom
- Jacinda Ardern, PM of New Zealand
- Angela Merkel, Former PM of Germany
- Emmanuel Macron, President of France
- Justin Trudeau, PM of Canada
- Xi Jinping, CCP Leader, China
- Mario Draghi, PM of Italy
- Scott Morrison, PM of Australia
They are all associated with the World Economic Forum (WEF), a “nonprofit” private organization started (in 1971) and headed by Klaus “You will own nothing and be happy” Schwab and his family. This is a private organization that has no official bearing with any world governance body, despite the implication of the name. It could just as well have been called the “Church of Schwabies.” The WEF was the origin of the “Great Reset” and I would guess that it was the origin of “Build Back Better” (since most of the above names have used that term recently).
If you think that the WEF membership ends with just leaders of countries, here are a few more names:
- Gavin Newsom, Governor of California
- Jay Inslee, Governor of Washington State
- Anthony Fauci, Director NIAID
- Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House
Allow me to introduce more of the WEF by giving a list of names for the Board of Trustees.
- Al Gore, Former WP of the US
- Mark Caney, UN Special Envoy for Climate Action
- T. Shanmugaratnam, Seminar Minister Singapore
- Christine Lagarde, President, European Central Bank
- Ngozi Okonja-Iweala, Director General, WTO
- Kristalian Georggieva, Managing Director, IMF
- Chrystia Freeland, Deputy Minister of Canada
- Laurence Fink, CEO, BlackRock
You can see a cross section of political and economic leaders on the board. The leader of the organization, that is the leader of the Board, is still Klaus Schwab. He has built an impressive array of followers.
If you want to really see the extent of influence, go to the website and pick out the corporate name of your choice; there are many to choose from: Abbott Laboratories, Astra-Zeneca, Biogen, Johnson & Johnson, Moderna, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Serum Institute of India, BASF, Mayo Clinic, Kaiser Permanente, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust, Blackrock, CISCO, Dell, Google, Huawei, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Zoom, Yahoo, Amazon, Airbus, Boeing, Honda, Rakuten, Walmart, UPS, Coca-Cola, UBER, Bank of China. Bank of America. Deutsche Bank, State Bank of India, Royal Bank of Canada, Lloyds Banking, JP Morgan-Chase, Equifax, Goldman-Sachs, Hong Kong Exchanges, Bloomberg, VISA, New York Times, Ontario (Canada) Teacher’s Pension Plan
The extent of reach is huge even beyond the worldwide leader network. For example, we all know what Bill Gates has been doing with his wealth via the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). But, the Wellcome Trust is equal to the task. Who is the Director of the Wellcome Trust? One named Jeremy Farrar, of the United Kingdom SAGE and lockdown fame – arguably the architect of the US-UK lockdowns in 2020 – is closely associated with WEF.
Concerning the reach that can occur, let me give some examples from the BMGF alone, and it comes from the time that I spent in 2020 reading their extensive funding list.
A few years ago, the BMGF awarded the Institute for Health Metric Evaluation (IHME) a ten-year, almost $280 million award. IHME (associated with the University of Washington in Seattle) was at the forefront of the computer modeling that was driving the lockdowns and the nonpharmaceutical Interventions during 2020. People have seen their name often in print or on MSNBC or CNN.
In 2019, IHME awarded the Editor of the Lancet (Dr. Richard Horton) a $100,000 award and described him as an “activist editor.” The Lancet, once considered one of the best medical journals, has been at the forefront of censoring opposing scientific viewpoints since 2020 and publishing “papers” that were not fit to be published. I never could understand what it meant to be an “activist” editor in a respected scientific/medical journal because, stupid me, I always thought that the first job of the editor was to be impartial. I guess I learned in 2020 how wrong I was.
Of course, the Lancet is also heavily funded from pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer (also a member of the WEF).
But, the BMGF reach goes far beyond just IHME and these connections have been quite recognizable. Here are some examples of the organizations and moneys received during 2020 alone broken down by areas.
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Grants 2020
| Organization Name | Amount USD |
|---|---|
| Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health | 20+ million |
| World Health Organization (WHO) | 100+ million |
| Oregon Health Sciences Univ. | 15+ million |
| CDC Foundation | 3.5+ million |
| Imperial College of London | 7+ million |
| Chinese CDC | 2+ million |
| Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health | 5+ million |
| Institute of Health Metric Evaluation (IHME) | 28 million (part of a 10 yr/279 million USD grant) |
| Nigeria CDC | 1.1 million |
| Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Z. (Gmbh) | 5+ million |
| Novartis | 7+ million |
| Lumira Dx UK LTD | 37+ million |
| Serum Institute of India | 4+ million |
| Icosavac | 10 million |
| Novavax | 15 million |
| BBC | 2 million |
| CNN | 4 million |
| Guardian | 3+ million |
| NPR | 4 million |
| Financial Times LTD | 0.5 million |
| National Newspaper Publishers Assoc. | 0.75 million |
Bill Gates has also invested heavily in Moderna and his investments have paid out nicely for him. The BMGF has also given close to $100 million to the Clinton Health Access Initiative.
The questions now have to be asked:
- Is this some beginning of a controlled authoritarian society intertwined via the WEF?
- Has the Covid panic been staged to set the stage? Please note, I am not a “Covid Denier” since the virus is real. But, has a normal seasonal respiratory virus been used as an excuse to activate the web?
The next questions, for those of us who at least pretend to live in “Democratic” societies, have to be:
- Is this what you expected and/or want from the people you elect?
- How many people knew of the “Associations” of the people that they voted for? (I certainly did not know of the associations until I did the searches but maybe I am just out of touch)
Can we anticipate their next moves? There may be some hints.
The Next Move
Jeremy Farrar of The Wellcome Trust recently wrote an article for the WEF with the CEO of Novo Nordisk Foundation, Mads Krogsgaard Thomsen. It is a summary of a larger piece written for and published by the Boston Consulting Group.
In this article, they propose that the way to “fix” the problem of antibiotic resistant bacteria is via a subscription service. That is, you pay a fee and when you need an antibiotic, presumably an effective one will be available for you.
My guess is that they have the same philosophy for vaccines and that certainly seems to be the approach with Coronavirus. Keep paying for and taking boosters.
In view of this philosophy, the vaccine mandates make sense. Get society “addicted” to an intervention, effective or not, and then keep feeding them. This becomes especially effective if you can keep the fear going.
This approach is so shortsighted, from a scientific viewpoint, it astounds me. But, like much of recent history, I think science has little to do with it. The goal is not scientifically founded but control founded.
After the discovery of penicillin almost one century ago, there were scientists who warned that antibiotic usage should be considered very carefully in practice because evolutionary pressures would lead to antibiotic resistant species of bacteria. At that time, they were considered to be rogue scientists; after all, didn’t we suddenly have a miracle cure for many deadly problems?
From the time of discovery, it took over a decade before fermentation methods were developed to produce sufficient quantities of antibiotics to be practical. These methods allowed for the use of penicillin on the battlefield towards the end of WWII and undoubtedly saved many lives then and later in subsequent wars (Korea and Vietnam) by preventing serious infections resulting from wounds sustained during battle.
However, it did not take long before the medical establishment was handing out antibiotics like candy. I experienced this myself when I was a child in the 1960s. It seemed like every time we went to the doctor, no matter what the problem, I was given a series (not just one) of injections of penicillin. There were never any attempts to determine if I had a virus, bacteria, or even an allergy. The answer was: in with the needle. I cannot count how many times I was “jabbed” as a child.
It didn’t take long before resistant species started to appear. The result was that more and more money was pumped into R&D for antibiotics. When I was in graduate school during the 1980s, one sure way to get some NIH funding was to tie the research into the “antibiotic” search. Antibiotics became big business.
We now have several classes of antibiotics that are used for specific cases. We have Aminoglycosides (Streptomycin, Neomycin, etc.), Beta-Lactams Cephalosporins (four generations including Cefadroxil-G1, Cefaclor-G2, Cefotaxime-G3, Cefepime-G4 , Beta-Lactams Penicillins (including Ampicillin, Amoxicillin, and Penicillin), Other Beta-Lactams (Meropenem), Fluoroquinolones (Levofloxacin, Gemifloxicin, etc.), Macrolides (Azithromycin, Clarithromycin, etc.), Sulfonamides (Sulfisoxazole, etc.), Tetracyclines, and others such as Clindamycin and Vancomycin (typically reserved for resistant bacteria). All in all, physicians have over 50 different choices for antibiotics.
The most common place to encounter antibiotic resistant bacteria is in a hospital. Most people who get some sort of infection in the normal routine of life, like a sinus infection or skin infection, will not likely encounter an antibiotic resistant species.
Except there has been another source of the problem and that has been in the food supply. Antibiotics have become very popular with large scale meat production facilities of all types including beef, poultry, swine, and even fish. These include actual farms where the animals are raised as well as in the processing of the meat. The overuse of antibiotics in these industries has also produced resistant forms of bacteria.
For example, in attempts to limit the bacteria e. coli, common to mammalians, antibiotics have been used and this has resulted in some antibiotic resistant forms of e. coli. An infection via e. coli (antibiotic resistant or not) can be avoided by proper cooking and handling of meats. However, sometimes that does not happen and there are e. coli outbreaks (also from improperly washed vegetables that may use contaminated irrigation water).
For most healthy people, experiencing e. coli (either resistant or not) is only a passing discomfort that includes intestinal cramps, diarrhea, and other GI complaints. Depending on the amount of contamination, a person may suffer for a day or two or for several days.
But, with some people, it can be serious or deadly (such as in elderly people in poor health and young children). If that occurs, then the presence of an antibiotic resistant form can be a serious matter. Presence of a non-resistant form can be treated more readily.
A few years ago I had pneumonia; a relatively mild case. I was given a choice of in-patient treatment or out-patient and it was a no-brainer. If I wanted to make sure that my pneumonia could be handled by the normal course of antibiotics (I was given a quinolone), staying at home and away from the hospital was important. I knew that hospital-acquired pneumonia could be a much more serious situation. So, I stayed at home and easily recovered. That did not mean I was guaranteed getting a more serious resistant form in the hospital but I understood that the risk was much greater.
Producing more antibiotics and giving them on subscription to the users is not the answer. That will only lead to more resistant forms and there will be this continuing loop of antibiotic use. But, if the actual goal is societal addiction to antibiotics out of fear, just like addiction to universal Covid vaccines out of fear, then it makes sense.
Finding a few universal antibiotics that deal with the resistant forms is important and it is also important to use those sparingly and only as a last resort. In addition, better management of antibiotic use in our society would go a long way to attenuating the problem.
There is nothing particularly controversial about that observation. It was accepted by nearly every responsible health professional only two years ago. But we live now in different times of extreme experimentation, such as the deployment of world-wide lockdowns for a virus that had a highly focused impact, with catastrophic results for the world.
It was the WEF on March 21, 2020 that assured us “lockdowns can halt the spread of Covid-19.” Today that article, never pulled much less repudiated, stands as probably the most ridiculous and destructive suggestion and prediction of the 21st century. And yet, the WEF is still at it, suggesting that same year that at least lockdowns reduced carbon emissions.
We can easily predict that the WEF’s call for a universal and mandated subscription plan for antibiotics – pushed with the overt intention of shoring up financial capitalization of major drug manufacturers – will meet the same fate: poor health outcomes, more power to entrenched elites, and ever less liberty for the people.
Roger W. Koops holds a Ph.D. in Chemistry from the University of California, Riverside as well as Master and Bachelor degrees from Western Washington University. He worked in the Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology Industry for over 25 years. Before retiring in 2017, he spent 12 years as a Consultant focused on Quality Assurance/Control and issues related to Regulatory Compliance. He has authored or co-authored several papers in the areas of pharmaceutical technology and chemistry.
Ivermectin and the Price of Life
By Justus R. Hope, MD | The Desert Review | December 13, 2021
What is your life worth? More to the point, what is your loved one’s life worth? What value would you place on your child, your mother, father, or spouse?
When the world experienced an average of nearly 15,000 COVID deaths per day, Dr. Andrew Hill decided on the price of a human life. Dr. Hill made that calculation during a conversation with Dr. Tess Lawrie, in January of 2021, during the peak of the Winter Surge.
In a zoom conversation between Dr. Tess Lawrie, nicknamed the “Conscience of Medicine,” and Dr. Andrew Hill, then the most influential Ivermectin advocate in the world, Dr. Hill chose dollars over human lives.
Hill’s parent institution, the University of Liverpool, had just received a 40 million dollar donation from UNITAID four days before Hill’s Ivermectin paper was published, and Dr. Hill’s conclusion was changed 180 degrees from his position just a few weeks earlier.
Andrew Hill admitted that his sponsors (UNITAID) pressured him to alter his conclusion. Hill explained, “I think I’m in a very sensitive position here.”
Dr. Lawrie called Hill out. She stated, “Lots of people are in sensitive positions; they’re in hospital, in ICUs dying, and they need this medicine.”
Lawrie criticized Hill, “This is what I don’t get, you know, because you’re not a clinician. You’re not seeing people dying every day. And this medicine prevents deaths by 80%. So 80 percent of those people who are dying today don’t need to die because there’s Ivermectin.”
Hill responded that the NIH would not agree to recommend IVM.
Dr. Tess Lawrie fired back, “Yeah, because the NIH is owned by the vaccine lobby…This is bad research. So at this point, I am really, really worried about you.”
Hill answered, “Okay. Yeah. I mean, it’s a difficult situation.”
Lawrie responded, “No, you might be in a difficult situation. I’m not because I have no paymaster. I can tell the truth… How can you deliberately try and mess up…you know? So, how long are you going to let people carry on dying unnecessarily – up to you? What is the timeline you’ve allowed for this, then?”
Andrew Hill reacted, “Well, I think… I think that it goes to WHO and the NIH, and the FDA, and the EMEA. And they’ve got to decide when they think enough is enough.”
Dr. Lawrie pointed out the obvious, “You’d rather… risk loads of people’s lives. Do you know if you and I stood together on this, we could present a united front and we could get this thing. We could make it happen. We could save lives; we could prevent people from getting infected. We could prevent the elderly from dying…
I’m a doctor, and I’m going to save as many lives as I can. And I’m going to do that through getting the message [out] on Ivermectin…Okay. Unfortunately, your work is going to impair that, and you seem to be able to bear the burden of many, many deaths, which I cannot do.”
Dr. Lawrie demanded to know the identity of the unknown UNITAID author who changed Dr. Hill’s conclusions, the person whose influence was to cause so many preventable deaths.
“So who is it in UNITAID, then? Who is giving you opinions on your evidence?”
Hill answered, “Well, it’s just the people there. I don’t…”
Dr. Lawrie pressed Hill, “Could you please give me a name of someone in UNITAID I could speak to, so that I can share my evidence and hope to try and persuade them to understand it?
Dr. Hill evaded, “Oh, I’ll have to think about who to, to offer you with a name… But I mean this is very difficult because I’m, you know, I’ve got this role where I’m supposed to produce this paper and we’re in a very difficult, delicate balance… Yeah, it’s a very strong lobby…”
The conversation concludes with Dr. Hill promising to do everything in his power to get Ivermectin approved if she could give him six more weeks.
Dr. Lawrie, “So, how long do you think the stalemate will go on for?”
Dr. Hill, “From my side. Okay… I think end of February, we will be there in six weeks.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie, “How many people die every day?”
Dr. Andrew Hill, “Oh, sure. I mean, you know, 15,000 people a day.”
Dr. Tess Lawrie, “Fifteen thousand people a day times six weeks… Because at this rate, all other countries are getting Ivermectin except the UK and the USA, because the UK and the USA and Europe are owned by the vaccine lobby.”
Dr. Andrew Hill, “My goal is to get the drug approved and to do everything I can to get it approved so that it reaches the maximum…”
Dr. Tess Lawrie, The Conscience of Medicine, concluded with this, “You’re not doing everything you can, because everything you can would involve saying to those people who are paying you, ‘I can see this prevents deaths. So I’m not going to support this conclusion anymore, and I’m going to tell the truth.’”
Finally, Dr. Lawrie added, “Well, you’re not going to get it approved the way you’ve written that conclusion. You’ve actually shot yourself in the foot, and you’ve shot us all in the foot. All of… everybody trying to do something good. You have actually completely destroyed it… I don’t know how you sleep at night, honestly.”
The fact that Dr. Andrew Hill allowed another person to change his paper’s conclusion has been known for more than six months and was published in the book, Ivermectin for the World.
“However, he [Dr. Andrew Hill] was reigned in before more damage [to the vaccine lobby] was done:
- He was invited to the NIH, along with Dr. Marik, probably to give the appearance of propriety.
- He was given a gag order and told not to speak to any more press until The WHO made an official decision on Ivermectin. It turned out that this decision would go against the drug despite Dr. Hill’s findings.
- Dr. Hill’s conclusion would be changed by someone else, and the rest is history.”
What was not known, until the transcript of the zoom conference between Dr. Hill and Dr. Lawrie was leaked, were the specifics of the quid pro quo. It turns out that the height of the COVID-19 Winter surge, when about 15,000 people per day were dying, was precisely the same time as the zoom conference, held on January 18, 2021. Moreover, it was days after Andrew Hill’s University of Liverpool took the $40 million payoff.
The transcript of this conference call appeared in Robert F. Kennedy Jr.s’ book, The Real Anthony Fauci, and in this article published by The Defender newsletter:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/ivermectin-big-pharma-rfk-jr-the-real-anthony-fauci/
World daily COVID deaths were averaging around 15,000 per day on January 18, 2021, and six weeks later were averaging some 9,700. Currently, the world is seeing about 7,500 per day die.
80% of these or more could have been prevented with Ivermectin, a statement with which Dr. Hill would likely agree.
Overall, since that fateful decision of Andy Hill to allow his sponsor to “change” his paper’s conclusion, 2.475 million people [11 months x 30 days per month x 7500 deaths per day] have died, 80% of them could have been saved had Ivermectin been approved. So precisely 1.98 million lives were lost as a result of the betrayal.
The price per life?
Forty million dollars was the value of the donation made to the University of Liverpool by UNITAID. This sum comes out to 20 dollars and 20 cents per life. That is what we are all worth in the calculus of the vaccine lobby.
UNITAID bills itself as a “global health agency” hosted by the World Health Organization and supported by the vaccine lobby.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation contributed hundreds of millions to UNITAID. In October, they committed $120 million more to the new expensive Merck drug molnupiravir, a costly and genotoxic competitor of Ivermectin.
Some experts say it will stimulate the emergence of viral mutants and worsen the pandemic.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/covid-pill-being-rolled-among-121237206.html
If that prospect is not concerning enough, consider this: One dose of Remdesivir, a drug that does not save lives, but one that is widely used on most United States ICU COVID cases, costs $3,100 per dose, or to put it bluntly, one dose of Remdesivir is worth roughly 153 lives. Yet, the worst drug earned the FDA’s approval while the best one, Ivermectin, was suppressed for money.
Ivermectin, a drug that has nearly eradicated River Blindness in much of the world, a safe drug already given to humans in over 4 billion doses, can be purchased mail-order from India at 1,000 12mg tablets for $163. That comes out to 16.3 cents per dose.
Dr. Alan Bain recently saved the life of 71-year-old Sun Ng thanks to a court order issued by Judge Paul Fullerton. Following the hospital’s initial refusal, Ng’s family sued Edward-Elmhurst Health and Sun Ng was administered the Ivermectin for five days. After the treatment, Ng “removed his breathing tube” and was taken out of ICU.
Sun Ng’s Recovery with Ivermectin
Dr. Bain, unable to get a local pharmacy to fill the prescription for Ivermectin, obtained the mail-order version and saved Ng’s life.
https://patch.com/illinois/naperville/covid-patient-given-ivermectin-edward-improving-report
Thus, five 12 mg doses cost about 82 cents but are worth more than the 20 dollar value placed by the vaccine lobby and Andrew Hill on a human life because pennies were all it took to purchase the Ivermectin that saved Sun Ng.
Ivermectin has 27 randomized controlled studies involving tens of thousands of patients showing reduced time to viral clearance, hastened recovery time, and reduced mortality. On the other hand, the vaccine lobby’s choice, Remdesivir, was rejected by the WHO as a drug that failed to improve survival and other outcomes.
https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/SUMMARY-OF-THE-EVIDENCE-BASE-FINAL.pdf
One thousand doses of Ivermectin can be purchased online for $163. Yet, UNITAID paid $40 million to change Dr. Hill’s conclusions to call for more studies [delaying Ivermectin approval], essentially condemning millions of human beings to death from COVID-19. So while 82 cents may be the price of life, it seems that twenty pieces of silver remains the price of death.
Dr. Justus R. Hope, writer’s pseudonym, graduated summa cum laude from Wabash College where he was named a Lilly Scholar. He attended Baylor College of Medicine where he was awarded the M.D. degree. He completed a residency in Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation at The University of California Irvine Medical Center. He is board-certified and has taught at The University of California Davis Medical Center in the departments of Family Practice and Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. He has practiced medicine for over 35 years and maintains a private practice in Northern California.
Forget China, was it CEPI’s bio-spooks who locked down the West?
By Paula Jardine | TCW Defending Freedom | December 15, 2021
IT is nearly two years since the world turned upside down and a sequence of unprecedented lockdowns and quarantines in the name of public health and safety were imposed across the West.
The narrative of the still unfolding story of Covid-19 is familiar to all of us, with China the chief bogeyman of the tale. But is that right?
In this drama has something really important been overlooked? Namely, the role of a powerful, self-appointed supranational organisation, set up 2017, called the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI).
Members of CEPI’s board and scientific advisory committee have been, and still are, key actors in global and national responses to the Covid-19 virus. Its mission? To ‘create a world in which epidemics are no longer a threat to humanity’.
At the start of 2020, all eyes were glued on China. The communist government had dutifully notified the World Health Organisation (WHO) on New Year’s Eve 2019 of its concerns over a small cluster of cases of ‘pneumonia of unknown origin’.
Three weeks later, when the death toll stood at 17, the CCP was sufficiently alarmed to order the home confinement of nearly 12 million mostly healthy people who were unfortunate enough to reside in the outbreak city, Wuhan.
Having fingered as the culprit a relative of the SARS virus that claimed 774 victims in 2003, the Chinese determination to contain the self-evidently nastier 2019 co-variant at all costs was made plain to the world.
The scenes broadcast out of China nightly on the TV news were surreal, but strangely familiar to anyone with a passing familiarity with vintage sci-fi. A nightmare amalgamation of The Andromeda Strain and The Hamburg Syndrome was unfolding in real life, right before our eyes.
Here, a man falling down dead in the street. There, men in white hazmat suits walking through empty Chinese thoroughfares equipped with Ghostbuster-esque backpacks blowing smoke in a desperate attempt to fumigate the invisible peril out of existence.
Knowing that the Queen’s own men at the Porton Down chemical and biological defence establishment long ago discovered that fresh air and sunlight, two commodities already in short supply in Chinese cities, are the most potent of disinfectants, it seemed a strangely futile spectacle. What on Earth were they trying to do? Death apparently lurked around every corner.
As the Wuhan lockdown was being imposed on January 23, 2020, the global elite were busy congregating at their annual networking fest, the World Economic Forum, in Davos, Switzerland (where CEPI had been founded three years earlier by the governments of Norway and India, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust global charity organisation, and the World Economic Forum).
Next day, a little-noticed press conference was convened in Davos to discuss the SARS-like, closely-related, but definitely novel, SARS Wuhan coronavirus.
Appearing in front of about 30 reporters were Sir Jeremy Farrar, Director of the Wellcome Trust and board member of CEPI; Richard Hatchett, chief executive of CEPI, and Stephane Bancel, chief executive of Moderna, one of three companies being funded to develop a coronavirus vaccine. A Chinese reporter asked the panel if there was any historical precedent for the lockdown.
Hatchett said: ‘One thing that is important to understand, is that when you don’t have treatments and you don’t have vaccines, non-pharmaceutical interventions are literally the only thing that you have, and it’s a combination of isolation, containment, infection prevention and control and then these social distancing interventions.
‘There is historical precedent for their use. We looked intensively and did an historical analysis of the use of non-pharmaceutical interventions in US cities in 1918 and what we found was that cities that introduced multiple interventions, early in an epidemic, had much better outcomes.
‘The challenge of course is that it is very difficult to sustain these interventions, as they impose enormous cost and they also can produce enormous anxiety among the affected population.’
The ‘we’ Hatchett was referring to was the US Department of Homeland Security where, as an official, he had helped develop the US pandemic preparedness plan in 2005 and 2006 during the H5N1 avian influenza outbreak, which Farrar had discovered in Vietnam.
Hatchett continued: ‘At that time, we looked at how could you have those interventions implemented in a way that maximised their benefit and minimised the cost and we developed an approach that we called “community mitigation” interventions and CDC (the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention) published guidance on this several years ago.
‘There is a literature which I would certainly encourage Chinese authorities to review and certainly I would be happy to talk to them about that, although that’s not my current job.’
There was no need to encourage the Chinese authorities to review the literature. CEPI already had a man in Beijing, Dr George Gao, the director of China’s Centre for Disease Control, but also member of the CEPI scientific advisory panel. The community mitigation approach the Chinese adopted in Wuhan was straight out of the 2006 US Homeland Security pandemic playbook.
Gao, like Farrar, completed his PhD at Oxford University before conducting post-doctoral work under Sir John Bell, the controversial Regius Professor of Medicine at Oxford, holder of several extranumerary positions and multiple interests, not least as chair of the global health scientific advisory board of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
An expert on coronaviruses, Gao served on CEPI’s first scientific advisory committee in 2016 and was a player in Event 201, the pandemic simulation hosted in October 2019 by the World Economic Forum, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Health – discussed here by Robert F Kennedy Jr.
In all probability, Gao is the old friend Farrar was referring to when he said on Desert Island Discs that he had had a phone call on December 31, 2019 – the day the Chinese authorities reported the Wuhan pneumonia outbreak to the WHO – to alert him that China would release the genome of the new virus on January 10. As things stood on New Year’s Eve, the virus had yet to cause any deaths, although it was making a few people very ill.
By January 17, another CEPI scientific adviser, Dr Christian Drosten, had conveniently developed a PCR test from the genetic sequence posted online by the Chinese, which the WHO advised laboratories could be used as a diagnostic test for Covid-19.
This was almost two months before the WHO declared the novel coronavirus a pandemic on March 11, 2020. Following a visit to Wuhan by the WHO in February 2020, led by its assistant director-general Dr Bruce Aylward, the world was being encouraged to adopt what were now being called Chinese measures.
‘China didn’t approach this new virus with an old strategy for one disease or another disease,’ said Aylward. ‘It developed its own approach to a new disease and extraordinarily has turned around this disease with strategies most of the world didn’t think would work.’
The Chinese government, with its own Big Brother infrastructure, had its own reasons for going along with that. But the response plan is in reality far more complex, and has a much darker background in the West.
The Yellow Brick Road that passes through CEPI and Beijing leads right back to the US Department of Homeland Security, and its 1998 Pentagon strategy paper.
The response plan is in reality an American scheme, with its origins more than decade and a half earlier and against a backdrop of bioterrorism concerns. Uncle Sam is the wizard behind the curtain, not acting in the West’s interests at all.
Scenarios in Response to the New War Against Humanity
By Doug E. Steil | December 2, 2021
In light of recent developments in the western world it has become abundantly evident to most informed observers that a war against the general population has been launched under the guise of counteracting a viral pandemic. Through a process of coordinated incrementalism governmental efforts have focused on implementing a totalitarian population control system rather than appropriately targeting public health problems associated with a limited viral outbreak.
A key mechanism in this control process has involved coercive means to inject as many people as possible with an experimental gene therapy concoction with proven toxicity, in some cases deadly, which however has been ineffective in its claimed suppression of viral infection and transmission to others. The established term “vaccination” was misappropriated to mislead the public into believing that getting these shots would lead to salvation by protecting themselves and others around them. These toxic doses were authorized for emergency use a year ago based on various fraudulent misrepresentations, which included relying on false test results, suppressing viable treatment protocols, such as those published by physician Dr. Peter McCullough, rigging trial designs and aborting prematurely, and manipulating statistical interpretations in a manner that created the impression they were effective when they were not. Though their producers acknowledged unforeseen effects they demanded contractual indemnification against bad outcomes. The failure to properly inform the public about the facts surrounding these substances, including known and potential adverse effects, in conjunction with the aggressively coercive measures to compel millions of people to submit to receiving them into their bodies, constitutes crimes against humanity in accordance with the Nuremberg Code, established in 1947.
At least technically, thus far getting these toxic injections was voluntary, but a substantial portion of the public saw through the scam or were reservedly skeptical, for which they have been publicly vilified in a vicious defamation campaign propagated by the mass media, operating in concert with the pharmaceutical industry and governments. Only a few days ago – November 19 in Austria and November 30 in Germany – a critical red line was crossed through announcements by public officials, of impending requirements for everybody, including kids, to get these toxic injections, purportedly against a virus from Wuhan that has long since mutated. Today Angela Merkel expressed her endorsement of such measures, though she will no longer be in power to vote for them. The mantra has been simply that this was necessary – indeed “the only solution” – in order to increase the overall so-called “vaccination rate” in the population, as if though that could somehow solve ongoing health problems. Since there is no substantive evidence for these sensationalistic claims, it equates to pure political demagoguery. Yet, contrary to this transparently false claim, mandatory injections, possibly on a repetitive basis, would only exacerbate the current situation purportedly occurring in emergency rooms or intensive care units at hospitals because the shots do not provide any remedy but cause harm instead, in some cases almost immediately, in many cases cumulatively. Essentially, this highly controversial mandate amounts to a subversive extermination campaign in the long run, deriving from likely cases of infertility and decreased life expectancy. In order to deflect from their previous lies, officials have chosen to raise the stakes an thus declared war against humanity.
Such an egregious attack as this is unprecedented in recent memory, so it may be difficult for many to understand what is occurring, right in front of their eyes. There may be a prevailing inclination toward cognitive dissonance, but it is preferable to assess various means to counteract such ominous developments within the full scope of possible scenarios that may arise. Below are five situations, beginning with the most obvious. Subsequent response scenarios represent an escalatory progression. Though they are not equally likely to occur and may be less specific to some regions, such results cannot be ruled out entirely when considering the volatile social conditions that are caused by governments that have intentionally gone rogue. In the pursuit of conquest, they have split and destabilized society, a recurring modus operandi when regarded in a historical context, back to Philip II of Macedon and Julius Caesar – divide et impera.
• Legal Challenges
The stated rationales for implementing compulsory injections of toxic substances, euphemistically referred to as “mass vaccination”, cannot be legally justified under any circumstances under existing protections, therefore the arguments presented to the public are all based on provably false premises or wishful thinking. They have been repeated so often, that many have already internalized them to be functionally true. At their core have been false promises of immunity, appeals to social solidarity, moral self-righteousness, and an unproven notion of easing the potential demand for medical services. If only everybody had volunteered to get the shots, the claim goes, the outbreak would have been eradicated; therefore mandatory injections are the only solution. None of this is true; on the contrary the data show that case hospitalization rates increase in correlation with the proportion of administered injections. Yet even if it were true, there are basic legal protections in place worldwide that forbid such mandates.
Many people understand this as self-evident and therefore expect the legal process to work, as it should, in theory. They may regard the announcements as typical hot air from politicians as a tactical means of leveraging their authority to exert additional pressure on those people who had not made up their minds yet about this vital question and presume the judicial reviews will enforce a reversal. Though this would be a reasonable expectation if the facts and the law were followed, the problem is that the legal process has become hopelessly corrupted. Reiner Füllmich, one of the founders of the Corona Investigative Committee, which has broadcast the 80 weekly sessions it has held thus far, has repeatedly confirmed that the German legal system has been so thoroughly corrupted, that bringing forth such matters before a system with an Anglo-American legal tradition makes more sense. Contemporary judicial rulings in Germany can be so out of touch with reality that it is difficult to imagine that decisions in prior totalitarian regimes could have possibly been any worse. Even so, it is still necessary to formally proceed through this avenue in order to be able to justify taking additional steps if it should turn out that cynical expectations of an inherently corrupted system are confirmed. There is also the possibility that the time it takes to submit to the judicial review process will result in the matter becoming moot, so that the stated premises for the mandates no longer obtain and are formally withdrawn.
The sheer suddenness and public lying that accompanied these announcements, which were completely contrary to repeated promises made by these same politicians who then proclaimed there was no alternative, shows they deserve no trust. They will say and do whatever they feel will defer the truth from emerging and in the meantime protect themselves from embarrassment. Once they have gone so far as to thrown aside basic principles – having in effect become criminals of the worst kind – one can no longer expect to reverse themselves in response to appeals to decency.
• Passive Resistance
This is an effective path that many skeptics and opponents of totalitarian edicts have already chosen. Examples of this have been the numerous work stopages among US airline pilots, or hospital staff quitting their jobs. In the Italian port cities of Trieste and Genoa dock workers have gone on extended strikes in response to onerous governmental impositions still falling short of universal mandates to submit to toxic injections.
During the most recent session of the Corona Investigative Committee four specialists working in Austria, of which three are physicians, presented responses to the Austrian announcement of future mandates a week earlier, which was followed by large demonstrations in Vienna on the next day, which were said to have involved the participation of more than a hundred thousand protesters. The fourth guest , an attorney, started a political party that immediately received sufficient acclaim to be represented in the provincial government of Upper Austria. He stressed the importance of mass resistance and announced liaison efforts with various unions in addition to forming new union representation.
Mass strikes and roadblocks associated with the yellow vest movement in France have shown how determined efforts by a coordinated group of dedicated individuals can force the government to back down under persistent pressure. For people who understand why they have adamantly refused to be injected with a toxic substance for the sake of a failing mass experiment the imposition of a mandate would be regarded as an existential issue. Sane people do not risk the threat of premature death, severe sickness or disability for the sake of satisfying the power egos of corrupted political puppets and greedy profiteers.
Big demonstrations have recently taken place in numerous cities in the Netherlands, France, Britain, Australia, Croatia, Warsaw, and many other locations. Even during the cold winter months hundreds of thousands of protesters will go out onto the streets to show their strength.
• Active Rebellion
On July 20, 1944, as part of Operation Valkyrie, Claus Von Stauffenberg participated in a plot to kill Adolf Hitler and other leading cohorts by means of a suitcase bomb placed in a conference room. The bombing killed a stenographer instantly but the coup failed because the intended targets survived. After the follow-up arrests nearly five thousand individuals, including Von Stauffenberg were executed. That particular assassination attempt continues to be commemorated in contemporary times on the date of the anniversary. Von Stauffenberg is glorified in the German media as a hero even though he was a German nationalist and purportedly expected to replace Hitler with another authoritarian government, though ruled instead by aristocrats like himself. Moreover, his co-plotters had earlier helped Hitler come to power and shared many of the same policy goals. In other words, the disagreement they had with the government was about methodology and style, along with certain details, rather than wanting to transform society along a new democratic course of redemption. In other words, had their coup attempt been successful, there was likely to be far less ideological change than occurred as a consequence of the coup against John F Kennedy nearly six decades ago in Dallas, in which Lyndon B Johnson was a plotter and beneficiary. From a judicial perspective, it is said, the German government had not blatantly broken any existing laws. In any case, an implicit question that the German media do not appear to have answered in this context is: from what specific time onward in the history of that regime would it have been legitimate, without possessing any benefit of foresight, for Von Stauffenberg to have participated in multiple assassinations, and how many additional functionaries would they likely have executed subsequently?
It is relevant to bear in mind such conjecture because the fourth part in Article 20 of Germany’s Basic Law contains an essential element that explicitly states that all Germans have a right to resistance against anyone who proceeds to eliminate the specific democratic and social order enumerated in the prior three sentences, if other remedies are not possible. The first twenty articles have a special status; they cannot be revoked. What was openly suggested by the next chancellor and successor to Merkel, Olaf Scholz from the Social Democratic Party, was a significant milestone in German post-war history because this unprecedented proposal, which was universally acknowledged by everyone to be unconstitutional and unworkable, would constitute a blatant violation of Article 2, guaranteeing bodily integrity, in case it were ever to be imposed upon the population. This explains why nobody has ever gone this far, to step over the red line. They were previously reluctant to do so, but now they are playing with fire. If legal challenges to this usurpation of the most basic human principles are thwarted under some imaginary and invalid pretext, the circumstances premised in Article 20 will legally enable and authorize Germans to resist against all those who brought about the transgression. It should be noted that exercising such resistance does not – and logically cannot – rule out the use of force.
Understandably there is little legal precedence for how the right to resistance may play out, except for abiding by the general principle of proportionality, which itself is somewhat vague in the context of potentially existential measures being threatened against a substantial portion of the population. It is known that there are clandestine groups who are armed because they have been anticipating a potential situation like this, just as in the United States millions of Americans bear firearms to protect against potential tyranny pursuant to the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. One can imagine that the imposition of an illegal law that would essentially force virtually the entire population to get toxic injections, against their will, so that their life span will be shortened, will simply not be accepted by many. Official jurists may claim now that they are not threatening to forcibly inject dissenters, this is just a “cute” technicality, and there is no way to know if that claim will be revoked a few weeks or months later, as the totalitarian escalation continues. Though utilizing violence as a means of exercising the right to resist, as distinct from self defense, is not rooted in jurisprudence, its use is fueled instead by image ideation in the media as well as historical narratives. This can lower the threshold level for some individuals to criminally act out their rage. Only a few weeks ago, in late September, a person not wearing a face mask got triggered at a gas station by being told to wear one, based on a valid ordinance. This made him so angry that he came back with a gun and killed the employee, a student who was working there part-time. While some may act out their resentment impulsively, others might choose to express their resistance selectively. If a top-level politician were to be targeted in a violent way, this would surely provoke a disproportionate and unwelcome response.
An episode in German history highlights how easily and quickly things can get out of control. On November 7, 1938 Herschel Grynszpan, then a 17-year old Jew, assassinated the German diplomat Ernst Vom Rath at the German embassy in Paris, through five shots into the abdomen, on behalf of persecuted Jewry, as he claimed immediately thereafter. Grynszpan was living in Paris illegally as a stateless person and had gained access to the embassy by falsely claiming that he had valuable secret information that he wanted to share with a top official. That was the event that triggered the Kristallnacht in various cities in Germany two days later.
An important prerequisite for introducing and enhancing totalitarianism is to manufacture and cultivate a scapegoat group that is to be reviled by the general population. Over the past few months German media have been denouncing all those who refuse to get toxic shots as somehow being primarily responsible for the fact that hospitals are having to deal with patients complaining of respiratory problems, most of whom, if they are below seventy years old, have a weakened immune system due to overweight or obesity issues. A common media ploy to reinforce this fabricated hatred is to have reporters go around town with camera and microphone and film ordinary people on the street giving their opinion about these awful “unvaccinated” people. The negative attitudes will then be selected to be shown on television, providing a feedback loop to convey that such opinions are perfectly legitimate. The next phase in this perception management scheme then entails presenting the public with skewed opinion poll results, based on undisclosed methodology, which embolden legislators to invoke public support for unpopular and inherently illegitimate measures.
A necessary premise for maintaining democracy is for the population to be properly informed, not brainwashed with lies and hate, so they can make valid decisions based on facts. Yet democracy is in the process of being subverted. Two of Germany’s top weekly publications with a daily online presence, Der Spiegel and Die Zeit, based in Hamburg, have both received generous direct funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, according to their web site. Not surprisingly, these publications have been among the more vicious disseminators of lies and vituperations against conscientious dissidents. German politicians in conjunction with the media have thus already prepared the stage for future expressions of street violence by disgruntled individuals and may themselves become caught up in such activity due to their undermining of law and democracy. For instance, as in the United States, especially as occurred during riots in the summer of 2020, it is not uncommon for one political group to stage a peaceful public demonstration. An opposing group, virtually always self-proclaimed “leftists”, nowadays including hoodlums with an affinity toward Antifa, will announce a counter-demonstration with the goal of preventing the first group to exercise their right to march along a predetermined route. Police and journalists often get caught up in the violence perpetrated by the second group of counter-demonstrators, for which the first group then gets blamed. Such activity on the streets is representative of an unfortunate societal breakdown on a larger scale. This development is exactly what enemies of Germany, such as the Green Party, which has been characterized by distinctive totalitarian flavors since its inception in 1980, would relish to spread. Its activists seek to capitalize on such situations to attain increasingly tighter control. It will be interesting to see how exercising the right to resistance will play out next year.
• Paramilitary Rejection
In a few cases a ruling elite exercising power through government can become so corrupt and disliked that the military temporarily takes over and becomes welcomed for their intercession by a substantial portion of the population. The best example of this practice is Thailand, where perennial military takeovers have a different manifestation than in African or Latin American nations. In many smaller European countries the military has taken on a more subdued role since the likelihood of fighting defensive wars to defend their own territory has decreased. This may be one explanation for a recent trend toward female defense ministers who lack military experience. Yet this should not mean they should feel or become irrelevant. They can assert themselves in special emergency situations such as natural weather catastrophes but also as a necessary back-up of police force activity. They are also particularly well equipped to secure borders to neighboring countries and airports, as well as their national radio and television broadcasting facilities, just in case a corrupt government were to become carried away with excessively abusing power to the detriment of a large segment of the population. This readiness for such contingencies may be because its leadership and soldiers have taken an oath that they tend to take more seriously than career politicians do.
A few hours after it was announced that the Austrian government would aim to implement a general requirement for experimental gene therapy through toxic shots, and a call by a leading opposition politician for large demonstrations against such plans the following day in the center of Vienna, there was an interesting report from The Free Thought Project under the following headline:
The following is excerpted from the news story:
“The police and the army refuse to control the health pass in the name of ‘freedom and human dignity.’ They will join a large demonstration against compulsory confinement on November 20, 2021 in Vienna” […]
“Austrian Armed Forces Union (FGÖ) President Manfred Haidinger followed suit and joined in a letter published on 14 November. He intends to “defend fundamental rights and freedoms”. The FGÖ specifies that “everyone” is authorized to demonstrate, even in the event of confinement! The obligation of control imposed by the Minister of the Interior, Karl Nehammer has already been rejected by the police union. In addition, the Union of Austrian Armed Forces announces that they will participate in this great gathering in Vienna.”
The chairman of the Social Democratic Trade Unions (FSG) and the Police Union, Hermann Greylinger said in an interview that the police don’t want to carry out these checks.
Legislators in parliaments propose and pass laws with the tacit presumption that such legislation will ultimately be enforced by the state power apparatus. However, if such legislators or judges should step too far out of bounds by attempting to prevent large demonstrations, as was the case in Berlin a few months ago, or by announcing a determination to implement potentially dangerous and transparently illegal mandates, then it is a duty for those who would be encumbered with the repercussions to announce that they will refuse to play along. This public rejection by the union organization, on behalf of the armed forces and police, appears to have been suppressed by the Austrian state media because it obviously represented a slap in the face of governmental overreach.
In Austria a larger segment of the population has refused to get their recommended shots than in Germany, where the population is more compliant toward authority. It remains to be seen whether the current crew of party leaders who went along with the announced mandates will retain their functions in the wake of planned public resistance and police rejection of these government plans.
• Indicting Instigators
Based on numerous media presentations, no group of individuals is more strongly associated with the ongoing totalitarian campaign to push toxic shots onto the world’s population, to bring on a new era, than Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, and Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum organization, which has hosted annual assemblies in the Swiss mountain resort of Davos in January, attended by influential business people, economists, top politicians, media, and technical functionaries from non-governmental organizations among others. Schwab provoked much controversy and revulsion for the contents of his book Great Reset, published last year. If the self-contradictory pronouncements in the wake of the fabricated virus pandemic made little sense it was because they were merely part of a larger playbook, according to which the population is to be manipulated to accept a new utopian order referred to as Trans-humanism. A reduced population surviving the envisaged transformation is to merge with new technology and thereby extend themselves. Trans-humanism is the fantasy goal and Technocracy is the ideological basis to get there.
At the end of Session #79 in the weekly Corona Investigative Committee meeting Patrick M Wood, author of Technocracy Rising, explained the genesis of this movement in the early 1930s, which for a while was centered at Columbia University. It has merged with the Trilateral Commission, the UN Sustainability initiative, and runs on a parallel track with the “Climate Change” cult. As a few privileged elitists will be able to extend their lives, everybody else is regarded as cattle. This ideological movement is indeed inhumane, and everybody is supposed to accept this. In this regard one is reminded of the book Animal Farm by George Orwell, or just the most basic Talmudic principles. Wood provides a cohesive explanation detailing how various observed political phenomena, that do not fall within a binary left / right paradigm, fit together within the overarching scheme of Technocracy. Klaus Schwab takes on the role of cult leader, or guru, and attendees of the World Economic Forum are the devotees.
As has been the case with other cultist leaders, affluent people tend to be attracted to the exclusive movement and donate much of their wealth to spread the message. As a totalitarian ideology Technocracy stipulates that the entire world population must become injected with one of the toxic substances being foisted onto the public. Many of the world’s current leaders, such as Merkel, Macron, Newsom, Blair, and many more, began their political careers in the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leaders program many years ago and are now collectively well networked. They have long since become activist devotees serving the Technocracy agenda.
It is not hard to surmise that Schwab is regarded as a most odious individual. A couple of years ago his request to receive regular or at least honorary Swiss citizenship was rejected, even though he has purportedly lived there for six decades from the time he studied at the university in Zurich. (By contrast, pop singer Tina Turner got full Swiss citizenship a few years ago without apparent difficulty.) While at Harvard University, he became a protégée of Henry Kissinger. Under his tutelage Schwab began his career by organizing a meeting for executives. Subsequent gatherings eventually became the annual World Economic Forum.
There are plenty of industry groups that have lost out to both the “Climate Change” and “Corona Pandemic” constructs, including oil and gas, airlines, aviation, automobiles, hotels, casinos, cruise ships, restaurants, and entertainment, among others. The executives from these organizations are not likely to be Schwab devotees and would presumably be happy to see his influence neutralized. In Switzerland, where high-end tourism still plays an important economic role, business has gone down significantly due to measures that restrict personal contacts. It is unclear why all these sectors have not seemed to have been able to organize a coordinated response to the pernicious agenda of Schwab and his cohorts.
Just a few weeks ago, in mid-November, rumors were circulating that Schwab had been arrested at his residence in Cologny in the canton of Geneva, due to a criminal complaint, and was charged with fraud for his involvement in the Covid scandal. The initial report was not officially corroborated, and multiple fact-checker sites then claimed it was a case of false news. The denials were very specific, which left open the possibility that perhaps he may have been subject to questioning in an investigation. However, given that crimes against humanity are serious transgressions, so also are acts that aid and abet such major crimes. In view of Schwab’s central position in this criminal enterprise in association with Nuremberg Code violations, it is hard to conceive that there would not be sufficient evidence upon which to indict Schwab as a titular coordinator or crime boss.
Though the annual meeting early this year was cancelled, as was a planned event in Singapore, the World Economic Forum web site shows the date for its next meeting to be between 17-22 January in 2022, only a few weeks away. The theme is to be “Working Together, Restoring Trust”, which at least tacitly acknowledges a loss of trust. The quickest way to end the loss of trust of the thinking and critical people toward their governments would be to arrest and charge Schwab and his collaborators at the upcoming Davos meeting under criminal charges that would lead to prosecutions. This would be an easy operation since there are only two access roads to the town, from the north and south, when the Flüela Pass, which connects to the Engadin Valley, is closed for the winter. Last Sunday Swiss citizens held a referendum on the issue of a tightened Covid policy proposal, including required documentation, which a majority of voters endorsed. Based on the election results, a majority of voters in many rural regions were opposed. People who join the police forces, which would execute a mass arrest order, tend to come from these more conservative regions, especially in the eastern and central parts of the country.
More likely than such a mass arrest would be for an international tribunal to be held, to collect evidence, in a similar manner that the Corona Investigative Committee has been engaging in fact-finding sessions for over a year. As more people understand the direct link between ongoing totalitarian offensives by numerous governments and the influence that Schwab and his associates have over these totalitarian public officials, it will become increasingly difficult for the remaining people of good conscience who are in a position to act, to do a favor for humanity and help end this new war.
To summarize, everybody concerned about the future of humanity can play at least a minor role in spreading the message of resistance to increase public awareness about what is unfolding and what ought to be done in response.
Featured Video
AIDS The Unheard Voices
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The Real Story of How Israel Was Created [Stolen]
By ALISON WEIR | October 11, 2011
To better understand the Palestinian bid for membership in the United Nations, it is important to understand the original 1947 UN action on Israel-Palestine.
The common representation of Israel’s birth is that the UN created Israel, that the world was in favor of this move, and that the US governmental establishment supported it. All these assumptions are demonstrably incorrect.
In reality, while the UN General Assembly recommended the creation of a Jewish state in part of Palestine, that recommendation was non-binding and never implemented by the Security Council.
Second, the General Assembly passed that recommendation only after Israel proponents threatened and bribed numerous countries in order to gain a required two-thirds of votes.
Third, the US administration supported the recommendation out of domestic electoral considerations, and took this position over the strenuous objections of the State Department, the CIA, and the Pentagon.
The passage of the General Assembly recommendation sparked increased violence in the region. Over the following months the armed wing of the pro-Israel movement, which had long been preparing for war, perpetrated a series of massacres and expulsions throughout Palestine, implementing a plan to clear the way for a majority-Jewish state.
It was this armed aggression, and the ethnic cleansing of at least three-quarters of a million indigenous Palestinians, that created the Jewish state on land that had been 95 per cent non-Jewish prior to Zionist immigration and that even after years of immigration remained 70 per cent non-Jewish. And despite the shallow patina of legality its partisans extracted from the General Assembly, Israel was born over the opposition of American experts and of governments around the world, who opposed it on both pragmatic and moral grounds.
Let us look at the specifics. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- The American Academy of Pediatrics Is Back at It Again…
- Flock cameras destroyed as anti-surveillance protests spread
- BBC cancelled interview on Israel’s killing of Hind Rajab
- All Anti-Iranian US Sanctions Failed – Iran’s Foreign Minister
- Israeli Occupation Kills Father of Palestinian Martyr in Jenin, Intensifies West Bank Oppressive Raids
- AIDS The Unheard Voices
- Russian Rail Corridor to Indian Ocean Could Outpace Suez Canal, Pakistani Senator Says
- China rejects US call to sever economic ties with Iran, says sanctions will not resolve war
- Israel Lies again about Hind Rajab Killing in a Public Relations Whitewash Maneuver
- Israel’s war minister threatens Turkey as Apache squadron moves north
- If Americans Knew
- Israeli Media: The IDF’s Gaza Investigations Aren’t Professionalism – They’re Political Theater (MSF agrees)
- BBC cancelled interview on Israel’s killing of Hind Rajab
- Israel’s brutal blockade puts 94% of Gazans in need of shelter – Daily Update
- Tucker Carlson says Israel pushed him to report false allegations against Hunter Biden
- Flashback: Israel killed Israelis, confirms 7 October documentary
- Has Trump turned the tables on Iran – or is another round of war coming?
- The day Israel murdered World Central Kitchen staff
- Is Hamas Really the reason there is no Mideast Peace?
- West Bank: Israel-Backed Settler Violence Drives Displacement
- Israel allows Jewish ritual at Al-Aqsa Mosque in unprecedented violation of status quo
- No Tricks Zone
- New Research Shows Soil Respiration And Temperature Drive CO2 Change, Not Humans
- Comparison Of Two German Weather Forecasts: From 25 Years Ago And From Today
- Veteran Swiss Meteorologist On Germany’s Recent Heat Wave: “You’re A Really Crazy Country”
- New Research Documents The Lack Of Any Net Decline In GBR Coral Cover Since The 1980s
- New Study Details Massive Recent Sea Ice Expansion And Cooling In The Greenland Sea
- Germany Also Saw Extreme Drought Conditions In The 1940s…Worse Than Today
- Another New Study Links Modern And Past Global Warming To Natural Changes In Cloud Cover, Not CO2
- Uncertainty In Estimating Solar Forcing Across The Arctic Is 100-350x Larger Than CO2’s Alleged Climate Impact
- Farce Of The Week: Germany’s Weather Site Donnerwetter.de Attempts To Measure The Rhine River’s Temperature!
- Analysis: Robert Koch Institute’s Heat Death Model Is “A Joke”… Deaths “Assumed” To Be Due To Heat
Aletho News 