• COPIED
    THIS IS AN AMAZING AND BREATHTAKING PIECE OF ARTISTRY

    WHOEVER WROTE THIS
    SHOULD BE GIVEN AN
    AWARD!!!

    I AM A WOMAN!!!

    So what?
    I get into an argument
    with a man, he slaps me,
    I feel the pain, yet they
    tell me I provoked him. I
    should have been quiet, I
    should have been patient.
    I should apologize to him.

    I get into an argument
    with a man, I slap him,
    they tell me I have no
    respect, no home
    training. I should have
    been quiet, I should have
    been patient. I should
    apologize to him.
    Because I am a woman, I
    don't have a right to be
    angry. So, the degree of
    my innocence is directly
    proportional to the
    degree of my silence in
    the face of oppression
    and brutality.....

    Because I am a woman,
    my husband cheats on
    me, I am told to tolerate it
    to save my marriage. The
    barbaric and stupid
    excuse is that ''it is in
    their nature to cheat, I
    should slim down, dress
    better, cook better, pray
    harder and be more
    pleasant to him"

    I cheat, and I am called a
    whore, I have committed
    an abomination, I have no
    right to look elsewhere
    for the love and
    emotional support I lack
    at home, I am an
    irresponsible mother.

    So I am sent packing,
    from the home we both
    built, with all my earthly
    possessions stuffed into
    a tiny box on my head. I
    am henceforth forbidden
    from seeing my two older
    children, I'm lucky to be
    allowed to go with my
    little one still suckling on
    my left breast. Three
    years later, the little one
    is tagged a bastard. Now,
    my new name is "after-
    three", because I am a
    woman.

    He is 28 and runs a
    company. He's tagged
    wonderful, hardworking,
    focused, career oriented,
    successful at a very
    young age.

    I am 28 and I run a
    company "Hmmmm....
    she is not even married,
    unserious, can not order
    her priorities right, a
    hustler, loves money, let
    her go and get a husband
    oh"
    And I wonder if being
    successful has anything
    to do with a person's
    gender.

    Because I am a woman,
    I am not allowed to have
    wits or be a prodigy, I
    cannot be financially
    buoyant, professionally
    successful or be treated
    with respect without a
    man beside me.

    Then I am tagged a
    generous leg opener, "a
    runs girl". They never see
    the possibility that I
    actually had to go
    through ups and downs
    to get to where I am,
    because I am a woman.

    A man looses his wife to
    death and remarries a
    year after, he did the right
    thing, he's being praised
    and congratulated for
    moving on, after all life is
    for the living.

    A woman looses her
    husband to death and
    remarries after 4yrs,
    "aaah! so early? Are u
    sure she wasn't sleeping
    with that man even when
    her husband was alive?
    That was why she killed
    her husband. She's a
    witch! Because she's a
    woman.

    Because I am a woman,
    this post will be
    considered controversial,
    and everyone will try to
    correct me. But don't
    forget, that I am a woman
    and it does not make me
    less human!!!

    Share to respect some
    woman and Tell your
    woman that you love
    her
    : *Who is a
    woman?????*
    When she is quiet,
    millions of things are
    running through her
    mind. When she stares at
    you, she is wondering
    why she loves you so
    much in spite of being
    taken for granted. When
    she says I will stand by
    you, she will stand by you
    like a solid rock. Never
    hurt her or take her for
    granted. A very heart
    touching message by a
    woman. Someone asked
    her, Are you a working
    woman or a housewife?
    She replied: Yes, I am a
    full-time working
    housewife. I work 24
    hours a day. I'm a Mum.
    I'm a Wife. I'm a
    Daughter. I'm a Daughter-
    in-law. I'm an Alarm
    clock. I'm a Cook. I'm a
    Maid. I'm a Teacher. I'm a
    Waitress. I'm a Nanny.
    I'm a Nurse. I'm a
    Handywoman. I'm a
    Security officer. I'm a
    Counsellor. I'm a
    Comforter. I don't get
    holidays. I don't get sick
    leave. I don't get day off. I
    work through day and
    night. I'm on call all hours
    and get paid with a
    sentence. "What Do U Do
    All Day??" This Is
    Dedicated to all
    women*** A Woman has
    the most unique
    character like salt! Her
    presence is never
    remembered, but her
    absence makes all the
    things tasteless. Pass it
    to all the lovely ladies...Ur
    Mother. Ur Wife. Ur
    daughter. Ur sister & Ur
    friend.
    Forward to every woman
    to make her smile and to
    every man to make him
    realize a woman's worth.
    COPIED THIS IS AN AMAZING AND BREATHTAKING PIECE OF ARTISTRY 👍💞💗💯👇 👇 WHOEVER WROTE THIS SHOULD BE GIVEN AN AWARD!!! I AM A WOMAN!!! So what? I get into an argument with a man, he slaps me, I feel the pain, yet they tell me I provoked him. I should have been quiet, I should have been patient. I should apologize to him. I get into an argument with a man, I slap him, they tell me I have no respect, no home training. I should have been quiet, I should have been patient. I should apologize to him. Because I am a woman, I don't have a right to be angry. So, the degree of my innocence is directly proportional to the degree of my silence in the face of oppression and brutality..... Because I am a woman, my husband cheats on me, I am told to tolerate it to save my marriage. The barbaric and stupid excuse is that ''it is in their nature to cheat, I should slim down, dress better, cook better, pray harder and be more pleasant to him" I cheat, and I am called a whore, I have committed an abomination, I have no right to look elsewhere for the love and emotional support I lack at home, I am an irresponsible mother. So I am sent packing, from the home we both built, with all my earthly possessions stuffed into a tiny box on my head. I am henceforth forbidden from seeing my two older children, I'm lucky to be allowed to go with my little one still suckling on my left breast. Three years later, the little one is tagged a bastard. Now, my new name is "after- three", because I am a woman. He is 28 and runs a company. He's tagged wonderful, hardworking, focused, career oriented, successful at a very young age. I am 28 and I run a company "Hmmmm.... she is not even married, unserious, can not order her priorities right, a hustler, loves money, let her go and get a husband oh" And I wonder if being successful has anything to do with a person's gender. Because I am a woman, I am not allowed to have wits or be a prodigy, I cannot be financially buoyant, professionally successful or be treated with respect without a man beside me. Then I am tagged a generous leg opener, "a runs girl". They never see the possibility that I actually had to go through ups and downs to get to where I am, because I am a woman. A man looses his wife to death and remarries a year after, he did the right thing, he's being praised and congratulated for moving on, after all life is for the living. A woman looses her husband to death and remarries after 4yrs, "aaah! so early? Are u sure she wasn't sleeping with that man even when her husband was alive? That was why she killed her husband. She's a witch! Because she's a woman. Because I am a woman, this post will be considered controversial, and everyone will try to correct me. But don't forget, that I am a woman and it does not make me less human!!! Share to respect some woman and Tell your woman that you love her : *Who is a woman?????* When she is quiet, millions of things are running through her mind. When she stares at you, she is wondering why she loves you so much in spite of being taken for granted. When she says I will stand by you, she will stand by you like a solid rock. Never hurt her or take her for granted. A very heart touching message by a woman. Someone asked her, Are you a working woman or a housewife? She replied: Yes, I am a full-time working housewife. I work 24 hours a day. I'm a Mum. I'm a Wife. I'm a Daughter. I'm a Daughter- in-law. I'm an Alarm clock. I'm a Cook. I'm a Maid. I'm a Teacher. I'm a Waitress. I'm a Nanny. I'm a Nurse. I'm a Handywoman. I'm a Security officer. I'm a Counsellor. I'm a Comforter. I don't get holidays. I don't get sick leave. I don't get day off. I work through day and night. I'm on call all hours and get paid with a sentence. "What Do U Do All Day??" This Is Dedicated to all women*** A Woman has the most unique character like salt! Her presence is never remembered, but her absence makes all the things tasteless. Pass it to all the lovely ladies...Ur Mother. Ur Wife. Ur daughter. Ur sister & Ur friend. Forward to every woman to make her smile and to every man to make him realize a woman's worth.
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos 1045 Visualizações
  • The Pandemic Excuse for a Corporatist Coup
    Jeffrey A. Tucker
    We’ve just come across a document hosted by the Department of Homeland Security, posted March 2023, but written in 2007, that amounts to a full-blown corporatist imposition on the US, abolishing anything remotely resembling the Bill of Rights and Constitutional law. It is right there in plain sight for anyone curious enough to dig.

    There is nothing in it that you haven’t already experienced with lockdowns. What makes it interesting are the participants in the forging of the plan, which is pretty much the whole of corporate America as it stood in 2007. It was a George W. Bush initiative. The conclusions are startling.

    “Quarantine is a legally enforceable declaration that a government body may institute over individuals potentially exposed to a disease, but who are not symptomatic. If enacted, Federal quarantine laws will be coordinated between CDC and State and local public health officials, and, if necessary, law enforcement personnel…The government may also enact travel restrictions to limit the movement of people and products between geographic areas in an effort to limit disease transmission and spread. Authorities are currently reviewing possible plans to curtail international travel upon a pandemic’s emergence overseas.

    “Limiting public assembly opportunities also helps limit the spread of disease. Concert halls, movie theaters, sports arenas, shopping malls, and other large public gathering places might close indefinitely during a pandemic—whether because of voluntary closures or government-imposed closures. Similarly, officials may close schools and non-essential businesses during pandemic waves in an effort to significantly slow disease transmission rates. These strategies aim to prevent the close interaction of individuals, the primary conduit of spreading the influenza virus. Even taking steps such as limiting person-to-person interactions within a distance of three feet or avoiding instances of casual close contact, such as shaking hands, will help limit disease spread.”

    There we have it: the pandemic plans. They once seemed abstract. In 2020, they became very real. Your rights were deleted. No more freedom even to have house guests. In those days, the rule was to enforce only three feet of distance rather than six feet of distance, neither of which had any basis in science. Indeed, the actual scientific literature even at that time recommended against any physical interventions designed to limit the spread of respiratory viruses. They were known not to work. The entire profession of public health accepted that.

    Therefore, for many years before lockdowns wrecked economic functioning, there had been two parallel tracks in operation, one intellectual/academic and one imposed by state/corporate managers. They had nothing to do with each other. This situation persisted for the better part of 15 years. Suddenly in 2020, there was a reckoning, and the state/corporate managers won it. Seemingly out of nowhere, liberty as we have long known it was gone.

    Back in 2005, I first came across a Bush administration scheme, an early draft of the above, that would have ended freedom as we know it. It was a scheme for combating the bird flu, which officials back then imagined would involve universal quarantines, business and event closures, travel restrictions, and more.

    I wrote: “Even if the flu does come, and taxpayers have coughed up, the government will surely have a ball imposing travel restrictions, shutting down schools and businesses, quarantining cities, and banning public gatherings…It is a serious matter when the government purports to plan to abolish all liberty and nationalize all economic life and put every business under the control of the military, especially in the name of a bug that seems largely restricted to the bird population. Perhaps we should pay more attention. Perhaps such plans for the total state ought to even ruffle our feathers a bit.”

    For years I wrote about this topic, trying to get others interested. It was all there in black and white. At the drop of a hat, under the guise of a pandemic that only state managers can declare, real or drummed up, freedom itself could be abolished. These plans were never legislated, debated, or publicly discussed. They were simply posted as the result of various consultations with experts, who worked out their totalitarian fantasies as if scripting a Hollywood film.

    The 2007 blueprint is more explicit than anything I’ve seen. It comes from the National Infrastructure Advisory Council, which “includes executive leaders from the private sector and state/local government who advise the White House on how to reduce physical and cyber risks and improve the security and resilience of the nation’s critical infrastructure sectors. The NIAC is administered on behalf of the President in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act under the authority of the Secretary of the US Department of Homeland Security.”

    And who sat on this committee in 2007 that decided that governments “may close schools and non-essential businesses”? Let us see.

    Mr. Edmund G. Archuleta, General Manager, El Paso Water Utilities
    Mr. Alfred R. Berkeley III, Chairman and CEO, Pipeline Trading Group, LLC, and former President and Vice Chairman of NASDAQ
    Chief Rebecca F. Denlinger, Fire Chief, Cobb County (Ga.) Fire and Emergency Services
    Chief Gilbert G. Gallegos, Police Chief (ret.), City of Albuquerque, N.M. Police Department
    Ms. Martha H. Marsh, President and CEO, Stanford Hospital and Clinics
    Mr. James B. Nicholson, President and CEO, PVS Chemical, Inc.
    Mr. Erle A. Nye, Chairman Emeritus, TXU Corp., NIAC Chairman
    Mr. Bruce A. Rohde, Chairman and CEO Emeritus, ConAgra Foods, Inc.
    Mr. John W. Thompson, Chairman and CEO, Symantec Corporation
    Mr. Brent Baglien, ConAgra Foods, Inc.
    Mr. David Barron, Bell South
    Mr. Dan Bart, TIA
    Mr. Scott Blanchette, Healthways
    Ms. Donna Burns, Georgia Emergency Management Agency
    Mr. Rob Clyde, Symantec Corporation
    Mr. Scott Culp, Microsoft
    Mr. Clay Detlefsen, International Dairy Foods Association
    Mr. Dave Engaldo, The Options Clearing Corporation
    Ms. Courtenay Enright, Symantec Corporation
    Mr. Gary Gardner, American Gas Association
    Mr. Bob Garfield, American Frozen Foods Institute
    Ms. Joan Gehrke, PVS Chemical, Inc.
    Ms. Sarah Gordon, Symantec
    Mr. Mike Hickey, Verizon
    Mr. Ron Hicks, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
    Mr. George Hender, The Options Clearing Corporation
    Mr. James Hunter, City of Albuquerque, NM Emergency Management
    Mr. Stan Johnson, North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC)
    Mr. David Jones, El Paso Corporation
    Inspector Jay Kopstein, Operations Division, New York City Police Department (NYPD)
    Ms. Tiffany Jones, Symantec Corporation
    Mr. Bruce Larson, American Water
    Mr. Charlie Lathram, Business Executives for National Security (BENS)/BellSouth
    Mr. Turner Madden, Madden & Patton
    Chief Mary Beth Michos, Prince William County (Va.) Fire and Rescue
    Mr. Bill Muston, TXU Corp.
    Mr. Vijay Nilekani, Nuclear Energy Institute
    Mr. Phil Reitinger, Microsoft
    Mr. Rob Rolfsen, Cisco Systems, Inc.
    Mr. Tim Roxey, Constellation
    Ms. Charyl Sarber, Symantec
    Mr. Lyman Shaffer, Pacific Gas and Electric,
    Ms. Diane VanDeHei, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA)
    Ms. Susan Vismor, Mellon Financial Corporation
    Mr. Ken Watson, Cisco Systems, Inc.
    Mr. Greg Wells, Southwest Airlines
    Mr. Gino Zucca, Cisco Systems, Inc.
    Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Resources
    Dr. Bruce Gellin, Rockefeller Foundation
    Dr. Mary Mazanec
    Dr. Stuart Nightingale, CDC
    Ms. Julie Schafer
    Dr. Ben Schwartz, CDC
    Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Resources
    Mr. James Caverly, Director, Infrastructure Partnerships Division
    Ms. Nancy Wong, NIAC Designated Federal Officer (DFO)
    Ms. Jenny Menna, NIAC Designated Federal Officer (DFO)
    Dr. Til Jolly
    Mr. Jon MacLaren
    Ms. Laverne Madison
    Ms. Kathie McCracken
    Mr. Bucky Owens
    Mr. Dale Brown, Contractor
    Mr. John Dragseth, IP attorney, Contractor
    Mr. Jeff Green, Contractor
    Mr. Tim McCabe, Contractor
    Mr. William B. Anderson, ITS America
    Mr. Michael Arceneaux, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA)
    Mr. Chad Callaghan, Marriott Corporation
    Mr. Ted Cromwell, American Chemistry Council (ACC)
    Ms. Jeanne Dumas, American Trucking Association (ATA)
    Ms. Joan Harris, US Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary
    Mr. Greg Hull, American Public Transportation Association
    Mr. Joe LaRocca, National Retail Federation
    Mr. Jack McKlveen, United Parcel Service (UPS)
    Ms. Beth Montgomery, Wal-Mart
    Dr. J. Patrick O’Neal, Georgia Office of EMS/Trauma/EP
    Mr. Roger Platt, The Real Estate Roundtable
    Mr. Martin Rojas, American Trucking Association (ATA)
    Mr. Timothy Sargent, Senior Chief, Economic Analysis and Forecasting Division, Economic and Fiscal Policy Branch, Finance Canada
    In other words, big everything: food, energy, retail, computers, water, and you name it. It’s a corporatist dream team.

    Consider ConAgra itself. What is that? It is Banquet, Chef Boyardee, Healthy Choice, Orville Redenbacher’s, Reddi-Wip, Slim Jim, Hunt’s Peter Pan Egg Beaters, Hebrew National, Marie Callender’s, P.F. Chang’s, Ranch Style Beans, Ro*Tel, Wolf Brand Chili, Angie’s, Duke’s, Gardein, Frontera, Bertolli, among many other seemingly independent brands that are all actually one company.

    Now, ask yourself: why might all these companies favor a plan for lockdowns? Why might WalMart, for example? It stands to reason. Lockdowns are a massive interference with competitive capitalism. They provide the best possible subsidy to big business while shutting down independent small businesses and putting them at a huge disadvantage once the opening up happens.

    In other words, it is an industrial racket, very much akin to interwar-style fascism, a corporatist combination of big business and big government. Throw pharma into the mix and you see exactly what came to pass in 2020, which amounted to the largest transfer of wealth from small and medium-sized business plus the middle class to wealthy industrialists in the history of humanity.

    The document is open even about managing information flows: “The public and private sectors should align their communications, exercises, investments, and support activities absolutely with both the plan and priorities during a pandemic influenza event. Continue data gathering, analysis, reporting, and open review.”

    There is nothing in any of this that fits with any Western tradition of law and liberty. Nothing. It was never approved by any democratic means. It was never part of any political campaign. It has never been the subject of any serious media examination. No think tank has ever pushed back on such plans in any systematic way.

    The last serious attempt to debunk this whole apparatus was from D.H. Henderson in 2006. His two co-authors on that paper eventually came around to going along with lockdowns of 2020. Henderson died in 2016. One of the co-authors of the original article told me that if Dr. Henderson had been around, instead of Dr. Fauci, the lockdowns would never have taken place.

    Here we are four years following the deployment of this lockdown machinery, and we are witness to what it destroys. It would be nice to say that the entire apparatus and theory behind it have been fully discredited.

    But that is not correct. All the plans are still in place. There have been no changes in federal law. Not one effort has been made to dismantle the corporatist/biosecurity planning state that made all this possible. Every bit of it is in place for the next go-around.

    Much of the authority for this whole coup traces to the Public Health Services Act of 1944, which was passed in wartime. For the first time in US history, it gave the federal government the power to quarantine. Even when the Biden administration was looking for some basis to justify its transportation mask mandate, it fell back to this one piece of legislation.

    If anyone really wants to get to the root of this problem, there are decisive steps that need to be taken. The indemnification of pharma from liability for harm needs to be repealed. The court precedent of forced shots in Jacobson needs to be overthrown. But even more fundamentally, the quarantine power itself has to go, and that means the full repeal of the Public Health Services Act of 1944. That is the root of the problem. Freedom will not be safe until it is uprooted.

    As it stands right now, everything that unfolded in 2020 and 2021 can happen again. Indeed, the plans are in place for exactly that.

    Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
    For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.

    Author

    Jeffrey Tucker is Founder, Author, and President at Brownstone Institute. He is also Senior Economics Columnist for Epoch Times, author of 10 books, including Life After Lockdown, and many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press. He speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture.

    View all posts

    https://brownstone.org/articles/the-pandemic-excuse-for-a-corporatist-coup/
    The Pandemic Excuse for a Corporatist Coup Jeffrey A. Tucker We’ve just come across a document hosted by the Department of Homeland Security, posted March 2023, but written in 2007, that amounts to a full-blown corporatist imposition on the US, abolishing anything remotely resembling the Bill of Rights and Constitutional law. It is right there in plain sight for anyone curious enough to dig. There is nothing in it that you haven’t already experienced with lockdowns. What makes it interesting are the participants in the forging of the plan, which is pretty much the whole of corporate America as it stood in 2007. It was a George W. Bush initiative. The conclusions are startling. “Quarantine is a legally enforceable declaration that a government body may institute over individuals potentially exposed to a disease, but who are not symptomatic. If enacted, Federal quarantine laws will be coordinated between CDC and State and local public health officials, and, if necessary, law enforcement personnel…The government may also enact travel restrictions to limit the movement of people and products between geographic areas in an effort to limit disease transmission and spread. Authorities are currently reviewing possible plans to curtail international travel upon a pandemic’s emergence overseas. “Limiting public assembly opportunities also helps limit the spread of disease. Concert halls, movie theaters, sports arenas, shopping malls, and other large public gathering places might close indefinitely during a pandemic—whether because of voluntary closures or government-imposed closures. Similarly, officials may close schools and non-essential businesses during pandemic waves in an effort to significantly slow disease transmission rates. These strategies aim to prevent the close interaction of individuals, the primary conduit of spreading the influenza virus. Even taking steps such as limiting person-to-person interactions within a distance of three feet or avoiding instances of casual close contact, such as shaking hands, will help limit disease spread.” There we have it: the pandemic plans. They once seemed abstract. In 2020, they became very real. Your rights were deleted. No more freedom even to have house guests. In those days, the rule was to enforce only three feet of distance rather than six feet of distance, neither of which had any basis in science. Indeed, the actual scientific literature even at that time recommended against any physical interventions designed to limit the spread of respiratory viruses. They were known not to work. The entire profession of public health accepted that. Therefore, for many years before lockdowns wrecked economic functioning, there had been two parallel tracks in operation, one intellectual/academic and one imposed by state/corporate managers. They had nothing to do with each other. This situation persisted for the better part of 15 years. Suddenly in 2020, there was a reckoning, and the state/corporate managers won it. Seemingly out of nowhere, liberty as we have long known it was gone. Back in 2005, I first came across a Bush administration scheme, an early draft of the above, that would have ended freedom as we know it. It was a scheme for combating the bird flu, which officials back then imagined would involve universal quarantines, business and event closures, travel restrictions, and more. I wrote: “Even if the flu does come, and taxpayers have coughed up, the government will surely have a ball imposing travel restrictions, shutting down schools and businesses, quarantining cities, and banning public gatherings…It is a serious matter when the government purports to plan to abolish all liberty and nationalize all economic life and put every business under the control of the military, especially in the name of a bug that seems largely restricted to the bird population. Perhaps we should pay more attention. Perhaps such plans for the total state ought to even ruffle our feathers a bit.” For years I wrote about this topic, trying to get others interested. It was all there in black and white. At the drop of a hat, under the guise of a pandemic that only state managers can declare, real or drummed up, freedom itself could be abolished. These plans were never legislated, debated, or publicly discussed. They were simply posted as the result of various consultations with experts, who worked out their totalitarian fantasies as if scripting a Hollywood film. The 2007 blueprint is more explicit than anything I’ve seen. It comes from the National Infrastructure Advisory Council, which “includes executive leaders from the private sector and state/local government who advise the White House on how to reduce physical and cyber risks and improve the security and resilience of the nation’s critical infrastructure sectors. The NIAC is administered on behalf of the President in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act under the authority of the Secretary of the US Department of Homeland Security.” And who sat on this committee in 2007 that decided that governments “may close schools and non-essential businesses”? Let us see. Mr. Edmund G. Archuleta, General Manager, El Paso Water Utilities Mr. Alfred R. Berkeley III, Chairman and CEO, Pipeline Trading Group, LLC, and former President and Vice Chairman of NASDAQ Chief Rebecca F. Denlinger, Fire Chief, Cobb County (Ga.) Fire and Emergency Services Chief Gilbert G. Gallegos, Police Chief (ret.), City of Albuquerque, N.M. Police Department Ms. Martha H. Marsh, President and CEO, Stanford Hospital and Clinics Mr. James B. Nicholson, President and CEO, PVS Chemical, Inc. Mr. Erle A. Nye, Chairman Emeritus, TXU Corp., NIAC Chairman Mr. Bruce A. Rohde, Chairman and CEO Emeritus, ConAgra Foods, Inc. Mr. John W. Thompson, Chairman and CEO, Symantec Corporation Mr. Brent Baglien, ConAgra Foods, Inc. Mr. David Barron, Bell South Mr. Dan Bart, TIA Mr. Scott Blanchette, Healthways Ms. Donna Burns, Georgia Emergency Management Agency Mr. Rob Clyde, Symantec Corporation Mr. Scott Culp, Microsoft Mr. Clay Detlefsen, International Dairy Foods Association Mr. Dave Engaldo, The Options Clearing Corporation Ms. Courtenay Enright, Symantec Corporation Mr. Gary Gardner, American Gas Association Mr. Bob Garfield, American Frozen Foods Institute Ms. Joan Gehrke, PVS Chemical, Inc. Ms. Sarah Gordon, Symantec Mr. Mike Hickey, Verizon Mr. Ron Hicks, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation Mr. George Hender, The Options Clearing Corporation Mr. James Hunter, City of Albuquerque, NM Emergency Management Mr. Stan Johnson, North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) Mr. David Jones, El Paso Corporation Inspector Jay Kopstein, Operations Division, New York City Police Department (NYPD) Ms. Tiffany Jones, Symantec Corporation Mr. Bruce Larson, American Water Mr. Charlie Lathram, Business Executives for National Security (BENS)/BellSouth Mr. Turner Madden, Madden & Patton Chief Mary Beth Michos, Prince William County (Va.) Fire and Rescue Mr. Bill Muston, TXU Corp. Mr. Vijay Nilekani, Nuclear Energy Institute Mr. Phil Reitinger, Microsoft Mr. Rob Rolfsen, Cisco Systems, Inc. Mr. Tim Roxey, Constellation Ms. Charyl Sarber, Symantec Mr. Lyman Shaffer, Pacific Gas and Electric, Ms. Diane VanDeHei, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) Ms. Susan Vismor, Mellon Financial Corporation Mr. Ken Watson, Cisco Systems, Inc. Mr. Greg Wells, Southwest Airlines Mr. Gino Zucca, Cisco Systems, Inc. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Resources Dr. Bruce Gellin, Rockefeller Foundation Dr. Mary Mazanec Dr. Stuart Nightingale, CDC Ms. Julie Schafer Dr. Ben Schwartz, CDC Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Resources Mr. James Caverly, Director, Infrastructure Partnerships Division Ms. Nancy Wong, NIAC Designated Federal Officer (DFO) Ms. Jenny Menna, NIAC Designated Federal Officer (DFO) Dr. Til Jolly Mr. Jon MacLaren Ms. Laverne Madison Ms. Kathie McCracken Mr. Bucky Owens Mr. Dale Brown, Contractor Mr. John Dragseth, IP attorney, Contractor Mr. Jeff Green, Contractor Mr. Tim McCabe, Contractor Mr. William B. Anderson, ITS America Mr. Michael Arceneaux, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) Mr. Chad Callaghan, Marriott Corporation Mr. Ted Cromwell, American Chemistry Council (ACC) Ms. Jeanne Dumas, American Trucking Association (ATA) Ms. Joan Harris, US Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary Mr. Greg Hull, American Public Transportation Association Mr. Joe LaRocca, National Retail Federation Mr. Jack McKlveen, United Parcel Service (UPS) Ms. Beth Montgomery, Wal-Mart Dr. J. Patrick O’Neal, Georgia Office of EMS/Trauma/EP Mr. Roger Platt, The Real Estate Roundtable Mr. Martin Rojas, American Trucking Association (ATA) Mr. Timothy Sargent, Senior Chief, Economic Analysis and Forecasting Division, Economic and Fiscal Policy Branch, Finance Canada In other words, big everything: food, energy, retail, computers, water, and you name it. It’s a corporatist dream team. Consider ConAgra itself. What is that? It is Banquet, Chef Boyardee, Healthy Choice, Orville Redenbacher’s, Reddi-Wip, Slim Jim, Hunt’s Peter Pan Egg Beaters, Hebrew National, Marie Callender’s, P.F. Chang’s, Ranch Style Beans, Ro*Tel, Wolf Brand Chili, Angie’s, Duke’s, Gardein, Frontera, Bertolli, among many other seemingly independent brands that are all actually one company. Now, ask yourself: why might all these companies favor a plan for lockdowns? Why might WalMart, for example? It stands to reason. Lockdowns are a massive interference with competitive capitalism. They provide the best possible subsidy to big business while shutting down independent small businesses and putting them at a huge disadvantage once the opening up happens. In other words, it is an industrial racket, very much akin to interwar-style fascism, a corporatist combination of big business and big government. Throw pharma into the mix and you see exactly what came to pass in 2020, which amounted to the largest transfer of wealth from small and medium-sized business plus the middle class to wealthy industrialists in the history of humanity. The document is open even about managing information flows: “The public and private sectors should align their communications, exercises, investments, and support activities absolutely with both the plan and priorities during a pandemic influenza event. Continue data gathering, analysis, reporting, and open review.” There is nothing in any of this that fits with any Western tradition of law and liberty. Nothing. It was never approved by any democratic means. It was never part of any political campaign. It has never been the subject of any serious media examination. No think tank has ever pushed back on such plans in any systematic way. The last serious attempt to debunk this whole apparatus was from D.H. Henderson in 2006. His two co-authors on that paper eventually came around to going along with lockdowns of 2020. Henderson died in 2016. One of the co-authors of the original article told me that if Dr. Henderson had been around, instead of Dr. Fauci, the lockdowns would never have taken place. Here we are four years following the deployment of this lockdown machinery, and we are witness to what it destroys. It would be nice to say that the entire apparatus and theory behind it have been fully discredited. But that is not correct. All the plans are still in place. There have been no changes in federal law. Not one effort has been made to dismantle the corporatist/biosecurity planning state that made all this possible. Every bit of it is in place for the next go-around. Much of the authority for this whole coup traces to the Public Health Services Act of 1944, which was passed in wartime. For the first time in US history, it gave the federal government the power to quarantine. Even when the Biden administration was looking for some basis to justify its transportation mask mandate, it fell back to this one piece of legislation. If anyone really wants to get to the root of this problem, there are decisive steps that need to be taken. The indemnification of pharma from liability for harm needs to be repealed. The court precedent of forced shots in Jacobson needs to be overthrown. But even more fundamentally, the quarantine power itself has to go, and that means the full repeal of the Public Health Services Act of 1944. That is the root of the problem. Freedom will not be safe until it is uprooted. As it stands right now, everything that unfolded in 2020 and 2021 can happen again. Indeed, the plans are in place for exactly that. Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author. Author Jeffrey Tucker is Founder, Author, and President at Brownstone Institute. He is also Senior Economics Columnist for Epoch Times, author of 10 books, including Life After Lockdown, and many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press. He speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture. View all posts https://brownstone.org/articles/the-pandemic-excuse-for-a-corporatist-coup/
    BROWNSTONE.ORG
    The Pandemic Excuse for a Corporatist Coup ⋆ Brownstone Institute
    The indemnification of pharma from liability for harm needs to be repealed. But even more fundamentally, the quarantine power itself has to go, and that means the full repeal of the Public Health Services Act of 1944.
    Angry
    1
    0 Comentários 1 Compartilhamentos 2566 Visualizações
  • The Pandemic Excuse for a Corporatist Coup
    Jeffrey A. Tucker
    We’ve just come across a document hosted by the Department of Homeland Security, posted March 2023, but written in 2007, that amounts to a full-blown corporatist imposition on the US, abolishing anything remotely resembling the Bill of Rights and Constitutional law. It is right there in plain sight for anyone curious enough to dig.

    There is nothing in it that you haven’t already experienced with lockdowns. What makes it interesting are the participants in the forging of the plan, which is pretty much the whole of corporate America as it stood in 2007. It was a George W. Bush initiative. The conclusions are startling.

    “Quarantine is a legally enforceable declaration that a government body may institute over individuals potentially exposed to a disease, but who are not symptomatic. If enacted, Federal quarantine laws will be coordinated between CDC and State and local public health officials, and, if necessary, law enforcement personnel…The government may also enact travel restrictions to limit the movement of people and products between geographic areas in an effort to limit disease transmission and spread. Authorities are currently reviewing possible plans to curtail international travel upon a pandemic’s emergence overseas.

    “Limiting public assembly opportunities also helps limit the spread of disease. Concert halls, movie theaters, sports arenas, shopping malls, and other large public gathering places might close indefinitely during a pandemic—whether because of voluntary closures or government-imposed closures. Similarly, officials may close schools and non-essential businesses during pandemic waves in an effort to significantly slow disease transmission rates. These strategies aim to prevent the close interaction of individuals, the primary conduit of spreading the influenza virus. Even taking steps such as limiting person-to-person interactions within a distance of three feet or avoiding instances of casual close contact, such as shaking hands, will help limit disease spread.”

    There we have it: the pandemic plans. They once seemed abstract. In 2020, they became very real. Your rights were deleted. No more freedom even to have house guests. In those days, the rule was to enforce only three feet of distance rather than six feet of distance, neither of which had any basis in science. Indeed, the actual scientific literature even at that time recommended against any physical interventions designed to limit the spread of respiratory viruses. They were known not to work. The entire profession of public health accepted that.

    Therefore, for many years before lockdowns wrecked economic functioning, there had been two parallel tracks in operation, one intellectual/academic and one imposed by state/corporate managers. They had nothing to do with each other. This situation persisted for the better part of 15 years. Suddenly in 2020, there was a reckoning, and the state/corporate managers won it. Seemingly out of nowhere, liberty as we have long known it was gone.

    Back in 2005, I first came across a Bush administration scheme, an early draft of the above, that would have ended freedom as we know it. It was a scheme for combating the bird flu, which officials back then imagined would involve universal quarantines, business and event closures, travel restrictions, and more.

    I wrote: “Even if the flu does come, and taxpayers have coughed up, the government will surely have a ball imposing travel restrictions, shutting down schools and businesses, quarantining cities, and banning public gatherings…It is a serious matter when the government purports to plan to abolish all liberty and nationalize all economic life and put every business under the control of the military, especially in the name of a bug that seems largely restricted to the bird population. Perhaps we should pay more attention. Perhaps such plans for the total state ought to even ruffle our feathers a bit.”

    For years I wrote about this topic, trying to get others interested. It was all there in black and white. At the drop of a hat, under the guise of a pandemic that only state managers can declare, real or drummed up, freedom itself could be abolished. These plans were never legislated, debated, or publicly discussed. They were simply posted as the result of various consultations with experts, who worked out their totalitarian fantasies as if scripting a Hollywood film.

    The 2007 blueprint is more explicit than anything I’ve seen. It comes from the National Infrastructure Advisory Council, which “includes executive leaders from the private sector and state/local government who advise the White House on how to reduce physical and cyber risks and improve the security and resilience of the nation’s critical infrastructure sectors. The NIAC is administered on behalf of the President in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act under the authority of the Secretary of the US Department of Homeland Security.”

    And who sat on this committee in 2007 that decided that governments “may close schools and non-essential businesses”? Let us see.

    Mr. Edmund G. Archuleta, General Manager, El Paso Water Utilities
    Mr. Alfred R. Berkeley III, Chairman and CEO, Pipeline Trading Group, LLC, and former President and Vice Chairman of NASDAQ
    Chief Rebecca F. Denlinger, Fire Chief, Cobb County (Ga.) Fire and Emergency Services
    Chief Gilbert G. Gallegos, Police Chief (ret.), City of Albuquerque, N.M. Police Department
    Ms. Martha H. Marsh, President and CEO, Stanford Hospital and Clinics
    Mr. James B. Nicholson, President and CEO, PVS Chemical, Inc.
    Mr. Erle A. Nye, Chairman Emeritus, TXU Corp., NIAC Chairman
    Mr. Bruce A. Rohde, Chairman and CEO Emeritus, ConAgra Foods, Inc.
    Mr. John W. Thompson, Chairman and CEO, Symantec Corporation
    Mr. Brent Baglien, ConAgra Foods, Inc.
    Mr. David Barron, Bell South
    Mr. Dan Bart, TIA
    Mr. Scott Blanchette, Healthways
    Ms. Donna Burns, Georgia Emergency Management Agency
    Mr. Rob Clyde, Symantec Corporation
    Mr. Scott Culp, Microsoft
    Mr. Clay Detlefsen, International Dairy Foods Association
    Mr. Dave Engaldo, The Options Clearing Corporation
    Ms. Courtenay Enright, Symantec Corporation
    Mr. Gary Gardner, American Gas Association
    Mr. Bob Garfield, American Frozen Foods Institute
    Ms. Joan Gehrke, PVS Chemical, Inc.
    Ms. Sarah Gordon, Symantec
    Mr. Mike Hickey, Verizon
    Mr. Ron Hicks, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
    Mr. George Hender, The Options Clearing Corporation
    Mr. James Hunter, City of Albuquerque, NM Emergency Management
    Mr. Stan Johnson, North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC)
    Mr. David Jones, El Paso Corporation
    Inspector Jay Kopstein, Operations Division, New York City Police Department (NYPD)
    Ms. Tiffany Jones, Symantec Corporation
    Mr. Bruce Larson, American Water
    Mr. Charlie Lathram, Business Executives for National Security (BENS)/BellSouth
    Mr. Turner Madden, Madden & Patton
    Chief Mary Beth Michos, Prince William County (Va.) Fire and Rescue
    Mr. Bill Muston, TXU Corp.
    Mr. Vijay Nilekani, Nuclear Energy Institute
    Mr. Phil Reitinger, Microsoft
    Mr. Rob Rolfsen, Cisco Systems, Inc.
    Mr. Tim Roxey, Constellation
    Ms. Charyl Sarber, Symantec
    Mr. Lyman Shaffer, Pacific Gas and Electric,
    Ms. Diane VanDeHei, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA)
    Ms. Susan Vismor, Mellon Financial Corporation
    Mr. Ken Watson, Cisco Systems, Inc.
    Mr. Greg Wells, Southwest Airlines
    Mr. Gino Zucca, Cisco Systems, Inc.
    Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Resources
    Dr. Bruce Gellin, Rockefeller Foundation
    Dr. Mary Mazanec
    Dr. Stuart Nightingale, CDC
    Ms. Julie Schafer
    Dr. Ben Schwartz, CDC
    Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Resources
    Mr. James Caverly, Director, Infrastructure Partnerships Division
    Ms. Nancy Wong, NIAC Designated Federal Officer (DFO)
    Ms. Jenny Menna, NIAC Designated Federal Officer (DFO)
    Dr. Til Jolly
    Mr. Jon MacLaren
    Ms. Laverne Madison
    Ms. Kathie McCracken
    Mr. Bucky Owens
    Mr. Dale Brown, Contractor
    Mr. John Dragseth, IP attorney, Contractor
    Mr. Jeff Green, Contractor
    Mr. Tim McCabe, Contractor
    Mr. William B. Anderson, ITS America
    Mr. Michael Arceneaux, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA)
    Mr. Chad Callaghan, Marriott Corporation
    Mr. Ted Cromwell, American Chemistry Council (ACC)
    Ms. Jeanne Dumas, American Trucking Association (ATA)
    Ms. Joan Harris, US Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary
    Mr. Greg Hull, American Public Transportation Association
    Mr. Joe LaRocca, National Retail Federation
    Mr. Jack McKlveen, United Parcel Service (UPS)
    Ms. Beth Montgomery, Wal-Mart
    Dr. J. Patrick O’Neal, Georgia Office of EMS/Trauma/EP
    Mr. Roger Platt, The Real Estate Roundtable
    Mr. Martin Rojas, American Trucking Association (ATA)
    Mr. Timothy Sargent, Senior Chief, Economic Analysis and Forecasting Division, Economic and Fiscal Policy Branch, Finance Canada
    In other words, big everything: food, energy, retail, computers, water, and you name it. It’s a corporatist dream team.

    Consider ConAgra itself. What is that? It is Banquet, Chef Boyardee, Healthy Choice, Orville Redenbacher’s, Reddi-Wip, Slim Jim, Hunt’s Peter Pan Egg Beaters, Hebrew National, Marie Callender’s, P.F. Chang’s, Ranch Style Beans, Ro*Tel, Wolf Brand Chili, Angie’s, Duke’s, Gardein, Frontera, Bertolli, among many other seemingly independent brands that are all actually one company.

    Now, ask yourself: why might all these companies favor a plan for lockdowns? Why might WalMart, for example? It stands to reason. Lockdowns are a massive interference with competitive capitalism. They provide the best possible subsidy to big business while shutting down independent small businesses and putting them at a huge disadvantage once the opening up happens.

    In other words, it is an industrial racket, very much akin to interwar-style fascism, a corporatist combination of big business and big government. Throw pharma into the mix and you see exactly what came to pass in 2020, which amounted to the largest transfer of wealth from small and medium-sized business plus the middle class to wealthy industrialists in the history of humanity.

    The document is open even about managing information flows: “The public and private sectors should align their communications, exercises, investments, and support activities absolutely with both the plan and priorities during a pandemic influenza event. Continue data gathering, analysis, reporting, and open review.”

    There is nothing in any of this that fits with any Western tradition of law and liberty. Nothing. It was never approved by any democratic means. It was never part of any political campaign. It has never been the subject of any serious media examination. No think tank has ever pushed back on such plans in any systematic way.

    The last serious attempt to debunk this whole apparatus was from D.H. Henderson in 2006. His two co-authors on that paper eventually came around to going along with lockdowns of 2020. Henderson died in 2016. One of the co-authors of the original article told me that if Dr. Henderson had been around, instead of Dr. Fauci, the lockdowns would never have taken place.

    Here we are four years following the deployment of this lockdown machinery, and we are witness to what it destroys. It would be nice to say that the entire apparatus and theory behind it have been fully discredited.

    But that is not correct. All the plans are still in place. There have been no changes in federal law. Not one effort has been made to dismantle the corporatist/biosecurity planning state that made all this possible. Every bit of it is in place for the next go-around.

    Much of the authority for this whole coup traces to the Public Health Services Act of 1944, which was passed in wartime. For the first time in US history, it gave the federal government the power to quarantine. Even when the Biden administration was looking for some basis to justify its transportation mask mandate, it fell back to this one piece of legislation.

    If anyone really wants to get to the root of this problem, there are decisive steps that need to be taken. The indemnification of pharma from liability for harm needs to be repealed. The court precedent of forced shots in Jacobson needs to be overthrown. But even more fundamentally, the quarantine power itself has to go, and that means the full repeal of the Public Health Services Act of 1944. That is the root of the problem. Freedom will not be safe until it is uprooted.

    As it stands right now, everything that unfolded in 2020 and 2021 can happen again. Indeed, the plans are in place for exactly that.

    Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
    For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.

    Author

    Jeffrey Tucker is Founder, Author, and President at Brownstone Institute. He is also Senior Economics Columnist for Epoch Times, author of 10 books, including Life After Lockdown, and many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press. He speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture.

    View all posts


    https://brownstone.org/articles/the-pandemic-excuse-for-a-corporatist-coup/
    The Pandemic Excuse for a Corporatist Coup Jeffrey A. Tucker We’ve just come across a document hosted by the Department of Homeland Security, posted March 2023, but written in 2007, that amounts to a full-blown corporatist imposition on the US, abolishing anything remotely resembling the Bill of Rights and Constitutional law. It is right there in plain sight for anyone curious enough to dig. There is nothing in it that you haven’t already experienced with lockdowns. What makes it interesting are the participants in the forging of the plan, which is pretty much the whole of corporate America as it stood in 2007. It was a George W. Bush initiative. The conclusions are startling. “Quarantine is a legally enforceable declaration that a government body may institute over individuals potentially exposed to a disease, but who are not symptomatic. If enacted, Federal quarantine laws will be coordinated between CDC and State and local public health officials, and, if necessary, law enforcement personnel…The government may also enact travel restrictions to limit the movement of people and products between geographic areas in an effort to limit disease transmission and spread. Authorities are currently reviewing possible plans to curtail international travel upon a pandemic’s emergence overseas. “Limiting public assembly opportunities also helps limit the spread of disease. Concert halls, movie theaters, sports arenas, shopping malls, and other large public gathering places might close indefinitely during a pandemic—whether because of voluntary closures or government-imposed closures. Similarly, officials may close schools and non-essential businesses during pandemic waves in an effort to significantly slow disease transmission rates. These strategies aim to prevent the close interaction of individuals, the primary conduit of spreading the influenza virus. Even taking steps such as limiting person-to-person interactions within a distance of three feet or avoiding instances of casual close contact, such as shaking hands, will help limit disease spread.” There we have it: the pandemic plans. They once seemed abstract. In 2020, they became very real. Your rights were deleted. No more freedom even to have house guests. In those days, the rule was to enforce only three feet of distance rather than six feet of distance, neither of which had any basis in science. Indeed, the actual scientific literature even at that time recommended against any physical interventions designed to limit the spread of respiratory viruses. They were known not to work. The entire profession of public health accepted that. Therefore, for many years before lockdowns wrecked economic functioning, there had been two parallel tracks in operation, one intellectual/academic and one imposed by state/corporate managers. They had nothing to do with each other. This situation persisted for the better part of 15 years. Suddenly in 2020, there was a reckoning, and the state/corporate managers won it. Seemingly out of nowhere, liberty as we have long known it was gone. Back in 2005, I first came across a Bush administration scheme, an early draft of the above, that would have ended freedom as we know it. It was a scheme for combating the bird flu, which officials back then imagined would involve universal quarantines, business and event closures, travel restrictions, and more. I wrote: “Even if the flu does come, and taxpayers have coughed up, the government will surely have a ball imposing travel restrictions, shutting down schools and businesses, quarantining cities, and banning public gatherings…It is a serious matter when the government purports to plan to abolish all liberty and nationalize all economic life and put every business under the control of the military, especially in the name of a bug that seems largely restricted to the bird population. Perhaps we should pay more attention. Perhaps such plans for the total state ought to even ruffle our feathers a bit.” For years I wrote about this topic, trying to get others interested. It was all there in black and white. At the drop of a hat, under the guise of a pandemic that only state managers can declare, real or drummed up, freedom itself could be abolished. These plans were never legislated, debated, or publicly discussed. They were simply posted as the result of various consultations with experts, who worked out their totalitarian fantasies as if scripting a Hollywood film. The 2007 blueprint is more explicit than anything I’ve seen. It comes from the National Infrastructure Advisory Council, which “includes executive leaders from the private sector and state/local government who advise the White House on how to reduce physical and cyber risks and improve the security and resilience of the nation’s critical infrastructure sectors. The NIAC is administered on behalf of the President in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act under the authority of the Secretary of the US Department of Homeland Security.” And who sat on this committee in 2007 that decided that governments “may close schools and non-essential businesses”? Let us see. Mr. Edmund G. Archuleta, General Manager, El Paso Water Utilities Mr. Alfred R. Berkeley III, Chairman and CEO, Pipeline Trading Group, LLC, and former President and Vice Chairman of NASDAQ Chief Rebecca F. Denlinger, Fire Chief, Cobb County (Ga.) Fire and Emergency Services Chief Gilbert G. Gallegos, Police Chief (ret.), City of Albuquerque, N.M. Police Department Ms. Martha H. Marsh, President and CEO, Stanford Hospital and Clinics Mr. James B. Nicholson, President and CEO, PVS Chemical, Inc. Mr. Erle A. Nye, Chairman Emeritus, TXU Corp., NIAC Chairman Mr. Bruce A. Rohde, Chairman and CEO Emeritus, ConAgra Foods, Inc. Mr. John W. Thompson, Chairman and CEO, Symantec Corporation Mr. Brent Baglien, ConAgra Foods, Inc. Mr. David Barron, Bell South Mr. Dan Bart, TIA Mr. Scott Blanchette, Healthways Ms. Donna Burns, Georgia Emergency Management Agency Mr. Rob Clyde, Symantec Corporation Mr. Scott Culp, Microsoft Mr. Clay Detlefsen, International Dairy Foods Association Mr. Dave Engaldo, The Options Clearing Corporation Ms. Courtenay Enright, Symantec Corporation Mr. Gary Gardner, American Gas Association Mr. Bob Garfield, American Frozen Foods Institute Ms. Joan Gehrke, PVS Chemical, Inc. Ms. Sarah Gordon, Symantec Mr. Mike Hickey, Verizon Mr. Ron Hicks, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation Mr. George Hender, The Options Clearing Corporation Mr. James Hunter, City of Albuquerque, NM Emergency Management Mr. Stan Johnson, North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) Mr. David Jones, El Paso Corporation Inspector Jay Kopstein, Operations Division, New York City Police Department (NYPD) Ms. Tiffany Jones, Symantec Corporation Mr. Bruce Larson, American Water Mr. Charlie Lathram, Business Executives for National Security (BENS)/BellSouth Mr. Turner Madden, Madden & Patton Chief Mary Beth Michos, Prince William County (Va.) Fire and Rescue Mr. Bill Muston, TXU Corp. Mr. Vijay Nilekani, Nuclear Energy Institute Mr. Phil Reitinger, Microsoft Mr. Rob Rolfsen, Cisco Systems, Inc. Mr. Tim Roxey, Constellation Ms. Charyl Sarber, Symantec Mr. Lyman Shaffer, Pacific Gas and Electric, Ms. Diane VanDeHei, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) Ms. Susan Vismor, Mellon Financial Corporation Mr. Ken Watson, Cisco Systems, Inc. Mr. Greg Wells, Southwest Airlines Mr. Gino Zucca, Cisco Systems, Inc. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Resources Dr. Bruce Gellin, Rockefeller Foundation Dr. Mary Mazanec Dr. Stuart Nightingale, CDC Ms. Julie Schafer Dr. Ben Schwartz, CDC Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Resources Mr. James Caverly, Director, Infrastructure Partnerships Division Ms. Nancy Wong, NIAC Designated Federal Officer (DFO) Ms. Jenny Menna, NIAC Designated Federal Officer (DFO) Dr. Til Jolly Mr. Jon MacLaren Ms. Laverne Madison Ms. Kathie McCracken Mr. Bucky Owens Mr. Dale Brown, Contractor Mr. John Dragseth, IP attorney, Contractor Mr. Jeff Green, Contractor Mr. Tim McCabe, Contractor Mr. William B. Anderson, ITS America Mr. Michael Arceneaux, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) Mr. Chad Callaghan, Marriott Corporation Mr. Ted Cromwell, American Chemistry Council (ACC) Ms. Jeanne Dumas, American Trucking Association (ATA) Ms. Joan Harris, US Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary Mr. Greg Hull, American Public Transportation Association Mr. Joe LaRocca, National Retail Federation Mr. Jack McKlveen, United Parcel Service (UPS) Ms. Beth Montgomery, Wal-Mart Dr. J. Patrick O’Neal, Georgia Office of EMS/Trauma/EP Mr. Roger Platt, The Real Estate Roundtable Mr. Martin Rojas, American Trucking Association (ATA) Mr. Timothy Sargent, Senior Chief, Economic Analysis and Forecasting Division, Economic and Fiscal Policy Branch, Finance Canada In other words, big everything: food, energy, retail, computers, water, and you name it. It’s a corporatist dream team. Consider ConAgra itself. What is that? It is Banquet, Chef Boyardee, Healthy Choice, Orville Redenbacher’s, Reddi-Wip, Slim Jim, Hunt’s Peter Pan Egg Beaters, Hebrew National, Marie Callender’s, P.F. Chang’s, Ranch Style Beans, Ro*Tel, Wolf Brand Chili, Angie’s, Duke’s, Gardein, Frontera, Bertolli, among many other seemingly independent brands that are all actually one company. Now, ask yourself: why might all these companies favor a plan for lockdowns? Why might WalMart, for example? It stands to reason. Lockdowns are a massive interference with competitive capitalism. They provide the best possible subsidy to big business while shutting down independent small businesses and putting them at a huge disadvantage once the opening up happens. In other words, it is an industrial racket, very much akin to interwar-style fascism, a corporatist combination of big business and big government. Throw pharma into the mix and you see exactly what came to pass in 2020, which amounted to the largest transfer of wealth from small and medium-sized business plus the middle class to wealthy industrialists in the history of humanity. The document is open even about managing information flows: “The public and private sectors should align their communications, exercises, investments, and support activities absolutely with both the plan and priorities during a pandemic influenza event. Continue data gathering, analysis, reporting, and open review.” There is nothing in any of this that fits with any Western tradition of law and liberty. Nothing. It was never approved by any democratic means. It was never part of any political campaign. It has never been the subject of any serious media examination. No think tank has ever pushed back on such plans in any systematic way. The last serious attempt to debunk this whole apparatus was from D.H. Henderson in 2006. His two co-authors on that paper eventually came around to going along with lockdowns of 2020. Henderson died in 2016. One of the co-authors of the original article told me that if Dr. Henderson had been around, instead of Dr. Fauci, the lockdowns would never have taken place. Here we are four years following the deployment of this lockdown machinery, and we are witness to what it destroys. It would be nice to say that the entire apparatus and theory behind it have been fully discredited. But that is not correct. All the plans are still in place. There have been no changes in federal law. Not one effort has been made to dismantle the corporatist/biosecurity planning state that made all this possible. Every bit of it is in place for the next go-around. Much of the authority for this whole coup traces to the Public Health Services Act of 1944, which was passed in wartime. For the first time in US history, it gave the federal government the power to quarantine. Even when the Biden administration was looking for some basis to justify its transportation mask mandate, it fell back to this one piece of legislation. If anyone really wants to get to the root of this problem, there are decisive steps that need to be taken. The indemnification of pharma from liability for harm needs to be repealed. The court precedent of forced shots in Jacobson needs to be overthrown. But even more fundamentally, the quarantine power itself has to go, and that means the full repeal of the Public Health Services Act of 1944. That is the root of the problem. Freedom will not be safe until it is uprooted. As it stands right now, everything that unfolded in 2020 and 2021 can happen again. Indeed, the plans are in place for exactly that. Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author. Author Jeffrey Tucker is Founder, Author, and President at Brownstone Institute. He is also Senior Economics Columnist for Epoch Times, author of 10 books, including Life After Lockdown, and many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press. He speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture. View all posts https://brownstone.org/articles/the-pandemic-excuse-for-a-corporatist-coup/
    Like
    1
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos 2670 Visualizações 2
  • Meet the Mad Scientist Who wants to Fight Climate Change by Making Humans Smaller and Allergic to Meat.
    Yes, it's a crazy world.

    Anthony Colpo

    If WEF frontman Klaus Schwab is your archetypal Bond villain, S. Matthew Liao is your textbook classic evil nerd. The kind that should be locked away somewhere he can't hurt anybody.

    If you think I'm being harsh, read on.

    I first became aware of Laio, a 'bioethicist' at NYU, several years ago while researching the nonsensical Unified Cow Fart Theory of Global Warming put forward by people who think the ultimate in human nutrition is to eat like a rabbit.

    During the course of that research, I came upon a 2012 paper Liao co-authored with UK professors Anders Sandberg and Rebecca Roache titled “Human Engineering and Climate Change.”

    The paper begins by claiming "Anthropogenic climate change is arguably one of the biggest problems that confront us today."

    I can't disagree with that. The nonsensical claim that the minsicule 0.28% of global greenhouse gases attributable to humans has caused runaway warming is being used to implement measures with potentially dire consequences for both the global economy and human wellbeing.

    That is a big problem.

    This feigned concern for the environment, by the way, is organized and funded by the same people who masterminded the campaign to pollute the entire human species with toxic gene therapies ('Lockstep' author and dark money 'philanthropy’ outfit Rockefeller Foundation, for example, recently announced they were pumping $1 billion dollars to advance climate bribes “solutions”). These are the same people heavily invested in industries that pollute both our bodies and the environment with all manner of toxic porqueria.

    Climate change is not a science, but a religion. It is not comprised of known facts based on valid and reproducible experimentation, but a belief system resting entirely upon the highly fallible (and often fraudulent) practice of climate modelling. That modelling is used to issue doomsday forecasts, expressly designed to scare the population into compliance. Those who dare express skepticism of this nonsense are derided as "deniers," no matter how sound their arguments.

    Of course, Liao, Sandberg and Roache don't see climate change as a problem for the same reasons I do. Liao really seems to believe Planet Earth is in danger of becoming Planet Hot Pot With Extra Chili if we don't "do something" yesterday, and his co-authors are happy to tag along for the ride.

    A brief intro to this trio is in order.

    S. Matthew Liao is a bioethicist at NYU Global School of Public Health. As you’re about to see, Liao has a rather twisted set of ethics, and I find it quite worrying to read he “provides students with an education grounded in a broad conception of bioethics encompassing both medical and environmental ethics.”

    Anders Sandberg is a Swedish transhumanist and currently a senior research fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford which, along with Loma Linda University in the US, has produced most of the world’s peer-reviewed propaganda epidemiology erroneously claiming meat-free diets are better for you.

    In 2018, Sandberg published a paper on arxiv.org entitled "Blueberry Earth", which finally answered the pressing question that has bothered great minds for centuries:

    "What if the entire Earth was instantaneously replaced with an equal volume of closely packed, but uncompressed blueberries?"

    Seriously.

    Rebecca Roache, formerly of Oxford, is now a Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at Royal Holloway, University of London. According to Wikipedia, Roache “is particularly noted for her work on swearing, which has featured in various media, such as the BBC.”

    If that’s not the resume of a trio with way too much time on their hands, I don’t know what is.

    So now you know the intellectual caliber of this brains trust, let’s see how it proposes to solve the non-existent problem of anthropogenic global warming.

    Noting that geoengineering is too risky (I think they just confirmed another conspiracy theory as fact), our heroic trio propose something every bit as dicey and stupid:

    Biomedical human engineering.

    According to Liao et al, this "involves biomedical modifications of humans so that they can mitigate and/or adapt to climate change." They further argue that this Frankensteinian idiocy "is potentially less risky" than geoengineering.

    As staunch believers in the nonsensical Unified Cow Fart Theory of Global Warming, the first order of business for our intrepid trio would be to create “Pharmacological meat intolerance.”

    Because "people often lack the motivation or willpower to give up eating red meat," they write, "a more realistic option might be to induce mild intolerance (akin, e.g., to milk intolerance) to these kinds of meat."

    "While meat intolerance is normally uncommon," they continue, oblivious to the fact they've just confirmed meat is an ideal, evolutionary-correct food for humans, "in principle, it could be induced by stimulating the immune system against common bovine proteins."

    "The immune system would then become primed to react to such proteins, and henceforth eating ‘eco-unfriendly’ food would induce unpleasant experiences," they continue.

    "A potentially safe and practical way of delivering such intolerance may be to produce ‘meat’ patches – akin to nicotine patches," they write. "We can produce patches for those animals that contribute the most to greenhouse gas emissions and encourage people to use such patches."

    Kids, this is why you need to avoid drugs, vegan propaganda, and mad scientists masquerading as university professors.

    But our cray cray trio aren’t finished yet. Heck no.

    Their next brilliant idea for saving the planet is “Making humans smaller.”

    "[O]ther things being equal," they write, "the larger one is, the more food and energy one requires."

    With their brains farting like the winner of a baked beans eating contest, they further claim "a car uses more fuel per mile to carry a heavier person than a lighter person; more fabric is needed to clothe larger than smaller people; heavier people wear out shoes, carpets, and furniture more quickly than lighter people, and so on."

    So how do we make humans smaller so that their shoes won't wear out as quick?

    Oh, that's easy.

    "One way is through preimplantation genetic diagnosis" which "would simply involve rethinking the criteria for selecting which embryos to implant" during IVF.

    !?

    Another way "is to use hormone treatment either to affect somatotropin (growth hormone) levels or to trigger the closing of the epiphyseal plate (at the ends of bones) earlier than normal.”

    Hormone treatments are used for growth reduction in excessively tall children so, argue Liao et al, why not use them to make normal height kids shorter? I mean, what could possibly go wrong by subjecting growing bodies to unnecessary hormone treatments?

    But hey, why even wait for kids to get to that point? Why not target them before they've even popped out of mummy’s tummy?

    "[A] more speculative and controversial way of reducing adult height is to reduce birth weight," write our unabashed Masters of the Looniverse.

    "Drugs or nutrients that either reduce the expression of paternally imprinted genes, or increase the expression of maternally imprinted genes, could potentially regulate birth size."

    But again, why even wait to target kids in the womb? Why not stop them being conceived in the first place?

    Yep, it's time to roll out the overpopulation card.

    Which brings us to a dilemma: How to lower birth rates when almost one half of the world’s population already lives in countries with below replacement fertility?

    Oh, again, that's easy.

    Make women smarter!

    Hey, they said it, not me.

    They write there is “strong evidence that birth-rates are negatively correlated with adequate access to education for women” and "[a]t least in the US, women with low cognitive ability are more likely to have children before age 18."

    Even if that latter contention is true (it’s based on a single case-control study published in 2002), the median age for giving birth in the US is now 30.

    They’re basically saying that the number of kids a women has is negatively correlated with her intelligence. If you’re a woman who wants to have multiple kids, then they assume you can’t be the sharpest tool in the shed.

    But women are made to have children, and Feminism Inc. still hasn’t figured out how to sue Mother Nature for designating this role to females.

    So in a world already saturated with hook-up culture, abortion and morning-after pills, how do Liao et al propose to stop women making the ‘dumb’ choice of ensuring the continued propagation of the human species?

    Well, they don’t actually say. Not surprising, given their own intellectual output indicates they themselves have yet to discover an effective brain doping strategy. They do seem to be alluding to pharmaceutical means when they write “many parents are indeed happy to give their children cognitive enhancements," citing the widespread (and often misguided) use of Ritalin.

    They’re basically saying making kids smarter will make them want to avoid or minimize childbearing when older.

    In order to get people to go along with this bollocks, Liao et al suggest administering oxytocin in an attempt to increase people’s trust levels.

    Interestingly, when discussing how to convince people into cooperating with this nonsense despite its obvious downsides, the authors note “people are routinely vaccinated to prevent themselves and those around them from acquiring infectious diseases, even though vaccinations can sometimes even lead to death.”

    Thanks for confirming.

    The authors wrote in their paper, “To be clear, we shall not argue that human engineering ought to be adopted; such a claim would require far more exposition and argument than we have space for here.”

    The 2012 paper understandably caused controversy and aroused heated responses from both laymen and academics. When a Guardian writer asked shortly afterwards just what they were trying to achieve with their paper, all three authors and one of the journal’s editors were at pains to portray it as a philosophical “thought experiment” designed to stimulate discussion. When discussion of their patently absurd suggestions didn’t go the way they hoped, Sandberg and Roache accused critics of not having read the paper, which begs the question of just how critics knew of its numerous bizarre suggestions. For the record, I have read the paper in its entirety, and rather than find it an innocuous philosophical excursion, I find it disturbing that people could put forward such suggestions without any awareness of just how truly dystopian and dysfunctional they sound.

    Sandberg even told the reporter that in his work “with global catastrophic risks at the Future of Humanity Institute, climate change is at the lower end of concern. Certainly a problem, but unlikely to wipe out humanity.”

    So why the need for radically ridiculous suggestions to deal with a problem that’s been way overblown? Is this how academics entertain themselves when they’re bored?

    As you’re about to learn, despite the apparently token disclaimer in the 2012 paper, Liao in fact remains a highly enthusiastic promoter of the human engineering angle - and he may have some powerful sympathizers.

    From Poison Pricks to Toxic Ticks

    In 2016, Liao spoke at the 2016 World Science Festival, once again insisting we eat too much meat and that human engineering held the potential to solve this non-problem. If you watch the following snippet through to the end, you’ll hear Liao say “There’s this thing called the Lone Star tick where if it bites you, you will become allergic to meat. So that’s something we can do through human engineering. We can possibly address really big world problems through human engineering.”


    In 2017, he gave a TED Talk, which is a really popular forum for crazy ‘interesting’ people to get up on a stage and pretend they’re experts.

    A snippet of the talk, for which YouTube comments are understandably turned off, can be viewed below.



    Note the complete lack of shame or embarrassment as Liao recites the core principles of his insane 2012 paper. He can barely hide his glee, both at expressing his transhuman fantasies and being in the presence of people who don’t respond by telling him to check into an asylum. Note how when he mentions creating “mild intolerance to meat,” a handful of vetards in the transfixed audience begin applauding, and one even lets out a “wooo!”

    The audience also laughs along when Liao suggests preemptively screening for smaller IVF babies.

    They also applaud and chuckle approvingly when he suggests this carry on will allow parents the “liberty-enhancing option” of having “one large child, two medium-sized children, or three smaller children.” A liberty-enhancing option suggests an improvement over current restrictions, which isn’t the case.

    Ah, lunatics. Where would we be without them?

    While the video is basically a condensed rehash of his 2012 paper, there are a few new revelations. In an attempt to make “people” smarter (ever the PC sycophant, he doesn’t say “women” in front of the mixed-gender audience), he’s now embracing ritalin as a nootropic for kids, despite acknowledging in his 2012 paper it’s “for children with ADHD and certainly has side effects.”

    He’s also suggesting modafinil for kids, the long-term use of which has not been studied in children.

    Reckless is as stupid does.


    Enter the Biggest Lunatics of All

    It should come as no surprise to most readers that Liao’s demented “human engineering” suggestions have garnered favourable attention from the hypocritical parasite class that descends upon Davos every year to decide what’s best for the rest of us.

    In December 2020, the WEF unveiled its bioengineering framework in a presentation called “3 Scenarios for How Bioengineering Could Change Our World in 10 Years.” Among the highlights were edible vaccines grown in plants and various forms of genetic manipulation.

    That presentation was based off a WEF-sponsored academic paper titled Bioengineering Horizon Scan 2020.

    For the WEF’s 2021 Davos Summit, reported BioHack, Liao et al’s 2012 paper was cited during discussion of the ‘Planetary Health Diet’, a globalist initiative to shift humankind towards plant-and insect-based diets.

    Liao et al’s 2012 paper was also considered as a possible add-on to the Bioengineering Horizon Scan 2020 paper. However, perusal of the reference list shows no mention of the 2012 paper. It seems the Liao et al paper may have been too much of a hot potato for the WEF, which had to pull it’s original 2030 video that featured what may go down in history as the world’s worst PR line (“You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy”).

    It seems that just about every week, what was once considered a kooky conspiracy theory is confirmed as a genuine concern.

    Share

    https://anthonycolpo.substack.com/p/meet-the-mad-scientist-who-wants?utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true
    Meet the Mad Scientist Who wants to Fight Climate Change by Making Humans Smaller and Allergic to Meat. Yes, it's a crazy world. Anthony Colpo If WEF frontman Klaus Schwab is your archetypal Bond villain, S. Matthew Liao is your textbook classic evil nerd. The kind that should be locked away somewhere he can't hurt anybody. If you think I'm being harsh, read on. I first became aware of Laio, a 'bioethicist' at NYU, several years ago while researching the nonsensical Unified Cow Fart Theory of Global Warming put forward by people who think the ultimate in human nutrition is to eat like a rabbit. During the course of that research, I came upon a 2012 paper Liao co-authored with UK professors Anders Sandberg and Rebecca Roache titled “Human Engineering and Climate Change.” The paper begins by claiming "Anthropogenic climate change is arguably one of the biggest problems that confront us today." I can't disagree with that. The nonsensical claim that the minsicule 0.28% of global greenhouse gases attributable to humans has caused runaway warming is being used to implement measures with potentially dire consequences for both the global economy and human wellbeing. That is a big problem. This feigned concern for the environment, by the way, is organized and funded by the same people who masterminded the campaign to pollute the entire human species with toxic gene therapies ('Lockstep' author and dark money 'philanthropy’ outfit Rockefeller Foundation, for example, recently announced they were pumping $1 billion dollars to advance climate bribes “solutions”). These are the same people heavily invested in industries that pollute both our bodies and the environment with all manner of toxic porqueria. Climate change is not a science, but a religion. It is not comprised of known facts based on valid and reproducible experimentation, but a belief system resting entirely upon the highly fallible (and often fraudulent) practice of climate modelling. That modelling is used to issue doomsday forecasts, expressly designed to scare the population into compliance. Those who dare express skepticism of this nonsense are derided as "deniers," no matter how sound their arguments. Of course, Liao, Sandberg and Roache don't see climate change as a problem for the same reasons I do. Liao really seems to believe Planet Earth is in danger of becoming Planet Hot Pot With Extra Chili if we don't "do something" yesterday, and his co-authors are happy to tag along for the ride. A brief intro to this trio is in order. S. Matthew Liao is a bioethicist at NYU Global School of Public Health. As you’re about to see, Liao has a rather twisted set of ethics, and I find it quite worrying to read he “provides students with an education grounded in a broad conception of bioethics encompassing both medical and environmental ethics.” Anders Sandberg is a Swedish transhumanist and currently a senior research fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford which, along with Loma Linda University in the US, has produced most of the world’s peer-reviewed propaganda epidemiology erroneously claiming meat-free diets are better for you. In 2018, Sandberg published a paper on arxiv.org entitled "Blueberry Earth", which finally answered the pressing question that has bothered great minds for centuries: "What if the entire Earth was instantaneously replaced with an equal volume of closely packed, but uncompressed blueberries?" Seriously. Rebecca Roache, formerly of Oxford, is now a Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at Royal Holloway, University of London. According to Wikipedia, Roache “is particularly noted for her work on swearing, which has featured in various media, such as the BBC.” If that’s not the resume of a trio with way too much time on their hands, I don’t know what is. So now you know the intellectual caliber of this brains trust, let’s see how it proposes to solve the non-existent problem of anthropogenic global warming. Noting that geoengineering is too risky (I think they just confirmed another conspiracy theory as fact), our heroic trio propose something every bit as dicey and stupid: Biomedical human engineering. According to Liao et al, this "involves biomedical modifications of humans so that they can mitigate and/or adapt to climate change." They further argue that this Frankensteinian idiocy "is potentially less risky" than geoengineering. As staunch believers in the nonsensical Unified Cow Fart Theory of Global Warming, the first order of business for our intrepid trio would be to create “Pharmacological meat intolerance.” Because "people often lack the motivation or willpower to give up eating red meat," they write, "a more realistic option might be to induce mild intolerance (akin, e.g., to milk intolerance) to these kinds of meat." "While meat intolerance is normally uncommon," they continue, oblivious to the fact they've just confirmed meat is an ideal, evolutionary-correct food for humans, "in principle, it could be induced by stimulating the immune system against common bovine proteins." "The immune system would then become primed to react to such proteins, and henceforth eating ‘eco-unfriendly’ food would induce unpleasant experiences," they continue. "A potentially safe and practical way of delivering such intolerance may be to produce ‘meat’ patches – akin to nicotine patches," they write. "We can produce patches for those animals that contribute the most to greenhouse gas emissions and encourage people to use such patches." Kids, this is why you need to avoid drugs, vegan propaganda, and mad scientists masquerading as university professors. But our cray cray trio aren’t finished yet. Heck no. Their next brilliant idea for saving the planet is “Making humans smaller.” "[O]ther things being equal," they write, "the larger one is, the more food and energy one requires." With their brains farting like the winner of a baked beans eating contest, they further claim "a car uses more fuel per mile to carry a heavier person than a lighter person; more fabric is needed to clothe larger than smaller people; heavier people wear out shoes, carpets, and furniture more quickly than lighter people, and so on." So how do we make humans smaller so that their shoes won't wear out as quick? Oh, that's easy. "One way is through preimplantation genetic diagnosis" which "would simply involve rethinking the criteria for selecting which embryos to implant" during IVF. !? Another way "is to use hormone treatment either to affect somatotropin (growth hormone) levels or to trigger the closing of the epiphyseal plate (at the ends of bones) earlier than normal.” Hormone treatments are used for growth reduction in excessively tall children so, argue Liao et al, why not use them to make normal height kids shorter? I mean, what could possibly go wrong by subjecting growing bodies to unnecessary hormone treatments? But hey, why even wait for kids to get to that point? Why not target them before they've even popped out of mummy’s tummy? "[A] more speculative and controversial way of reducing adult height is to reduce birth weight," write our unabashed Masters of the Looniverse. "Drugs or nutrients that either reduce the expression of paternally imprinted genes, or increase the expression of maternally imprinted genes, could potentially regulate birth size." But again, why even wait to target kids in the womb? Why not stop them being conceived in the first place? Yep, it's time to roll out the overpopulation card. Which brings us to a dilemma: How to lower birth rates when almost one half of the world’s population already lives in countries with below replacement fertility? Oh, again, that's easy. Make women smarter! Hey, they said it, not me. They write there is “strong evidence that birth-rates are negatively correlated with adequate access to education for women” and "[a]t least in the US, women with low cognitive ability are more likely to have children before age 18." Even if that latter contention is true (it’s based on a single case-control study published in 2002), the median age for giving birth in the US is now 30. They’re basically saying that the number of kids a women has is negatively correlated with her intelligence. If you’re a woman who wants to have multiple kids, then they assume you can’t be the sharpest tool in the shed. But women are made to have children, and Feminism Inc. still hasn’t figured out how to sue Mother Nature for designating this role to females. So in a world already saturated with hook-up culture, abortion and morning-after pills, how do Liao et al propose to stop women making the ‘dumb’ choice of ensuring the continued propagation of the human species? Well, they don’t actually say. Not surprising, given their own intellectual output indicates they themselves have yet to discover an effective brain doping strategy. They do seem to be alluding to pharmaceutical means when they write “many parents are indeed happy to give their children cognitive enhancements," citing the widespread (and often misguided) use of Ritalin. They’re basically saying making kids smarter will make them want to avoid or minimize childbearing when older. In order to get people to go along with this bollocks, Liao et al suggest administering oxytocin in an attempt to increase people’s trust levels. Interestingly, when discussing how to convince people into cooperating with this nonsense despite its obvious downsides, the authors note “people are routinely vaccinated to prevent themselves and those around them from acquiring infectious diseases, even though vaccinations can sometimes even lead to death.” Thanks for confirming. The authors wrote in their paper, “To be clear, we shall not argue that human engineering ought to be adopted; such a claim would require far more exposition and argument than we have space for here.” The 2012 paper understandably caused controversy and aroused heated responses from both laymen and academics. When a Guardian writer asked shortly afterwards just what they were trying to achieve with their paper, all three authors and one of the journal’s editors were at pains to portray it as a philosophical “thought experiment” designed to stimulate discussion. When discussion of their patently absurd suggestions didn’t go the way they hoped, Sandberg and Roache accused critics of not having read the paper, which begs the question of just how critics knew of its numerous bizarre suggestions. For the record, I have read the paper in its entirety, and rather than find it an innocuous philosophical excursion, I find it disturbing that people could put forward such suggestions without any awareness of just how truly dystopian and dysfunctional they sound. Sandberg even told the reporter that in his work “with global catastrophic risks at the Future of Humanity Institute, climate change is at the lower end of concern. Certainly a problem, but unlikely to wipe out humanity.” So why the need for radically ridiculous suggestions to deal with a problem that’s been way overblown? Is this how academics entertain themselves when they’re bored? As you’re about to learn, despite the apparently token disclaimer in the 2012 paper, Liao in fact remains a highly enthusiastic promoter of the human engineering angle - and he may have some powerful sympathizers. From Poison Pricks to Toxic Ticks In 2016, Liao spoke at the 2016 World Science Festival, once again insisting we eat too much meat and that human engineering held the potential to solve this non-problem. If you watch the following snippet through to the end, you’ll hear Liao say “There’s this thing called the Lone Star tick where if it bites you, you will become allergic to meat. So that’s something we can do through human engineering. We can possibly address really big world problems through human engineering.” In 2017, he gave a TED Talk, which is a really popular forum for crazy ‘interesting’ people to get up on a stage and pretend they’re experts. A snippet of the talk, for which YouTube comments are understandably turned off, can be viewed below. Note the complete lack of shame or embarrassment as Liao recites the core principles of his insane 2012 paper. He can barely hide his glee, both at expressing his transhuman fantasies and being in the presence of people who don’t respond by telling him to check into an asylum. Note how when he mentions creating “mild intolerance to meat,” a handful of vetards in the transfixed audience begin applauding, and one even lets out a “wooo!” The audience also laughs along when Liao suggests preemptively screening for smaller IVF babies. They also applaud and chuckle approvingly when he suggests this carry on will allow parents the “liberty-enhancing option” of having “one large child, two medium-sized children, or three smaller children.” A liberty-enhancing option suggests an improvement over current restrictions, which isn’t the case. Ah, lunatics. Where would we be without them? While the video is basically a condensed rehash of his 2012 paper, there are a few new revelations. In an attempt to make “people” smarter (ever the PC sycophant, he doesn’t say “women” in front of the mixed-gender audience), he’s now embracing ritalin as a nootropic for kids, despite acknowledging in his 2012 paper it’s “for children with ADHD and certainly has side effects.” He’s also suggesting modafinil for kids, the long-term use of which has not been studied in children. Reckless is as stupid does. Enter the Biggest Lunatics of All It should come as no surprise to most readers that Liao’s demented “human engineering” suggestions have garnered favourable attention from the hypocritical parasite class that descends upon Davos every year to decide what’s best for the rest of us. In December 2020, the WEF unveiled its bioengineering framework in a presentation called “3 Scenarios for How Bioengineering Could Change Our World in 10 Years.” Among the highlights were edible vaccines grown in plants and various forms of genetic manipulation. That presentation was based off a WEF-sponsored academic paper titled Bioengineering Horizon Scan 2020. For the WEF’s 2021 Davos Summit, reported BioHack, Liao et al’s 2012 paper was cited during discussion of the ‘Planetary Health Diet’, a globalist initiative to shift humankind towards plant-and insect-based diets. Liao et al’s 2012 paper was also considered as a possible add-on to the Bioengineering Horizon Scan 2020 paper. However, perusal of the reference list shows no mention of the 2012 paper. It seems the Liao et al paper may have been too much of a hot potato for the WEF, which had to pull it’s original 2030 video that featured what may go down in history as the world’s worst PR line (“You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy”). It seems that just about every week, what was once considered a kooky conspiracy theory is confirmed as a genuine concern. Share https://anthonycolpo.substack.com/p/meet-the-mad-scientist-who-wants?utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos 6336 Visualizações
  • Why the Official AIDS Story is a Complete Crock
    The Great Rebranding, 1980s-Style: HIV Was a Sham, Just Like Sars-Cov-2

    Anthony Colpo

    All you youngsters born after the Glomesh era have surely heard of AIDS, but probably have no idea of just how big a deal it was when it burst onto the scene in the early 1980s.

    It was the biggest show in town. Sure, it wasn't as big a deal as what COVID would later be. It wasn't accompanied by 'vaccine' mandates, lockdowns or heavily-armed goons bashing people for sitting peacefully in the park. Instead of masks, there were condoms and paper toilet seat covers. There was no social distancing, only admonitions to avoid unprotected sex and not share needles when shooting up.

    Fauci was there, front and center, but he wasn't telling us to wear two condoms at once. Instead, he was pimping a toxic concoction known as AZT.

    Right off the bat, nothing made sense about the AIDs charade. It does make sense in hindsight if you view it as a giant test run, an exercise in spreading 'virus' hysteria. The HIV/AIDS charade confirmed most people don't ask questions, and those who do can be quickly shouted over and marginalized as "deniers," "conspiracists" and menaces to society. It also confirmed that not only could people be convinced to take toxic drugs in response to an overblown 'pandemic' scare, but they could be manipulated into rabidly demanding their expedited release.

    It was an exercise whose lessons would prove valuable come December 2019.

    AIDS stands for "acquired immunodeficiency syndrome." In other words, you somehow "acquired" an immune system that, like a tired car engine with 300,000 km on the clock, was about to blow its last gasket.

    It was first identified in 1981 in Los Angeles when the CDC reported on five young homosexual men suffering pneumonia caused by a protozoon known as Pneumocystis carinii.

    This microbe is ordinarily innocuous and, in fact, found in nearly all healthy persons. For reasons unknown it had suddenly become lethal - an outcome previously seen only in persons whose immune systems were being undermined by immunosuppressant therapy, cancer, or severe malnourishment.

    This same pneumonia promptly appeared in New York, together with several dozen cases of an unusual skin cancer called Kaposi's Sarcoma which had previously been almost unknown in the US.

    Eventually Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and Kaposi's Sarcoma were interpreted as secondary manifestations of an underlying immune-system deficiency of unknown origin which was eventually dubbed "acquired immunodeficiency disease syndrome" or AIDS.

    The bodies of AIDS patients seemed to have just given up. Patients suffered severe weight loss and lethargy and were so immune deficient that even a minor infection threatened to kill them.

    The first few thousand cases were found mostly in homosexual males, and the media bombarded us with images of emaciated gay blokes on the verge of death and barely able to sit upright. Initially, the condition was referred to as GRID (gay-related immune deficiency). Outside of scientific circles, it came to be known as the "gay plague" and religious fundamentalists trumpeted the phenomenon as God's revenge on evil sodomites.

    That began to change in 1983, when AIDS was found to affect heterosexual women, which caused the fear porn to increase by an order of magnitude. As with COVID, health authorities treated us to an orgy of fearmongering and doomsday predictions - and the sheeple lapped it up.

    In 1986, Dr. Donald Ian Macdonald, then Acting Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, described "the escalating AIDS epidemic" as "staggering," "devastating" and a "huge problem."

    Dr. Halfdan Mahler, Danish physician and head of the World Health Organization, called AIDS "a health disaster of pandemic proportions" and said he could "not imagine a worse health problem in this century."

    "We stand nakedly in front of a very serious pandemic as mortal as any pandemic there ever has been," Mahler bizarrely quipped. Why he would don his birthday suit instead of a Hazmat one in the face of such a mortal pandemic was never explained, but that's globalist bureaucrats for you.

    "I don't know of any greater killer than AIDS, not to speak of its psychological, social and economic maiming," continued Mahler, who after leaving WHO became director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

    Not to be outdone, in 1987 Harvard biology professor Stephen Jay Gould, said AIDS was "potentially, the greatest natural tragedy in human history." He warned "AIDS may run through the entire population, and may carry off a quarter or more of us" (in 1987, the world population was just over 5 billion; it now stands at over 8 billion).

    That same year, Gallup asked an open-ended question about what Americans saw as the most urgent health problem facing the US. Despite the fact AIDS has never even come close to being the leading cause of death in the US, more than two-thirds of Americans said AIDS. The disease continued as the top pick until 2000.

    According to Gallop polls conducted in 1987, most Americans (60%) agreed people with AIDS should be made to carry a card noting they had the disease, and one in three (33%) agreed employers should be allowed to fire employees who had AIDS. Twenty-one percent of Americans said people with AIDS should be isolated from the rest of society.

    An earlier LA Times poll from 1985 found more than half of US adults supported quarantining AIDS patients, nearly half would approve of ID cards for those testing positive for "AIDS antibodies," and one in seven favored tattooing those with the disease.

    People never learn.

    A Disease Looking For a Cause

    Authorities had presented us with a new public health scare, but no causal agent. No-one knew what caused the immune systems of AIDS patients to become so deficient.

    Was it a new microbe? A new drug scourge? God's revenge for Abba and Disco Duck?

    No-one knew.

    At least officially.

    In reality, authorities knew damn well what was going on.

    But they didn’t tell us. Instead, they eventually claimed AIDS was the result of a 'novel virus' that, in 1986, was named "human immunodeficiency virus,” or HIV.

    The 'novel virus' paradigm holds that a 'zoonotic' virus wakes up one day, and decides to "jump" from apes/bats/pangolins/garden gnomes to humans. This novel virus then acts like a seventeen year old that has been given the keys to an alcohol-filled mansion while mom and dad head off for a weekend vacation. However, the virus has no friends to party with. So he first has to convert to a 'human' form of the virus, then he has to begin self-replicating in order to build a social circle. Once this is done, the virions party so hard that the host becomes sick. The virions conclude their current host is no fun, so they go looking for a new host to party inside. The process repeats itself, and before you know it, there's a 'pandemic' going on with squillions of little virions pogo-dancing in global synchrony and chanting "the roof, the roof, the roof is on fire!!" while trashing everything in sight.

    Viruses these days, sheesh.

    Setting aside the glaring fallacies of the virus 'isolation' charade, the 'novel virus = pandemic’ theory is an inherent load of cobblers.

    Outbreaks of what look to be infectious illnesses don't just happen for no reason. There has to be some facilitating factor.

    AIDS became a big thing in the early 1980s, and we know that initially, the majority of patients were gay males. African-Americans were also known to be at increased risk.

    Even if butt sex is an especially efficient method of transmitting STDs, it doesn't explain why AIDS became a phenomenon in the 1980s. After all, both sodomy and homosexuality have been around as long as humans have. Heck, even apes have been observed taking rides on the Hershey Highway.

    Which begs the question: What other events with the potential for dire impact on health occurred around the same time as the AIDS outbreak?

    The Other Crack Rears Its Ugly Head

    Thanks in no small part to Uncle Sam and his ability to conveniently look the other way when it suits his financial and geopolitical interests*, the early 1980s saw a massive flood of cocaine into the US, with urban black neighborhoods the worst afflicted.

    So plentiful was the supply of cocaine, drug dealers came up with a way to make it even cheaper and more addictive in order to expand their customer base.

    Freebase is the name given to the original form of smokable coke, which resulted in a more intense high than snorting. While this constituted an obvious selling point, the process for making freebase required ether, making it notoriously volatile and dangerous to produce. In a famed 1980 incident, comedian Richard Pryor suffered severe and life-threatening burns after mixing cocaine with ether at his home; the mixture promptly exploded in his face.

    Freebase cocaine seems to have first surfaced in the US in the mid-1970s. Around 1980, a less volatile but similar process was developed by dealers in which cocaine was dissolved in a solution of water and baking soda and then dried out into "crack rocks." As the rocks are heated, it makes a crackling sound, hence the name.

    As early as 1981, reports of crack appeared in Los Angeles, San Diego, Houston, and in the Caribbean. Its use quickly spread to other major US cities, and by 1987, crack was reportedly available in DC and all but four states in the Union.

    "In some major cities, such as New York, Detroit, and Philadelphia, one dosage unit of crack could be obtained for as little as $2.50," writes the US DEA. "Never before had any form of cocaine been available at such low prices and at such high purity."

    The crack epidemic dramatically increased the number of Americans addicted to cocaine, as well as the number of cocaine-related hospital emergencies. In 1985, cocaine-related hospital emergencies rose by 12 percent, from 23,500 to 26,300. In 1986, these incidents increased 110 percent, from 26,300 to 55,200.

    The crack cocaine explosion, you'll notice, overlaps neatly with the AIDS "explosion."

    The House of Representatives Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control held cocaine hearings in July, October, and November 1980. Dr. Robert Byck, who along with his colleagues conducted the first scientific studies of cocaine plasma levels after coca paste smoking, testified at the hearings. He warned that the heavy use of smokable freebase cocaine, employed by an estimated 10 percent of cocaine users, was about to change. He warned Congress that the US was about to experience the worst epidemic of drug abuse the country had ever seen. Byck predicted the use of smoked cocaine in the 1980s would match the widespread use of "speed" (methamphetamine) in the 1960s. He urged Congress and the National Institute on Drug Abuse to mount an education and prevention campaign to avert this impending epidemic.

    No such campaign was undertaken.

    "The emergence of crack cocaine use in the United States during the mid-1980s was one of the most significant public health problems of that era," note Watkins et al in a 1998 paper. "Crack use contributed to a series of sexually transmitted disease epidemics, to epidemic increases in violent injuries and homicides, and to significant increases in the incidence and prevalence of cocaine addiction. Despite these threats to health and safety, a national public health campaign to counter crack-related morbidity and mortality was never mounted."

    Is that because authorities were already committed to carrying out a manufactured 'HIV' crisis?

    Crack, Risky Sex, and 'HIV'

    A 1994 NEJM article reported an analysis of 1,967 people recruited from inner-city neighborhoods in New York, Miami, and San Francisco. All respondents reported never having injected drugs, however 1,137 were regular smokers of crack. The remaining 830 people reported never having smoked crack.

    The results for crack users weren't pretty.

    Female crack users were 4.1 times more likely to have been raped, and 1.6 times more likely to have had their first vaginal or anal sex encounter before 13 years of age.

    Both male and female crack users reported a higher number of sexual partners than non-users; in the case of women, crack users were 11 times more likely to have had 50 or more sexual partners.

    Crack-smoking women were 13.5 times more likely than nonsmoking women to have engaged in sexual work at any time, and 28.8 times more likely to have engaged in recent, unprotected sex work.

    Male crack smokers, meanwhile, were 3.4 times more likely to report ever having homosexual anal sex, and 23 times more likely to have had 50 or more male anal sex partners.

    Clearly, crack users were significantly more likely to engage in prostitution and risky sexual practices.

    Not surprising then, that female and male crack users had higher historical rates of syphilis (3.5 and 2.2, respectively) and gonorrhea (1.8 and 1.6, respectively).

    When the researchers ran blood tests for current infection, female and male crack users were significantly more likely to test positive for syphilis (2.8 and 1.6, respectively).

    Among the participants in New York and Miami, HIV 'infection' was 2.3 times more prevalent among crack smokers than among nonsmokers (prevalence of HIV antibodies among participants recruited in San Francisco was low).

    Testing positive for ‘HIV antibodies’ was strongly associated with previous or current infection with other STDs.

    A positive reactive syphilis test (adjusted odds ratio, 2.3) and a history of herpes (adjusted odds ratio, 3.6) remained significantly associated with HIV infection after adjustment for high-risk sexual practices and African-American race.

    Other studies found similar results.

    Chiasson and colleagues at the New York City Department of Health examined the link between HIV infection and crack use. Examining patients at an STD clinic in the South Bronx, they found that, among women with no other identified risk (i.e., no injectible drug use), crack use, prostitution, crack-using prostitution and history of syphilis were all found to be risk factors for HIV infection. Among men with no other risk behavior, a history of syphilis was in fact the strongest predictor of HIV infection - greater than crack use and contact with prostitutes.

    In a 1990 paper, Greenspan and Castro note "between 1981 and 1983, the incidence of primary and secondary syphilis in the United States increased 34%, reaching a rate in 1989 (18.4 cases per 100,000 persons) that was higher than at any time since 1949. Between 1985 and 1989, incidence among blacks more than doubled, from 52.5 to 121.8 cases per 100,000; the increase was greater for black women than for black men (176% versus 106%). These trends are markers for the same high-risk sexual practices that promote transmission of HIV."

    So crack, syphilis and ‘HIV’ are closely related. Now let's look at another class of drugs showing a close correlation with pre-existing STDs and ‘HIV.’

    The Popper Phenomenon

    “Poppers” is a slang term for nitrite inhalant drugs (when they were first manufactured, they came in small ampoules that were 'popped' to release fumes). Amyl nitrite was originally developed to treat angina pectoris by dilating blood vessels, allowing the heart to get more oxygen and thereby relieving the pain.

    Arteries are not the only thing poppers help to dilate. Inhaling nitrites relaxes smooth muscles throughout the body - including the sphincter muscles, making it particularly helpful to gay posteriors. Along with facilitating anal sex, the blood vessel-dilating effects of poppers can produce a brief but intense sensation of heat and euphoria lasting 1 or 2 minutes.

    The story of poppers is an interesting one, involving US Vietnam vets, a profiteering Big Pharma and an enabling FDA, a gay medical student and organized criminals.

    The latter two entities sidestepped an eventual prescription requirement for amyl nitrite by creating butyl and isobutyl nitrite - less pure, more toxic, and even faster-acting versions than the original. Further restrictions were averted thanks to an unwritten agreement between producers and the FDA that poppers were only to be advertised in gay-oriented publications, as 'room deodorizers.'

    During the 1970s and early 80s, poppers were advertised heavily in the gay press, and the drugs became an integral part of gay culture. Not only was it routine for patrons at gay nightclubs to freely pass the vials around, some "disco clubs would even add to the general euphoria by occasionally spraying the dance floor with poppers fumes."

    "The miasma of nitrite fumes was taken for granted at gay gathering places: bars, baths, leather clubs," writes John Lauritsen in a 1994 New York Native article. "Some gay men were never without their little bottle, from which they snorted fumes around the clock."

    Throwing caution to the wind when it comes to drugs never ends well. Amyl nitrite was developed for occasional use by angina patients, not as a party drug to be snorted every time one hit the dance floor or engaged in a bout of Jolly Rogering.

    Apart from causing localized damage to nasal membranes, poppers have been linked to anemia, strokes, heart, lung, and brain damage, cardiovascular collapse, and, tellingly, the blood de-oxygenation, thymus atrophy, chronic depletion of T-cell ratio's associated with severe immune dysfunction. The drugs have also been linked to the development of Kaposi's Sarcoma.

    Sounds a lot like AIDS, doesn't it?

    While researchers and the more level-headed of gay advocates warned of the dangers, the FDA continued to look the other way. The gay press, whose advertising revenue relied heavily on popper ads, also willfully turned a blind eye to the dangers.

    In the 1980s, in a lukewarm attempt to be seen to be doing something about the problem, US health officials banned the use of poppers in public places and required merchants to post warnings about their dangers. "The warnings about their use disappeared sometime in the late '80s to early '90s," reports SFGATE, "and no one seems to know why."

    "During the first few years of the AIDS epidemic," writes Ian Young at VirusMyth.org, "poppers came under suspicion as a possible contributing factor. But after 1984, when the Reagan administration pronounced a single retrovirus to be the only cause of the growing list of AIDS illnesses, the health hazards of poppers were dismissed. All attention and funding was directed to HIV."

    Fun fact: Burroughs Wellcome, the original manufacturers of poppers, went on to profit handsomely from the subsequent AIDS hysteria with its highly-toxic 'anti-AIDS' drug AZT.

    History is Made (Up)

    There were major drug scourges afflicting the high-risk gay and African-American communities, drugs whose chronologies overlapped neatly with the AIDS outbreak. Use and abuse of these drugs was well established to cause severe illness, immune dysfunction and was also strongly correlated with pre-existing STDs like syphilis.

    The powers-that-be, however, had already decided the sole cause of AIDs was a 'novel virus.' They just needed to come up with one.

    And so along came the virologists to save the day. Not just any old bunch of virologists, but virologists with friends in high places. In France, this meant Luc Montagnier and his team at the Pasteur Institute, which advises the French government and the World Health Organization (WHO), and maintains a close collaboration with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    In the US, it meant sci-bureaucrats from the government's behemoth National Institutes of Health (NIH). One of the key figures was the caustic Robert S Gallo, a researcher at the NIH's National Cancer Institute, where he worked for 30 years mainly as head of the Laboratory of Tumor Cell Biology. Gallo’s career would be dogged by controversy and misconduct allegations, but that’s a whole other article (stay tuned).

    The other career bureaucrat that would play a key role on the US side was none other than Anthony S Fauci, who recently completed a ridiculous 38-year reign as unelected head of the NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

    If you've surmised that, with names like the above, the HIV story must be a real shite show, you are absolutely correct.

    HIV is Invented 'Discovered'

    In 1983, the Pasteur Institute researchers declared they had 'isolated' a 'retrovirus' belonging to the family of T-cell leukemia viruses (HTLV), and concluded it "may be involved in several pathological syndromes, including AIDS." (Bold emphasis added)

    Their isolate came from a promiscuous 33-year-old Caucasian homosexual male referred to as "BRU", who indicated he'd had more than 50 sexual partners per year. Nasty. According to the authors, he displayed "signs and symptoms that often precede the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)." However, the only symptoms reported for the patient were multiple lymphadenopathies (swollen lymph glands) and asthenia (weakness), which are evident in many conditions aside from AIDS. Neither fever nor recent loss of weight were noted.

    In other words, the patient from whom the alleged AIDS-causing virus was first 'isolated' from did not have an AIDS diagnosis.

    Tellingly, the patient did have a history of several episodes of gonorrhea and had been treated for syphilis in September 1982. Lymphadenopathy is one of the symptoms of both the aforementioned infections.

    The study's lead author was Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, although the finding is routinely credited to the paper's last listed author, the late Montagnier.

    The French study was marred by two key problems. It did not isolate any virus, and it did not show AIDS was caused by any HTLV offshoot.

    Forty years later, little has changed. The terminology and rationalizations have indeed become increasingly complex (as is the case with most elaborate lies), but there is no physical isolate of 'HIV.'

    Virologists and their sycophants, of course, insist this doesn't matter and that their non-purified mixtures are indeed isolates.

    While they condescendingly sneer and dismiss anyone who disputes this as a silly little dumb-dumb that doesn't 'understand' virology, they tend to remain rather quiet on another highly inconvenient observation.

    Namely, there is no proof that whatever is in their ‘isolates’ actually causes AIDS.

    HIV and Sars-Cov-2: The 'Deadly' Viruses That Aren't Deadly

    In the early days of 'COVID', testing positive for the mythical Sars-Cov-2 was considered a death sentence. So much so, that some folks didn't even bother getting their affairs in order; they instead killed themselves.

    Such is the power of all this heinous "deadly virus" bullshit.

    It was the same in the 'HIV' Dark Ages - testing positive was considered a death sentence. When a famous basketballer by the name of Erving “Magic” Johnson announced he was HIV positive in 1991, everyone was shocked. "Now we all know someone with HIV," said someone I can't recall in what was supposed to be a profound, insight-triggering moment.

    Johnson, everyone assumed, was now living on borrowed time.

    Thirty-three years later, Johnson is still alive and wealthy. He attributes his survival to antiretroviral cocktails that have never been shown in clinical studies to benefit survival: GlaxoSmithKline's Trizivir and Abbott's Kaletra. These cocktails are comprised of drugs like AZT which increase the risk of side effects but have never been shown to exert a mortality benefit.

    Johnson, it should be noted, has featured in ads for both products. In 2009, the FDA issued a warning letter to Abbott Laboratories regarding a promotional DVD in which Johnson discussed his experiences with Kaletra. The letter stated the violations were of public health concern "because they suggest that Kaletra is safer and more effective than has been demonstrated by substantial evidence or substantial clinical experience, and encourage use in circumstances other than those for which the drug has been shown to be safe and effective."

    "FDA is not aware of substantial evidence or substantial clinical experience to support effectiveness for five or more years of treatment with Kaletra in treatment-experienced adults. The personal experience of Kaletra patients, such as Magic Johnson, does not constitute such evidence."

    So if overpriced drug cocktails aren't keeping Johnson alive, what explains his survival?

    It's explained by the fact that HIV is a load of bollocks. A shady test that claims you are ‘HIV positive’ does not mean you are in fact harboring a deadly 'virus.'

    If ‘HIV’ was so deadly, then lab animals infected with it would get sick and die.

    But guess what? Administering a so-called isolate of uber-deadly HIV to animals results in ... nothing.

    Stugatz.

    That's right - directly administering the Virus That Causes AIDS™ to animals does not cause AIDS.

    "The only animals susceptible to experimental HIV-1** infection are the chimpanzee, gibbon ape, and rabbit but AIDS-like disease has not yet been reported in these species," lamented the authors of a 1989 FASEB paper.

    Oops.

    I'm guessing those chimps, gibbons and wascawwy wabbits didn't have a history of syphilis, smoking crack or inhaling poppers.

    Experiments in which human volunteers are deliberately 'infected' with the 'HIV isolate' would never get past the ethics committees of most research institutions.

    We do, however, have numerous instances of involuntary infection to give us a guide as to what happens when otherwise low-risk individuals are exposed to 'HIV.'

    In a 1984 NEJM letter, before 'HIV' testing became available, Sloan Kettering researchers reported there had been 27 parenteral exposures by 25 staff to the blood of AIDS patients since August 1982 (24 exposures were via needlestick).

    "All the involved staff are in their usual (generally excellent) state of health," including those who were exposed more than 12 months ago. Blood work was available for 12 staff with exposure more than 6 months prior, and no abnormalities were evident, reported the researchers.

    During 1985–2013, 58 confirmed and 150 possible cases of occupationally acquired HIV infection among healthcare workers were reported to the CDC. Since 1999, only one confirmed case (a laboratory technician sustaining a needle puncture while working with a live HIV culture in 2008) has been reported. There is no mention of subsequent AIDS, something the fear-porn agents at the CDC would surely have mentioned had it occurred.

    Some of you have probably heard of Dr Robert Willner, who twice deliberately pricked himself on TV with blood from 'HIV-positive' men (in Spain 1993, and USA 1994). Willner was an outspoken critic of the HIV hypothesis, having authored a book titled Deadly Deception: The Proof that Sex and HIV Absolutely Do Not Cause AIDS. Depending on who you listen to, Willner died 3 months after his 1994 TV appearance in a car crash, or the following year from a heart attack. Neither outcome is consistent with the oft-cited sequelae of AIDS.

    Jump, Jump, Jump Around

    Despite the fact that it is scientifically untenable, the HIV theory of AIDS still reigns supreme. Which brings us back to the key question: Why did 'HIV' wait until Wham! and Devine hit the charts before it started striking down gay blokes en mass?

    Enter the apes.

    According to Wikipedia, "HIV made the jump from other primates to humans in west-central Africa in the early-to-mid-20th century." (Bold emphasis added)

    Just like Sars-Cov-2 was purported to have kicked off when the allegedly zoonotic virus "jumped" to humans from a bat or pangolin at a Wuhan wet market that did not sell any bats or pangolins.

    Says Wikipedia, "Scientists generally accept that the known strains (or groups) of HIV-1 are most closely related to the simian immunodeficiency viruses (SIVs) endemic in wild ape populations of West Central African forests." (Bold emphasis added).

    "Generally accept" is code for "Scientists have no proof of this, but pretend it's true anyway."

    This brings us to an oft-cited 2011 paper titled "Origins of HIV and the AIDS Pandemic" which repeats the claim that "simian immunodeficiency viruses (SIVs) ... crossed from monkeys to apes and from apes to humans." The paper was authored by Paul Sharp and Beatrice Hahn, the latter a member of Gallo's NCI lab team which she joined in 1982.


    A chimpanzee minding his own business while a Gallo associate who blames apes for spreading HIV to humans (Beatrice Hahn) stares at him from a distance.
    In their paper, the researchers provide a graphic claiming SIV resulting in HIV-1 has been transmitted to humans via chimpanzees and gorillas.

    Hold that thought.

    According to the official narrative, the primary routes of 'HIV' transmission in humans are sexual intercourse with an infected individual, sharing needles with an infected person while taking drugs, transfusions of infected blood, or transmission from an infected pregnant mother to fetus.

    Sharp and Hahn speculate that SIVs first developed in chimpanzees, and were spread among the chimpanzee community primarily through sexual activity, from infected mothers to infants, and "in rare cases, possibly by aggression."

    But how did the disease "jump" from apes to humans? Researchers can't claim humans and apes were shooting up drugs together and sharing needles while doing so, or that apes were administering blood transfusions to humans, because that would be patently absurd.

    Ditto for suggesting apes were passing SIV to humans via birth, because apes don't give birth to humans.

    Claiming that apes transmitted SIV to humans because they were having cross-species sexual encounters would also be a hard sell. Humans are capable of some pretty weird and degenerate behaviour, but good luck pinning down a chimp or gorilla while you attempt to get jiggy with it.


    Meet Bruce. Can bench press you and your extended family with one arm. Incursions into his personal space not advised.
    "How humans acquired the ape precursors of HIV-1 groups M, N, O, and P is not known," write Sharp and Hahn, "however, based on the biology of these viruses, transmission must have occurred through cutaneous or mucous membrane exposure to infected ape blood and/or body fluids. Such exposures occur most commonly in the context of bushmeat hunting." (Bold emphasis added).

    Researchers can't explain exactly how immunodeficiency viruses pole-vaulted from apes to human, so they simply assume it must have happened during hunting expeditions.

    Virologists do a lot of assuming.

    Sharp and Hahn write that the first clue to HIV-1's "sudden emergence, epidemic spread, and unique pathogenicity" came in 1986 when a “morphologically similar but anti-genically distinct” virus was allegedly found to cause AIDS in patients in western Africa.

    Well riddle me this, Batman: Humans have been around for 2.5 million years, and the earliest Homo sapiens were getting around some 300,000 years ago.

    We've been hunting that whole time.

    Furthermore, the advance of agriculture and the steadily declining numbers of hunter-gatherers in modern times would have meant a greatly reduced opportunity for SIV to jump aboard the H-train via scratchy-bitey-fluid-exchangey hunting confrontations.

    Yet immunodeficiency viruses waited until the latter half of the Twentieth Century to successfully make the big cross-species jump?

    What an utter crock.

    Wikipedia admits "How the SIV virus would have transformed into HIV after infection of the hunter or bushmeat handler from the ape/monkey is still a matter of debate."

    Translated: There is no actual scientific evidence to support the claim that, after allegedly entering the human body, ‘SIV’ magically transformed into ‘HIV.’

    The Sodomy Paradox

    There's another problem with the official AIDS narrative which holds that, after catching SIV from apes during hunting mishaps in Africa, it "transformed" into HIV, which hunter-gatherers then spread by doing the backdoor boogie with gay abandon.

    That story further holds that, somewhere along the way, one of these HIV-carrying ape-hunters nailed a gay airline steward from America. Patient Zero then flew back to the US, and began having lots of AIDS-causing unprotected sex in the saunas of San Francisco. Or the gay bars of New York. Or the wet markets of Wisconsin, I'm not sure, all this virus BS gets a bit hard to keep track of after a while.

    It doesn't really matter, because like the rest of the AIDS tale, the gay airline steward story was nonsense. Gaetan Dugas, the French-Canadian flight attendant posthumously labelled 'Patient Zero' and accused of single-handedly igniting the spread of HIV/AIDS across North America, was later exonerated.

    Thanks to the determined sleuthing of Pullitzer Prize-winning reporter John Crewdson, it was known by 1988 that what we now call AIDS was in fact present in America in the 1960s. While the rest of the media was tripping over itself to blame Dugas (“THE MAN WHO GAVE US AIDS” blared the New York Post’s October 6, 1987 headline; “Canadian Said to Have Had Key Role in Spread of AIDS,” wrote the New York Times, while the National Review nicknamed Dugas “the Columbus of AIDS"), Crewdson had discovered a 1973 case report that showed the official Patient Zero story was bollocks.

    That 1973 case report described Robert Rayford, a 15-year-old black lad from St. Louis who had died of AIDS in 1969 - more than a decade before anyone knew what AIDS was. The impoverished teen had presented to hospital in the spring of 1968 with swollen loins covered with open, infected sores. He struggled while breathing, was razor thin and pale as a ghost. Doctors initially suspected cancer, but subsequent tests revealed herpes, genital warts, and a severe case of chlamydia. The infection spread, in the form of purple colored lesions, to his legs, causing a misdiagnosis of lymphedema. He eventually succumbed to his condition in May 1969, leaving doctors baffled.

    The teen, who doctors described as mildly intellectually impaired, said he'd suffered the symptoms for around two years prior to seeking medical help. He denied injury or animal bites, had not travelled outside the midwestern United States, but admitted to "frequent" heterosexual intercourse. His family consented to an autopsy, which revealed "widespread Kaposi's sarcoma of the aggressive, disseminated type." The autopsy also found evidence of anal scarring and a particular kind of lesion no one had identified when Rayford was alive. Some doctors thought the scarring indicated Rayford was gay; others pointed out he may have been sexually abused.

    Struck by how closely Rayford's symptoms resembled those of AIDS, Crewdson flew to St. Louis and found a pathologist willing to dig through laboratory freezers in search of the youth's tissue samples. By using the test 'co-developed' by Gallo and the French, researchers were able to determine that the boy, incredibly, had been infected with 'HIV.'

    The finding was published in JAMA in 1988. However, it was not until 2016 that the fake Dugas tale was officially revoked.

    Had the Rayford story been more widely known, it wouldn’t have been good for HIV business.

    Not to worry, the out-of-Africa hypothesis was salvaged in 1998 when researchers claimed they had detected HIV - by a PCR process involving two rounds of amplification for a combined total of 69 cycles - in a plasma sample obtained in early 1959 from an adult Bantu male, with a sickle-cell trait and a glucose-6-phosphate-dehydrogenase deficiency, living in the Belgian Congo. Two of the researchers announcing this narrative-saving discovery hailed from the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center, at Rockefeller University in New York.

    So just like the COVID charade, we have a shamdemic for which the original Patient Zero story was shown to be a bunch of cobblers. Just like the COVID sham, few people noticed or cared and the rest of the AIDS tale continued its relentless march and took on a life of its own.

    Despite more holes than a ... wait, that's dangerous pun territory ... I mean, despite a plethora of discrepancies, the official Fauci-endorsed tale still has HIV migrating from Africa to the US and spread in the early 1980s by blokes bumping uglies in big city gay bars and saunas.

    And Fauci should know, because he went to gay saunas and gay bars himself in the “early stages” of the AIDS “explosion” to get a “feel” for the situation.

    Purely for ‘research’ purposes, of course (wink, wink).

    It's okay Tony, it's 2024, you don't have to cover for your sexuality anymore.


    A young Anthony Fauci displaying his "I've just been to the saunas!" smile. Your tax money at work.
    You could literally fill a book with all the discrepancies contained within the official AIDS story; several authors have already done just that. What I wanted to highlight here are the commonalities between the AIDS and COVID sagas.

    Both featured never-isolated 'viruses' with nonsensical 'Patient Zero' stories.

    ‘Isolates’ of both these ‘deadly’ and ‘novel’ viruses do a whole lot of nothing when administered to our primate cousins.

    Both sagas featured Anthony Fauci, showing up on cue touting the most toxic drug he could get away with recommending.

    Both featured doomsday, end-of-times hyperbole in which testing 'positive' was initially considered a death sentence.

    Both were remarkable demonstrations of how the media and masses could be easily manipulated into accepting a pandemic scare that, upon the most cursory examination, simply didn't add up.


    *During the presidency of former actor Ronald Reagan, senior administration officials secretly — and illegally — arranged for the sale of arms to Iran in return for Iran’s promise to help secure the release of a group of Americans being held hostage in Lebanon.

    Suspiciously, the hostages were formally released into US custody just minutes after Reagan was sworn into office.

    Proceeds from the arms sales were then secretly, and again illegally, funneled to the Contras, a group of rebels fighting the Marxist Sandinista government of Nicaragua.

    Is if that wasn't bad enough, the CIA looked the other way while the Contras trafficked cocaine into the US to help finance their fight to oust the communist Sandinistas. The scandal was exposed in 1996 by the brilliant, Pullitzer Prize-winning journalist Gary Webb while writing for the San Jose Mercury News. His series described a San Francisco Bay Area drug ring that sold tons of cocaine to the Crips and Bloods street gangs of Los Angeles, funelling millions in drug profits to the CIA-assisted Contras. This drug ring "opened the first pipeline between Colombia's cocaine cartels and the black neighborhoods of Los Angeles" and, as a result, "helped spark a crack explosion in urban America."

    His articles caused a proverbial shit-storm, prompting the government to conduct several investigations into itself and declaring itself innocent of all charges. We were supposed to believe it was all just an accidental oversight when even the Kerry report acknowledged "the Contra drug links included", among other connections, "... payments to drug traffickers by the U.S. State Department of funds authorized by the Congress for humanitarian assistance to the Contras, in some cases after the traffickers had been indicted by federal law enforcement agencies on drug charges, in others while traffickers were under active investigation by these same agencies." (Bold emphasis added).

    The Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and Washington Post launched their own 'investigations' (read: hatchet jobs) and rejected Webb's allegations, instead siding with the government - a practice they uphold to this day.

    However, an internal CIA report released in 1998 admitted the CIA ‘overlooked’ or ‘ignored’ reports that the Nicaragua Contra rebels financed their fight to oust the communist Sandinistas through the sale of drugs in the United States.

    **‘HIV-1’ is the form of ‘HIV’ allegedly most common and threatening to humans. According to the official tale, ‘HIV-2’ is rare and of little threat.

    Share

    https://substack.com/home/post/p-146567752
    Why the Official AIDS Story is a Complete Crock The Great Rebranding, 1980s-Style: HIV Was a Sham, Just Like Sars-Cov-2 Anthony Colpo All you youngsters born after the Glomesh era have surely heard of AIDS, but probably have no idea of just how big a deal it was when it burst onto the scene in the early 1980s. It was the biggest show in town. Sure, it wasn't as big a deal as what COVID would later be. It wasn't accompanied by 'vaccine' mandates, lockdowns or heavily-armed goons bashing people for sitting peacefully in the park. Instead of masks, there were condoms and paper toilet seat covers. There was no social distancing, only admonitions to avoid unprotected sex and not share needles when shooting up. Fauci was there, front and center, but he wasn't telling us to wear two condoms at once. Instead, he was pimping a toxic concoction known as AZT. Right off the bat, nothing made sense about the AIDs charade. It does make sense in hindsight if you view it as a giant test run, an exercise in spreading 'virus' hysteria. The HIV/AIDS charade confirmed most people don't ask questions, and those who do can be quickly shouted over and marginalized as "deniers," "conspiracists" and menaces to society. It also confirmed that not only could people be convinced to take toxic drugs in response to an overblown 'pandemic' scare, but they could be manipulated into rabidly demanding their expedited release. It was an exercise whose lessons would prove valuable come December 2019. AIDS stands for "acquired immunodeficiency syndrome." In other words, you somehow "acquired" an immune system that, like a tired car engine with 300,000 km on the clock, was about to blow its last gasket. It was first identified in 1981 in Los Angeles when the CDC reported on five young homosexual men suffering pneumonia caused by a protozoon known as Pneumocystis carinii. This microbe is ordinarily innocuous and, in fact, found in nearly all healthy persons. For reasons unknown it had suddenly become lethal - an outcome previously seen only in persons whose immune systems were being undermined by immunosuppressant therapy, cancer, or severe malnourishment. This same pneumonia promptly appeared in New York, together with several dozen cases of an unusual skin cancer called Kaposi's Sarcoma which had previously been almost unknown in the US. Eventually Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and Kaposi's Sarcoma were interpreted as secondary manifestations of an underlying immune-system deficiency of unknown origin which was eventually dubbed "acquired immunodeficiency disease syndrome" or AIDS. The bodies of AIDS patients seemed to have just given up. Patients suffered severe weight loss and lethargy and were so immune deficient that even a minor infection threatened to kill them. The first few thousand cases were found mostly in homosexual males, and the media bombarded us with images of emaciated gay blokes on the verge of death and barely able to sit upright. Initially, the condition was referred to as GRID (gay-related immune deficiency). Outside of scientific circles, it came to be known as the "gay plague" and religious fundamentalists trumpeted the phenomenon as God's revenge on evil sodomites. That began to change in 1983, when AIDS was found to affect heterosexual women, which caused the fear porn to increase by an order of magnitude. As with COVID, health authorities treated us to an orgy of fearmongering and doomsday predictions - and the sheeple lapped it up. In 1986, Dr. Donald Ian Macdonald, then Acting Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, described "the escalating AIDS epidemic" as "staggering," "devastating" and a "huge problem." Dr. Halfdan Mahler, Danish physician and head of the World Health Organization, called AIDS "a health disaster of pandemic proportions" and said he could "not imagine a worse health problem in this century." "We stand nakedly in front of a very serious pandemic as mortal as any pandemic there ever has been," Mahler bizarrely quipped. Why he would don his birthday suit instead of a Hazmat one in the face of such a mortal pandemic was never explained, but that's globalist bureaucrats for you. "I don't know of any greater killer than AIDS, not to speak of its psychological, social and economic maiming," continued Mahler, who after leaving WHO became director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation. Not to be outdone, in 1987 Harvard biology professor Stephen Jay Gould, said AIDS was "potentially, the greatest natural tragedy in human history." He warned "AIDS may run through the entire population, and may carry off a quarter or more of us" (in 1987, the world population was just over 5 billion; it now stands at over 8 billion). That same year, Gallup asked an open-ended question about what Americans saw as the most urgent health problem facing the US. Despite the fact AIDS has never even come close to being the leading cause of death in the US, more than two-thirds of Americans said AIDS. The disease continued as the top pick until 2000. According to Gallop polls conducted in 1987, most Americans (60%) agreed people with AIDS should be made to carry a card noting they had the disease, and one in three (33%) agreed employers should be allowed to fire employees who had AIDS. Twenty-one percent of Americans said people with AIDS should be isolated from the rest of society. An earlier LA Times poll from 1985 found more than half of US adults supported quarantining AIDS patients, nearly half would approve of ID cards for those testing positive for "AIDS antibodies," and one in seven favored tattooing those with the disease. People never learn. A Disease Looking For a Cause Authorities had presented us with a new public health scare, but no causal agent. No-one knew what caused the immune systems of AIDS patients to become so deficient. Was it a new microbe? A new drug scourge? God's revenge for Abba and Disco Duck? No-one knew. At least officially. In reality, authorities knew damn well what was going on. But they didn’t tell us. Instead, they eventually claimed AIDS was the result of a 'novel virus' that, in 1986, was named "human immunodeficiency virus,” or HIV. The 'novel virus' paradigm holds that a 'zoonotic' virus wakes up one day, and decides to "jump" from apes/bats/pangolins/garden gnomes to humans. This novel virus then acts like a seventeen year old that has been given the keys to an alcohol-filled mansion while mom and dad head off for a weekend vacation. However, the virus has no friends to party with. So he first has to convert to a 'human' form of the virus, then he has to begin self-replicating in order to build a social circle. Once this is done, the virions party so hard that the host becomes sick. The virions conclude their current host is no fun, so they go looking for a new host to party inside. The process repeats itself, and before you know it, there's a 'pandemic' going on with squillions of little virions pogo-dancing in global synchrony and chanting "the roof, the roof, the roof is on fire!!" while trashing everything in sight. Viruses these days, sheesh. Setting aside the glaring fallacies of the virus 'isolation' charade, the 'novel virus = pandemic’ theory is an inherent load of cobblers. Outbreaks of what look to be infectious illnesses don't just happen for no reason. There has to be some facilitating factor. AIDS became a big thing in the early 1980s, and we know that initially, the majority of patients were gay males. African-Americans were also known to be at increased risk. Even if butt sex is an especially efficient method of transmitting STDs, it doesn't explain why AIDS became a phenomenon in the 1980s. After all, both sodomy and homosexuality have been around as long as humans have. Heck, even apes have been observed taking rides on the Hershey Highway. Which begs the question: What other events with the potential for dire impact on health occurred around the same time as the AIDS outbreak? The Other Crack Rears Its Ugly Head Thanks in no small part to Uncle Sam and his ability to conveniently look the other way when it suits his financial and geopolitical interests*, the early 1980s saw a massive flood of cocaine into the US, with urban black neighborhoods the worst afflicted. So plentiful was the supply of cocaine, drug dealers came up with a way to make it even cheaper and more addictive in order to expand their customer base. Freebase is the name given to the original form of smokable coke, which resulted in a more intense high than snorting. While this constituted an obvious selling point, the process for making freebase required ether, making it notoriously volatile and dangerous to produce. In a famed 1980 incident, comedian Richard Pryor suffered severe and life-threatening burns after mixing cocaine with ether at his home; the mixture promptly exploded in his face. Freebase cocaine seems to have first surfaced in the US in the mid-1970s. Around 1980, a less volatile but similar process was developed by dealers in which cocaine was dissolved in a solution of water and baking soda and then dried out into "crack rocks." As the rocks are heated, it makes a crackling sound, hence the name. As early as 1981, reports of crack appeared in Los Angeles, San Diego, Houston, and in the Caribbean. Its use quickly spread to other major US cities, and by 1987, crack was reportedly available in DC and all but four states in the Union. "In some major cities, such as New York, Detroit, and Philadelphia, one dosage unit of crack could be obtained for as little as $2.50," writes the US DEA. "Never before had any form of cocaine been available at such low prices and at such high purity." The crack epidemic dramatically increased the number of Americans addicted to cocaine, as well as the number of cocaine-related hospital emergencies. In 1985, cocaine-related hospital emergencies rose by 12 percent, from 23,500 to 26,300. In 1986, these incidents increased 110 percent, from 26,300 to 55,200. The crack cocaine explosion, you'll notice, overlaps neatly with the AIDS "explosion." The House of Representatives Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control held cocaine hearings in July, October, and November 1980. Dr. Robert Byck, who along with his colleagues conducted the first scientific studies of cocaine plasma levels after coca paste smoking, testified at the hearings. He warned that the heavy use of smokable freebase cocaine, employed by an estimated 10 percent of cocaine users, was about to change. He warned Congress that the US was about to experience the worst epidemic of drug abuse the country had ever seen. Byck predicted the use of smoked cocaine in the 1980s would match the widespread use of "speed" (methamphetamine) in the 1960s. He urged Congress and the National Institute on Drug Abuse to mount an education and prevention campaign to avert this impending epidemic. No such campaign was undertaken. "The emergence of crack cocaine use in the United States during the mid-1980s was one of the most significant public health problems of that era," note Watkins et al in a 1998 paper. "Crack use contributed to a series of sexually transmitted disease epidemics, to epidemic increases in violent injuries and homicides, and to significant increases in the incidence and prevalence of cocaine addiction. Despite these threats to health and safety, a national public health campaign to counter crack-related morbidity and mortality was never mounted." Is that because authorities were already committed to carrying out a manufactured 'HIV' crisis? Crack, Risky Sex, and 'HIV' A 1994 NEJM article reported an analysis of 1,967 people recruited from inner-city neighborhoods in New York, Miami, and San Francisco. All respondents reported never having injected drugs, however 1,137 were regular smokers of crack. The remaining 830 people reported never having smoked crack. The results for crack users weren't pretty. Female crack users were 4.1 times more likely to have been raped, and 1.6 times more likely to have had their first vaginal or anal sex encounter before 13 years of age. Both male and female crack users reported a higher number of sexual partners than non-users; in the case of women, crack users were 11 times more likely to have had 50 or more sexual partners. Crack-smoking women were 13.5 times more likely than nonsmoking women to have engaged in sexual work at any time, and 28.8 times more likely to have engaged in recent, unprotected sex work. Male crack smokers, meanwhile, were 3.4 times more likely to report ever having homosexual anal sex, and 23 times more likely to have had 50 or more male anal sex partners. Clearly, crack users were significantly more likely to engage in prostitution and risky sexual practices. Not surprising then, that female and male crack users had higher historical rates of syphilis (3.5 and 2.2, respectively) and gonorrhea (1.8 and 1.6, respectively). When the researchers ran blood tests for current infection, female and male crack users were significantly more likely to test positive for syphilis (2.8 and 1.6, respectively). Among the participants in New York and Miami, HIV 'infection' was 2.3 times more prevalent among crack smokers than among nonsmokers (prevalence of HIV antibodies among participants recruited in San Francisco was low). Testing positive for ‘HIV antibodies’ was strongly associated with previous or current infection with other STDs. A positive reactive syphilis test (adjusted odds ratio, 2.3) and a history of herpes (adjusted odds ratio, 3.6) remained significantly associated with HIV infection after adjustment for high-risk sexual practices and African-American race. Other studies found similar results. Chiasson and colleagues at the New York City Department of Health examined the link between HIV infection and crack use. Examining patients at an STD clinic in the South Bronx, they found that, among women with no other identified risk (i.e., no injectible drug use), crack use, prostitution, crack-using prostitution and history of syphilis were all found to be risk factors for HIV infection. Among men with no other risk behavior, a history of syphilis was in fact the strongest predictor of HIV infection - greater than crack use and contact with prostitutes. In a 1990 paper, Greenspan and Castro note "between 1981 and 1983, the incidence of primary and secondary syphilis in the United States increased 34%, reaching a rate in 1989 (18.4 cases per 100,000 persons) that was higher than at any time since 1949. Between 1985 and 1989, incidence among blacks more than doubled, from 52.5 to 121.8 cases per 100,000; the increase was greater for black women than for black men (176% versus 106%). These trends are markers for the same high-risk sexual practices that promote transmission of HIV." So crack, syphilis and ‘HIV’ are closely related. Now let's look at another class of drugs showing a close correlation with pre-existing STDs and ‘HIV.’ The Popper Phenomenon “Poppers” is a slang term for nitrite inhalant drugs (when they were first manufactured, they came in small ampoules that were 'popped' to release fumes). Amyl nitrite was originally developed to treat angina pectoris by dilating blood vessels, allowing the heart to get more oxygen and thereby relieving the pain. Arteries are not the only thing poppers help to dilate. Inhaling nitrites relaxes smooth muscles throughout the body - including the sphincter muscles, making it particularly helpful to gay posteriors. Along with facilitating anal sex, the blood vessel-dilating effects of poppers can produce a brief but intense sensation of heat and euphoria lasting 1 or 2 minutes. The story of poppers is an interesting one, involving US Vietnam vets, a profiteering Big Pharma and an enabling FDA, a gay medical student and organized criminals. The latter two entities sidestepped an eventual prescription requirement for amyl nitrite by creating butyl and isobutyl nitrite - less pure, more toxic, and even faster-acting versions than the original. Further restrictions were averted thanks to an unwritten agreement between producers and the FDA that poppers were only to be advertised in gay-oriented publications, as 'room deodorizers.' During the 1970s and early 80s, poppers were advertised heavily in the gay press, and the drugs became an integral part of gay culture. Not only was it routine for patrons at gay nightclubs to freely pass the vials around, some "disco clubs would even add to the general euphoria by occasionally spraying the dance floor with poppers fumes." "The miasma of nitrite fumes was taken for granted at gay gathering places: bars, baths, leather clubs," writes John Lauritsen in a 1994 New York Native article. "Some gay men were never without their little bottle, from which they snorted fumes around the clock." Throwing caution to the wind when it comes to drugs never ends well. Amyl nitrite was developed for occasional use by angina patients, not as a party drug to be snorted every time one hit the dance floor or engaged in a bout of Jolly Rogering. Apart from causing localized damage to nasal membranes, poppers have been linked to anemia, strokes, heart, lung, and brain damage, cardiovascular collapse, and, tellingly, the blood de-oxygenation, thymus atrophy, chronic depletion of T-cell ratio's associated with severe immune dysfunction. The drugs have also been linked to the development of Kaposi's Sarcoma. Sounds a lot like AIDS, doesn't it? While researchers and the more level-headed of gay advocates warned of the dangers, the FDA continued to look the other way. The gay press, whose advertising revenue relied heavily on popper ads, also willfully turned a blind eye to the dangers. In the 1980s, in a lukewarm attempt to be seen to be doing something about the problem, US health officials banned the use of poppers in public places and required merchants to post warnings about their dangers. "The warnings about their use disappeared sometime in the late '80s to early '90s," reports SFGATE, "and no one seems to know why." "During the first few years of the AIDS epidemic," writes Ian Young at VirusMyth.org, "poppers came under suspicion as a possible contributing factor. But after 1984, when the Reagan administration pronounced a single retrovirus to be the only cause of the growing list of AIDS illnesses, the health hazards of poppers were dismissed. All attention and funding was directed to HIV." Fun fact: Burroughs Wellcome, the original manufacturers of poppers, went on to profit handsomely from the subsequent AIDS hysteria with its highly-toxic 'anti-AIDS' drug AZT. History is Made (Up) There were major drug scourges afflicting the high-risk gay and African-American communities, drugs whose chronologies overlapped neatly with the AIDS outbreak. Use and abuse of these drugs was well established to cause severe illness, immune dysfunction and was also strongly correlated with pre-existing STDs like syphilis. The powers-that-be, however, had already decided the sole cause of AIDs was a 'novel virus.' They just needed to come up with one. And so along came the virologists to save the day. Not just any old bunch of virologists, but virologists with friends in high places. In France, this meant Luc Montagnier and his team at the Pasteur Institute, which advises the French government and the World Health Organization (WHO), and maintains a close collaboration with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In the US, it meant sci-bureaucrats from the government's behemoth National Institutes of Health (NIH). One of the key figures was the caustic Robert S Gallo, a researcher at the NIH's National Cancer Institute, where he worked for 30 years mainly as head of the Laboratory of Tumor Cell Biology. Gallo’s career would be dogged by controversy and misconduct allegations, but that’s a whole other article (stay tuned). The other career bureaucrat that would play a key role on the US side was none other than Anthony S Fauci, who recently completed a ridiculous 38-year reign as unelected head of the NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). If you've surmised that, with names like the above, the HIV story must be a real shite show, you are absolutely correct. HIV is Invented 'Discovered' In 1983, the Pasteur Institute researchers declared they had 'isolated' a 'retrovirus' belonging to the family of T-cell leukemia viruses (HTLV), and concluded it "may be involved in several pathological syndromes, including AIDS." (Bold emphasis added) Their isolate came from a promiscuous 33-year-old Caucasian homosexual male referred to as "BRU", who indicated he'd had more than 50 sexual partners per year. Nasty. According to the authors, he displayed "signs and symptoms that often precede the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)." However, the only symptoms reported for the patient were multiple lymphadenopathies (swollen lymph glands) and asthenia (weakness), which are evident in many conditions aside from AIDS. Neither fever nor recent loss of weight were noted. In other words, the patient from whom the alleged AIDS-causing virus was first 'isolated' from did not have an AIDS diagnosis. Tellingly, the patient did have a history of several episodes of gonorrhea and had been treated for syphilis in September 1982. Lymphadenopathy is one of the symptoms of both the aforementioned infections. The study's lead author was Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, although the finding is routinely credited to the paper's last listed author, the late Montagnier. The French study was marred by two key problems. It did not isolate any virus, and it did not show AIDS was caused by any HTLV offshoot. Forty years later, little has changed. The terminology and rationalizations have indeed become increasingly complex (as is the case with most elaborate lies), but there is no physical isolate of 'HIV.' Virologists and their sycophants, of course, insist this doesn't matter and that their non-purified mixtures are indeed isolates. While they condescendingly sneer and dismiss anyone who disputes this as a silly little dumb-dumb that doesn't 'understand' virology, they tend to remain rather quiet on another highly inconvenient observation. Namely, there is no proof that whatever is in their ‘isolates’ actually causes AIDS. HIV and Sars-Cov-2: The 'Deadly' Viruses That Aren't Deadly In the early days of 'COVID', testing positive for the mythical Sars-Cov-2 was considered a death sentence. So much so, that some folks didn't even bother getting their affairs in order; they instead killed themselves. Such is the power of all this heinous "deadly virus" bullshit. It was the same in the 'HIV' Dark Ages - testing positive was considered a death sentence. When a famous basketballer by the name of Erving “Magic” Johnson announced he was HIV positive in 1991, everyone was shocked. "Now we all know someone with HIV," said someone I can't recall in what was supposed to be a profound, insight-triggering moment. Johnson, everyone assumed, was now living on borrowed time. Thirty-three years later, Johnson is still alive and wealthy. He attributes his survival to antiretroviral cocktails that have never been shown in clinical studies to benefit survival: GlaxoSmithKline's Trizivir and Abbott's Kaletra. These cocktails are comprised of drugs like AZT which increase the risk of side effects but have never been shown to exert a mortality benefit. Johnson, it should be noted, has featured in ads for both products. In 2009, the FDA issued a warning letter to Abbott Laboratories regarding a promotional DVD in which Johnson discussed his experiences with Kaletra. The letter stated the violations were of public health concern "because they suggest that Kaletra is safer and more effective than has been demonstrated by substantial evidence or substantial clinical experience, and encourage use in circumstances other than those for which the drug has been shown to be safe and effective." "FDA is not aware of substantial evidence or substantial clinical experience to support effectiveness for five or more years of treatment with Kaletra in treatment-experienced adults. The personal experience of Kaletra patients, such as Magic Johnson, does not constitute such evidence." So if overpriced drug cocktails aren't keeping Johnson alive, what explains his survival? It's explained by the fact that HIV is a load of bollocks. A shady test that claims you are ‘HIV positive’ does not mean you are in fact harboring a deadly 'virus.' If ‘HIV’ was so deadly, then lab animals infected with it would get sick and die. But guess what? Administering a so-called isolate of uber-deadly HIV to animals results in ... nothing. Stugatz. That's right - directly administering the Virus That Causes AIDS™ to animals does not cause AIDS. "The only animals susceptible to experimental HIV-1** infection are the chimpanzee, gibbon ape, and rabbit but AIDS-like disease has not yet been reported in these species," lamented the authors of a 1989 FASEB paper. Oops. I'm guessing those chimps, gibbons and wascawwy wabbits didn't have a history of syphilis, smoking crack or inhaling poppers. Experiments in which human volunteers are deliberately 'infected' with the 'HIV isolate' would never get past the ethics committees of most research institutions. We do, however, have numerous instances of involuntary infection to give us a guide as to what happens when otherwise low-risk individuals are exposed to 'HIV.' In a 1984 NEJM letter, before 'HIV' testing became available, Sloan Kettering researchers reported there had been 27 parenteral exposures by 25 staff to the blood of AIDS patients since August 1982 (24 exposures were via needlestick). "All the involved staff are in their usual (generally excellent) state of health," including those who were exposed more than 12 months ago. Blood work was available for 12 staff with exposure more than 6 months prior, and no abnormalities were evident, reported the researchers. During 1985–2013, 58 confirmed and 150 possible cases of occupationally acquired HIV infection among healthcare workers were reported to the CDC. Since 1999, only one confirmed case (a laboratory technician sustaining a needle puncture while working with a live HIV culture in 2008) has been reported. There is no mention of subsequent AIDS, something the fear-porn agents at the CDC would surely have mentioned had it occurred. Some of you have probably heard of Dr Robert Willner, who twice deliberately pricked himself on TV with blood from 'HIV-positive' men (in Spain 1993, and USA 1994). Willner was an outspoken critic of the HIV hypothesis, having authored a book titled Deadly Deception: The Proof that Sex and HIV Absolutely Do Not Cause AIDS. Depending on who you listen to, Willner died 3 months after his 1994 TV appearance in a car crash, or the following year from a heart attack. Neither outcome is consistent with the oft-cited sequelae of AIDS. Jump, Jump, Jump Around Despite the fact that it is scientifically untenable, the HIV theory of AIDS still reigns supreme. Which brings us back to the key question: Why did 'HIV' wait until Wham! and Devine hit the charts before it started striking down gay blokes en mass? Enter the apes. According to Wikipedia, "HIV made the jump from other primates to humans in west-central Africa in the early-to-mid-20th century." (Bold emphasis added) Just like Sars-Cov-2 was purported to have kicked off when the allegedly zoonotic virus "jumped" to humans from a bat or pangolin at a Wuhan wet market that did not sell any bats or pangolins. Says Wikipedia, "Scientists generally accept that the known strains (or groups) of HIV-1 are most closely related to the simian immunodeficiency viruses (SIVs) endemic in wild ape populations of West Central African forests." (Bold emphasis added). "Generally accept" is code for "Scientists have no proof of this, but pretend it's true anyway." This brings us to an oft-cited 2011 paper titled "Origins of HIV and the AIDS Pandemic" which repeats the claim that "simian immunodeficiency viruses (SIVs) ... crossed from monkeys to apes and from apes to humans." The paper was authored by Paul Sharp and Beatrice Hahn, the latter a member of Gallo's NCI lab team which she joined in 1982. A chimpanzee minding his own business while a Gallo associate who blames apes for spreading HIV to humans (Beatrice Hahn) stares at him from a distance. In their paper, the researchers provide a graphic claiming SIV resulting in HIV-1 has been transmitted to humans via chimpanzees and gorillas. Hold that thought. According to the official narrative, the primary routes of 'HIV' transmission in humans are sexual intercourse with an infected individual, sharing needles with an infected person while taking drugs, transfusions of infected blood, or transmission from an infected pregnant mother to fetus. Sharp and Hahn speculate that SIVs first developed in chimpanzees, and were spread among the chimpanzee community primarily through sexual activity, from infected mothers to infants, and "in rare cases, possibly by aggression." But how did the disease "jump" from apes to humans? Researchers can't claim humans and apes were shooting up drugs together and sharing needles while doing so, or that apes were administering blood transfusions to humans, because that would be patently absurd. Ditto for suggesting apes were passing SIV to humans via birth, because apes don't give birth to humans. Claiming that apes transmitted SIV to humans because they were having cross-species sexual encounters would also be a hard sell. Humans are capable of some pretty weird and degenerate behaviour, but good luck pinning down a chimp or gorilla while you attempt to get jiggy with it. Meet Bruce. Can bench press you and your extended family with one arm. Incursions into his personal space not advised. "How humans acquired the ape precursors of HIV-1 groups M, N, O, and P is not known," write Sharp and Hahn, "however, based on the biology of these viruses, transmission must have occurred through cutaneous or mucous membrane exposure to infected ape blood and/or body fluids. Such exposures occur most commonly in the context of bushmeat hunting." (Bold emphasis added). Researchers can't explain exactly how immunodeficiency viruses pole-vaulted from apes to human, so they simply assume it must have happened during hunting expeditions. Virologists do a lot of assuming. Sharp and Hahn write that the first clue to HIV-1's "sudden emergence, epidemic spread, and unique pathogenicity" came in 1986 when a “morphologically similar but anti-genically distinct” virus was allegedly found to cause AIDS in patients in western Africa. Well riddle me this, Batman: Humans have been around for 2.5 million years, and the earliest Homo sapiens were getting around some 300,000 years ago. We've been hunting that whole time. Furthermore, the advance of agriculture and the steadily declining numbers of hunter-gatherers in modern times would have meant a greatly reduced opportunity for SIV to jump aboard the H-train via scratchy-bitey-fluid-exchangey hunting confrontations. Yet immunodeficiency viruses waited until the latter half of the Twentieth Century to successfully make the big cross-species jump? What an utter crock. Wikipedia admits "How the SIV virus would have transformed into HIV after infection of the hunter or bushmeat handler from the ape/monkey is still a matter of debate." Translated: There is no actual scientific evidence to support the claim that, after allegedly entering the human body, ‘SIV’ magically transformed into ‘HIV.’ The Sodomy Paradox There's another problem with the official AIDS narrative which holds that, after catching SIV from apes during hunting mishaps in Africa, it "transformed" into HIV, which hunter-gatherers then spread by doing the backdoor boogie with gay abandon. That story further holds that, somewhere along the way, one of these HIV-carrying ape-hunters nailed a gay airline steward from America. Patient Zero then flew back to the US, and began having lots of AIDS-causing unprotected sex in the saunas of San Francisco. Or the gay bars of New York. Or the wet markets of Wisconsin, I'm not sure, all this virus BS gets a bit hard to keep track of after a while. It doesn't really matter, because like the rest of the AIDS tale, the gay airline steward story was nonsense. Gaetan Dugas, the French-Canadian flight attendant posthumously labelled 'Patient Zero' and accused of single-handedly igniting the spread of HIV/AIDS across North America, was later exonerated. Thanks to the determined sleuthing of Pullitzer Prize-winning reporter John Crewdson, it was known by 1988 that what we now call AIDS was in fact present in America in the 1960s. While the rest of the media was tripping over itself to blame Dugas (“THE MAN WHO GAVE US AIDS” blared the New York Post’s October 6, 1987 headline; “Canadian Said to Have Had Key Role in Spread of AIDS,” wrote the New York Times, while the National Review nicknamed Dugas “the Columbus of AIDS"), Crewdson had discovered a 1973 case report that showed the official Patient Zero story was bollocks. That 1973 case report described Robert Rayford, a 15-year-old black lad from St. Louis who had died of AIDS in 1969 - more than a decade before anyone knew what AIDS was. The impoverished teen had presented to hospital in the spring of 1968 with swollen loins covered with open, infected sores. He struggled while breathing, was razor thin and pale as a ghost. Doctors initially suspected cancer, but subsequent tests revealed herpes, genital warts, and a severe case of chlamydia. The infection spread, in the form of purple colored lesions, to his legs, causing a misdiagnosis of lymphedema. He eventually succumbed to his condition in May 1969, leaving doctors baffled. The teen, who doctors described as mildly intellectually impaired, said he'd suffered the symptoms for around two years prior to seeking medical help. He denied injury or animal bites, had not travelled outside the midwestern United States, but admitted to "frequent" heterosexual intercourse. His family consented to an autopsy, which revealed "widespread Kaposi's sarcoma of the aggressive, disseminated type." The autopsy also found evidence of anal scarring and a particular kind of lesion no one had identified when Rayford was alive. Some doctors thought the scarring indicated Rayford was gay; others pointed out he may have been sexually abused. Struck by how closely Rayford's symptoms resembled those of AIDS, Crewdson flew to St. Louis and found a pathologist willing to dig through laboratory freezers in search of the youth's tissue samples. By using the test 'co-developed' by Gallo and the French, researchers were able to determine that the boy, incredibly, had been infected with 'HIV.' The finding was published in JAMA in 1988. However, it was not until 2016 that the fake Dugas tale was officially revoked. Had the Rayford story been more widely known, it wouldn’t have been good for HIV business. Not to worry, the out-of-Africa hypothesis was salvaged in 1998 when researchers claimed they had detected HIV - by a PCR process involving two rounds of amplification for a combined total of 69 cycles - in a plasma sample obtained in early 1959 from an adult Bantu male, with a sickle-cell trait and a glucose-6-phosphate-dehydrogenase deficiency, living in the Belgian Congo. Two of the researchers announcing this narrative-saving discovery hailed from the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center, at Rockefeller University in New York. So just like the COVID charade, we have a shamdemic for which the original Patient Zero story was shown to be a bunch of cobblers. Just like the COVID sham, few people noticed or cared and the rest of the AIDS tale continued its relentless march and took on a life of its own. Despite more holes than a ... wait, that's dangerous pun territory ... I mean, despite a plethora of discrepancies, the official Fauci-endorsed tale still has HIV migrating from Africa to the US and spread in the early 1980s by blokes bumping uglies in big city gay bars and saunas. And Fauci should know, because he went to gay saunas and gay bars himself in the “early stages” of the AIDS “explosion” to get a “feel” for the situation. Purely for ‘research’ purposes, of course (wink, wink). It's okay Tony, it's 2024, you don't have to cover for your sexuality anymore. A young Anthony Fauci displaying his "I've just been to the saunas!" smile. Your tax money at work. You could literally fill a book with all the discrepancies contained within the official AIDS story; several authors have already done just that. What I wanted to highlight here are the commonalities between the AIDS and COVID sagas. Both featured never-isolated 'viruses' with nonsensical 'Patient Zero' stories. ‘Isolates’ of both these ‘deadly’ and ‘novel’ viruses do a whole lot of nothing when administered to our primate cousins. Both sagas featured Anthony Fauci, showing up on cue touting the most toxic drug he could get away with recommending. Both featured doomsday, end-of-times hyperbole in which testing 'positive' was initially considered a death sentence. Both were remarkable demonstrations of how the media and masses could be easily manipulated into accepting a pandemic scare that, upon the most cursory examination, simply didn't add up. *During the presidency of former actor Ronald Reagan, senior administration officials secretly — and illegally — arranged for the sale of arms to Iran in return for Iran’s promise to help secure the release of a group of Americans being held hostage in Lebanon. Suspiciously, the hostages were formally released into US custody just minutes after Reagan was sworn into office. Proceeds from the arms sales were then secretly, and again illegally, funneled to the Contras, a group of rebels fighting the Marxist Sandinista government of Nicaragua. Is if that wasn't bad enough, the CIA looked the other way while the Contras trafficked cocaine into the US to help finance their fight to oust the communist Sandinistas. The scandal was exposed in 1996 by the brilliant, Pullitzer Prize-winning journalist Gary Webb while writing for the San Jose Mercury News. His series described a San Francisco Bay Area drug ring that sold tons of cocaine to the Crips and Bloods street gangs of Los Angeles, funelling millions in drug profits to the CIA-assisted Contras. This drug ring "opened the first pipeline between Colombia's cocaine cartels and the black neighborhoods of Los Angeles" and, as a result, "helped spark a crack explosion in urban America." His articles caused a proverbial shit-storm, prompting the government to conduct several investigations into itself and declaring itself innocent of all charges. We were supposed to believe it was all just an accidental oversight when even the Kerry report acknowledged "the Contra drug links included", among other connections, "... payments to drug traffickers by the U.S. State Department of funds authorized by the Congress for humanitarian assistance to the Contras, in some cases after the traffickers had been indicted by federal law enforcement agencies on drug charges, in others while traffickers were under active investigation by these same agencies." (Bold emphasis added). The Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and Washington Post launched their own 'investigations' (read: hatchet jobs) and rejected Webb's allegations, instead siding with the government - a practice they uphold to this day. However, an internal CIA report released in 1998 admitted the CIA ‘overlooked’ or ‘ignored’ reports that the Nicaragua Contra rebels financed their fight to oust the communist Sandinistas through the sale of drugs in the United States. **‘HIV-1’ is the form of ‘HIV’ allegedly most common and threatening to humans. According to the official tale, ‘HIV-2’ is rare and of little threat. Share https://substack.com/home/post/p-146567752
    SUBSTACK.COM
    Why the Official AIDS Story is a Complete Crock
    The Great Rebranding, 1980s-Style: HIV Was a Sham, Just Like Sars-Cov-2
    Like
    1
    0 Comentários 1 Compartilhamentos 8701 Visualizações
  • Project Total Control: Everything Is a Weapon When Totalitarianism Is Normalized
    By John & Nisha Whitehead July 10, 2024
    “The biggest mistake I see is people waiting for A Big Sign that’ll tell them that things have gone too far. One Big Thing that police or lawmakers or the president/leaders will do that will cross the line. It’ll never come because they won’t cross it. They’ll move the line. That line you think you stand behind is shifting everyday with little actions, bills, legislations… That line will stop moving one day, & it’ll be too late... Every day, your sensitivity is being eroded by these willful atrocities. The envelope for what you’ll accept is being pushed. One day, all of these things will be your new normal.”—Nigerian writer Suyi Davies Okungbowa

    The U.S. government is working to re-shape the country in the image of a totalitarian state.

    This has remained true over the past 50-plus years no matter which political party held office.

    This will remain true no matter who wins the 2024 presidential election.

    In the midst of the partisan furor over Project 2025, a 920-page roadmap for how to re-fashion the government to favor so-called conservative causes, both the Right and the Left have proven themselves woefully naive about the dangers posed by the power-hungry Deep State.

    Yet we must never lose sight of the fact that both the Right and the Left and their various operatives are extensions of the Deep State, which continues to wage psychological warfare on the American people.

    Psychological warfare, according to the Rand Corporation, “involves the planned use of propaganda and other psychological operations to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes, and behavior of opposition groups.”

    For years now, the government has been bombarding the citizenry with propaganda campaigns and psychological operations aimed at keeping us compliant, easily controlled and supportive of the government’s various efforts abroad and domestically.

    The government is so confident in its Orwellian powers of manipulation that it’s taken to bragging about them. For example, in 2022, the U.S. Army’s 4th Psychological Operations Group, the branch of the military responsible for psychological warfare, released a recruiting video that touts its efforts to pull the strings, turn everything they touch into a weapon, be everywhere, deceive, persuade, change, influence, and inspire.

    “Have you ever wondered who’s pulling the strings?” the psyops video posits. “Anything we touch is a weapon. We can deceive, persuade, change, influence, inspire. We come in many forms. We are everywhere.”

    This is the danger that lurks in plain sight.

    Of the many weapons in the government’s vast arsenal, psychological warfare may be the most devastating in terms of the long-term consequences.

    As the military journal Task and Purpose explains, “Psychological warfare is all about influencing governments, people of power, and everyday citizens.”

    Mind you, these psyops (psychological operations) campaigns aren’t only aimed at foreign enemies. The government has made clear in word and deed that “we the people” are domestic enemies to be targeted, tracked, manipulated, micromanaged, surveilled, viewed as suspects, and treated as if our fundamental rights are mere privileges that can be easily discarded.

    This is what is referred to as “apple-pie propaganda.”

    Aided and abetted by technological advances and scientific experimentation, the government has been subjecting the American people to “apple-pie propaganda” for the better part of the last century.

    Consider some of the ways in which the government continues to wage psychological warfare on a largely unsuspecting citizenry in order to acclimate us to the Deep State’s totalitarian agenda.

    Weaponizing violence in order to institute martial law. With alarming regularity, the nation continues to be subjected to spates of violence that terrorizes the public, destabilizes the country’s ecosystem, and gives the government greater justifications to crack down, lock down, and institute even more authoritarian policies for the so-called sake of national security without many objections from the citizenry.

    Weaponizing surveillance, pre-crime and pre-thought campaigns. Surveillance, digital stalking and the data mining of the American people add up to a society in which there’s little room for indiscretions, imperfections, or acts of independence. When the government sees all and knows all and has an abundance of laws to render even the most seemingly upstanding citizen a criminal and lawbreaker, then the old adage that you’ve got nothing to worry about if you’ve got nothing to hide no longer applies. Add pre-crime programs into the mix with government agencies and corporations working in tandem to determine who is a potential danger and spin a sticky spider-web of threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports using automated eyes and ears, social media, behavior sensing software, and citizen spies, and you having the makings for a perfect dystopian nightmare. The government’s war on crime has now veered into the realm of social media and technological entrapment, with government agents adopting fake social media identities and AI-created profile pictures in order to surveil, target and capture potential suspects.

    Weaponizing digital currencies, social media scores and censorship. Tech giants, working with the government, have been meting out their own version of social justice by way of digital tyranny and corporate censorship, muzzling whomever they want, whenever they want, on whatever pretext they want in the absence of any real due process, review or appeal. Unfortunately, digital censorship is just the beginning. Digital currencies (which can be used as “a tool for government surveillance of citizens and control over their financial transactions”), combined with social media scores and surveillance capitalism create a litmus test to determine who is worthy enough to be part of society and punish individuals for moral lapses and social transgressions (and reward them for adhering to government-sanctioned behavior). In China, millions of individuals and businesses, blacklisted as “unworthy” based on social media credit scores that grade them based on whether they are “good” citizens, have been banned from accessing financial markets, buying real estate or travelling by air or train.

    Weaponizing compliance. Even the most well-intentioned government law or program can be—and has been—perverted, corrupted and used to advance illegitimate purposes once profit and power are added to the equation. The war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on COVID-19, the war on illegal immigration, asset forfeiture schemes, road safety schemes, school safety schemes, eminent domain: all of these programs started out as legitimate responses to pressing concerns and have since become weapons of compliance and control in the police state’s hands.

    Weaponizing entertainment. For the past century, the Department of Defense’s Entertainment Media Office has provided Hollywood with equipment, personnel and technical expertise at taxpayer expense. In exchange, the military industrial complex has gotten a starring role in such blockbusters as Top Gun and its rebooted sequel Top Gun: Maverick, which translates to free advertising for the war hawks, recruitment of foot soldiers for the military empire, patriotic fervor by the taxpayers who have to foot the bill for the nation’s endless wars, and Hollywood visionaries working to churn out dystopian thrillers that make the war machine appear relevant, heroic and necessary. As Elmer Davis, a CBS broadcaster who was appointed the head of the Office of War Information, observed, “The easiest way to inject a propaganda idea into most people’s minds is to let it go through the medium of an entertainment picture when they do not realize that they are being propagandized.”

    Weaponizing behavioral science and nudging. Apart from the overt dangers posed by a government that feels justified and empowered to spy on its people and use its ever-expanding arsenal of weapons and technology to monitor and control them, there’s also the covert dangers associated with a government empowered to use these same technologies to influence behaviors en masse and control the populace. In fact, it was President Obama who issued an executive order directing federal agencies to use “behavioral science” methods to minimize bureaucracy and influence the way people respond to government programs. It’s a short hop, skip and a jump from a behavioral program that tries to influence how people respond to paperwork to a government program that tries to shape the public’s views about other, more consequential matters. Thus, increasingly, governments around the world—including in the United States—are relying on “nudge units” to steer citizens in the direction the powers-that-be want them to go, while preserving the appearance of free will.

    Weaponizing desensitization campaigns aimed at lulling us into a false sense of security. The events of recent years—the invasive surveillance, the extremism reports, the civil unrest, the protests, the shootings, the bombings, the military exercises and active shooter drills, the lockdowns, the color-coded alerts and threat assessments, the fusion centers, the transformation of local police into extensions of the military, the distribution of military equipment and weapons to local police forces, the government databases containing the names of dissidents and potential troublemakers—have conspired to acclimate the populace to accept a police state willingly, even gratefully.

    Weaponizing politics. The language of fear is spoken effectively by politicians on both sides of the aisle, shouted by media pundits from their cable TV pulpits, marketed by corporations, and codified into bureaucratic laws that do little to make our lives safer or more secure. Fear, as history shows, is the method most often used by politicians to increase the power of government and control a populace, dividing the people into factions, and persuading them to see each other as the enemy. This Machiavellian scheme has so ensnared the nation that few Americans even realize they are being manipulated into adopting an “us” against “them” mindset. Instead, fueled with fear and loathing for phantom opponents, they agree to pour millions of dollars and resources into political elections, militarized police, spy technology and endless wars, hoping for a guarantee of safety that never comes. All the while, those in power—bought and paid for by lobbyists and corporations—move their costly agendas forward, and “we the suckers” get saddled with the tax bills and subjected to pat downs, police raids and round-the-clock surveillance.

    Weaponizing genetics. Not only does fear grease the wheels of the transition to fascism by cultivating fearful, controlled, pacified, cowed citizens, but it also embeds itself in our very DNA so that we pass on our fear and compliance to our offspring. It’s called epigenetic inheritance, the transmission through DNA of traumatic experiences. For example, neuroscientists observed that fear can travel through generations of mice DNA. As The Washington Post reports, “Studies on humans suggest that children and grandchildren may have felt the epigenetic impact of such traumatic events such as famine, the Holocaust and the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.”

    Weaponizing the dystopian future. With greater frequency, the government has been issuing warnings about the dire need to prepare for the dystopian future that awaits us. For instance, the Pentagon training video, “Megacities: Urban Future, the Emerging Complexity,” predicts that by 2030 (coincidentally, the same year that society begins to achieve singularity with the metaverse) the military would be called on to use armed forces to solve future domestic political and social problems. What they’re really talking about is martial law, packaged as a well-meaning and overriding concern for the nation’s security. The chilling five-minute training video paints an ominous picture of the future bedeviled by “criminal networks,” “substandard infrastructure,” “religious and ethnic tensions,” “impoverishment, slums,” “open landfills, over-burdened sewers,” a “growing mass of unemployed,” and an urban landscape in which the prosperous economic elite must be protected from the impoverishment of the have nots. “We the people” are the have-nots.

    The end goal of these mind control campaigns—packaged in the guise of the greater good—is to see how far the American people will allow the government to go in undermining our freedoms.

    The facts speak for themselves.

    Whatever else it may be—a danger, a menace, a threat—the U.S. government is certainly not looking out for our best interests, nor is it in any way a friend to freedom.

    When the government views itself as superior to the citizenry, when it no longer operates for the benefit of the people, when the people are no longer able to peacefully reform their government, when government officials cease to act like public servants, when elected officials no longer represent the will of the people, when the government routinely violates the rights of the people and perpetrates more violence against the citizenry than the criminal class, when government spending is unaccountable and unaccounted for, when the judiciary act as courts of order rather than justice, and when the government is no longer bound by the laws of the Constitution, then you no longer have a government “of the people, by the people and for the people.”

    What we have, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, is a government of wolves.

    WC: 2136

    ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD

    Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected]. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

    Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission

    John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact [email protected] to obtain reprint permission.

    https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/project_total_control_everything_is_a_weapon_when_totalitarianism_is_normalized
    Project Total Control: Everything Is a Weapon When Totalitarianism Is Normalized By John & Nisha Whitehead July 10, 2024 “The biggest mistake I see is people waiting for A Big Sign that’ll tell them that things have gone too far. One Big Thing that police or lawmakers or the president/leaders will do that will cross the line. It’ll never come because they won’t cross it. They’ll move the line. That line you think you stand behind is shifting everyday with little actions, bills, legislations… That line will stop moving one day, & it’ll be too late... Every day, your sensitivity is being eroded by these willful atrocities. The envelope for what you’ll accept is being pushed. One day, all of these things will be your new normal.”—Nigerian writer Suyi Davies Okungbowa The U.S. government is working to re-shape the country in the image of a totalitarian state. This has remained true over the past 50-plus years no matter which political party held office. This will remain true no matter who wins the 2024 presidential election. In the midst of the partisan furor over Project 2025, a 920-page roadmap for how to re-fashion the government to favor so-called conservative causes, both the Right and the Left have proven themselves woefully naive about the dangers posed by the power-hungry Deep State. Yet we must never lose sight of the fact that both the Right and the Left and their various operatives are extensions of the Deep State, which continues to wage psychological warfare on the American people. Psychological warfare, according to the Rand Corporation, “involves the planned use of propaganda and other psychological operations to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes, and behavior of opposition groups.” For years now, the government has been bombarding the citizenry with propaganda campaigns and psychological operations aimed at keeping us compliant, easily controlled and supportive of the government’s various efforts abroad and domestically. The government is so confident in its Orwellian powers of manipulation that it’s taken to bragging about them. For example, in 2022, the U.S. Army’s 4th Psychological Operations Group, the branch of the military responsible for psychological warfare, released a recruiting video that touts its efforts to pull the strings, turn everything they touch into a weapon, be everywhere, deceive, persuade, change, influence, and inspire. “Have you ever wondered who’s pulling the strings?” the psyops video posits. “Anything we touch is a weapon. We can deceive, persuade, change, influence, inspire. We come in many forms. We are everywhere.” This is the danger that lurks in plain sight. Of the many weapons in the government’s vast arsenal, psychological warfare may be the most devastating in terms of the long-term consequences. As the military journal Task and Purpose explains, “Psychological warfare is all about influencing governments, people of power, and everyday citizens.” Mind you, these psyops (psychological operations) campaigns aren’t only aimed at foreign enemies. The government has made clear in word and deed that “we the people” are domestic enemies to be targeted, tracked, manipulated, micromanaged, surveilled, viewed as suspects, and treated as if our fundamental rights are mere privileges that can be easily discarded. This is what is referred to as “apple-pie propaganda.” Aided and abetted by technological advances and scientific experimentation, the government has been subjecting the American people to “apple-pie propaganda” for the better part of the last century. Consider some of the ways in which the government continues to wage psychological warfare on a largely unsuspecting citizenry in order to acclimate us to the Deep State’s totalitarian agenda. Weaponizing violence in order to institute martial law. With alarming regularity, the nation continues to be subjected to spates of violence that terrorizes the public, destabilizes the country’s ecosystem, and gives the government greater justifications to crack down, lock down, and institute even more authoritarian policies for the so-called sake of national security without many objections from the citizenry. Weaponizing surveillance, pre-crime and pre-thought campaigns. Surveillance, digital stalking and the data mining of the American people add up to a society in which there’s little room for indiscretions, imperfections, or acts of independence. When the government sees all and knows all and has an abundance of laws to render even the most seemingly upstanding citizen a criminal and lawbreaker, then the old adage that you’ve got nothing to worry about if you’ve got nothing to hide no longer applies. Add pre-crime programs into the mix with government agencies and corporations working in tandem to determine who is a potential danger and spin a sticky spider-web of threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports using automated eyes and ears, social media, behavior sensing software, and citizen spies, and you having the makings for a perfect dystopian nightmare. The government’s war on crime has now veered into the realm of social media and technological entrapment, with government agents adopting fake social media identities and AI-created profile pictures in order to surveil, target and capture potential suspects. Weaponizing digital currencies, social media scores and censorship. Tech giants, working with the government, have been meting out their own version of social justice by way of digital tyranny and corporate censorship, muzzling whomever they want, whenever they want, on whatever pretext they want in the absence of any real due process, review or appeal. Unfortunately, digital censorship is just the beginning. Digital currencies (which can be used as “a tool for government surveillance of citizens and control over their financial transactions”), combined with social media scores and surveillance capitalism create a litmus test to determine who is worthy enough to be part of society and punish individuals for moral lapses and social transgressions (and reward them for adhering to government-sanctioned behavior). In China, millions of individuals and businesses, blacklisted as “unworthy” based on social media credit scores that grade them based on whether they are “good” citizens, have been banned from accessing financial markets, buying real estate or travelling by air or train. Weaponizing compliance. Even the most well-intentioned government law or program can be—and has been—perverted, corrupted and used to advance illegitimate purposes once profit and power are added to the equation. The war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on COVID-19, the war on illegal immigration, asset forfeiture schemes, road safety schemes, school safety schemes, eminent domain: all of these programs started out as legitimate responses to pressing concerns and have since become weapons of compliance and control in the police state’s hands. Weaponizing entertainment. For the past century, the Department of Defense’s Entertainment Media Office has provided Hollywood with equipment, personnel and technical expertise at taxpayer expense. In exchange, the military industrial complex has gotten a starring role in such blockbusters as Top Gun and its rebooted sequel Top Gun: Maverick, which translates to free advertising for the war hawks, recruitment of foot soldiers for the military empire, patriotic fervor by the taxpayers who have to foot the bill for the nation’s endless wars, and Hollywood visionaries working to churn out dystopian thrillers that make the war machine appear relevant, heroic and necessary. As Elmer Davis, a CBS broadcaster who was appointed the head of the Office of War Information, observed, “The easiest way to inject a propaganda idea into most people’s minds is to let it go through the medium of an entertainment picture when they do not realize that they are being propagandized.” Weaponizing behavioral science and nudging. Apart from the overt dangers posed by a government that feels justified and empowered to spy on its people and use its ever-expanding arsenal of weapons and technology to monitor and control them, there’s also the covert dangers associated with a government empowered to use these same technologies to influence behaviors en masse and control the populace. In fact, it was President Obama who issued an executive order directing federal agencies to use “behavioral science” methods to minimize bureaucracy and influence the way people respond to government programs. It’s a short hop, skip and a jump from a behavioral program that tries to influence how people respond to paperwork to a government program that tries to shape the public’s views about other, more consequential matters. Thus, increasingly, governments around the world—including in the United States—are relying on “nudge units” to steer citizens in the direction the powers-that-be want them to go, while preserving the appearance of free will. Weaponizing desensitization campaigns aimed at lulling us into a false sense of security. The events of recent years—the invasive surveillance, the extremism reports, the civil unrest, the protests, the shootings, the bombings, the military exercises and active shooter drills, the lockdowns, the color-coded alerts and threat assessments, the fusion centers, the transformation of local police into extensions of the military, the distribution of military equipment and weapons to local police forces, the government databases containing the names of dissidents and potential troublemakers—have conspired to acclimate the populace to accept a police state willingly, even gratefully. Weaponizing politics. The language of fear is spoken effectively by politicians on both sides of the aisle, shouted by media pundits from their cable TV pulpits, marketed by corporations, and codified into bureaucratic laws that do little to make our lives safer or more secure. Fear, as history shows, is the method most often used by politicians to increase the power of government and control a populace, dividing the people into factions, and persuading them to see each other as the enemy. This Machiavellian scheme has so ensnared the nation that few Americans even realize they are being manipulated into adopting an “us” against “them” mindset. Instead, fueled with fear and loathing for phantom opponents, they agree to pour millions of dollars and resources into political elections, militarized police, spy technology and endless wars, hoping for a guarantee of safety that never comes. All the while, those in power—bought and paid for by lobbyists and corporations—move their costly agendas forward, and “we the suckers” get saddled with the tax bills and subjected to pat downs, police raids and round-the-clock surveillance. Weaponizing genetics. Not only does fear grease the wheels of the transition to fascism by cultivating fearful, controlled, pacified, cowed citizens, but it also embeds itself in our very DNA so that we pass on our fear and compliance to our offspring. It’s called epigenetic inheritance, the transmission through DNA of traumatic experiences. For example, neuroscientists observed that fear can travel through generations of mice DNA. As The Washington Post reports, “Studies on humans suggest that children and grandchildren may have felt the epigenetic impact of such traumatic events such as famine, the Holocaust and the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.” Weaponizing the dystopian future. With greater frequency, the government has been issuing warnings about the dire need to prepare for the dystopian future that awaits us. For instance, the Pentagon training video, “Megacities: Urban Future, the Emerging Complexity,” predicts that by 2030 (coincidentally, the same year that society begins to achieve singularity with the metaverse) the military would be called on to use armed forces to solve future domestic political and social problems. What they’re really talking about is martial law, packaged as a well-meaning and overriding concern for the nation’s security. The chilling five-minute training video paints an ominous picture of the future bedeviled by “criminal networks,” “substandard infrastructure,” “religious and ethnic tensions,” “impoverishment, slums,” “open landfills, over-burdened sewers,” a “growing mass of unemployed,” and an urban landscape in which the prosperous economic elite must be protected from the impoverishment of the have nots. “We the people” are the have-nots. The end goal of these mind control campaigns—packaged in the guise of the greater good—is to see how far the American people will allow the government to go in undermining our freedoms. The facts speak for themselves. Whatever else it may be—a danger, a menace, a threat—the U.S. government is certainly not looking out for our best interests, nor is it in any way a friend to freedom. When the government views itself as superior to the citizenry, when it no longer operates for the benefit of the people, when the people are no longer able to peacefully reform their government, when government officials cease to act like public servants, when elected officials no longer represent the will of the people, when the government routinely violates the rights of the people and perpetrates more violence against the citizenry than the criminal class, when government spending is unaccountable and unaccounted for, when the judiciary act as courts of order rather than justice, and when the government is no longer bound by the laws of the Constitution, then you no longer have a government “of the people, by the people and for the people.” What we have, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, is a government of wolves. WC: 2136 ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected]. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org. Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact [email protected] to obtain reprint permission. https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/project_total_control_everything_is_a_weapon_when_totalitarianism_is_normalized
    WWW.RUTHERFORD.ORG
    Project Total Control: Everything Is a Weapon When Totalitarianism Is Normalized | By John & Nisha Whitehead
    The U.S. government is working to re-shape the country in the image of a totalitarian state. This has remained true over the past 50-plus years no matter which political party held office. This will remain true no matter who wins the 2024 presidential election.
    Like
    1
    0 Comentários 1 Compartilhamentos 5424 Visualizações
  • Maybe you have millions, even billions?… they will take it all… pretty soon.
    Over 50 years, laws have been changed the world over. You have “beneficial ownership” not ownership. This means someone else owns it. Will you fight it?

    Dr Mike Yeadon
    This essay is constructed from many of my Telegram posts. The resulting repetition feels helpful under the circumstances. The central idea is not complicated but it is fiddly. Coming at it from many sides helps.

    The prediction

    Unless you are very fresh to peeking behind the mainstream curtain, you will know of WEF’s infamous, arrogant and chilling prediction for 2030.


    Maybe you’ve wondered what the number 1 in the top-left corner means? Still up on YouTube is the whole video of lunatic predictions it comes from.



    Klaus Schwabb, Executive Chairman of WEF asserts that “The world needs a Great Reset”, only hinting at what this means between the lines and in the small print. He is using mendacious propaganda in order to pretend to build consensus on this act. You’ll recall that numerous people said, early in 2020, that there was a necessity to “Build Back Better”.



    Prince Charles was among many who said this. I remember at the time muttering “What do you mean, build back? Nothing is broken”. Obviously, the covert actions of the supranational organization running the Non-pandemic are aimed at making sure that plenty is broken, even that in due course, everything will be broken.

    The mechanism by which ‘you’ll own nothing’

    You may NOT yet have heard of something happening in absolutely every country on the planet, which retired financier David Rogers Webb calls “The Great Taking”.

    For decades, the illegitimate supranational organisation has been working with and “leaning on” national legislators to ‘amend’ the laws governing private property rights.

    Unfortunately, this is a done deal.

    It has already been tested in superior courts and found legally valid.

    Under certain circumstances, the executive in any country can seize all sorts of assets that you believe are yours. This includes but is not limited to stock market investments such as stocks, shares, bonds and other traceable instruments, cash held at banks, property / real estate and numerous other categories.

    Only the other day, I was logged into a well known execution-only online broker to obtain a tax statement for my tax return. I noticed weird wordings describing the category of assets listed. I thought I owned, as an example, ten shares in a famous Swiss chocolate manufacturer. It seems I do not. It now indicates that I’m noted as having

    “beneficial ownership of a part of a numbered pool of such shares”.
    In other words, there are no identifiable shares with my name virtually on them.

    Originally you possessed physical paper. Then ‘for convenience’, virtual electronic shares became the rule. From this point the sneaky steps to a pool… and then “beneficial ownership of a part of a numbered pool of such shares” was easy.

    You can still buy and sell them what’s the problem?
    The problem is subsection b) in Section 57A-8-511 of the Uniform Commercial Code.

    If certain economic actions occur in a given financial climate, it turns out that pooled shares have long ago been pledged as collateral in a transaction in which a party has borrowed money from a lender.

    In the event that the borrower defaults, the ultimate beneficiary is the lender and they have the right to seize whatever collateral there is. That’s your savings, investments, pensions, home etc, including your car if a loan or HP arrangement was used to acquire it.



    Even if it has been paid off.

    Perhaps, even if you bought it outright with cash.



    Obviously, the perpetrators are going to create and trigger such a set of circumstances.

    I have long suspected that lockdowns were a crucial cover for the extent of central bank money creation necessary to place a sovereign country and currency beyond any plausible rescue scenario.

    The Great Taking


    Book as a pdf or tap picture.

    The book, “The Great Taking”, by David Webb, was a punch to the solar plexus when I first heard of it back in summer ‘23. I would urge you to please take this punch yourself - for your children. Read it. It’s a free pdf

    - or buy a paper copy from the website www.thegreattaking.com

    At first, I wasn’t sure if Webb could be trusted. While I’m inclined to believe him, I’ve experienced enough disappointment to start with what a person is telling you. Can you validate or invalidate any part of it through your own experience? Does it have internal consistency? Does the purported expert check out? (Swiss chocolate…) What might their motives be?

    Taking a leaf out of my own book, there are two basic positions.

    Ignore. If you’re correct, you’ve avoided worry and potentially bad investments, for example, in a self invested personal pension if you have one. If you’re wrong, you’ll probably suffer very substantial losses which you’ll not have mitigated in any way.

    Listen then act. If you were wrong, you might still have made a more diversified portfolio than you otherwise would. If however you were right to heed the warnings, it might literally save your life.

    Having listened to interviews the author has given, and heard comments from others, I do think this could be the huge, missing piece of the agenda leading to the Bond villain, Schwab’s seemingly impossible pronouncements

    See what you think.

    Here’s a ‘narration’ of it.



    I don’t like the auto narrators voice but it’s a lot easier to do a purely mechanical task while listening to this than trying to read a book. I’m not good at the latter these days!

    Wait, does it apply to me though?

    If you don’t own much today anyway, you might think not. I understand why that reaction could be commonplace. What those with no scope to resist will face (if and when the perpetrators trigger the next and very much larger global financial crisis) is

    loss of freedom.

    Several of us, independently, expect (at some point):

    abolition of cash and

    seizure of all assets held by a custodian (such as

    a bank deposit taker,

    a building society mortgage provider,

    an online execution-only broker holding a SIPP (pension),

    a life insurance company responsible for paying a final salary pension on behalf of a former employer,

    possibly even a car dealer or car finance house.

    It seems to some people completely ridiculous and implausible.

    Those with such a reaction tend not to bother listening to the evidence.

    One might point out, so were the decade by decade changes to public health emergency laws, the changes that made the unlawful, legal on paper, so that billions of people ended up rolling up their sleeves to receive an intentionally harmful injection.

    Ahem. It seems to some people that this, too, is completely ridiculous and implausible.

    Those with such a reaction tend not to bother listening to the evidence and may well get jabbed again.

    David’s story

    You can also watch a documentary here:

    https://rumble.com/v3yptkd-the-great-taking-documentary.html

    Or currently on YouTube still. (How does this work??)



    I cannot recommend highly enough that you make a tea or coffee, sit quietly and listen to this.

    Even though I already knew the highlights, I still found it chilling when Webb gets to discovering that the laws governing private property rights have been changed in every US state and later in every country on earth.

    Instead of actually owning something, you have only a right to benefit from it (dividends, rent, capital appreciation) and the right to buy and sell it.

    But in the event of a major financial dislocation, your “property” is forfeit to the owners of the top slice of the creditor list because, unbeknownst to you, it was pledged as collateral in a loan that was nothing to do with you.

    Parallels with ‘medicine’

    Maybe you’ve read up about how public health laws have been changed over many decades, reaching the point today where you might think you’re receiving a pharmaceutical product but in actuality it’s a military countermeasure, for which no liability sits with anyone involved and you’ve no rights to informed consent…

    To get up to date on this two figures are essential. Sasha Latypova https://open.substack.com/pub/sashalatypova And Katherine Watt https://open.substack.com/pub/bailiwicknews They have done so much work. This post will be augmented and amended with their help hopefully…

    Read more

    12 hours ago · Tim West

    If you have, then these evolutions in laws governing property (financial assets, real estate etc) can be viewed as somewhat analogous, solely in its intent, to deceive and deprive you of rights.

    If more people knew about this, we’d be at pitchforks and torches by the weekend.

    Even comparatively wealthy people are going to have almost everything they think they own legally stripped from them.

    Who do you need to explain this to?

    Even comparatively wealthy people are going to have almost everything they think they own legally stripped from them.

    Now you’re dependent upon the state for basic survival. Which means compliance to earn CBDC, UBI, and this also includes being ‘up to date’.

    Killing people en masse while pretending to protect them from the next hobgoblin of an alleged lethal pandemic will be much easier than conquering and killing a population by open force.

    Who are the ultimate creditors?

    I don’t know who the ultimate creditors are, but they’ll be one and the same as those I call the perpetrators.

    Those lower down the food chain but blind to what’s about to happen are in for a horrible shock.

    Just as were those influencers, musicians, nurses, doctors and sport people who took the jab.

    Only the perpetrators know anything about timing.

    David talks with Edward Griffin

    Creature from Jekyll Island is one of the must-read books for anyone seeking to understand the financial shenanigans. The private institution The Federal Reserve and the way it was created is central to the current financial situation.

    A talk here between its author and the author of The Great Taking. They find much in common, and in common with myself, though in my case I speak as the man on the bus and not as an economics guru.


    https://bigpicture.watch/

    Our own talks with David

    I contribute to a weekly podcast. Here is our own interview with David

    The Great Taking: You Really Own NOTHING

    The 50-year conspiracy to subvert all of our private ownership rights into a collective ownership without our knowledge is detailed in David Rogers Webb’s book The Great Taking and David Webb joins the international Whistleblower Report team today to discuss the details of how we have arrived at this point where none of us really own the private propert…

    Read more

    5 months ago · 41 likes · 16 comments · Truth For Health Foundation, Dr Mike Yeadon, Andrija Cajic, and Jonathan Gilthorpe

    An additional recording by TFHF between David Rogers Webb and Dr Lee Vliet explaining what is happening in the South Dakota legislature. It could hardly matter more.

    First though, it’s useful to understand the core sleight-of-hand they are trying overturn in South Dakota.

    This criminal attempt to steal everything is intended to be hidden in a similar way. But it is really hidden about as well as this…

    Read more

    13 hours ago · Tim West

    The South Dakota Bill

    Here then is the Truth For Health Foundation talk on the South Dakota Bill.

    The GREAT TAKING: Steps to Preserve Your Property Part II with David Rogers Webb

    David Rogers Webb, author of The Great Taking, continues his discussion of the changes to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and other legislation that have put into law the provisions for legalized stealing of most of the assets WeThePeople think we own. These provisions take effect in the event of insolvency of a financial institution (bank, brokerage…

    Read more

    5 months ago · 19 likes · Truth For Health Foundation

    Another presentation by David…



    In short

    we know changes to the UCC and other legislation have provided for the legal stealing of most of the public’s assets in the event of insolvency of the broker

    or whichever entity controls private property on your behalf,

    with legal certainty (ie it’s been done and was upheld in a senior court).

    The South Dakota bill seeks to re establish true ownership rights such that in the event of an insolvency, your private property is automatically returned to you.

    If you have watched Beware of the leopard you will fully understand the power of this proposed clause removal from section 57A-503 of the UCC


    Naturally, this is being strongly resisted by those in the pay of the banking lobby.

    Whether the legislature has the sense and cojones to pass such an amendment remains to be seen.

    Well worth also listening to the hearing in the Tennessee legislature. Amazing sophistry as the hired goons try to say David is wrong.



    David Webb and a colleague again seek amendments.

    The amendments proposed go a small way to restoring some of the property rights of those who think they own securities.

    ‘Entitlement’ is not ownership

    Currently, because of changes made to the Uniform Commercial Code, those who think they own securities now only have an “entitlement”, which is much weaker and is contractual, not absolute. Because it’s a contractual right, there’s a counterparty.

    If the latter goes insolvent, the effect of changes to the UCC is that the entitlement holder (e.g. you) is ranked lower on the list of creditors than the Secured Creditors, the parasites at the top of the food chain.

    Say Boris lends Frank some books. Then Frank sells one of them to you for £10 and disappears. You may be reading it in the park one day when Boris grabs it off you and says ‘that’s my book’. Everything you have turns out to be like that book. And Boris planned the whole thing.
    A financial crisis will certainly see all assets legally stolen.

    Most people are unaware of this.

    There’s literally nothing you can do about it, except not to own securities.

    If you hold physical gold in a safe nobody else knows about, that’s the only way you can be secure. Cash unfortunately suffers the same fate, because it isn’t segregated and is controlled by the big clearing banks and ultimately the central bank, nationally and internationally.

    What is Beneficial Ownership?

    Over 50 years, financial assets (“securities”) that you previously owned under private property rights, as bits of paper, have been dematerialised (digitised) and pooled. Most importantly, a new legal category of “beneficial ownership” has been created and substituted for “ownership”. Why this matters is that ultimate ownership falls to a minuscule number of holders of collateral against debts incurred. Central banks, which are privately owned, are able to seize everyone else’s assets in a crisis because those assets are pledged as collateral.

    A shared view

    Webb says that deliberate collapse of the entire global economy is imminent and this mass theft will cause and amplify violence and tremendous hardship. A hard rain’s going to fall.

    Webb sees the endgame as I do: evil, totalitarian, digital control system. No liberty or democracy anywhere is going to be tolerated nor will the development of a parallel economic system be allowed.

    It is probably already way too late to prevent the economic collapse.

    Whether anything can be salvaged by way of reverting changes to private property rights locally remains to be seen. It’s not necessarily a political issue but a criminal matter that private property rights have been subverted.

    Unfortunately, the way I see it, the perpetrators of the ongoing “covid super crime” need do nothing more than to play out their existing hand, to reduce the population to any value they choose.

    Here’s my near term summary of what I think they’re up to:

    A new event will trigger obligatory digital ID (eg for rations).

    If 1. isn’t a financial crisis,they can trigger one at any time, destroying all sovereign currencies and stealing almost all private property (David Rogers Webb). Total dependence upon the state in order even to be fed. CBDC (digital-only money) introduced.

    Lies about a wave of pandemics. Pharma will pretend to make mRNA vaccines. Govts will mandate them (if WHO hadn’t already done so). Digital ID validity will depend upon being up to date on jabs. No jab, no food. CBDC simply won’t work.

    Rinse and repeat until population reaches their desired levels. I think it’s likely many countries will be completely emptied, removing the need for the authorities to have to pretend that recovery is even the dream, let alone intent.

    The perpetrators have such control of main media and almost all internet traffic. If we reach point 1. without insurrection, we’re done in any case. The perpetrators do not require cooperation from anybody from this point onwards.

    I would point out two things. First, once you realise you’re being lied to by “the authorities” about things fundamental to your health and even life, freedom aside for a moment, surely you must begin to question everything else from the same source?

    Second, I see the only chance of delaying or deflecting the overall control agenda is by more and more people knowing about it and saying NO.

    So I ask everyone to assign an important part of their lives to doing this, personally.

    How brave are you? Do you try to communicate with everyone you know, who serves you in shops, on-line?


    The perpetrators are counting on you not doing this. They really are. So let’s do it.

    Without fear of reprisal.

    If we rightly criticise doctors who knew but didn’t speak out for fear of losing their jobs, then losing membership at the gym shouldn’t hold us back from frank conversations..

    While you’re at it, please put in place at least some precautions to buy time, in the event the perpetrators initiate something faster moving that the last nonsense, such as building a few weeks worth of calories in your home.

    Nobody is coming to save us. Sorry.

    If the above information doesn’t prompt you to immediately getting into “prepping” as best you and any awake, close friends and family, then you’re not taking this as seriously as I believe you’re should.

    How to avoid despair

    Now, I’m well aware this is terrifying and a common reaction is to dismiss it. However, it fits horribly well with what we know already. I’m probably able to imagine it because parts of it are already proven in my mind (the intentional harms from the totally superfluous injections).

    I continue to recommend two things.

    Invest your own time and thought into waking up others. Be selfless. It’s your best defence to dilute what’s coming, as more people will become allies in unpredictable ways. It also feels like you are helping stop it rather than being a victim - This is because you are.

    Do something rather than nothing also to prepare for a period of discontinuity. I’m talking basic food and water, basic meds, some things you can barter with, some skills you might have, something to defend yourself with, better yet, a safe place to be if the SHTF. If you’re already a grower, great. Grow stuff. I don’t think I can do that. I’m not in one place long enough. You might be bored on a narrow diet, but enough calories and nutrients plus clean water means you can sustain yourself for some considerable time. Time means you don’t HAVE to go out into the melee when it’s at its worst. If there are people you can trust with your life, talk with them. Get right with the power in your universe that is important for you.

    If nothing happens, laugh.

    Long term simultaneous planning in all areas


    https://brownstone.org/articles/the-great-taking-exposes-the-financial-end-game/

    I and many draw a parallel between the 50 years of change in public health law, leading to the genocidal deception namely,

    the fake vaccines that are intentionally toxic

    can legally be injected into billions of people

    and there is total immunity from prosecution or liability.

    I’ve easily been able to find trails of evidence of premeditation of the current ‘health’ crime which go back 25 years (tabletopped pandemic simulations, despite their being events that do not happen in reality, well characterised by journalistic Paul Schreyer. See video within Treaty of Lies post embedded below).

    When you examine the history of “climate change”, you can easily find at least half a century of planning.

    Now we see that, in parallel, preparations to seize all private property has also been going on since the 1960s.

    Plenty of people give a hollow laugh at this point (seizure of assets) saying “Good luck with seizing my debts!”

    While it’s true that you cannot lose that which you don’t have, what little people do have will be seized and controlled by the perpetrators.

    I cannot stress enough my expectations are that those with very little will actually be impacted most strongly and immediately by any planned financial system collapse. The perpetrators will “come to their rescue” with the issuance of centrally controlled digital money in exchange for signing up for a government issued digital ID.

    The digital concentration camp

    digital ID

    I remain convinced that the most likely and entirely plausible method for highly controlled depopulation is the requirement to hold at all times and obligation to display the mandatory digital ID,

    effectively mandatory jabs

    along with the need to be up-to-date with WHO-recommended “vaccines” (which of course will be of mRNA type), where failure to comply will lead to the digital ID losing validity.

    mark of the beast CBDC

    No valid digital ID, no ability to transact.

    If you are determined not to immediately be drawn into what I call the killing machine then, to the extent that you can, it’s very important NOW to be preparing not to totally vulnerable on Day 1. Beyond whatsoever preparations you can do, you’ll need to grow at least some of your own food or know others who create surpluses, from whom you stand a chance of obtaining food in exchange for labour, skills, gold or silver (even small amounts are better than none at all).

    Two arms in a pincer movement

    I take the view that, once one has sufficient proof of a lethal assault, backed by evidence of decades of planning, it’s not unreasonable to interpret anything unusual as likely a component of such attacks.

    toxic by design

    There is proof for example that the injected purported to be “vaccines” are in fact constructions designed intentionally to injure, kill and reduce fertility in survivors. I am but one giver of truly expert opinion on this front, and I am one of many. I can debate all day with anyone who wishes to resist this conclusion. I understand why they don’t want to accept it. It is however true, unquestionably.

    legalised iatrogenocide

    Interestingly, people totally unconnected to me, like Katherine Watt and Sasha Latypova (mostly KW initially) have uncovered decades of stealthy modification to “public health” laws and regulations. These culminate in making the obviously unlawful, “legal on paper”, including and especially injected toxins called “Covid19 vaccines”.

    Fake PHEIC

    Yet further separate experts identified that there’s not been a pandemic or public health emergency. This was all a PsyOp. Lying, big time. Again see previous posts for Professor Rancourt’s papers for example. That some proclaiming truth and freedom still act as if there was a spreading pathogen is deeply regrettable.

    Treaty of lies. Pandemic of lies. Whistleblowers of truth.

    I saw the two gentlemen at the end of this post, Dr Christian Perronne and Stefan Homburg, make short speeches close together in time. Knowing as I do that there was no pandemic, no public health emergency… …only lies about a dreadful new disease sweeping across the world, followed by deliberate misattribution of illness and death to this supposed diseas…

    Read more

    3 months ago · 325 likes · 254 comments · Dr Mike Yeadon

    PCR fraud

    I and many others knew that you cannot use bulk testing using PCR with any chance of getting valid, let alone meaningful results. These tests were all carefully fixed, like a conjuring trick, long before the audiences attention was drawn to the magician.

    Irrational masking, lockdowns, distancing

    Masks and “lockdowns” are literally absurd. There were never part of the public health emergency plans of any country. I know, because I read a dozen of them. In 2019, some in WHO detailed the lack of evidence of effectiveness in making the slightest difference to apparent epidemic spreading of acute respiratory illnesses.

    For me, the first evidence that I found genuinely terrifying was when scores of countries simultaneously “locked down”, using lies and identical wording. I interpreted it then and now as unequivocal proof of supranational cooperation. In retrospect, my intellectual core worked out that this could only point to objectives being totalitarian digital enslavement and mass depopulation. Nothing else comes close to fitting all the important observations.

    you will own nothing

    Arm two, David Rogers Webb takes us through a century of preparation and planning to make legal the taking of almost everything you own. The most intense and dramatic changes started again in the 1960s. There’s no uncertainty about what has happened or what will happen, by design, WHEN and not IF the perpetrators trigger The Great Reset, which is very likely to originate with the insolvency of globally significantly important banks.

    These two major arms of a malevolent, long planned pincer movement, now closing on humanity.

    As a highly qualified, experienced and at least moderately successful executive in commercial biomedical research, we’re way past theory, on either arm

    lies about contagious illnesses, the lies on necessary countermeasures and especially “vaccines” and

    Theft on a global scale of substantially all private property, destruction of money and replacement with centrally controlled digital currency).

    Freedom - a memory of the old

    This imminent totalitarian control system will delete freedom forever. Unlike political or religious followings, this one relies not at all upon a mass following. If they succeed in replacing cash with digital money and getting us used to showing ID ahead of every transaction, there’s nothing that can be done to resist total control and importantly, coerced injection.

    Taking these two arms together alone has no plausible benevolent interpretation and to resist my conclusion is, in my opinion at this point an act either of cowardly denial or of a troll. Yep. I said it.

    EVs

    Given that backdrop, the enforced movement towards BEVs might have several explanations. Ockhams Razor strongly ties these two assaults together.

    Agenda 2030

    It fits with 24/7 surveillance, 15 minute cities, the perversion of foodstuffs and many more, strange themes and events, in the skies, on the ground and under the sea.

    The Hidden Hand

    I’m often asked “So who is doing this?”

    I believe we will never know. We know the names of a small number of those who are obviously all-in on this, and your know their names. They’re often referred to on TV and representatives of wealthy trusts and funds, too, not infrequently seen. There is some attention on “think tanks” such as WEF, UN, WHO, Trilateral Commission, Club of Rome, Bilderberg Group, the Davos Set, the Crowned Heads of European countries, especially U.K. and the Netherlands, even The Committee of 300.

    But know this, we’re never going to be allowed to know their names and identities. In my opinion, it makes no difference whatsoever whether we have their names or not.

    In terms of countermeasures, being as prepared as possible is very important. My own knowledge has enabled avoidance of just one crucial risk so far: not being injected with “c19 vaccines”. I’m mostly though not protected by knowledge. There’s nowhere to run and hide anyway. We have to stop it or limit the destruction that they’ll commit.

    Finally, this truly extended planned assault upon humanity has a spiritual aspect to it, to say the least. I doubt they’re alien lizards, but I do think they’re from extended families who have held very terrible views on “ordinary people” like you and me, forever.

    We’re not in a hopeless position but I do recommend we recognise just how much trouble we’re in. I encourage each of us to prepare to be able to resist for a long as possible. Buying time may be the single most important thing you can do.

    Important is the relay idea. Those reading this for example are already wide awake. Those in your personal network may not be. In those cases, you are pretty much their only salvation. The media is never going to tell them the truth. I cannot ever reach them, because they’re not looking for (people like) me. So this battle may turn on your willingness and effectiveness in opening the eyes of people important to you.

    It doesn’t matter how rich you are

    Just as public health laws were changed over decades to make legal the absurd and malign things that have happened in relation to gene-based injections, an analogous, patient process of dissolving private property rights in favour of those at the top of the list of creditors in the event of a bankruptcy of any entity against which the private property of all of the public has been used as collateral.

    It’s unbelievable that this has happened. As of now, even billionaires who aren’t among the perpetrators will lose everything, as will you and I.

    Everything that you think you own, on which you owe any debt at all, will be forfeit in the event of failure of a remote business, where the debts of which rest in part on your assets, because that claim on your assets is being used as collateral.

    As Webb says in his excellent interview with James Delingpole, this cannot be run away from. He’s spoken with large numbers of wealthy people, some of whom are billionaires, and none of them had any idea of this. After a flurry of denials, they read his booklet and slumped in defeat.

    Nobody is coming to save us. If this information doesn’t prompt you to immediately getting into “prepping” as best you and any awake, close friends and family, you’re not taking this as seriously as I believe your should.

    https://delingpole.podbean.com/e/david-rogers-webb/

    So. Will you act to stop this?

    David’s hope then, is that the currently well-off and more than that are being forced to become active. They don’t have a choice. If they do nothing, they will lose everything.

    For example, if you have a private pension, you’ll probably own shares / stocks and bonds.

    Your broker, nowadays typically “execution-only online brokers”, has followed your instructions to buy and hold on your behalf certain assets. Unfortunately these, too, have been pledged as collateral.

    The value of collateral based financial instruments is said to be a huge multiple of world GDP, by astonishing amounts. So large that there’s no hope ever of recovering even pennies on the pound.

    If you’ve a workplace related pension, the assets being used to pay your monthly pension will also be automatically transferred electronically to those on the top of the stack of creditors.

    I’m not sure what, if anything, is not forfeit to these diabolical creatures. I understood that assets in your physical possession which are free of debt and were not purchased with now-cleared debt, might still be seized.

    If your car, say, when it was an asset of the manufacturer or of the car retailer, was pledged as collateral for some transaction they’d entered into, it seems absurd but true that your car, too, might never have had its collateral status revoked. If so, even that vehicle might be forfeit. Boris will claim it back.

    On cars, it may become moot, because so many cars definitely are assets of finance companies that can be seized. We know how very keen are the perpetrators to find ways to get our car keys out of our cars. I could envisage a situation where demand for petrol and diesel would fall so hard that fuel stations would have to close. At that point, your car becomes a very heavy paperweight.

    Webb doesn’t offer a prediction on timing or the way that has been (or will be) chosen to create a new global financial crisis and implode the globeconomy, taking everything with it. He does, however, list a set of preconditions necessary to initiate this global heist. He was quite sure that this is what is going to happen.

    As mentioned above, he puts all his hopes onto the shoulders of wealthy but uninvolved people. I know two billionaires personally (one through old business connections and the other was a major donor to a campaigning organization that I was helping). They’re just like you and me other than that they have huge numbers in the “net worth” category. Webb knows that an ever-widening set of wealthy (but uninvolved) people are becoming very upset about this whole situation. Enlightened self-interest being what is, they’ll have to get active.

    More on ways of preparing

    You must do your own research, but I strongly recommend you explore ways to protect what you can by converting some cash or cash-like assets into something that cannot be automatically seized.

    I do think anyone with life savings and no earned income or capacity to generate any would be unwise to leave it solely in the standard categories of stocks (shares) and bonds, real estate (houses) and deposits of cash. These are all subject to seizure if Webb’s concerns materialise.

    This is an interesting interview with Catherine Austin Fitts, on Greg Hunter’s podcast.She’s my go-to person on matters macro-financial.


    https://usawatchdog.com/pushback-to-tyranny-control-increases-in-2024-catherine-austin-fitts/

    I’m aware of a joining of forces between her and David Webb, the author of “The Great Taking”.

    As always, buyer beware on all these things. I’m a very basic investor, but I’m not conservative. Sometimes, I’ll be in what looks to conventional wisdom to be highly risky. For example, I was at one point heavily into peer-to-peer lending and did very well out of it over a 6-7 year period where base rates were so low that you couldn’t generate a meaningful income off even a sizeable amount of money. Got out early enough to ensure I made no net losses despite all the warnings.

    She makes interesting comments on physical gold. Every bit as interesting are her comments on relationships of trust as being among the most important things to strengthen in 2024.

    I’ve no useful idea when “The Great Taking” will be triggered, but this I know. When it happens, everyone will know it. It might be in days or not for years.

    Stakeholder Communism


    Yellow forum videos including the film Stakeholder Capitalism

    Schwab is proud of his invention, his new economic system.

    All the videos in the link above, from some that are mere seconds long to the full film, serve to establish that this astonishing coup d’etat of the planet isn’t ongoing but has already happened.

    That’s why elections are irrelevant and have been for many years, unfortunately.

    https://x.com/BGatesIsaPyscho/status/1808391835607306604

    Please find ways to share this information. While I’ve been wrong about timing, often, I do think they aim to get it completed and bedded in by 2030. That seems to be a key date for WEF and the UN. Thus, I anticipate that at any time a global financial crisis of unprecedented magnitude will be triggered, most assets automatically seized and from that point on, I could envisage our focus necessarily moving to survival rather than protest.

    Alternatively, a war would suffice to create such discontinuities as the perpetrators may wish to use to move some chess pieces around before triggered GFC2.0 and asset seizure.

    As always, I’m piecing together the clues, as I don’t have a copy of the plot.

    Best wishes

    Mike

    All help for my assistant Tim gratefully received by way of a paid subscription to this publication if you are able. Or subscribe for free to receive everything anyway.

    https://substack.com/home/post/p-146503974
    Maybe you have millions, even billions?… they will take it all… pretty soon. Over 50 years, laws have been changed the world over. You have “beneficial ownership” not ownership. This means someone else owns it. Will you fight it? Dr Mike Yeadon This essay is constructed from many of my Telegram posts. The resulting repetition feels helpful under the circumstances. The central idea is not complicated but it is fiddly. Coming at it from many sides helps. The prediction Unless you are very fresh to peeking behind the mainstream curtain, you will know of WEF’s infamous, arrogant and chilling prediction for 2030. Maybe you’ve wondered what the number 1 in the top-left corner means? Still up on YouTube is the whole video of lunatic predictions it comes from. Klaus Schwabb, Executive Chairman of WEF asserts that “The world needs a Great Reset”, only hinting at what this means between the lines and in the small print. He is using mendacious propaganda in order to pretend to build consensus on this act. You’ll recall that numerous people said, early in 2020, that there was a necessity to “Build Back Better”. Prince Charles was among many who said this. I remember at the time muttering “What do you mean, build back? Nothing is broken”. Obviously, the covert actions of the supranational organization running the Non-pandemic are aimed at making sure that plenty is broken, even that in due course, everything will be broken. The mechanism by which ‘you’ll own nothing’ You may NOT yet have heard of something happening in absolutely every country on the planet, which retired financier David Rogers Webb calls “The Great Taking”. For decades, the illegitimate supranational organisation has been working with and “leaning on” national legislators to ‘amend’ the laws governing private property rights. Unfortunately, this is a done deal. It has already been tested in superior courts and found legally valid. Under certain circumstances, the executive in any country can seize all sorts of assets that you believe are yours. This includes but is not limited to stock market investments such as stocks, shares, bonds and other traceable instruments, cash held at banks, property / real estate and numerous other categories. Only the other day, I was logged into a well known execution-only online broker to obtain a tax statement for my tax return. I noticed weird wordings describing the category of assets listed. I thought I owned, as an example, ten shares in a famous Swiss chocolate manufacturer. It seems I do not. It now indicates that I’m noted as having “beneficial ownership of a part of a numbered pool of such shares”. In other words, there are no identifiable shares with my name virtually on them. Originally you possessed physical paper. Then ‘for convenience’, virtual electronic shares became the rule. From this point the sneaky steps to a pool… and then “beneficial ownership of a part of a numbered pool of such shares” was easy. You can still buy and sell them what’s the problem? The problem is subsection b) in Section 57A-8-511 of the Uniform Commercial Code. If certain economic actions occur in a given financial climate, it turns out that pooled shares have long ago been pledged as collateral in a transaction in which a party has borrowed money from a lender. In the event that the borrower defaults, the ultimate beneficiary is the lender and they have the right to seize whatever collateral there is. That’s your savings, investments, pensions, home etc, including your car if a loan or HP arrangement was used to acquire it. 👇 Even if it has been paid off. Perhaps, even if you bought it outright with cash. ☝️ Obviously, the perpetrators are going to create and trigger such a set of circumstances. I have long suspected that lockdowns were a crucial cover for the extent of central bank money creation necessary to place a sovereign country and currency beyond any plausible rescue scenario. The Great Taking Book as a pdf or tap picture. The book, “The Great Taking”, by David Webb, was a punch to the solar plexus when I first heard of it back in summer ‘23. I would urge you to please take this punch yourself - for your children. Read it. It’s a free pdf - or buy a paper copy from the website www.thegreattaking.com At first, I wasn’t sure if Webb could be trusted. While I’m inclined to believe him, I’ve experienced enough disappointment to start with what a person is telling you. Can you validate or invalidate any part of it through your own experience? Does it have internal consistency? Does the purported expert check out? (Swiss chocolate…) What might their motives be? Taking a leaf out of my own book, there are two basic positions. Ignore. If you’re correct, you’ve avoided worry and potentially bad investments, for example, in a self invested personal pension if you have one. If you’re wrong, you’ll probably suffer very substantial losses which you’ll not have mitigated in any way. Listen then act. If you were wrong, you might still have made a more diversified portfolio than you otherwise would. If however you were right to heed the warnings, it might literally save your life. Having listened to interviews the author has given, and heard comments from others, I do think this could be the huge, missing piece of the agenda leading to the Bond villain, Schwab’s seemingly impossible pronouncements See what you think. Here’s a ‘narration’ of it. I don’t like the auto narrators voice but it’s a lot easier to do a purely mechanical task while listening to this than trying to read a book. I’m not good at the latter these days! Wait, does it apply to me though? If you don’t own much today anyway, you might think not. I understand why that reaction could be commonplace. What those with no scope to resist will face (if and when the perpetrators trigger the next and very much larger global financial crisis) is loss of freedom. Several of us, independently, expect (at some point): abolition of cash and seizure of all assets held by a custodian (such as a bank deposit taker, a building society mortgage provider, an online execution-only broker holding a SIPP (pension), a life insurance company responsible for paying a final salary pension on behalf of a former employer, possibly even a car dealer or car finance house. It seems to some people completely ridiculous and implausible. Those with such a reaction tend not to bother listening to the evidence. One might point out, so were the decade by decade changes to public health emergency laws, the changes that made the unlawful, legal on paper, so that billions of people ended up rolling up their sleeves to receive an intentionally harmful injection. Ahem. It seems to some people that this, too, is completely ridiculous and implausible. Those with such a reaction tend not to bother listening to the evidence and may well get jabbed again. David’s story You can also watch a documentary here: https://rumble.com/v3yptkd-the-great-taking-documentary.html Or currently on YouTube still. (How does this work??) I cannot recommend highly enough that you make a tea or coffee, sit quietly and listen to this. Even though I already knew the highlights, I still found it chilling when Webb gets to discovering that the laws governing private property rights have been changed in every US state and later in every country on earth. Instead of actually owning something, you have only a right to benefit from it (dividends, rent, capital appreciation) and the right to buy and sell it. But in the event of a major financial dislocation, your “property” is forfeit to the owners of the top slice of the creditor list because, unbeknownst to you, it was pledged as collateral in a loan that was nothing to do with you. Parallels with ‘medicine’ Maybe you’ve read up about how public health laws have been changed over many decades, reaching the point today where you might think you’re receiving a pharmaceutical product but in actuality it’s a military countermeasure, for which no liability sits with anyone involved and you’ve no rights to informed consent… To get up to date on this two figures are essential. Sasha Latypova https://open.substack.com/pub/sashalatypova And Katherine Watt https://open.substack.com/pub/bailiwicknews They have done so much work. This post will be augmented and amended with their help hopefully… Read more 12 hours ago · Tim West If you have, then these evolutions in laws governing property (financial assets, real estate etc) can be viewed as somewhat analogous, solely in its intent, to deceive and deprive you of rights. If more people knew about this, we’d be at pitchforks and torches by the weekend. Even comparatively wealthy people are going to have almost everything they think they own legally stripped from them. Who do you need to explain this to? Even comparatively wealthy people are going to have almost everything they think they own legally stripped from them. Now you’re dependent upon the state for basic survival. Which means compliance to earn CBDC, UBI, and this also includes being ‘up to date’.💉 Killing people en masse while pretending to protect them from the next hobgoblin of an alleged lethal pandemic will be much easier than conquering and killing a population by open force. Who are the ultimate creditors? I don’t know who the ultimate creditors are, but they’ll be one and the same as those I call the perpetrators. Those lower down the food chain but blind to what’s about to happen are in for a horrible shock. Just as were those influencers, musicians, nurses, doctors and sport people who took the jab. Only the perpetrators know anything about timing. David talks with Edward Griffin Creature from Jekyll Island is one of the must-read books for anyone seeking to understand the financial shenanigans. The private institution The Federal Reserve and the way it was created is central to the current financial situation. A talk here between its author and the author of The Great Taking. They find much in common, and in common with myself, though in my case I speak as the man on the bus and not as an economics guru. https://bigpicture.watch/ Our own talks with David I contribute to a weekly podcast. Here is our own interview with David The Great Taking: You Really Own NOTHING The 50-year conspiracy to subvert all of our private ownership rights into a collective ownership without our knowledge is detailed in David Rogers Webb’s book The Great Taking and David Webb joins the international Whistleblower Report team today to discuss the details of how we have arrived at this point where none of us really own the private propert… Read more 5 months ago · 41 likes · 16 comments · Truth For Health Foundation, Dr Mike Yeadon, Andrija Cajic, and Jonathan Gilthorpe An additional recording by TFHF between David Rogers Webb and Dr Lee Vliet explaining what is happening in the South Dakota legislature. It could hardly matter more. First though, it’s useful to understand the core sleight-of-hand they are trying overturn in South Dakota. This criminal attempt to steal everything is intended to be hidden in a similar way. But it is really hidden about as well as this… Read more 13 hours ago · Tim West The South Dakota Bill Here then is the Truth For Health Foundation talk on the South Dakota Bill. The GREAT TAKING: Steps to Preserve Your Property Part II with David Rogers Webb David Rogers Webb, author of The Great Taking, continues his discussion of the changes to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and other legislation that have put into law the provisions for legalized stealing of most of the assets WeThePeople think we own. These provisions take effect in the event of insolvency of a financial institution (bank, brokerage… Read more 5 months ago · 19 likes · Truth For Health Foundation Another presentation by David… In short we know changes to the UCC and other legislation have provided for the legal stealing of most of the public’s assets in the event of insolvency of the broker or whichever entity controls private property on your behalf, with legal certainty (ie it’s been done and was upheld in a senior court). The South Dakota bill seeks to re establish true ownership rights such that in the event of an insolvency, your private property is automatically returned to you. If you have watched Beware of the leopard you will fully understand the power of this proposed clause removal from section 57A-503 of the UCC Naturally, this is being strongly resisted by those in the pay of the banking lobby. Whether the legislature has the sense and cojones to pass such an amendment remains to be seen. Well worth also listening to the hearing in the Tennessee legislature. Amazing sophistry as the hired goons try to say David is wrong. David Webb and a colleague again seek amendments. The amendments proposed go a small way to restoring some of the property rights of those who think they own securities. ‘Entitlement’ is not ownership Currently, because of changes made to the Uniform Commercial Code, those who think they own securities now only have an “entitlement”, which is much weaker and is contractual, not absolute. Because it’s a contractual right, there’s a counterparty. If the latter goes insolvent, the effect of changes to the UCC is that the entitlement holder (e.g. you) is ranked lower on the list of creditors than the Secured Creditors, the parasites at the top of the food chain. Say Boris lends Frank some books. Then Frank sells one of them to you for £10 and disappears. You may be reading it in the park one day when Boris grabs it off you and says ‘that’s my book’. Everything you have turns out to be like that book. And Boris planned the whole thing. A financial crisis will certainly see all assets legally stolen. Most people are unaware of this. There’s literally nothing you can do about it, except not to own securities. If you hold physical gold in a safe nobody else knows about, that’s the only way you can be secure. Cash unfortunately suffers the same fate, because it isn’t segregated and is controlled by the big clearing banks and ultimately the central bank, nationally and internationally. What is Beneficial Ownership? Over 50 years, financial assets (“securities”) that you previously owned under private property rights, as bits of paper, have been dematerialised (digitised) and pooled. Most importantly, a new legal category of “beneficial ownership” has been created and substituted for “ownership”. Why this matters is that ultimate ownership falls to a minuscule number of holders of collateral against debts incurred. Central banks, which are privately owned, are able to seize everyone else’s assets in a crisis because those assets are pledged as collateral. A shared view Webb says that deliberate collapse of the entire global economy is imminent and this mass theft will cause and amplify violence and tremendous hardship. A hard rain’s going to fall. Webb sees the endgame as I do: evil, totalitarian, digital control system. No liberty or democracy anywhere is going to be tolerated nor will the development of a parallel economic system be allowed. It is probably already way too late to prevent the economic collapse. Whether anything can be salvaged by way of reverting changes to private property rights locally remains to be seen. It’s not necessarily a political issue but a criminal matter that private property rights have been subverted. Unfortunately, the way I see it, the perpetrators of the ongoing “covid super crime” need do nothing more than to play out their existing hand, to reduce the population to any value they choose. Here’s my near term summary of what I think they’re up to: A new event will trigger obligatory digital ID (eg for rations). If 1. isn’t a financial crisis,they can trigger one at any time, destroying all sovereign currencies and stealing almost all private property (David Rogers Webb). Total dependence upon the state in order even to be fed. CBDC (digital-only money) introduced. Lies about a wave of pandemics. Pharma will pretend to make mRNA vaccines. Govts will mandate them (if WHO hadn’t already done so). Digital ID validity will depend upon being up to date on jabs. No jab, no food. CBDC simply won’t work. Rinse and repeat until population reaches their desired levels. I think it’s likely many countries will be completely emptied, removing the need for the authorities to have to pretend that recovery is even the dream, let alone intent. The perpetrators have such control of main media and almost all internet traffic. If we reach point 1. without insurrection, we’re done in any case. The perpetrators do not require cooperation from anybody from this point onwards. I would point out two things. First, once you realise you’re being lied to by “the authorities” about things fundamental to your health and even life, freedom aside for a moment, surely you must begin to question everything else from the same source? Second, I see the only chance of delaying or deflecting the overall control agenda is by more and more people knowing about it and saying NO. So I ask everyone to assign an important part of their lives to doing this, personally. How brave are you? Do you try to communicate with everyone you know, who serves you in shops, on-line? The perpetrators are counting on you not doing this. They really are. So let’s do it. Without fear of reprisal. If we rightly criticise doctors who knew but didn’t speak out for fear of losing their jobs, then losing membership at the gym shouldn’t hold us back from frank conversations.. While you’re at it, please put in place at least some precautions to buy time, in the event the perpetrators initiate something faster moving that the last nonsense, such as building a few weeks worth of calories in your home. Nobody is coming to save us. Sorry. If the above information doesn’t prompt you to immediately getting into “prepping” as best you and any awake, close friends and family, then you’re not taking this as seriously as I believe you’re should. How to avoid despair Now, I’m well aware this is terrifying and a common reaction is to dismiss it. However, it fits horribly well with what we know already. I’m probably able to imagine it because parts of it are already proven in my mind (the intentional harms from the totally superfluous injections). I continue to recommend two things. Invest your own time and thought into waking up others. Be selfless. It’s your best defence to dilute what’s coming, as more people will become allies in unpredictable ways. It also feels like you are helping stop it rather than being a victim - This is because you are. Do something rather than nothing also to prepare for a period of discontinuity. I’m talking basic food and water, basic meds, some things you can barter with, some skills you might have, something to defend yourself with, better yet, a safe place to be if the SHTF. If you’re already a grower, great. Grow stuff. I don’t think I can do that. I’m not in one place long enough. You might be bored on a narrow diet, but enough calories and nutrients plus clean water means you can sustain yourself for some considerable time. Time means you don’t HAVE to go out into the melee when it’s at its worst. If there are people you can trust with your life, talk with them. Get right with the power in your universe that is important for you. If nothing happens, laugh. Long term simultaneous planning in all areas https://brownstone.org/articles/the-great-taking-exposes-the-financial-end-game/ I and many draw a parallel between the 50 years of change in public health law, leading to the genocidal deception namely, the fake vaccines that are intentionally toxic can legally be injected into billions of people and there is total immunity from prosecution or liability. I’ve easily been able to find trails of evidence of premeditation of the current ‘health’ crime which go back 25 years (tabletopped pandemic simulations, despite their being events that do not happen in reality, well characterised by journalistic Paul Schreyer. See video within Treaty of Lies post embedded below). When you examine the history of “climate change”, you can easily find at least half a century of planning. Now we see that, in parallel, preparations to seize all private property has also been going on since the 1960s. Plenty of people give a hollow laugh at this point (seizure of assets) saying “Good luck with seizing my debts!” While it’s true that you cannot lose that which you don’t have, what little people do have will be seized and controlled by the perpetrators. I cannot stress enough my expectations are that those with very little will actually be impacted most strongly and immediately by any planned financial system collapse. The perpetrators will “come to their rescue” with the issuance of centrally controlled digital money in exchange for signing up for a government issued digital ID. The digital concentration camp digital ID I remain convinced that the most likely and entirely plausible method for highly controlled depopulation is the requirement to hold at all times and obligation to display the mandatory digital ID, effectively mandatory jabs along with the need to be up-to-date with WHO-recommended “vaccines” (which of course will be of mRNA type), where failure to comply will lead to the digital ID losing validity. mark of the beast CBDC No valid digital ID, no ability to transact. If you are determined not to immediately be drawn into what I call the killing machine then, to the extent that you can, it’s very important NOW to be preparing not to totally vulnerable on Day 1. Beyond whatsoever preparations you can do, you’ll need to grow at least some of your own food or know others who create surpluses, from whom you stand a chance of obtaining food in exchange for labour, skills, gold or silver (even small amounts are better than none at all). Two arms in a pincer movement I take the view that, once one has sufficient proof of a lethal assault, backed by evidence of decades of planning, it’s not unreasonable to interpret anything unusual as likely a component of such attacks. toxic by design There is proof for example that the injected purported to be “vaccines” are in fact constructions designed intentionally to injure, kill and reduce fertility in survivors. I am but one giver of truly expert opinion on this front, and I am one of many. I can debate all day with anyone who wishes to resist this conclusion. I understand why they don’t want to accept it. It is however true, unquestionably. legalised iatrogenocide Interestingly, people totally unconnected to me, like Katherine Watt and Sasha Latypova (mostly KW initially) have uncovered decades of stealthy modification to “public health” laws and regulations. These culminate in making the obviously unlawful, “legal on paper”, including and especially injected toxins called “Covid19 vaccines”. Fake PHEIC Yet further separate experts identified that there’s not been a pandemic or public health emergency. This was all a PsyOp. Lying, big time. Again see previous posts for Professor Rancourt’s papers for example. That some proclaiming truth and freedom still act as if there was a spreading pathogen is deeply regrettable. Treaty of lies. Pandemic of lies. Whistleblowers of truth. I saw the two gentlemen at the end of this post, Dr Christian Perronne and Stefan Homburg, make short speeches close together in time. Knowing as I do that there was no pandemic, no public health emergency… …only lies about a dreadful new disease sweeping across the world, followed by deliberate misattribution of illness and death to this supposed diseas… Read more 3 months ago · 325 likes · 254 comments · Dr Mike Yeadon PCR fraud I and many others knew that you cannot use bulk testing using PCR with any chance of getting valid, let alone meaningful results. These tests were all carefully fixed, like a conjuring trick, long before the audiences attention was drawn to the magician. Irrational masking, lockdowns, distancing Masks and “lockdowns” are literally absurd. There were never part of the public health emergency plans of any country. I know, because I read a dozen of them. In 2019, some in WHO detailed the lack of evidence of effectiveness in making the slightest difference to apparent epidemic spreading of acute respiratory illnesses. For me, the first evidence that I found genuinely terrifying was when scores of countries simultaneously “locked down”, using lies and identical wording. I interpreted it then and now as unequivocal proof of supranational cooperation. In retrospect, my intellectual core worked out that this could only point to objectives being totalitarian digital enslavement and mass depopulation. Nothing else comes close to fitting all the important observations. you will own nothing Arm two, David Rogers Webb takes us through a century of preparation and planning to make legal the taking of almost everything you own. The most intense and dramatic changes started again in the 1960s. There’s no uncertainty about what has happened or what will happen, by design, WHEN and not IF the perpetrators trigger The Great Reset, which is very likely to originate with the insolvency of globally significantly important banks. These two major arms of a malevolent, long planned pincer movement, now closing on humanity. As a highly qualified, experienced and at least moderately successful executive in commercial biomedical research, we’re way past theory, on either arm lies about contagious illnesses, the lies on necessary countermeasures and especially “vaccines” and Theft on a global scale of substantially all private property, destruction of money and replacement with centrally controlled digital currency). Freedom - a memory of the old This imminent totalitarian control system will delete freedom forever. Unlike political or religious followings, this one relies not at all upon a mass following. If they succeed in replacing cash with digital money and getting us used to showing ID ahead of every transaction, there’s nothing that can be done to resist total control and importantly, coerced injection. Taking these two arms together alone has no plausible benevolent interpretation and to resist my conclusion is, in my opinion at this point an act either of cowardly denial or of a troll. Yep. I said it. EVs Given that backdrop, the enforced movement towards BEVs might have several explanations. Ockhams Razor strongly ties these two assaults together. Agenda 2030 It fits with 24/7 surveillance, 15 minute cities, the perversion of foodstuffs and many more, strange themes and events, in the skies, on the ground and under the sea. The Hidden Hand I’m often asked “So who is doing this?” I believe we will never know. We know the names of a small number of those who are obviously all-in on this, and your know their names. They’re often referred to on TV and representatives of wealthy trusts and funds, too, not infrequently seen. There is some attention on “think tanks” such as WEF, UN, WHO, Trilateral Commission, Club of Rome, Bilderberg Group, the Davos Set, the Crowned Heads of European countries, especially U.K. and the Netherlands, even The Committee of 300. But know this, we’re never going to be allowed to know their names and identities. In my opinion, it makes no difference whatsoever whether we have their names or not. In terms of countermeasures, being as prepared as possible is very important. My own knowledge has enabled avoidance of just one crucial risk so far: not being injected with “c19 vaccines”. I’m mostly though not protected by knowledge. There’s nowhere to run and hide anyway. We have to stop it or limit the destruction that they’ll commit. Finally, this truly extended planned assault upon humanity has a spiritual aspect to it, to say the least. I doubt they’re alien lizards, but I do think they’re from extended families who have held very terrible views on “ordinary people” like you and me, forever. We’re not in a hopeless position but I do recommend we recognise just how much trouble we’re in. I encourage each of us to prepare to be able to resist for a long as possible. Buying time may be the single most important thing you can do. Important is the relay idea. Those reading this for example are already wide awake. Those in your personal network may not be. In those cases, you are pretty much their only salvation. The media is never going to tell them the truth. I cannot ever reach them, because they’re not looking for (people like) me. So this battle may turn on your willingness and effectiveness in opening the eyes of people important to you. It doesn’t matter how rich you are Just as public health laws were changed over decades to make legal the absurd and malign things that have happened in relation to gene-based injections, an analogous, patient process of dissolving private property rights in favour of those at the top of the list of creditors in the event of a bankruptcy of any entity against which the private property of all of the public has been used as collateral. It’s unbelievable that this has happened. As of now, even billionaires who aren’t among the perpetrators will lose everything, as will you and I. Everything that you think you own, on which you owe any debt at all, will be forfeit in the event of failure of a remote business, where the debts of which rest in part on your assets, because that claim on your assets is being used as collateral. As Webb says in his excellent interview with James Delingpole, this cannot be run away from. He’s spoken with large numbers of wealthy people, some of whom are billionaires, and none of them had any idea of this. After a flurry of denials, they read his booklet and slumped in defeat. Nobody is coming to save us. If this information doesn’t prompt you to immediately getting into “prepping” as best you and any awake, close friends and family, you’re not taking this as seriously as I believe your should. https://delingpole.podbean.com/e/david-rogers-webb/ So. Will you act to stop this? David’s hope then, is that the currently well-off and more than that are being forced to become active. They don’t have a choice. If they do nothing, they will lose everything. For example, if you have a private pension, you’ll probably own shares / stocks and bonds. Your broker, nowadays typically “execution-only online brokers”, has followed your instructions to buy and hold on your behalf certain assets. Unfortunately these, too, have been pledged as collateral. The value of collateral based financial instruments is said to be a huge multiple of world GDP, by astonishing amounts. So large that there’s no hope ever of recovering even pennies on the pound. If you’ve a workplace related pension, the assets being used to pay your monthly pension will also be automatically transferred electronically to those on the top of the stack of creditors. I’m not sure what, if anything, is not forfeit to these diabolical creatures. I understood that assets in your physical possession which are free of debt and were not purchased with now-cleared debt, might still be seized. If your car, say, when it was an asset of the manufacturer or of the car retailer, was pledged as collateral for some transaction they’d entered into, it seems absurd but true that your car, too, might never have had its collateral status revoked. If so, even that vehicle might be forfeit. Boris will claim it back. On cars, it may become moot, because so many cars definitely are assets of finance companies that can be seized. We know how very keen are the perpetrators to find ways to get our car keys out of our cars. I could envisage a situation where demand for petrol and diesel would fall so hard that fuel stations would have to close. At that point, your car becomes a very heavy paperweight. Webb doesn’t offer a prediction on timing or the way that has been (or will be) chosen to create a new global financial crisis and implode the globeconomy, taking everything with it. He does, however, list a set of preconditions necessary to initiate this global heist. He was quite sure that this is what is going to happen. As mentioned above, he puts all his hopes onto the shoulders of wealthy but uninvolved people. I know two billionaires personally (one through old business connections and the other was a major donor to a campaigning organization that I was helping). They’re just like you and me other than that they have huge numbers in the “net worth” category. Webb knows that an ever-widening set of wealthy (but uninvolved) people are becoming very upset about this whole situation. Enlightened self-interest being what is, they’ll have to get active. More on ways of preparing You must do your own research, but I strongly recommend you explore ways to protect what you can by converting some cash or cash-like assets into something that cannot be automatically seized. I do think anyone with life savings and no earned income or capacity to generate any would be unwise to leave it solely in the standard categories of stocks (shares) and bonds, real estate (houses) and deposits of cash. These are all subject to seizure if Webb’s concerns materialise. This is an interesting interview with Catherine Austin Fitts, on Greg Hunter’s podcast.She’s my go-to person on matters macro-financial. https://usawatchdog.com/pushback-to-tyranny-control-increases-in-2024-catherine-austin-fitts/ I’m aware of a joining of forces between her and David Webb, the author of “The Great Taking”. As always, buyer beware on all these things. I’m a very basic investor, but I’m not conservative. Sometimes, I’ll be in what looks to conventional wisdom to be highly risky. For example, I was at one point heavily into peer-to-peer lending and did very well out of it over a 6-7 year period where base rates were so low that you couldn’t generate a meaningful income off even a sizeable amount of money. Got out early enough to ensure I made no net losses despite all the warnings. She makes interesting comments on physical gold. Every bit as interesting are her comments on relationships of trust as being among the most important things to strengthen in 2024. I’ve no useful idea when “The Great Taking” will be triggered, but this I know. When it happens, everyone will know it. It might be in days or not for years. Stakeholder Communism Yellow forum videos including the film Stakeholder Capitalism Schwab is proud of his invention, his new economic system. All the videos in the link above, from some that are mere seconds long to the full film, serve to establish that this astonishing coup d’etat of the planet isn’t ongoing but has already happened. That’s why elections are irrelevant and have been for many years, unfortunately. https://x.com/BGatesIsaPyscho/status/1808391835607306604 Please find ways to share this information. While I’ve been wrong about timing, often, I do think they aim to get it completed and bedded in by 2030. That seems to be a key date for WEF and the UN. Thus, I anticipate that at any time a global financial crisis of unprecedented magnitude will be triggered, most assets automatically seized and from that point on, I could envisage our focus necessarily moving to survival rather than protest. Alternatively, a war would suffice to create such discontinuities as the perpetrators may wish to use to move some chess pieces around before triggered GFC2.0 and asset seizure. As always, I’m piecing together the clues, as I don’t have a copy of the plot. Best wishes Mike All help for my assistant Tim gratefully received by way of a paid subscription to this publication if you are able. Or subscribe for free to receive everything anyway. https://substack.com/home/post/p-146503974
    SUBSTACK.COM
    Maybe you have millions, even billions?… they will take it all… pretty soon.
    Over 50 years, laws have been changed the world over. You have “beneficial ownership” not ownership. This means someone else owns it. Will you fight it?
    Like
    1
    0 Comentários 1 Compartilhamentos 11613 Visualizações

  • China ‘cannot be ignored’: Temasek reshaping China portfolio from export to domestic-driven companies
    Temasek also believes that the fundamental responsibility of companies is to make a positive contribution to society and cannot be decoupled from their aim to deliver profits for themselves or their shareholders and to achieve long term sustainable returns in the pursuit of multi-stakeholder capitalism.
    DESPITE Temasek’s one-year portfolio returns being dragged down by China’s market performance, the world’s second-largest economy remains firmly on the state investor’s radar screen.

    Temasek said that it is readjusting its portfolio to focus on the country’s domestic markets.

    It will also expand its investments in Japan as well as South-east Asia, US and Europe. On the Singapore front, it will continue to work with its portfolio companies to improve their performance, Temasek told The Business Times.

    The annual review of its results, which was released on Tuesday (Jul 9), covers Temasek’s performance overview, performance highlights, as well as its group financial summary for the financial year ended March 2024.

    Temasek posted a net portfolio value (NPV) of S$389 billion for FY2024. After marking its unlisted portfolio to market, the NPV stood at S$420 billion, up S$9 billion from the year before.

    China’s investment opportunities

    Chia Song Hwee, the deputy chief executive officer of Temasek, said that as the second-largest economy in the world, China “cannot be ignored”.

    BT in your inbox

    Newsletter Img
    Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.

    “We still believe that China has investment opportunities, but we have to recognise that it is a more mature economy now than the high-growth one which we have experienced in the past few years,” he told BT.

    To that end, Chia said that Temasek would focus on companies that would benefit from domestic demand and less on exports that could be affected by tariffs and political tensions.

    This would cover companies that focus on areas such as biotech, robotics that aid in the automation of various industries, as well as the electrification and electric vehicle (EV) value chains.

    “We hope that with the reshaping of our portfolio plus the drop in market value that has already occurred, the downside (in the China returns) will be moderated,” he said.

    Alpin Mehta, the head of real estate at Temasek, added that Temasek will maintain a “cautious approach” and continue to monitor the Chinese government’s policies this year.

    Japan and India

    Meanwhile, Temasek has increased its exposure in Japan from near zero a few years ago to about 1 per cent, based on the exposure of its portfolio now. This figure is expected to grow, said Mehta.

    Japan continues to benefit from its recent corporate governance reforms, as well as secular and cyclical factors.

    Temasek said it expects India’s growth to be driven by infrastructure-led capital expenditure and private consumption. It sees more opportunities in India’s consumer, healthcare and financial services sectors.

    South-east Asia

    Mehta said that South-east Asia is expected to be one of the fastest-growing regions in the coming decade, and Temasek intends to “scale up” its exposure in the region.

    Temasek’s near-term outlook for South-east Asia remains positive.

    “There is resilient domestic demand and an upturn in the global manufacturing cycle and tourism economy,” he said.

    Over the medium term, Temasek remains “constructive” in the region, and it sees continued structural reforms in a number of South-east Asian markets.

    This has helped to reduce supply side constraints, create more open and competitive markets, and improve productivity.

    The region is well positioned against the backdrop of rising US-China tensions and supply chain diversification, said Mehta.

    US and Europe

    Between 2014 and 2024, Temasek doubled its exposure to the Americas, from 10 per cent to 22 per cent. Similarly, it has also increased its exposure in Europe, the Middle East and Africa from 8 to 13 per cent.

    Temasek said that the US will continue to be the largest destination for its capital.

    Going forward, Temasek will focus on investing in artificial intelligence (AI) enablers and adopters, as well as businesses benefiting from US industrial policies.

    On whether the upcoming US elections in November this year would affect its portfolio, Png Chin Yee, Temasek’s chief financial officer, said that regardless of who wins, Temasek believes it will be able to find suitable opportunities given that the US is a “deep market” driven by innovation.

    Mehta said that Temasek also sees opportunities in Europe, especially in green transition and leading global companies.

    The state investor recently opened its Paris office in April of this year, marking its third office in Europe after London and Brussels. Temasek had previously said that it plans to invest S$20 billion to S$25 billion in the Europe, Middle East, and Africa region over the next five years.

    Singapore

    Singapore makes up 27 per cent of Temasek’s portfolio in terms of underlying assets.

    Temasek said that Singapore’s open economy is expected to benefit from external growth and a continued recovery in the global goods cycle, although geopolitical events and disruptions in global trade and supply chains pose risks.

    On whether Temasek was concerned that the underperformance of Singapore’s public market would affect its portfolio returns, Chia said that Temasek will consistently engage across all companies, whether or not they are based in Singapore, to enhance shareholder value.

    He said that Temasek can no longer rely on “big, macro tailwinds” to generate good returns.

    “We have to work really hard at an asset by asset level to generate returns,” he said.

    Chia said that Temasek believes there are some Temasek portfolio companies that could have “larger ambitions” and will engage them to enhance returns.

    To that end, Temasek has supported some of them in their corporate actions. For example, Sats’ acquisition of global air cargo logistics provider Worldwide Flight Services turned Sats’ business from a regional to global one, said Chia.

    That said, Chia added that Temasek does not drive initiatives at these companies.

    “Of course we give our views and thoughts on where the opportunities are and how they can think about things. But it is really up to the management and the board to decide what to do,” he said.

    On how Temasek plans to improve its returns on its Singapore portfolio, Chia said that every company faces different challenges and opportunities, and it is very hard for all portfolio companies to grow together.

    This is unlike two decades ago, when the “whole world (was) moving in unison” and growing.

    Chia said: “Those days are over. We need to work a lot harder, a lot more bottoms up in order for us to generate returns.”


    You can link these 2 news

    https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/international/global/china-cannot-be-ignored-temasek-reshaping-china-portfolio-export-domestic-driven-companies?utm_source=telegram&utm_medium=social-organic
    China ‘cannot be ignored’: Temasek reshaping China portfolio from export to domestic-driven companies Temasek also believes that the fundamental responsibility of companies is to make a positive contribution to society and cannot be decoupled from their aim to deliver profits for themselves or their shareholders and to achieve long term sustainable returns in the pursuit of multi-stakeholder capitalism. DESPITE Temasek’s one-year portfolio returns being dragged down by China’s market performance, the world’s second-largest economy remains firmly on the state investor’s radar screen. Temasek said that it is readjusting its portfolio to focus on the country’s domestic markets. It will also expand its investments in Japan as well as South-east Asia, US and Europe. On the Singapore front, it will continue to work with its portfolio companies to improve their performance, Temasek told The Business Times. The annual review of its results, which was released on Tuesday (Jul 9), covers Temasek’s performance overview, performance highlights, as well as its group financial summary for the financial year ended March 2024. Temasek posted a net portfolio value (NPV) of S$389 billion for FY2024. After marking its unlisted portfolio to market, the NPV stood at S$420 billion, up S$9 billion from the year before. China’s investment opportunities Chia Song Hwee, the deputy chief executive officer of Temasek, said that as the second-largest economy in the world, China “cannot be ignored”. BT in your inbox Newsletter Img Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. “We still believe that China has investment opportunities, but we have to recognise that it is a more mature economy now than the high-growth one which we have experienced in the past few years,” he told BT. To that end, Chia said that Temasek would focus on companies that would benefit from domestic demand and less on exports that could be affected by tariffs and political tensions. This would cover companies that focus on areas such as biotech, robotics that aid in the automation of various industries, as well as the electrification and electric vehicle (EV) value chains. “We hope that with the reshaping of our portfolio plus the drop in market value that has already occurred, the downside (in the China returns) will be moderated,” he said. Alpin Mehta, the head of real estate at Temasek, added that Temasek will maintain a “cautious approach” and continue to monitor the Chinese government’s policies this year. Japan and India Meanwhile, Temasek has increased its exposure in Japan from near zero a few years ago to about 1 per cent, based on the exposure of its portfolio now. This figure is expected to grow, said Mehta. Japan continues to benefit from its recent corporate governance reforms, as well as secular and cyclical factors. Temasek said it expects India’s growth to be driven by infrastructure-led capital expenditure and private consumption. It sees more opportunities in India’s consumer, healthcare and financial services sectors. South-east Asia Mehta said that South-east Asia is expected to be one of the fastest-growing regions in the coming decade, and Temasek intends to “scale up” its exposure in the region. Temasek’s near-term outlook for South-east Asia remains positive. “There is resilient domestic demand and an upturn in the global manufacturing cycle and tourism economy,” he said. Over the medium term, Temasek remains “constructive” in the region, and it sees continued structural reforms in a number of South-east Asian markets. This has helped to reduce supply side constraints, create more open and competitive markets, and improve productivity. The region is well positioned against the backdrop of rising US-China tensions and supply chain diversification, said Mehta. US and Europe Between 2014 and 2024, Temasek doubled its exposure to the Americas, from 10 per cent to 22 per cent. Similarly, it has also increased its exposure in Europe, the Middle East and Africa from 8 to 13 per cent. Temasek said that the US will continue to be the largest destination for its capital. Going forward, Temasek will focus on investing in artificial intelligence (AI) enablers and adopters, as well as businesses benefiting from US industrial policies. On whether the upcoming US elections in November this year would affect its portfolio, Png Chin Yee, Temasek’s chief financial officer, said that regardless of who wins, Temasek believes it will be able to find suitable opportunities given that the US is a “deep market” driven by innovation. Mehta said that Temasek also sees opportunities in Europe, especially in green transition and leading global companies. The state investor recently opened its Paris office in April of this year, marking its third office in Europe after London and Brussels. Temasek had previously said that it plans to invest S$20 billion to S$25 billion in the Europe, Middle East, and Africa region over the next five years. Singapore Singapore makes up 27 per cent of Temasek’s portfolio in terms of underlying assets. Temasek said that Singapore’s open economy is expected to benefit from external growth and a continued recovery in the global goods cycle, although geopolitical events and disruptions in global trade and supply chains pose risks. On whether Temasek was concerned that the underperformance of Singapore’s public market would affect its portfolio returns, Chia said that Temasek will consistently engage across all companies, whether or not they are based in Singapore, to enhance shareholder value. He said that Temasek can no longer rely on “big, macro tailwinds” to generate good returns. “We have to work really hard at an asset by asset level to generate returns,” he said. Chia said that Temasek believes there are some Temasek portfolio companies that could have “larger ambitions” and will engage them to enhance returns. To that end, Temasek has supported some of them in their corporate actions. For example, Sats’ acquisition of global air cargo logistics provider Worldwide Flight Services turned Sats’ business from a regional to global one, said Chia. That said, Chia added that Temasek does not drive initiatives at these companies. “Of course we give our views and thoughts on where the opportunities are and how they can think about things. But it is really up to the management and the board to decide what to do,” he said. On how Temasek plans to improve its returns on its Singapore portfolio, Chia said that every company faces different challenges and opportunities, and it is very hard for all portfolio companies to grow together. This is unlike two decades ago, when the “whole world (was) moving in unison” and growing. Chia said: “Those days are over. We need to work a lot harder, a lot more bottoms up in order for us to generate returns.” You can link these 2 news https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/international/global/china-cannot-be-ignored-temasek-reshaping-china-portfolio-export-domestic-driven-companies?utm_source=telegram&utm_medium=social-organic
    WWW.BUSINESSTIMES.COM.SG
    China ‘cannot be ignored’: Temasek reshaping China portfolio from export to domestic-driven companies
    DESPITE Temasek’s one-year portfolio returns being dragged down by China’s market performance, the world’s second-largest economy remains firmly on the state investor’s radar screen. Read more at The Business Times.
    Like
    1
    0 Comentários 1 Compartilhamentos 4252 Visualizações
  • “Brain Dead” is NOT Dead! LIVE people are murdered daily for organs and to “save money”
    You MUST KNOW that “no brain activity” means NOTHING except that doctors didn’t do the tests that would find the brain activity. Don’t let your loved one be killed.

    Brucha Weisberger
    BS”D

    From the beginning of time, people knew that cessation of heartbeat and breath meant death. This is the G-d-given definition, and it is logical. Since it’s real, this definition does not require anything to “prop it up.”

    Of course, G-d, Who creates life, is the only One Who has the authority to say when it ends, and to end it. Unfortunately, two motivations came into play in the 20th century to create a new, and false, “definition” of death.

    Marina Zhang at Epoch Times explains in her June 2024 article, “Brain-Dead People May Not Be Dead—Here’s Why.” https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/are-brain-dead-people-really-dead-5629496

    The definition of brain death, also known as death by neurological criteria, is when a person falls into a permanent coma, loses their brainstem reflexes and consciousness, and can’t breathe without stimulus or support.

    Yet a person’s heart can be beating, his or her organs functional, and he or she can fight off infection, grow, and even carry babies to term. (Delivery of a Healthy Baby from a Brain-Dead Woman After 117 Days of Somatic Support: A Case Report - PMC https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8141338/)

    Though they may exhibit no signs of consciousness, some areas of the brain may still work. About 50 percent of brain-death patients retain activity in their hypothalamus, which coordinates the body’s endocrine system and regulates body temperature.

    However, all of this stops if they are taken off life support.

    What is the big rush to declare death and take people off of breathing assistance?

    First, there is a need for transplant organs, and second, a wish to “save resources” by having people hurry up and die already.

    From Rachel Aviv’s article in the New Yorker, 2018: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/02/05/what-does-it-mean-to-die

    Until the nineteen-sixties, cardio-respiratory failure was the only way to die. The notion that death could be diagnosed in the brain didn’t emerge until after the advent of the modern ventilator, allowing what was known at the time as “oxygen treatment”: as long as blood carrying oxygen reached the heart, it could continue to beat. In 1967, Henry Beecher, a renowned bioethicist at Harvard Medical School, wrote to a colleague, “It would be most desirable for a group at Harvard University to come to some subtle conclusion as to a new definition of death.” Permanently comatose patients, maintained by mechanical ventilators, were “increasing in numbers over the land and there are a number of problems which should be faced up to.”

    Beecher created a committee comprising men who already knew one another: ten doctors, one lawyer, one historian, and one theologian. In less than six months, they completed a report, which they published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The only citation in the article was from a speech by the Pope. They proposed that the irreversible destruction of the brain should be defined as death, giving two reasons: to relieve the burden on families and hospitals, which were providing futile care to patients who would never recover, and to address the fact that “obsolete criteria for the definition of death can lead to controversy in obtaining organs for transplantation,” a field that had developed rapidly; in the previous five years, doctors had performed the world’s first transplant of a pancreas, a liver, a lung, and a heart. In an earlier draft, the second reason was stated more directly: “There is great need for the tissues and organs of the hopelessly comatose in order to restore to health those who are still salvageable.” (The sentence was revised after Harvard’s medical dean wrote that “the connotation of this statement is unfortunate.”)

    In the next twelve years, twenty-seven states rewrote their definitions of death to conform to the Harvard committee’s conclusions. Thousands of lives were prolonged or saved every year because patients declared brain-dead—a form of death eventually adopted by the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and most of Europe—were now eligible to donate their organs. The philosopher Peter Singer described it as “a concept so desirable in its consequences that it is unthinkable to give up, and so shaky on its foundations that it can scarcely be supported.” The new death was “an ethical choice masquerading as a medical fact,” he wrote.

    Legal ambiguities remained—people considered alive in one region of the country could be declared dead in another—and, in 1981, the President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems proposed a uniform definition and theory of death. Its report, which was endorsed by the American Medical Association, stated that death is the moment when the body stops operating as an “integrated whole.” Even if life continues in individual organs and cells, the person is no longer alive, because the functioning organs are merely a collection of artificially maintained subsystems that will inevitably disintegrate. “The heart usually stops beating within two to ten days,” the report said.

    The commission’s staff philosopher, Daniel Wikler, a professor at Harvard and the first staff ethicist for the World Health Organization, told me that he didn’t think the commission’s theory of death was supported by the scientific facts it cited. “I thought it was demonstrably untrue, but so what?” he said. “I didn’t see a downside at the time.” Wikler told the commission that it would be more logical to say that death occurred when the cerebrum—the center for consciousness, thoughts, and feelings, the properties essential to having a personal identity—was destroyed. His formulation would have rendered a much broader population of patients, including those who could breathe on their own, dead.

    Despite Wikler’s reservations, he drafted the third chapter of the report, “Understanding the ‘Meaning’ of Death.” “I was put in a tight spot, and I fudged,” he told me. “I knew that there was an air of bad faith about it. I made it seem like there are a lot of profound unknowns and went in the direction of fuzziness, so that no one could say, ‘Hey, your philosopher says this is nonsense.’ That’s what I thought, but you’d never know from what I wrote.”

    So much for “brain dead” being a scientific definition.

    It is truly horrifying to contemplate that living, feeling people have their vital organs barbarically cut out while they are alive. Organs must be “harvested” from live donors in order to be viable. Live, in the true sense of the word - the heart is beating. (As you will see in this article, there is awareness, as well, even if the person cannot express it.)

    From Marina Zhang’s ET article:

    Among European anesthesiologists, there is an ongoing debate about whether brain-dead organ donors should be given consciousness blockers during organ procurement.

    Some argue that they should do so in case patients feel pain. Others disagree. Surprisingly, the anesthesiologists’ position is “not based on the claim that patients were incapable of experiencing pain,” but, instead, out of concern that the public might have doubts about the brain-death diagnosis, bioethicists Dr. Robert Truog and Franklin Miller (who has a doctorate in philosophy) wrote in their book, “Death, Dying, and Organ Transplantation.”

    Dr. Ronald Dworkin, a research fellow and anesthesiologist, wrote in an article on organ procurement that he chose to give consciousness blockers because he thought his patient “might still be a ‘little alive’, [sic] whatever that means.”

    Mr. Miller, who is also a professor of medical ethics in medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, said the label of brain death is misleading. He and Dr. Truog, professor of anesthesiology and director emeritus of the Harvard Medical School Center for Bioethics, are of the opinion that brain-dead people are alive but likely will not regain consciousness and recover.

    See this chilling account by a doctor, in the ET article:

    It was 1989, and she was still a resident anesthesiologist, Dr. Heidi Klessig recalled in her book, “The Brain Death Fallacy.”

    One day, her attending anesthesiologist told her to prepare a brain-dead organ donor for organ removal surgery.

    Upon examining the patient, Dr. Klessig was surprised to find that the man looked exactly like every other critically ill, living patient and, in fact, better than most.

    “He was warm, his heart was beating, and his monitors showed stable vital signs,” Dr. Klessig wrote. “Nevertheless, on his bedside exam, he checked all the boxes for brain death, and the neurologist declared him ‘dead.’”

    Dr. Klessig’s supervising attending anesthesiologist asked her what anesthesia she was going to give the donor for the operation.

    Her answer was a paralyzing agent so the donor wouldn’t move during surgery, as well as some fentanyl to blunt the body’s responses to pain.

    The anesthesiologist looked at her and asked, “Well, are you going to give anything to block consciousness?”

    Dr. Klessig was stunned. Consciousness blockers are given to patients to ensure they aren’t awake and aware during an operation.

    Her education told her that brain-dead patients should not be conscious; apart from having a biologically active body, their minds were gone.

    “I looked at him and said, ‘Why would I do that? Isn’t he dead?’”

    Her attending anesthesiologist looked at her and asked, “Why don’t you give him something to block consciousness—just in case.”

    “I get a pit in my stomach every time I remember his face,” Dr. Klessig told The Epoch Times. “I remember him looking at me over his mask ... It seemed very confusing.

    Please don’t miss the extremely powerful video testimony above.

    It is horrific to realize that parents and other family members are routinely told that their child or loved one is “dead” because of absence of “brain activity” when in reality, the person is alive, and will die only when the family agrees to to having the respirator unplugged - in order words, to have their relative murdered.

    Someone that I know personally told me of an immensely tragic case that he was was involved with, in which a brain-injured child whom he was helping to heal after she had been declared “brain dead,” was murdered after he was removed from the premises. The child had been making progress towards recovery. He knows of many other similar cases. In one case, the child’s father witnessed with his own eyes the nurse giving the child an injection, after which the child’s heart stopped - but the nurse denied administering anything.

    This person that I know told me of a doctor in Louisiana, Dr. Paul Harch, who has helped scores of “brain dead” children and adults to become completely well again - using a walk-in hyperbaric oxygen chamber which accommodates people on life support.

    Dr. Harch uses a special test that can pick up brain activity not picked up on standard brain tests - but hospitals refuse to use it.

    Why do the powers-that-be want people dead, so badly?

    Here are some stories which clearly illustrate how very much alive people who are pronounced “brain dead” actually are. Most of them were collected on this website: https://www.respectforhumanlife.com/survivors

    Harrison Elmer: Three week old boy with meningitis had life support machine turned off - but staged a miracle recovery

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/three-week-old-boy-meningitis-6733061


    Harrison had become desperately ill after being struck down by meningitis and doctors said they could do no more.

    Scans showed he was completely brain dead.

    Heartbroken Samantha Baker, 22, and Adam Ellmer, 26, chose to take Harrison to a hospice so he could pass away peacefully by their side.

    But after the machine was turned off, little Harrison not only managed to breathe on his own, he began an incredible journey back to health.

    Now he is about to reach his third birthday, and is hitting all the milestones as expected.

    Samantha, a full-time mum, said: “When Harrison's life support was switched off we never imagined he would continue to breathe.

    “We were all so heartbroken when we were told he wasn't going to survive, it felt like a real miracle.

    “Despite surviving, doctors still warned us that he would never be able to walk or talk.

    “We were terrified but so thankful he had survived that we just took each day as it came.”

    Jahi Mcmath 2000 - 2018 Declared "Brain Dead" in the state of California in December 2013. She lived five more years in New Jersey post diagnosis


    Jahi’s case is particularly tragic because it didn’t have to happen - she had surgery to remove her tonsils, because of sleep apnea which caused her exhaustion and difficulty focusing. Her post-op observation was grossly lacking, and her unusual bleeding was ignored. Jahi hemorrhaged and lost her pulse. Doctors declared her “brain dead,” but her mother never gave up. She fought and fought against the furious medical “professionals:”

    On December 19th, ten days after the surgery, David Durand, the hospital’s senior vice-president and chief medical officer, held a meeting with the family. They asked Durand to allow Jahi to remain on the ventilator [for six more days], suggesting that the swelling in her brain might subside. Durand said no. They also asked that she be given a feeding tube. Durand dismissed this request, too. The idea that the procedure would help her recover was an “absurd notion,” he later wrote, and would only add to the “illusion that she is not dead.”

    When they persisted, Durand asked, “What is it that you don’t understand?” According to Jahi’s mother, stepfather, grandmother, brother, and Dolan, who took notes, Durand pounded his fist on the table, saying, “She’s dead, dead, dead.”

    Jahi’s mother wouldn’t give up, and moved Jahi to another state. Her family constantly spoke with her and stimulated her. Despite having a death certificate, Jahi was clearly alive. She would move her hands and feet in response to requests, and even began menstruating (a process mediated by the hypothalamus, near the front of the brain.)

    On the (MRI) scans, Machado observed that Jahi’s brain stem was nearly destroyed. The nerve fibres that connect the brain’s right and left hemispheres were barely recognizable. But large areas of her cerebrum, which mediates consciousness, language, and voluntary movements, were structurally intact.

    Unfortunately, Jahi passed away of liver failure after five years of devoted care and of progress.

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/02/05/what-does-it-mean-to-die


    On Thursday, a senior doctor told the High Court she was "shocked" when a baby declared brain stem dead after two tests began breathing by himself two weeks later.

    The court heard that ventilation continued on the four-month-old after he was declared dead because there was an ongoing legal dispute.

    In July, doctors treating him at a London hospital were forced to rescind "the clinical ascertainment of death" after a nurse noticed the infant had independent rhythmic breathing.

    Mr Justice Hayden, who has been asked by Guys' and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust to decide what is in the baby's best interests, said the juxtaposition of a baby being declared dead but then breathing independently is "striking even for those of us experienced in these cases". He called the test "unreliable".

    The doctor said the "wording" of the test could be changed to include a warning about the test's reliability.

    She said she had approached the AMRC to explain what happened, saying it would be "problematic" if news of the test's unreliability "got out in the public domain".

    The brain stem test is a clinical test done when there is clear evidence of serious brain damage that cannot be cured. It is a series of mini tests to check the brain's automatic functions including reaction to light in the eyes, ice-cold water in the ear and a short period off a ventilator to see whether a patient attempts to take a breath.

    Lewis Roberts


    In March 2021, 18-year-old Lewis Roberts was declared brain stem dead after a road accident but began breathing independently hours before his organs were to be extracted for donation. Today he is well enough to play football and basketball.

    Last month his sister told Sky News the test is done too soon.

    "They rushed it through," she said.

    "Eight months ago he was sat in a wheelchair, his eyes were gone, he couldn't speak. From how he was then to how he is now, that just shows that the brain can heal given the time."

    https://news.sky.com/story/brain-death-test-in-uk-under-review-after-baby-declared-dead-began-breathing-independently-12681630

    It’s not only young people who can have miraculous recoveries. Here, a woman in her seventies who had a severe heart attack made a comeback after 6 days of a flat EEG.

    This story by Judy Doobov, from the book Small Miracles for the Jewish Heart, was republished on Chabad.org.

    After sustaining a severe heart attack in 1973, my grandmother sank into a deep coma and was placed on life support systems in the hospital. Her EEG was totally flat, indicating zero brain activity. She was hooked up both to a pacemaker that made her heart beat artificially and a respirator that made her lungs breathe artificially. But technically, as the doctors told me privately, she was basically as good as dead. "She'll never come out of the coma," they said, "and she's better off this way. If she did, her life would be meaningless. She'd exist in a purely vegetative state.

    Even though she was in her mid-seventies and had lived a full life, I refused to believe that my beloved grandmother could simply slip away like this. She was too feisty, too vital to just disappear into a coma. My instincts told me to start talking to her and keep chatting away. I stayed at her bedside day and night, and that's precisely what I did. I spoke to her all the time about my husband and our two small children, about other relatives, about her own life. I told her all the news that was circulating in Australia at the time. I also kept urging her to keep clinging to life, not to give up. "Don't you dare leave us!" I exhorted. "I need you, Mom needs you, your grandchildren need you. They're just beginning to get to know you. It's too soon for you to go!"

    It was hard for me to do battle for my grandmother's life, alone as I was. During the time that she fell ill, I was her only relative in Sydney. Her daughter (my mother) was away overseas on a trip, and my only sibling — a brother — lived in Israel. My husband was home caring for our children so that I could take my post at her bedside. I stood a solitary vigil, but that was not what placed such tremendous pressure on me. What was enormously difficult was being asked to make decisions alone. The emotional burden was huge.

    When four days passed with no signs of life flickering in either my grandmother's eyes or her hands, and no change recorded by the EEG, the doctors advised me to authorize the papers that would turn off the life support systems. I trembled to think that I held the power of consigning my grandmother to an early grave. "But she's really already dead," the doctors argued. "She's just being kept artificially alive by the pacemaker and the respirator. Keeping her hooked up to these machines is just a waste."

    "Well, listen," I said. "It's Thursday afternoon, and in the Jewish religion we bury people right away. My parents are overseas — practically two days away — and they would certainly want to be here for the funeral. But we don't do funerals on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath. The earliest we could do the funeral would be on Sunday. So let me call my parents to get ready to fly home, and I'll sign the papers on Sunday." It was all very cold and calculating, but deep inside, my heart was aching.

    Meanwhile, I didn't let up. I kept talking up a storm. "Guess what, Grandma?" I gossiped. "You won't believe who ended up being your roommate here in the hospital! Stringfellow! Your next door neighbor at home, Mrs. Stringfellow, was just brought in with a serious condition. Isn't that a coincidence? She lives next door to you in Sydney and now she's your roommate here in the hospital!"

    On Saturday, I was at my usual post at my grandmother's bedside, getting ready to start a round of tearful goodbyes, when I thought I noticed her eyes blinking. I called a nurse and told her what I had seen. "It's just your imagination, dearie," the nurse said compassionately. "Why don't you go downstairs for some coffee, and I'll stay with her until you come back?"

    But when I returned, the nurse was brimming over with excitement herself. "You know," she said, "I think you may be right. I've been sitting here watching your grandmother, and I could swear I saw her blinking, too."

    A few hours later, my grandmother's eyelids flew open. She stared at me and then craned her neck to look at the empty bed on the other side of the room. "Hey," she yelled, "what happened to Stringfellow?"

    By the time my mother arrived at the hospital the next day, my grandmother was sitting up in bed, conversing cheerfully with the hospital staff, and looking perfectly normal. My mother glared at me, annoyed, sure I had exaggerated my grandmother's condition. "For this, I had to schlep all the way home?" she asked.

    Later, my grandmother told me that while she was in the "coma" she had heard every single word that was said to her and about her. She repeated all the conversations to me, and her retention was remarkable.

    "I kept shouting to you," she said, "but somehow you didn't hear me. I kept on trying to tell you, 'Don't bury me yet.'"

    After she was discharged from the hospital, my grandmother's quality of life remained excellent. She lived on her own as a self-sufficient, independent, and high-spirited lady and continued to live in this manner until her death sixteen years after I almost pulled the plug.

    https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/68197/jewish/Coma.htm

    How the world has spiraled downwards. When I read my husband the Australian miracle story above, which happened fifty years ago, he commented that today, the nurse who offered to “stay with grandma” while the granddaughter took a coffee break would likely have been the one to pull the plug in her absence.

    There are many more stories of survivors of a “brain death” diagnosis on the respectforhumanlife.com site. For example:

    Zack Dunlap


    21 year old Oklahoman Zack Dunlap was declared “brain dead” in November 2007 after a terrible ATV accident. It was so bad that brain matter was coming out of his ear, and a blood flow scan showed no blood flow to his brain. Zack heard the doctors pronounce his 'death'. Minutes before his organ harvest was about to begin, his grandmother prayed for him to live, and his cousin urged him to pray for himself. Within minutes, Zack’s cousin proved that he had reflexes. 48 days after he was declared dead, Zack left the rehab hospital, and lives a fully recovered life. You must read Zack’s entire miraculous story here: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna23768436

    Taylor Hale


    14 year old Iowa girl Taylor Hale was injured in an accident. Her parents were told that she was brain dead and that her brain had “turned to mush;” now she is alive and well: https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/local/daniel-finney/2015/05/12/waukee-faith-healing-graduation/27207307/

    Steven Thorpe


    21 year old Steven Thorpe was declared “brain dead” after a car accident in February 2008, after only two days in the hospital. His parents refused to accept the diagnosis, and demanded a second opinion. After four doctors confirmed the diagnosis, the family still refused to give up, and two weeks later, Steven woke up. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-17757112

    Trenton McKinley


    13 year old Alabama boy Trenton McKinley was diagnosed as “brain dead” in March 2018 after an accident caused severe brain trauma. His parents had signed papers for his organ donation. The day before the harvest surgery he started showing signs of life and began a long recovery.

    “A man from the UAB organ donation came and talked to us in the family conference room about donating five organs to UAB children's hospital that would save five other children. But just a day before doctors were set to end Trenton's life support, he showed signs of cognition, and now he's slowly going through recovery.”

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trenton-mckinley-regains-consciousness-after-parents-sign-papers-to-donate-his-organs-2018-05-06/

    James Howard Jones


    James Howard-Jones was diagnosed “brain dead” after being attacked in April 2022. His family asked doctors to delay the organ donation for a week so James’ friends and family could say goodbye. Waiting the few extra days led to James waking up, despite his diagnosis.

    •Colleen S. Burns 1969 - 2011, was diagnosed "brain dead" after an attempted overdose in 2009. She awoke on the operating table minutes before her organs were to be harvested. Sadly, she passed away in 2011 of depression.

    I remember my disbelief and sadness in 2005 as brain-injured Terry Schiavo was starved and dehydrated to death by her estranged husband - under a court order permitting him to do so.

    And today? That same horrific murder by starvation and dehydration is now an everyday story, “brain dead” or not.

    Terry Schiavo’s brother now campaigns for the right of brain-injured people to food and water, and has an organization to assist families facing brain-injury crisis. See https://terrischiavo.org/terri-schiavo-life-hope-network/ and https://www.lifeandhope.com/.

    What should family members do if faced with the unthinkable diagnosis of “brain death,” G-d forbid?

    Prayer to the One and only Creator of the world is the most effective avenue of all.

    Insist that your religious beliefs do not allow for discontinuation of life support.

    Keep fighting them off to give your loved one time to recover. Do not leave the patient alone, and watch the patient vigilantly, as medical personnel may take matters into their own hands.

    Treatments which have helped “brain dead” patients recover include:

    •hyperbaric oxygen therapy

    •ozone therapy

    •craniosacral visceral manipulations

    •lymphatic drainage therapy

    •transcranial low-level laser therapy (LLLT) or photobiomodulation (PBM) therapy

    •high doses of Omega 3 fatty acids, found in fish oil.

    From Unbekoming’s interview of Lourdes Lavoy, whose “brain dead” daughter is well today:

    When our daughter was hospitalized with a severe brain injury (brain dead), we were informed that the hospital would keep her alive until we could arrive and say our goodbyes. The hospital was unaware that I am Option C. I conducted my own research and discovered that high doses of omega-3 fatty acids found in fish oil could potentially reverse severe brain damage. When we arrived at the hospital, it was not to say goodbye to our daughter, but to instruct the medical staff on how we were going to save her. Chris was respectful and considerate in his approach, but when I noticed that we were not deviating from the hospital's predetermined course of action, I intervened and was less than polite. This is a critical aspect of Option C that people must understand. Option C acknowledges the reality that the hospital does not have complete control over the measures taken to restore a patient's health. My daughter got a high dose of fish oil, as I demanded, and she is alive and well today. The hospital and its doctors cannot compel a patient to receive a particular treatment or dictate how they should proceed with their recovery.

    You can email Lourdes at [email protected]. https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/interview-with-lourdes-and-chris

    Please share and save lives!

    Share

    To help me continue my work, you may make a one-time gift here: https://ko-fi.com/truth613

    https://substack.com/home/post/p-146415265
    “Brain Dead” is NOT Dead! LIVE people are murdered daily for organs and to “save money” You MUST KNOW that “no brain activity” means NOTHING except that doctors didn’t do the tests that would find the brain activity. Don’t let your loved one be killed. Brucha Weisberger BS”D From the beginning of time, people knew that cessation of heartbeat and breath meant death. This is the G-d-given definition, and it is logical. Since it’s real, this definition does not require anything to “prop it up.” Of course, G-d, Who creates life, is the only One Who has the authority to say when it ends, and to end it. Unfortunately, two motivations came into play in the 20th century to create a new, and false, “definition” of death. Marina Zhang at Epoch Times explains in her June 2024 article, “Brain-Dead People May Not Be Dead—Here’s Why.” https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/are-brain-dead-people-really-dead-5629496 The definition of brain death, also known as death by neurological criteria, is when a person falls into a permanent coma, loses their brainstem reflexes and consciousness, and can’t breathe without stimulus or support. Yet a person’s heart can be beating, his or her organs functional, and he or she can fight off infection, grow, and even carry babies to term. (Delivery of a Healthy Baby from a Brain-Dead Woman After 117 Days of Somatic Support: A Case Report - PMC https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8141338/) Though they may exhibit no signs of consciousness, some areas of the brain may still work. About 50 percent of brain-death patients retain activity in their hypothalamus, which coordinates the body’s endocrine system and regulates body temperature. However, all of this stops if they are taken off life support. What is the big rush to declare death and take people off of breathing assistance? First, there is a need for transplant organs, and second, a wish to “save resources” by having people hurry up and die already. From Rachel Aviv’s article in the New Yorker, 2018: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/02/05/what-does-it-mean-to-die Until the nineteen-sixties, cardio-respiratory failure was the only way to die. The notion that death could be diagnosed in the brain didn’t emerge until after the advent of the modern ventilator, allowing what was known at the time as “oxygen treatment”: as long as blood carrying oxygen reached the heart, it could continue to beat. In 1967, Henry Beecher, a renowned bioethicist at Harvard Medical School, wrote to a colleague, “It would be most desirable for a group at Harvard University to come to some subtle conclusion as to a new definition of death.” Permanently comatose patients, maintained by mechanical ventilators, were “increasing in numbers over the land and there are a number of problems which should be faced up to.” Beecher created a committee comprising men who already knew one another: ten doctors, one lawyer, one historian, and one theologian. In less than six months, they completed a report, which they published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The only citation in the article was from a speech by the Pope. They proposed that the irreversible destruction of the brain should be defined as death, giving two reasons: to relieve the burden on families and hospitals, which were providing futile care to patients who would never recover, and to address the fact that “obsolete criteria for the definition of death can lead to controversy in obtaining organs for transplantation,” a field that had developed rapidly; in the previous five years, doctors had performed the world’s first transplant of a pancreas, a liver, a lung, and a heart. In an earlier draft, the second reason was stated more directly: “There is great need for the tissues and organs of the hopelessly comatose in order to restore to health those who are still salvageable.” (The sentence was revised after Harvard’s medical dean wrote that “the connotation of this statement is unfortunate.”) In the next twelve years, twenty-seven states rewrote their definitions of death to conform to the Harvard committee’s conclusions. Thousands of lives were prolonged or saved every year because patients declared brain-dead—a form of death eventually adopted by the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and most of Europe—were now eligible to donate their organs. The philosopher Peter Singer described it as “a concept so desirable in its consequences that it is unthinkable to give up, and so shaky on its foundations that it can scarcely be supported.” The new death was “an ethical choice masquerading as a medical fact,” he wrote. Legal ambiguities remained—people considered alive in one region of the country could be declared dead in another—and, in 1981, the President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems proposed a uniform definition and theory of death. Its report, which was endorsed by the American Medical Association, stated that death is the moment when the body stops operating as an “integrated whole.” Even if life continues in individual organs and cells, the person is no longer alive, because the functioning organs are merely a collection of artificially maintained subsystems that will inevitably disintegrate. “The heart usually stops beating within two to ten days,” the report said. The commission’s staff philosopher, Daniel Wikler, a professor at Harvard and the first staff ethicist for the World Health Organization, told me that he didn’t think the commission’s theory of death was supported by the scientific facts it cited. “I thought it was demonstrably untrue, but so what?” he said. “I didn’t see a downside at the time.” Wikler told the commission that it would be more logical to say that death occurred when the cerebrum—the center for consciousness, thoughts, and feelings, the properties essential to having a personal identity—was destroyed. His formulation would have rendered a much broader population of patients, including those who could breathe on their own, dead. Despite Wikler’s reservations, he drafted the third chapter of the report, “Understanding the ‘Meaning’ of Death.” “I was put in a tight spot, and I fudged,” he told me. “I knew that there was an air of bad faith about it. I made it seem like there are a lot of profound unknowns and went in the direction of fuzziness, so that no one could say, ‘Hey, your philosopher says this is nonsense.’ That’s what I thought, but you’d never know from what I wrote.” So much for “brain dead” being a scientific definition. It is truly horrifying to contemplate that living, feeling people have their vital organs barbarically cut out while they are alive. Organs must be “harvested” from live donors in order to be viable. Live, in the true sense of the word - the heart is beating. (As you will see in this article, there is awareness, as well, even if the person cannot express it.) From Marina Zhang’s ET article: Among European anesthesiologists, there is an ongoing debate about whether brain-dead organ donors should be given consciousness blockers during organ procurement. Some argue that they should do so in case patients feel pain. Others disagree. Surprisingly, the anesthesiologists’ position is “not based on the claim that patients were incapable of experiencing pain,” but, instead, out of concern that the public might have doubts about the brain-death diagnosis, bioethicists Dr. Robert Truog and Franklin Miller (who has a doctorate in philosophy) wrote in their book, “Death, Dying, and Organ Transplantation.” Dr. Ronald Dworkin, a research fellow and anesthesiologist, wrote in an article on organ procurement that he chose to give consciousness blockers because he thought his patient “might still be a ‘little alive’, [sic] whatever that means.” Mr. Miller, who is also a professor of medical ethics in medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, said the label of brain death is misleading. He and Dr. Truog, professor of anesthesiology and director emeritus of the Harvard Medical School Center for Bioethics, are of the opinion that brain-dead people are alive but likely will not regain consciousness and recover. See this chilling account by a doctor, in the ET article: It was 1989, and she was still a resident anesthesiologist, Dr. Heidi Klessig recalled in her book, “The Brain Death Fallacy.” One day, her attending anesthesiologist told her to prepare a brain-dead organ donor for organ removal surgery. Upon examining the patient, Dr. Klessig was surprised to find that the man looked exactly like every other critically ill, living patient and, in fact, better than most. “He was warm, his heart was beating, and his monitors showed stable vital signs,” Dr. Klessig wrote. “Nevertheless, on his bedside exam, he checked all the boxes for brain death, and the neurologist declared him ‘dead.’” Dr. Klessig’s supervising attending anesthesiologist asked her what anesthesia she was going to give the donor for the operation. Her answer was a paralyzing agent so the donor wouldn’t move during surgery, as well as some fentanyl to blunt the body’s responses to pain. The anesthesiologist looked at her and asked, “Well, are you going to give anything to block consciousness?” Dr. Klessig was stunned. Consciousness blockers are given to patients to ensure they aren’t awake and aware during an operation. Her education told her that brain-dead patients should not be conscious; apart from having a biologically active body, their minds were gone. “I looked at him and said, ‘Why would I do that? Isn’t he dead?’” Her attending anesthesiologist looked at her and asked, “Why don’t you give him something to block consciousness—just in case.” “I get a pit in my stomach every time I remember his face,” Dr. Klessig told The Epoch Times. “I remember him looking at me over his mask ... It seemed very confusing. Please don’t miss the extremely powerful video testimony above. It is horrific to realize that parents and other family members are routinely told that their child or loved one is “dead” because of absence of “brain activity” when in reality, the person is alive, and will die only when the family agrees to to having the respirator unplugged - in order words, to have their relative murdered. Someone that I know personally told me of an immensely tragic case that he was was involved with, in which a brain-injured child whom he was helping to heal after she had been declared “brain dead,” was murdered after he was removed from the premises. The child had been making progress towards recovery. He knows of many other similar cases. In one case, the child’s father witnessed with his own eyes the nurse giving the child an injection, after which the child’s heart stopped - but the nurse denied administering anything. This person that I know told me of a doctor in Louisiana, Dr. Paul Harch, who has helped scores of “brain dead” children and adults to become completely well again - using a walk-in hyperbaric oxygen chamber which accommodates people on life support. Dr. Harch uses a special test that can pick up brain activity not picked up on standard brain tests - but hospitals refuse to use it. Why do the powers-that-be want people dead, so badly? Here are some stories which clearly illustrate how very much alive people who are pronounced “brain dead” actually are. Most of them were collected on this website: https://www.respectforhumanlife.com/survivors Harrison Elmer: Three week old boy with meningitis had life support machine turned off - but staged a miracle recovery https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/three-week-old-boy-meningitis-6733061 Harrison had become desperately ill after being struck down by meningitis and doctors said they could do no more. Scans showed he was completely brain dead. Heartbroken Samantha Baker, 22, and Adam Ellmer, 26, chose to take Harrison to a hospice so he could pass away peacefully by their side. But after the machine was turned off, little Harrison not only managed to breathe on his own, he began an incredible journey back to health. Now he is about to reach his third birthday, and is hitting all the milestones as expected. Samantha, a full-time mum, said: “When Harrison's life support was switched off we never imagined he would continue to breathe. “We were all so heartbroken when we were told he wasn't going to survive, it felt like a real miracle. “Despite surviving, doctors still warned us that he would never be able to walk or talk. “We were terrified but so thankful he had survived that we just took each day as it came.” Jahi Mcmath 2000 - 2018 Declared "Brain Dead" in the state of California in December 2013. She lived five more years in New Jersey post diagnosis Jahi’s case is particularly tragic because it didn’t have to happen - she had surgery to remove her tonsils, because of sleep apnea which caused her exhaustion and difficulty focusing. Her post-op observation was grossly lacking, and her unusual bleeding was ignored. Jahi hemorrhaged and lost her pulse. Doctors declared her “brain dead,” but her mother never gave up. She fought and fought against the furious medical “professionals:” On December 19th, ten days after the surgery, David Durand, the hospital’s senior vice-president and chief medical officer, held a meeting with the family. They asked Durand to allow Jahi to remain on the ventilator [for six more days], suggesting that the swelling in her brain might subside. Durand said no. They also asked that she be given a feeding tube. Durand dismissed this request, too. The idea that the procedure would help her recover was an “absurd notion,” he later wrote, and would only add to the “illusion that she is not dead.” When they persisted, Durand asked, “What is it that you don’t understand?” According to Jahi’s mother, stepfather, grandmother, brother, and Dolan, who took notes, Durand pounded his fist on the table, saying, “She’s dead, dead, dead.” Jahi’s mother wouldn’t give up, and moved Jahi to another state. Her family constantly spoke with her and stimulated her. Despite having a death certificate, Jahi was clearly alive. She would move her hands and feet in response to requests, and even began menstruating (a process mediated by the hypothalamus, near the front of the brain.) On the (MRI) scans, Machado observed that Jahi’s brain stem was nearly destroyed. The nerve fibres that connect the brain’s right and left hemispheres were barely recognizable. But large areas of her cerebrum, which mediates consciousness, language, and voluntary movements, were structurally intact. Unfortunately, Jahi passed away of liver failure after five years of devoted care and of progress. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/02/05/what-does-it-mean-to-die On Thursday, a senior doctor told the High Court she was "shocked" when a baby declared brain stem dead after two tests began breathing by himself two weeks later. The court heard that ventilation continued on the four-month-old after he was declared dead because there was an ongoing legal dispute. In July, doctors treating him at a London hospital were forced to rescind "the clinical ascertainment of death" after a nurse noticed the infant had independent rhythmic breathing. Mr Justice Hayden, who has been asked by Guys' and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust to decide what is in the baby's best interests, said the juxtaposition of a baby being declared dead but then breathing independently is "striking even for those of us experienced in these cases". He called the test "unreliable". The doctor said the "wording" of the test could be changed to include a warning about the test's reliability. She said she had approached the AMRC to explain what happened, saying it would be "problematic" if news of the test's unreliability "got out in the public domain". The brain stem test is a clinical test done when there is clear evidence of serious brain damage that cannot be cured. It is a series of mini tests to check the brain's automatic functions including reaction to light in the eyes, ice-cold water in the ear and a short period off a ventilator to see whether a patient attempts to take a breath. Lewis Roberts In March 2021, 18-year-old Lewis Roberts was declared brain stem dead after a road accident but began breathing independently hours before his organs were to be extracted for donation. Today he is well enough to play football and basketball. Last month his sister told Sky News the test is done too soon. "They rushed it through," she said. "Eight months ago he was sat in a wheelchair, his eyes were gone, he couldn't speak. From how he was then to how he is now, that just shows that the brain can heal given the time." https://news.sky.com/story/brain-death-test-in-uk-under-review-after-baby-declared-dead-began-breathing-independently-12681630 It’s not only young people who can have miraculous recoveries. Here, a woman in her seventies who had a severe heart attack made a comeback after 6 days of a flat EEG. This story by Judy Doobov, from the book Small Miracles for the Jewish Heart, was republished on Chabad.org. After sustaining a severe heart attack in 1973, my grandmother sank into a deep coma and was placed on life support systems in the hospital. Her EEG was totally flat, indicating zero brain activity. She was hooked up both to a pacemaker that made her heart beat artificially and a respirator that made her lungs breathe artificially. But technically, as the doctors told me privately, she was basically as good as dead. "She'll never come out of the coma," they said, "and she's better off this way. If she did, her life would be meaningless. She'd exist in a purely vegetative state. Even though she was in her mid-seventies and had lived a full life, I refused to believe that my beloved grandmother could simply slip away like this. She was too feisty, too vital to just disappear into a coma. My instincts told me to start talking to her and keep chatting away. I stayed at her bedside day and night, and that's precisely what I did. I spoke to her all the time about my husband and our two small children, about other relatives, about her own life. I told her all the news that was circulating in Australia at the time. I also kept urging her to keep clinging to life, not to give up. "Don't you dare leave us!" I exhorted. "I need you, Mom needs you, your grandchildren need you. They're just beginning to get to know you. It's too soon for you to go!" It was hard for me to do battle for my grandmother's life, alone as I was. During the time that she fell ill, I was her only relative in Sydney. Her daughter (my mother) was away overseas on a trip, and my only sibling — a brother — lived in Israel. My husband was home caring for our children so that I could take my post at her bedside. I stood a solitary vigil, but that was not what placed such tremendous pressure on me. What was enormously difficult was being asked to make decisions alone. The emotional burden was huge. When four days passed with no signs of life flickering in either my grandmother's eyes or her hands, and no change recorded by the EEG, the doctors advised me to authorize the papers that would turn off the life support systems. I trembled to think that I held the power of consigning my grandmother to an early grave. "But she's really already dead," the doctors argued. "She's just being kept artificially alive by the pacemaker and the respirator. Keeping her hooked up to these machines is just a waste." "Well, listen," I said. "It's Thursday afternoon, and in the Jewish religion we bury people right away. My parents are overseas — practically two days away — and they would certainly want to be here for the funeral. But we don't do funerals on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath. The earliest we could do the funeral would be on Sunday. So let me call my parents to get ready to fly home, and I'll sign the papers on Sunday." It was all very cold and calculating, but deep inside, my heart was aching. Meanwhile, I didn't let up. I kept talking up a storm. "Guess what, Grandma?" I gossiped. "You won't believe who ended up being your roommate here in the hospital! Stringfellow! Your next door neighbor at home, Mrs. Stringfellow, was just brought in with a serious condition. Isn't that a coincidence? She lives next door to you in Sydney and now she's your roommate here in the hospital!" On Saturday, I was at my usual post at my grandmother's bedside, getting ready to start a round of tearful goodbyes, when I thought I noticed her eyes blinking. I called a nurse and told her what I had seen. "It's just your imagination, dearie," the nurse said compassionately. "Why don't you go downstairs for some coffee, and I'll stay with her until you come back?" But when I returned, the nurse was brimming over with excitement herself. "You know," she said, "I think you may be right. I've been sitting here watching your grandmother, and I could swear I saw her blinking, too." A few hours later, my grandmother's eyelids flew open. She stared at me and then craned her neck to look at the empty bed on the other side of the room. "Hey," she yelled, "what happened to Stringfellow?" By the time my mother arrived at the hospital the next day, my grandmother was sitting up in bed, conversing cheerfully with the hospital staff, and looking perfectly normal. My mother glared at me, annoyed, sure I had exaggerated my grandmother's condition. "For this, I had to schlep all the way home?" she asked. Later, my grandmother told me that while she was in the "coma" she had heard every single word that was said to her and about her. She repeated all the conversations to me, and her retention was remarkable. "I kept shouting to you," she said, "but somehow you didn't hear me. I kept on trying to tell you, 'Don't bury me yet.'" After she was discharged from the hospital, my grandmother's quality of life remained excellent. She lived on her own as a self-sufficient, independent, and high-spirited lady and continued to live in this manner until her death sixteen years after I almost pulled the plug. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/68197/jewish/Coma.htm How the world has spiraled downwards. When I read my husband the Australian miracle story above, which happened fifty years ago, he commented that today, the nurse who offered to “stay with grandma” while the granddaughter took a coffee break would likely have been the one to pull the plug in her absence. There are many more stories of survivors of a “brain death” diagnosis on the respectforhumanlife.com site. For example: Zack Dunlap 21 year old Oklahoman Zack Dunlap was declared “brain dead” in November 2007 after a terrible ATV accident. It was so bad that brain matter was coming out of his ear, and a blood flow scan showed no blood flow to his brain. Zack heard the doctors pronounce his 'death'. Minutes before his organ harvest was about to begin, his grandmother prayed for him to live, and his cousin urged him to pray for himself. Within minutes, Zack’s cousin proved that he had reflexes. 48 days after he was declared dead, Zack left the rehab hospital, and lives a fully recovered life. You must read Zack’s entire miraculous story here: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna23768436 Taylor Hale 14 year old Iowa girl Taylor Hale was injured in an accident. Her parents were told that she was brain dead and that her brain had “turned to mush;” now she is alive and well: https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/local/daniel-finney/2015/05/12/waukee-faith-healing-graduation/27207307/ Steven Thorpe 21 year old Steven Thorpe was declared “brain dead” after a car accident in February 2008, after only two days in the hospital. His parents refused to accept the diagnosis, and demanded a second opinion. After four doctors confirmed the diagnosis, the family still refused to give up, and two weeks later, Steven woke up. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-17757112 Trenton McKinley 13 year old Alabama boy Trenton McKinley was diagnosed as “brain dead” in March 2018 after an accident caused severe brain trauma. His parents had signed papers for his organ donation. The day before the harvest surgery he started showing signs of life and began a long recovery. “A man from the UAB organ donation came and talked to us in the family conference room about donating five organs to UAB children's hospital that would save five other children. But just a day before doctors were set to end Trenton's life support, he showed signs of cognition, and now he's slowly going through recovery.” https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trenton-mckinley-regains-consciousness-after-parents-sign-papers-to-donate-his-organs-2018-05-06/ James Howard Jones James Howard-Jones was diagnosed “brain dead” after being attacked in April 2022. His family asked doctors to delay the organ donation for a week so James’ friends and family could say goodbye. Waiting the few extra days led to James waking up, despite his diagnosis. •Colleen S. Burns 1969 - 2011, was diagnosed "brain dead" after an attempted overdose in 2009. She awoke on the operating table minutes before her organs were to be harvested. Sadly, she passed away in 2011 of depression. I remember my disbelief and sadness in 2005 as brain-injured Terry Schiavo was starved and dehydrated to death by her estranged husband - under a court order permitting him to do so. And today? That same horrific murder by starvation and dehydration is now an everyday story, “brain dead” or not. Terry Schiavo’s brother now campaigns for the right of brain-injured people to food and water, and has an organization to assist families facing brain-injury crisis. See https://terrischiavo.org/terri-schiavo-life-hope-network/ and https://www.lifeandhope.com/. What should family members do if faced with the unthinkable diagnosis of “brain death,” G-d forbid? Prayer to the One and only Creator of the world is the most effective avenue of all. Insist that your religious beliefs do not allow for discontinuation of life support. Keep fighting them off to give your loved one time to recover. Do not leave the patient alone, and watch the patient vigilantly, as medical personnel may take matters into their own hands. Treatments which have helped “brain dead” patients recover include: •hyperbaric oxygen therapy •ozone therapy •craniosacral visceral manipulations •lymphatic drainage therapy •transcranial low-level laser therapy (LLLT) or photobiomodulation (PBM) therapy •high doses of Omega 3 fatty acids, found in fish oil. From Unbekoming’s interview of Lourdes Lavoy, whose “brain dead” daughter is well today: When our daughter was hospitalized with a severe brain injury (brain dead), we were informed that the hospital would keep her alive until we could arrive and say our goodbyes. The hospital was unaware that I am Option C. I conducted my own research and discovered that high doses of omega-3 fatty acids found in fish oil could potentially reverse severe brain damage. When we arrived at the hospital, it was not to say goodbye to our daughter, but to instruct the medical staff on how we were going to save her. Chris was respectful and considerate in his approach, but when I noticed that we were not deviating from the hospital's predetermined course of action, I intervened and was less than polite. This is a critical aspect of Option C that people must understand. Option C acknowledges the reality that the hospital does not have complete control over the measures taken to restore a patient's health. My daughter got a high dose of fish oil, as I demanded, and she is alive and well today. The hospital and its doctors cannot compel a patient to receive a particular treatment or dictate how they should proceed with their recovery. You can email Lourdes at [email protected]. https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/interview-with-lourdes-and-chris Please share and save lives! Share To help me continue my work, you may make a one-time gift here: https://ko-fi.com/truth613 https://substack.com/home/post/p-146415265
    SUBSTACK.COM
    “Brain Dead” is NOT Dead! LIVE people are murdered daily for organs and to “save money”
    You MUST KNOW that “no brain activity” means NOTHING except that doctors didn’t do the tests that would find the brain activity. Don’t let your loved one be killed.
    Angry
    1
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos 9282 Visualizações
  • Snappy Ranker AI Review | Get ranked higher than ever before giving google what they want - 100% whitehat



    Welcome to our in-depth Snappy Ranker AI Review, the progressive AI-powered SEO device that guarantees to alter the way you approach computerized promoting. In this audit, we'll investigate the highlights, benefits, and potential downsides of Snappy Ranker AI, and highlight the select rewards accessible to you. 


    Read More:
    https://dilip-review.com/snappy-ranker-ai-review/

    #HowtoMakeMoneywithSnappyRankerAI
    #SnappyRankerAIbyCicada88
    #MakeMoneywithSnappyRankerAI
    #HowDoesSnappyRankerAIWork
    #SnappyRankerAIHonestReview
    #SnappyRankerAIScamorLegit
    #HowtoBuySnappyRankerAI
    #SnappyRankerAILiveDemo
    #SnappyRankerAIDownload
    #SnappyRankerAIUpgrades
    #SnappyRankerAISoftware
    #SnappyRankerAIBonuses
    #SnappyRankerAIReviews
    #SnappyRankerAIPreview
    #SnappyRankerAIUpsells
    #SnappyRankerAIReview
    #SnappyRankerAIBonus
    #SnappyRankerAIDemo
    #SnappyRankerAIScam
    #SnappyRankerAILegit
    #SnappyRankerAIOTO
    #SnappyRankerAIApp
    #ContentApp
    #KeywordSearch
    #SeoBusiness
    Snappy Ranker AI Review | Get ranked higher than ever before giving google what they want - 100% whitehat Welcome to our in-depth Snappy Ranker AI Review, the progressive AI-powered SEO device that guarantees to alter the way you approach computerized promoting. In this audit, we'll investigate the highlights, benefits, and potential downsides of Snappy Ranker AI, and highlight the select rewards accessible to you.  Read More: https://dilip-review.com/snappy-ranker-ai-review/ #HowtoMakeMoneywithSnappyRankerAI #SnappyRankerAIbyCicada88 #MakeMoneywithSnappyRankerAI #HowDoesSnappyRankerAIWork #SnappyRankerAIHonestReview #SnappyRankerAIScamorLegit #HowtoBuySnappyRankerAI #SnappyRankerAILiveDemo #SnappyRankerAIDownload #SnappyRankerAIUpgrades #SnappyRankerAISoftware #SnappyRankerAIBonuses #SnappyRankerAIReviews #SnappyRankerAIPreview #SnappyRankerAIUpsells #SnappyRankerAIReview #SnappyRankerAIBonus #SnappyRankerAIDemo #SnappyRankerAIScam #SnappyRankerAILegit #SnappyRankerAIOTO #SnappyRankerAIApp #ContentApp #KeywordSearch #SeoBusiness
    DILIP-REVIEW.COM
    Snappy Ranker AI Review | This SEO Plugin Does EVERYTHING For You. Rank On Google Page 1 & Profit on Autopilot + B0nuses
    Snappy Ranker AI Review - SnappyRanker Is A Ground-Breaking AI App that Leverages Google to Generate Rankable-Pages That Hits The First
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos 5246 Visualizações
  • LOCKDOWNS ARE COMING BACK THIS TIME LABOUR HAVE TOLD US THEY WILL BE GOING DOOR TO DOOR TO FORCE US
    https://www.bitchute.com/video/HXCiuVnM7go6/
    LOCKDOWNS ARE COMING BACK THIS TIME LABOUR HAVE TOLD US THEY WILL BE GOING DOOR TO DOOR TO FORCE US https://www.bitchute.com/video/HXCiuVnM7go6/
    Like
    1
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos 750 Visualizações
  • What is significant is that the German Health authorities based on official data have now been obliged under Freedom of Information to reveal the devastating nature and impacts of the Covid lockdowns imposed on 190 countries, starting March 11, 2020.

    Most of the independent studies including those conducted by Global Research have been the object of censorship.

    Of Significance, the official documents of the Germany’s Ministry of Health consistent with the independent reports published in the course of more than 4 years pertaining to the COVID-19 lockdowns, the mandatory wearing of the face mask, and the experimental mRNA vaccines.


    http://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/04/bombshell-official-data-from-germanys.html
    What is significant is that the German Health authorities based on official data have now been obliged under Freedom of Information to reveal the devastating nature and impacts of the Covid lockdowns imposed on 190 countries, starting March 11, 2020. Most of the independent studies including those conducted by Global Research have been the object of censorship. Of Significance, the official documents of the Germany’s Ministry of Health consistent with the independent reports published in the course of more than 4 years pertaining to the COVID-19 lockdowns, the mandatory wearing of the face mask, and the experimental mRNA vaccines. http://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/04/bombshell-official-data-from-germanys.html
    Like
    1
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos 8146 Visualizações
  • Newly published documents from the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) show its researchers explicitly warned that their analysis showed lockdowns in Africa showed 'an expected rise in child mortality'.

    'The consequences of the lockdowns are in parts more severe than the virus itself,' the December 2020 report said, with another document dated to October 2020 suggesting that there was 'no evidence' to support that FFP2 medical masks could prevent the spread of Covid.

    But the findings were never made public, despite researchers clearly advocating for the open communication of their research in meeting minutes, with the German government choosing to pursue legislation their own researchers advised against.

    The revelations come after a two-year legal battle between the RKI and German magazine Multipolar, which ultimately won the court case to publish documents that were heavily redacted by the health agency.

    Multipolar has since launched another legal claim in an attempt to secure full access to the unredacted documents, which may conceal a trove of Covid policy recommendations that the RKI and the German government opted not to share with the public.

    http://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/04/lockdowns-could-cause-more-harm-than.html
    Newly published documents from the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) show its researchers explicitly warned that their analysis showed lockdowns in Africa showed 'an expected rise in child mortality'. 'The consequences of the lockdowns are in parts more severe than the virus itself,' the December 2020 report said, with another document dated to October 2020 suggesting that there was 'no evidence' to support that FFP2 medical masks could prevent the spread of Covid. But the findings were never made public, despite researchers clearly advocating for the open communication of their research in meeting minutes, with the German government choosing to pursue legislation their own researchers advised against. The revelations come after a two-year legal battle between the RKI and German magazine Multipolar, which ultimately won the court case to publish documents that were heavily redacted by the health agency. Multipolar has since launched another legal claim in an attempt to secure full access to the unredacted documents, which may conceal a trove of Covid policy recommendations that the RKI and the German government opted not to share with the public. http://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/04/lockdowns-could-cause-more-harm-than.html
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos 8672 Visualizações
  • Moscow vs the WHO: This time for real?
    Probably not. But maybe?

    Edward Slavsquat
    Last week, Russian Senator Alexey Pushkov wrote some very rude things about the World Health Organization on his Telegram channel. RIA Novosti then published these very uncouth comments. What does this mean?

    Does this mean that Moscow’s obscenely abusive relationship with the WHO is finally coming to an end? There’s been several false alarms over the past two years but maybe this time it’s not fake news spread by Aussie Cossack? Maybe this time it’s different?

    Maybe. Anything is possible. Let’s have a look together.


    source: ria.ru
    Take the wheel, RIA Novosti:

    “The WHO is an organization that should be feared. It can plunge the world into panic in the blink of an eye—there is no control over it. Its connections with the most active supporters of the ‘thinning’ of humanity are shrouded in darkness,” Pushkov wrote.

    The senator noted that all WHO failures are “covered up through powerful PR.”

    “As it turned out, the WHO management paid influencers for presenting the ugly work of the WHO during Covid in a favorable light,” says Pushkov.

    Dang.

    Before I type another sentence, allow me to state the following: I agree with everything Pushkov wrote on Telegram and it’s very cool that RIA Novosti used its state media platform to disseminate his hate speech against Dr. Tedros (The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, every NATO state, and other weirdos and sworn enemies of humanity who fund the WHO’s ruthless campaign of global health murder).

    But Pushkov is also a senior-ranking member of Russia’s upper house of parliament, which means that if he really thinks the World Health Organization poses an existential threat to Russia, he could always … I dunno … introduce legislation calling for Moscow’s immediate withdrawal? Or at least politely commission a report about why Moscow should leave the WHO post-haste? These are things he could definitely do, or at least recommend, as a Senator.

    Telegram rants are fun but is Pushkov a Russian Senator or a manlet blogger? Because “complaining on Telegram about Russia’s WHO membership” is something Edward Slavsquat would do; one would hope that a powerful alpha male Senator would be able to do more than that?


    source: The Best Telegram Channel Ever You Should Definitely Subscribe Right Now
    All of these questions are irrelevant, actually, because Pushkov doesn’t oppose health terrorism; he just resents the fact that Moscow isn’t getting a bigger piece of the WHO’s health terrorism pie.

    For example: Here is another fiery Telegram post from Pushkov dated March 14, 2021:

    The “safety of the AstraZeneca vaccine” against the backdrop of deaths and thrombosis—is this what they are trying to convince people of? Half of Europe has stopped using it, there is a scandal in the European Commission, and the company gets off with standard excuses.


    source: Telegram
    Pushkov’s solution to this public health scandal? Europe should use Sputnik V, an experimental genetic slurry developed in collaboration with AstraZeneca, which, coincidentally, is also linked to thrombosis and blood clots.


    source: news.ru
    Here’s something else to consider: As Pushkov was writing Telegram tirades against AstraZeneca’s safety record in March 2021, Russian pharmaceutical company R-Pharm was producing AstraZeneca’s “vaccine” and exporting it abroad. This business arrangement continued until September 2022, when R-Pharm suspended production of the British-Swedish clot-shot due to “lack of demand”:


    source: tass.ru
    YOUR EYES ARE NOT DECEIVING YOU: RUSSIA WAS PRODUCING ASTRAZENECA’S GENETIC THROMBOSIS GOO UNTIL SEPTEMBER 2022.

    Furthermore, the Russian government partnered with AstraZeneca to create the Ultimate Clot-Shot, and has repeatedly defended the “safety and efficacy” of the British-Swedish slurry:


    source: interfax-russia.ru
    “The British media and government need to do a better job of protecting the reputation of AstraZeneca's safe and effective vaccine, which competitors are constantly attacking through the media with facts taken out of context,” the Russian Direct Investment Fund, which financed Sputnik V, and partnered with AstraZeneca, and is also headed by a WEF Young Global Leader, said in October 2021. Yeah, leave AstraZeneca alone you monsters!

    Russia pushes for AstraZeneca/Sputnik V cocktail

    Russia pushes for AstraZeneca/Sputnik V cocktail
    Pushkov is not against forcing unproven, barely tested genetic slurries on the world’s population. No, he is perfectly fine with that. He just wants Russia’s unproven, barely tested genetic slurry to have a bigger market share.

    Anyway, no one could accuse Moscow of being unsportsmanlike during the Race to Protect Public Health. Putin even wished the CEO of AstraZeneca “success not only in the Russian market, but also in global markets.”


    source: tass.ru
    Curiously, I can’t find a single comment from Pushkov—on Telegram or while pontificating in the Senate chambers—about the fact that Russia hopped into bed with AstraZeneca, or that Sputnik V is a crude AstraZeneca clone whose clinical trial data has been classified by the Russian Health Ministry as a “trade secret”. Not a single word about any of this—very weird.

    It’s nice that Pushkov was so concerned about the safety and well-being of EU citizens subjected to AstraZeneca’s untested genetic sludge, but why weren’t the same safety standards applied to his assessment of Sputnik V? If you’re a Russian Senator, shouldn’t you be focusing your energies on protecting the health of Russians? It’s charming that Pushkov took time out of his busy Russian senator schedule to worry about Westerners being exposed to thrombosis, but what about Russians being needlessly exposed to thrombosis? Oh right, anyone who talked about that was threatened with arrest or losing their right to practice medicine. I don’t know why Moscow and the Collective West are arch-enemies—they’re so similar.

    Sputnik V is an unlawful experiment, patient advocacy group says

    Sputnik V is an unlawful experiment, patient advocacy group says
    Here’s another illustrative example of Pushkov public health worldview: When Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba called Sputnik V a “hybrid weapon” in December 2020, Pushkov responded by saying that Kiev was murdering its own citizens by not allowing them to get injected with Russia’s safe and effective AstraZeneca clone:


    source: lenta.ru
    Do you see the problem here?

    It’s great that Pushkov is so critical of Western clot-shots. But if he is unable to extend this criticism to Russian clot-shots—which are nearly identical to Western clot-shots—then it’s not clear how Russians benefit from their senator’s based-and-red-pilled takedowns of AstraZeneca (which the Russian government partnered with and repeatedly defended, even as people were dropping dead from horrific post-vaccination AstraZeneca side effects).

    So, returning to Pushkov’s hatred of the WHO: Is he advocating for public health policies that don’t rely on unproven genetic injections? Or is he just annoyed that Moscow’s unproven genetic injection—which is identical to the Collective West’s unproven genetic injections—isn’t being injected into more arms?

    Meanwhile, Moscow continues to enjoy friendly relations with the WHO—and there is literally zero evidence of the federal government even toying with the idea of withdrawing from this awful organization. Zero. None. If you have such evidence, please, please email me and share it. I’m serious.

    Hey, look: There is even an Important Russian Government Medical Authority-Expert who serves on the WHO’s One Health (lol) committee-thing:

    He studied in London, of course:


    source: who.int
    Is Pushkov fighting the space lizards or is he promoting a false clot-shot dichotomy? Are we trapped in a Hegelian clot-shot dialectic, in which the thesis (AstraZeneca) locks horns with the antithesis (Sputnik V), a clot-shot battle that resolves in clot-shot synthesis (they are literally the same clot-shot)?

    And what is even the point of opposing the WHO if you support the worst policies promoted by the WHO? It’s just sort of weird.

    I guess what I’m trying to say is…

    PUPPIES


    THEY OPENED THEIR EYES, FINALLY. THEY ARE NOT BLIND. THAT’S GOOD

    MOSTLY THEY JUST DO THIS, THOUGH


    UNTIL NEXT TIME.




    Last week, Russian Senator Alexey Pushkov wrote some very rude things about the World Health Organization on his Telegram channel. RIA Novosti then published these very uncouth comments. What does this mean?

    https://edwardslavsquat.substack.com/p/moscow-vs-the-who-this-time-for-real

    https://telegra.ph/Moscow-vs-the-WHO-This-time-for-real-04-02
    Moscow vs the WHO: This time for real? Probably not. But maybe? Edward Slavsquat Last week, Russian Senator Alexey Pushkov wrote some very rude things about the World Health Organization on his Telegram channel. RIA Novosti then published these very uncouth comments. What does this mean? Does this mean that Moscow’s obscenely abusive relationship with the WHO is finally coming to an end? There’s been several false alarms over the past two years but maybe this time it’s not fake news spread by Aussie Cossack? Maybe this time it’s different? Maybe. Anything is possible. Let’s have a look together. source: ria.ru Take the wheel, RIA Novosti: “The WHO is an organization that should be feared. It can plunge the world into panic in the blink of an eye—there is no control over it. Its connections with the most active supporters of the ‘thinning’ of humanity are shrouded in darkness,” Pushkov wrote. The senator noted that all WHO failures are “covered up through powerful PR.” “As it turned out, the WHO management paid influencers for presenting the ugly work of the WHO during Covid in a favorable light,” says Pushkov. Dang. Before I type another sentence, allow me to state the following: I agree with everything Pushkov wrote on Telegram and it’s very cool that RIA Novosti used its state media platform to disseminate his hate speech against Dr. Tedros (The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, every NATO state, and other weirdos and sworn enemies of humanity who fund the WHO’s ruthless campaign of global health murder). But Pushkov is also a senior-ranking member of Russia’s upper house of parliament, which means that if he really thinks the World Health Organization poses an existential threat to Russia, he could always … I dunno … introduce legislation calling for Moscow’s immediate withdrawal? Or at least politely commission a report about why Moscow should leave the WHO post-haste? These are things he could definitely do, or at least recommend, as a Senator. Telegram rants are fun but is Pushkov a Russian Senator or a manlet blogger? Because “complaining on Telegram about Russia’s WHO membership” is something Edward Slavsquat would do; one would hope that a powerful alpha male Senator would be able to do more than that? source: The Best Telegram Channel Ever You Should Definitely Subscribe Right Now All of these questions are irrelevant, actually, because Pushkov doesn’t oppose health terrorism; he just resents the fact that Moscow isn’t getting a bigger piece of the WHO’s health terrorism pie. For example: Here is another fiery Telegram post from Pushkov dated March 14, 2021: The “safety of the AstraZeneca vaccine” against the backdrop of deaths and thrombosis—is this what they are trying to convince people of? Half of Europe has stopped using it, there is a scandal in the European Commission, and the company gets off with standard excuses. source: Telegram Pushkov’s solution to this public health scandal? Europe should use Sputnik V, an experimental genetic slurry developed in collaboration with AstraZeneca, which, coincidentally, is also linked to thrombosis and blood clots. source: news.ru Here’s something else to consider: As Pushkov was writing Telegram tirades against AstraZeneca’s safety record in March 2021, Russian pharmaceutical company R-Pharm was producing AstraZeneca’s “vaccine” and exporting it abroad. This business arrangement continued until September 2022, when R-Pharm suspended production of the British-Swedish clot-shot due to “lack of demand”: source: tass.ru YOUR EYES ARE NOT DECEIVING YOU: RUSSIA WAS PRODUCING ASTRAZENECA’S GENETIC THROMBOSIS GOO UNTIL SEPTEMBER 2022. Furthermore, the Russian government partnered with AstraZeneca to create the Ultimate Clot-Shot, and has repeatedly defended the “safety and efficacy” of the British-Swedish slurry: source: interfax-russia.ru “The British media and government need to do a better job of protecting the reputation of AstraZeneca's safe and effective vaccine, which competitors are constantly attacking through the media with facts taken out of context,” the Russian Direct Investment Fund, which financed Sputnik V, and partnered with AstraZeneca, and is also headed by a WEF Young Global Leader, said in October 2021. Yeah, leave AstraZeneca alone you monsters! Russia pushes for AstraZeneca/Sputnik V cocktail Russia pushes for AstraZeneca/Sputnik V cocktail Pushkov is not against forcing unproven, barely tested genetic slurries on the world’s population. No, he is perfectly fine with that. He just wants Russia’s unproven, barely tested genetic slurry to have a bigger market share. Anyway, no one could accuse Moscow of being unsportsmanlike during the Race to Protect Public Health. Putin even wished the CEO of AstraZeneca “success not only in the Russian market, but also in global markets.” source: tass.ru Curiously, I can’t find a single comment from Pushkov—on Telegram or while pontificating in the Senate chambers—about the fact that Russia hopped into bed with AstraZeneca, or that Sputnik V is a crude AstraZeneca clone whose clinical trial data has been classified by the Russian Health Ministry as a “trade secret”. Not a single word about any of this—very weird. It’s nice that Pushkov was so concerned about the safety and well-being of EU citizens subjected to AstraZeneca’s untested genetic sludge, but why weren’t the same safety standards applied to his assessment of Sputnik V? If you’re a Russian Senator, shouldn’t you be focusing your energies on protecting the health of Russians? It’s charming that Pushkov took time out of his busy Russian senator schedule to worry about Westerners being exposed to thrombosis, but what about Russians being needlessly exposed to thrombosis? Oh right, anyone who talked about that was threatened with arrest or losing their right to practice medicine. I don’t know why Moscow and the Collective West are arch-enemies—they’re so similar. Sputnik V is an unlawful experiment, patient advocacy group says Sputnik V is an unlawful experiment, patient advocacy group says Here’s another illustrative example of Pushkov public health worldview: When Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba called Sputnik V a “hybrid weapon” in December 2020, Pushkov responded by saying that Kiev was murdering its own citizens by not allowing them to get injected with Russia’s safe and effective AstraZeneca clone: source: lenta.ru Do you see the problem here? It’s great that Pushkov is so critical of Western clot-shots. But if he is unable to extend this criticism to Russian clot-shots—which are nearly identical to Western clot-shots—then it’s not clear how Russians benefit from their senator’s based-and-red-pilled takedowns of AstraZeneca (which the Russian government partnered with and repeatedly defended, even as people were dropping dead from horrific post-vaccination AstraZeneca side effects). So, returning to Pushkov’s hatred of the WHO: Is he advocating for public health policies that don’t rely on unproven genetic injections? Or is he just annoyed that Moscow’s unproven genetic injection—which is identical to the Collective West’s unproven genetic injections—isn’t being injected into more arms? Meanwhile, Moscow continues to enjoy friendly relations with the WHO—and there is literally zero evidence of the federal government even toying with the idea of withdrawing from this awful organization. Zero. None. If you have such evidence, please, please email me and share it. I’m serious. Hey, look: There is even an Important Russian Government Medical Authority-Expert who serves on the WHO’s One Health (lol) committee-thing: He studied in London, of course: source: who.int Is Pushkov fighting the space lizards or is he promoting a false clot-shot dichotomy? Are we trapped in a Hegelian clot-shot dialectic, in which the thesis (AstraZeneca) locks horns with the antithesis (Sputnik V), a clot-shot battle that resolves in clot-shot synthesis (they are literally the same clot-shot)? And what is even the point of opposing the WHO if you support the worst policies promoted by the WHO? It’s just sort of weird. I guess what I’m trying to say is… PUPPIES THEY OPENED THEIR EYES, FINALLY. THEY ARE NOT BLIND. THAT’S GOOD MOSTLY THEY JUST DO THIS, THOUGH UNTIL NEXT TIME. Last week, Russian Senator Alexey Pushkov wrote some very rude things about the World Health Organization on his Telegram channel. RIA Novosti then published these very uncouth comments. What does this mean? https://edwardslavsquat.substack.com/p/moscow-vs-the-who-this-time-for-real https://telegra.ph/Moscow-vs-the-WHO-This-time-for-real-04-02
    Like
    Love
    2
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos 38351 Visualizações
  • The WHO Pandemic Agreement: A Guide
    By David Bell, Thi Thuy Van Dinh March 22, 2024 Government, Society 30 minute read
    The World Health Organization (WHO) and its 194 Member States have been engaged for over two years in the development of two ‘instruments’ or agreements with the intent of radically changing the way pandemics and other health emergencies are managed.

    One, consisting of draft amendments to the existing International health Regulations (IHR), seeks to change the current IHR non-binding recommendations into requirements or binding recommendations, by having countries “undertake” to implement those given by the WHO in future declared health emergencies. It covers all ‘public health emergencies of international concern’ (PHEIC), with a single person, the WHO Director-General (DG) determining what a PHEIC is, where it extends, and when it ends. It specifies mandated vaccines, border closures, and other directives understood as lockdowns among the requirements the DG can impose. It is discussed further elsewhere and still under negotiation in Geneva.

    A second document, previously known as the (draft) Pandemic Treaty, then Pandemic Accord, and more recently the Pandemic Agreement, seeks to specify governance, supply chains, and various other interventions aimed at preventing, preparing for, and responding to, pandemics (pandemic prevention, preparedness and response – PPPR). It is currently being negotiated by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB).

    Both texts will be subject to a vote at the May 2024 World Health Assembly (WHA) in Geneva, Switzerland. These votes are intended, by those promoting these projects, to bring governance of future multi-country healthcare emergencies (or threats thereof) under the WHO umbrella.

    The latest version of the draft Pandemic Agreement (here forth the ‘Agreement’) was released on 7th March 2024. However, it is still being negotiated by various committees comprising representatives of Member States and other interested entities. It has been through multiple iterations over two years, and looks like it. With the teeth of the pandemic response proposals in the IHR, the Agreement looks increasingly irrelevant, or at least unsure of its purpose, picking up bits and pieces in a half-hearted way that the IHR amendments do not, or cannot, include. However, as discussed below, it is far from irrelevant.

    Historical Perspective

    These aim to increase the centralization of decision-making within the WHO as the “directing and coordinating authority.” This terminology comes from the WHO’s 1946 Constitution, developed in the aftermath of the Second World War as the world faced the outcomes of European fascism and the similar approaches widely imposed through colonialist regimes. The WHO would support emerging countries, with rapidly expanding and poorly resourced populations struggling under high disease burdens, and coordinate some areas of international support as these sovereign countries requested it. The emphasis of action was on coordinating rather than directing.

    In the 80 years prior to the WHO’s existence, international public health had grown within a more directive mindset, with a series of meetings by colonial and slave-owning powers from 1851 to manage pandemics, culminating in the inauguration of the Office Internationale d’Hygiene Publique in Paris in 1907, and later the League of Nations Health Office. World powers imposed health dictates on those less powerful, in other parts of the world and increasingly on their own population through the eugenics movement and similar approaches. Public health would direct, for the greater good, as a tool of those who wish to direct the lives of others.

    The WHO, governed by the WHA, was to be very different. Newly independent States and their former colonial masters were ostensibly on an equal footing within the WHA (one country – one vote), and the WHO’s work overall was to be an example of how human rights could dominate the way society works. The model for international public health, as exemplified in the Declaration of Alma Ata in 1978, was to be horizontal rather than vertical, with communities and countries in the driving seat.

    With the evolution of the WHO in recent decades from a core funding model (countries give money, the WHO decides under the WHA guidance how to spend it) to a model based on specified funding (funders, both public and increasingly private, instruct the WHO on how to spend it), the WHO has inevitably changed to become a public-private partnership required to serve the interests of funders rather than populations.

    As most funding comes from a few countries with major Pharma industrial bases, or private investors and corporations in the same industry, the WHO has been required to emphasize the use of pharmaceuticals and downplay evidence and knowledge where these clash (if it wants to keep all its staff funded). It is helpful to view the draft Agreement, and the IHR amendments, in this context.

    Why May 2024?

    The WHO, together with the World Bank, G20, and other institutions have been emphasizing the urgency of putting the new pandemic instruments in place earnestly, before the ‘next pandemic.’ This is based on claims that the world was unprepared for Covid-19, and that the economic and health harm would be somehow avoidable if we had these agreements in place.

    They emphasize, contrary to evidence that Covid-19 virus (SARS-CoV-2) origins involve laboratory manipulation, that the main threats we face are natural, and that these are increasing exponentially and present an “existential” threat to humanity. The data on which the WHO, the World Bank, and G20 base these claims demonstrates the contrary, with reported natural outbreaks having increased as detection technologies have developed, but reducing in mortality rate, and in numbers, over the past 10 to 20 years..

    A paper cited by the World Bank to justify urgency and quoted as suggesting a 3x increase in risk in the coming decade actually suggests that a Covid-19-like event would occur roughly every 129 years, and a Spanish-flu repetition every 292 to 877 years. Such predictions are unable to take into account the rapidly changing nature of medicine and improved sanitation and nutrition (most deaths from Spanish flu would not have occurred if modern antibiotics had been available), and so may still overestimate risk. Similarly, the WHO’s own priority disease list for new outbreaks only includes two diseases of proven natural origin that have over 1,000 historical deaths attributed to them. It is well demonstrated that the risk and expected burden of pandemics is misrepresented by major international agencies in current discussions.

    The urgency for May 2024 is clearly therefore inadequately supported, firstly because neither the WHO nor others have demonstrated how the harms accrued through Covid-19 would be reduced through the measures proposed, and secondly because the burden and risk is misrepresented. In this context, the state of the Agreement is clearly not where it should be as a draft international legally binding agreement intended to impose considerable financial and other obligations on States and populations.

    This is particularly problematic as the proposed expenditure; the proposed budget is over $31 billion per year, with over $10 billion more on other One Health activities. Much of this will have to be diverted from addressing other diseases burdens that impose far greater burden. This trade-off, essential to understand in public health policy development, has not yet been clearly addressed by the WHO.

    The WHO DG stated recently that the WHO does not want the power to impose vaccine mandates or lockdowns on anyone, and does not want this. This begs the question of why either of the current WHO pandemic instruments is being proposed, both as legally binding documents. The current IHR (2005) already sets out such approaches as recommendations the DG can make, and there is nothing non-mandatory that countries cannot do now without pushing new treaty-like mechanisms through a vote in Geneva.

    Based on the DG’s claims, they are essentially redundant, and what new non-mandatory clauses they contain, as set out below, are certainly not urgent. Clauses that are mandatory (Member States “shall”) must be considered within national decision-making contexts and appear against the WHO’s stated intent.

    Common sense would suggest that the Agreement, and the accompanying IHR amendments, be properly thought through before Member States commit. The WHO has already abandoned the legal requirement for a 4-month review time for the IHR amendments (Article 55.2 IHR), which are also still under negotiation just 2 months before the WHA deadline. The Agreement should also have at least such a period for States to properly consider whether to agree – treaties normally take many years to develop and negotiate and no valid arguments have been put forward as to why these should be different.

    The Covid-19 response resulted in an unprecedented transfer of wealth from those of lower income to the very wealthy few, completely contrary to the way in which the WHO was intended to affect human society. A considerable portion of these pandemic profits went to current sponsors of the WHO, and these same corporate entities and investors are set to further benefit from the new pandemic agreements. As written, the Pandemic Agreement risks entrenching such centralization and profit-taking, and the accompanying unprecedented restrictions on human rights and freedoms, as a public health norm.

    To continue with a clearly flawed agreement simply because of a previously set deadline, when no clear population benefit is articulated and no true urgency demonstrated, would therefore be a major step backward in international public health. Basic principles of proportionality, human agency, and community empowerment, essential for health and human rights outcomes, are missing or paid lip-service. The WHO clearly wishes to increase its funding and show it is ‘doing something,’ but must first articulate why the voluntary provisions of the current IHR are insufficient. It is hoped that by systematically reviewing some key clauses of the agreement here, it will become clear why a rethink of the whole approach is necessary. The full text is found below.

    The commentary below concentrates on selected draft provisions of the latest publicly available version of the draft agreement that seem to be unclear or potentially problematic. Much of the remaining text is essentially pointless as it reiterates vague intentions to be found in other documents or activities which countries normally undertake in the course of running health services, and have no place in a focused legally-binding international agreement.

    REVISED Draft of the negotiating text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement. 7th March, 2024

    Preamble

    Recognizing that the World Health Organization…is the directing and coordinating authority on international health work.

    This is inconsistent with a recent statement by the WHO DG that the WHO has no interest or intent to direct country health responses. To reiterate it here suggests that the DG is not representing the true position regarding the Agreement. “Directing authority” is however in line with the proposed IHR Amendments (and the WHO’s Constitution), under which countries will “undertake” ahead of time to follow the DG’s recommendations (which thereby become instructions). As the HR amendments make clear, this is intended to apply even to a perceived threat rather than actual harm.

    Recalling the constitution of the World Health Organization…highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition.

    This statement recalls fundamental understandings of public health, and is of importance here as it raises the question of why the WHO did not strongly condemn prolonged school closures, workplace closures, and other impoverishing policies during the Covid-19 response. In 2019, WHO made clear that these dangers should prevent actions we now call ‘lockdowns’ from being imposed.

    Deeply concerned by the gross inequities at national and international levels that hindered timely and equitable access to medical and other Covid-19 pandemic-related products, and the serious shortcomings in pandemic preparedness.

    In terms of health equity (as distinct from commodity of ‘vaccine’ equity), inequity in the Covid-19 response was not in failing to provide a vaccine against former variants to immune, young people in low-income countries who were at far higher risk from endemic diseases, but in the disproportionate harm to them of uniformly-imposed NPIs that reduced current and future income and basic healthcare, as was noted by the WHO in 2019 Pandemic Influenza recommendations. The failure of the text to recognize this suggests that lessons from Covid-19 have not informed this draft Agreement. The WHO has not yet demonstrated how pandemic ‘preparedness,’ in the terms they use below, would have reduced impact, given that there is poor correlation between strictness or speed of response and eventual outcomes.

    Reiterating the need to work towards…an equitable approach to mitigate the risk that pandemics exacerbate existing inequities in access to health services,

    As above – in the past century, the issue of inequity has been most pronounced in pandemic response, rather than the impact of the virus itself (excluding the physiological variation in risk). Most recorded deaths from acute pandemics, since the Spanish flu, were during Covid-19, in which the virus hit mainly sick elderly, but response impacted working-age adults and children heavily and will continue to have effect, due to increased poverty and debt; reduced education and child marriage, in future generations.

    These have disproportionately affected lower-income people, and particularly women. The lack of recognition of this in this document, though they are recognized by the World Bank and UN agencies elsewhere, must raise real questions on whether this Agreement has been thoroughly thought through, and the process of development been sufficiently inclusive and objective.

    Chapter I. Introduction

    Article 1. Use of terms

    (i) “pathogen with pandemic potential” means any pathogen that has been identified to infect a human and that is: novel (not yet characterized) or known (including a variant of a known pathogen), potentially highly transmissible and/or highly virulent with the potential to cause a public health emergency of international concern.

    This provides a very wide scope to alter provisions. Any pathogen that can infect humans and is potentially highly transmissible or virulent, though yet uncharacterized means virtually any coronavirus, influenza virus, or a plethora of other relatively common pathogen groups. The IHR Amendments intend that the DG alone can make this call, over the advice of others, as occurred with monkeypox in 2022.

    (j) “persons in vulnerable situations” means individuals, groups or communities with a disproportionate increased risk of infection, severity, disease or mortality.

    This is a good definition – in Covid-19 context, would mean the sick elderly, and so is relevant to targeting a response.

    “Universal health coverage” means that all people have access to the full range of quality health services they need, when and where they need them, without financial hardship.

    While the general UHC concept is good, it is time a sensible (rather than patently silly) definition was adopted. Society cannot afford the full range of possible interventions and remedies for all, and clearly there is a scale of cost vs benefit that prioritizes certain ones over others. Sensible definitions make action more likely, and inaction harder to justify. One could argue that none should have the full range until all have good basic care, but clearly the earth will not support ‘the full range’ for 8 billion people.

    Article 2. Objective

    This Agreement is specifically for pandemics (a poorly defined term but essentially a pathogen that spreads rapidly across national borders). In contrast, the IHR amendments accompanying it are broader in scope – for any public health emergencies of international concern.

    Article 3. Principles

    2. the sovereign right of States to adopt, legislate and implement legislation

    The amendments to the IHR require States to undertake to follow WHO instructions ahead of time, before such instruction and context are known. These two documents must be understood, as noted later in the Agreement draft, as complementary.

    3. equity as the goal and outcome of pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, ensuring the absence of unfair, avoidable or remediable differences among groups of people.

    This definition of equity here needs clarification. In the pandemic context, the WHO emphasized commodity (vaccine) equity during the Covid-19 response. Elimination of differences implied equal access to Covid-19 vaccines in countries with large aging, obese highly vulnerable populations (e.g. the USA or Italy), and those with young populations at minimal risk and with far more pressing health priorities (e.g. Niger or Uganda).

    Alternatively, but equally damaging, equal access to different age groups within a country when the risk-benefit ratio is clearly greatly different. This promotes worse health outcomes by diverting resources from where they are most useful, as it ignores heterogeneity of risk. Again, an adult approach is required in international agreements, rather than feel-good sentences, if they are going to have a positive impact.

    5. …a more equitable and better prepared world to prevent, respond to and recover from pandemics

    As with ‘3’ above, this raises a fundamental problem: What if health equity demands that some populations divert resources to childhood nutrition and endemic diseases rather than the latest pandemic, as these are likely of far higher burden to many younger but lower-income populations? This would not be equity in the definition implied here, but would clearly lead to better and more equal health outcomes.

    The WHO must decide whether it is about uniform action, or minimizing poor health, as these are clearly very different. They are the difference between the WHO’s commodity equity, and true health equity.

    Chapter II. The world together equitably: achieving equity in, for and through pandemic prevention, preparedness and response

    Equity in health should imply a reasonably equal chance of overcoming or avoiding preventable sickness. The vast majority of sickness and death is due to either non-communicable diseases often related to lifestyle, such as obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus, undernutrition in childhood, and endemic infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria, and HIV/AIDS. Achieving health equity would primarily mean addressing these.

    In this chapter of the draft Pandemic Agreement, equity is used to imply equal access to specific health commodities, particularly vaccines, for intermittent health emergencies, although these exert a small fraction of the burden of other diseases. It is, specifically, commodity-equity, and not geared to equalizing overall health burden but to enabling centrally-coordinated homogenous responses to unusual events.

    Article 4. Pandemic prevention and surveillance

    2. The Parties shall undertake to cooperate:

    (b) in support of…initiatives aimed at preventing pandemics, in particular those that improve surveillance, early warning and risk assessment; .…and identify settings and activities presenting a risk of emergence and re-emergence of pathogens with pandemic potential.

    (c-h) [Paragraphs on water and sanitation, infection control, strengthening of biosafety, surveillance and prevention of vector-born diseases, and addressing antimicrobial resistance.]

    The WHO intends the Agreement to have force under international law. Therefore, countries are undertaking to put themselves under force of international law in regards to complying with the agreement’s stipulations.

    The provisions under this long article mostly cover general health stuff that countries try to do anyway. The difference will be that countries will be assessed on progress. Assessment can be fine if in context, less fine if it consists of entitled ‘experts’ from wealthy countries with little local knowledge or context. Perhaps such compliance is best left to national authorities, who are more in use with local needs and priorities. The justification for the international bureaucracy being built to support this, while fun for those involved, is unclear and will divert resources from actual health work.

    6. The Conference of the Parties may adopt, as necessary, guidelines, recommendations and standards, including in relation to pandemic prevention capacities, to support the implementation of this Article.

    Here and later, the COP is invoked as a vehicle to decide on what will actually be done. The rules are explained later (Articles 21-23). While allowing more time is sensible, it begs the question of why it is not better to wait and discuss what is needed in the current INB process, before committing to a legally-binding agreement. This current article says nothing not already covered by the IHR2005 or other ongoing programs.

    Article 5. One Health approach to pandemic prevention, preparedness and response

    Nothing specific or new in this article. It seems redundant (it is advocating a holistic approach mentioned elsewhere) and so presumably is just to get the term ‘One Health’ into the agreement. (One could ask, why bother?)

    Some mainstream definitions of One Health (e.g. Lancet) consider that it means non-human species are on a par with humans in terms of rights and importance. If this is meant here, clearly most Member States would disagree. So we may assume that it is just words to keep someone happy (a little childish in an international document, but the term ‘One Health’ has been trending, like ‘equity,’ as if the concept of holistic approaches to public health were new).

    Article 6. Preparedness, health system resilience and recovery

    2. Each Party commits…[to] :

    (a) routine and essential health services during pandemics with a focus on primary health care, routine immunization and mental health care, and with particular attention to persons in vulnerable situations

    (b) developing, strengthening and maintaining health infrastructure

    (c) developing post-pandemic health system recovery strategies

    (d) developing, strengthening and maintaining: health information systems

    This is good, and (a) seems to require avoidance of lockdowns (which inevitably cause the harms listed). Unfortunately other WHO documents lead one to assume this is not the intent…It does appear therefore that this is simply another list of fairly non-specific feel-good measures that have no useful place in a new legally-binding agreement, and which most countries are already undertaking.

    (e) promoting the use of social and behavioural sciences, risk communication and community engagement for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.

    This requires clarification, as the use of behavioral science during the Covid-19 response involved deliberate inducement of fear to promote behaviors that people would not otherwise follow (e.g. Spi-B). It is essential here that the document clarifies how behavioral science should be used ethically in healthcare. Otherwise, this is also a quite meaningless provision.

    Article 7. Health and care workforce

    This long Article discusses health workforce, training, retention, non-discrimination, stigma, bias, adequate remuneration, and other standard provisions for workplaces. It is unclear why it is included in a legally binding pandemic agreement, except for:

    4. [The Parties]…shall invest in establishing, sustaining, coordinating and mobilizing a skilled and trained multidisciplinary global public health emergency workforce…Parties having established emergency health teams should inform WHO thereof and make best efforts to respond to requests for deployment…

    Emergency health teams established (within capacity etc.) – are something countries already do, when they have capacity. There is no reason to have this as a legally-binding instrument, and clearly no urgency to do so.

    Article 8. Preparedness monitoring and functional reviews

    1. The Parties shall, building on existing and relevant tools, develop and implement an inclusive, transparent, effective and efficient pandemic prevention, preparedness and response monitoring and evaluation system.

    2. Each Party shall assess, every five years, with technical support from the WHO Secretariat upon request, the functioning and readiness of, and gaps in, its pandemic prevention, preparedness and response capacity, based on the relevant tools and guidelines developed by WHO in partnership with relevant organizations at international, regional and sub-regional levels.

    Note that this is being required of countries that are already struggling to implement monitoring systems for major endemic diseases, including tuberculosis, malaria, HIV, and nutritional deficiencies. They will be legally bound to divert resources to pandemic prevention. While there is some overlap, it will inevitably divert resources from currently underfunded programs for diseases of far higher local burdens, and so (not theoretically, but inevitably) raise mortality. Poor countries are being required to put resources into problems deemed significant by richer countries.

    Article 9. Research and development

    Various general provisions about undertaking background research that countries are generally doing anyway, but with an ’emerging disease’ slant. Again, the INB fails to justify why this diversion of resources from researching greater disease burdens should occur in all countries (why not just those with excess resources?).

    Article 10. Sustainable and geographically diversified production

    Mostly non-binding but suggested cooperation on making pandemic-related products available, including support for manufacturing in “inter-pandemic times” (a fascinating rendering of ‘normal’), when they would only be viable through subsidies. Much of this is probably unimplementable, as it would not be practical to maintain facilities in most or all countries on stand-by for rare events, at cost of resources otherwise useful for other priorities. The desire to increase production in ‘developing’ countries will face major barriers and costs in terms of maintaining quality of production, particularly as many products will have limited use outside of rare outbreak situations.

    Article 11. Transfer of technology and know-how

    This article, always problematic for large pharmaceutical corporations sponsoring much WHO outbreak activities, is now watered down to weak requirements to ‘consider,’ promote,’ provide, within capabilities’ etc.

    Article 12. Access and benefit sharing

    This Article is intended to establish the WHO Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (PABS System). PABS is intended to “ensure rapid, systematic and timely access to biological materials of pathogens with pandemic potential and the genetic sequence data.” This system is of potential high relevance and needs to be interpreted in the context that SARS-CoV-2, the pathogen causing the recent Covid-19 outbreak, was highly likely to have escaped from a laboratory. PABS is intended to expand the laboratory storage, transport, and handling of such viruses, under the oversight of the WHO, an organization outside of national jurisdiction with no significant direct experience in handling biological materials.

    3. When a Party has access to a pathogen [it shall]:

    (a) share with WHO any pathogen sequence information as soon as it is available to the Party;

    (b) as soon as biological materials are available to the Party, provide the materials to one or more laboratories and/or biorepositories participating in WHO-coordinated laboratory networks (CLNs),

    Subsequent clauses state that benefits will be shared, and seek to prevent recipient laboratories from patenting materials received from other countries. This has been a major concern of low-and middle-income countries previously, who perceive that institutions in wealthy countries patent and benefit from materials derived from less-wealthy populations. It remains to be seen whether provisions here will be sufficient to address this.

    The article then becomes yet more concerning:

    6. WHO shall conclude legally binding standard PABS contracts with manufacturers to provide the following, taking into account the size, nature and capacities of the manufacturer:

    (a) annual monetary contributions to support the PABS System and relevant capacities in countries; the determination of the annual amount, use, and approach for monitoring and accountability, shall be finalized by the Parties;

    (b) real-time contributions of relevant diagnostics, therapeutics or vaccines produced by the manufacturer, 10% free of charge and 10% at not-for-profit prices during public health emergencies of international concern or pandemics, …

    It is clearly intended that the WHO becomes directly involved in setting up legally binding manufacturing contracts, despite the WHO being outside of national jurisdictional oversight, within the territories of Member States. The PABS system, and therefore its staff and dependent entities, are also to be supported in part by funds from the manufacturers whom they are supposed to be managing. The income of the organization will be dependent on maintaining positive relationships with these private entities in a similar way in which many national regulatory agencies are dependent upon funds from pharmaceutical companies whom their staff ostensibly regulate. In this case, the regulator will be even further removed from public oversight.

    The clause on 10% (why 10?) products being free of charge, and similar at cost, while ensuring lower-priced commodities irrespective of actual need (the outbreak may be confined to wealthy countries). The same entity, the WHO, will determine whether the triggering emergency exists, determine the response, and manage the contracts to provide the commodities, without direct jurisdictional oversight regarding the potential for corruption or conflict of interest. It is a remarkable system to suggest, irrespective of political or regulatory environment.

    8. The Parties shall cooperate…public financing of research and development, prepurchase agreements, or regulatory procedures, to encourage and facilitate as many manufacturers as possible to enter into standard PABS contracts as early as possible.

    The article envisions that public funding will be used to build the process, ensuring essentially no-risk private profit.

    10. To support operationalization of the PABS System, WHO shall…make such contracts public, while respecting commercial confidentiality.

    The public may know whom contracts are made with, but not all details of the contracts. There will therefore be no independent oversight of the clauses agreed between the WHO, a body outside of national jurisdiction and dependent of commercial companies for funding some of its work and salaries, and these same companies, on ‘needs’ that the WHO itself will have sole authority, under the proposed amendments to the IHR, to determine.

    The Article further states that the WHO shall use its own product regulatory system (prequalification) and Emergency Use Listing Procedure to open and stimulate markets for the manufacturers of these products.

    It is doubtful that any national government could make such an overall agreement, yet in May 2024 they will be voting to provide this to what is essentially a foreign, and partly privately financed, entity.

    Article 13. Supply chain and logistics

    The WHO will become convenor of a ‘Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network’ for commercially-produced products, to be supplied under WHO contracts when and where the WHO determines, whilst also having the role of ensuring safety of such products.

    Having mutual support coordinated between countries is good. Having this run by an organization that is significantly funded directly by those gaining from the sale of these same commodities seems reckless and counterintuitive. Few countries would allow this (or at least plan for it).

    For this to occur safely, the WHO would logically have to forgo all private investment, and greatly restrict national specified funding contributions. Otherwise, the conflicts of interest involved would destroy confidence in the system. There is no suggestion of such divestment from the WHO, but rather, as in Article 12, private sector dependency, directly tied to contracts, will increase.

    Article 13bis: National procurement- and distribution-related provisions

    While suffering the same (perhaps unavoidable) issues regarding commercial confidentiality, this alternate Article 13 seems far more appropriate, keeping commercial issues under national jurisdiction and avoiding the obvious conflict of interests that underpin funding for WHO activities and staffing.

    Article 14. Regulatory systems strengthening

    This entire Article reflects initiatives and programs already in place. Nothing here appears likely to add to current effort.

    Article 15. Liability and compensation management

    1. Each Party shall consider developing, as necessary and in accordance with applicable law, national strategies for managing liability in its territory related to pandemic vaccines…no-fault compensation mechanisms…

    2. The Parties…shall develop recommendations for the establishment and implementation of national, regional and/or global no-fault compensation mechanisms and strategies for managing liability during pandemic emergencies, including with regard to individuals that are in a humanitarian setting or vulnerable situations.

    This is quite remarkable, but also reflects some national legislation, in removing any fault or liability specifically from vaccine manufacturers, for harms done in pushing out vaccines to the public. During the Covid-19 response, genetic therapeutics being developed by BioNtech and Moderna were reclassified as vaccines, on the basis that an immune response is stimulated after they have modified intracellular biochemical pathways as a medicine normally does.

    This enabled specific trials normally required for carcinogenicity and teratogenicity to be bypassed, despite raised fetal abnormality rates in animal trials. It will enable the CEPI 100-day vaccine program, supported with private funding to support private mRNA vaccine manufacturers, to proceed without any risk to the manufacturer should there be subsequent public harm.

    Together with an earlier provision on public funding of research and manufacturing readiness, and the removal of former wording requiring intellectual property sharing in Article 11, this ensures vaccine manufacturers and their investors make profit in effective absence of risk.

    These entities are currently heavily invested in support for WHO, and were strongly aligned with the introduction of newly restrictive outbreak responses that emphasized and sometimes mandated their products during the Covid-19 outbreak.

    Article 16. International collaboration and cooperation

    A somewhat pointless article. It suggests that countries cooperate with each other and the WHO to implement the other agreements in the Agreement.

    Article 17. Whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches

    A list of essentially motherhood provisions related to planning for a pandemic. However, countries will legally be required to maintain a ‘national coordination multisectoral body’ for PPPR. This will essentially be an added burden on budgets, and inevitably divert further resources from other priorities. Perhaps just strengthening current infectious disease and nutritional programs would be more impactful. (Nowhere in this Agreement is nutrition discussed (essential for resilience to pathogens) and minimal wording is included on sanitation and clean water (other major reasons for reduction in infectious disease mortality over past centuries).

    However, the ‘community ownership’ wording is interesting (“empower and enable community ownership of, and contribution to, community readiness for and resilience [for PPPR]”), as this directly contradicts much of the rest of the Agreement, including the centralization of control under the Conference of Parties, requirements for countries to allocate resources to pandemic preparedness over other community priorities, and the idea of inspecting and assessing adherence to the centralized requirements of the Agreement. Either much of the rest of the Agreement is redundant, or this wording is purely for appearance and not to be followed (and therefore should be removed).

    Article 18. Communication and public awareness

    1. Each Party shall promote timely access to credible and evidence-based information …with the aim of countering and addressing misinformation or disinformation…

    2. The Parties shall, as appropriate, promote and/or conduct research and inform policies on factors that hinder or strengthen adherence to public health and social measures in a pandemic, as well as trust in science and public health institutions and agencies.

    The key word is as appropriate, given that many agencies, including the WHO, have overseen or aided policies during the Covid-19 response that have greatly increased poverty, child marriage, teenage pregnancy, and education loss.

    As the WHO has been shown to be significantly misrepresenting pandemic risk in the process of advocating for this Agreement and related instruments, its own communications would also fall outside the provision here related to evidence-based information, and fall within normal understandings of misinformation. It could not therefore be an arbiter of correctness of information here, so the Article is not implementable. Rewritten to recommend accurate evidence-based information being promoted, it would make good sense, but this is not an issue requiring a legally binding international agreement.

    Article 19. Implementation and support

    3. The WHO Secretariat…organize the technical and financial assistance necessary to address such gaps and needs in implementing the commitments agreed upon under the Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations (2005).

    As the WHO is dependent on donor support, its ability to address gaps in funding within Member States is clearly not something it can guarantee. The purpose of this article is unclear, repeating in paragraphs 1 and 2 the earlier intent for countries to generally support each other.

    Article 20. Sustainable financing

    1. The Parties commit to working together…In this regard, each Party, within the means and resources at its disposal, shall:

    (a) prioritize and maintain or increase, as necessary, domestic funding for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, without undermining other domestic public health priorities including for: (i) strengthening and sustaining capacities for the prevention, preparedness and response to health emergencies and pandemics, in particular the core capacities of the International Health Regulations (2005);…

    This is silly wording, as countries obviously have to prioritize within budgets, so that moving funds to one area means removing from another. The essence of public health policy is weighing and making such decisions; this reality seems to be ignored here through wishful thinking. (a) is clearly redundant, as the IHR (2005) already exists and countries have agreed to support it.

    3. A Coordinating Financial Mechanism (the “Mechanism”) is hereby established to support the implementation of both the WHO Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations (2005)

    This will be in parallel to the Pandemic Fund recently commenced by the World Bank – an issue not lost on INB delegates and so likely to change here in the final version. It will also be additive to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and other health financing mechanisms, and so require another parallel international bureaucracy, presumably based in Geneva.

    It is intended to have its own capacity to “conduct relevant analyses on needs and gaps, in addition to tracking cooperation efforts,” so it will not be a small undertaking.

    Chapter III. Institutional and final provisions

    Article 21. Conference of the Parties

    1. A Conference of the Parties is hereby established.

    2. The Conference of the Parties shall keep under regular review, every three years, the implementation of the WHO Pandemic Agreement and take the decisions necessary to promote its effective implementation.

    This sets up the governing body to oversee this Agreement (another body requiring a secretariat and support). It is intended to meet within a year of the Agreement coming into force, and then set its own rules on meeting thereafter. It is likely that many provisions outlined in this draft of the Agreement will be deferred to the COP for further discussion.

    Articles 22 – 37

    These articles cover the functioning of the Conference of Parties (COP) and various administrative issues.

    Of note, ‘block votes’ will be allowed from regional bodies (e.g. the EU).

    The WHO will provide the secretariat.

    Under Article 24 is noted:

    3. Nothing in the WHO Pandemic Agreement shall be interpreted as providing the Secretariat of the World Health Organization, including the WHO Director-General, any authority to direct, order, alter or otherwise prescribe the domestic laws or policies of any Party, or to mandate or otherwise impose any requirements that Parties take specific actions, such as ban or accept travellers, impose vaccination mandates or therapeutic or diagnostic measures, or implement lockdowns.

    These provisions are explicitly stated in the proposed amendments to the IHR, to be considered alongside this agreement. Article 26 notes that the IHR is to be interpreted as compatible, thereby confirming that the IHR provisions including border closures and limits on freedom of movement, mandated vaccination, and other lockdown measures are not negated by this statement.

    As Article 26 states: “The Parties recognize that the WHO Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations should be interpreted so as to be compatible.”

    Some would consider this subterfuge – The Director-General recently labeled as liars those who claimed the Agreement included these powers, whilst failing to acknowledge the accompanying IHR amendments. The WHO could do better in avoiding misleading messaging, especially when this involves denigration of the public.

    Article 32 (Withdrawal) requires that, once adopted, Parties cannot withdraw for a total of 3 years (giving notice after a minimum of 2 years). Financial obligations undertaken under the agreement continue beyond that time.

    Finally, the Agreement will come into force, assuming a two-thirds majority in the WHA is achieved (Article 19, WHO Constitution), 30 days after the fortieth country has ratified it.

    Further reading:

    WHO Pandemic Agreement Intergovernmental Negotiating Board website:

    https://inb.who.int/

    International Health Regulations Working Group website:

    https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/index.html

    On background to the WHO texts:

    Amendments to WHO’s International Health Regulations: An Annotated Guide
    An Unofficial Q&A on International Health Regulations
    On urgency and burden of pandemics:

    https://essl.leeds.ac.uk/downloads/download/228/rational-policy-over-panic

    Disease X and Davos: This is Not the Way to Evaluate and Formulate Public Health Policy
    Before Preparing for Pandemics, We Need Better Evidence of Risk
    Revised Draft of the negotiating text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement:

    Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
    For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.

    Authors

    David Bell
    David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health. He is a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organization (WHO), Programme Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, Switzerland, and Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in Bellevue, WA, USA.

    View all posts
    Thi Thuy Van Dinh
    Dr. Thi Thuy Van Dinh (LLM, PhD) worked on international law in the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Subsequently, she managed multilateral organization partnerships for Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund and led environmental health technology development efforts for low-resource settings.

    View all posts
    Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work.

    https://brownstone.org/articles/the-who-pandemic-agreement-a-guide/

    https://www.minds.com/donshafi911/blog/the-who-pandemic-agreement-a-guide-1621719398509187077
    The WHO Pandemic Agreement: A Guide By David Bell, Thi Thuy Van Dinh March 22, 2024 Government, Society 30 minute read The World Health Organization (WHO) and its 194 Member States have been engaged for over two years in the development of two ‘instruments’ or agreements with the intent of radically changing the way pandemics and other health emergencies are managed. One, consisting of draft amendments to the existing International health Regulations (IHR), seeks to change the current IHR non-binding recommendations into requirements or binding recommendations, by having countries “undertake” to implement those given by the WHO in future declared health emergencies. It covers all ‘public health emergencies of international concern’ (PHEIC), with a single person, the WHO Director-General (DG) determining what a PHEIC is, where it extends, and when it ends. It specifies mandated vaccines, border closures, and other directives understood as lockdowns among the requirements the DG can impose. It is discussed further elsewhere and still under negotiation in Geneva. A second document, previously known as the (draft) Pandemic Treaty, then Pandemic Accord, and more recently the Pandemic Agreement, seeks to specify governance, supply chains, and various other interventions aimed at preventing, preparing for, and responding to, pandemics (pandemic prevention, preparedness and response – PPPR). It is currently being negotiated by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB). Both texts will be subject to a vote at the May 2024 World Health Assembly (WHA) in Geneva, Switzerland. These votes are intended, by those promoting these projects, to bring governance of future multi-country healthcare emergencies (or threats thereof) under the WHO umbrella. The latest version of the draft Pandemic Agreement (here forth the ‘Agreement’) was released on 7th March 2024. However, it is still being negotiated by various committees comprising representatives of Member States and other interested entities. It has been through multiple iterations over two years, and looks like it. With the teeth of the pandemic response proposals in the IHR, the Agreement looks increasingly irrelevant, or at least unsure of its purpose, picking up bits and pieces in a half-hearted way that the IHR amendments do not, or cannot, include. However, as discussed below, it is far from irrelevant. Historical Perspective These aim to increase the centralization of decision-making within the WHO as the “directing and coordinating authority.” This terminology comes from the WHO’s 1946 Constitution, developed in the aftermath of the Second World War as the world faced the outcomes of European fascism and the similar approaches widely imposed through colonialist regimes. The WHO would support emerging countries, with rapidly expanding and poorly resourced populations struggling under high disease burdens, and coordinate some areas of international support as these sovereign countries requested it. The emphasis of action was on coordinating rather than directing. In the 80 years prior to the WHO’s existence, international public health had grown within a more directive mindset, with a series of meetings by colonial and slave-owning powers from 1851 to manage pandemics, culminating in the inauguration of the Office Internationale d’Hygiene Publique in Paris in 1907, and later the League of Nations Health Office. World powers imposed health dictates on those less powerful, in other parts of the world and increasingly on their own population through the eugenics movement and similar approaches. Public health would direct, for the greater good, as a tool of those who wish to direct the lives of others. The WHO, governed by the WHA, was to be very different. Newly independent States and their former colonial masters were ostensibly on an equal footing within the WHA (one country – one vote), and the WHO’s work overall was to be an example of how human rights could dominate the way society works. The model for international public health, as exemplified in the Declaration of Alma Ata in 1978, was to be horizontal rather than vertical, with communities and countries in the driving seat. With the evolution of the WHO in recent decades from a core funding model (countries give money, the WHO decides under the WHA guidance how to spend it) to a model based on specified funding (funders, both public and increasingly private, instruct the WHO on how to spend it), the WHO has inevitably changed to become a public-private partnership required to serve the interests of funders rather than populations. As most funding comes from a few countries with major Pharma industrial bases, or private investors and corporations in the same industry, the WHO has been required to emphasize the use of pharmaceuticals and downplay evidence and knowledge where these clash (if it wants to keep all its staff funded). It is helpful to view the draft Agreement, and the IHR amendments, in this context. Why May 2024? The WHO, together with the World Bank, G20, and other institutions have been emphasizing the urgency of putting the new pandemic instruments in place earnestly, before the ‘next pandemic.’ This is based on claims that the world was unprepared for Covid-19, and that the economic and health harm would be somehow avoidable if we had these agreements in place. They emphasize, contrary to evidence that Covid-19 virus (SARS-CoV-2) origins involve laboratory manipulation, that the main threats we face are natural, and that these are increasing exponentially and present an “existential” threat to humanity. The data on which the WHO, the World Bank, and G20 base these claims demonstrates the contrary, with reported natural outbreaks having increased as detection technologies have developed, but reducing in mortality rate, and in numbers, over the past 10 to 20 years.. A paper cited by the World Bank to justify urgency and quoted as suggesting a 3x increase in risk in the coming decade actually suggests that a Covid-19-like event would occur roughly every 129 years, and a Spanish-flu repetition every 292 to 877 years. Such predictions are unable to take into account the rapidly changing nature of medicine and improved sanitation and nutrition (most deaths from Spanish flu would not have occurred if modern antibiotics had been available), and so may still overestimate risk. Similarly, the WHO’s own priority disease list for new outbreaks only includes two diseases of proven natural origin that have over 1,000 historical deaths attributed to them. It is well demonstrated that the risk and expected burden of pandemics is misrepresented by major international agencies in current discussions. The urgency for May 2024 is clearly therefore inadequately supported, firstly because neither the WHO nor others have demonstrated how the harms accrued through Covid-19 would be reduced through the measures proposed, and secondly because the burden and risk is misrepresented. In this context, the state of the Agreement is clearly not where it should be as a draft international legally binding agreement intended to impose considerable financial and other obligations on States and populations. This is particularly problematic as the proposed expenditure; the proposed budget is over $31 billion per year, with over $10 billion more on other One Health activities. Much of this will have to be diverted from addressing other diseases burdens that impose far greater burden. This trade-off, essential to understand in public health policy development, has not yet been clearly addressed by the WHO. The WHO DG stated recently that the WHO does not want the power to impose vaccine mandates or lockdowns on anyone, and does not want this. This begs the question of why either of the current WHO pandemic instruments is being proposed, both as legally binding documents. The current IHR (2005) already sets out such approaches as recommendations the DG can make, and there is nothing non-mandatory that countries cannot do now without pushing new treaty-like mechanisms through a vote in Geneva. Based on the DG’s claims, they are essentially redundant, and what new non-mandatory clauses they contain, as set out below, are certainly not urgent. Clauses that are mandatory (Member States “shall”) must be considered within national decision-making contexts and appear against the WHO’s stated intent. Common sense would suggest that the Agreement, and the accompanying IHR amendments, be properly thought through before Member States commit. The WHO has already abandoned the legal requirement for a 4-month review time for the IHR amendments (Article 55.2 IHR), which are also still under negotiation just 2 months before the WHA deadline. The Agreement should also have at least such a period for States to properly consider whether to agree – treaties normally take many years to develop and negotiate and no valid arguments have been put forward as to why these should be different. The Covid-19 response resulted in an unprecedented transfer of wealth from those of lower income to the very wealthy few, completely contrary to the way in which the WHO was intended to affect human society. A considerable portion of these pandemic profits went to current sponsors of the WHO, and these same corporate entities and investors are set to further benefit from the new pandemic agreements. As written, the Pandemic Agreement risks entrenching such centralization and profit-taking, and the accompanying unprecedented restrictions on human rights and freedoms, as a public health norm. To continue with a clearly flawed agreement simply because of a previously set deadline, when no clear population benefit is articulated and no true urgency demonstrated, would therefore be a major step backward in international public health. Basic principles of proportionality, human agency, and community empowerment, essential for health and human rights outcomes, are missing or paid lip-service. The WHO clearly wishes to increase its funding and show it is ‘doing something,’ but must first articulate why the voluntary provisions of the current IHR are insufficient. It is hoped that by systematically reviewing some key clauses of the agreement here, it will become clear why a rethink of the whole approach is necessary. The full text is found below. The commentary below concentrates on selected draft provisions of the latest publicly available version of the draft agreement that seem to be unclear or potentially problematic. Much of the remaining text is essentially pointless as it reiterates vague intentions to be found in other documents or activities which countries normally undertake in the course of running health services, and have no place in a focused legally-binding international agreement. REVISED Draft of the negotiating text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement. 7th March, 2024 Preamble Recognizing that the World Health Organization…is the directing and coordinating authority on international health work. This is inconsistent with a recent statement by the WHO DG that the WHO has no interest or intent to direct country health responses. To reiterate it here suggests that the DG is not representing the true position regarding the Agreement. “Directing authority” is however in line with the proposed IHR Amendments (and the WHO’s Constitution), under which countries will “undertake” ahead of time to follow the DG’s recommendations (which thereby become instructions). As the HR amendments make clear, this is intended to apply even to a perceived threat rather than actual harm. Recalling the constitution of the World Health Organization…highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition. This statement recalls fundamental understandings of public health, and is of importance here as it raises the question of why the WHO did not strongly condemn prolonged school closures, workplace closures, and other impoverishing policies during the Covid-19 response. In 2019, WHO made clear that these dangers should prevent actions we now call ‘lockdowns’ from being imposed. Deeply concerned by the gross inequities at national and international levels that hindered timely and equitable access to medical and other Covid-19 pandemic-related products, and the serious shortcomings in pandemic preparedness. In terms of health equity (as distinct from commodity of ‘vaccine’ equity), inequity in the Covid-19 response was not in failing to provide a vaccine against former variants to immune, young people in low-income countries who were at far higher risk from endemic diseases, but in the disproportionate harm to them of uniformly-imposed NPIs that reduced current and future income and basic healthcare, as was noted by the WHO in 2019 Pandemic Influenza recommendations. The failure of the text to recognize this suggests that lessons from Covid-19 have not informed this draft Agreement. The WHO has not yet demonstrated how pandemic ‘preparedness,’ in the terms they use below, would have reduced impact, given that there is poor correlation between strictness or speed of response and eventual outcomes. Reiterating the need to work towards…an equitable approach to mitigate the risk that pandemics exacerbate existing inequities in access to health services, As above – in the past century, the issue of inequity has been most pronounced in pandemic response, rather than the impact of the virus itself (excluding the physiological variation in risk). Most recorded deaths from acute pandemics, since the Spanish flu, were during Covid-19, in which the virus hit mainly sick elderly, but response impacted working-age adults and children heavily and will continue to have effect, due to increased poverty and debt; reduced education and child marriage, in future generations. These have disproportionately affected lower-income people, and particularly women. The lack of recognition of this in this document, though they are recognized by the World Bank and UN agencies elsewhere, must raise real questions on whether this Agreement has been thoroughly thought through, and the process of development been sufficiently inclusive and objective. Chapter I. Introduction Article 1. Use of terms (i) “pathogen with pandemic potential” means any pathogen that has been identified to infect a human and that is: novel (not yet characterized) or known (including a variant of a known pathogen), potentially highly transmissible and/or highly virulent with the potential to cause a public health emergency of international concern. This provides a very wide scope to alter provisions. Any pathogen that can infect humans and is potentially highly transmissible or virulent, though yet uncharacterized means virtually any coronavirus, influenza virus, or a plethora of other relatively common pathogen groups. The IHR Amendments intend that the DG alone can make this call, over the advice of others, as occurred with monkeypox in 2022. (j) “persons in vulnerable situations” means individuals, groups or communities with a disproportionate increased risk of infection, severity, disease or mortality. This is a good definition – in Covid-19 context, would mean the sick elderly, and so is relevant to targeting a response. “Universal health coverage” means that all people have access to the full range of quality health services they need, when and where they need them, without financial hardship. While the general UHC concept is good, it is time a sensible (rather than patently silly) definition was adopted. Society cannot afford the full range of possible interventions and remedies for all, and clearly there is a scale of cost vs benefit that prioritizes certain ones over others. Sensible definitions make action more likely, and inaction harder to justify. One could argue that none should have the full range until all have good basic care, but clearly the earth will not support ‘the full range’ for 8 billion people. Article 2. Objective This Agreement is specifically for pandemics (a poorly defined term but essentially a pathogen that spreads rapidly across national borders). In contrast, the IHR amendments accompanying it are broader in scope – for any public health emergencies of international concern. Article 3. Principles 2. the sovereign right of States to adopt, legislate and implement legislation The amendments to the IHR require States to undertake to follow WHO instructions ahead of time, before such instruction and context are known. These two documents must be understood, as noted later in the Agreement draft, as complementary. 3. equity as the goal and outcome of pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, ensuring the absence of unfair, avoidable or remediable differences among groups of people. This definition of equity here needs clarification. In the pandemic context, the WHO emphasized commodity (vaccine) equity during the Covid-19 response. Elimination of differences implied equal access to Covid-19 vaccines in countries with large aging, obese highly vulnerable populations (e.g. the USA or Italy), and those with young populations at minimal risk and with far more pressing health priorities (e.g. Niger or Uganda). Alternatively, but equally damaging, equal access to different age groups within a country when the risk-benefit ratio is clearly greatly different. This promotes worse health outcomes by diverting resources from where they are most useful, as it ignores heterogeneity of risk. Again, an adult approach is required in international agreements, rather than feel-good sentences, if they are going to have a positive impact. 5. …a more equitable and better prepared world to prevent, respond to and recover from pandemics As with ‘3’ above, this raises a fundamental problem: What if health equity demands that some populations divert resources to childhood nutrition and endemic diseases rather than the latest pandemic, as these are likely of far higher burden to many younger but lower-income populations? This would not be equity in the definition implied here, but would clearly lead to better and more equal health outcomes. The WHO must decide whether it is about uniform action, or minimizing poor health, as these are clearly very different. They are the difference between the WHO’s commodity equity, and true health equity. Chapter II. The world together equitably: achieving equity in, for and through pandemic prevention, preparedness and response Equity in health should imply a reasonably equal chance of overcoming or avoiding preventable sickness. The vast majority of sickness and death is due to either non-communicable diseases often related to lifestyle, such as obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus, undernutrition in childhood, and endemic infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria, and HIV/AIDS. Achieving health equity would primarily mean addressing these. In this chapter of the draft Pandemic Agreement, equity is used to imply equal access to specific health commodities, particularly vaccines, for intermittent health emergencies, although these exert a small fraction of the burden of other diseases. It is, specifically, commodity-equity, and not geared to equalizing overall health burden but to enabling centrally-coordinated homogenous responses to unusual events. Article 4. Pandemic prevention and surveillance 2. The Parties shall undertake to cooperate: (b) in support of…initiatives aimed at preventing pandemics, in particular those that improve surveillance, early warning and risk assessment; .…and identify settings and activities presenting a risk of emergence and re-emergence of pathogens with pandemic potential. (c-h) [Paragraphs on water and sanitation, infection control, strengthening of biosafety, surveillance and prevention of vector-born diseases, and addressing antimicrobial resistance.] The WHO intends the Agreement to have force under international law. Therefore, countries are undertaking to put themselves under force of international law in regards to complying with the agreement’s stipulations. The provisions under this long article mostly cover general health stuff that countries try to do anyway. The difference will be that countries will be assessed on progress. Assessment can be fine if in context, less fine if it consists of entitled ‘experts’ from wealthy countries with little local knowledge or context. Perhaps such compliance is best left to national authorities, who are more in use with local needs and priorities. The justification for the international bureaucracy being built to support this, while fun for those involved, is unclear and will divert resources from actual health work. 6. The Conference of the Parties may adopt, as necessary, guidelines, recommendations and standards, including in relation to pandemic prevention capacities, to support the implementation of this Article. Here and later, the COP is invoked as a vehicle to decide on what will actually be done. The rules are explained later (Articles 21-23). While allowing more time is sensible, it begs the question of why it is not better to wait and discuss what is needed in the current INB process, before committing to a legally-binding agreement. This current article says nothing not already covered by the IHR2005 or other ongoing programs. Article 5. One Health approach to pandemic prevention, preparedness and response Nothing specific or new in this article. It seems redundant (it is advocating a holistic approach mentioned elsewhere) and so presumably is just to get the term ‘One Health’ into the agreement. (One could ask, why bother?) Some mainstream definitions of One Health (e.g. Lancet) consider that it means non-human species are on a par with humans in terms of rights and importance. If this is meant here, clearly most Member States would disagree. So we may assume that it is just words to keep someone happy (a little childish in an international document, but the term ‘One Health’ has been trending, like ‘equity,’ as if the concept of holistic approaches to public health were new). Article 6. Preparedness, health system resilience and recovery 2. Each Party commits…[to] : (a) routine and essential health services during pandemics with a focus on primary health care, routine immunization and mental health care, and with particular attention to persons in vulnerable situations (b) developing, strengthening and maintaining health infrastructure (c) developing post-pandemic health system recovery strategies (d) developing, strengthening and maintaining: health information systems This is good, and (a) seems to require avoidance of lockdowns (which inevitably cause the harms listed). Unfortunately other WHO documents lead one to assume this is not the intent…It does appear therefore that this is simply another list of fairly non-specific feel-good measures that have no useful place in a new legally-binding agreement, and which most countries are already undertaking. (e) promoting the use of social and behavioural sciences, risk communication and community engagement for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. This requires clarification, as the use of behavioral science during the Covid-19 response involved deliberate inducement of fear to promote behaviors that people would not otherwise follow (e.g. Spi-B). It is essential here that the document clarifies how behavioral science should be used ethically in healthcare. Otherwise, this is also a quite meaningless provision. Article 7. Health and care workforce This long Article discusses health workforce, training, retention, non-discrimination, stigma, bias, adequate remuneration, and other standard provisions for workplaces. It is unclear why it is included in a legally binding pandemic agreement, except for: 4. [The Parties]…shall invest in establishing, sustaining, coordinating and mobilizing a skilled and trained multidisciplinary global public health emergency workforce…Parties having established emergency health teams should inform WHO thereof and make best efforts to respond to requests for deployment… Emergency health teams established (within capacity etc.) – are something countries already do, when they have capacity. There is no reason to have this as a legally-binding instrument, and clearly no urgency to do so. Article 8. Preparedness monitoring and functional reviews 1. The Parties shall, building on existing and relevant tools, develop and implement an inclusive, transparent, effective and efficient pandemic prevention, preparedness and response monitoring and evaluation system. 2. Each Party shall assess, every five years, with technical support from the WHO Secretariat upon request, the functioning and readiness of, and gaps in, its pandemic prevention, preparedness and response capacity, based on the relevant tools and guidelines developed by WHO in partnership with relevant organizations at international, regional and sub-regional levels. Note that this is being required of countries that are already struggling to implement monitoring systems for major endemic diseases, including tuberculosis, malaria, HIV, and nutritional deficiencies. They will be legally bound to divert resources to pandemic prevention. While there is some overlap, it will inevitably divert resources from currently underfunded programs for diseases of far higher local burdens, and so (not theoretically, but inevitably) raise mortality. Poor countries are being required to put resources into problems deemed significant by richer countries. Article 9. Research and development Various general provisions about undertaking background research that countries are generally doing anyway, but with an ’emerging disease’ slant. Again, the INB fails to justify why this diversion of resources from researching greater disease burdens should occur in all countries (why not just those with excess resources?). Article 10. Sustainable and geographically diversified production Mostly non-binding but suggested cooperation on making pandemic-related products available, including support for manufacturing in “inter-pandemic times” (a fascinating rendering of ‘normal’), when they would only be viable through subsidies. Much of this is probably unimplementable, as it would not be practical to maintain facilities in most or all countries on stand-by for rare events, at cost of resources otherwise useful for other priorities. The desire to increase production in ‘developing’ countries will face major barriers and costs in terms of maintaining quality of production, particularly as many products will have limited use outside of rare outbreak situations. Article 11. Transfer of technology and know-how This article, always problematic for large pharmaceutical corporations sponsoring much WHO outbreak activities, is now watered down to weak requirements to ‘consider,’ promote,’ provide, within capabilities’ etc. Article 12. Access and benefit sharing This Article is intended to establish the WHO Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (PABS System). PABS is intended to “ensure rapid, systematic and timely access to biological materials of pathogens with pandemic potential and the genetic sequence data.” This system is of potential high relevance and needs to be interpreted in the context that SARS-CoV-2, the pathogen causing the recent Covid-19 outbreak, was highly likely to have escaped from a laboratory. PABS is intended to expand the laboratory storage, transport, and handling of such viruses, under the oversight of the WHO, an organization outside of national jurisdiction with no significant direct experience in handling biological materials. 3. When a Party has access to a pathogen [it shall]: (a) share with WHO any pathogen sequence information as soon as it is available to the Party; (b) as soon as biological materials are available to the Party, provide the materials to one or more laboratories and/or biorepositories participating in WHO-coordinated laboratory networks (CLNs), Subsequent clauses state that benefits will be shared, and seek to prevent recipient laboratories from patenting materials received from other countries. This has been a major concern of low-and middle-income countries previously, who perceive that institutions in wealthy countries patent and benefit from materials derived from less-wealthy populations. It remains to be seen whether provisions here will be sufficient to address this. The article then becomes yet more concerning: 6. WHO shall conclude legally binding standard PABS contracts with manufacturers to provide the following, taking into account the size, nature and capacities of the manufacturer: (a) annual monetary contributions to support the PABS System and relevant capacities in countries; the determination of the annual amount, use, and approach for monitoring and accountability, shall be finalized by the Parties; (b) real-time contributions of relevant diagnostics, therapeutics or vaccines produced by the manufacturer, 10% free of charge and 10% at not-for-profit prices during public health emergencies of international concern or pandemics, … It is clearly intended that the WHO becomes directly involved in setting up legally binding manufacturing contracts, despite the WHO being outside of national jurisdictional oversight, within the territories of Member States. The PABS system, and therefore its staff and dependent entities, are also to be supported in part by funds from the manufacturers whom they are supposed to be managing. The income of the organization will be dependent on maintaining positive relationships with these private entities in a similar way in which many national regulatory agencies are dependent upon funds from pharmaceutical companies whom their staff ostensibly regulate. In this case, the regulator will be even further removed from public oversight. The clause on 10% (why 10?) products being free of charge, and similar at cost, while ensuring lower-priced commodities irrespective of actual need (the outbreak may be confined to wealthy countries). The same entity, the WHO, will determine whether the triggering emergency exists, determine the response, and manage the contracts to provide the commodities, without direct jurisdictional oversight regarding the potential for corruption or conflict of interest. It is a remarkable system to suggest, irrespective of political or regulatory environment. 8. The Parties shall cooperate…public financing of research and development, prepurchase agreements, or regulatory procedures, to encourage and facilitate as many manufacturers as possible to enter into standard PABS contracts as early as possible. The article envisions that public funding will be used to build the process, ensuring essentially no-risk private profit. 10. To support operationalization of the PABS System, WHO shall…make such contracts public, while respecting commercial confidentiality. The public may know whom contracts are made with, but not all details of the contracts. There will therefore be no independent oversight of the clauses agreed between the WHO, a body outside of national jurisdiction and dependent of commercial companies for funding some of its work and salaries, and these same companies, on ‘needs’ that the WHO itself will have sole authority, under the proposed amendments to the IHR, to determine. The Article further states that the WHO shall use its own product regulatory system (prequalification) and Emergency Use Listing Procedure to open and stimulate markets for the manufacturers of these products. It is doubtful that any national government could make such an overall agreement, yet in May 2024 they will be voting to provide this to what is essentially a foreign, and partly privately financed, entity. Article 13. Supply chain and logistics The WHO will become convenor of a ‘Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network’ for commercially-produced products, to be supplied under WHO contracts when and where the WHO determines, whilst also having the role of ensuring safety of such products. Having mutual support coordinated between countries is good. Having this run by an organization that is significantly funded directly by those gaining from the sale of these same commodities seems reckless and counterintuitive. Few countries would allow this (or at least plan for it). For this to occur safely, the WHO would logically have to forgo all private investment, and greatly restrict national specified funding contributions. Otherwise, the conflicts of interest involved would destroy confidence in the system. There is no suggestion of such divestment from the WHO, but rather, as in Article 12, private sector dependency, directly tied to contracts, will increase. Article 13bis: National procurement- and distribution-related provisions While suffering the same (perhaps unavoidable) issues regarding commercial confidentiality, this alternate Article 13 seems far more appropriate, keeping commercial issues under national jurisdiction and avoiding the obvious conflict of interests that underpin funding for WHO activities and staffing. Article 14. Regulatory systems strengthening This entire Article reflects initiatives and programs already in place. Nothing here appears likely to add to current effort. Article 15. Liability and compensation management 1. Each Party shall consider developing, as necessary and in accordance with applicable law, national strategies for managing liability in its territory related to pandemic vaccines…no-fault compensation mechanisms… 2. The Parties…shall develop recommendations for the establishment and implementation of national, regional and/or global no-fault compensation mechanisms and strategies for managing liability during pandemic emergencies, including with regard to individuals that are in a humanitarian setting or vulnerable situations. This is quite remarkable, but also reflects some national legislation, in removing any fault or liability specifically from vaccine manufacturers, for harms done in pushing out vaccines to the public. During the Covid-19 response, genetic therapeutics being developed by BioNtech and Moderna were reclassified as vaccines, on the basis that an immune response is stimulated after they have modified intracellular biochemical pathways as a medicine normally does. This enabled specific trials normally required for carcinogenicity and teratogenicity to be bypassed, despite raised fetal abnormality rates in animal trials. It will enable the CEPI 100-day vaccine program, supported with private funding to support private mRNA vaccine manufacturers, to proceed without any risk to the manufacturer should there be subsequent public harm. Together with an earlier provision on public funding of research and manufacturing readiness, and the removal of former wording requiring intellectual property sharing in Article 11, this ensures vaccine manufacturers and their investors make profit in effective absence of risk. These entities are currently heavily invested in support for WHO, and were strongly aligned with the introduction of newly restrictive outbreak responses that emphasized and sometimes mandated their products during the Covid-19 outbreak. Article 16. International collaboration and cooperation A somewhat pointless article. It suggests that countries cooperate with each other and the WHO to implement the other agreements in the Agreement. Article 17. Whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches A list of essentially motherhood provisions related to planning for a pandemic. However, countries will legally be required to maintain a ‘national coordination multisectoral body’ for PPPR. This will essentially be an added burden on budgets, and inevitably divert further resources from other priorities. Perhaps just strengthening current infectious disease and nutritional programs would be more impactful. (Nowhere in this Agreement is nutrition discussed (essential for resilience to pathogens) and minimal wording is included on sanitation and clean water (other major reasons for reduction in infectious disease mortality over past centuries). However, the ‘community ownership’ wording is interesting (“empower and enable community ownership of, and contribution to, community readiness for and resilience [for PPPR]”), as this directly contradicts much of the rest of the Agreement, including the centralization of control under the Conference of Parties, requirements for countries to allocate resources to pandemic preparedness over other community priorities, and the idea of inspecting and assessing adherence to the centralized requirements of the Agreement. Either much of the rest of the Agreement is redundant, or this wording is purely for appearance and not to be followed (and therefore should be removed). Article 18. Communication and public awareness 1. Each Party shall promote timely access to credible and evidence-based information …with the aim of countering and addressing misinformation or disinformation… 2. The Parties shall, as appropriate, promote and/or conduct research and inform policies on factors that hinder or strengthen adherence to public health and social measures in a pandemic, as well as trust in science and public health institutions and agencies. The key word is as appropriate, given that many agencies, including the WHO, have overseen or aided policies during the Covid-19 response that have greatly increased poverty, child marriage, teenage pregnancy, and education loss. As the WHO has been shown to be significantly misrepresenting pandemic risk in the process of advocating for this Agreement and related instruments, its own communications would also fall outside the provision here related to evidence-based information, and fall within normal understandings of misinformation. It could not therefore be an arbiter of correctness of information here, so the Article is not implementable. Rewritten to recommend accurate evidence-based information being promoted, it would make good sense, but this is not an issue requiring a legally binding international agreement. Article 19. Implementation and support 3. The WHO Secretariat…organize the technical and financial assistance necessary to address such gaps and needs in implementing the commitments agreed upon under the Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations (2005). As the WHO is dependent on donor support, its ability to address gaps in funding within Member States is clearly not something it can guarantee. The purpose of this article is unclear, repeating in paragraphs 1 and 2 the earlier intent for countries to generally support each other. Article 20. Sustainable financing 1. The Parties commit to working together…In this regard, each Party, within the means and resources at its disposal, shall: (a) prioritize and maintain or increase, as necessary, domestic funding for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, without undermining other domestic public health priorities including for: (i) strengthening and sustaining capacities for the prevention, preparedness and response to health emergencies and pandemics, in particular the core capacities of the International Health Regulations (2005);… This is silly wording, as countries obviously have to prioritize within budgets, so that moving funds to one area means removing from another. The essence of public health policy is weighing and making such decisions; this reality seems to be ignored here through wishful thinking. (a) is clearly redundant, as the IHR (2005) already exists and countries have agreed to support it. 3. A Coordinating Financial Mechanism (the “Mechanism”) is hereby established to support the implementation of both the WHO Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations (2005) This will be in parallel to the Pandemic Fund recently commenced by the World Bank – an issue not lost on INB delegates and so likely to change here in the final version. It will also be additive to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and other health financing mechanisms, and so require another parallel international bureaucracy, presumably based in Geneva. It is intended to have its own capacity to “conduct relevant analyses on needs and gaps, in addition to tracking cooperation efforts,” so it will not be a small undertaking. Chapter III. Institutional and final provisions Article 21. Conference of the Parties 1. A Conference of the Parties is hereby established. 2. The Conference of the Parties shall keep under regular review, every three years, the implementation of the WHO Pandemic Agreement and take the decisions necessary to promote its effective implementation. This sets up the governing body to oversee this Agreement (another body requiring a secretariat and support). It is intended to meet within a year of the Agreement coming into force, and then set its own rules on meeting thereafter. It is likely that many provisions outlined in this draft of the Agreement will be deferred to the COP for further discussion. Articles 22 – 37 These articles cover the functioning of the Conference of Parties (COP) and various administrative issues. Of note, ‘block votes’ will be allowed from regional bodies (e.g. the EU). The WHO will provide the secretariat. Under Article 24 is noted: 3. Nothing in the WHO Pandemic Agreement shall be interpreted as providing the Secretariat of the World Health Organization, including the WHO Director-General, any authority to direct, order, alter or otherwise prescribe the domestic laws or policies of any Party, or to mandate or otherwise impose any requirements that Parties take specific actions, such as ban or accept travellers, impose vaccination mandates or therapeutic or diagnostic measures, or implement lockdowns. These provisions are explicitly stated in the proposed amendments to the IHR, to be considered alongside this agreement. Article 26 notes that the IHR is to be interpreted as compatible, thereby confirming that the IHR provisions including border closures and limits on freedom of movement, mandated vaccination, and other lockdown measures are not negated by this statement. As Article 26 states: “The Parties recognize that the WHO Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations should be interpreted so as to be compatible.” Some would consider this subterfuge – The Director-General recently labeled as liars those who claimed the Agreement included these powers, whilst failing to acknowledge the accompanying IHR amendments. The WHO could do better in avoiding misleading messaging, especially when this involves denigration of the public. Article 32 (Withdrawal) requires that, once adopted, Parties cannot withdraw for a total of 3 years (giving notice after a minimum of 2 years). Financial obligations undertaken under the agreement continue beyond that time. Finally, the Agreement will come into force, assuming a two-thirds majority in the WHA is achieved (Article 19, WHO Constitution), 30 days after the fortieth country has ratified it. Further reading: WHO Pandemic Agreement Intergovernmental Negotiating Board website: https://inb.who.int/ International Health Regulations Working Group website: https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/index.html On background to the WHO texts: Amendments to WHO’s International Health Regulations: An Annotated Guide An Unofficial Q&A on International Health Regulations On urgency and burden of pandemics: https://essl.leeds.ac.uk/downloads/download/228/rational-policy-over-panic Disease X and Davos: This is Not the Way to Evaluate and Formulate Public Health Policy Before Preparing for Pandemics, We Need Better Evidence of Risk Revised Draft of the negotiating text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement: Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author. Authors David Bell David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health. He is a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organization (WHO), Programme Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, Switzerland, and Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in Bellevue, WA, USA. View all posts Thi Thuy Van Dinh Dr. Thi Thuy Van Dinh (LLM, PhD) worked on international law in the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Subsequently, she managed multilateral organization partnerships for Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund and led environmental health technology development efforts for low-resource settings. View all posts Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work. https://brownstone.org/articles/the-who-pandemic-agreement-a-guide/ https://www.minds.com/donshafi911/blog/the-who-pandemic-agreement-a-guide-1621719398509187077
    BROWNSTONE.ORG
    The WHO Pandemic Agreement: A Guide ⋆ Brownstone Institute
    The commentary below concentrates on selected draft provisions of the latest publicly available version of the draft agreement that seem to be unclear or potentially problematic.
    Like
    1
    0 Comentários 0 Compartilhamentos 100500 Visualizações
Páginas impulsionada