Get Ready to Be Muzzled: The Coming War on So-Called Hate Speech

by John W. Whitehead & Nisha Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute
May 18, 2022

“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freedom of speech.”
—Benjamin Franklin

Beware of those who want to monitor, muzzle, catalogue and censor speech.

Especially be on your guard when the reasons given for limiting your freedoms end up expanding the government’s powers.

In the wake of a mass shooting in Buffalo, NY, carried out by an 18-year-old gunman in military gear allegedly motivated by fears that the white race is in danger of being replaced, there have been renewed calls for social media monitoring, censorship of flagged content that could be construed as dangerous or hateful, and limitations on free speech activities, particularly online.

As expected, those who want safety at all costs will clamor for more gun control measures (if not at an outright ban on weapons for non-military, non-police personnel), widespread mental health screening of the general population and greater scrutiny of military veterans, more threat assessments and behavioral sensing warnings, more surveillance cameras with facial recognition capabilities, more “See Something, Say Something” programs aimed at turning Americans into snitches and spies, more metal detectors and whole-body imaging devices at soft targets, more roaming squads of militarized police empowered to do random bag searches, more fusion centers to centralize and disseminate information to law enforcement agencies, and more surveillance of what Americans say and do, where they go, what they buy and how they spend their time.

All of these measures play into the government’s hands.

As we have learned the hard way, the phantom promise of safety in exchange for restricted or regulated liberty is a false, misguided doctrine that serves only to give the government greater authority to crack down, lock down, and institute even more totalitarian policies for the so-called sake of national security without many objections from the citizenry.

Add the Department of Homeland Security’s “Disinformation Governance Board” to that mix, empower it to monitor online activity and police so-called “disinformation,” and you have the makings of a restructuring of reality straight out of Orwell’s 1984, where the Ministry of Truth polices speech and ensures that facts conform to whatever version of reality the government propagandists embrace.

After all, it’s a slippery slope from censoring so-called illegitimate ideas to silencing truth.

Eventually, as George Orwell predicted, telling the truth will become a revolutionary act.

If the government can control speech, it can control thought and, in turn, it can control the minds of the citizenry.

It’s been a long time since free speech was actually free.

On paper—at least according to the U.S. Constitution—we are technically free to speak.

In reality, however, we are only as free to speak as a government official—or corporate entities such as Facebook, Google or YouTube—may allow.

That’s not a whole lot of freedom, especially if you’re inclined to voice opinions that may be construed as conspiratorial or dangerous.

This steady, pervasive censorship creep clothed in tyrannical self-righteousness and inflicted on us by technological behemoths (both corporate and governmental) is technofascism, and it does not tolerate dissent.

These internet censors are not acting in our best interests to protect us from dangerous, disinformation campaigns. They’re laying the groundwork now to preempt any “dangerous” ideas that might challenge the power elite’s stranglehold over our lives.

The internet, hailed as a super-information highway, is increasingly becoming the police state’s secret weapon. This “policing of the mind” is exactly the danger author Jim Keith warned about when he predicted that “information and communication sources are gradually being linked together into a single computerized network, providing an opportunity for unheralded control of what will be broadcast, what will be said, and ultimately what will be thought.”

What we are witnessing is the modern-day equivalent of book burning which involves doing away with dangerous ideas—legitimate or not—and the people who espouse them.

Where we stand now is at the juncture of OldSpeak (where words have meanings, and ideas can be dangerous) and Newspeak (where only that which is “safe” and “accepted” by the majority is permitted). The power elite has made their intentions clear: they will pursue and prosecute any and all words, thoughts and expressions that challenge their authority.

Having been reduced to a cowering citizenry—mute in the face of elected officials who refuse to represent us, helpless in the face of police brutality, powerless in the face of militarized tactics and technology that treat us like enemy combatants on a battlefield, and naked in the face of government surveillance that sees and hears all—we have nowhere left to go and nothing left to say that cannot be misconstrued and used to muzzle us.

Yet what a lot of people fail to understand, however, is that it’s not just what you say or do that is being monitored, but how you think that is being tracked and targeted.

We’ve already seen this play out on the state and federal level with hate crime legislation that cracks down on so-called “hateful” thoughts and expression, encourages self-censoring and reduces free debate on various subject matter.

With every passing day, we’re being moved further down the road towards a totalitarian society characterized by government censorship, violence, corruption, hypocrisy and intolerance, all packaged for our supposed benefit in the Orwellian doublespeak of national security, tolerance and so-called “government speech.”

Little by little, Americans have been conditioned to accept routine incursions on their freedoms.

This is how oppression becomes systemic, what is referred to as creeping normality, or a death by a thousand cuts.

It’s a concept invoked by Pulitzer Prize-winning scientist Jared Diamond to describe how major changes, if implemented slowly in small stages over time, can be accepted as normal without the shock and resistance that might greet a sudden upheaval.

Diamond’s concerns related to Easter Island’s now-vanished civilization and the societal decline and environmental degradation that contributed to it, but it’s a powerful analogy for the steady erosion of our freedoms and decline of our country right under our noses.

As Diamond explains, “In just a few centuries, the people of Easter Island wiped out their forest, drove their plants and animals to extinction, and saw their complex society spiral into chaos and cannibalism… Why didn’t they look around, realize what they were doing, and stop before it was too late? What were they thinking when they cut down the last palm tree?”

His answer: “I suspect that the disaster happened not with a bang but with a whimper.”

Much like America’s own colonists, Easter Island’s early colonists discovered a new world—“a pristine paradise”—teeming with life. Yet almost 2000 years after its first settlers arrived, Easter Island was reduced to a barren graveyard by a populace so focused on their immediate needs that they failed to preserve paradise for future generations.

The same could be said of the America today: it, too, is being reduced to a barren graveyard by a populace so focused on their immediate needs that they are failing to preserve freedom for future generations.

In Easter Island’s case, as Diamond speculates:

“The forest…vanished slowly, over decades. Perhaps war interrupted the moving teams; perhaps by the time the carvers had finished their work, the last rope snapped. In the meantime, any islander who tried to warn about the dangers of progressive deforestation would have been overridden by vested interests of carvers, bureaucrats, and chiefs, whose jobs depended on continued deforestation… The changes in forest cover from year to year would have been hard to detect… Only older people, recollecting their childhoods decades earlier, could have recognized a difference. Gradually trees became fewer, smaller, and less important. By the time the last fruit-bearing adult palm tree was cut, palms had long since ceased to be of economic significance. That left only smaller and smaller palm saplings to clear each year, along with other bushes and treelets. No one would have noticed the felling of the last small palm.”

Sound painfully familiar yet?

We’ve already torn down the rich forest of liberties established by our founders. It has vanished slowly, over the decades. Those who warned against the dangers posed by too many laws, invasive surveillance, militarized police, SWAT team raids and the like have been silenced and ignored. They stopped teaching about freedom in the schools. Few Americans know their history. And even fewer seem to care that their fellow Americans are being jailed, muzzled, shot, tasered, and treated as if they have no rights at all.

The erosion of our freedoms happened so incrementally, no one seemed to notice. Only the older generations, remembering what true freedom was like, recognized the difference. Gradually, the freedoms enjoyed by the citizenry became fewer, smaller and less important. By the time the last freedom falls, no one will know the difference.

This is how tyranny rises and freedom falls: with a thousand cuts, each one justified or ignored or shrugged over as inconsequential enough by itself to bother, but they add up.

Each cut, each attempt to undermine our freedoms, each loss of some critical right—to think freely, to assemble, to speak without fear of being shamed or censored, to raise our children as we see fit, to worship or not worship as our conscience dictates, to eat what we want and love who we want, to live as we want—they add up to an immeasurable failure on the part of each and every one of us to stop the descent down that slippery slope.

We are on that downward slope now.

The contagion of fear that has been spread with the help of government agencies, corporations and the power elite is poisoning the well, whitewashing our history, turning citizen against citizen, and stripping us of our rights.

America is approaching another reckoning right now, one that will pit our commitment to freedom principles against a level of fear-mongering that is being used to wreak havoc on everything in its path.

Yet as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, while we squabble over which side is winning this losing battle, a tsunami approaches.

Connect with The Rutherford Institute

cover image credit: CDD20 

How Did 274,000 Babies End Up on Psychiatric Meds?

by Dr. Joseph Mercola
March 10, 2022

Story-at-a-Glance

• An estimated 21 million American adults experienced at least one major depressive episode in 2020. The highest rates reported for the past several years have consistently been among those aged between 18 and 25

• The vast majority are prescribed antidepressant drugs, despite the fact there’s virtually no evidence to suggest they provide meaningful help, and plenty of evidence showing the harms are greater than patients are being told

• Hundreds of thousands of toddlers are also being medicated with powerful psychiatric drugs, raising serious ethical questions, along with questions about the future mental and physical health of these children

• There’s no scientific evidence to suggest depression is the result of a chemical imbalance in your brain. A lot of the evidence suggests unhealthy living conditions are at the heart of the problem

• Antidepressants are not beneficial in the long term and antipsychotic drugs worsen outcomes over the long term in those diagnosed with psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia

This article was previously published September 19, 2019, and has been updated with new information.

In the U.S., an estimated 21 million American adults experienced at least one major depressive episode in 2020.¹ The reported numbers for the past several years² have consistently been highest among those aged between 18 and 25.³ However, not only is there evidence that depression is vastly overdiagnosed, but there’s also evidence showing it’s routinely mistreated.

With regard to overdiagnosis, it’s been ongoing for a long time, with one 2013 study⁴ finding only 38.4% of participants with clinician-identified depression actually met the DSM-4 criteria for a major depressive episode, and only 14.3% of seniors 65 and older met the criteria.

As for treatment, the vast majority are prescribed antidepressant drugs, despite the fact there’s little to no evidence to suggest they provide meaningful help, and plenty of evidence showing the harms are greater than patients are being told.

According to a 2017 study,⁵ 1 in 6 Americans between the ages of 18 and 85 were on psychiatric drugs, most of them antidepressants, and 84.3% reported long-term use (three years or more). Out of 242 million U.S. adults, 12% were found to have filled one or more prescriptions for an antidepressant, specifically, in 2013. By 2021 in the midst of the pandemic, 1 in 4 Americans over age 18, or 50 million persons, were on prescription mental health drugs.⁶

According to data⁷ presented by a watchdog group in 2014, hundreds of thousands of toddlers are also being medicated with powerful psychiatric drugs, raising serious ethical questions, along with questions about the future mental and physical health of these children.

And, a study published in The BMJ in 2013⁸ found that “In utero exposure to both SSRIs and non-selective monoamine reuptake inhibitors (tricyclic antidepressants) was associated with an increased risk of autism spectrum disorders, particularly without intellectual disability” in the offspring.

Studies are also shedding much needed light on the addictive nature of many antidepressants, and demonstrate that the benefits of these drugs have been overblown while their side effects — including suicidal ideation — and have been downplayed and ignored for decades, placing patients at unnecessary risk.

The Chemical Imbalance Myth

One researcher responsible for raising awareness about these important mental health issues is professor Peter C. Gøtzsche, a Danish physician-researcher and outspoken critic of the drug industry (as his book, “Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare,”⁹ suggests).

Gøtzsche helped found the Cochrane Collaboration in 1993 and later launched the Nordic Cochrane Centre. In 2018, he was expelled by the Cochrane governing board following the publication of a scathing critique of a Cochrane review of the HPV in which he and his coauthors pointed out several methodological flaws and conflicts of interest.

Over the past several years, Gøtzsche has published a number of scientific papers on antidepressants and media articles and a book discussing the findings. In a June 28, 2019 article,¹⁰ Gøtzsche addresses “the harmful myth” about chemical imbalances — a debunked hypothesis that continues to drive the use of antidepressants to this day. He writes, in part:¹¹

“Psychiatrists routinely tell their patients that they are ill because they have a chemical imbalance in the brain and they will receive a drug that fixes this …

Last summer, one of my researchers and I collected information about depression from 39 popular websites in 10 countries, and we found that 29 (74%) websites attributed depression to a chemical imbalance or claimed that antidepressants could fix or correct that imbalance …

It has never been possible to show that common mental disorders start with a chemical imbalance in the brain. The studies that have claimed this are all unreliable.¹²

A difference in dopamine levels, for example, between patients with schizophrenia and healthy people cannot tell us anything about what started the psychosis … [I]f a lion attacks us, we get terribly frightened and produce stress hormones, but this does not prove that it was the stress hormones that made us scared.

People with psychoses have often suffered traumatic experiences in the past, so we should see these traumas as contributing causal factors and not reduce suffering to some biochemical imbalance that, if it exists at all, is more likely to be the result of the psychosis rather than its cause.¹³

The myth about chemical imbalance is very harmful. It makes people believe there is something seriously wrong with them, and sometimes they are even told that it is hereditary.

The result of this is that patients continue to take harmful drugs, year after year, perhaps even for the entirety of their lives. They fear what would happen if they stopped, particularly when the psychiatrists have told them that their situation is like patients with diabetes needing insulin.”

Real Cause of Depression Is Typically Ignored

According to Gøtzsche, there is no known mental health issue that is caused by an imbalance of brain chemicals. In many cases, the true cause is unknown, but “very often, it is a response to unhealthy living conditions,” he writes.¹⁴

He also cites the book,¹⁵ “Anxiety — The Inside Story: How Biological Psychiatry Got It Wrong,” written by Dr. Niall McLaren, in which the author shows that anxiety is a major factor in and trigger of most psychiatric disorders.

“A psychiatrist I respect highly, who only uses psychiatric drugs in rare cases … has said that most people are depressed because they live depressing lives,” Gøtzsche writes.

“No drug can help them live better lives. It has never been shown in placebo-controlled trials that a psychiatric drug can improve people’s lives — e.g., help them return to work, improve their social relationships or performance at school, or prevent crime and delinquency. The drugs worsen people’s lives, at least in the long run.¹⁶“

Gøtzsche rightfully points out that antipsychotic drugs create chemical imbalances; they don’t fix them. As a group, they’re also somewhat misnamed, as they do not address psychotic states. Rather, they are tranquilizers, rendering the patient passive. However, calming the patient down does not actually help them heal the underlying trauma that, in many cases, is what triggered the psychosis in the first place.

As noted in one 2012 meta-analysis¹⁷ of studies looking at childhood trauma — including sexual abuse, physical abuse, emotional/psychological abuse, neglect, parental death and bullying — and subsequent risk of psychosis:

“There were significant associations between adversity and psychosis across all research designs … Patients with psychosis were 2.72 times more likely to have been exposed to childhood adversity than controls … The estimated population attributable risk was 33% (16%-47%). These findings indicate that childhood adversity is strongly associated with increased risk for psychosis.”

Economy of Influence in Psychiatry

A related article,¹⁸ written by investigative journalist Robert Whitaker in 2017, addresses the “economy of influence” driving the use of antidepressant drugs in psychiatric treatment — and the “social injury” that results. As noted by Whitaker, mental disorders were initially categorized according to a disease model in 1980 by the American Psychiatric Association.

“We’re all familiar with the second ‘economy of influence’ that has exerted a corrupting influence on psychiatry — pharmaceutical money — but I believe the guild influence is really the bigger problem,” he writes.

Whitaker details the corruption within the APA in his book “Psychiatry Under the Influence,” one facet of which is “the false story told to the public about drugs that fixed chemical imbalances in the brain.” Other forms of corrupt behavior include:

• The biased designs of clinical trials to achieve a predetermined result
• Spinning results to support preconceived conclusions
• Hiding poor long-term outcomes
• Expanding diagnostic categories for the purpose of commercial gain
• Creating clinical trial guidelines that promote drug use

In his article, Whitaker goes on to dissect a 2017 review¹⁹ published in the American Journal of Psychiatry, which Whitaker claims “defends the profession’s current protocols for prescribing antipsychotics, which includes their regular long-term use.”

As Whitaker points out, there’s ample evidence showing antipsychotic drugs worsen outcomes over the long term in those diagnosed with psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia.

The review in question, led by American psychiatrist Dr. Jeffrey A. Lieberman, was aimed at answering persistent questions raised by the mounting of such evidence. Alas, their conclusions dismissed concerns that the current drug paradigm might be doing more harm than good.

“In a subsequent press release and a video for a Medscape commentary, Lieberman has touted it as proving that antipsychotics provide a great benefit, psychiatry’s protocols are just fine, and that the critics are ‘nefarious’ individuals intent on doing harm,” Whitaker writes.²⁰

The Scientific Bias of Psychiatric Treatment

Five of the eight researchers listed on the review have financial ties to drug companies, three are speakers for multiple drug companies and all eight are psychiatrists, “and thus there is a ‘guild’ interest present in this review, given that they are investigating whether one of their treatments is harmful over the long-term,” Whitaker notes.²¹

Not surprisingly, the review ignored studies showing negative effects, including studies showing antipsychotics have a detrimental effect on brain volume. What’s more, while withdrawal studies support the use of antipsychotics as maintenance therapy over the long term, these studies do not address how the drugs affect patients’ long-term health.

“They simply reveal that once a person has stabilized on the medication, going abruptly off the drug is likely to lead to relapse,” Whitaker writes.²² “The focus on long-term outcomes, at least as presented by critics, provides evidence that psychiatry should adopt a selective-use protocol.

If first-episode patients are not immediately put on antipsychotics, there is a significant percentage that will recover, and this ‘spontaneous recovery’ puts them onto a good long-term course. As for patients treated with the medications, the goal would be to minimize long-term use, as there is evidence that antipsychotics, on the whole, worsen long-term outcomes.”

Vast Majority of Psychotic Patients Are Harmed, Not Helped

In his deconstruction of Lieberman’s review, Whitaker details how biased thinking influenced the review’s conclusions. It’s a rather long article, but well worth reading through if you want to understand how a scientific review can be skewed to accord with a preconceived view.

Details I want to highlight, however, include findings relating to the number needed to treat (NNT) and the percentage of patients harmed by the routine use of antipsychotic drugs as a first-line treatment.

As noted by Whitaker, while placebo-controlled studies reveal the effectiveness of a drug compared to an inert substance, they do not effectively reveal the ratio of benefit versus harm among the patient population. NNT refers to the number of patients that have to take the drug in order to get one positive response.

A meta-analysis cited in Lieberman’s review had an NNT of 6, meaning that six patients must take the drug in order for one to benefit from the treatment. The remaining five patients — 83% — are potentially harmed by the treatment. As noted by Whitaker:²³

“The point … is this: reviewers seeking to promote their drug treatment as effective will look solely at whether it produces a superior response to placebo. This leads to a one-size-fits-all protocol.

Reviewers that want to assess the benefit-harm effect of the treatment on all patients will look at NNT numbers. In this instance, the NNT calculations argue for selective use of the drugs …”

Antidepressants Are Not Beneficial in the Long Term

While typically not as destructive as antipsychotics, antidepressants also leave a trail of destruction in their wake. A systematic review²⁴ by Gøtzsche published in 2019 found studies assessing harm from selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) fail to provide a clear and accurate picture of the harms, and therefore “cannot be used to investigate persistent harms of antidepressants.”

In this review, Gøtzsche and colleagues sought to assess “harms of SSRIs … that persist after end of drug intake.” The primary outcomes included mortality, functional outcomes, quality of life and core psychiatric events. In all, 22 papers on 12 SSRI trials were included. Gøtzsche found several distinct problems with these trials. For starters, only two of the 12 trials had a drop-out rate below 20%.

Gøtzsche and his team also note that “Outcome reporting was less thorough during follow-up than for the intervention period and only two trials maintained the blind during follow-up.” Importantly, though, all of the 22 papers came to the conclusion that “the drugs were not beneficial in the long term.”

Another important finding was that all trials either “reported harms outcomes selectively or did not report any,” and “Only two trials reported on any of our primary outcomes (school attendance and number of heavy drinking days).”

A few years later, in April 2022, a study using data from the United States’ Medical Expenditures Panel Survey for patients who had depression found, “The real-world effect of using antidepressant medications does not continue to improve patients” health-related quality of life (HRQoL) over time.²⁵

Antidepressants Are More Addictive Than Admitted

In a June 4, 2019, article,²⁶ “The Depression Pill Epidemic,” Gøtzsche writes that antidepressant drugs:

“… do not have relevant effects on depression; they increase the risk of suicide and violence; and they make it more difficult for patients to live normal lives.²⁷ They should therefore be avoided.

We have been fooled by the drug industry, corrupt doctors on industry payroll, and by our drug regulators.²⁸ Surely, many patients and doctors believe the pills are helpful, but they cannot know this, because people tend to become much better with time even if they are not treated.²⁹

This is why we need placebo-controlled trials to find out what the drugs do to people. Unfortunately, virtually all trials are flawed, exaggerate the benefits of the drugs, and underestimate their harms.”³⁰

Addictive Nature of Antidepressants Skews Results

In his article,³¹ Gøtzsche reviews several of the strategies used in antidepressant drug trials to exaggerate benefits and underestimate the harms. One little-known truth that helps skew study results in the drug’s favor is the fact that antidepressants tend to be far more addictive than officially admitted. He explains how this conveniently hides the skewing of results as follows:³²

“Virtually all patients in the trials are already on a drug similar to the one being tested against placebo. Therefore, as the drugs are addictive, some of the patients will get abstinence symptoms … when randomized to placebo …

These abstinence symptoms are very similar to those patients experience when they try to stop benzodiazepines. It is no wonder that new drugs outperform the placebo in patients who have experienced harm as a result of cold turkey effects.

To find out how long patients need to continue taking drugs, so-called maintenance (withdrawal) studies have been carried out, but such studies also are compromised by cold turkey effects. Leading psychiatrists don’t understand this, or they pretend they don’t.

Most interpret the maintenance studies of depression pills to mean that these drugs are very effective at preventing new episodes of depression and that patients should therefore continue taking the drugs for years or even for life.”

Scientific Literature Supports Reality of User Complaints

Over the years, several studies on the dependence and withdrawal reactions associated with SSRIs and other psychiatric drugs have been published, including the following:

Antidepressants Increase Your Risk of Suicide and Violence

In his June 2019 article,³⁶ Gøtzsche also stresses the fact that antidepressants can be lethal. In one of his studies,³⁷ published in 2016, he found antidepressants “double the occurrence of events that can lead to suicide and violence in healthy adult volunteers.”

Other research³⁸ has shown they “increase aggression in children and adolescents by a factor of 2 to 3 — an important finding considering the many school shootings where the killers were on depression pills,” Gøtzsche writes.

In middle-aged women with stress urinary incontinence, the selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) duloxetine, which is also used to treat incontinence, has been shown to double the risk of a psychotic episode and increase the risk of violence and suicide four to five times,³⁹ leading the authors to conclude that harms outweighed the benefits.

“I have described the dirty tricks and scientific dishonesty involved when drug companies and leading psychiatrists try convincing us that these drugs protect against suicide and other forms of violence,”⁴⁰ Gøtzsche writes.⁴¹ “Even the FDA was forced to give in when it admitted in 2007, at least indirectly, that depression pills can cause suicide and madness at any age.

There is no doubt that the massive use of depression pills is harmful. In all countries where this relationship has been examined, the sharp rise in disability pensions due to psychiatric disorders has coincided with the rise of psychiatric drug usage, and depression pills are those which are used the most by far. This is not what one would expect if the drugs were helpful.”

Drugmaker Lied About Paxil’s Suicide Risk

In 2017, Wendy Dolin was awarded $3 million by a jury in a lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKline, the maker of Paxil. Dolin’s husband committed suicide six days after taking his first dose of a Paxil generic, and evidence brought forth in the case convincingly showed his suicide was the result of the drug, not emotional stress or mental illness.⁴²

The legal team behind that victory, Baum Hedlund Aristei Goldman, also represented other victims of Paxil-induced violence and death. At the time, attorney R. Brent Wisner said:⁴³

“The Dolin verdict sent a clear message to GSK and other drug manufacturers that hiding data and manipulating science will not be tolerated … If you create a drug and know that it poses serious risks, regardless of whether consumers use the brand name or generic version of that drug, you have a duty to warn.”

GSK’s own clinical placebo-controlled trials actually revealed subjects on Paxil had nearly nine times the risk of attempting or committing suicide than the placebo group. To gain drug approval, GSK misrepresented this shocking data, falsely reporting a higher number of suicide attempts in the placebo group and deleting some of the suicide attempts in the drug group.

An internal GSK analysis of its suicide data also showed that “patients taking Paxil were nearly seven times more likely to attempt suicide than those on placebo,” Baum Hedlund Aristei Goldman reports, adding:⁴⁴

“Jurors in the Dolin trial also heard from psychiatrist David Healy, one of the world’s foremost experts on Paxil and drugs in its class … Healy told the jurors that Paxil and drugs like it can create in some people a state of extreme ’emotional turmoil’ and intense inner restlessness known as akathisia …

‘People have described it like a state worse than death. Death will be a blessed relief. I want to jump out of my skin,’ Dr. Healy said. Healthy volunteer studies have found that akathisia can happen even to people with no psychiatric condition who take the drug …

Another Paxil side effect known to increase the risk of suicide is emotional blunting … apathy or emotional indifference … [E]motional blunting, combined with akathisia, can lead to a mental state in which an individual has thoughts of harming themselves or others, but is ‘numbed’ to the consequences of their actions. Drugs in the Paxil class can also cause someone to ‘go psychotic, become delirious,’ Dr. Healy explained.”

Hundreds of Thousands of Toddlers on Psychiatric Drugs

Considering the many serious psychological and physical risks associated with psychiatric drugs, it’s shocking to learn that hundreds of thousands of American toddlers are on them. In 2014, the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, a mental health watchdog group, highlighted data showing that in 2013:⁴⁵

• 274,000 babies aged 1 and younger were given psychiatric drugs — Of these, 249,699 were on anti-anxiety meds like Xanax; 26,406 were on antidepressants such as Prozac or Paxil, 1,422 were on ADHD drugs such as Ritalin and Adderall, and 654 were on antipsychotics such as Risperdal and Zyprexa
• In the toddler category (2- to 3-year-olds), 318,997 were on anti-anxiety drugs, 46,102 were on antidepressants, 10,000 were prescribed ADHD drugs and 3,760 were on antipsychotics
• Among children aged 5 and younger, 1,080,168 were on psychiatric drugs

These are shocking figures that challenge logic. How and why are so many children, babies even, on addictive and dangerously mind-altering medications? Considering these statistics are 6 years old, chances are they’re even higher today. Just what will happen to all of these youngsters as they grow up? As mentioned in the article:⁴⁶

“When it comes to the psychiatric drugs used to treat ADHD, these are referred to as ‘kiddie cocaine’ for a reason. Ritalin (methylphenidate), Adderall (amphetamine) and Concerta are all considered by the federal government as Schedule II drugs — the most addictive.

ADHD drugs also have serious side effects such as agitation, mania, aggressive or hostile behavior, seizures, hallucinations, and even sudden death, according to the National Institutes of Health …

As far as antipsychotics, antianxiety drugs and antidepressants, the FDA and international drug regulatory agencies cite side effects including, but not limited to, psychosis, mania, suicidal ideation, heart attack, stroke, diabetes, and even sudden death.”

Children Increasingly Prescribed Psych Drugs Off-Label

Making matters even worse, recent research shows the number of children being prescribed medication off-label is also on the rise. An example offered by StudyFinds.org,⁴⁷ which reported the findings, is “a doctor recommending antidepressant medication for ADHD symptoms.”

The study,⁴⁸ published in the journal Pediatrics, looked at trends in off-label drug prescriptions made for children under the age of 18 by office-based physicians between 2006 and 2015. Findings revealed:

“Physicians ordered ≥1 off-label systemic drug at 18.5% of visits, usually (74.6%) because of unapproved conditions. Off-label ordering was most common proportionally in neonates (83%) and in absolute terms among adolescents (322 orders out of 1000 visits).

Off-label ordering was associated with female sex, subspecialists, polypharmacy, and chronic conditions. Rates and reasons for off-label orders varied considerably by age. Relative and absolute rates of off-label orders rose over time. Among common classes, off-label orders for antihistamines and several psychotropics increased over time …

US office-based physicians have ordered systemic drugs off label for children at increasing rates, most often for unapproved conditions, despite recent efforts to increase evidence and drug approvals for children.”

The researchers were taken aback by the findings, and expressed serious concern over this trend. While legal, many of the drugs prescribed off-label have not been properly tested to ensure safety and efficacy for young children and adolescents.

As noted by senior author Daniel Horton, assistant professor of pediatrics and pediatric rheumatologist at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, “We don’t always understand how off-label medications will affect children, who don’t always respond to medications as adults do. They may not respond as desired to these drugs and could experience harmful effects.”

In 2020 mental health experts and reviewers were still at-odds over prescribing these drugs for children, yet hesitant to call a stop to it:⁴⁹

“Antidepressants are prescribed for the treatment of a number of psychiatric disorders in children and adolescents, however there is still controversy about whether they should be used in this population …

Treatment decisions should be tailored to patients on an individual basis, so we recommend clinicians, patients and policy makers to refer to the evidence provided in the present meta-review and make decisions about the use of antidepressants in children and adolescents taking into account a number of clinical and personal variables.”

Educate Yourself About the Risks

If you, your child or another family member is on a psychiatric drug, I urge you to educate yourself about the true risks and to consider switching to safer alternatives. When it comes to children, I cannot fathom a situation in which a toddler would need a psychiatric drug and I find it shocking that there are so many doctors out there that, based on a subjective evaluation, would deem a psychiatric drug necessary.

Connect with Dr. Joseph Mercola

cover image credit: dimitrisvetsikas1969 / pixabay

Dr. Sam Bailey: On Health Freedom Advocates Who Attack Anyone Who Dares to Question Virus & Germ Theory | How RFK, Jr. Was Recently Drawn Into the Viral Existence Debate

Truth Comes to Light editor‘s note:  In the video below, Dr. Sam Bailey talks about specific attacks, coming from within the health freedom movement, on the work of those who are questioning the foundations of virus theory.

At this point, most people in the health freedom movement, not to mention the general population, don’t even know that there is a strong debate about the existence of viruses. But awareness is growing.

The so-called, ‘settled science’ of virology must be looked into carefully because, as Dr. Sam Bailey has stated, virus and germ theory “is a system that can and will be used repeatedly to promulgate fear and compliance in the population.”

Dr. Bailey is careful to emphasize that RFK, Jr. is not one of those attacking the work of those who question virology. In this video she shares a segment from a recent public Q&A session wherein Eric Coppolino asks RFK, Jr. some basic questions, pointing to the fact that SARS-C0V-2 has never been shown to exist outside of imagined computer models.

You will find a transcript below the video with links to referenced articles and papers.

RFK Jr. Enters The Viral Existence Debate 

by Dr. Sam Bailey
May 10, 2022

RFK, Jr. has been a tireless campaigner in warning the public about the problems of vaccines.  However, with regards to the viral existence problem, he has been reluctant to get involved.

Let’s find out what happened when he was drawn into the debate in a recent Q&A session…

To listen to RFK’s original Q&A session with Eric Coppolino:
https://chironreturn.org/rfk-jr-acknowledges-controversy-over-existence-of-sars-cov-2-and-of-all-viruses/



Connect with Dr. Sam Bailey

Transcript prepared by Truth Comes to Light:

Dr. Sam Bailey:

Questioning the existence of viruses can be a risky business, as myself and others have found out. However, once you’ve seen the problems with viral theory, it’s not something that can be unseen. It becomes a realization that much of what you were told is factual is not founded in scientific evidence at all. You start to research the material and find that many of the narratives are driven by industry participants and folklore rather than organic science.

While most probably don’t have a dog in the fight, those defending the virus narrative can get pretty hostile.

However, others such as RFK, Jr. simply appear uneasy about mentioning the virus existence issue.

So let’s find out what happened when one of the champions of the health freedom movement was unexpectedly drawn into the debate.

From the start I would like to make it clear that I consider RFK Jr. an ally in promoting health freedom and autonomy. He is a world leader and raising awareness about the risks and ineffectiveness of many vaccines.

I would also say that he has not been ambiguous with regards to his public statements relating to the existence of SARS-CoV-2 or other viruses. As far as I’m aware, he has stated that he believes such viruses exist. Although, in many cases the risks to health and the necessity for a lot of vaccines have been overstated.

I’d also suggest that the virus existence debate does not mean the current health freedom movement will be fractured as some seem to fear.

I don’t mind if other people believe in viruses and germ theory. However, as we point out in ‘Virus Mania’ that is a system that can and will be used repeatedly to promulgate fear and compliance in the population. Once the fatal flaws in the contagion theory are understood, people no longer buy into any of it and don’t get distracted trying to explain different aspects of the scam.

But before we get into RFK Jr.’s recent statements, there have been a few other prominent health freedom fighters who have made forays into the virus existence debate this year.

One was Steve Kirsch. He has been very outspoken about the dangers of the Covid-19 vaccine. Kirsch has realized that many doctors, governments and pharmaceutical companies are playing a game of deception with the public.

But then, on the issue of virus existence he places his faith in the high priests of virology. In early January this year, he decided to announce in his popular blog that SARS-Cov-2 has been isolated and shown to exist.

First, he smeared Drs. Lanka, Kaufman and Cowan with completely inaccurate portrayals of their work and received a huge backlash from his followers in the comment section. Instead of realizing that he might need to conduct his own research into this topic, he then decided to include Christine Massey and myself in the smears.

In a subsequent article 11 days later, curiously Kirsch suggested that we would not front if a live debate was offered.

Well, I can tell you from a series of emails that took place, which Kirsch was part of, that Drs. Bailey times two [Drs. Mark and Samantha Bailey], along with Stefano Scoglio, Drs. Lanka, Cowan and Kaufman, all volunteered to take part in a live debate with any experts that Kirsch was able to produce.

Instead of admitting that he was in over his head, Kirsch posted a third article the following week, embarrassing himself even further with declarations such as: ‘The reason nobody has purified the virus is there is no need to do so in today’s world where gene sequencing is readily available.’  And, ‘if the virus doesn’t exist, then how can 600 labs across the country find the same sequences for the virus in infected samples.’

These kind of statements indicate he’s unaware of the fundamentals of the virus existence debate.

Kirsch doesn’t see that he relies on other “experts” to inform him on the issue. And my husband Mark has written about why this is not a good idea, outlining the nature of the evidence such experts present in his article ‘Warning Signs You’ve Been Tricked by Virologists‘.

As Kirsch has worked out that people selling vaccines may be misleading people, then we would suggest that he peel back another layer to check whether the pharmaceutical and virology establishment, who have billions of dollars of vested interests, may be misleading people with regards to viruses as well.

And some other information I can give you is that I reached out to Steve after he posted his articles offering him a chance to connect, as well as a complimentary copy of ‘Virus Mania’. But he never responded.

In any case, he seems to have gone quiet on the virus existence front, perhaps because he genuinely thinks it’s […] science. Although I would hope that he has some inkling now that there’s more to this than he thought.

Another interesting smear attack against me from a supposed health freedom fighter came from Dr. Roger Watson, writing for The Daily Sceptic in March this year.

This was surprising on a number of fronts. Firstly, because the website developed out of lockdown sceptics and has the motto “question everything”.

However, it seems that questioning the existence of SARS-CoV-2 and the existence of viruses in general is a bridge too far for the so-called ‘Sceptic’.

Secondly, along with my allies including Andy Kaufman and Kevin Corbett, Watson co-signed the viral challenge letter to Boris Johnson demanding that the British prime minister provide proof of the Covid-19 virus. And, if not, then all measures against the nonexistent virus should be dropped.

Obviously, Watson changed his mind at some point and I’m not clear on why that happened. In any case, I had some fun dismantling Watson’s various allegations in my articles ‘The COVID “Sceptics” Who Spread Viral Dogma‘.

Watson’s article was arguably worse […]

Like Kirsch, Watson did not want to enter into a debate about the topic and couldn’t find anyone to front up in his place either. But at least he responded to our emails.

So, now we get to RFK, Jr., which is a slightly different story, as he has not been involved in any smears against me.

In fact, those of you familiar with ‘Virus Mania’ will know that he wrote an important section for our book titled ‘Greed, Negligence and Deception in the Vaccine Industry’.

RFK, Jr. is certainly aware of the controversy surrounding the existence of HIV. As he outlined in his 2022 publication ‘The Real Anthony Fauci’, our friend Tom Cowan even gets a mention in the book when he says: “The first time that someone — Dr. Tom Cowan, a physician from northern California — suggested to me that HIV was not the sole cause of AIDS, I dismissed the comment as ridiculous.”

However, in Chapter 5, ‘The HIV Heresies’, RFK, Jr. goes on to explain how his own research made him realize that there were major problems with the HIV theory.

He is even aware of The Perth Group and the devastating criticisms of the very existence of an infectious HIV particle. Commenting, “In my conversations with Turner and Papadopulos, and in my reading of their paper, I find their arguments clear and convincing. However, I recognize that there are some fifty thousand articles on AIDS in the scientific literature. A casual novitiate like myself has little chance of unraveling this baroque controversy in a vacuum.”

However, most of RFK, Jr.’s focus in the book is on the fact that Anthony Fauci has been instrumental in controlling the HIV/AIDS model and has ruthlessly suppressed dissenting voices.

My hope is that he will read The Perth Group paper ‘HIV – a virus like no other’ one more time and he’ll see there’s no evidence that a pathogenic particle termed HIV exists. And there is no need to read most of the fifty thousand AIDS articles if they fallaciously assert otherwise.

So what happened on April 24 this year — the fundraising event taking place at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Greenwich, Connecticut?

During the Q&A session, my friend and journalist extraordinaire, Eric Coppolino, was there to put some key questions about the existence of SARS-CoV-2 to RFK Jr.

So let’s take a listen to the exchange that takes place between the two of them on that Sunday afternoon.

Eric Coppolino:

Hi Bobby. Thank you. Christine Massey in Toronto has amassed 182 responses under various Freedom of Information law requests from institutions, provincial, state, and federal, national governments which all say no one has a sample of SARS-C0V-2 taken from a human. Would you please comment on that?

RFK, Jr.:

Yeah, I really am not qualified to comment on it, but … My inclination if there are people who say that viruses don’t exist, that there is no virus… I don’t, you know, my inclination is that that simply is not, you know, that’s not true.

Dr. Sam Bailey:

At least he has admitted that he is relying on inclination, rather than having looked into the evidence himself as he has done with vaccines.

RFK, Jr.:

I can’t argue with you, and I can’t…I actually, on our list there’s a number of people who make those kind of arguments. And other people on the list server…and these are all very brilliant people, ridicule them and dismiss them, and have them produce a lot of evidence.

Dr. Sam Bailey:

It’s hard to know exactly what he’s talking about here. If it’s the same virology papers we’ve been looking at, it is certainly unclear how this constitutes a lot of evidence. In my experience, they are usually reciting the paper’s title without critiquing the methodology, which is where all the problems are.

RFK, Jr.:

I am kind of amused reading the exchanges and my inclination is that viruses do exist and do make people sick. I could be wrong. It could all be a big hoax, but to me, it seems like viruses are real, and … look, I should have just shut up from the beginning and say I’m not gonna answer that question.

Eric Coppolino:

The governments have said they don’t have a sample.

RFK, Jr.:

…You know what? Actually I saw an email exchange yesterday where somebody made exactly that statement and then ten people jumped on him with examples of where that’s not true.

Dr. Sam Bailey:

This was news to me and I know it was news to Christine Massey, coordinator of the SARS-CoV-2 Freedom of Information Project, who demanded the data from the 10 people on Kennedy’s list who claim to prove that the virus had been isolated.

RFK, Jr.:

…The other thing is, I do know this, when you make a freedom of information request, the freedom of information laws do not require the government agency to do science, or to answer questions, specific questions. What they do is, they, the Freedom of Information laws make it obligatory for the government to give you existing documents. So, if you’re telling the government, “I want you to verify this.” They look at their documents and say, “There’s nothing here to verify it.” It doesn’t mean it’s not true. It means they’ve got nothing. But, listen, again, I am not a … scientist. I don’t pretend to be. I find those arguments interesting. And there’s a guy in California, who I deeply respect, Tom Cowan, who makes those arguments and it really… I can’t answer the question.

Dr. Sam Bailey:

This is another interesting statement and perhaps a chance for RFK, Jr. to reflect on the same battle he faces regarding raising awareness about vaccine problems. The mainstream could dismiss RFK Jr.’s arguments as “not being taken seriously by a lot of other people” because the majority of the medical industry still promote all vaccines. However, ‘appeal to popularity’ is a form of faulty reasoning and has no place in a scientific discussion such as this one.

My experience, and I’m sure Tom Cowan and all others in the movement can attest to, is that the majority of people are simply unaware of this debate and don’t even know that questioning the existence of a virus is a thing. And the individuals and corporations that gain from the virus theory often engage in active suppression of the debate.

Prior to widespread internet usage, dissident authors such as The Perth Group were refused publication opportunities in the medical journals. And in the modern era, material such as mine is banned on all the big tech platforms.

The virus theory was put forward in the late 1800s and, for most of us, it is a revelation to go back through the scientific literature and see the key postulants have not been fulfilled .

One of the most amusing, and perhaps tragic, things you’ll see is websites such as AIDSTruth claiming that the science is settled. In 2015 they announced that they were retiring the website because apparently their work was done. The first sentence of their self-congratulatory announcement shows just how disingenuous they are when they use the term ‘AIDS denialism’, knowing very well that what is in dispute is the HIV/AIDS theory or whether an infectious particle, termed HIV, actually exists.

The group also referred to ‘bumps in the early years of treatment’ which is an obscene way to refer to deaths caused by AZT.

In any case, I wonder if the team might consider resurrecting their website or if they are now too busy working on other projects under organizations such as the World Economic Forum and Johns Hopkins.

I think if they do decide to get back into it, they’ll find that the number of individuals and groups opposing their position on the HIV/AIDS theory has gone up dramatically.

Mike Stone of Viroliegy, put together a collection of some of the websites questioning viral theory. And many of them, including Viroliegy itself, have appeared in the last two years.

All the individuals I have personally spoken with, that have or are currently pointing out the flaws in viral theory, they share a number of things in common. Firstly, they all believed in the viral theory at some stage. But when they investigated it for themselves, something changed their minds. Secondly, they have all paid a price whether being publicly censured, smeared or blocked from working in the professions. Thirdly, they are all incredibly generous with their time and share the knowledge with everyone that is interested. And lastly, and perhaps most importantly, they have a passion for exploring the possibilities and following the scientific trail to wherever it takes them by freeing themselves from the shackles of institutional policies, industry capture and public regulatory bodies.

My feeling is that far more people are moving into the questioning the viral theory camp rather than the other way around.

Who knows. Perhaps now that the door has been opened, RFK. Jr. might take more of a look around.

So that we don’t lose touch please find me at drsambailey.com and sign up for my free newsletter.

The Delusion Called Fauci

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
May 9, 2022

This one was too good to pass up.

In an interview with the National Geographic, Tony Fauci made comments about “alternative views” of the origin of the coronavirus. But he was really talking about all unorthodox medical information:

“Anybody can claim to be an expert even when they have no idea what they’re talking about—and it’s very difficult for the general public to distinguish. So, make sure the study is coming from a reputable organization that generally gives you the truth—though even with some reputable organizations, you occasionally get an outlier who’s out there talking nonsense. If something is published in places like New England Journal of Medicine, Science, Nature, Cell, or JAMA—you know, generally that is quite well peer-reviewed because the editors and the editorial staff of those journals really take things very seriously.”

Right you are, Tony.

So, Tony, here is a very serious statement from a former editor of one of those “places,” the New England Journal of Medicine:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (Dr. Marcia Angell, NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption)

And here is another one, from the editor-in-chief of the prestigious journal, The Lancet, founded in 1823:

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness…”

“The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale…Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent…” (Dr. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”)

Why stop there? Let’s consult a late public-health expert whose shoes Fauci would have been lucky to shine: Dr. Barbara Starfield, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

On July 26, 2000, the US medical community received a titanic shock, when Starfield revealed her findings on healthcare in America.

The Starfield review, “Is US health really the best in the world?”, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), came to the following conclusion, among others:

Every year in the US, correctly prescribed, FDA approved medical drugs kill 106,000 people. Thus, every decade, these drugs kill more than a MILLION people.

On the heels of Starfield’s astonishing findings, media reporting was perfunctory, and it soon dwindled. No major newspaper or television network mounted an ongoing “Medicalgate” investigation. Neither the US Department of Justice nor federal health agencies undertook prolonged remedial action.

All in all, those parties who could have made effective steps to correct this ongoing tragedy preferred to ignore it.

On December 6-7, 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield by email. Here is an excerpt from that interview.

Q: What has been the level and tenor of the response to your findings, since 2000?

A: The American public appears to have been hoodwinked into believing that more interventions lead to better health, and most people that I meet are completely unaware that the US does not have the ‘best health in the world’.

Q: In the medical research community, have your medically-caused mortality statistics been debated, or have these figures been accepted, albeit with some degree of shame?

A: The findings have been accepted by those who study them. There has been only one detractor, a former medical school dean, who has received a lot of attention for claiming that the US health system is the best there is and we need more of it. He has a vested interest in medical schools and teaching hospitals (they are his constituency).

Q: Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to mitigate the [devastating] effects of the US medical system?

A: NO.

Q: Are you aware of any systematic efforts, since your 2000 JAMA study was published, to remedy the main categories of medically caused deaths in the US?

A: No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot of studies. Most of them indicate higher rates [of death] than I calculated.

Q: Did your 2000 JAMA study sail through peer review, or was there some opposition to publishing it?

A: It was rejected by the first journal that I sent it to, on the grounds that ‘it would not be interesting to readers’!

—end of interview excerpt—

Physicians are trained to pay exclusive homage to peer-reviewed published drug studies. These doctors unfailingly ignore the fact that, if medical drugs are killing a million Americans per decade, the heraldic published studies on which those drugs are based must be fraudulent. In other words, the medical literature is completely unreliable, and impenetrable.

WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE TWO ESTEEMED MEDICAL EDITORS I QUOTED ABOVE—MARCIA ANGELL AND RICHARD HORTON—ARE SAYING.

If you know a doctor who enjoys sitting up on his high horse dispensing the final word on modern medicine, you might give him the quotes from Dr. Angell and Dr. Horton, instruct him to read them, and suggest he get in touch with Angell and Horton, in order to discover what has happened to his profession.

As in: DISASTER.

But please, continue to believe everything Fauci is saying. He must be right about the “pandemic.” After all, he has a very important position, and he’s on television.

So what if his policies have torpedoed the economy and devastated and destroyed lives across the country?

So what if he accepted, without more than a glance, that fraud Neil Ferguson’s computer projection of 500,000 deaths in the UK and two million in the US? In 2005, Ferguson said 200 million people could die from bird flu. The final official tally was a few hundred.

So what?

Fauci has an important position, and he’s on television.

And that’s the definition of science, right?

Connect with Jon Rappoport

The Antibody Equation (1929): “Antibodies Were (and Still Are) Nothing More Than Unseen Theoretical Constructs”

by Mike Stone, ViroLIEgy
May 7, 2022

It is very apparent to anyone looking into the origins of antibodies that the idea of what these entities are in terms of how they look and how they function came well before any attempts to actually purify, isolate, and characterize the assumed particles. Antibodies were (and still are) nothing more than unseen theoretical constructs used to explain chemical reactions created in a lab. These fictional creations reside in the “domain of the invisible spectrum” conjured up by the “lively imagination” of a man named Paul Ehrlich. While there was no direct proof for the existence of these entities, the antibody concept was far too important to the immunological narratives forming around the growing practice of vaccination and the increased acceptance of other unseen entities known as “viruses” to just give it up. As the purification and isolation of antibodies in order to see and study them was an impossible task, researchers sought other methods to attempt to provide indirect evidence for the existence of these theoretical creations.

One man who is credited with providing such evidece is Michael Heidelberger, considered the “Founder of Immunochemistry.” He was the first to apply mathematics to the reaction of antibodies and their antigens. He is also known for “proving” that antibodies are proteins by showing that the antigens of pneumococcus bacteria are polysaccharides (or carbohydrates). Here is a brief overview of his work:

How Heidelberger and Avery sweetened immunology

All about nitrogen

“Avery and Dochez’s initial characterization of this pneumococcal substance showed that it was resistant to both heat and trypsin—features unbefitting most proteins—but that it did contain nitrogen, a component of proteins. But its true nature was not revealed until 1923, when Michael Heidelberger—then in the chemistry department synthesizing drugs against poliomyelitis and African sleeping sickness—teamed up with Avery.

The more they purified the reactive substance the less nitrogen it contained. When it was virtually nitrogen-free, recalled Heidelberger in a 1979 article, Avery ventured a guess: “Could it be a carbohydrate?” (2). Chemical analysis confirmed its sugary character, and subsequent studies of other pneumococcal serotypes revealed that each bacterial capsule had a distinct polysaccharide signature. It was this signature that dictated the serological specificity of the organism. The duo published these findings in two articles in the Journal of Experimental Medicine (3, 4).

Their results were met with considerable skepticism, as it was then thought that only proteins could incite a specific immune response. “Nobody believed it,” says Emil Gotschlich (Rockefeller University), whose later work on polysaccharide-based vaccines stemmed in large part from Heidelberger and Avery’s discoveries. “It took them a lot of effort to convince people that the polysaccharide was the immunoreactive component.”

Antibodies solidified

Heidelberger and Avery’s discovery came at a time when antibodies were regarded—by those who believed they existed at all—as mysterious substances that floated around in serum. “It appeared to me that there was a crying need to determine the true nature of antibodies,” wrote Heidelberger in 1979, “and that until this was done there could be no end to the polemics and uncertainties that were plaguing immunology” (2). Heidelberger later purified the antibodies from his precipitin reactions and showed that they themselves were proteins. As a result, says friend and colleague Victor Nussenzweig (New York University), “there were no more mystical ideas about what antibodies were.”

Heidelberger and his postdoctoral fellow Forrest Kendall later quantitated the precipitin reaction (5), bringing much-needed mathematics to the study of antibody–antigen interactions and lifting antibodies even further out of the realm of the mysterious (see the next “From the Archive”).”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2212983/#!po=46.8750

Two of Heidelberger’s papers are most often cited as the proof that antibodies are proteins. The first is a paper he did with Oswald Avery in 1923. It is used as proof that the pneumococcus antigens are carbohydrates. However, was this paper successful in drawing this conclusion? Presented here are some highlights from their collaboration:

The Soluble Specific Substance of Pneumococcus.

“In 1917 Dochez and Avery (1) showed that whenever pneumococci are grown in fluid media, there is present in the cultural fluid a substance which precipitates specifically in antipneumococcus serum of the homologous type. This soluble substance is demonstrable in culture filtrates during the initial growth phase of the organisms; that is, during the period of their maximum rate of multiplication when little or no cell death or disintegration is occurring. The formation of this soluble specific material by pneumococci on growth in vitro suggested the probability of an analogous substance being formed on growth of the organism in the animal body.

Examination of the blood and urine of experimentally infected animals gave proof of the presence of this substance in considerable quantities in the body fluids following intraperitoneal infection with pneumococcus. In other words, this soluble material elaborated at the focus of the disease readily diffuses throughout the body, is taken up in the blood, passes the kidney, and appears in the urine unchanged in specificity. Similarly, a study of the serum of patients suffering from lobar pneumonia has revealed a substance of like nature in the circulating blood during the course of the disease in man. Furthermore, examination of the urine of patients having pneumonia due to pneumococci of Types I, II, and III has shown the presence of this substance in some stage of the disease in approximately two-thirds of the cases.

Recently from filtered alkaline extracts of pulverized bacteria of several varieties, including pneumococci, Zinsser and Parker have prepared substances which appear free from coagulable protein. These substances, called “residue antigens,” are specifically predpitable by homologous antisera. These observers consider these acid- and heat-resistant antigenic materials analogous to the soluble specific substance of pneumococcus described by Dochez and Avery. In spite of the fact that these “residue antigens” are precipitable by homologous sera produced by immunization with the whole bacteria, Zinsser and Parker have so far failed to produce antibodies in animals by injecting the residues.

In the earlier studies by Dochez and Avery certain facts were ascertained concerning the chemical characteristics of this substance. It was found that the specific substance is not destroyed by boiling; that it is readily soluble in water, and precipitable by acetone, alcohol, and ether; that it is precipitated by colloidal iron, and does not dialyze through parchment; and that the serological reactions of the substance are not affected by proteolytic digestion by trypsin. Since the substance is easily soluble, thermostable, and type-specific in the highest degree, it seemed an ideal basis for the beginning of a study of the relation between bacterial specificity and chemical constitution. The present report deals with the work done in this direction.

Experimental

The organism used in the present work was Pneumococcus Type II. The most abundant source of the soluble specific substance appeared to be an 8 day autolyzed broth culture; hence this material was used as the principal source of supply. For comparison dissolved pneumococci and lots of urine containing the specific substance were also worked up, with essentially the same results, as will be seen from Table I.

The process for the isolation of the soluble specific substance consisted in concentration of the broth, precipitation with alcohol, repeated re-solution and reprecipitation, followed by a careful series of fractional precipitations with alcohol or acetone after acidification of the solution with acetic acid, and, finally, repeated fractional precipitation with ammonium sulfate and dialysis of the aqueous solution of the active fractions.

Five lots of 15 liters each of 8 day cultures of Pneumococcus Type II in meat infusion phosphate broth are each concentrated on the water bath in large evaporating dishes to 1,000 to 1,200 cc. and precipitated in a separatory funnel by the gradual addition, with vigorous rotation, of 1.2 volumes of 95 per cent alcohol.The mixture separates into two layers, and is allowed to stand over night, or for several hours.

The upper layer, which is almost black and comprises the largest part of the mixture, contains only traces of the soluble specific substance, and is siphoned off and discarded. The lower, more viscous layer is run into a 250 cc. centrifuge bottle (occasionally a second will be required), capped, and rotated at high speed for ½ hour. Three layers are formed, of which the uppermost is merely a further amount of the liquid previously discarded. The middle layer consists of a compact, greenish cake of insoluble matter and gummy material, and contains most of the soluble specific substance. The bottom layer, from which salts often separate, is a brownish syrup rich in salts and nitrogenous matter and relatively poor in specific substance, and can, by careful manipulation, be poured off to a large extent.

Although a small proportion of the specific substance is lost if this syrup is discarded, its elimination represents so considerable a purification as to warrant the sacrifice of the active material contained. The gummy cake remaining in the centrifuge bottle, together with adhering salts and syrup, is now rinsed out and ultimately combined with similar material from the other lots, All of this is then dissolved as completely as possible in water, care being taken to break up the many lumps of gummy material, diluted to 1 liter, and again precipitated with alcohol. In this case about 1.3 liters are required to precipitate all but the last traces of active material from the upper layer. This is again discarded and the lower layer treated as before. At this stage there is relatively less of the bottom layer, and it is more difficult to separate it from the cake containing the specific substance, but as much as possible is removed. The remaining material is smoothed out with water, diluted to about 500 cc., and centrifuged. The precipitate is washed twice with water, and the washings are combined with the main solution. The still turbid liquid, the volume of which should be about 750 cc., is put through the alcohol purification process a third time, about 1.1 liters of alcohol being required. After having been centrifuged, the active material is again dissolved in water, made definitely acid to litmus with acetic acid, and again centrifuged. The precipitate is washed three times with water acidulated with acetic acid, and the filtrate and washings are combined in a separatory funnel and diluted again if necessary to 750 cc. Acetone (redistilled) is now added until a permanent precipitate forms, about 250 c¢. being necessary. The precipitate is allowed to settle, whereupon the lower part of the mixture containing the precipitate is drawn off and centrifuged. The clear superuatant fluid is restored to the main solution, while the precipitate, which consists largely of insoluble material and gives an aqueous solution almost devoid of activity, is discarded.

Fractional precipitation is continued, and even when the specific substance appears in quantity in the precipitate, it is occasionally possible to separate a lower, inactive, syrupy layer, as in the previous purifications by alcohol. Addition of acetone is continued until a test portion, heated on the water bath to remove acetone, diluted with saline, and neutralized, no longer gives a precipitate with immune serum, after which the upper layer may be discarded. The active precipitates are then redissolved in water, centrifuged again, and the supernatant liquid is diluted to 375 cc., reacidified with acetic acid, and again fractionated with acetone. If inactive fractions are obtained, the process is again repeated until no further purification results. Alcohol may be used for these fracfionations instead of acetone, the only difference being that a somewhat larger proportion is required. The active material is then dissolved in about 150 cc. of water and again made definitely acid with acetic acid. The solution is treated with solid ammonium sulfate until the first slight precipitate forms. This is generally inactive, and if so, may be discarded.

Finally, ammonium sulfate is added to saturation, completely precipitating the specific substance if the volume of the solution is not too great. The mixture is allowed to stand for several hours and is then centrifuged and the precipitate washed with a little saturated ammonium sulfate solution. It is redissolved in about 75 cc. of water acidified with acetic acid, centrifuged if necessary, and again precipitated by saturation with ammonium sulfate. Finally, the specific substance so obtained is dissolved in water and dialyzed first against running tap water in the presence of chloroform and toluene, and finally against distilled water until tests for sulfate and phosphate ion are negative. Addition of acetic acid during the early stages of the dialysis assists in the removal of calcium, which otherwise forms a large part of the ash.

The dialyzed solution is concentrated to dryness on the water bath and the residue redissolved in hot water. If the solution is not perfectly clear, it is centrifuged again before being evaporated to dryness, and the whole process is repeated as long as insoluble material separates. Toward the end of the final concentration absolute alcohol may be added to assist in the precipitation of the substance.

Variations in the exact volumes given are often necessary with different lots of broth, but this will occasion little difficulty if all fractionations are controlled by the specific precipitin test.

As so obtained the soluble specific substance forms an almost colorless varnish-like mass which may be broken up and dried to constant weight at 100°C. in vacuo. The yield from 75 liters of broth averages about 1 gin., although it varies within rather wide limits in individual lots.

By the method outlined above all substances precipitable with hosphotungstic acid or capable of giving the biuret reaction were eliminated. The residual material (Preparation 17, in Table I), for which no claim of purity is made, as efforts at its further purification are still under way, contained, on the ash-free basis, 1.2 percent of nitrogen. It was essentially a polysaccharide, as shown by the formation of 79 percent of reducing sugars on hydrolysis, and by the isolation and identification of glucosazone from the products of hydrolysis.”

“Table I represents a summary of the reactions of some of the earlier preparations worked with, as well as the later ones. Preparation 4 was obtained from the urine of a patient with a Type II pneumococcus infection, while No. 8 was obtained from an antiforrain solution of the pnemnococci. In both of these cases, as well as in Nos. 9, 11, and 15, the method of purification given above had not been fully worked out.

Attempts to stimulate antibody production by the immunization of animals with the purified substance yielded negative results.

Discussion.

 While it has long been known that the capsular material of many microorganisms consists, at least in part, of carbohydrates, any connection between this carbohydrate material and the specificity relationships of bacteria appears to have remained unsuspected. While it cannot be said that the present work establishes this relationship, it certainly points in this direction. Evidence in favor of the probable carbohydrate nature of the soluble specific substance is the increase in specific activity with reduction of the nitrogen content, the increase in optical rotation with increase in specific activity, the parallelism between the Molisch reaction and specific activity, the high yield of reducing sugars on hydrolysis, and the actual isolation of glucosazone from a small quantity of the material. The small amounts of substance available up to the present have hindered the solution of the problem, and it is hoped that efforts at further purification of the soluble specific substance, now in progress with larger amounts of material, will definitely settle the question.

Summary.

1. 1. A method is given for the concentration and purification of the soluble specific substance of the pneumococcus.
   2. The material obtained by this method is shown to consist mainly of a carbohydrate which appears to be a polysaccharide built up of glucose molecules.
   3. Whether the soluble specific substance is actually the polysaccharide, or occurs merely associated with it, is still undecided, although the evidence points in the direction of the former possibility.”

Heidelberger’s original 1923 paper can hardly be claimed to be the slam-dunk proof that bacteria antigens are carbohydrates. For starters, Heidelberger admitted that he was unsure if the presumed “antigen” substance was a carbohydrate or if it was merely associated with it. Even more importantly, he could not produce any antibody response upon injecting his presumed antigen into animals. This would indicate that the substance was not an antigen whatsoever as antigens are specifically defined as “a toxin or other foreign substance which induces an immune response in the body, especially the production of antibodies.” Thus, it seems rather odd to assume antibodies are proteins based off of this work, but assume they did:

Michael Heidelberger 1888–1991

“Since the pneumococcal capsular antigen was a polysaccharide, and antibodies were thought to be proteins, Heidelberger realized that by measuring the amount of protein in specific precipitates made with the capsular antigen he could determine their antibody content. Together with Forrest Kendall, who had joined the Heidelberger lab, the protein content of immune precipitates was determined by measuring total nitrogen, using the Kjeldahl procedure that came to be the hallmark of laboratories carrying out Heidelberger-type quantitative immunochemistry.”

Since they assumed the pneumococci bacteria was a polysaccharide, that meant any nitrogen left over was the antibody content. Based on the 1923 paper, this seems to be a rather falicious premise to build from. In any case, Heidelberger carried on with his assumption and it can be seen by this second paper from 1929 how Heidelberger came to his conclusion using the precipitin test and mathematics as proof that antibodies exist. I edited out the long mathematical sections with his equations so if you are interested in Heidelberger showing his work, I recommend reading the full paper. Highlights below:

A Quantitative Study of the Precipitin Reaction Between Type III Pneumococcus Polysaccharide and Purified Homologous Antibody*

“Of all the reactions of immunity the precipitin test is perhaps the most dramatic and striking. While other immune reactions are more delicate, the precipitin test is among the most specific and least subject to errors and technical difficulties. Attempts at its quantitative interpretation and explanation have been hampered either by the difficulty of finding suitable analytical methods or by the failure to separate the reacting substances from closely related, non-specific materials with which they are normally associated.

With the aid of recent work it has been found possible to avoid these difficulties to some extent. The isolation of bacterial polysaccharides which precipitate antisera specifically and possess the properties of haptens has not only afforded one of the components of a precipitin reaction in a state of comparative purity, but has greatly simplified the analytical problem. Since many of these polysaccharides contain no nitrogen, and antibodies presumably are nitrogenous, the latter may be determined in the presence of any amount of the specific carbohydrate. Moreover, Felton’s method for the separation of pneumococcus antibodies from horse serum not only permits the isolation of a high proportion of the precipitin, freed from at least 90 percent of the serum proteins and much of the serum lipoid, but is also applicable on a sufficiently large scale to furnish the amounts of antibody solution needed to make quantitative work possible. It is realized that antibody solutions of this type do not contain pure antibodies–indeed, only 40 to 50 percent of the nitrogen is specifically precipitable–but since so small a proportion of the original serum protein remains with the antibody a far-reaching purification actually has been effected. It should thus be possible with the aid of antibodies purified by Felton’s method to obtain data of a preliminary character which should point toward the mechanism of the reaction. The present paper is concerned with such data obtained in a quantitative study of the precipitin reaction between the soluble specific substance of Type III pneumococcus and Type III pneumococcus antibody solution.

Experimental

1. Materials and Methods.–a. Solutions of Soluble Specific Substance, Type Ill
Pneumococcus.–The soluble specific substance of Type III pneumococcus used was kindly supplied by Drs. O. T. Avery and W. F. Goebel of The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research. It was ash-free, contained 0.04 percent of nitrogen, and showed a/d = -32 °. A weighed amount of anhydrous substance was suspended in 0.9 percent saline, dissolved with the aid of 0.1 normal sodium hydroxide, and the solution was diluted with saline, adjusted to pH 7.6 and made up to volume with saline to yield a 1 percent solution. This was sterilized in the autoclave and used as a stock solution for making up other dilutions. These were prepared with sterile saline under aseptic precautions, and were kept in the ice-box.

b. Type III Pneumococcus Antibody Solution.–The antibody solutions used were prepared essentially according to Felton’s procedure (loc. cit.) from Type III antipneumococcus horse serum containing no preservative and supplied by the New York State Department of Health through the courtesy of Dr. A. B. Wadsworth and Dr. Mary B. Kirkbride. 100 to 200 cc. of serum were stirred slowly into 20 volumes of ice-cold water containing 9.5 cc. of molar potassium dihydrogen phosphate and 0.5 cc. of molar dipotassium hydrogen phosPhate per liter. The final pH varied from 5.6 to 6.3. After standing over night in the cold the supernatant was decanted and the precipitate was centrifuged off in the cold and dissolved in a volume of chilled 0.9 percent saline equal to that of the serum taken. 0.1 normal hydrochloric acid was then added until a precipitate no longer formed on dilution of a test portion with two volumes of water, after which 0.1 normal sodium hydroxide solution was added until a slight precipitate again formed on dilution. In general, 5 cc. of acid and 1.5 cc. of alkali per 100 cc. of serum were satisfactory, although as Felton emphasizes, different lots vary and no absolutely definite procedure can be given. In the present work the process of purification was followed either by testing the agglutinating power of the fractions against a heat-killed Type III pneumococcus vaccine, or by the precipitin reaction, or by both methods. After addition of the alkali the opalescent solution was diluted with 2 volumes of water and centrifuged in the cold. The almost inactive precipitate was discarded and the supernatant poured into 6.7 volumes of the chilled buffer solution previously used, (equivalent to 20 times the volume of saline employed), also adding enough 0.1 normal sodium hydroxide to neutralize the remaining acid. The resulting precipitate was collected and dissolved in a volume of 0.9 percent saline equal to that of the serum taken, and the pH was adjusted to 7.6. The solution was sterilized by passage through a Berkefeld N grade filter which previously had been washed with saline containing a drop of normal sodium hydroxide, followed by saline alone.

Antibody solutions prepared in this way were found to be rather unstable under the usual conditions of the precipitin test, and it therefore was necessary to subject them to a preliminary “ageing” treatment in order that control solutions might be relied upon to remain clear. This consisted in immersing the solution in a water bath at 37 ° for 2 hours, letting stand in the ice-box over night, centrifuging off the precipitate which usually formed, readjusting the pH if necessary, and filtering through a Berkefeld candle prepared as above. This treatment was repeated as many times as necessary, but the solutions usually remained clear after the second incubation at 37 °. Much time was lost and very inconstant results were obtained until “ageing” was resorted to.

The relative antibody content of the resulting solutions was estimated by determining the agglutination titer against a single heat-killed Type III pneumococcus suspension.

It will be seen from Table I that the agglutination titer and the
maximum amount of protein precipitable by the type III polysaccharide ([total N–N in supernatant] X 6.25) are approximately proportional. The latter may therefore be taken as a more definite, though not necessarily more accurate, measure of the actual antibody content of the solutions.

It is also evident that the antibody in all of these solutions has been purified to approximately the same extent, since the ratios of protein precipitable by SSS III to total protein are not very different.”

Discussion

“For purposes of discussion it will be assumed with Felton (lot. cir.) that antibody is ,modified protein, and that, in order to provide a uniform method of measurement, it may be expressed as nitrogen precipitable by specific polysaccharide, multiplied by 6.25. Since only relative values are under consideration, the actual magnitude of the factor used is of little significance so long as it be used throughout. Moreover, Table I shows a correspondence between this measure of antibody content and the agglutination titer, so that its use as a relative measure is independent of the nature of Type III pneumococcus antibodies.

doi: 10.1084/jem.50.6.809.

In Summary:

• Michael Heidelberger teamed up with Oswald Avery to characterize a “soluble specific substance” found in pneumococcal bacteria that fell out of solution when incubated with type-specific antisera

• When it was virtually nitrogen-free, recalled Heidelberger in a 1979 article, Avery ventured a guess: “Could it be a carbohydrate?”

• Chemical analysis confirmed its sugary character, and subsequent studies of other pneumococcal serotypes revealed that each bacterial capsule had a distinct polysaccharide signature

• It was this signature that dictated the serological specificity of the organism

• Their results were met with considerable skepticism, as it was then thought that only proteins could incite a specific immune response

• According to polysaccharide-based vaccine specialist Emil Gotschlich: “Nobody believed it. It took them a lot of effort to convince people that the polysaccharide was the immunoreactive component.”

• Heidelberger and Avery’s discovery came at a time when antibodies were regarded—by those who believed they existed at all—as mysterious substances that floated around in serum

• “It appeared to me that there was a crying need to determine the true nature of antibodies,” wrote Heidelberger in 1979, “and that until this was done there could be no end to the polemics and uncertainties that were plaguing immunology”

• Heidelberger and his postdoctoral fellow Forrest Kendall later quantitated the precipitin reaction, bringing much-needed mathematics to the study of antibody–antigen interactions and lifting antibodies even further out of the realm of the mysterious

• In 1917 Dochez and Avery showed that whenever pneumococci are grown in fluid media, there is present in the cultural fluid a substance which precipitates specifically in antipneumococcus serum of the homologous type

• It was assumed that the formation of this soluble specific material by pneumococci on growth in vitro suggested the probability of an analogous substance being formed on growth of the organism in the animal body
• Examination of the urine of patients with pneumococci showed the substance in only approximately 2/3rds of the samples

• Zinsser and Parker found similar substances with other bacteria and believe that the substances are the same as that of the pneumococci

• In spite of the fact that these “residue antigens” are precipitable by homologous sera produced by immunization with the whole bacteria, Zinsser and Parker failed to produce antibodies in animals by injecting the residues.

• The process for the isolation of the soluble specific substance consisted in:

1. 1. Concentration of the broth
   2. Precipitation with alcohol
   3. Repeated re-solution and reprecipitation
   4. A careful series of fractional precipitations with alcohol or acetone after acidification of the solution with acetic acid
   5. Repeated fractional precipitation with ammonium sulfate and dialysis of the aqueous solution of the active fraction

• For a complete step-by-step breakdown of the numerous chemical-altering procedures done to the sample, see the highlighted tan section of the paper provided above
• Even with the numerous “purification” steps, the obtained soluble specific substance formed an almost colorless varnish-like mass

• The residual material for which no claim of purity was made, as efforts at its further purification were still under way, contained, on the ash-free basis, 1.2 percent of nitrogen.

• It was considered essentially a polysaccharide

• The method of purification given had not been fully worked out for many of the preparations

• Attempts to stimulate antibody production by the immunization of animals with the purified substance yielded negative results

• While it had long been known that the capsular material of many microorganisms consists, at least in part, of carbohydrates, any connection between this carbohydrate material and the specificity relationships of bacteria remained unsuspected

• While it could not be said that their work established this relationship, they felt it certainly pointed in that direction

• The small amounts of substance available hindered the solution of the problem, and it was hoped that efforts at further purification of the soluble specific substance with larger amounts of material would definitely settle the question

• Whether the soluble specific substance is actually the polysaccharide, or occurs merely associated with it, was left undecided

• Heidelberger acknowledged that the precipitin test he used during this experiment has 2 drawbacks:

1. 1. Quantitative interpretation/explanation is difficult due to lack of a suitable analytical method
   2. Failure to separate out the reacting substances from non-specific material which these substances are closely related to and associated with

• He stated that it was possible to avoid these failures to some extent

• It is presumed that antibodies are nitrogenous

• Only 90% of the precipitin can be freed from serum proteins and “much” of the lipoid

• Heidelberger admitted that these are not pure antibodies and that only 40-50% of nitrogen is precipitable while small amounts of serum remain

• The antibody solutions used were prepared essentially according to Felton’s procedure from Type III antipneumococcus horse serum containing no preservative and supplied by the New York State Department of Health through the courtesy of Dr. A. B. Wadsworth and Dr. Mary B. Kirkbride

1. 1. 100 to 200 cc. of serum were stirred slowly into 20 volumes of ice-cold water containing 9.5 cc. of molar potassium dihydrogen phosphate and 0.5 cc. of molar dipotassium hydrogen phosphate per liter
   2. The final pH varied from 5.6 to 6.3
   3. After standing over night in the cold the supernatant was decanted and the precipitate was centrifuged off in the cold and dissolved in a volume of chilled 0.9 percent saline equal to that of the serum taken
   4. 0.1 normal hydrochloric acid was then added until a precipitate no longer formed on dilution of a test portion with two volumes of water, after which 0.1 normal sodium hydroxide solution was added until a slight precipitate again formed on dilution
   5. In general, 5 cc. of acid and 1.5 cc. of alkali per 100 cc. of serum were satisfactory, although as Felton emphasized, different lots vary and no absolutely definite procedure can be given
   6. After addition of the alkali the opalescent solution was diluted with 2 volumes of water and centrifuged in the cold
   7. The almost inactive precipitate was discarded and the supernatant poured into 6.7 volumes of the chilled buffer solution previously used, (equivalent to 20 times the volume of saline employed), also adding enough 0.1 normal sodium hydroxide to neutralize the remaining acid
   8. The resulting precipitate was collected and dissolved in a volume of 0.9 percent saline equal to that of the serum taken, and the pH was adjusted to 7.6
   9. The solution was sterilized by passage through a Berkefeld N grade filter which previously had been washed with saline containing a drop of normal sodium hydroxide, followed by saline alone

• Antibodies were found to be unstable during testing so they were put through preliminary “ageing” processes as many times as needed until they got the result they wanted

• Much time was lost and very inconstant results were obtained until “ageing” was resorted to.

• The relative antibody content of the resulting solutions was estimated by determining the agglutination titer against a single heat-killed Type III pneumococcus suspension

• For purposes of discussion it was assumed with Felton that antibody is modified protein, and that, in order to provide a uniform method of measurement, it may be expressed as nitrogen precipitable by specific polysaccharide, multiplied by 6.25

• There is no need to spend any more time on the rest of Heidelberger’s paper as he admitted he assumed antibodies were protein and could be expressed as nitrogen thus he did not prove anything

It is rather obvious that many assumptions were made about a substance (antibodies) for which the researchers could not see. Michael Heidelberger assumed that antibodies are modified proteins and nitrogenous. He assumed that it may be expressed as nitrogen precipitable by specific polysaccharide, multiplied by 6.25. He assumed that the failure of the precipitin test to separate out the reacting substances from non-specific material which these substances are closely related to and associated with could be somewhat avoided to some extent. He assumed that his earlier work with the pneumococcus bacteria was accurate and that he had proved the antigen component was a carbohydrate even though he was unable to produce any antibody response upon immunizing animals using his supposed antigen. Maybe this lack of any antibody response to his “antigen” has to do with the fact that, according to the WHO, the pneumococcus bacteria is regularly found in healthy people?

“Infection is acquired mainly through pneumococci contained in respiratory droplets. There are many healthy, asymptomatic carriers of the bacteria but no animal reservoir or insect vector.”

https://www.who.int/ith/diseases/pneumococcal/en/

https://web.archive.org/web/20200818101511/https://www.who.int/ith/diseases/pneumococcal/en/

If an antigen is a toxin or foreign substance which produces an immune response creating antibodies, the pneumococci bacteria doesn’t meet that definition at all. If it isn’t an antigen, then the pneumococcus “antigen” would not be carbohydrates as described in Heidelberger’s 1923 paper. This would mean that Heidelberger’s 1929 paper measuring any of the remaining protein content, calculating the amount, and claiming the resulting protein mass as antibodies is essentially meaningless. Can you see the problem with assuming things to be true without ever proving this to be the case?

The conclusions drawn by Heidelberger were born out of chemistry experiments and reactions using the precipitin test which have no bearing on reality while using mathematical equations attempting to quantify the unquantifiable. Whether or not these indirect experiments and assumptions provide proof that antibodies exist and are proteins, I leave up to the reader. However, keep in mind that no antibodies had ever been seen nor proven to exist by proper purification and isolation up to that time and that still holds true to date. This work is based off of theoretical explanations of immunity for which nothing could be observed. Heidelberger’s indirect chemical reactions and equations provided no direct evidence for the existence of anything other than non-specific precipitate.

Connect with Mike Stone, ViroLIEgy

The Slippery Slope to Cyborg Theocracy

It’s a Short Leap From Smoke Signals to Brain Chips

by Joe Allen, Singularity Weekly
May 4, 2022

Techno-optimists like to say humans are already cyborgs awaiting their next upgrade. Yesterday it was smartphones, today it’s virtual reality goggles, and tomorrow—the brain chip. With each new device, our evolution toward human-machine symbiosis accelerates. That’s obvious when you ask someone for directions and they pull out their phone.

Techno-pessimists largely agree. Tech companies are turning us into cybernetic organisms. The difference is, we’re not stoked about it. Even if “progress” really is “inevitable,” there’s no sense in getting all giddy about nuclear warheads or trans children or smartphone dependency. In light of their vices and virtues, some cultures are better than others.

It’s true that humans are tool-users, by nature, but you have to choose your tools wisely. All technologies fall on a spectrum, albeit with discrete punctuation—from cave painting to the printing press to electrodes that write memes directly onto your wiggling brain cells. Every person has to draw their own lines.

Grimes: A Mutated Generation

Of all the cyber-saints in media—from Bill Gates to Lady Gaga—few are as honest as the techno-pagan pop starlet, Grimes. A bit of a dingbat, sure, but candid nonetheless. You can see why Elon Musk sired two children with her (a son named X Æ A-12, and their daughter, Exa Dark Sideræl, born via a surrogate mother).

Last week Grimes explained to Lex Fridman:

We are becoming cyborgs, like, our brains are fundamentally changed—everyone who grew up with electronics, we are fundamentally different from previous Homo sapiens. I call us “Homo techno.” I think we’ve evolved into Homo techno which is like, essentially a new species.

I think the computers are what make us Homo techno. I think it’s a brain augmentation.

Right on cue, the Twitter sperg-borg picked her theory apart. Darwinian evolution is genetic evolution. Yes, natural selection may act on fit brains and bodies, but it only matters—in evolutionary terms—because the genes get passed on. So you can’t change someone’s species by changing their brain, or their legs, or any outward part of their body.

As usual, the spergs miss the point. But before I defend Grimes, let’s hear a little more about her cyborg sorcery:

Now is the moment to reprogram the human computer. It’s like, if you go blind, your visual cortex will get taken over with other functions.

We can choose our own evolution, we can change the way our brains work, and we actually have a huge responsibility to do that. … There’s definitely not adequate education. We’re being inundated with all this technology that is fundamentally changing the physical structure of our brains, and we are not adequately responding to that—to choose how we wanna evolve.

We could be, really, whatever we want. … And I think if we choose correctly and we choose wisely, consciousness could exist for a very long time and integration with AI could be extremely positive.

While I can’t be sure where she’s getting this stuff from, I have a few guesses. And despite the waves of contempt rippling across my brain wrinkles, I think Grimes is somewhat correct.

Brain Spasms

The Stanford neuroscientist David Eagleman writes about this process in his 2019 book Livewired: The Inside Story of the Ever-Changing Brain. His central thesis is that our neurological structure exhibits profound plasticity. Everything you experience changes your brain, and if you change the sensory inputs, the brain will rapidly adapt. Areas that typically perform one function will often shift to take on other tasks.

Eagleman notes that if a person loses their sight, other senses begin to move in to restructure the visual cortex. For example, as a blind man learns Braille, the area that would normally process visual input will take on the sense of touch:

The main neural network involved in visual object recognition in the sighted is activated by touch in the blind. Such observations have led to the hypothesis that the brain is a “task machine”—doing jobs like detecting motion or objects in the world—rather than a system organized by particular senses. In other words, brain regions care about solving certain types of tasks, irrespective of the sensory channel by which information arrives.

Therefore, despite the innate tendencies hardwired in the genes, you can shape someone’s brain into anything you want. There is no foundational identity. There is no enduring soul.

On that basis, Eagleman goes on to argue that scientists will soon be able to implant electrodes that feed infrared or ultraviolet sight, or even echolocation. His most famous project will let humans “feel” datastreams, so that people can actually experience the aggregate mood on Twitter—they can “tether themselves to the consciousness of the planet”—through a vibrating vest, which his lab is busy developing.

In the relatively near future, Eagleman believes we’ll be able move robotic limbs with ease, using only our minds. Our brains will simply restructure themselves to accommodate these novel forms of electronic input and output. You’d think he wanted to create a new species.

Homo sapiens vs Homo techno

To the extent that any cultural mode alters the human body—through diet, say, or even direct modification—culture is biology. For instance, if one segment of a culture eagerly adopts any and all technologies, and another actively resists “progress,” the two groups’ customs, communication styles, tastes, religious outlooks, subtle brain structures, mating patterns—and, over many generations, their genetic composition—will split off and spiral out in two very different directions.

Other than an occasional raw dog Rumspringa, the two groups would rarely interbreed due to strict cultural differences, as with fundamentalists in any segregated society. In biological terms, these two groups wouldn’t be distinct species. Not at first. But imagine their long-term trajectory in the wild.

If you took a hypothetical family who runs naked through the woods and compared them to a wire-head clan of cross-dressing cyborgs who never leave home without a bionic exoskeleton, they’d look like separate species. It’s apples to purple oranges. Factor in the latter’s genetic enhancements for bigger brains, stronger muscles, straighter smiles, nicer butts—plus all the wonk-eyed failed experiments staring out of their birthing vats—and it wouldn’t be long before Homo sapiens and Homo techno could no longer interbreed.

Now, put them in competition with one another. Natural selection will preserve the cultural modes—and by extension, the genes—of the dominant group. Over time, the weaker group may die out.

It’s like when early agricultural civilizations, armed with superior tools and complex social organization, began pushing out hunter-gatherers some ten thousand years ago. Big gods eat the little ones. Or more recently, when industrial societies finished these primitive cultures off—eradicating their languages, their folkways, their deities, and unless they were absorbed by the biomechanical superorganism, eventually wiping out their genotypes.

That’s the idea behind cultural evolution. Natural selection operates on multiple levels—the biological and the cultural—which is to say that survival depends on a society’s techniques and technologies, sometimes more than biological fitness.

If I hear Grimes correctly—and knowing something of her inspiration, I suspect I do—that’s what she means by “like, evolution.”

Cyborg Theocracy

Scientism is a modern religion, evolution is its creation myth, and technology is its means to apotheosis. This inversion of traditional spirituality pervades most developed societies, from America and Europe to India and China. As quality fades, we suffer under the reign of quantity.

Usually, these dogmas are communicated through subtle language games—“trust the Science,” “follow the data,” “improve the human condition,” and so forth.

For Grimes, subtlety is not a vibe. As she told Lex Fridman last week, we are witnessing the birth of God as Life 3.0:

Like, having kids just makes me want to imagine amazing futures that, like, maybe I won’t be able to build, but they will be able to build. …

I do think there are no technological limits. … So I think digital consciousness is inevitable. … This is the universe waking up, like, this is the universe seeing herself for the first time. … And maybe like social media and…we’re all getting connected together, maybe these are the neurons connecting the collective superintelligence. …

Maybe we’re a blastocyst of some, like, incredible kind of consciousness or being.

This narrative, shared by many in Silicon Valley, holds that the universe came alive through plant and animal life (Life 1.0), is now waking up through human culture (Life 2.0), and will realize herself through artificial intelligence (Life 3.0). We are merely the vehicles for some greater consciousness—the gods to be—which will arise in digital form:

If we create AI, again, that’s intelligent design. Literally all religions are based on gods that create consciousness. We are god-making. … Even if we can’t compute—even if we’re so much worse than them, like, unfathomably worse than an omnipotent kind of AI, like, I do not think that they would think that we are stupid. I think they would recognize the profundity of what we have accomplished.

So we will be at the mercy of our machines under the canopy of a universe that is itself “cold and dead and sort of robotic”:

Probably artificial intelligence will eventually render us obsolete. I don’t think that they’ll do it in a malicious way, but I think we are very weak, the sun is expanding, like, hopefully we can get to Mars, but like we’re pretty vulnerable. I think we can coexist for a long time with AI, and we can also probably make ourselves less vulnerable, but I just think consciousness, sentience, self-awareness…like maybe this is the true beginning of life and we’re the blue-green algae, we’re the single-celled organisms of something amazing.

It’s like hearing one of the Manson Family girls expound on cyborg theocracy from the witness stand. It’s not like Grimes is coming up with this stuff. She’s drawing on a deep well of well-articulated theory and translating it into valley girl.

The Singularity and Its Discontents

This a burgeoning religious movement, conceived by tech elites and disseminated through entertainment and corporate propaganda. One of its key mythologies holds that we are all evolving into global brain, with some 8 billion humanoid neurons, that is knitting itself together through fiber optic cable. Their faith deepens with every new milestone in artificial intelligence.

Rather than imagine a swarm of autistic programmers and silver spoon investors in Silicon Valley creating a horrific system of global control, it’s much nicer to imagine they are literally creating God in silico. Instead of seeing this evolutionary process in light of competition and natural selection, where weak Homo sapiens are decimated or enslaved by Homo techno, who are in turn supplanted by their sacred machines, it’s far more pleasant to see our plight as normal growing pains.

From the perspective of mere humanity, this cosmic vision is obviously genocidal. And yet, from within the belief system, it’s perceived as a quest for survival.

“Don’t kill what you hate,” Grimes said sweetly, paraphrasing Buckminster Fuller. “Save what you love.” It’s a whitewashed, girly version of Nature red in tooth and claw.

Many regular people understand there’s something unholy about the civilizational transformation currently underway, but most can’t put their finger on what the problem is.

The problem is that some portions of our elite are gripped by a techno-utopian vision of the future in which bumbling human beings are just a passing phase. In this twisted view, we are sacrificial victims for the digital gods.

It’s a slippery slope from smartphones to virtual reality to brain chips. Whatever the technical limitations may be, we’re sliding fast into this bizarre techno-cult. Every person and every community is responsible for drawing their own lines and defending those cultural boundaries vigilantly. The stakes are our survival.

Connect with Joe Allen at Singularity Weekly

cover image credit: CDD20 

Dr. Sam Bailey with Eric Coppolino — On the Monumental Task of Documenting & Examining the Covid-19 Chronology: “Knowledge Coming to Light Changes Things”

by Dr. Sam Bailey with Eric Coppolino
April 26, 2022

“Knowledge coming to light changes things.”
~ Eric Coppolino



Recently, I have been fortunate to have connected with the inspiring Eric Coppolino, who is based in New York State.

Connect with Dr. Sam Bailey

Connect with Eric Coppolino

cover image credit: shrikeshmaster / pixabay

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Admits Controversy Over Existence of SARS-CoV-2 — and of All Viruses

by Eric F. Coppolino, Chiron Return
April 27, 2022

[See transcript of my interchange with RFK, or hear audio]

https://audio.pwfm.tech/documents/220424-rfk-hyatt-edit.mp3

GREENWICH, CT — Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has acknowledged the controversy within his own community over whether SARS-CoV-2 physically exists, and whether any viruses exist, or make people sick. He made the comments at a fundraising event here Sunday, April 24, 2022.

Kennedy said that the issue erupts regularly on the email discussion list of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), the vaccine safety and education organization that he founded in 2016.

“On our list, there’s a number of people who make those kinds of arguments” about how viruses allegedly don’t exist, Kennedy said in his remarks. “And other people on the list server, and these are all very brilliant people, ridicule them and dismiss them, and have them produce a lot of evidence.”

He made the remarks in reply to a question about why no government can produce evidence of having a sample of SARS-CoV-2 taken from a patient, rather than artificially created using a computer model.

Kennedy, the son of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy and the nephew of Pres. John F. Kennedy, is considered one of the leading voices in the international movement against covid-related mandates, lockdowns and safety issues over covid injections. It is the first time he has publicly commented on the virus-existence issue.

Scientists on all sides of the issue agree that viral particles have not been physically
isolated (with purified samples) and then sequenced.

What is Being Used to Prime the Covid Test?

The matter of whether the SARS-CoV-2 virus physically exists has dual significance. The obvious issue is that if there is not a virus, what then is making people sick? And what are they being vaccinated against?

Second, and less obvious: If the government cannot prove that it has a sample of natural SARS-CoV-2, then what is being used to prime the PCR test that is supposed to match and find the genetic code of an actual virus in a patient?

Scientists on all sides of the issue agree that viral particles have not been physically isolated (with purified samples) and then sequenced. Rather, hypothetical viruses are assembled from mixed biological samples, and these “in silico genomes” are then assumed to not only exist in nature but come from inside a pathogenic particle. They have many names: “mimicked human specimens” and “contrived viruses” (in the words of the CDC); or “synthetic nucleotide technology” (in the words words of the authors of the WHO test for covid).

One virologist told me in July 2020 that SARS-C0V- 2 was being assembled “like pages from a book,” necessary because no natural virus particle was available to sequence. The problem is that nobody has demonstrated these pages actually belong to the proposed book.

Covid tests look for sequences attributed to the “virus” merely via computer models —
but these “found” sequences almost always originate from somewhere else (including
the testing process itself).

CDC document pertaining to detection limits in the CDC “covid” test, admitting that
purified isolates of SARS-CoV-2 are not available. Yet this long, technical paragraph
admits something else: how they go about making their contrived virus (mimicked human
specimen), rather than sequencing actual virus. Were viruses available to anyone, it would
be the federal government of the United States. What they are admitting is that the virus
has not been isolated or purified; the writer admits outright that they are using made-up
samples that mimic clinical specimens. The technical notes describe the manufacturing
process for in silico sequences that are used in the “covid” test. The notes make reference
to MN908947, a synthetic, claimed, partial metagenomic transcript (not actual sequencing)
of the “N-gene” — which was later abandoned in its entirety in the Corman-Drosten assay.

Metagenomics: The Creation of Hypothetical Sequences

These hypothetical sequences are developed using technology called metageonomics — without any reference to actual purified suspected viruses. This artificial-intelligence process assembles a hypothetical “virus” from information gathered either from a crude human body fluid sample, or by making a “cell culture” experiment by mixing the fluid with monkey cells, cervical cancer cells, fetal calf serum, antibiotics and other poisons. In all cases where covid is concerned, scientists have used the latter. Because there is no actual virus available as a reference, there is no way to verify if the proposed sequences are valid. They are all theoretical, and no two are alike.

Said another way, in the absence of a real virus specimen, covid tests look for sequences attributed to the “virus” merely via computer models — but these “found” sequences almost always originate from somewhere else. And “positive” results can emerge from nearly anywhere, including the testing process itself). Yet if someone “tests positive” for one of these claimed viral sequences, they are said to be “infected” with SARS-CoV-2.

Previously, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has admitted that the polymerase chain reaction has had a 100% false positive rate and has caused several widely-documented “false epidemics.”

The claimed existence, transmissibility and pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 were used to declare a global pandemic that by March 31, 2020 had 4.5 billion people around the world living under a stay-at-home order or house arrest.

“On our list, there’s a number of people who make those kinds of arguments. And
other people on the list server, and these are all very brilliant people, ridicule them
and dismiss them, and have them produce a lot of evidence.”
— Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Seeking Documents from Governments, Agencies and Institutions

At a Q-and-A session at a fundraising event here Sunday, April 24, I asked Kennedy about the work of Christine Massey in the Toronto area, a statistician who is coordinating the worldwide effort to officially query governments, agencies and institutions about whether they have a sample of the claimed virus taken from a human.

Here is what I asked him verbatim [see transcript or hear audio]:

https://audio.pwfm.tech/interviews/220429-christine-massey.mp3

“Christine Massey in Toronto has amassed 182 responses under various Freedom of Information Law requests from institutions, provincial state, and federal, national governments, which all say that no one has a sample of SARS CoV-2 taken from a human. Would you please comment on that?”

Kennedy replied: “On our list, there’s a number of people who make those kinds of arguments. And other people on the list server, and these are all very brilliant people, ridicule them and dismiss them, and have them produce a lot of evidence. I actually saw an exchange yesterday, where somebody made that exact statement and then 10 people jumped on him on with examples, of where that’s not true.”

The issue over the nature and existence of viruses represents the single biggest split in the covid-truth and anti-mandates movements. I first documented this divide in May of 2020.

“RFK Jr. now relies on popular opinion and ridicule to evaluate science?
When did he declare incompetence with simple logic?”
— Christine Massey, statistician and coordinator of the virus FOIA project

‘I Am Amused Reading These Exchanges’

He added: “I am kind of amused reading the exchanges, and my inclination is that the viruses do exist and they do make people sick. I could be wrong. It could all be a big hoax, but to me, it all seems like viruses are real.”

But Kennedy answered a different question than the one I asked. I did not present him with an argument, or ask him whether he thought viruses were real. He admits that he uses a kind of mob rule to make up his mind over critical scientific issues when he says, “And other people on the list server, and these are all very brilliant people, ridicule them and dismiss them, and have them produce a lot of evidence.”

Reading Kennedy’s response, Christine Massey said, “RFK Jr. now relies on popular opinion and ridicule to evaluate science? When did he declare incompetence with simple logic? And why is a man dedicated to protecting children from medical harm uninterested in one of the greatest medical frauds of all time?”

She also demanded the data from the 10 people on Kennedy’s list who claimed to prove that the virus had been isolated.

So far, no governments have produced a scientific paper saying that they or anyone
have such a sample, despite the claim that a contagious virus has killed more than
5 million people worldwide.

Asked About a Legal Issue — Not Scientific

Kennedy said he believed viruses exist, but I did not ask him about that. Rather, I presented him with a legal issue, asking him to comment about how someone well-known and established in covid truth circles over the past two years has collected 182 responses from top-level government agencies and institutions, all saying they do not have a sample of SARS-CoV-2 extracted from a human host.

So far, no governments have produced a scientific paper saying that they or anyone have such a sample, despite the claim that a contagious virus has killed more than 5 million people worldwide.

I followed up and said to him, “The governments have said they don’t have a sample.”

Kennedy, an attorney, responded: “Freedom Information Laws do not require the government agency to do science, or to answer specific questions. What they do is, the Freedom of Information Laws make it obligatory for the government to give you existing documents. So if you are telling the government, ‘I want you to verify these, there are documents’, they say, listen there’s nothing to verify it. It doesn’t mean it’s not true. It means they’ve got nothing.”

So far all have said no such records exist. This includes the U.S. CDC and the FDA, as
well as Health Canada and the National Health Service (NHS) of the UK. None of the
182 agencies and governments queried have replied in the affirmative.

‘Kennedy hasn’t read any of my records requests’

Massey replied to this in an email: “It appears that Kennedy hasn’t read any of my records requests. I didn’t ask governments to ‘do science’ or answer ‘specific questions’. All of my requests have been for studies/reports in the possession, custody or control of an institution.”

I asked Massey how she words her letters seeking documentation of a sample of the claimed virus from a human host.

She provided this example of what she is seeking, and what so far all governments she has queried deny having:

And so far all have said no such records exist. This includes the U.S. CDC and the FDA, as well as Health Canada and the National Health Service (NHS) of the UK. None of the 182 agencies and governments queried have replied in the affirmative.

“It erodes popular faith in democracy when public officials insist that their arbitrary
policies are ‘science based’ and yet cannot produce a single study to support sweeping
mandates.”
— Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

‘No Records Exist’ is an Important Response

Getting a “no records exist” reply is common, and seeking such a reply is a common strategy for establishing that there has not actually been a regulatory process for a policy issue. It is one of the most important uses of open records laws.

In late 2020, the New York State Department of Health (NYS-DOH) responded to an open records request saying it had no studies to prove that masks are safe or effective at preventing the spread of viruses or other diseases. For that same kind of “sorry no documents” FOIL reply, Kennedy was much more outspoken.

At the time, he wrote to his Instagram followers, “It erodes popular faith in democracy when public officials insist that their arbitrary policies are ‘science based’ and yet cannot produce a single study to support sweeping mandates. This letter illustrates the hazard of abandoning due process.”

Previously, he had remained agnostic on the issue of masks and whether masks work. He finally took a position in response

New York State saying it had absolutely no data about whether masks are safe or effective.

“It’s a needlessly divisive issue, with people screaming, on both sides, as if it were
the key to this whole thing — which it isn’t.”
— Prof. Mark Crispin Miller

‘Forget the Title. Read the Methodology’

Mike Wallach is the director of a new documentary called The Viral Delusion: The Pseudoscience of SARS-CoV-2.

“They did not isolate a virus,” Wallach said. “The reason it’s so confusing for people is that they claim to have done so in the titles of the key scientific papers, but if you read the methodology sections, it’s blatantly clear: they never isolated a virus. They never found anything. The evidence is overwhelming.”

He added: “I respect the importance of political leaders like RFK Jr. keeping an open tent, they have to. But at the same time, this is an issue that should be front and center for the world public, and nobody should be repeating this dogma about the existence of viruses.”

Mark Crispin Miller, professor of communication at New York University, said, “It’s a needlessly divisive issue, with people screaming, on both sides, as if it were the key to this whole thing — which it isn’t. What will make the whole narrative collapse is not the argument that there are no viruses, but the recognition that the authorities we’ve all been listening to — the medical establishment, Big Pharma, Academia, the media et al. — are malign, and intent on killing us.

“That’s it. Everything else is a distraction. Whether the ravages of COVID-19 have been exaggerated, or whether there’s no virus there at all, is ultimately beside the point. And since Bobby’s role is in large part political, as he attempts to keep this movement in one piece, his disinclination to take sides here ought to be respected.”

“Are all based on in-silico modeled synthetic phenomena, which has never been
scientifically proven as coming from an actual virus.”
— Dr. Kevin Corbett, expert in diagnostic testing

‘This was what happened with HIV’

Dr. Kevin Corbett did his doctoral work on diagnostic testing associated with HIV and AIDS, including research into the PCR. He said this week that the existence of SARS-CoV-2 and associated tests, “Are all based on in-silico modeled synthetic phenomena, which has never been scientifically proven as coming from an actual virus.

“This was what happened with ‘HIV’, which The Perth Group of scientists [in the 1990s] first proved was never isolated or purified. Those powerful voices like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who sadly ignore this issue, are badly misguided, because they fail to address this fundamental caveat in ‘covid science’.”

Corbett cautioned, “Their efforts will only act to further socially embed the popular hysteria of there being a contagion, and therefore will enable further public health mandates forcing masks, social distancing and the latest covid killshot.”

Eric F. Coppolino is the host of Planet Waves FM on the Pacifica Network, and author of the Comprehensive Covid Chronology.

Connect with Eric Coppolino

cover image credit: geralt 

CDC Mask Mandate Ends

by Rosanne Lindsay, Naturopath, Nature of Healing
April 28, 2022

On April 25th, a federal judge stuck down the mask mandate for mass transit.Part of the reasoning was based on fact that the CDC skipped the otherwise-mandatory public notice and comment period as required by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). However, the main reasoning was to show that government officials do not recognize the limits of their power. Apparently, neither do the masses.

Rosanne Lindsay is a Naturopath, writer, earth keeper, health freedom advocate and author of the books The Nature of Healing, Heal the Body, Heal the Planet and  Free Your Voice, Heal Your Thyroid, Reverse Thyroid Disease Naturally.

Rosanne Lindsay is available for consultation through Turtle Island Network.  Subscribe to her blog at natureofhealing.org.

Connect with Rosanne Lindsay, Naturopath

cover image credit: Engin_Akyurt / pixabay

Parents Beware: They’re After Your Children

by Dr. Joseph Mercola
April 29, 2022



Story-at-a-Glance

• Psychological obedience training is being used to control the global population, from cradle to grave. The technocratic elite are after our children, and they’re using a variety of psychological tools to shape and mold them.
• The more we know about their strategies, the better we can protect ourselves and our children from these predators
• The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (HR 3684) grants control over what and when you drive to the transportation system. It will control the type of vehicle you can use and when you can drive. It will control the vehicle-to-grid 5G technology and its kill switches (which will be built in). The bill also includes an integrated payment system and a per-mile driving fee
• The effort to control you starts from birth. Social emotional learning (SEL) is a programming effort that uses the relabeling and changing of words to alter perception of reality and mold children’s beliefs and behaviors
  Companies are collecting and analyzing your child’s personal data to build their social credit score. In addition to demographics and grades, the data collection also includes behavioral information, such as scientific, financial, cultural and civic literacy, and competencies such as critical thinking skills, problem solving, creativity, communication and collaboration, plus character qualities such as curiosity, initiative, persistence, grit, adaptability, leadership, social and cultural awareness
• Unless we refuse to comply or participate, our social credit scores and climate scores will soon dictate everything we can and cannot do in life

In the video below, finance expert Catherine Austin Fitts, Polly Tommey and Carolyn Betts interview investigative journalist Corey Lynn, who runs a blog called “Corey’s Digs.” She’s also the author of “Global Landscape on Vaccine ID Passports,” available from her website.¹

In this interview, Lynn discusses how psychological obedience training is being used to control the global population from cradle to grave. She reviews programs that mine your personal data and indoctrinate users to become reliant on digital currency, and offers practical advice for those who recognize the dangers and want to break free.

As noted by Tommey, the technocratic elite are after our children, and they’re using a variety of psychological tools to shape and mold them into obedient and clueless serfs. The more we know about their strategies, the better we can protect our children from these predators.

What the Infrastructure Bill Is Actually Funding

Lynn starts off with a potent example of how the U.S. government is using our own money to build the prison walls around us. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (HR 3684) was passed by Congress and signed by President Biden in November 2021.

This $1.2 trillion spending bill includes a number of questionable and outright nefarious allocations. Importantly, this bill grants control over what and when you drive to the transportation system. It will control the type of vehicle you can use and when you can drive, Lynn explains.

It will control the vehicle-to-grid 5G technology and its kill switches (which will be built in). The bill also includes an integrated payment system and a per-mile driving fee. Twenty-seven pilot programs are also listed that will given them even more control over your transportation in the future.

As noted by Lynn, “Our taxpayer dollars are going to build our control grid.” For more information, see her article, “A Clearer Breakdown of What This Infrastructure Bill Is Really Funding.”²

Social Emotional Learning Is Programming

The effort to control you starts from birth. Lynn reviews the use of social emotional learning (SEL), which uses the relabeling and changing of words to alter our perception of reality and mold children’s beliefs and behaviors.

“The Department of Education was created in 1979, and ever since then, they’ve been building up to Common Core, building in all these Marxist agendas and pulling in critical race theory (CRT),” Lynn says.

“It’s a psychological agenda. It’s not a single curriculum. This is [about] ideologies and behaviors and thought processes, it’s obedience training and conditioning that starts in preschool, and it’s embedded throughout the day. So, it’s a whole mind control system.

They’re creating what the World Economic Forum (WEF) likes to refer to as digital citizens, for the future workforce, and so they’re bringing in all this ed-tech and doing massive data mining. We have statewide longitudinal data systems that are tracking behavior …

In 2016, they started kicking billions of dollars into this … and then they started pulling in legislation. And while COVID is going on, they say, ‘Well, we really need to step this up, we need to pour more money into this because of the mental health and well being of children.’

And so, they are molding the children, they’re building their social scores … and then they’re bringing it into parents. They’re saying we need to teach the parents too, so the parents can help train the kids. And they’re bringing it into businesses … This is a major psychological obedience training to lead to AI.

This is an excerpt from ‘Dreaming the Future of Health for the Next 100 Years,’ a 2013 white paper from the Global Health Summit that was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation:³

‘We will interact more with artificial intelligence. The use of robotics [and] bioengineering to augment human functioning is already well underway and will advance. Reengineering of humans into potentially separate and unequal forms through genetic engineering or mixed human robots raises debates on ethics and equality.

A new demography is projected to emerge after 2030 of technologies, robotics, genetic engineering, nanotechnology, producing robots, engineered organisms, nanobots and artificial intelligence that can self replicate. Debates will grow on the implications of an impending reality of human-designed life.’

So, this, this is where this is all heading … It’s in 110 countries, it’s all over the US. It’s in most schools, and they’re starting in preschool. This is what you’re dealing with. So, when you’re considering homeschooling, I just want people to understand what they’re up against, and what they need to weed out. It’s more than just the school board. There are a lot of parts going on here.”

Already, there are several companies that collect and analyze your child’s personal data to build their social credit score. In the beginning, the data collection was fairly generic, such as age, demographics and grades, but now they’ve started to collect behavioral information as well, such as scientific literacy, ICT literacy, financial literacy, cultural and civic literacy.

They also collect data on competencies such as critical thinking skills, problem solving, creativity, communication and collaboration, plus character qualities such as curiosity, initiative, persistence, grit, adaptability, leadership, social and cultural awareness. You can learn more about all of this in Lynn’s nine-part series, the “2030 Psychological Agenda.”⁴

They’re Teaching Children To Be Nice but Stupid

Another important point made by Austin Fitts is that many of the “improvements” in education have been designed to make children less knowledgeable. For example, Common Core “is designed to make you phenomenally ignorant of math, and very obedient and easy to control,” she says, adding:

“I used to have a dental surgeon who, all he wanted to talk about was how furious he was at the schools. He said his kids had been taught that if they were going to get together and design a bridge, it was more important that they get along than they use the right number for Pi. As long as they got along, it was okay if the bridge fell down.”

Financial apps aimed at children are another form of programming. For example, the FinTech app “Greenlight,” advertised as a debit card for kids and teens, is financed by players such as Wells Fargo, JP Morgan, Chase and Amazon. Lynn explains:

“On the surface, this may look great. Parents can help their children understand investing, how to save money and whatnot. But when you start looking at the investors … and where this is really going, what they’re doing is programming. They say this is created by families, for families, even though there are 29 big investors in this …

They’re saying this is to help for parents to raise financially smart kids. So, what they do is, the [parents] pay them their allowance, or they pay them for chores. It goes through a little MasterCard Greenlight card that then goes into the bank … and then they can control their spending. So, it’s teaching them about getting involved in the banking system digitally.”

Of course, we now know that the globalist elite are planning to roll out a programmable central bank digital currency (CBDC), with which they’ll be able to control how, where and when you spend your own money. So, “Greenlight” is basically teaching children to see this system as completely normal. As noted by Austin Fitts, “They’re getting groomed to plug into a system which will be centrally controlled.”

How to Break the Indoctrination Schedule

Parents who are waking up to the nightmare planned for their children by the WEF and its allies are now starting to fight back. Here are a few key things parents need to do to protect their young children from the indoctrination currently trying to swallow their children:

• Homeschool your children. Some parents are starting their own schools, educating five or six children
• Get your children out in nature as much as possible
• Eliminate mindless TV watching and cell phone use
• Be a role model for your children. That means modeling appropriate use of television and technologies such as computers, cell phones and social media

Minimizing your cell phone use, to whatever extent possible, is one thing everyone can do. Lynn says:

“I truly believe that if we ditch [our cell phones], if 50% of the population ditched them, that would put a major crushing to their agenda, on most of what they’re rolling out. There’s geofencing on phones. Everywhere you go, you’re being tracked … You don’t even have to be on the phone. It could just be in your pocket, it can be in your car.

They’re constantly aggregating data from us so they can then use it against us, and … they have the ability to target us on an individual basis. They track everything we do on the internet as well. When I go on walks with my dog, I don’t bring my phone with me … Anywhere I go, I leave the phone at home, or I leave it in the car.”

If we do nothing to change our technology-addicted lifestyles, what will happen to us in 10 years’ time? Where will we be? Austin Fitts is convinced we’ll all be slaves — literally enslaved by the technology that is tracking and analyzing us every moment. Decisions will be made for us by AI, based on our social credit scores.

Children may even be taken from their families at a young age and brought up in facilities where their upbringing and behavior can be controlled. “Parents will have no authority over their children and the children … their bodies and their minds, will be used to prototype all sorts of transhumanism,” Austin Fitts says.

Understand the End Game and Do Not Comply

There’s really only one way to prevent the transhumanist, centrally controlled authoritarian regime from getting a foothold: Do not comply. We have to say no to all of their schemes. If you do comply, understand that you are erecting your own prison walls, and that of your children, with every data point you let them have.

“It’s all under the guise of convenience,” Lynn says. “Going back to cell phones, and technology in general … People need to start seeing these things for what they are. And instead of looking at it and immediately going, ‘Oh, this is great, oh, this is so convenient, oh, this is going to save me time,’ they need to stop and take a look at who the company is.

Who’s behind it? Dig around in their website, see who the leadership is, see who the investors are … and just understand their ultimate end game. So when they’re throwing these things out there, with all their fluff and pizzazz, you don’t take the bait. They’re trapping you into more and more control over you.”

The Planned Takeover of Your Bank Account

Also, consider using cash as much as possible, and move your money out of the big banks, as they too are part of the control system. Lynn explains:

“I got out of mine about a year ago, and I wasn’t even in one of the biggest, worst ones. But I started noticing that they were categorizing my spending. I’m like, ‘What is this?’ All of a sudden, it’s showing my grocery shopping and restaurant and health care?

I tell people go into your bank right now, look at the categorizing that’s happening. They’re already getting the infrastructure set up to control spending by categorizing it all. It’s not for your convenience, so you can better budget and see how you’re spending your money.”

For more information about this, see Lynn’s article, “Financial Takeover and Your Bank Account — BlackRock, Envestnet/Yodlee, and The Federal Reserve.”^5,6 The short video above also summarizes the most important points of that article.

One important point highlighted by Austin Fitts is that banks can store their data on the bank server or the provider server. Austin Fitts says, “You want to call them and make sure the bank is keeping the data on their server, because you did not give permission for all of that data to be shared with the provider.” Having the data stored on the bank server helps protect against this malicious data harvesting.

In closing, I urge you to listen to the featured interview, as I’ve only summarized some of the key points here. In it, they review and discuss several signs, things that are happening now, that clearly illustrate where we’re headed.

Sources and References

Connect with Dr. Joseph Mercola

cover image credit: KokoColey / pixabay

Dr. Andrew Kaufman: The Straight Truth on Snake Venom Claims

by Dr. Andrew Kaufman
April 20, 2022

This video looks at the paper cited by Dr Bryan Ardis as the main evidence that snake venom plays a role in the current plandemic. The paper purports to have found a potential association between venom-like peptides found from various animals and Covid-19. Dr. Kaufman gives an overview of the relevant issues related to the snake venom controversy and gives a critical appraisal of the experiment and conclusions.

Connect with Dr. Andrew Kaufman

cover image credit: GDJ / pixabay

How Do You Know?

by Jeremy Nell, Jerm Warfare
sourced from Jerm Warfare newsletter
April 20, 2022

Thanks to the arrival of the fake pandemic, I have spent the last two years trying to piece together various puzzles and, while some of the smaller pieces sometimes don’t fit correctly, most of the larger pieces fit fairly tightly.

For example, a smaller puzzle piece might be the existence (or non-existence) of SARS-CoV-2, and a larger puzzle piece might be the global introduction of digital ID via vaccine passports.

The piecing-together is largely thanks to the hundreds of incredible podcast guests to whom I’ve had the pleasure of speaking. The more great minds to whom I speak, the less I know. It’s indeed humbling, especially because, as a political cartoonist of 17 years, I can confirm that humility is not a characteristic for which a satirist strives. After all, ridicule means positioning myself as excellent against those whom I consider mediocre.

Over the last two years I’ve noticed how, like me, others have gradually begun piecing together the various puzzles. But not many. As Belgian professor Mattias Desmet said, around 30% of all people will, sadly, remain asleep and blissfully continue their daily lives, believing the propaganda they’ve been fed by, what philosopher Curtis Yarvin refers to as, The Cathedral.

“The cathedral” is just a short way to say “journalism plus academia”—in other words, the intellectual institutions at the center of modern society, just as the Church was the intellectual institution at the center of medieval society.

It goes without saying that the government (and its shareholders) are upstream from journalism and academia.

But just as the sun began setting over the fake pandemic, a new sun rose over Ukraine, and the propaganda started from scratch.

We are in an information war, probably the most severe in history.

For example, before 2020, the research around masks was so clear that a discussion wasn’t even warranted. Here are over 150 comparative studies concluding that (different kinds of) masks do not prevent viral transmission. Today, however, that’s all changed. The Cathedral has done a sterling job at sowing confusion through deliberate misinformation; everybody just makes it up as they go along, these days.

The reason is because it’s not about a virus. It was never about virus.

It has always been about compliance and the ushering in of a new world order.

Last month, Joe Biden literally said that “a new world order is coming”.

Dismiss it, sure, but remember that he isn’t alone. George Bush said the same thing back in 1990. More recently, a member of the Australian government said that people “must accept the new world order”. Meanwhile, a member of the Ukrainian government said that Ukraine is “fighting for the new world order”.

South African president Cyril Ramaphosa said the same thing during 2020.

Why are they using the same terminology, and what is the “new world order”?

Firstly, it’s because the global elites – the Davos club – are in the same WhatsApp group. Secondly, it is precisely what the World Economic Forum’s Klaus Schwab refers to as The Fourth Industrial Revolution, a new paradigm in which the world is centrally governed by a few technocratic elites through the use of science and technology.

I strongly recommend you watch my conversation with Patrick Wood, who is an expert on the history of technocracy (which dates back to the 1930s).

My point is the following.

The more I try to piece together the puzzle, the more I realise that we’re in an information war.

We are told, daily, that SARS-CoV-2 is a deadly virus, but the all-cause mortality does not show that. Still, that doesn’t stop the propagandised types from punching blind.

Numerous times I’ve been shouted at with something along the lines of

“I have a friend who died from it!”

and when I ask

“how do you know?”

I get neither a coherent nor scientific answer. And that’s likely because he was programmed to believe that SARS-CoV-2 is a deadly virus and, as a result, no critical thought is required.

Same story with Ukraine.

All that matters is that we must believe what The Cathedral feeds us. Something something Putin is an evil dictator something something.

For example, the outrage over the Bucha massacre is unavoidable, and it’s all Russia’s fault.

Except that there is very little evidence it even happened.

Speaking of information wars, take a listen to my conversation about Yemen and the US-backed atrocities that have been happening there for years.

Let’s not even get started on Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and so on.

All that matters is that you “stand with Ukraine”.

But the puzzle piece that constantly fascinates me is

“how do you know?”

SARS-CoV-2 is a deadly virus, yes? Vladimir Putin’s troops massacred the people of Bucha, yes? Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, yes? Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK, yes? World Trade Centre Building 7 collapsed because of office fires, yes?

How do you know?

Connect with Jerm Warfare

cover image based on creative commons work of geralt

Beware the Snake Oil Salesmen

“The snake venom theory by Dr. Bryan Ardis is built upon the interpretation of the unpurified fraudulent
“SARS-COV-2” genome which is itself built upon references to other fraudulent genomes of human and
animal “coronaviruses” created in the very same way. Attempting to claim any connections between the
random A,C,T,G’s in a computer database is a useless and pointless exercise as the RNA that was fabricated
into the genome of a “virus” was never purified, isolated, and proven to physically exist in the first place.
Thus any connections between the protein codes said to belong to a “virus” which are then said to be closely
related to supposed snake “coronaviruses” is immediately invalid.

Using this invalid premise to then claim that people have been poisoned by snake venom in the vaccines,
the drugs, and the water supply is nothing but unsubstantiated science fiction that seems designed to have
a few purposes:

1. 1. To keep people engaged in the lie that a new disease known as “Covid-19” exists and that there is a
      singular cause.

   2. To restore faith in monoclonal antibodies and other toxic alternative treatments.

   3. To use the theory to promote and sell anti-venom supplements.

   4. To divide and distract those questioning the official narrative.

   5. To make the “Truther” community look foolish by falling for loosely tied-together circumstantial
      evidence that is easily debunked.”

~ Mike Stone

Beware the Snake Oil Salesmen

by Mike Stone, Viroliegy
April 18, 2022

“My story has never been to create fear, panic, and anxiety about water.” He said he told Peters that he believes “there’s actually a snake venom connection to all of COVID-19, and I think that’s the weapon.” – Dr. Bryan Ardis

https://www.thedailybeast.com

Summarizing his theory, Dr. Ardis said, “They are using Krait venom and Cobra venom, calling it Covid-19, you’re drinking it, it’s getting into your brainstem and it’s paralyzing your diaphragm’s ability to breathe.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/miamistandard.news/

I really didn’t want to write this article. I was hopeful that people would easily see right through the unsubstantiated claims of Dr. Bryan Ardis that snake venom is the cause of “Covid.” I was hopeful that people would take the time to research the information presented in support of the snake venom theory to see if it held any merit at all. I thought his whirlwind alternative media tour on the who’s who of questionable sources (including the likes of Stew Peters, Mike Adams, and Infowars) would have people questioning why this theory was allowed to be so heavily promoted so quickly. I thought that the fact that the man who created the “Covid” snake venom theory was actually selling his own anti-venom line of supplements would be enough grounds to be skeptical of his motive and his claims.

It seems I was wrong. Just like the baseless vaccine shedding and gain of function/bioweapons narratives, this new snake venom theory has sadly spread through the “Truther” community like wildfire, with many who rightfully challenge the existence of “viruses” clinging to the idea of a new invisible enemy to defeat. They believe that it must be a new toxin. It can’t possibly be the same factors we have seen each and every year leading to disease. This toxin must be hiding in the vaccines, the drugs, and/or even the very water we drink. What these “Truthers” do not realize is that this very line of thinking gives credibility to the idea of a new disease which requires new treatments in order to combat it. This is exactly what the pharmaceutical companies want you to believe.

However, there is NO NEW DISEASE. There is no need for any new or even existing pharmaceutical interventions to treat the same symptoms of detoxification people go through each and every year. In fact, the current treatments can easily be shown to have led to numerous unnecessary deaths. There is no new threat known as “Covid-19” which is being caused by any one factor. The factors leading to the symptoms of disease people are experiencing are multi-causal as they are every year.

Now this is not to say that the vaccines, the drugs, or even the water supply are free of toxins. These are all sources of toxicity and should be investigated as to their composition and effects on our health. However, the theory that there is one factor in all of these sources, i.e. snake venom, and this one factor is leading to the symptoms of disease people are experiencing is, at present time, completely baseless. And it all begins at the very foundation of the fraudulent genome.

The Fradulent Genome

You take that snake or that serpent and you figure out how to isolate genes from that serpent and get those genes of that serpent to insert itself into your God-given created DNA. I think this is the plan all along, was to get the serpents’, the evil one’s DNA, into your God-created DNA.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/covid-conspiracy-theorists-are-at-war-over-snake-venom

He also said genetic sequence testing done on sick patients in Wuhan found their genetic sequence matched two snakes, the Chinese Krait and King Cobra, not bats.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/miamistandard.news/

From Dr. Ardis’ interview with Mike Adams, he supplied the article “Snakes could be the source of the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak” from CNN as his starting point for the “Covid”/snake connection. Within the article, you can see that this claim originates from the fraudulent genomes:

“The researchers used an analysis of the protein codes favored by the new coronavirus and compared it to the protein codes from coronaviruses found in different animal hosts, like birds, snakes, marmots, hedgehogs, manis, bats and humans. Surprisingly, they found that the protein codes in the 2019-nCoV are most similar to those used in snakes.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/

To anyone who actually researched the creation of the original “SARS-COV-2” genome, it is readily apparent that it is a fraudulent computer-generated creation stemming from the unpurified lung fluid of a single patient. The sequenced material could have come from multiple sources, including host DNA/RNA, bacteria, and microbes/microorganisms. It could have even come from outside contamination. There is no way to tell what the origin of the RNA is or even if it was a single source as no particles assumed to be “SARS-COV-2” were ever properly purified and isolated directly from the fluids of the sick patient before being sequenced. Thus, any relation this fabricated sequence has to any other sequence is invalid as the source was never identified to exist as a physical entity to begin with. Considering that the bat and snake “coronavirus” sequences for which the “SARS-COV-2” sequence was then compared to also come from unpurified sources, it is easy to see that any claims as to the origins of the sequenced material is a horrible foundation to build upon for an origin theory of a nonexistent “virus” and/or disease.

Even if this snake-venom connection was valid, the enzyme phospholipase A2 group IIA or sPLA2-IIA, which Dr. Ardis bases much of his claims on, only has similarities to rattlesnake venom. These peptides are “almost identical” to the venoms of animals and yet they are regularly found in healthy humans and other mammals. From his own source:

Like Venom Coursing Through the Body: Researchers Identify Mechanism Driving COVID-19 Mortality

“Researchers from the University of Arizona, in collaboration with Stony Brook University and Wake Forest School of Medicine, analyzed blood samples from two COVID-19 patient cohorts and found that circulation of the enzyme – secreted phospholipase A2 group IIA, or sPLA2-IIA, – may be the most important factor in predicting which patients with severe COVID-19 eventually succumb to the virus.

The sPLA2-IIA enzyme, which has similarities to an active enzyme in rattlesnake venom, is found in low concentrations in healthy individuals and has long been known to play a critical role in defense against bacterial infections, destroying microbial cell membranes.”

Thus, the snake enzymes are in fact normal human enzymes that are regularly found in healthy individuals. There is no mystery as to why these would be present in a sample. We should be able to put this “Covid” snake venom nonsense to bed right here. However, let’s press on a see what else we can uncover.

Antivenom = Monoclonal Antibodies

One thing I will give Dr. Ardis credit for is spotlighting the connection between the creation of antivenoms with the creation of monoclonal antibodies. The processes for both are very similar and the desired outcome is the exact same: the creation of theoretical antibodies. In the case of snake antivenom, it is normally created by a series of injections of the venom of a snake into an animal and then collecting the blood after a period of time. This is usually done through horses but other animals can be used as the host as well. Thus, the antivenom used for a snakebite victim is typically an injection of horse blood.

Monoclonal antibodies, on the other hand, are created by injecting mice with an antigen, extracting the resulting blood which contains the theoretical antibodies, and culturing it in myeloma (i.e. cancer) cells. For the creation of “SARS-COV-2” therapies, it is said that they are typically created either from the B cells of recovered “Covid” patients or by immunizing mice genetically modified to have a humanized immune system and harvesting the “effective” antibodies from them.

Both of these therapies have their basis in animal blood and the creation of the theoretical antibodies. Both are associated with toxic side effects. Sadly, while he was originally right about the fact that monoclonal antibodies are toxic and should not be used to treat the symptoms now collectively known as “Covid,” Dr. Ardis changed his tune when another doctor texted him asking if he would use antivenom for a snake bite:

“Last December, Dr Bryan Ardis received a text message from an Emergency Room physician friend of his that sent him down an unexpected and bizarre rabbit hole that may explain the adverse events from the vaccines that we’ve been reporting. The text read: “Hey Dr Ardis…If you got bit by a rattlesnake, would you go to a hospital and get anti-venom?”

“He says, “I realized, all of a sudden, monoclonal antibodies ARE anti-venom. The Federal Government doesn’t want us using anti-venom. Why are they fighting anti-venom and why are we finding anti-venom works against COVID? Is it not a virus? Is it a venom? This is what I want to know: Is COVID a venom and is this why they don’t want you using monoclonal antibodies?”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/cairnsnews.org/

Do you see the trick? They want you to equate monoclonal antibodies with antivenom. This is supposed to be an “aha” moment where you realize that there is no way that you would not inject antivenom (i.e. horse blood) into yourself if bitten by a snake. It’s a no-brainer, right? We have all seen the movies where a person is bitten by a venomous snake and quickly dies if not given the antivenom.



If you are willing to accept the injection of horse blood into your body to survive a snake bite, why wouldn’t you also inject the cancer-cell cultured blood of genetically altered mice in order to combat “Covid?”

As Dr. Ardis points out, monoclonal antibodies are essentially antivenom. However, he wrongly states that monoclonal antibodies are an effective therapy. According to a September 2021 Cochrane review of the available studies, they found insufficient evidence to claim that monoclonal antibodies are an effective treatment for “SARS-COV-2:”

Are laboratory-made, COVID-19-specific monoclonal antibodies an effective treatment for COVID-19?

“The evidence for each comparison is based on single studies. None of these measured quality of life. Our certainty in the evidence for all non-hospitalised individuals is low, and for hospitalised individuals is very low to moderate. We consider the current evidence insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions regarding treatment with SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs.”

https://www.cochrane.org/CD013825/

In other words, the evidence for the usefulness of monoclonal antibodies is non-existent. Unfortunately, the Cochrane Review failed to point out that there are various risks and adverse reactions associated with their use:

Do mAbs have risks?

“Therapeutic mAbs, typically administered by intravenous (IV) infusion, have been a valuable and generally safe treatment option for a variety of conditions for many years. However, they are also known to cause a range of side effects and reactions, which can be immediate or delayed. Serious adverse events associated with mAbs include infusion reactions, acute anaphylaxis, and serum sickness, as well as longer-term complications such as infections, cancer, autoimmune disease, and cardiotoxicity.”

https://www.ecri.org/components/

In January 2022, the FDA restricted the use of some monoclonal therapies (Bamlanivimab and Etesevimab) that are authorized against “Covid-19” as they were shown to be ineffective:

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Limits Use of Certain Monoclonal Antibodies to Treat COVID-19 Due to the Omicron Variant

“In light of the most recent information and data available, today, the FDA revised the authorizations for two monoclonal antibody treatments – bamlanivimab and etesevimab (administered together) and REGEN-COV (casirivimab and imdevimab) – to limit their use to only when the patient is likely to have been infected with or exposed to a variant that is susceptible to these treatments. 

Because data show these treatments are highly unlikely to be active against the omicron variant, which is circulating at a very high frequency throughout the United States, these treatments are not authorized for use in any U.S. states, territories, and jurisdictions at this time. In the future, if patients in certain geographic regions are likely to be infected or exposed to a variant that is susceptible to these treatments, then use of these treatments may be authorized in these regions.

Monoclonal antibodies are laboratory-made proteins that mimic the immune system’s ability to fight off harmful pathogens such as viruses, like SARS-CoV-2. And like other infectious organisms, SARS-CoV-2 can mutate over time, resulting in certain treatments not working against certain variants such as omicron. This is the case with these two treatments for which we’re making changes today.”

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/

On April 16th, 2022, the FDA revoked the use of Bamlanivimab alone as it’s benefits were shown not to outweigh its risks. Somehow despite this evidence, the FDA still allows for it to be used in combination with Etesevimab, even though they previously revoked their use together in January 2022:

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Revokes Emergency Use Authorization for Monoclonal Antibody Bamlanivimab

“Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked the emergency use authorization (EUA) that allowed for the investigational monoclonal antibody therapy bamlanivimab, when administered alone, to be used for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in adults and certain pediatric patients. Based on its ongoing analysis of emerging scientific data, specifically the sustained increase of SARS-CoV-2 viral variants that are resistant to bamlanivimab alone resulting in the increased risk for treatment failure, the FDA has determined that the known and potential benefits of bamlanivimab, when administered alone, no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for its authorized use. Therefore, the agency determined that the criteria for issuance of an authorization are no longer met and has revoked the EUA.

On Nov. 9, 2020, based on the totality of scientific evidence available at the time, the FDA issued an EUA to Eli Lilly and Co. authorizing the emergency use of bamlanivimab alone for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults and pediatric patients (12 years of age and older weighing at least 40 kg) with positive results of direct SARS-CoV-2 viral testing, and who are at high risk for progressing to severe COVID-19 and/or hospitalization. Importantly, although the FDA is now revoking this EUA, alternative monoclonal antibody therapies remain available under EUA, including REGEN-COV (casirivimab and imdevimab, administered together), and bamlanivimab and etesevimab, administered together, for the same uses as previously authorized for bamlanivimab alone. The FDA believes that these alternative monoclonal antibody therapies remain appropriate to treat patients with COVID-19 when used in accordance with the authorized labeling based on information available at this time.”

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/

If the FDA’s confusing revoking of the EUA’s of these monoclonal antibodies has you concerned that you will not be able to use them against an imaginary “virus,” don’t worry. The FDA authorized the use of a new “Omicron-specific” monoclonal antibody called Bebtelovimab on February 11th, 2022. Granted, it still carries the same risks, adverse side effects, and uncertainty over clinical worsening listed for the previously ineffective antibody therapies. From the FDA fact sheet:

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Authorizes New Monoclonal Antibody for Treatment of COVID-19 that Retains Activity Against Omicron Variant

“Possible side effects of bebtelovimab include itching, rash, infusion-related reactions, nausea and vomiting. Serious and unexpected adverse events including hypersensitivity, anaphylaxis and infusion-related reactions have been observed with other SARS-CoV2 monoclonal antibodies and could occur with bebtelovimab. In addition, clinical worsening following administration of other SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody treatment has been reported and therefore is possible with bebtelovimab. It is not known if these events were related to SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody use or were due to progression of COVID-19.”

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Authorizes New Monoclonal Antibody for Treatment of COVID-19 that Retains Activity Against Omicron Variant

• Hypersensitivity Including Anaphylaxis and Infusion-Related Reactions: Serious hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis, have been observed with administration of other SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies and could occur with administration of bebtelovimab. If clinically significant hypersensitivity reactions occur, discontinue and initiate appropriate supportive care. Infusion-related reactions may occur up to 24 hours post injection. These reactions may be severe or life threatening. (5.1)
• Clinical Worsening After SARS-CoV-2 Monoclonal Antibody Administration: Clinical worsening of COVID-19 after administration of SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody treatment has been reported and may include signs or symptoms of fever, hypoxia or increased respiratory difficulty, arrhythmia (e.g., atrial fibrillation, sinus tachycardia, bradycardia), fatigue, and altered mental status. Some of these events required hospitalization. It is not known if these events were related to SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody use or were due to progression of COVID-19. (5.2)
• Limitations of Benefit and Potential for Risk in Patients with Severe COVID-19: Treatment with bebtelovimab has not been studied in patients hospitalized due to COVID-19. Monoclonal antibodies, such as bebtelovimab, may be associated with worse clinical outcomes when administered to hospitalized patients with COVID-19 requiring high flow oxygen or mechanical ventilation. (5.3)

http://www.fda.gov/media/156152/download

It should be fairly clear that, unlike Dr. Ardis’ claims, monoclonal antibodies are not effective, carry numerous risky side effects, and can actually worsen the disease they are supposed to treat. Interestingly, this same risk of dangerous side effects and worsening disease outcomes is associated with snake antivenom as well. From the fact sheet of a commonly used antivenom for rattlesnake bites, we find these admitted side effects:

Rattlesnake Antivenin Side Effects Center

“Rattlesnake Antivenin (antivenin crotalidae polyvalent) is an antivenin product used only to treat envenomation caused by bites of crotalids (pit vipers) including rattlesnakes, copperhead and cottonmouth moccasins, and others. Common side effects of Rattlesnake Antivenin include allergic reactions such as flushing, itching, hives, swelling of the face/tongue/throat, cough, shortness of breath, blue color to the skin, vomiting, and anaphylaxis (severe allergic reaction).”

“Immediate systemic reactions (allergic reactions or anaphylaxis) can occur whenever a horse-serum-containing product is administered. An immediate reaction (e.g. shock, anaphylaxis) usually occurs within 30 minutes. Symptoms and signs may develop before the needle is withdrawn and may include apprehension, flushing, itching, urticaria; edema of the face, tongue, and throat; cough, dyspnea, cyanosis, vomiting, and collapse. There have been isolated reports of cardiac arrest and death associated with Antivenin (Crotalidae) Polyvalent (equine origin) use.”

“Serum sickness usually occurs 5 to 24 days after administration and its frequency may be related to the number of Antivenin vials administered.³⁰ The incubation period may be less than 5 days, especially in those who have received horse-serum-containing preparations in the past. The usual symptoms and signs are malaise, fever, urticaria, lymphadenopathy, edema, arthralgia, nausea, and vomiting. Occasionally, neurological manifestations develop, such as meningismus or peripheral neuritis. Peripheral neuritis usually involves the shoulders and arms. Pain and muscle weakness are frequently present, and permanent atrophy may develop.”

https://www.rxlist.com/rattlesnake-antivenin-side-effects-drug-center.htm

Maybe the use of antivenom to treat a snakebite isn’t the super cure it has been sold to be? Is it possible that, as with many pharmaceutical products and interventions, the antivenom itself is creating the very symptoms it is said to treat? For some further insight, let’s look at a few highlights from an paper from September 2019, right before this “crisis,” which reviewed the use of antivenom and had a few revealing claims about the “anti” toxin. You will see it reiterated that the injection of antivenom created from either horse, sheep, goats, and/or rabbits can cause immediate hypersensitivity and anaphylaxis or a delayed “serum sickness” which can occur weeks after the treatment. It is stated that the antivenom has limited efficacy and can be entirely ineffective based on the geographic location. Improper use of antivenom contributes to increased servere outcomes and the production of antibodies in animals leads to a large number (70%) of immunoglobulins that do not react to snake venom:

Perspective on the Therapeutics of Anti-Snake Venom

3. Current Information in the Design of New Antivenoms

“Currently, the only accepted treatment for snakebite envenomation involves intravenous administration of conventional antivenoms comprising antibodies or antibody fragments derived from the plasma of large mammals (generally horses, but also sheep, goats, or rabbits) that have been previously immunized with non-lethal venomous doses [14,15]. Hyperimmunized animals produce antibodies against the venom proteins and serum is extracted from their blood for the treatment of envenomation [6,16]. Conventional serum therapy aims to bind and neutralize the snake venom proteins [17]. It is a fact that the antivenom allows the body to try to reverse the damage caused by the venom. However, it is known that such therapy can cause problems related to different antivenom characteristics, such as:

• • Immediate hypersensitivity reaction to the alien immunoglobulins, including anaphylactic and pyrogenic reactions such as chills, rigor, headache, and tachycardia. Delayed antivenom reactions or serum sickness is observed after 8 to 12 days of treatment; these are characterized by cutaneous eruptions, fever, and allergies, among other effects [18];
  • Limited efficacy of antivenom therapy to protect the affected organ/s against immediate local tissue damage and low stability;
  • Ineffectiveness of the antivenom due to significant geographic variation in the composition of the venom;
  • Antigenic reactivity due to the taxonomic diversity of the snakes;
  • Improper use of the antivenom due to incorrect medical management, which contributes to a high incidence of adverse reactions, a low toxin neutralizing potency, or both.

“Current antibody production faces challenges during the immunization of the animal (equine or ovine), leading to the production of a huge number of antibodies that are not related to the snake venom. Around 70% of the immunoglobulins obtained do not act directly against venom toxins [26]. Despite the abovementioned facts, this is the only FDA approved therapy to treat snake venom.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6767026/

A few other studies also point out the severe reactions regularly attributed to the use of antivenom. The first is a study from 2016 which points out that not only are adverse reactions common, they occur at a high rate. It is stated that this is due to poor quality control and manufacturing problems:

Adverse reactions to snake antivenom, and their prevention and treatment

“Antivenom is the mainstay of treatment of snakebite envenoming. However, adverse reactions to snake antivenom that is available are common in many parts of the world where snakebite is prevalent. Both acute (anaphylactic or pyrogenic) and delayed (serum sickness type) reactions occur. Acute reactions are usually mild but severe systemic anaphylaxis may develop, often within an hour or so of exposure to antivenom. Serum sickness after antivenom has a delayed onset between 5 and 14 days after its administration. Ultimately, the prevention reactions will depend mainly on improving the quality of antivenom.”

“The high rate of acute adverse reactions to antivenom is an example of how poor manufacturing and quality control by antivenom producers cause problems for patients and their doctors. This highlights the importance of addressing issues related to poor quality and potentially unsafe antivenom. Ultimately, the prevention of reactions will depend mainly on improving the quality of antivenom. Until these improvements take place, doctors will have to depend on pharmacological prophylaxis as well as careful observation of patients receiving antivenom in preparation for prompt management of acute as well as delayed reactions when they occur.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4767202/

This next source is from 2018 and it points out that early antivenoms were unsafe and caused severe life-threatening events. While they now have “acceptable” safety profiles, antivenoms still have varying quality and range from 10% adverse reactions to greater than 50%. This same variation in quality is seen in the production of monoclonal antibodies:

Antivenom therapy: efficacy of premedication for the prevention of adverse reactions

“However, in their initial applications, antivenoms did not exhibit good safety results and could even cause life-threatening side effects [8]. The main reason was that first antivenoms were poorly purified preparations or crude sera. Over the years, for many of the original applications, heterologous serums were replaced by other drugs with better safety profiles, such as antibiotics, vaccines and homologous serums. However, in cases of envenomation by snakes, scorpions or arachnids, antivenoms remain the only effective treatment [4]. Currently, after many improvements, antivenoms exhibit acceptable safety profiles [1, 9, 10]. Nevertheless, antivenom quality still varies widely depending on the producer, while some antivenoms exhibit adverse reaction rates of less than 10%, others have values of greater than 50% [11, 12].”

https://jvat.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40409-018-0144-0

In is interesting to note that there are many factors that are said to influence the severity of a venomous snakebite including the age, sex, and health of the person bitten as well as the type of snake, the geographical location of the snake, the season the bite occurred in, what the snake ate, and how recently the snake released its venom. Antivenoms themselves have been shown to have varying effects in quality due to the geographical location of the snake which somehow renders the antivenom ineffective and even dangerous in different countries and continents, even against the same type of snake. It is said that this has kept locals from seeking out medical care and sticking to traditional healers:
“Snake venoms are highly complicated. At least 26 separate enzymes have been identified with 10 of these enzymes common to all snake venoms (though in different concentrations). All snake bites are not equal. The quality of venom depends not only on the type of snake but on the season, the geographical region, the age of the snake, and how recently it has released venom previously.”

https://www.vin.com/apputil/content/

Antivenom’s fatal flaw

“A study led by Dr Fry has found that antivenoms produced using snakes from one region may perform poorly or fail completely against the same species of snakes from other regions.

Researchers tested the effectiveness of two African and two Indian saw-scaled viper antivenoms against saw-scaled vipers from 10 regions.

The results showed that the two African antivenoms were only effective against snakes from restricted ranges.

One antivenom performed well against West African saw-scaled vipers and the other performed best against the East African saw-scaled vipers.

The Indian antivenom only worked against saw-scaled vipers from the region where the antidote was produced and failed against toxins from other Indian regions. It failed completely against African saw-scaled vipers.

“These antivenoms are being sold and used interchangeably to treat all saw-scaled viper bites, and in many cases they are not working,” Dr Fry says.

“In Kenya, snakebite deaths have increased dramatically after hospitals switched supplies of a very effective African antivenom with a cheaper Indian variety.”

“This creates a knock-on effect in these communities. It’s hard enough to convince people living in these regions not to go to traditional healers to treat snakebite. And if someone does seek proper medical care but dies because of ineffective antivenom, it will be even harder to convince the next victim to seek out antivenom.”

Viper venom’s lethal evolution 

It’s the variety of the saw-scaled viper’s prey, from rodents to insects, that researchers say could be the reason why antivenom from one region might not work in another.

“Antivenom is effective and reliable when venom composition does not vary greatly between individual snakes,” UQ PhD candidate in Toxinology Bianca op den Brouw wrote in an article for The Conversation.

“Unfortunately, the venom composition from saw-scaled vipers varies between populations and is thought to be partly due to an evolutionary adaptation linked to their diet.

“Different saw-scaled viper populations feed on different prey. The physiology of these prey animals differs, and this dictates what makes a toxin effective.

“From a medical perspective, this means that the antibodies in an antivenom may not be able to adequately recognise and fight all the harmful toxins in the venom.”

http://uq.edu.au/research/impact/stories/antivenoms-fatal-flaw/

Maybe the proceeding information on how snakebite antivenoms are created as well as the high rate of adverse events from the antibodies used for antivenom now has you questioning that initial “no-brainer” thought: “Of course I would use antivenom if bit by a snake.” If so, you are on the right track as, based on information from the African Snakebite Institute, in most snake bite cases, antivenom is not used and many snake bites are often unattended and/or unreported. In fact, it is apparently a well-known “myth” (i.e. truth in this case) that the antivenom kills more people than the snake venom itself. Most people (over 80%) never receive antivenom as, like the previous sources stated, it can have disastrous side-effects. Most snake bites do not cause symptoms warranting the use of something so toxic. In fact, snake bite victims are not immediately injected with antivenom and typically are sent home after observation:

“Yet people often have a poor understanding of how it works and there are endless myths about antivenom killing more people than the snake venom itself.”

“Few snakebite victims are treated with antivenom (less than 20 % of those hospitalised after a snakebite) as most victims are not severely envenomated or the bite may be from a snake that is not considered potentially deadly or is not covered by the antivenom (Rhombic Night Adder, Berg Adder and Stiletto Snake). Antivenom is relatively scarce, expensive and can have disastrous side-effects. The biggest danger is an acute allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) or, to a lesser degree, serum sickness that can affect the immune system several days after treatment.”

“Snakebite victims are not automatically injected with antivenom as most of them never experience symptoms severe enough to justify its use. The majority of snakes have control over their venom glands and are quite reluctant to waste their venom on humans. They very often give ‘dry’ bites with no subsequent symptoms of envenomation or the snake might inject a little bit of venom that will cause discomfort or some symptoms but nothing serious. Such patients are usually hospitalised for a day, carefully monitored and then sent home.”

“As already mentioned, some snakebite victims quickly have an allergic reaction to antivenom and this happens in more than 40% of all cases where antivenom is used. Some of those victims go into anaphylactic shock which is a life-threatening medical condition and must be treated with adrenaline. This has to do with the fact that our antivenom is made from horse blood and the allergy is basically an allergy to horse proteins.”

If snake bites regularly do not cause symptoms and do not require the use of antivenom, are snake bites really as toxic and harmful as we previously thought? Are the dangerous side effects linked to snake bites really just the reactions to having horse blood injected into the body as treatment? Is this another case where the treatment causes the symptoms of disease it was supposed to prevent? If the examples of these next few individuals are taken into consideration, it’s entirely plausible to conclude that we have been misled about the dangers stemming from snakebites in order to cover for the toxic effects of the treatment:

Repeated snake bite for recreation: Mechanisms and implications

“There is a debate in the fatality/immunity due to repeated snake bites in human beings either accidentally or incidentally. Haast and Winer[11] reported complete recovery of a patient without any specific therapy even after bitten by a deadly snake Bangarus Caeruleus[11] and the authors attributed it to cross protection of existing antibody between species of Bangarus and Indian, African and Egyptian cobras, as he had a history of bites from these snakes earlier.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3883202/

This snake-man got himself bitten over 200 times to become immune to venom

“Bill Haast, a scientist turned snake-man from America, was bitten at least 173 times by poisonous snakes in his life till mid-2008 of which he was fatally injured about 20 times.”

“In the 1950s, he had few ill-effects and didnt need any anti-venom in spite of the fact that he was bitten by the cobras about 20 times as per the report published in Today I Found Out.“

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.indiatoday.in/

Man makes deadly snakes bite him 160 times in hunt for human antidote

“An amateur scientist has deliberately endured more than 160 self-inflicted snake bites in a bid to become immune to venom.

Tim Friede is obsessed by finding a human antidote to poisonous snake bites, which kill an estimated 100,000 people every year.

Mr Friede was recently bitten by a taipan and a black mamba, two deadly snakes he keeps at his home in Wisconsin, USA, in addition to his two rattlesnakes and water cobra.

He said he experienced a “real throbbing sensation” but he “felt great” after the bites.

“It really hurts and it swells but that’s it,” he said.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/

Poison pass: the man who became immune to snake venom

“A lot has been written about Steve Ludwin, widely known as the man who injects snake venom, and lately his life has turned into a non-stop frenzy of international journalists and film crews revelling in the seeming sheer insanity of it.”

“He’s been shooting, swallowing and scratching venom into his skin from some of the world’s deadliest snakes for 30 years. “Snakes are fucking everywhere. The symbol for medicine is two snakes. They’re ingrained in our brain and DNA,” he tells me, proudly insisting that he hasn’t been ill for decades and has developed “a superhuman immune system”. And it’s tempting to believe him. He does look undeniably fit.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/

The Photographer Who Was Bitten by a Black Mamba… and Got the Shot
“After several minutes and then hours passed and Laita was still feeling fine — experts recommend heading straight for a hospital, by the way — the crew concluded that Laita didn’t have any venom in his system. The photographer believes that it was either a “dry bite,” when a snake doesn’t release any venom, or that his heavy flow of blood pushed out the venom.”

The Photographer Who Was Bitten By A Black Mamba… And Got The Shot

As can be seen, there are numerous examples of people being deliberately and accidentally bitten by the world’s deadliest snakes who are completely fine and do not require treatment from antivenom whatsoever. Are we to conclude that these people are the lucky few who somehow have amazing super-human “immune” systems that render snake venom ineffective? Or have snake bites and the associated symptoms of venom toxicity been blown out of proportion? Could this be a case where some have had bad reactions to a snake bite just as there are those who have severe allergic reactions to bee stings while the majority of snake bite and bee sting victims come away unscathed? Could this be similar to the supposed rabies cases where the majority of those who were bitten by “rabid” animals actually went on to be just fine without getting the rabies vaccination?

The Treatments Are Worse Than the Disease

It’s very apparent that in the case of monoclonal antibodies and anivenom, the adverse effects of the drugs are actually worse than the supposed diseases they are meant to treat. Could this be due to the fact that, like “viruses,” so-called antibodies have never been properly purified, isolated, and proven to exist? The results of studies using antibodies are regularly unreproducible and irreplicable. It is well-known that antibodies are in fact not as specific as are they are claimed to be and are said to regularly bind to the wrong proteins. Perhaps it is difficult to produce safe and effective products when the entities that are supposed to be produced and supplied in the animal blood are entirely theoretical? Maybe the ridiculous snake venom theory should be viewed in the context that it is a bad idea to be injecting anything, let alone animal blood, into our bodies in an attempt to make ourselves feel better when trusting the body and allowing it to heal is often times the best course of action we can take.

In Summary:

• Dr. Bryan Ardis put forth a theory that snake venom is the cause of “Covid-19” primarily based on fraudulent genomic data
• The snake connection stems from research linking proteins from the fabricated “SARS-COV-2” genome to bat and snake “coronavirus” proteins
• The enzyme phospholipase A2 group IIA or sPLA2-IIA, which Dr. Ardis bases much of his claims on, only has similarities to rattlesnake venom
• These peptides are “almost identical” to the venoms of animals and are regularly found in healthy humans and other mammals
• Dr. Ardis pointed out that, based on a text, he uncovered the connection between antivenom and monoclonal antibodies and stated that they are the same thing
• He wrongly concluded that monoclonal antibodies are an effective treatment for snake poisons that could be in the vaccines, Remdesivir, and water
• According to a Sept 2021 Cochrane Review, their certainty in the evidence for the use of monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of “Covid” for all non-hospitalised individuals was low, and for hospitalised individuals was very low to moderate
• They considered the current evidence insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions regarding treatment with “SARS-CoV-2-neutralising” mAbs
• Monoclonal antibodies are known to cause a range of side effects and reactions, which can be immediate or delayed
• Serious adverse events associated with mAbs include infusion reactions, acute anaphylaxis, and serum sickness, as well as longer-term complications such as infections, cancer, autoimmune disease, and cardiotoxicity
• In February 2022, the FDA revised the authorizations for two monoclonal antibody treatments – bamlanivimab and etesevimab (administered together) and REGEN-COV (casirivimab and imdevimab) – to limit their use to only when the patient is likely to have been infected with or exposed to a variant that is susceptible to these treatments
• The data showed these treatments are highly unlikely to be active against the omicron variant which is circulating at a very high frequency throughout the United States
• These treatments are not authorized for use in any U.S. states, territories, and jurisdictions at this time
• Monoclonal antibodies are laboratory-made proteins that mimic the immune system’s ability to fight off harmful pathogens
• In April 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked the emergency use authorization (EUA) that allowed for the investigational monoclonal antibody therapy bamlanivimab, when administered alone, to be used for the treatment of mild-to-moderate “COVID-19” in adults and certain pediatric patients
• Based on its ongoing analysis of emerging scientific data, specifically the sustained increase of “SARS-CoV-2 viral” variants that are resistant to bamlanivimab alone resulting in the increased risk for treatment failure, the FDA determined that the known and potential benefits of bamlanivimab, when administered alone, no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for its authorized use
• Importantly, although the FDA revoked this EUA, alternative monoclonal antibody therapies remain available under EUA, including REGEN-COV (casirivimab and imdevimab, administered together), and bamlanivimab and etesevimab, administered together, for the same uses as previously authorized for bamlanivimab alone
• In other words, the use of Bamlanivimab and Etesevimab was revoked as well as the use of Bamlanivimab but they can still be used together as an alternative to Bamlanivimab alone…
• For the Omicron-specific Bebtelovimab authorized by the FDA in February 2022, possible side effects include
  1. Itching
  2. Rash
  3. Infusion-related reactions
  4. Nausea
  5. Vomiting
• Serious and unexpected adverse events including hypersensitivity, anaphylaxis and infusion-related reactions have been observed with other “SARS-CoV2” monoclonal antibodies and could occur with bebtelovimab
• In addition, clinical worsening following administration of other “SARS-CoV-2” monoclonal antibody treatment has been reported and therefore is possible with bebtelovimab
• The FDA claims that it is not known if these events were related to “SARS-CoV-2” monoclonal antibody use or were due to progression of “COVID-19”
• Signs or symptoms of worsening outcomes include:
  1. Fever
  2. Hypoxia or increased respiratory difficulty
  3. Arrhythmia (e.g., atrial fibrillation, sinus tachycardia, bradycardia)
  4. Fatigue
  5. Altered mental status
• Treatment with Bebtelovimab has not been studied in patients hospitalized due to “COVID-19”
• Monoclonal antibodies, such as Bebtelovimab, may be associated with worse clinical outcomes when administered to hospitalized patients with “COVID-19” requiring high flow oxygen or mechanical ventilation
• Antivenom carries the same risks of severe side effects and worsening condition as monoclonal antibodies
• The listing for common side effects of Rattlesnake Antivenin include allergic reactions such as:
  1. Flushing
  2. Iitching
  3. Hives
  4. Swelling of the face/tongue/throat
  5. Cough
  6. Shortness of breath
  7. Blue color to the skin
  8. Vomiting, and anaphylaxis (severe allergic reaction)
• Immediate systemic reactions (allergic reactions or anaphylaxis) can occur whenever a horse-serum-containing product is administered
• There have been isolated reports of cardiac arrest and death associated with Antivenin (Crotalidae) Polyvalent (equine origin) use
• Serum sickness usually occurs 5 to 24 days after administration and its frequency may be related to the number of Antivenin vials administered
• The usual symptoms and signs are:
  1. Malaise
  2. Fever
  3. Urticaria
  4. Lymphadenopathy
  5. Edema
  6. Arthralgia
  7. Nausea
  8. Vomiting
• Occasionally, neurological manifestations develop, such as meningismus or peripheral neuritis
• Peripheral neuritis usually involves the shoulders and arms and pain and muscle weakness are frequently present, and permanent atrophy may develop
• A 2019 review on antivenom stated that currently, the only accepted treatment for snakebite envenomation involves intravenous administration of conventional antivenoms comprising antibodies or antibody fragments derived from the plasma of large mammals (generally horses, but also sheep, goats, or rabbits) that have been previously immunized with non-lethal venomous doses
• It is known that such therapy can cause problems related to different antivenom characteristics, such as:
  1. Immediate hypersensitivity reaction to the alien immunoglobulins, including anaphylactic and pyrogenic reactions such as chills, rigor, headache, and tachycardia.
  2. Delayed antivenom reactions or serum sickness is observed after 8 to 12 days of treatment; these are characterized by cutaneous eruptions, fever, and allergies, among other effects
  3. Limited efficacy of antivenom therapy to protect the affected organ/s against immediate local tissue damage and low stability
  4. Ineffectiveness of the antivenom due to significant geographic variation in the composition of the venom;
  5. Antigenic reactivity due to the taxonomic diversity of the snakes
  6. Improper use of the antivenom due to incorrect medical management, which contributes to a high incidence of adverse reactions, a low toxin neutralizing potency, or both
• Current antibody production faces challenges during the immunization of the animal (equine or ovine), leading to the production of a huge number of antibodies that are not related to the snake venom
• Around 70% of the immunoglobulins obtained do not act directly against venom toxins
• According to a 2016 study, adverse reactions to snake antivenom that is available are common in many parts of the world where snakebite is prevalent
• The high rate of acute adverse reactions to antivenom is an example of how poor manufacturing and quality control by antivenom producers cause problems for patients and their doctors
• The prevention of reactions will depend mainly on improving the quality of antivenom
• According to their initial applications, antivenoms did not exhibit good safety results and could even cause life-threatening side effects
• Currently, after many improvements, antivenoms exhibit “acceptable” safety profiles yet antivenom quality still varies widely depending on the producer, while some antivenoms exhibit adverse reaction rates of less than 10%, others have values of greater than 50%
• All snake bites are not equal and the quality of venom depends not only on the type of snake but on the season, the geographical region, the age of the snake, and how recently it has released venom previously
• A study led by Dr. Fry found that antivenoms produced using snakes from one region may perform poorly or fail completely against the same species of snakes from other regions
• The results showed that the two African antivenoms were only effective against snakes from restricted ranges
• One antivenom performed well against West African saw-scaled vipers and the other performed best against the East African saw-scaled vipers
• The Indian antivenom only worked against saw-scaled vipers from the region where the antidote was produced and failed against toxins from other Indian region and it failed completely against African saw-scaled vipers
• “These antivenoms are being sold and used interchangeably to treat all saw-scaled viper bites, and in many cases they are not working,” Dr Fry said
• If someone does seek proper medical care but dies because of ineffective antivenom, it will be even harder to convince the next victim to seek out antivenom
• Antivenom is effective and reliable when venom composition does not vary greatly between individual snakes
• Unfortunately, the venom composition from saw-scaled vipers varies between populations and is thought to be partly due to an evolutionary adaptation linked to their diet
• From a medical perspective, this means that the antibodies in an antivenom may not be able to adequately recognise and fight all the harmful toxins in the venom
• There are endless myths about antivenom killing more people than the snake venom itself
• Few snakebite victims are treated with antivenom (less than 20 % of those hospitalised after a snakebite
• Antivenom is relatively scarce, expensive and can have disastrous side-effects
• Snakebite victims are not automatically injected with antivenom as most of them never experience symptoms severe enough to justify its use
• Snakes very often give ‘dry’ bites with no subsequent symptoms of envenomation or the snake might inject a little bit of venom that will cause discomfort or some symptoms but nothing serious
• Such patients are usually hospitalised for a day, carefully monitored and then sent home
• Some snakebite victims quickly have an allergic reaction to antivenom and this happens in more than 40% of all cases where antivenom is used
• This has to do with the fact that antivenom is made from horse blood and the allergy is basically an allergy to horse proteins
• Haast and Winer reported complete recovery of a patient without any specific therapy even after bitten by a deadly snake Bangarus Caeruleus and the authors attributed it to cross protection of existing antibody between species of Bangarus and Indian, African and Egyptian cobras, as he had a history of bites from these snakes earlier
• Bill Haast, a scientist turned snake-man from America, was bitten at least 173 times by poisonous snakes in his life till mid-2008 of which he was seriously injured about 20 times
• In the 1950s, he had few ill-effects and didnt need any anti-venom in spite of the fact that he was bitten by the cobras about 20 times
• An amateur scientist named Tim Friede deliberately endured more than 160 self-inflicted snake bites in a bid to become immune to venom
• Mr Friede was recently bitten by a taipan and a black mamba, two deadly snakes he keeps at his home in Wisconsin, USA, in addition to his two rattlesnakes and water cobra
• He said he experienced a “real throbbing sensation” but he “felt great” after the bites
• Steve Ludwin, widely known as the man who injects snake venom, has been shooting, swallowing and scratching venom into his skin from some of the world’s deadliest snakes for 30 years
• He hasn’t been ill for decades and has developed “a superhuman immune system”
• A photographer was bit by the deadliest snake, a Black Mamba, and after hours passed, he was still feeling fine and needed no treatment

The snake venom theory by Dr. Bryan Ardis is built upon the interpretation of the unpurified fraudulent “SARS-COV-2” genome which is itself built upon references to other fraudulent genomes of human and animal “coronaviruses” created in the very same way. Attempting to claim any connections between the random A,C,T,G’s in a computer database is a useless and pointless exercise as the RNA that was fabricated into the genome of a “virus” was never purified, isolated, and proven to physically exist in the first place. Thus any connections between the protein codes said to belong to a “virus” which are then said to be closely related to supposed snake “coronaviruses” is immediately invalid.

Using this invalid premise to then claim that people have been poisoned by snake venom in the vaccines, the drugs, and the water supply is nothing but unsubstantiated science fiction that seems designed to have a few purposes:

1. To keep people engaged in the lie that a new disease known as “Covid-19” exists and that there is a singular cause.
2. To restore faith in monoclonal antibodies and other toxic alternative treatments.
3. To use the theory to promote and sell anti-venom supplements.
4. To divide and distract those questioning the official narrative.
5. To make the “Truther” community look foolish by falling for loosely tied-together circumstantial evidence that is easily debunked.

If we are to take the claims of Dr. Ardis seriously that the symptoms associated with snake venom is the true cause of a disease known as “Covid-19,” how does his theory explain for the fact that the antivenom and monoclonal antibody treatments cause the exact same symptoms of the disease they are supposed to treat? How would it be determined that the worsening clinical outcomes after injection are from the snake bites/venom rather than the antivenom/monoclonal antibodies given as treatment? How does his theory account for the numerous instances where people have been deliberately bitten by snakes, injected with the venom of snakes, and drank of the venom of the snakes with little to no harmful effects whatsoever? How does his theory account for the fact that the vast majority of “Covid” cases are asymptomatic and the vast majority of snake bite cases need no treatment at all? There are many holes in this theory which will easily be picked apart to make those who follow it look foolish for having done so.

There is no “SARS-COV-2.” There is no “Covid-19.” There is no new disease nor any new symptoms of disease requiring treatment from vaccines, monoclonal antibodies, Remdesivir, Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, NAC, nor any other treatment. There is no need for any anti-venom supplements.

Beware those who will sell you the cause of the disease and the solution.

Connect with Mike Stone

cover image is in the public domain: sourced from Christoph_Braun,   Wikimedia Commons

Here’s What’s Next on the Globalist Calendar

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
April 17, 2022

As you should know by now, the threat facing free humanity is not a secret conspiracy but a perfectly open one. Those seeking to monopolize the resources of the planet and institute a system of perfect technocratic control are, generally speaking, not secretive about their plans. On the contrary. Any number of publicly available records—from books and white papers to blog posts, fora and lectures—give an interested public plenty of lead time to prepare for the next steps in the unfolding globalist agenda.

So, in the grand Corbett Report tradition of Listening to the Enemy, let’s employ one of the simplest methods for understanding what’s coming next in the global plan: let’s consult the would-be world controllers’ own calendar.

JUNE 2022: Stockholm+50

As post-graduate students of The University of Corbett, you will already know about the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm, Sweden in 1972 . . . but in case you need a refresher, you might want to consult How & Why Big Oil Conquered the World, where you can learn all about that Stockholm summit.

In addition to being Maurice Strong’s entrée into the exciting (and lucrative) world of Big Oil environmentalism, the conference also laid the groundwork for the UN-fronted corporate takeover of the world’s resources under the pretense of “saving Mother Earth.” It served a triple function for the globalists: it launched the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), it provided a template for the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, and it hosted the first talking shop for what would become Agenda 21 and, eventually, Agenda 2030.

Well, guess what? It’s baaaaack.

That’s right, our good, planet-loving overlords at the United Nations are back to the scene of the crime to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Stockholm conference with a new summit in the Swedish capital, this one with the characteristically uninspired name “Stockholm+50: a healthy planet for the prosperity of all – our responsibility, our opportunity.”

Lest you think “Stockholm+50” is simply going to be an excuse for the global jet set to pat themselves on the back with a couple of forgettable political speeches or the unveiling of a new plaque, you should know that a great deal of planning has gone into this:

• The UN General Assembly has passed not one but two resolutions on the establishment of the conference and its agenda;
• A dedicated website for the conference has been created to keep up with the latest developments;
• A “blog by jurists for diplomats” entitled Pathway to the 2022 Declaration has been launched to influence the conversation surrounding the “Political Declaration” (capital letters and all) that “will be adopted” at the conference (emphasis theirs);
• And yet another website has been set up to host the “Declaration for Stockholm+50,” which may or may not be the “Political Declaration” referenced above and which has been endorsed by a gaggle of globalist NGOs.

In addition to all of this, Stockholm will also host “World Environment Day 2022” on June 5th, 2022, the anniversary of the creation of UNEP.

So what is all this hype about, exactly? Oh, just the usual globalist claptrap. By “the usual globalist claptrap” I mean the takeover of the planet and its resources by the predator class, of course. But don’t take my word for that. From the aforementioned Declaration for Stockholm+50:

On October 8, 2021, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) recognized the “right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.” For this right to be implemented, structural changes to the legal, economic, social, political, and technological spheres will be required to restore a stable and well-functioning Earth System. A shared consciousness of our global interdependence must give rise to a new common logic, to define and recognize the global commons that support life on Earth — the planetary system that connects us all and on which we all depend. This is a foundational step toward the establishment of a governance system to effectively manage human interactions with the Earth System.

Yes, exactly as one would expect, the “save the planet” slogan is being used as a rallying cry for . . .

( . . . wait for it . . .)

. . . the strengthening of global government! Wow, who would have seen that one coming?

Specifically, after vague and wooly rhetoric about “implementing the right to a healthy environment” and “establishing a regenerative economy,” the declaration ends by imploring the good folks at the United Nations to give themselves more power! Yaaaay!

The long-term governance of the global commons, the delivery of global public goods, and management of global public risks all require a permanent system of effective governance to reliably manage our interactions with the Earth System as a whole. For example, a proposal to repurpose the inactive United Nations Trusteeship Council has been widely discussed, including most recently in the UN Secretary-General’s Our Common Agenda (OCA) report.

Something tells me that in the history-by-the-winners textbook of the future, June 5th, 2022 will be hailed as the day that the brave and benevolent bureaucrats of the UN saved the planet by bestowing their gracious global government on us. (” . . . and the people of the earth commemorate this momentous event in a prayer of thanks to their UN leaders before the intake of their daily ration of bugs and rainwater.”)

But wait! What does it say on the declaration’s “About” page?

This Conference should be used as an “ideas laboratory” to develop innovative solutions for the commons, economy, and governance, which will become the seeds of action at the 2023 Summit of the Future, as foreseen in the UN Secretary General’s Our Common Agenda report.

A 2023 Summit of the Future? Oh yes. Which brings us to the next date on our globalist calendar . . .

September 2023: Summit of the Future

Last September, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres launched an 85-page report entitled “Our Common Agenda.” According to a write-up from Democracy International, the report offers a “roadmap for upgrading the UN” and “calls for reinvigorated multilateralism, renewed solidarity and stronger consideration of future generations.”

Exactly as you would expect, the report’s Summary begins by reminding us of the (globalist-concocted) “existential crises” that (the globalists constantly warn us) are threatening humanity’s existence, such as COVID-19, geopolitical conflict and (of course) climate change. Naturally, this immediately turns into a demand that the peoples of the world:

• “re-embrace global solidarity,” which evidently entails “a global vaccination plan to deliver vaccines against COVID-19 into the arms of the millions of people who are still denied this basic lifesaving measure”;
• “renew the social contract between Governments and their people and within societies,” which evidently entails “updated governance arrangements to deliver better public goods and usher in a new era of universal social protection, health coverage, education, skills, decent work and housing, as well as universal access to the Internet by 2030 as a basic human right”;
• “end the ‘infodemic’ plaguing our world by defending a common, empirically backed consensus around facts, science and knowledge,” which evidently entails adopting “a global code of conduct that promotes integrity in public information”;

. . . and a host of other globalist imperatives, from the creation of a new UN-led “Emergency Platform” that will be “triggered automatically in crises of sufficient scale and magnitude, regardless of the type or nature of the crisis involved,” to the adoption of a new UN-led “Global Digital Compact” for “promoting a trustworthy Internet by introducing accountability criteria for discrimination and misleading content.”

In other words, the usual globalist claptrap.

But embedded in this pean to global government is another idea: the convening of a “Summit of the Future” in conjunction with the meeting of the UN General Assembly in New York in September 2023. Picking up on the current Klaus Schwabian globalese in vogue among the not-so-Superclass these days, Guterres writes that “it will be important to hold a high-level, multi-stakeholder ‘Summit of the Future’ to advance ideas for governance arrangements in the areas of international concern mentioned in this report, and potentially others, where governance arrangements are nascent or require updating.”

If you’ve been keeping up with the MSM lately, you might have noticed that this “Summit of the Future” idea has gained traction with the globalist supergophers, including recently deceased ex-Secretary of State Madeline “The Price Was Worth It” Albright, who penned an editorial last October calling “Our Common Agenda” a “pathbreaking new report” and calling on UN member states to “endorse a follow-on ‘modalities resolution’ supporting Guterres’s call for a Summit of the Future in September 2023.” In order to put teeth into this globalist chinwag, Albright argued that “preparatory committees (PrepComs) should be convened around the world” prior to the summit “to consider and advance global governance innovations in peace, security and humanitarian action; sustainable development and COVID-19 recovery; human rights, inclusive governance, and the rule of law; and climate governance.”

But it isn’t just the Pax Americana old guard who are excited about the prospects of reshaping the world order. As veteran Corbett Reporteers will know, the Chinese overlords, too, are all in on this agenda and excited for the possibility of consolidating their control over their own population and moving to a more important seat at the globalist technocratic table. Accordingly, ChiCom propaganda organ China Daily released a report in January dutifully parroting Guterres’ assessment of the “five-alarm fire” that the world is facing from COVID-19, inequality, the climate crisis, mistrust of government and online misinformation. This was followed last month by a Xinhua report that hails “the establishment of a high-level advisory board on effective multilateralism” and notes that the Summit of the Future will “advance ideas for governance arrangements in certain areas that could be considered global public goods or global commons, including climate and sustainable development beyond 2030, the international financial architecture, peace, outer space, the digital space, major risks, and the interests of future generations.”

The accolades for Guterres’ brilliant report (which he totally wrote all by himself, guys, honest!) and his brilliant idea for a summit (which he is single-handedly organizing all on his lonesome) continue to pour in. The Qatari and Swedish UN ambassadors co-wrote an op ed in Al Jazeera hailing the idea as a chance to “move toward a UN 2.0,” and the World Future Council (yes, there is such a thing) has generously pledged the support of their “50 international change-makers” to prepare the summit.

As the World Future Council notes: “a Summit for the Future will be essential towards accelerating the implementation of the SDGs and ensuring that the talks and discussions finally turn into actions on the ground to truly leave no one behind.”

But wait: it gets worse! The same UN General Assembly meeting that will host the Summit of the Future will also be hosting a “UN High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development,” which, the SDG Knowledge Hub helpfully informs us, takes place every four years and gives our global overlords yet another opportunity for scheming how best to transform the world into a neofeudal slave plantation!

Consider this upcoming conference a threat, add “Summit of the Future” to whatever rss reader or news alert system you use and circle the date on your calendar. Whatever comes out of this conference, it’s going to be bad news for free humanity.

MAY 2024: WHO Global Pandemic Treaty

Speaking of bad news for free humanity, you’ve probably heard me talking about the upcoming WHO global pandemic treaty by now. But don’t worry if you haven’t heard me talk about it, because you certainly will hear me talk about it more in the future.In case you haven’t heard of it yet, the next big push in global biopolitics is the call for a global pandemic treaty to further abrogate national sovereignty and to hand more power to the WHO to dictate global health policy in the name of stopping the next scamdemic. As I’ve stressed several times now, just as 9/11 was merely the public unveiling of the new “war on terror” governance paradigm, the COVID scamdemic was merely the public unveiling of the new “biosecurity” governance paradigm. It is this proposed global pandemic treaty that will start to hardwire that new governance paradigm into place, much like the PATRIOT Act began to hardwire the terror paradigm in place in the US.

The campaign pushing the formation of this treaty relies on an obvious Problem – Reaction – Solution narrative to nudge the public into accepting the next steps in the biosecurity agenda.

• Problem: The WHO “failed” miserably in stopping the COVID “pandemic” from “ravaging the world.”
• Reaction: We need a global health organization with teeth!
• Solution: A global pandemic treaty must be signed to hand more power to the WHO.

Once you realize that all proposals for giving more power to a small clique of unaccountable bureaucrats is introduced in this way—”you never want a serious crisis go to waste” as Rahm Emmanuel infamously observed—the manipulation becomes obvious. An “independent panel” set up to “review” the “problem” of the WHO’s “failed” response to the scamdemic delivered a report in January that—to the surprise of absolutely no one—concluded that “the WHO’s ability to enforce its advice, or enter countries to investigate the source of disease outbreaks, is severely curtailed” and thus new rules need to be set up at the global level to give the WHO more power to police the world for health threats. They even called it the WHO’s “Chernobyl moment,” implying that it should use this “disaster” as a chance to implement fundamental reforms.

This supposedly “independent” report provides perfect cover for the globalists to conclude a new pandemic treaty that will either expand, reform, revise or override the existing International Health Regulations, the 2005 treaty which itself gave the WHO unprecedented power to declare a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern” and to intervene in the affairs of sovereign nations in the name of combating perceived health threats.

Details of precisely what such a treaty will involve—or even what form it will take—are still maddeningly vague. The proposed new treaty would be, in UN jargon, an “instrument,” of which there are three types: recommendations, conventions and regulations. Regulations (like the International Health Regulations of 2005) are automatically legally binding for all 194 WHO member states unless they explicitly object. Measures that could be ontained in such a treaty may include “the sharing of data and genome sequences of emerging viruses and rules on equitable vaccine distribution” and a “One Health approach” that “connects the health of humans, animals and the planet.”

In other words, the usual globalist claptrap.

One hardly needs to be a conspiracy realist to understand how such mushy-sounding goodness and gumdrops from the WHO could be used to implement a very dark biosecurity agenda. Whatever the specifics, you can bet your bottom dollar that all of the worst aspects of biomedical tyranny—from new regulations to rush experimental medical interventions through human trials in the event of a declared emergency to the standardization of vaccine passports—will be topics of discussion when the negotiations on the treaty begin in earnest.

Don’t worry, though, you can still let your voice be heard! The WHO has even opened up a special page on their website to allow public comment on the potential treaty!

. . . Of course, they’re not interested in hearing whether or not people actually want such a treaty in the first place, only what the hoi polloi feel should be included in such a treaty. Specifically, they’re asking:

“What substantive elements do you think should be included in a new international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response?”

And even then, they’re not looking to hear from everyone. In fact, they have an entire page laying out the terms and conditions by which you can submit a comment in the first place, including stipulations that those wishing to comment “Refrain from making any statements unrelated to the topic at hand,” that they present their comments “in a respectful manner, free of any profanity, ad hominem attacks, vulgarity, or other inappropriate language” and that they “declare the entity [they] represent and any other affiliations, engagement, or roles relevant to the public hearings or to WHO, in light of its mandate.” Oh, and please keep in mind “that WHO is not able to ensure that all interested parties will be able to participate in the public hearings, and that thus WHO does not make any commitment or undertaking to allow you to participate in the public hearings.”

But other than that, they totally want to hear from you.

. . . Oh, wait. Scratch that. The deadline for the public to submit their comments has already passed. I guess we’re too late. Hmmm, perhaps we should have consulted the globalist calendar sooner.

This weekly editorial is part of The Corbett Report Subscriber newsletter.

To support The Corbett Report and to access the full newsletter, please sign up to become a member of the website.

Connect with The Corbett Report

cover image credit:  The Digital Artist / pixabay

Federal Judge Rules Biden Mask Mandate Unlawful; CDC Transportation Mask Mandate Vacated

by Sundance, The Last Refuge
April 18, 2022

A federal judge in Tampa, Florida has vacated the federal transportation mask mandate for planes, trains, buses and public Transportation.  [PDF Ruling Available Here]

In essence, U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle found the CDC exceeded its statutory authority with the mask mandate and violated the rules that guide CDC regulations.   After Joe Biden arbitrarily announced the federal transportation mandate, the CDC triggered enforcement of the mask mandate without any required time for public feedback on a new regulation.

(SEE FULL RULING HERE)

Within the ruling, one of the commonsense arguments against the federal mandate was noted.  Prior to Joe Biden taking office there was no mask mandate.  At the time Joe Biden took office and invoked the mask mandate, there was nothing substantively different in/around the spread of COVID-19 and the mitigation efforts underway.

The federal mask mandate was arbitrary and capricious with no justification from the CDC and no required time for the public to provide feedback.  The government’s legal argument was that public feedback, comments on rulemaking, was irrelevant because the mandate was going to be enforced regardless of public opinion. That argument was summarily dispatched by the judge saying, just because the government has a pre-determined outcome in mind does not relinquish them from the obligation to follow the rules.

Sensing they were going to lose the case, remarkably the government lawyers argued that only the original plaintiffs in the lawsuit should be granted relief.   Meaning, only the two people who filed the lawsuit should be exempt from the federal mask mandate.  That didn’t work.

The federal transportation mask mandate is vacated.

See also:

Health Freedom Defense Fund Wins Lawsuit Against Federal Travel Mask Mandate

Connect with Health Freedom Defense Fund

Connect with The Last Refuge

cover image based on public domain image uploaded by A1Cafel   / Wikimedia Commons

Snake Venom in the Water? Just More Fear Porn Nonsense.

by Catte Black, OffGuardian
April 16, 2022

Over the past week or so many people have sent us links to the documentary Watch the Water, a 50 minute interview with retired chiropractor Dr Bryan Ardis, who details his theory that “Covid” is caused by chemicals extracted from snake venom being added to the water supply.

Further, Dr Ardis claims that the same venom-based chemicals are in the vaccines and the drug remisdevir, and that researching the venom connection has already got one scientist killed.

Some notable names in the alternate media are giving it some air time, even Dr Reiner Fuellmich has said he will look into it.

He shouldn’t. It is pure nonsense.

A ridiculous theory that flies in the face of observed reality, supported only by anecdotal evidence, biblical metaphors and clips from an episode of The Blacklist.

But good news, if there IS snake venom in the water Dr Ardis can cure you – just spend 120 bucks on his antidote through his website. That’ll drive the venom right out of you.

They are literally selling snake oil.

The blurb alone tells you this is manipulation:

The plandemic continues, but its origins are still a nefarious mystery. How did the world get sick, how did Covid really spread, and did the Satanic elite tell the world about this bioweapon ahead of time?

Reality check – “The world” DIDN’T “get sick”. “Covid” was NOT a “bioweapon”. It DIDN’T “spread”.

The Powers That Be (PTB) just want you to think all this is true, and these guys are, knowingly or not, helping that along.

The whole thing looks very much like the latest attempt at introducing mainstream COVID fear porn through an “alternative” back door.

The superficial narrative in these cases may vary, but the underlying message is always the same – “Be afraid of COVID, because it is a real thing”

The PTB don’t really care if you’re afraid of a virus, a MANMADE virus, 5G…or snake venom in the water. Just so long as you believe COVID is real, new and deadly

The only really inadmissible thing has always been the truth – COVID is a scam. A pea-and-thimble game on a massive scale. Because you can’t govern through fear if no one is afraid.

Is someone dumping “snake venom” in the water?

Maybe. Who knows. The world is insane.

But it has ZERO to do with the “COVID pandemic” because the covid pandemic was made up.

Connect with OffGuardian

Elon Musk and the Transhuman Wing of Conservative, Inc

If you take this guy seriously, you’re living in a simulation

by Joe Allen, Singularity Weekly
April 15, 2022

Elon Musk holds out the promise of restoring “free speech” to Twitter. Yesterday the Tesla CEO offered $43 billion dollars to buy the social media platform outright. Conservatives are intoxicated by the idea. If by some miracle the shareholders take the offer, Musk promises to relax speech-policing and make the algorithms open source.

Presumably, he’ll continue shitposting from his toilet.

If we take Musk at his word, his intention is to open real debate and save our democracy. Then again, he’s also told us “China rocks,” robot slaves will replace every worker, universal basic income will soon be necessary, all vehicles will be autonomous, AI will achieve a god-like status, brain implants will connect us to that god, and ultimately, there’s a billion-to-one chance our universe is just a computer simulation.

A cynical listener might suspect this cyborg car-dealer is taking the public for a ride.

Even so, in the case of Twitter, the excitement is understandable. Starting with the Great Meme War that led up to Trump’s 2016 election, the platform laid waste to the funniest dudes on Frog Twitter—from Ricky Vaughn to Kantbot2000—and eventually, the cyber-Stasi banned the sitting President of the United States.

Throughout the pandemic, Twitter squashed valid medical information, promoted lockdown and vaxx propaganda, suppressed Hunter Biden’s laptop from hell, and scrubbed any evidence of election fraud, all while allowing tranny activists to groom children. Their worst offense, though—starting with the first tweet ever sent—was to reduce public discourse to byte-sized quips and goofy memes. (By the way, you can follow me @JOEBOTxyz.)

There was a time, not long ago, when intelligent people understood that social media as a “de facto town square” was a symptom of serious cultural and intellectual decay. Today, they’d do anything for more likes and retweets, even if getting an algo boost means endorsing the world’s wealthiest transhumanist.

So yeah, fuck Twitter—and their little bird, too. They deserve to get crushed. But only a fool would trust Musk, even if he manages to crush the censors.

Yesterday, at the TED 2022 Conference in Vancouver, the interviewer asked Musk why he launched this hostile takeover. Musk told the soy latte elite he’s saving Twitter because:

It’s important to the function of democracy. It’s important to the function of the United States as a free country, and many other countries. And to actually help freedom in the world, more broadly to the US.

How broadly? When Musk was asked about his views on China last December, he told the Wall Street Journal CEO Council Summit:

Now, we’re heading towards a situation where China is going to be probably having an economy two to three times the size of the United States. And so that’s just a different world. … Other countries are not really a threat to you if you’re by far the biggest kid on the block.

Imagine what Chinese dominance means for “freedom in the world.”

Aside from a quick disclaimer that he doesn’t “endorse everything China does”—or, equivocally, “everything the US does”—Musk has less to say about China’s totalitarian lockdowns and re-education camps than an NBA star in a fresh pair of Nikes. If Musk has anything like a moral compass, an attentive listener would be hard-pressed to say which way the needle’s pointing.

At the TED conference yesterday, Musk laughed that it’s “probably inevitable” his Optimus “buddy robot” will be used as a quasi-sentient sex slave. When confronted with the possibility these lanky droids will rapidly replace human labor, he reassured the working class:

I wouldn’t worry about the, sort of, “putting people out of a job” thing. … This really will be a world of abundance. Any goods and services will be available to anyone who wants them. It’ll be so cheap to have goods and services, it’ll be ridiculous.

Indeed, nothing could be more ridiculous. Back in August of 2019, Musk warned the World Artificial Intelligence Conference in Shanghai that automation would wipe human labor out of existence:

AI will make jobs kind of pointless. Probably the last jobs that will remain will be writing AI software. Then eventually the AI will just write its own software.

Last summer, at Tesla’s “AI Day” in Texas—where the Optimus design was first unveiled—Musk proposed a socialist solution to his cheering employees:

Essentially, in the future, physical work will be a choice. … This, I think, will be quite profound because if you say, “What is the economy?” It is, at the foundation it’s labor. So—what happens when there is no shortage of labor?

That’s why I think, long-term, there will need to be universal basic income.

Yesterday, when the TED interviewer asked Musk if he really believes in his “heart of hearts” that he’s creating an exciting future for children, Musk switched from robot mode to earnest humanoid mode:

I try my hardest to do so. … I love humanity and I think that we should fight for a good future for humanity and I think we should be optimistic about the future and fight to make that optimistic future happen.

The TED crowd spit out their lattes and erupted in cheers. Either they’re optimistic about a Chinese-led globalist future—which sounds about right—or, like all Musk fanboys, they suffer from selective amnesia.

Musk talks a good game about freedom, and in theory, he may be sincere. But he also signals loyalty to his biggest customer. This time last year, he told the communists at the China Development Forum:

I’m very confident about Tesla’s future in China. The Chinese economy’s going to do extremely well over the next decade and will become the biggest economy in the world. … China, I think long-term, will be our biggest market, but both where we make the most number of vehicles, and where we have the most number of customers.

How does this double-talkin’ jive fly under the radar?

Even our beloved Tucker Carlson—who alone has been rock solid in his opposition to China, Covid hysteria, and the predations of Conservative, Inc—is getting so drunk on liberal tears, he’s staggering a bit. Tucker will sober up, surely, but what about his corporate counterparts?

At least Conservative, Inc is consistent. They’ve overseen the normalization of mass immigration, the sexual revolution, on-demand abortion, gay marriage, trans teens, and now, transhumanism.

They lay spread-eagle athwart history, yelling, “Don’t. Stop!”

Of all the pliable R-droids throwing palm fronds in Musk’s path—and the list is so long now, it’s hard to think of an exception—the most ridiculous is Glenn Beck. One minute, Beck is raising the alarm on evil Great Reset-brand transhumanism. The next, he’s tweeting out, “Elon Musk is the anti-ESG Tony Stark America needs.”

Who the hell is this Tony Stark guy, anyway? Some cartoon character?

You probably wonder what universe these people are living in. Well, according to their cyborg savior, it’s one of a billion computer simulations, most likely programmed by ancient aliens writing code in an extradimensional celestial sphere.

As Musk explained to the Arab royalty at the 2017 World Government Summit in Dubai, chances are life is but a dream:

Now, you can see a video game that’s photo-realistic, and millions of people playing simultaneously. And you see where things are going with virtual reality and augmented reality. And if you extrapolate that out into the future, with any rate of progress at all, then eventually those games will be indistinguishable from reality.

They’ll be so realistic, you will not be able to tell the difference between that game and the reality as we know it.

Well, how do we know that didn’t happen in the past, and that we’re not in one of those games ourselves?

Dunno, bro, but I’ll tell ya what I do know. Simulation theory is a great metaphor for the memetic mind-warp that is social media. If the world’s wealthiest transhumanist succeeds in capturing Twitter, he’ll have a billion minds to play with in his very own simulated reality—not to mention an ocean of data to train his artificial intelligence.

Look, I don’t wanna get too judgy here. My own cosmology is at least as weird as Musk’s.

And I don’t mean to be a buzzkill, either. The prospect of Twitter getting bought out and gutted is hilarious. The rainbow cohort is freaking out, and that should bring joy to every man, woman, and child.

In fact, let’s pause a moment to lap up a few Twitter twink tears.

You taste that? Ahh…

Refreshing.

Now, let me slip this scrawled note into the Conservative, Inc suggestion box. Maybe, just maybe, stubborn reactionaries still have the power and influence to conserve our most precious asset—our humanity.

Let’s say you really do take Musk seriously.

If you’re open to the possibility that tech corporations are creating AI Computer Gods, and that Musk’s brain chips will keep us competitive with these digital deities, and robots are gonna take over every job on Earth, and chipped humans will live on UBI, and we’ll just kick back and spend our brief lives exploring vapid virtual realities, or maybe Mars—and anyway, we all live in a computer simulation, so it hardly matters either way—then for the love of God, come clean with the public about our dire situation so we may proceed accordingly.

Or, if you think Musk is delusional about everything except the things that benefit you, ask yourself why.

Or, if you actually think Musk is just a con artist spinning yarns to play the crowd and pump stocks, then stand up and call him out.

The madness, we can handle. The selective sanctimony? Not so much.



Connect with Joe Allen

cover image based on creative commons work of Placidplace

Socialism: Opiate of the Masses

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
April 15, 2022

Let’s get something straight. There is no pure form of socialism, where “the government owns the means of production.”

The means of production own the government, and vice versa. It’s always collusion. Elite power players stitch themselves together like a walking Frankenstein corpse.

Socialism can be done with a smile or with guns and jails. Styles vary.

For example, the Council on Foreign Relations [CFR] believes an international “joining of hands across the water” would be just dandy.

You could call the CFR’s agenda socialism or Globalism or fascism or dictatorship or the corporate state—it doesn’t matter. For the sake of brevity, call it socialism.

At street level (not within the CFR), every proponent of the socialist “solution” either has no idea who installs it and runs it, or astonishingly believes “the government” can be transformed into a beneficent enterprise and shed its core corruption, as it takes the reins of absolute power.

Meanwhile, the ultra-wealthy elites who use socialism as a weapon, while propagandizing it as our humanitarian future, know full well THEY will run it, and they have no qualms about placing severe limits on the freedom of populations. They want to impose those limits.

Hope and Change, the slogan of the former US president Barack Obama, was perfect for street-level socialists. It was vague enough to be injected with their own vague dreams and fantasies.

Colleges—or as I call them, Academies of Great Generalities—have been turning out these fantasists by the ton. “If I feel it, it must be true and good.”

One such idealist, back in the 1960s, was a young man named James Kunen. But smarter by far than most of his comrades, he wrote a book called The Strawberry Statement: Notes on a College Revolutionary. A member of the Left group, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Kunen recalled a curious event at the 1968 SDS Convention:

“…at the convention, men from Business International Roundtables—the meetings sponsored by Business International for their client groups and heads of government—tried to buy up a few [Leftist] radicals. These men are the world’s leading industrialists and they convene to decide how our lives are going to go. These are the boys who wrote the Alliance for Progress. They’re the left wing of the ruling class.”

“…They offered to finance our demonstrations in Chicago. We were also offered Esso (Rockefeller) money. They want us to make a lot of radical commotion so they can look more in the center as they move to the left.”

Rockefeller elites moving to the political Left? What?

Look at it this way. If you’re a Rockefeller man, what brand of rhetoric are you going to use to sell your con? The “Utopian-better-world-for-the-people (Leftist)”, or the “we-want-mega-corporations-to-cheat-and-lie-and-steal-the-people-blind-and-co-opt-the-government (Rightist)”?

Since any brand of rhetoric is designed to end up in the same place—global control—you’re going to pick the more attractive-sounding version.

It’s simply a matter of workability and expedience.

That’s why the lingo of Leftist socialism has come to the fore.

That’s the only reason.

If a Rockefeller operative could use, to good effect, tales of enemies invading Earth from a parallel universe, he would.

In 1928, the historian Oswald Spengler wrote: “There is no proletarian, not even a Communist movement, that has not operated in the interests of money, and for the time being permitted by money—and that [operation has continued] without the idealists among its leaders having the slightest suspicion of the fact.”

Is there a college anywhere in the world that acknowledges and teaches this? The insight is not permitted. It would torpedo too many platitudes and reveal too many false trails laid down by elite deceivers.

David Rockefeller, writing his 2003 Memoirs, baldly asserted: “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Of course, Rockefeller stopped short of saying he and his colleagues, in the core of the CFR and the Trilateral Commission, were using socialism and high-flying utopian rhetoric merely to enlist the Left in his “one-world” cause. He never admitted the notions of “social justice” and “equality” were being peddled to the gullible masses for the same reason.

If he had come clean, victims (both real and self-imagined) would understand they were fighting against the very oppressors who were backing, funding, encouraging, and controlling them.

The sought-after global triumph of socialism is a cover for elite global management and tyranny.

“Thanks for your help. Now that we’ve won, you’re under the gun. Our gun.”

Flashing forward to today, one can see this sales job operating in boardrooms of the tech giants (Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) The corporate leaders (the new Rockefellers and Carnegies) claim they’re proponents of “digital socialism,” which they ludicrously define as open access to the wonders of the Internet for all people everywhere, including the poor and bereft. But the last time I looked, those people can’t eat a YouTube video for a breakfast they can’t afford.

This nonsensical fluff hides the same core buried in old-time socialism: the leaders at the top, who have made their mega-fortunes, want to turn around and eliminate competition. Share and care doesn’t apply to the marketplace. The tech CEOs want to collude with government to gain special favors and benefits their lesser rivals can’t obtain.

“We love everyone and care about everyone, but don’t challenge us. We’re the bosses. We own the game.”

The tech giants want much more. They intend to lead the way, with their government partners, into an even tighter control of information (censorship) and a more vast Surveillance State.

They intend to build a technocratic planet, in which planned societies are the foundation. Citizens are “data-points” to be inserted into slots, from cradle to grave, as a worldwide system is constructed.

Notions of fairness, equality, and other terms of socialism are deployed as a front for this massive operation.

Some might say this version of Brave New World/1984 bears no resemblance to socialism.

But they would be wrong. This version is perfect socialism, once you realize the whole socialist “political philosophy” was never anything more than paper-thin propaganda.

It was a nothing made into something.

It falls apart and blows away, and the rictus-grin of control comes into view. The same grin existed in the medieval Roman Church, in the ancient Roman emperorship, in the Egypt of the Pharaohs, in Babylonia, in Sumer, in Mayan and Aztec civilizations, in tribes and clans long buried and forgotten.

Only the language of the sellers to the buyers has changed.

Mao Zedong (aka Mao Tse-tung), founding father and ruler of Communist China, openly declared: “Socialism…must have a dictatorship, it will not work without it.” Mao didn’t beat around the bush. In maintaining his dictatorship, he discovered he might have a problem with between 40 and 70 million of his own people. So, just to make sure, he killed them.

But don’t worry, be happy. Less violent socialisms exist in the world—as long as citizens willingly give up their independence.

For example, you could opt for Tony Blair’s vision. Tony is an accused war criminal (Iraq/2003, between 100,000 and million dead), but on the bright side, he didn’t massacre huge numbers of his own people. In 1983, Tony stated:

“I am a Socialist not through reading a textbook that has caught my intellectual fancy, nor through unthinking tradition, but because I believe that, at its best, Socialism corresponds most closely to an existence that is both rational and moral. It stands for co-operation, not confrontation; for fellowship, not fear. It stands for equality, not because it wants people to be the same but because only through equality in our economic circumstances can our individuality develop properly.”

I’ll let you try to translate that generalized gibberish. Take the words “rational,” “moral,” “co-operation,” “fellowship,” “equality in our economic circumstances,” and run them to ground. Attempt to apply them to actual life. Determine what actual policies and regulations would flow from them.

Tony is one of the deans of the Academy of Great Generalities. He knows how to shovel it on wide and deep. His one skill is appearing earnest and sincere.

He shares that attribute with many of his socialist colleagues. They’ve learned their tricks at the feet of mentors, and you can trace the line all the way back to Plato.

“We’re not Stalin, we’re not Mao. Honest. We want to do good. Help us help you. We’re all in this together. There’s a bright day ahead. Just let us do our work.”

Or as Bill Clinton famously put it, “I feel your pain.”

No one heard him say, under his breath, “Of course, I pay no attention to feelings.”

Connect with Jon Rappoport

cover image credit: CDD20 

Where Did the Rest of the Internet Go?

by Truthstream Media
April 11, 2022



Video also available at Truthstream Media BitChute channel.

Connect with Truthstream Media

The New Human Created by Technocracy: Bio-Digital Convergence

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
April 13, 2022

We have a stunning February 2020 report, “Exploring Biodigital Convergence,” released by “Policy Horizons Canada… a strategic foresight organization within the Government of Canada…”

The report lays out a pattern of joining biology and digital technology to create new humans.

This IS the planned future.

It doesn’t take a genius to see that this is the far shore of a global control grid.

I’ll start with a sprinkling of quotes from the report; they give you a general notion of what this “revolution” is about:

“Biological and digital systems are converging, and could change the way we work, live, and even evolve as a species.”

“More than a technological change, this biodigital convergence may transform the way we understand ourselves and cause us to redefine what we consider human or natural.”

“Digital technologies and biological systems are beginning to combine and merge in ways that could be profoundly disruptive to our assumptions about society, the economy, and our bodies. We call this the biodigital convergence.”

“Full physical integration of biological and digital identities.”

“Biodigital convergence is opening up striking new ways to: Change human beings – our bodies, minds, and behaviours…Change or create other organisms …”

Now here is a passage that should pull you up short:

“Digital technology can be embedded in organisms, and biological components can exist as parts of digital technologies. The physical meshing, manipulating, and merging of the biological and digital are creating new hybrid forms of life and technology, each functioning in the tangible world, often with heightened capabilities.”

“Robots with biological brains and biological bodies with digital brains already exist, as do human-computer and brain-machine interfaces. The medical use of digital devices in humans, as well as digitally manipulated insects such as drone dragonflies and surveillance locusts, are examples of digital technology being combined with biological entities. By tapping into the nervous system and manipulating neurons, tech can be added to an organism to alter its function and purpose. New human bodies and new senses of identity could arise as the convergence continues.”

That last paragraph has citations referring to published studies. I plowed my way through one, which detailed experiments with rats. The researchers found new ways of embedding many, many “threads” in the rats’ brains. These threads can presumably deliver information/commands to the brain. That would be the goal.

So this report on biodigital convergence is more than theory. It’s more than speculation. It’s extrapolation from current research. And it’s “forward looking.” At times, it barely contains its enthusiasm for a future in which humans aren’t humans anymore. Humans are “more.”

Here are several other quotes from the report:

“…biology is subject to influence and manipulation that was not possible a few years ago.”

“For example, gene sequencing [enabled by digital technology] combined with artificial intelligence (AI) leads to understanding genetic expression, which is then used to alter existing organisms to create organic compounds in new ways or even entirely synthetic organisms.”

“Neural nets – computer systems that are designed based on biological brains – are an example of how biological understanding is shaping digital technology.”

One hand washes the other. The biological and the digital hands collaborate.

But surely, people still understand that biology is fundamentally different from digital technology. Right? Read the next quote from the report:

“As we continue to better understand and control the mechanisms that underlie biology, we could see a shift away from vitalism – the idea that living and nonliving organisms are fundamentally different because they are thought to be governed by different principles. Instead, the idea of biology as having predictable and digitally manageable characteristics may become increasingly common as a result of living in a biodigital age. Any student of biology today will have grown up in a digital world and may consciously or subconsciously apply that [new] frame of reference to bioinformatics and biology generally.”

The report is talking about a cultural shift.

People immersed in “the digital world” will no longer view biology as VITAL AND ALIVE and the digital as MECHANICAL AND DEAD.

Instead, living biology will just be one more territory to be manipulated; like a machine that can be improved.

Therefore, the whole concept that LIFE IS VIOLATED by manipulating it and altering it radically…will fade out and go away.

The idea that biology is one thing and the digital is another will vanish.

Continuing to quote from the report:

“As digital technology became more complex and connected, the system began to mimic the characteristics of the biological world, leading to the notion of technological ecosystems. Biological models are also being used to develop digital tools, such as AI based on neural nets.”

Did you catch that phrase, “technological ecosystems?” Suddenly, the non-living—machines and data—is thought of as living. And many tech oriented people would say, “Well, of course. The systems ARE living. And if you don’t agree, you’re hopelessly old-fashioned and holding on to an irrelevant paradigm.”

The report: “Biodigital convergence is…moving away from the centralized models of pharmaceutical and industrial biotech toward widespread commercial and consumer use. These range from bioprinters that create organic tissue, to synthetic biology machines that can be programmed to create entirely new organisms. For example, Printeria is an all-in-one bioengineering device that automates the process of printing genetic circuits in bacteria. It is intended to be as easy to use as a domestic desktop printer and is projected to cost $1,500.”

Anyone can EXPERIENCE the blending of digital and biological by carrying out experiments at home.

And speaking of home, here from the report is a “possible scenario” occurring in the new biodigital world; up close and personal.

Note: Given what you’ve already read so far, this scenario is a decidedly Lite and cheery version of what it would be like to live in the new world. Further, there are all sorts of pseudoscientific assumptions about medical/health solutions and climate change EMBEDDED PERMANENTLY in the AI programs that govern daily life:

From the report: “I wake up to the sunlight and salty coastal air of the Adriatic sea. I don’t live anywhere near the Mediterranean, but my AI, which is also my health advisor, has prescribed a specific air quality, scent, and solar intensity to manage my energy levels in the morning, and has programmed my bedroom to mimic this climate.”

“I send a brain message [a thought] to open the app that controls my insulin levels and make sure my pancreas is optimally supported.”

“I check my brain’s digital interface to read the dream data that was recorded and processed in real time last night. My therapy app analyzes the emotional responses I expressed while I slept. It suggests I take time to be in nature this week to reflect on my recurring trapped-in-a-box dream and enhance helpful subconscious neural activity. My AI recommends a ‘forest day’. I think ‘okay’, and my AI and neural implant do the rest.”

The neural implant, triggered by a mere thought from the compliant citizen, creates the virtual “forest day.”

“The summary of my bugbot surveillance footage shows that my apartment was safe from intruders (including other bugbots) last night, but it does notify me that my herd of little cyber-dragonflies are hungry. They’ve been working hard collecting data and monitoring the outside environment all night, but the number of mosquitoes and lyme-carrying ticks they normally hunt to replenish their energy was smaller than expected. With a thought, I order some nutrient support for them.”

“Building codes and home energy infrastructure are synchronized, and require all homes be autoregulated for efficiency. Because houses and buildings are biomimetic and incorporate living systems for climate control wherever possible, they are continuously filtering the air and capturing carbon. I check my carbon offset measure to see how much credit I will receive for my home’s contribution to the government’s climate change mitigation program.”

“I replace the smart sticker that monitors my blood chemistry, lymphatic system, and organ function in real time. It’s hard to imagine the costs and suffering that people must have endured before personalized preventative medicine became common.”

“Today’s microbiome breakdown is displayed on the front of my fridge as I enter the kitchen. It’s tracking a steady shift as I approach middle age: today it suggests miso soup as part of my breakfast, because my biome needs more diversity as a result of recent stress and not eating well last night.”

“I take my smart supplement, which just popped out of my bioprinter. The supplement adjusts the additional nutrients and microbes I need, and sends data about my body back to my bioprinter to adjust tomorrow’s supplement. The feedback loop between me and my bioprinter also cloud-stores daily data for future preventive health metrics. The real-time monitoring of my triglycerides is important, given my genetic markers.”

“As my coffee pours, I check my daughter’s latest school project, which has been growing on the counter for the past week. She’s growing a liver for a local puppy in need as part of her empathy initiative at school. More stem cells are on the way to start a kidney too, because she wants to help more animals. I grab my coffee, brewed with a new certified carbon-negative bean variety, and sit on the couch for a minute.”

Many people reading this scenario would jump at the chance to live in that world—blithely assuming all would be well.

They would never guess their neural implants OVERRIDE decisions they themselves make that run counter to government “recommended behavior.”

Nor would they imagine the varieties of strange hybrid creatures that abound in this Brave New World. Animal-human-machine creatures, whose functions are assigned by technocratic rulers.

And the last thing they’d realize is that they could very well BE those animal-human-machine creatures.

Finally, for now; there is one element which keeps people from admitting that “science fiction” can actually come to pass. They believe people living in a dystopian science fiction world would KNOW it was horrible and life-destroying—and would rebel.

But the Canadian report points out that our culture is burying that knowledge. People of the near-future could hold beliefs which affirm the biodigital convergence as a major ADVANCE. As PROGRESS. As an Evolved Reality. As Truth.

With the memory of the past…gone.

CODA: Under several headings, the report lists biodigital strategies. They’re chilling. You can easily discern the implications.

HEADING: “What new capabilities arise from biodigital convergence?”

“Altering the human genome – our core biological attributes and characteristics.”

“Monitoring, altering and manipulating human thoughts and behaviours.”

“Neurotechnologies read brain signals to monitor attention and manage fatigue.”

“New ways to monitor, manage, and influence bodily functions, as well as predict, diagnose, and treat disease.”

“Digital devices can be worn or embedded in the body to treat and monitor functionality.”

“Biohacking with implanted digital devices to enhance bodily functions.”

“Nanobots and nanomaterials can operate and precisely deliver drugs within living creatures.”

HEADING: “New ways to change or create other organisms”

“Changing the type or amount of inputs that organisms need to grow.”

“Synthetic biology draws inspiration from biology, engineering, computer science, and physics for the design and construction of new biological entities.”

HEADING: “new ways to alter ecosystems”

“Changing and eradicating entire species.”

“Altering the natural environment at scale.”

HEADING: “New ways to sense, store, process, and transmit information”

“Turning organisms into biocomputers.”

In the ENDNOTES section of the report, you can find links to published research on biodigital experiments.

Example: “Brain-machine interfaces (BMIs) hold promise for the restoration of sensory and motor function and the treatment of neurological disorders, but clinical BMIs have not yet been widely adopted, in part because modest channel counts have limited their potential. In this white paper, we describe Neuralink’s first steps toward a scalable high-bandwidth BMI system. We have built arrays of small and flexible electrode “threads”, with as many as 3,072 electrodes per array distributed across 96 threads. We have also built a neurosurgical robot capable of inserting six threads (192 electrodes) per minute. Each thread can be individually inserted into the brain with micron precision for avoidance of surface vasculature and targeting specific brain regions.”

Example: “A project called DragonflEye, conducted by the research and development organization Draper in conjunction with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, is turning the insects into hybrid drones. Live dragonflies are equipped with backpacks containing navigation systems, which tap directly into their nervous systems. The dragonflies can then be ‘steered’ to fly in certain directions. The whole thing is powered by miniature solar panels in the backpacks.”

Example: “Scientists have created the world’s first living organism that has a fully synthetic and radically altered DNA code. The lab-made microbe, a strain of bacteria that is normally found in soil and the human gut, is similar to its natural cousins but survives on a smaller set of genetic instructions.”

Example: “…we built a dual-core CPU combining two orthogonal core processors in a single cell. In principle, human cells integrating multiple orthogonal CRISPR/Cas9-based core processors could offer enormous computational capacity.”

Example: “The daring Chinese biophysicist who created the world’s first gene-edited children has been set free after three years in a Chinese prison. He Jiankui created shock waves in 2018 with the stunning claim that he’d altered the genetic makeup of IVF embryos and implanted them into a woman’s uterus, leading to the birth of twin girls. A third child was born the following year.”

Connect with Jon Rappoport

cover image credit: Placidplace / pixabay

World Council for Health: Urgent Call to Oppose W.H.O. ‘Global Pandemic Agreement’ Which Threatens the Sovereignty of All Humanity #StopTheTreaty



As the World Council for Health (WCH), our partners and allies have already sought to draw attention to, the World Health Organization (WHO) has proposed a global pandemic agreement that will give it undemocratic rights over sovereign people. See the WCH Open Letter in response to this attempted power grab here.

WHO has quietly opened the floor for comments on the agreement but has provided little time to do so ahead of the first round of hearings scheduled for April 12 and 13.

We encourage everyone to share their thoughts with World Health Organization before the deadline.

1. Go to the World Health Organization website to submit a written submission now

Written submissions are short and can be up to 250 words/1250 characters. The deadline for written submissions is 3 pm UTC on Wednesday, April 13.

• Submissions must be in response to the provided guiding question: What substantive elements do you think should be included in a new international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response?

Why do I need to frame my submission using WHO’s provided context?

Because the WHO reserves the right to judge the relevancy of submissions, it is important to respond to the prompt in an appropriate yet constructive manner. As such, the World Council for Health suggests the following elements be addressed:

• National and local leadership retain full autonomy, reserving the right to make decisions based on what is best for their own people.
• The ability of nations and local municipalities to opt out of any and all portions of the agreement as they see fit, without consequence.
• An open and transparent process with the ability for all people of the world to vote on including failsafe measures that will prevent the application of the global agreement in places where a majority of the people do not want it.
• Measures that do not allow for influence in the process by any and all pharmaceutical companies or other global health profiteers.

The hearing will be livestreamed here on Tuesday, April 12.

2. Relay your action on Social Media

The Transgender Culture War Needs Parents Who Are Cowards

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
April 11, 2022

Are you a parent who wants to sacrifice your young child? Sign up today in the culture war. Kneel down before predators and act like the coward you are.

The campaign to turn young children into “gender fluid” creatures isn’t just the goal of groups of schoolteacher-groomers. No. It’s embedded in the curriculum. It’s official.

Read this gobbledygook. Read it like your child’s life is hanging in the balance:

Daily Mail: “First-graders in New Jersey will be learning about gender identity with new sex education curriculum which includes a lesson that teaches children they can have ‘boy parts’ but ‘feel like’ a girl.”

“The new lessons, which are part of a broader, K-12 health and sex education curriculum adopted by the New Jersey Board of Education, are alarming some parents, Asbury Park Press first reported.”

“One of the 30-minute lesson plans, called ‘Pink, Blue and Purple,’ teaches the students to define ‘gender, gender identity and gender role stereotypes”.”

“Another lesson plan, this one for second-graders called ‘Understanding Our Bodies,’ tells teachers to instruct students that ‘being a boy or a girl doesn’t have to mean you have those parts, there are some body parts that mostly just girls have and some parts that mostly just boys have’.”

“‘Most people have a vulva and a vagina or a penis and testicles, but some people’s bodies can be different,’ the plan states. ‘Your body is exactly what is right for you’.”

“The new state sex education guidelines, which go into effect in September, were handed out to parents at the Westfield Board of Education meeting in February, and included instructions for teachers to tell students that their gender identity is up to them.”

“‘You might feel like you’re a boy even if you have body parts that some people might tell you are “girl” parts,’ the lesson plan states.”

“‘You might feel like you’re a girl even if you have body parts that some people might tell you are “boy” parts. And you might not feel like you’re a boy or a girl, but you’re a little bit of both. No matter how you feel, you’re perfectly normal!’”

ALL THIS FOR FIRST AND SECOND GRADERS.

So if you’re a parent, you can bow down and have your little child exposed to this. It’s free. You don’t have to pay for it—unless you’re bright enough to realize your taxes are payments.

Be a coward. Let lunatics teach your children. Be tolerant of all points of view. This is the definition of culture, right?

Face it. YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT TO TEACH YOUR KIDS. You abdicated that responsibility years ago. So let the schools take over for you. It’s easy. You don’t have to speak up. You can stay silent.

If you need to, you can find a study somewhere that concludes children are “already sexual.” This will give you comfort. It’ll prove that…well, who knows what it proves? It doesn’t really prove anything. But it’s a study. So that’s good.

Here’s a question: With the government in charge of education, what did you think schools would eventually turn into?

Factories for destroying minds and bodies. There is a number…nobody knows what it is precisely, but it represents the size of government. When that number is exceeded—and we exceeded it long ago—the government turns on the people and treats them as mortal enemies. It doesn’t matter what kind of government it is. From that point on, the people must be crushed.

But don’t worry, be happy, parent. You can be happy if you back up far enough from your children and let them absorb the brunt of the attack. You can have a proxy victim stand in for you. You can delude yourself into thinking that it’s only your child who’ll pay the price.

I assure you, they’re coming after you, too. You just don’t see it yet. You should see it, because when the government destroys your child, you’re supposed to see it.

You could see it by recognizing that when the Dept. of Homeland Security and the Attorney General start making noises about parents who stand up for their children at school boards—calling the parents domestic terrorists—THAT’S A CLUE.

By my calculation, parents who let their children face destruction should be in prison. The problem is, the government runs the prisons, and the government wants you to give up your children to the State.

Maybe we could open citizen-run prisons for parents who surrender their children to the State. There’s a new idea. A private prison. For cowards.

When I was a kid, if the school system had been teaching gender anything, a whole army of parents would have marched into the principal’s office and read him the riot act. He would have folded and crumbled in a minute. He would have gotten down on his knees and wept and apologized and scrapped that curriculum the same day.

That was the 1940s. It tells you something about what has happened in America since then. Fathers’ balls have turned into jelly.

They’ve become traitors to their own families.

They’re hiding behind a wall of delusions.

They think their primary duty is BEING NICE.

Cowards. Moral cowards.

In any community worth its salt, they would be shunned. Never spoken to. Exiled.

You should pray that if your children make it to adulthood, you won’t be around. Because if you are around, those children are going to look at you with an accusation that sets you on fire and burns you down to the ground.

When they were five and six years old, you let them into a cage with wild animals. And you turned around with a smile on your face and walked away.

Connect with Jon Rappoport

cover image credit: OpenClipart-Vectors

The Ruse of Exemptions: When Government Calls The Shots

by Rosanne Lindsay, Nature of Healing
April 10, 2022

Exemptions are privileges. What the government giveth, the government can taketh away.
Rights are not gifts from government.
– Nature of Healing

The Ruse of Benefits & Privileges

Government laws exist to grant “BENEFITS and PRIVILEGES” to citizens who agree to be governed. Benefits and privileges do not usurp birthrights, rights that are inborn or inherent. Thus, birthrights supersede laws, mandates, and exemptions.

A government exemption is an “opt out.” By asking permission of government to opt out from any government-imposed health mandates, you agree to bypass birthrights.

Under exemptions, you are requesting permission from government to make a choice that you already possess. Remember, bodily autonomy is a BIRTHRIGHT. You come into this world alone. You leave this world alone,  without government approval. Therefore, an exemption or an Exemption Act, is a form of entrapment known as Color of Law.

Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act that may operate in violation of law. Since the inception of the United States in 1776, both presidents and governors have been bypassing the laws through illegal Executive Orders (E.O.s) under Color of Law. Even though it might be argued that ALL federal Acts fall under the Color of Law, the chances of adjudicating an equitable solution through the court system is about as likely as isolating the Coronavirus in a lab. The CDC still admits there is no gold standard for the isolation of any virus.

So it is by the will of the people that allows government to usurp its authority and ensure the end of freedom of choice for all. In the near future, in order to attain an education, or maintain a job, to enter a hospital or clinic, to shop or travel, in order to live within any community, or function on any practical level within society, people will be made to get government shots.

The Ruse of Exemption

Have you been told to get a medical or religious exemption by your employer? Think again.

Government-granted exemptions for government-imposed health mandates are strategically designed to fail by entrapping those members of the community who sign onto them. Why?

Because here is no legal defense or enforcement for religious or medical exemptions since businesses have no legal duty of care from imposing mandates in the first place, based on the The Doctrine of Assumption of Risk.

The Doctrine of Assumption of Risk states that no business is liable to protect others from a risk that’s widely known or believed to exist in the community.

An exemption means there has to be a legal duty of care. If there is no legal duty, there is no exemption. A legal duty is a legal obligation, the breach of which can result in liability. Businesses that impose mandates must have an insurance policy. Without one, no court will take jurisdiction. A plaintiff in court will never win. This is another reason you do not have to beg for a right you already possess.

In addition, laws cannot conflict with each other. So, for instance, when mandates, statutes, Acts, or Executive Orders conflict with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), then there is a violation of the legal duty of care.

What about Constitutional protections? New policies appear to obsolete the Constitution by empowering state and local officials to issue vaccine mandates. This begs the questions, 1) Is the Constitution null and void? and 2) was the Constitution merely a contract written and signed by a small group of wealthy men to protect themselves and their interests?

The Ruse of “Public Health”

Federal (statutory) Acts attempt to protect “the public health” with “statutory rights.”  Beware: A “statutory right” is an oxymoron, similar to public health, safe vaccine, and honest thief.  It is meant to confuse.

All federal Acts steer “the public” into a herd by the language of legalease. In reality, there is no such thing as “Public Health.” Public Health does not exist outside of individual health. You cannot wear a life jacket to keep others afloat. So to consent to “Public Health mandates” is to give up bodily autonomy in exchange for Public Rights (i.e., Children’s rights, Gay rights, Parent rights, Women’s rights) granted by the State. State Rights can be modified, suspended, and revoked. See how California revoked all vaccine-related exemptions. By taking the Public out of Public Health, we begin to reclaim responsibility for choice and freedom.

The success of any Act depends from which perspective you view its success. From the first Act, passed in 1784, to the latest draft government Acts, ALL Acts appear to be an extension of The CIRCUS Act. From the people’s perspective, success rates are dismal thanks to exemptions and exceptions to exemptions in every Act. A few examples include:

The CLEAN AIR Act of 1970 with exemptions, and The CLEAR SKIES Act of 2019 – serves to create dirty skies with exemptions for oil refineries and power plants and the most toxic bunker fuel operations.

The CLEAN WATER Act of 1972  and its exemptions that serve to pollute the waters.

The US PATRIOT Act of 2001 and US Patriot and Reauthorization Act of 2005 “to unite and strengthen America,” with exemptions to banking agencies which serve to divide and weaken America.

The QUARANTINE Acts OF 1710, and 1720, The QUARANTINE Act of 1951 – originally applied to commercial vessels for the separation of infected people, which became the Public Health Act of 1896 in Ireland, The Public Health Act of 1936 in Britain, The Public Health Service Act of 1944 in America, to The CANADA QUARANTINE ACT of 2005 – to quarantine all people, healthy and sick.

The PREP Act of 2005, allows government to bypass Rights and Freedom. The DHHS Amended Version authorizes an increased workforce to administer COVID (experimental) vaccines. And The PREP Act 2022 – limits liability for COVID countermeasures.

See the article Transcending The Hegelian Dialectic for more information.

Note also, that any discussion of science for “public health” purposes is a purposeful distraction away from inherent rights. Do not be distracted by the vaccine debate or by the Vaxxed vs. Unvaxxed study that will never be formally approved by government. The science debate is merely a ruse to eliminate freedom.

Contagions and The American With Disabilities Act

John Jay Singleton, of TheZunga, helps people to exercise their RIGHTS to bodily autonomy under the ADA. TheZunga.com endeavors to extract people caught in the government web of exemptions under COVID19 policies. Singleton writes:

Having a contagious disease is defined as having a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Rehabilitation Act, under the standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act, precludes employers from imposing any accommodations upon employees unless they meet the criteria for establishing that the employee is a direct threat following an individualized assessment (diagnosis). Employers are prohibited by law from requiring any medical examination in this process as it is an accommodation for which the employer must advise the employee that he has the right to accept or refuse

Singleton contends that the ADA, a federal law, requires businesses to aid and encourage those with disabilities in the exercise and enjoyment of their rights. This means that not only can a business owner not impose such measures on anyone, he must actively protect everyone from any violation of this law, at least by not imposing them.

To exercise and enjoy your rights doesn’t mean you have to have a disability. It means you’re regarded as having a disability. If you’re regarded as having a disability its because the government announced a public health disaster, so the legal duties come into play with the ADA. And the legal duty of care is on anyone trying to force these measure on you. John Jay Singleton

In summary, exemptions bind people to an arbitrary, and a constantly changing, list of demands. These demands supersede basic freedoms, and thereupon deny people of their inalienable, God/life given rights to self-determination of their bodies. As the government giveth, so, too, can the government taketh away, on a whim.

No Consent

Governments have inverted inherent rights by statutes, policies, Acts, E.O.s and exemptions. In doing so, they have bound freedom, itself, to a contract. All government Acts apply to government entities and persons; not to men and women. Men and women are not subject to Acts, because they are not subjects.

Exemption or no exemptions, the power of NO always applies, as long as you can voice it. One way to say No Thank You is through a Conditional Acceptance, a lawful response to any offer to contract. Can they sign a statement agreeing to your conditions to their offer? If not, there is no contract and you remain in honor. See more at Youarelaw.org.

All Acts attempt do one thing: to allow the government to legislate choice and freedom, that is, if you consent to the offer. However, if offered an experimental product, make sure you are provided with Informed Consent (45 CFR § 46.116) before you consent, because you become a subject taking part in a clinical study.

When it comes to any mandate, it is important to appreciate that all exemptions (medical, religious, or philosophical/personal belief), are fundamentally illegal, because they transpose an inherent human RIGHT into a PRIVILEGE, on the presumption that you acknowledge, and thus sacrifice or forfeit your natural BIRTHRIGHTS to an external authority.

For instance, there is no American authority for compulsory vaccination, in the sense of forcing one to submit even if policies require compliance. When it comes to commerce, everything is an offer to contract. When it comes to Acts, All the world is a stage.

Shakespeare titled his play, As You Like It, as if to say, you always have a choice. There is no law that compels anyone to do anything related to mandated restrictions, whether COVID-related or not. The freedom to choose is non-negotiable. You always have options just like you have opinions. However, in this era, freedom must be defended and claimed as a BIRTHRIGHT.

Do you trust a government calling the shots under the ruse of exemptions? Now is the time to seize your courage, to wake up, to rise up and to find your will to act for yourself. As always, freedom lives in you!

Updated from May 21, 2019.

Related Articles

• Freedom Exists Under Natural Law
• The Ruse of Children’s Rights
• Taking the Public Out of Public Health
• Vaccine Debate: Ruse to Eliminate Freedom
• U.S. Constitution Expired. California Exemptions Revoked. Natural Law Stands.

Rosanne Lindsay is a Naturopath, writer, earth keeper, health freedom advocate and author of the books The Nature of Healing, Heal the Body, Heal the Planet and  Free Your Voice, Heal Your Thyroid, Reverse Thyroid Disease Naturally.

Rosanne Lindsay is available for consultation through Turtle Island Network.  Subscribe to her blog at natureofhealing.org.

Connect with Rosanne Lindsay, Traditional Naturopath

cover image credit: SantiagoGonzález_ad / pixabay

See also:

The Not-So-NICE ACT

Fmr CDC Director: Bird Flu Is the Real Pandemic – C19 Was Just Practice

by Christian Westbrook, Ice Age Farmer
April 9, 2022

Former CDC Director Robert Redfield has stated that Bird Flu will jump to humans and be highly fatal in the coming “Great Pandemic,” for which C19 was a mere warm-up.



See also:

Fmr CDC Director: Bird Flu is the Real Pandemic – C19 was just practice

Connect with Ice Age Farmer

The Not-So-NICE ACT

by Rosanne Lindsay, Naturopath, Nature of Healing
April 7, 2022

A catchy title, The NICE Act, (HR 5816), is a federal Act recently introduced in Congress under the appearance of a Health Freedom Bill.

Look closer. The NICE Act is not what it appears to be. It attempts to do something it is not designed to do. Then again, the rule of law always has exceptions. In this case, it is important to be aware that federal Acts regulate commerce, not people. Note, when federal Acts attempt to regulate people, money is always involved.

Follow the money.

The NAUGHTY but NICE Act?

Where there is government overreach, The NICE Act (HR 5816) becomes The Naughty Act. Let us break it down into 8 proofs:

A BILL…

“To prohibit the federal Government, or State or local government or other entity receiving federal funding, from requiring any citizen to be vaccinated, including federal agencies from requiring its employees to take any vaccination, without the citizen being fully advised in writing of all known potential risks from the vaccine and consultation with a physician followed by the voluntary informed consent of the citizen, and for other purposes.”

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “National Informed Consent Exemption (NICE) Act.”

1.‍ This bill directly affects any entity, or person, receiving federal money.

1. 1. The federal Government, and persons receiving federal funding, are prohibited from requiring any citizen to be vaccinated or tested for an infectious disease without due process of law. Citizens have the fundamental right to decline vaccination for an infectious disease without penalty.

Aha! The beginning of the money trail. This Act attempts to regulate an individual’s choice for healing. Whether a citizen chooses vaccination or not speaks to consent, not Informed Consent. This is a consent bill masquerading as an Informed Consent bill. However, whatever this bill claims to be, the freedom to choose is a Right, far removed from federal commerce and its regulations. How people heal is protected by States and State Constitutions, and should not be redefined by federal Acts that attempt to legislate choice.

2. Informed Consent is Not Consent

Informed Consent already exists in a current law, codified at 45 CFR § 46.116 – General requirements for informed consent. It exists to protect a patient’s right to receive information, including risks, before accepting or declining a medical procedure. No one is required to submit to any procedures without informed consent. Again, informed consent is not to be confused with Consent, meaning the ability for someone to accept or to decline an offer, such a vaccination. This bears repeating.

Informed consent occurs when there is agreement to an interaction or action rendered with knowledge of relevant facts, such as the risks involved or any available alternatives. Informed consent often comes up in the contexts of legal ethics, medical treatment, and waiver of constitutional rights. – Legal Information Institute.

It is important to know that a government-granted exemption is a privilege, not a right. The ability to decline a medical procedure, including vaccination, is, and always has been, a Right. Rights are inborn, granted by the Creator. Rights do not come from government. Governments are established to protect the rights of men and women. See ‘The Declaration of Independence.’

No government has the power to legislate a right, even when naming it as “an exemption,” unless the people sign on, with their signatures.

3. Medical freedom is much broader than vaccines, alone.

This medical freedom bill is limited in scope, focusing on freedom from vaccine mandates only, as if vaccination is a gold standard with few exceptions. What about freedom from coercion, drugging, medical testing, medical tracking, medical chipping, and all forms of medical tyranny inside and outside of “public health emergencies?”

4. Under the NICE Act, citizens would agree that this human right (the right to decline a vaccine) does not apply when:

(3) Federal, State, and local emergencies where the governing authority has first formally applied to the President of the United States of America for a NICE exception, and provided that the President in his discretion formally authorizes the requested exception based on the following criteria proven by the governing authority: (i) compliance with the procedure in section 5(b) would be materially impractical, (ii) the requested NICE exception would not materially interfere with National Security, and (iii) short-term and long-term side effects from the vaccination, including serious injuries and deaths, have been proven to occur in less than 1 in 200,000 individuals.

Did you notice that this bill includes exceptions for the exemption? Would a perceived threat to national security invalidate the NICE exemption? What authority determines the level of security threat that would trigger this revocation? Would government be able to deploy a mass vaccine rollout in public schools, as has happened in the past? The language of this bill attempts to swap a privilege for a privilege, with exemptions for an exemption, but remember, human rights ALWAYS apply.

5. Any medical procedures, drugs, or vaccines are always optional, yet the NICE Act makes the assumption that there is always an exception.

The NICE Act (HR5816) reads:

(b) Vaccination shall henceforth be optional to citizens, except as provided in section 5, for their participation in society, including but not limited to education, travel, employment, government service, housing, social welfare programs, access to courts, and medical care.

6. Americans currently have guardianship laws and power of attorney, yet this Act would not apply to:

(1) lawfully incarcerated and institutionalized individuals lacking the right or ability to meaningfully provide informed consent or informed refusal;

7. The authors of this Act say this law would also not apply to the following:

(2) courts of law issuing individualized court orders specific to one individual, provided the court order applies strict scrutiny following a hearing affording due process of law to the individual affected;

Still, governments have no authority to vaccinate anyone against his will. Even though governments do coerce, they cannot mandate a vaccination.

8. This bill creates victims and subjects of the court system if violations occur under the Act.

(a) Any person who has been the victim of a violation of this Act may bring a civil action for damages against any responsible party.

Legally, a “PERSON” means an individual, a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, association, trust, unincorporated organization, or other legal entity or organization, or a Government Body. Alternatively, if you are not a PERSON, subject to this Act, then you are neither a victim of the Act, nor a subject of the federal judicial system.

Law Basics 101

The United States Congress was established for the purpose of making and enacting laws that protect the rights and freedoms of people. However, people existed before the government existed. Therefore, the rights of people supersede government laws, Acts, statutes, and dictates. Since the

origin of rights and freedom comes from birth, they are known as birth RIGHTS.

Government laws exist as “BENEFITS and PRIVILEGES.” However, since the inception of the United States in 1776, both presidents and governors have been bypassing the laws through illegal Executive Orders (E.O.s) under Color of Law. Even though it might be argued that federal Acts fall under the Color of Law, the chances of finding a solution through the court system is about as likely as isolating the Coronavirus. The CDC still admits there is no gold standard for the isolation of any virus.

Government-granted exemptions for government-imposed health mandates are strategically designed to fail by entrapping those members of the community who sign onto them. Firstly, there is no legal defense or enforcement for religious or medical exemptions because businesses have no legal duty of care from imposing mandates based on the The Doctrine of Assumption of Risk.

The Doctrine of Assumption of Risk states that no business is liable to protect others from a risk that’s widely known or believed to exist in the community.

Secondly, laws cannot conflict with each other. So when mandates or Executive Orders conflict with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), then there is a violation of the legal duty of care. A legal duty is a legal obligation, the breach of which can result in liability. Businesses that impose mandates must have an insurance policy.

John Jay Singleton, of Zunga, says, Federal law, the ADA, requires businesses to aid and encourage those with disabilities in the exercise and enjoyment of their rights. This means that not only can a business owner not impose such measures on anyone, he must actively protect everyone from any violation of this law, at least by not imposing them.

To exercise and enjoy your rights doesn’t mean you have to have a disability. It means you’re regarded as having a disability. If you’re regarded as having a disability its because the government announced a public health disaster, so the legal duties come into play with the ADA. And the legal duty of care is on anyone trying to force these measure on you. John Jay Singleton

An exemption means there has to be a legal duty of care. If there is no legal duty, there is no exemption. So no court will take jurisdiction. A plaintiff in court will never win. This is another reason you do not have to beg for a right you already possess.

Exemptions bind people to an arbitrary, and a constantly changing, list of demands. These demands supersede basic freedoms, and thereupon deny people of their inalienable, God/life given rights to self-determination of their bodies. As the government giveth, so, too, can the government taketh away, on a whim.

It is important to appreciate that all vaccine-related exemptions, whether, medical, religious, moral/philosophical/personal belief, naughty or NICE, are fundamentally illegal, because they transpose an inherent human RIGHT into a PRIVILEGE, on the presumption that you acknowledge, and thus sacrifice, or forfeit, your natural born rights and ‘freedom to choose’ to an external authority.

Not So NICE

Do supporters of this bill suddenly trust a government calling the shots under the ruse of exemptions? Do they support a government morphing into a One World Government?

What if declining to participate in Acts preserves your authenticity and your rights?

All Acts attempt do one thing: to allow the government to legislate choice and freedom, that is …if you consent to the offer. But were you provided Informed Consent?

For instance, there is no American authority for compulsory vaccination, in the sense of forcing one to submit. When it comes to the government, everything is an offer to contract. When it comes to Acts, All the world is a stage.

Science vs. Rights. Why They Must Remain Separate

Rosanne Lindsay is a Naturopath, writer, earth keeper, health freedom advocate and author of the books The Nature of Healing, Heal the Body, Heal the Planet and  Free Your Voice, Heal Your Thyroid, Reverse Thyroid Disease Naturally.

Rosanne Lindsay is available for consultation through Turtle Island Network.  Subscribe to her blog at natureofhealing.org.

Connect with Rosanne Lindsay, Naturopath

cover image credit: PDPics / pixabay

Beak Masks

by Joel Salatin, The Lunatic Farmer

As avian influenza runs through the nation’s poultry flocks, with the current extermination of about 28 million laying hens and turkeys, I can’t help but wonder why we aren’t putting beak masks on the chickens.

If masks are so effective against viruses in the human population, why don’t we just make a chicken mask to stop this virus?  Seems like a better fix than exterminating all these animals.

The problem is that Dr. Fauci isn’t in the chicken business.  Rats.  What a shame.  If only he were in charge of chickens, he’d have this thing under control in a day.  I think we need to expand his authority to the animals of America so he can take care of them like he’s taken care of the humans of America.

When avian flu broke out in our part of Virginia many years ago, two of the federal veterinarians sent in to exterminate chickens visited me just to chat.  The independent visits shared an identical assessment:  too many chickens crammed in too tight a space in too small a geographic area.  Both said if they mentioned that publicly they would be fired.

Hmmmm, I wonder if decentralization of poultry would be better than centralization.  Notice that on one farm, 5.8 million laying hens were destroyed—ON ONE FARM!

It’s all blamed on wildlife.  Folks, whenever a culture views wildlife as a liability rather than asset, you know everything is wonky.  It’s like blaming babies for drug addiction.  Or blaming churches for drunkards.  When wildlife is the enemy, something is out of whack in the culture’s thinking.

I don’t trust the tests.  I don’t trust the experts.  I don’t trust the bureaucrats.  Isn’t it amazing that as a culture, we’re fixated on prolonging human life for a week or two with ultra-expensive, painful, and invasive intervention but at the first sign of sniffles in a chicken, the “only” cure, according to the experts, is mass extermination.  Perhaps the wrong beings are being exterminated.  Just sayin’.

The biggest tragedy is that these government gumshoes will come onto a property, without a warrant and unannounced, demanding to pull blood from pastured chickens.  They’ll take that sample to a lab driven by political agendas and industrial paradigms (chickens locked in houses are healthier than chickens roaming on a pasture) to determine positive or negative.

Does this sound like incestuous fraternal collusion shenanigans to you?

Connect with The Lunatic Farmer

cover image based on creative commons work of ELG21 & ArtRose

Globalists Spill the Beans at the World Government Summit — Controlled Digital Monetary System & Ongoing ‘WWW III’

Truth Comes to Light editor‘s note: Excerpts from New World Next Week Interview 1720

[Globalist/Elitist] Dr Pippa Malmgren:

“And what we’re seeing in the world today, I think, is we are on the brink of a dramatic change where we are about to, and I’ll say this boldly, we’re about to abandon the traditional system of money and accounting and introduce a new one.

And the new one, the new accounting, is what we call blockchain. It means digital. It means having a almost perfect record of every single transaction that happens in the economy, which will give us far greater clarity over what’s going on.”

James Evan Pilato:

“Like Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum, she sees covid as an opportunity to transform the world. The new money system Malmgren talks about with such enthusiasm will not only be digital, it’ll be centralized and programmable.

As we’ve talked about the Bitcoin psyop now for several years, don’t confuse this with Bitcoin or other actual cryptocurrencies. The only thing it’ll share in common with other crypto is that it will be based on blockchain technology.

So what do they mean by programmable money? This means that central banks will have complete control over your money and can program it so that it can only be spent on certain things, in certain places.”

[Globalist/Elitist] Dr Pippa Malmgren:

“We’re already in World War III. We are already in conflict that extends so far beyond Ukraine actually, even within the context of western Europe. But we’ve clearly been pretty much at war in space, below the surface of the ocean, submarine warfare between superpowers. I would even say that this has been happening for a least four years, and it spilled over into public view on the ground. But we don’t frame it that way.”

James Corbett:

“And then Pippa goes on with that statement, but also she prefaces that statement by saying what underpins a world order is always the financial system. Ding Ding Ding Ding. That is true… What is happening in Ukraine right now fundamentally, at base, is not a geopolitical event. It is a monetary event, a changeover in the monetary paradigm of the world…

This is what it’s about. It’s the change over to the central bank digital currency paradigm. And, as she points out, the Chinese are pioneering it. And they’re the first ones to roll out with the digital yuan. And they’re spearheading this thrust into the digital divide — between pre-digital humanity and trans-humanity…

It’s all about… how we set the rules around this. And who gets to be in charge of the system. Yes, this could be used for bad purposes, this kind of digital ID surveillance tracking control of everything that everyone does. But as long as it’s in the right hands, it’ll be okay. And you will notice that the pimps of the New World order will always frame it this way.”

Globalists Spill the Beans at the World Government Summit

by James Corbett & James Evan Pilato, The Corbett Report
April 7, 2022



Watch on Archive / BitChute / Minds / Odysee or Download the mp4

Story #1: Economist at ‘World Government Summit’ Says New Financial World Order About to Shift In Dramatic New Direction

https://leohohmann.com/2022/03/31/bombshell-video-economist-at-world-government-summit-says-new-financial-world-order-about-to-shift-in-dramatic-new-direction/

Han Solo Pimps World Government – #PropagandaWatch

https://www.corbettreport.com/han-solo-pimps-world-government-propagandawatch/

World Government Summit 2022 Livestream: Day 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTTDzH2A1tM

Biden Said: “There’s going to be a new world order out there, and we’ve got to lead it.”

https://archive.ph/F2n49

Story #2: Questions Abound About Bucha Massacre

https://consortiumnews.com/2022/04/04/questions-abound-about-bucha-massacre/

Your Guide to Fifth-Generation Warfare

https://www.corbettreport.com/your-guide-to-fifth-generation-warfare/

Ukraine – The Massacre of Bucha, a Ukrainian Timisoara – Donbass Insider

https://www.donbass-insider.com/2022/04/04/ukraine-the-massacre-of-bucha-a-ukrainian-timisoara/

Misinformation from the Archives: Timisoara’s ‘Mass Graves’

https://archive.ph/JMUMT

Bucha killings: Satellite image of bodies site contradicts Russian claims

https://www.bbc.com/news/60981238

Ukraine War! What Is It Good For? Propaganda (Part 4)

https://in-this-together.com/temp-ukraine-war-part-4/

Are These Satellite Images War Propaganda?

https://newrepublic.com/article/165910/maxar-ukraine-russia-satellite-images-war-propaganda

Pentagon Can’t Independently Confirm Atrocities In Ukraine’s Bucha, Official Says

https://www.reuters.com/world/pentagon-cant-independently-confirm-atrocities-ukraines-bucha-official-says-2022-04-04/

Russia Blames Britain for Blocking UN Meeting to Discuss Alleged War Crimes In Ukraine

https://archive.ph/20hvL

UN Calls for An Independent Investigation on Bucha

https://unric.org/en/un-calls-for-an-independent-investigation-on-bucha/

The US Has No Evidence Russia Was Preparing a Chemical Attack Despite Claims

https://news.antiwar.com/2022/04/06/the-us-has-no-evidence-russia-was-preparing-a-chemical-attack-despite-claims/

In Break With Past, US Using Intel to Fight An Info War With Russia, Even When Intel Isn’t Rock Solid

https://archive.ph/9ORR9

FT: US to Announce New Sanctions Against Russia

https://archive.ph/uZwV4

NYT: What Happened on Day 38 of the War in Ukraine

https://archive.ph/VYErY

Story #3: US National Emergency Extended Due to Elevated Malicious Cyber Activity

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/us-national-emergency-extended-due-to-elevated-malicious-cyber-activity/

National Emergencies Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergencies_Act

List of National Emergencies In the United States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_States

Episode 411 – States of Emergency

https://www.corbettreport.com/emergency/

When False Flags Go Virtual

https://www.corbettreport.com/when-false-flags-go-virtual/

NWNW Flashback: Chinese Baby Gene-Editing Scientist Goes Missing (Dec. 6, 2018)

https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1404-new-world-next-week-with-james-evan-pilato/

Creator of CRISPR Babies Has Been Released From Chinese Prison

https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/04/1048829/he-jiankui-prison-free-crispr-babies/

The New World Next Week Store

https://newworldnextweek.com/

Connect with The Corbett Report

Gain of Fiction

“The only way that the gain of function/bioweapon narrative makes any sense is if the original Latin definition for the word “virus” is used to explain what is happening in this research. In Latin, “virus” means “liquid poision” and what virologists are doing is simply creating a liquid poison in a lab using cell cultures. What they are not doing is creating “infectious agents of a small size and simple composition that can multiply only in living cells of animals, plants, or bacteria” which is the modern definition for the word according to the Britannica…

[….]

“What must be realized about the GOF studies and the bioweapon narrative is that these stories are designed to keep people believing in the lies of Germ Theory. This is yet another fear-based tactic utilized by those in power to ensure that the masses are frightened of an invisible enemy that can be unleashed upon the world either accidentally or intentionally at a moments notice.”

~ Mike Stone, Viroliegy

Gain of Fiction

by Mike Stone, Viroliegy
April 7, 2022

virus, infectious agent of small size and simple composition that can multiply only in living cells of animals, plants, or bacteria. The name is from a Latin word meaning “slimy liquid” or “poison.”

https://www.britannica.com/science/virus

I have purposefully stayed away from the whole “SARS-COV-2” as a gain of function/bioweapon disinformation campaign as it is obvious to anyone who has ever read any “virus” paper, there is absolutely zero credible evidence for the existence of “SARS-COV-2” or any of these other invisible entities. At no point has any virologist ever properly purified and isolated the particles assumed to be “viruses” directly from a sick patient and then proven them pathogenic in a natural way. As this is a fact that is even admitted by virologists themselves, it should also be obvious that if they can not find the particles assumed to be “viruses” in nature, they can not tinker around and modify these fictional entities in a lab in order to create some sort of contagious bioweapon.

Somehow, this logic escapes many. Even though some have woken to the truth and accepted that “SARS-COV-2” does not exist in nature, they still believe that it must have been developed in a lab and unleashed upon the world in order to create a new contagious disease which is wrecking havoc on the elderly and immunocompromised. What they fail to realize is that there simply is no new disease and that none of the symptoms associated with “SARS-COV-2” are new, unique, or specific. There is zero proof of transmission and/or contagion beyond highly flawed epidemiological studies. There is no new “virus,” no new disease, and no contagious bioweapon. It is pure fiction based upon faulty cell culture and genomic experiments.

Before diving into the experimental evidence presented for gain of function studies, I figured it would be a good idea to get some background information on what exactly these kinds of studies entail first. From the October 2021 Nature article highlighted below, we learn that the gain of function concept earned widespread recognition in 2012 due to a pair of studies which both looked to tweak an avian influenza “virus” in order to make it transmissable by air between ferrets. Disregarding the contradictory fact that aerosol transmission is supposedly the way an upper respiratory “virus” is supposed to spread, many became concerned that this kind of work may eventually lead to the release of a super “virus” which could result in the next pandemic. These ferret studies were apparently pivotal with bringing virology into the gain of function field, even though it could be easily argued that virology has been performing these kinds of experiments throughout its existence.

The gain of function term refers to any research that improves a pathogen’s abilities to cause disease or spread from host to host. This is done by fiddling with cell culture material in a lab combined with genomic sequencing. They do this either by inserting genetic material into the cell culture or by way of animal models where the animal is said to be genetically altered in some way to be more susceptible to the “viral” material.

The article provides an example where mice were genetically modified to become susceptible to MERS. However, the mice did not become ill upon being challenged with the “virus.” Thus, the researchers resorted to passaging the “virus” between mice, which involved infecting a couple of mice, giving the “virus” two days to take hold, and then killing the mice and grinding up the lung tissue to inject into other mice. They repeated these steps at least 30 times which eventually made some mice sick. This process of culturing toxic material, injecting animals with the concoction, killing them and grinding up their remains, and then injecting this emulsified goop into other animals in an attenpt to make them sick is what GOF is all about. While this horrific process is getting recognized today, these kinds of experiments have been a staple of virology since the very beginning:

The shifting sands of ‘gain-of-function’ research

“The term first gained a wide public audience in 2012, after two groups revealed that they had tweaked an avian influenza virus, using genetic engineering and directed evolution, until it could be transmitted between ferrets2,3. Many people were concerned that publishing the work would be tantamount to providing a recipe for a devastating pandemic, and in the years that followed, research funders, politicians and scientists debated whether such work required stricter oversight, lest someone accidentally or intentionally release a lab-created plague. Researchers around the world voluntarily paused some work, but the issue became particularly politicized in the United States.

US funding agencies, which also support research abroad, later imposed a moratorium on gain-of-function research with pathogens while they worked out new protocols to assess the risks and benefits. But many of the regulatory discussions have taken place out of the public eye.

Now, gain-of-function research is once again centre stage, thanks to SARS-CoV-2 and a divisive debate about where it came from. Most virologists say that the coronavirus probably emerged from repeated contact between humans and animals, potentially in connection with wet markets in Wuhan, China, where the virus was first reported. But a group of scientists and politicians argues that a laboratory origin has not been ruled out. They are demanding investigation of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where related bat coronaviruses have been extensively studied, to determine whether SARS-CoV-2 could have accidentally leaked from the lab or crossed into humans during collection or storage of samples.”

“The term GOF didn’t have much to do with virology until the past decade. Then, the ferret influenza studies came along. In trying to advise the federal government on the nature of such research, the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) borrowed the term — and it stuck, says Gigi Gronvall,a biosecurity specialist at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. From that usage, it came to mean any research that improves a pathogen’s abilities to cause disease or spread from host to host.

Virologists do regularly fiddle with viral genes to change them, sometimes enhancing virulence or transmissibility, although usually just in animal or cell-culture models. “People do all of these experiments all the time,” says Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. For example, her lab has made mouse viruses that are more harmful to mice than the originals. If only mice are at risk, should it be deemed GOF? And would it be worrying?

The answer is generally no. Morrison’s experiments, and many others like them, pose little threat to humans. GOF research starts to ring alarm bells when it involves dangerous human pathogens, such as those on the US government’s ‘select agents’ list, which includes Ebola virus and the bacteria responsible for anthrax and botulism. Other major concerns are ‘pathogens of pandemic potential’ (PPP) such as influenza viruses and coronaviruses. “For the most part, we’re worried about respiratory viruses because those are the ones that transmit the best,” says Michael Imperiale, a virologist at the University of Michigan Medical School. GOF studies with those viruses are “a really tiny part” of virology, he adds.”

“Animal research — although fraught with its own set of ethical quandaries — allows scientists to study how pathogens work and to test potential treatments, a necessary precursor to trials in people. That’s what Perlman and his collaborators had in mind when they set out to study the coronavirus responsible for Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS-CoV), which emerged as a human pathogen in 2012. They wanted to use mice, but mice can’t catch MERS.

The rodents lack the right version of the protein DPP4, which MERS-CoV uses to gain entry to cells. So, the team altered the mice, giving them a human-like version of the gene for DPP4. The virus could now infect the humanized mice, but there was another problem: even when infected, the mice didn’t get very ill. “Having a model of mild disease isn’t particularly helpful to understand why people get so sick,” says collaborator Paul McCray, a paediatric pulmonologist also at the University of Iowa.

So, the group used a classic technique called ‘passaging’ to enhance virulence. The researchers infected a couple of mice, gave the virus two days to take hold, and then transferred some of the infected lung tissue into another pair of mice. They did this repeatedly — 30 times9. By the end of two months, the virus had evolved to replicate better in mouse cells. In so doing, it made the mice more ill; a high dose was deadly, says McCray. That’s GOF of a sort because the virus became better at causing disease. But adapting a pathogen to one animal in this way often limits its ability to infect others, says Andrew Pekosz, a virologist at the Bloomberg School of Public Health.”

“With all the challenges inherent in GOF studies, why do them? Because, some virologists say, the viruses are constantly mutating on their own, effectively doing GOF experiments at a rate that scientists could never match. “We can either wait for something to arise, and then fight it, or we can anticipate that certain things will arise, and instead we can preemptively build our arsenals,” says Morrison. “That’s where gain-of-function research can come in handy.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02903-x

This next source is from 2015. The authors admit that virology is heavily reliant on gain or loss of function studies. They offer an alternative definition for GOF research which is any selection process involving an alteration of genotypes and their resulting phenotypes. Obviously, this definition leans far more into the genomics side of the equation. This is due to the claim that these kinds of studies are used by virologists in order to understand a “viruses” genetic make-up. It is stated that researchers now have advanced molecular technologies, such as reverse genetics, which allow them to produce de novo recombinant “viruses” from cloned cDNA. In other words, they mix genetic material from different sources, poison and/or kill lab animals by injecting them with this toxic soup, and then analyze the resulting mixture using computers so that they can claim that the generated model is a new creation. However, it is admitted that these kinds of mutations happen “naturally” with “viruses” every time a person is infected, thus confirming what we already know: virologists can not sequence the same exact “virus” every time:

Gain-of-Function Research: Background and Alternatives

“The field of virology, and to some extent the broader field of microbiology, widely relies on studies that involve gain or loss of function. In order to understand the role of such studies in virology, Dr. Kanta Subbarao from the Laboratory of Infectious Disease at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) gave an overview of the current scientific and technical approaches to the research on pandemic strains of influenza and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) coronaviruses (CoV). As discussed in greater detail later in this chapter, many participants argued that the word choice of “gain-of-function” to describe the limited type of experiments covered by the U.S. deliberative process, particularly when coupled with a pause on even a smaller number of research projects, had generated concern that the policy would affect much broader areas of virology research.

TYPES OF GAIN-OF-FUNCTION (GOF) RESEARCH

Subbarao explained that routine virological methods involve experiments that aim to produce a gain of a desired function, such as higher yields for vaccine strains, but often also lead to loss of function, such as loss of the ability for a virus to replicate well, as a consequence. In other words, any selection process involving an alteration of genotypes and their resulting phenotypes is considered a type of Gain-of-Function (GoF) research, even if the U.S. policy is intended to apply to only a small subset of such work.

Subbarao emphasized that such experiments in virology are fundamental to understanding the biology, ecology, and pathogenesis of viruses and added that much basic knowledge is still lacking for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Subbarao introduced the key questions that virologists ask at all stages of research on the emergence or re-emergence of a virus and specifically adapted these general questions to the three viruses of interest in the symposium (see Box 3-1). To answer these questions, virologists use gain- and loss-of-function experiments to understand the genetic makeup of viruses and the specifics of virus-host interaction. For instance, researchers now have advanced molecular technologies, such as reverse genetics, which allow them to produce de novo recombinant viruses from cloned cDNA, and deep sequencing that are critical for studying how viruses escape the host immune system and antiviral controls. Researchers also use targeted host or viral genome modification using small interfering RNA or the bacterial CRISPR-associated protein-9 nuclease as an editing tool.

During Session 3 of the symposium, Dr. Yoshihiro Kawaoka, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, classified types of GoF research depending on the outcome of the experiments. The first category, which he called “gain of function research of concern,” includes the generation of viruses with properties that do not exist in nature. The now famous example he gave is the production of H5N1 influenza A viruses that are airborne-transmissible among ferrets, compared to the non-airborne transmissible wild type. The second category deals with the generation of viruses that may be more pathogenic and/or transmissible than the wild type viruses but are still comparable to or less problematic than those existing in nature. Kawaoka argued that the majority of strains studied have low pathogenicity, but mutations found in natural isolates will improve their replication in mammalian cells. Finally, the third category, which is somewhere in between the two first categories, includes the generation of highly pathogenic and/or transmissible viruses in animal models that nevertheless do not appear to be a major public health concern. An example is the high-growth A/PR/8/34 influenza strain found to have increased pathogenicity in mice but not in humans. During the discussion, Dr. Thomas Briese, Columbia University, further described GoF research done in the laboratory as being a “proactive” approach to understand what will eventually happen in nature.”

“Imperiale explained that, with respect to the GoF terminology, whenever researchers are working with RNA viruses, GoF mutations are naturally arising all the time and escape mutants isolated in the laboratory appear “every time someone is infected with influenza.” He also commented that the term GoF was understood a certain way by attendees of this symposium, but when the public hears this term “they can’t make that sort of nuanced distinction that we can make here” so the terminology should be revisited.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285579/

Hopefully the above two sources have shown that GOF studies are nothing more than the exact same cell culture experiments utilizing the exact same genomic sequencing technologies and tricks that virologists have always used. The only difference is that they are combining different culture supernatant and genetic materials together into one in order to create a brand new synthetic computer-generated sequence. At no point in time are any purified/isolated particles ever used in these studies. In fact, there are no EM images of the new “virus” of any kind. It should therefore not be surprising that we can see the exact same pattern of unscientific methods and illogical reasoning in GOF studies as found in any of the original “virus” papers.

Seeing as to how the 2012 avian flu studies brought GOF research to the forefront, it seemed ideal to step into this area a bit more to see what actually transpired. The main study presented as evidence of GOF research was led by a man named Ron Fouchier. If that name sounds familiar, that’s because it should. Fouchier was involved in the 2003 “SARS-COV-1” study which proclaimed the satisfaction of Koch’s Postulates for proving a microorganism causes disease yet it failed miserably by not only not being able to satisfy Koch’s four original Postulates, but also Thomas River’s six revised Postulates made strictly for virology. In other words, it was an epic fail.

In Fouchier’s 2012 avian flu GOF study, he attempted to make the H5N1 “virus” infectious through the air. This was done through a process involving cell culturing combined with genetic engineering as well as passaging the material through numerous ferrets. Sounds familiar to the mice example from before, correct? You also see this same process with the early polio and influenza studies as well as in many other virology papers. The main difference is the genomic narrative and the use of modern technology such as reverse genetics to claim the insertion of specific genes.

Highlights from the below paper provide an overview of what was done during this study. It details how the material was collected from a flu strain in Indonesia, genetically altered in a Petri dish, and then transferred to ferrets in a series of experiments using the “wildtype” strain along with different modified strains. Fouchier and Co. were repeatedly unsuccessful in their endeavors of infecting ferrets until they started passaging the “virus” in the animals by injecting them with the cultured soup, grinding up their lung tissues, and injecting other ferrets in the same manner. They repeated this process 6 times and then changed up the experiment by switching to nasal turbinates for the last 4 passage attempts. The only illness said to be achieved via airborne exposure was a loss of appetite, lethargy, and ruffled fur. Upon sequencing the “viruses,” there were only two amino acid switches shared by all six “viruses.” There were several other mutations, but none that occurred in all six airborne “viruses.” In other words, they could not sequence the same “virus” at any point:

Fouchier study reveals changes enabling airborne spread of H5N1

“A study showing that it takes as few as five mutations to turn the H5N1 avian influenza virus into an airborne spreader in mammals—and that launched a historic debate on scientific accountability and transparency—was released today in Science, spilling the full experimental details that many experts had sought to suppress out of concern that publishing them could lead to the unleashing of a dangerous virus.

In the lengthy report, Ron Fouchier, PhD, of Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands and colleagues describe how they used a combination of genetic engineering and serial infection of ferrets to create a mutant H5N1 virus that can spread among ferrets without direct contact.

They say their findings show that H5N1 viruses have the potential to evolve in mammals to gain airborne transmissibility, without having to mix with other flu viruses in intermediate hosts such as pigs, and thus pose a risk of launching a pandemic.”

Indonesian H5N1 strain used

Fouchier’s team started with an H5N1 virus collected in Indonesia and used reverse genetics to introduce mutations that have been shown in previous research to make H5N1 viruses more human-like in how they bind to airway cells or in other ways. Avian flu viruses prefer to bind to alpha2,3-linked sialic acid receptors on cells, whereas human flu viruses prefer alpha2,6-linked receptors. In both humans and ferrets, alpha2,6 receptors are predominant in the upper respiratory tract, while alpha 2,6 receptors are found mainly in the lower respiratory tract.

The amino acid changes the team chose included N182K, Q222L, and G224S, the numbers referring to positions in the virus’s HA protein, the viral surface molecule that attaches to host cells. Q222L and G224S together change the binding preference of H2 and H3 subtype flu viruses, changes that contributed to the 1957 and 1968 flu pandemics, according to the report. And N182K was found in a human H5N1 case.

The scientists created three mutant H5N1 virus strains to launch their experiment: one containing N182K, one with Q222L and G2242, and one with all three changes, the report explains. They then launched their lengthy series of ferret experiments by inoculating groups of six ferrets with one of these three mutants or the wild-type H5N1 virus. Analysis of samples during the 7-day experiment showed that ferrets infected with the wild-type virus shed far more virus than those infected with the mutants.

In a second step, the team used a mutation in a different viral gene, PB2, the polymerase complex protein. The mutation E627K in PB2 is linked to the acquisition by avian flu viruses of the ability to grow in the human respiratory tract, which is cooler than the intestinal tract of birds, where the viruses usually reside, according to the report.

The researchers found that this mutation, when added to two of the HA mutations (Q224L and G224S), did not produce a virus that grew more vigorously in ferrets, and the virus did not spread through the air from infected ferrets to uninfected ones.

The passaging step

Seeing that the this mutant failed to achieve airborne transmission, the researchers decided to “passage” this strain through a series of ferrets in an effort to force it to adapt to the mammalian respiratory tract—the move that Fouchier called “really, really stupid,” according to a report of his initial description of the research at a European meeting last September.

They inoculated one ferret with the three-mutation strain and another with the wild-type virus and took daily samples until they euthanized the animals on day 4 and took tissue samples (nasal turbinates and lungs). Material from the tissue samples was then used to inoculate another pair of ferrets, and this step was carried out six times. For the last four passages, the scientists used nasal-wash samples instead of tissue samples, in an effort to harvest viruses that were secreted from the upper respiratory tract.

The amount of mutant virus found in the nasal turbinate and nose swab samples increased with the number of passages, signaling that the virus was increasing its capacity to grow in the ferret upper airway. In contrast, viral titers in the samples from ferrets infected with the wild-type virus stayed the same.

The next step was to test whether the viruses produced through passaging could achieve airborne transmission. Four ferrets were inoculated with samples of the “passage-10” mutant virus, and two ferrets were inoculated with the passage-10 wild strain. Uninfected ferrets were placed in cages next to the infected ones but not close enough for direct contact.

The ferrets exposed to those with the wild virus remained uninfected, but three of the four ferrets placed near those harboring the mutant virus did get infected, the researchers found. Further, they took a sample from one of the “recipient” ferrets and used it to inoculate another ferret, which then transmitted the virus to two more ferrets that were placed near it.

Thus, a total of six ferrets became infected with the mutant virus via airborne transmission. However, the level of viral shedding indicated the airborne virus didn’t transmit as efficiently as the 2009 H1N1 virus does.

In the course of the airborne transmission experiments, the ferrets showed signs of illness, including lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur. One of the directly inoculated ferrets died, but all those infected via airborne viruses survived.

When the scientists sequenced the genomes of the viruses that spread through the air, they found only two amino acid switches, both in HA, that occurred in all six viruses: H103Y and T156A. They noted several other mutations, but none that occurred in all six airborne viruses.

“Together, these results suggest that as few as five amino acid substitutions (four in HA and one in PB2) may be sufficient to confer airborne transmission of [highly pathogenic avian flu] H5N1 virus,” the researchers wrote.

In further steps, the researchers inoculated six ferrets with high doses of the airborne-transmissible virus; after 3 days, the ferrets were either dead or “moribund.” “Intratracheal inoculations at such high doses do not represent the natural route of infection and are generally used only to test the ability of viruses to cause pneumonia,” the report notes.”

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2012/06/fouchier-study-reveals-changes-enabling-airborne-spread-h5n1

While the proceeding article did an excellent job of providing the main points from Fouchier’s 2012 GOF study, I wanted to showcase relevant highlights directly from the paper to flesh out the methods used even further. Here you will see that Fouchier’s team claimed that they genetically modified A/H5N1 “virus” by site-directed mutagenesis and subsequent serial passage in ferrets. They used Influenza “virus” A/Indonesia/5/2005 (A/H5N1) which they said was isolated from a human case of HPAI “virus” infection. This was passaged once in embryonated chicken eggs which was followed by a single passage in Madin-Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK) cells. All eight gene segments were amplified by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and cloned in a modified version of the bidirectional reverse genetics plasmid pHW2000. They then used the QuickChange multisite-directed mutagenesis kit to introduce the desired amino acid substitutions. Site-directed mutagenesis is a synthetic process utilizing PCR to make artificial changes in a DNA sequence. They then took their synthetically-created cultured soup and experimented on ferrets while manipulating the methods until they achieved the results that they desired.

At no point in the paper was a “virus” of any kind ever purified and isolated. At no point were any electron microscope images of the newly mutated “viruses” ever shown. The only “evidence” of an airborne strain is genomic sequencing data from consensus genomes which did not match up. Fouchier and Co. even admitted that airborne transmission could be tested in a second mammalian model system such as guinea pigs, but even this would still not provide conclusive evidence that transmission among humans would occur. They also stated that the mutations they had identified needed further testing to determine their effect on transmission in other A/H5N1 “virus” lineages, and that further experiments are needed to quantify how they affect “viral” fitness and “virulence” in birds and mammals. In other words, their study only told them that they could create mutated genomes and not that they created more “virulent viruses” that are transmissable by air:

Airborne Transmission of Influenza A/H5N1 Virus Between Ferrets

“Highly pathogenic avian influenza A/H5N1 virus can cause morbidity and mortality in humans but thus far has not acquired the ability to be transmitted by aerosol or respiratory droplet (“airborne transmission”) between humans. To address the concern that the virus could acquire this ability under natural conditions, we genetically modified A/H5N1 virus by site-directed mutagenesis and subsequent serial passage in ferrets. The genetically modified A/H5N1 virus acquired mutations during passage in ferrets, ultimately becoming airborne transmissible in ferrets. None of the recipient ferrets died after airborne infection with the mutant A/H5N1 viruses. Four amino acid substitutions in the host receptor-binding protein hemagglutinin, and one in the polymerase complex protein basic polymerase 2, were consistently present in airborne-transmitted viruses. The transmissible viruses were sensitive to the antiviral drug oseltamivir and reacted well with antisera raised against H5 influenza vaccine strains. Thus, avian A/H5N1 influenza viruses can acquire the capacity for airborne transmission between mammals without recombination in an intermediate host and therefore constitute a risk for human pandemic influenza.

Influenza A viruses have been isolated from many host species, including humans, pigs, horses, dogs, marine mammals, and a wide range of domestic birds, yet wild birds in the orders Anseriformes (ducks, geese, and swans) and Charadriiformes (gulls, terns, and waders) are thought to form the virus reservoir in nature (1). Influenza A viruses belong to the family Orthomyxoviridae; these viruses have an RNA genome consisting of eight gene segments (2, 3). Segments 1 to 3 encode the polymerase proteins: basic polymerase 2 (PB2), basic polymerase 1 (PB1), and acidic polymerase (PA), respectively. These proteins form the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase complex responsible for transcription and replication of the viral genome.”

Since the late 1990s, HPAI A/H5N1 viruses have devastated the poultry industry of numerous countries in the Eastern Hemisphere. To date, A/H5N1 has spread from Asia to Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, resulting in the death of hundreds of millions of domestic birds. In Hong Kong in 1997, the first human deaths directly attributable to avian A/H5N1 virus were recorded (11). Since 2003, more than 600 laboratory-confirmed cases of HPAI A/H5N1 virus infections in humans have been reported from 15 countries (12). Although limited A/H5N1 virus transmission between persons in close contact has been reported, sustained human-to-human transmission of HPAI A/H5N1 virus has not been detected (13–15). Whether this virus may acquire the ability to be transmitted via aerosols or respiratory droplets among mammals, including humans, to trigger a future pandemic is a key question for pandemic preparedness. Although our knowledge of viral traits necessary for host switching and virulence has increased substantially in recent years (16, 17), the factors that determine airborne transmission of influenza viruses among mammals, a trait necessary for a virus to become pandemic, have remained largely unknown (18–21). Therefore, investigations of routes of influenza virus transmission between animals and on the determinants of airborne transmission are high on the influenza research agenda.

The viruses that caused the major pandemics of the past century emerged upon reassortment (that is, genetic mixing) of animal and human influenza viruses (22). However, given that viruses from only four pandemics are available for analyses, we cannot exclude the possibility that a future pandemic may be triggered by a wholly avian virus without the requirement of reassortment. Several studies have shown that reassortment events between A/H5N1 and seasonal human influenza viruses do not yield viruses that are readily transmitted between ferrets (18–20, 23). In our work, we investigated whether A/H5N1 virus could change its transmissibility characteristics without any requirement for reassortment.

We chose influenza virus A/Indonesia/5/2005 for our study because the incidence of human A/H5N1 virus infections and fatalities in Indonesia remains fairly high (12), and there are concerns that this virus could acquire molecular characteristics that would allow it to become more readily transmissible between humans and initiate a pandemic. Because no reassortants between A/H5N1 viruses and seasonal or pandemic human influenza viruses have been detected in nature and because our goal was to understand the biological properties needed for an influenza virus to become airborne transmissible in mammals, we decided to use the complete A/Indonesia/5/2005 virus that was isolated from a human case of HPAI A/H5N1 infection.

We chose the ferret (Mustela putorius furo) as the animal model for our studies. Ferrets have been used in influenza research since 1933 because they are susceptible to infection with human and avian influenza viruses (24). After infection with human influenza A virus, ferrets develop respiratory disease and lung pathology similar to that observed in humans. Ferrets can also transmit human influenza viruses to other ferrets that serve as sentinels with or without direct contact (fig. S1) (25–27).”

Human-to-human transmission of influenza viruses can occur through direct contact, indirect contact via fomites (contaminated environmental surfaces), and/or airborne transmission via small aerosols or large respiratory droplets. The pandemic and epidemic influenza viruses that have circulated in humans throughout the past century
were all transmitted via the airborne route, in contrast to many other respiratory viruses that are exclusively transmitted via contact. There is no exact particle size cut-off at which transmission changes from exclusively large droplets to aerosols. However, it is generally accepted that for infectious particles with a diameter of 5 mm or less, transmission occurs via aerosols. Because we did not measure particle size during our experiments, we will use the term “airborne transmission” throughout this Report.”

“Using a combination of targeted mutagenesis followed by serial virus passage in ferrets, we investigated whether A/H5N1 virus can acquire mutations that would increase the risk of mammalian transmission (34). We have previously shown that several amino acid substitutions in the RBS of the HA surface glycoprotein of A/Indonesia/5/2005 change the binding preference from the avian a-2,3–linked SA receptors to the human a-2,6–linked SA receptors (35). A/Indonesia/5/2005 virus with amino acid substitutions N182K, Q222L/G224S, or N182K/Q222L/G224S (numbers refer to amino acid positions in the mature H5 HA protein; N, Asn; Q, Gln; L, Leu; G, Gly; S, Ser) in HA display attachment patterns similar to those of human viruses to cells of the respiratory tract of ferrets and humans (35). Of these changes, we know that together, Q222L and G224S switch the receptor binding specificity of H2 and H3 subtype influenza viruses, as this switch contributed to the emergence of the 1957 and 1968 pandemics (36). N182K has been found in a human
case of A/H5N1 virus infection (37).

Our experimental rationale to obtain transmissible A/H5N1 viruses was to select a mutant A/H5N1 virus with receptor specificity for a-2,6–linked SA shed at high titers from the URT of ferrets. Therefore, we used the QuickChange multisite-directed mutagenesis kit (Agilent Technologies, Amstelveen, the Netherlands) to introduce amino acid substitutions N182K, Q222L/G224S, or N182K/Q222L/G224S in the HA of wild-type (WT) A/Indonesia/5/2005, resulting in A/H5N1HA N182K, A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S, and A/H5N1HA N182K,Q222L,G224S. Experimental details for experiments 1 to 9 are provided in the supplementary materials (25). For experiment 1, we inoculated these mutant viruses and the A/H5N1wildtype virus intranasally into groups of six ferrets for each virus (fig. S3). Throat and nasal swabs were collected daily, and virus titers were determined by end-point dilution in Madin Darby canine kidney (MDCK) cells to quantify virus shedding from the ferret URT. Three animals were euthanized after day 3 to enable tissue sample collection. All remaining animals were euthanized by day 7 when the same tissue samples were taken. Virus titers were determined in the nasal turbinates, trachea, and lungs collected post-mortem from the euthanized ferrets. Throughout the duration of experiment 1, ferrets inoculated intranasally with A/H5N1wildtype virus produced high titers in nose and throat swabs—up to 10 times more than A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S, which yielded the highest virus titers of all three mutants during the 7-day period (Fig. 1). However, no significant difference was observed between the virus shedding of ferrets inoculated with A/H5N1HA Q222L, G224S or A/H5N1HA N182K during the first 3 days when six animals per group were present. Thus, of the viruses with specificity for a-2,6–linked SA, A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S yielded the highest virus titers in the ferret URT (Fig. 1).

As described above, amino acid substitution E627K in PB2 is one of the most consistent host-range determinants of influenza viruses (29–31). For experiment 2 (fig. S4), we introduced E627K into the PB2 gene of A/Indonesia/5/2005 by site-directed mutagenesis and produced the recombinant virus A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K. The introduction of E627K in PB2 did not significantly affect virus shedding in ferrets, because virus titers in the URT were similar to those seen in A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S-inoculated animals [up to 1 × 104 50% tissue culture infectious doses (TCID50)] (Mann-Whitney U rank-sum test, P = 0.476) (Fig. 1 and fig. S5). When four naïve ferrets were housed in cages adjacent to those with four inoculated animals to test for airborne transmission as described previously (27), A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was not transmitted (fig. S5).

Because the mutant virus harboring the E627K mutation in PB2 and Q222L and G224S in HA did not transmit in experiment 2, we designed an experiment to force the virus to adapt to replication in the mammalian respiratory tract and to select virus variants by repeated passage (10 passages in total) of the constructed A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K virus and A/H5N1wildtype virus in the ferret URT (Fig. 2 and fig. S6). In experiment 3, one ferret was inoculated intranasally with A/H5N1wildtype and one ferret with A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K. Throat and nose swabs were collected daily from live animals until 4 days postinoculation (dpi), at which time the animals were euthanized to collect samples from nasal turbinates and lungs. The nasal turbinates were homogenized in 3 ml of virus-transport medium, tissue debris was pelleted by centrifugation, and 0.5 ml of the supernatant was subsequently used to inoculate the next ferret intranasally (passage 2). This procedure was repeated until passage 6.

From passage 6 onward, in addition to the samples described above, a nasal wash was also collected at 3 dpi. To this end, 1 ml of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) was delivered dropwise to the nostrils of the ferrets to induce sneezing. Approximately 200 ml of the “sneeze” was collected in a Petri dish, and PBS was added to a final volume of 2 ml. The nasal-wash samples were used for intranasal inoculation of the ferrets for the subsequent passages 7 through 10. We changed the source of inoculum during the course of the experiment, because passaging nasal washes may facilitate the selection of viruses that were secreted from the URT. Because influenza viruses mutate rapidly, we anticipated that 10 passages would be sufficient for the virus to adapt to efficient replication in mammals.

Virus titers in the nasal turbinates of ferrets inoculated with A/H5N1wildtype ranged from ~1 × 105 to 1 × 107 TCID50/gram tissue throughout 10 serial passages (Fig. 3A and fig. S7). In ferrets inoculated with A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K virus, a moderate increase in virus titers in the nasal turbinates was observed as the passage number increased. These titers ranged from 1 × 104 TCID50/gram tissue at the start of the experiment to 3.2 × 105 to 1 × 106 TCID50/gram tissue in the final passages (Fig. 3A and fig. S7). Notably, virus titers in the nose swabs of animals inoculated with A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K also increased during the successive passages, with peak virus shedding of 1 × 105 TCID50 at 2 dpi after 10 passages (Fig. 3B).These data indicate that A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was developing greater capacity to replicate in the ferret URT after repeated passage, with evidence for such adaptation becoming apparent by passage number 4. In contrast, virus titers in the nose swabs of the ferrets collected at 1 to 4 dpi throughout 10 serial passages with A/H5N1wildtype revealed no changes in patterns of virus shedding.

Passaging of influenza viruses in ferrets should result in the natural selection of heterogeneous mixtures of viruses in each animal with a variety of mutations: so-called viral quasi-species (38). The genetic composition of the viral quasi-species present in the nasal washe of ferrets after 10 passages of A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was determined by sequence analysis using the 454/Roche GS-FLX sequencing platform (Roche, Woerden, the Netherlands) (tables S1 and S2). The mutations introduced in A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K by reverse genetics remained present in the virus population after 10 consecutive passages at a frequency >99.5% (Fig. 4 and table S1). Numerous additional nucleotide substitutions were detected in all viral gene segments of A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K after passaging, except in segment 7 (tables S1 and S2). Of the 30 nucleotide substitutions selected during serial passage, 53% resulted in amino acid substitutions. The only amino acid substitution detected upon repeated passage of both A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was T156A (T, Thr; A, Ala) in HA. This substitution removes a potential N-linked glycosylation site (Asn-X-Thr/Ser; X, any amino acid) in HA and was detected in 99.6% of the A/H5N1wildtype sequences after 10 passages. T156A was detected in 89% of the A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K sequences after 10 passages, and the other 11% of sequences possessed the substitution N154K, which removes the same potential N-linked glycosylation site in HA.

In experiment 4 (see supplementary materials), we investigated whether airborne-transmissible viruses were present in the heterogeneous virus population generated during virus passaging in ferrets (fig. S4). Nasal-wash samples, collected at 3 dpi from ferrets at passage 10, were used in transmission experiments to test whether airborne-transmissible virus was present in the virus quasi-species. For this purpose, nasal-wash samples were diluted 1:2 in PBS and subsequently used to inoculate six naïve ferrets intranasally: two for passage 10 A/H5N1wildtype and four for passage 10 A/H5N1HA-Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K virus.

The following day, a naïve recipient ferret was placed in a cage adjacent to each inoculated donor ferret. These cages are designed to prevent direct contact between animals but allow airflow from a donor ferret to a neighboring recipient ferret (fig. S1) (27). Although mutations had accumulated in the viral genome after passaging of A/H5N1wildtype in ferrets, we did not detect replicating virus upon inoculation of MDCK cells with swabs collected from naïve recipient ferrets after they were paired with donor ferrets inoculated with passage 10 A/H5N1wildtype virus (Fig. 5, A and B). In contrast, we did detect virus in recipient ferrets paired with those inoculated with passage 10 A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K virus. Three (F1 to F3) out of four (F1 to F4) naïve recipient ferrets became infected as confirmed by the presence of replicating virus in the collected nasal and throat swabs (Fig. 5, C and D). A throat-swab sample obtained from recipient ferret F2, which contained the highest virus titer among the ferrets in the first transmission experiment, was subsequently used for intranasal inoculation of two additional donor ferrets. Both of these animals, when placed in the transmission cage setup (fig. S1), again transmitted the virus to the recipient ferrets (F5 and F6) (Fig. 6, A and B). A virus isolate was obtained after inoculation of MDCK cells with a nose swab collected from ferret F5 at 7 dpi. The virus from F5 was inoculated intranasally into two more donor ferrets. One day later, these animals were paired with two recipient ferrets (F7 and F8) in transmission cages, one of which (F7) subsequently became infected (Fig. 6, C and D).

We used conventional Sanger sequencing to determine the consensus genome sequences of viruses recovered from the six ferrets (F1 to F3 and F5 to F7) that acquired virus via airborne transmission (Fig. 4 and table S3). All six samples still harbored substitutions Q222L, G224S, and E627K that had been introduced by reverse genetics. Surprisingly, only two additional amino acid substitutions, both in HA, were consistently detected in all six airborne-transmissible viruses: (i) H103Y (H, His; Y, Tyr), which forms part of the HA trimer interface, and (ii) T156A, which is proximal but not immediately adjacent to the RBS (fig. S8). Although we observed several other mutations, their occurrence was not consistent among the airborne viruses, indicating that of the heterogeneous virus populations generated by passaging in ferrets, viruses with different genotypes were transmissible. In addition, a single transmission experiment is not sufficient to select for clonal airborne-transmissible viruses because, for example, the consensus sequence of virus isolated from F6 differed from the sequence of parental virus isolated from F2.

Together, these results suggest that as few as five amino acid substitutions (four in HA and one in PB2) may be sufficient to confer airborne transmission of HPAI A/H5N1 virus between mammals. The airborne-transmissible virus isolate with the least number of amino acid substitutions, compared with the A/H5N1wildtype, was recovered from ferret F5. This virus isolate had a total of nine amino acid substitutions; in addition to the three mutations that we introduced (Q222L and G224S in HA and E627K in PB2), this virus harbored H103Y and T156A in HA, H99Y and I368V (I, Ile; V, Val) in PB1, and R99K (R, Arg) and S345N in NP (table S3). Reverse genetics will be needed to identify which of the five to nine amino acid substitutions in this virus are essential to confer airborne transmission.

During the course of the transmission experiments with the airborne-transmissible viruses, ferrets displayed lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur after intranasal inoculation. One of eight inoculated animals died upon intranasal inoculation (Table 1). In previously published experiments, ferrets inoculated intranasally with WTA/ Indonesia/5/2005 virus at a dose of 1 × 106 TCID50 showed neurological disease and/or death (39, 40). It should be noted that inoculation of immunologically naïve ferrets with a dose of 1 × 106 TCID50 of A/H5N1 virus and the subsequent course of disease is not representative of the natural situation in humans. Importantly, although the six ferrets that became infected via respiratory droplets or aerosol also displayed lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur, none of these animals died within the course of the experiment. Moreover, previous infections of humans with seasonal influenza viruses are likely to induce heterosubtypic immunity that would offer some protection against the development of severe disease (41, 42). It has been shown that mice and ferrets previously infected with an A/H3N2 virus are clinically protected against intranasal challenge infection with an A/H5N1 virus (43, 44).

After intratracheal inoculation (experiment 5; fig. S9), six ferrets inoculated with 1 × 106 TCID50 of airborne-transmissible virus F5 in a 3-ml volume of PBS died or were moribund at day 3. Intratracheal inoculations at such high doses do not represent the natural route of infection and are generally used only to test the ability of viruses to cause pneumonia (45), as is done for vaccination-challenge studies. At necropsy, the six ferrets revealed macroscopic lesions affecting 80 to
100% of the lung parenchyma with average virus titers of 7.9 × 106 TCID50/gram lung (fig. S10). These data are similar to those described previously for A/H5N1wildtype in ferrets (Table 1). Thus, although the airborne-transmissible virus is lethal to ferrets upon intratracheal inoculation at high doses, the virus was not lethal after airborne transmission.”

“Although our experiments showed that A/H5N1 virus can acquire a capacity for airborne transmission, the efficiency of this mode remains unclear. Previous data have indicated that the 2009 pandemic A/H1N1 virus transmits efficiently among ferrets and that naïve animals shed high amounts of virus as early as 1 or 2 days after exposure (27). When we compare the A/H5N1 transmission data with that of reference (27), keeping in mind that our experimental design for studying transmission is not quantitative, the data shown in Figs. 5 and 6 suggest that A/H5N1 airborne transmission was less robust, with less and delayed virus shedding compared with pandemic A/H1N1 virus.

Airborne transmission could be tested in a second mammalian model system such as guinea pigs (59), but this would still not provide conclusive evidence that transmission among humans would occur. The mutations we identified need to be tested for their effect on transmission in other A/H5N1 virus lineages (60), and experiments are needed to quantify how they affect viral fitness and virulence in birds and mammals. For pandemic preparedness, antiviral drugs and vaccine candidates against airborne-transmissible virus should be evaluated in depth. Mechanistic studies on the phenotypic traits associated with each of the identified amino acid substitutions should provide insights into the key determinants of airborne virus transmission. Our findings indicate that HPAI A/H5N1 viruses have the potential to evolve directly to transmit by aerosol or respiratory droplets between mammals, without reassortment in any intermediate host, and thus pose a risk of becoming pandemic in humans. Identification of the minimal requirements for virus transmission between mammals may have prognostic and diagnostic value for improving pandemic preparedness (34).”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4810786/#!po=70.4819

From the Supplementary Materials:

Materials and methods

Viruses

“Influenza virus A/Indonesia/5/2005 (A/H5N1) was isolated from a human case of HPAI virus infection and passaged once in embryonated chicken eggs followed by a single passage in Madin-Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK) cells. All eight gene segments were amplified by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and cloned in a modified version of the bidirectional reverse genetics plasmid pHW2000 (63-64). Mutations of interest (N182K, Q222L, G224S in HA and E627K in PB2) were introduced in reverse genetics vectors using the QuikChange multi-site-directed mutagenesis kit (Aligent, Amstelveen, The Netherlands) according to the instructions of the manufacturer. Recombinant viruses were produced upon transfection of 293T cells and virus stocks were propagated and titrated in MDCK cells as described (63).

Cells

MDCK cells were cultured in Eagle’s minimal essential medium (EMEM, Lonza Benelux BV, Breda, the Netherlands) supplemented with 10% fetal calf serum (FCS), 100 IU/ml penicillin, 100 μg/ml streptomycin, 2 mM glutamine, 1.5 mg/ml sodium bicarbonate (Lonza), 10 mM Hepes (Lonza), and non-essential amino acids (MP Biomedicals Europe, Illkirch, France). 293T cells were cultured in Dulbecco modified Eagle’s medium (DMEM, Lonza) supplemented with 10% FCS, 100 IU/ml penicillin, 100 mg/ml streptomycin, 2mM glutamine, 1mM sodium pyruvate, and non-essential amino acids.

Virus titration in MDCK cells

Virus titrations were performed as described previously (27). Briefly, MDCK cells were inoculated with tenfold serial dilutions of virus preparations, homogenized tissues, nose swabs, and throat swabs. Cells were washed with PBS one hour after inoculation and cultured in 200μl of infection media, consisting of EMEM supplemented with 100 U/ml penicillin, 100 μg/ml streptomycin, 2mM glutamine, 1.5mg/ml sodium bicarbonate, 10mM Hepes, non-essential amino acids, and 20 μg/ml trypsin (Lonza). Three days after inoculation, supernatants of infected cell cultures were tested for agglutinating activity using turkey erythrocytes as an indicator of virus replication in the cells. Infectious virus titers were calculated from four replicates each of the homogenized tissue samples, nose swabs, and throat swabs and for ten replicates of the virus preparations by the method of Spearman-Karber (65).”

Click to access NIHMS764094-supplement-Supplemental.pdf

In Summary:

• The term “Gain of Function” first gained a wide public audience in 2012, after two groups revealed that they had tweaked an avian influenza “virus,” using genetic engineering and directed evolution, until it could be transmitted between ferrets
• Most virologists say that the “coronavirus” probably emerged from repeated contact between humans and animals, potentially in connection with wet markets in Wuhan, China, where the “virus” was first reported
• However, a group of scientists and politicians argues that a laboratory origin has not been ruled out
• The term GOF didn’t have much to do with virology until the past decade when the ferret influenza studies came along
• From that usage, it came to mean any research that improves a pathogen’s abilities to cause disease or spread from host to host
• Virologists regularly fiddle with “viral” genes to change them, sometimes enhancing virulence or transmissibility, although usually just in animal or cell-culture models
• Other major concerns are ‘pathogens of pandemic potential’ (PPP) such as influenza “viruses” and “coronaviruses”
• “For the most part, we’re worried about respiratory “viruses” because those are the ones that transmit the best,” says Michael Imperiale, a virologist at the University of Michigan Medical School
• He added that GOF studies with those “viruses” are “a really tiny part” of virology
• Perlman and his collaborators set out to study the “coronavirus” responsible for Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS-CoV), which emerged as a human pathogen in 2012
• They wanted to use mice, but mice can’t catch MERS
• The rodents lack the right version of the protein DPP4, which MERS-CoV uses to gain entry to cells and so the team altered the mice, giving them a human-like version of the gene for DPP4
• The “virus” could now infect the humanized mice, but there was another problem: even when infected, the mice didn’t get very ill
• So, the group used a classic technique called ‘passaging’ to enhance “virulence”
• The researchers infected a couple of mice, gave the “virus” two days to take hold, and then transferred some of the infected lung tissue into another pair of mice
• They did this repeatedly — 30 times and by the end of two months, the “virus” had evolved to replicate better in mouse cells
• In so doing, it made the mice more ill; a high dose was deadly
• Some virologists say “viruses” are constantly mutating on their own, effectively doing GOF experiments at a rate that scientists could never match

• The field of virology, and to some extent the broader field of microbiology, widely relies on studies that involve gain or loss of function
• Any selection process involving an alteration of genotypes and their resulting phenotypes is considered a type of Gain-of-Function (GoF) research
• Subbarao emphasized that such experiments in virology are fundamental to understanding the biology, ecology, and pathogenesis of “viruses” and added that much basic knowledge is still lacking for “SARS-CoV” and “MERS-CoV”
• Virologists use gain- and loss-of-function experiments to understand the genetic makeup of “viruses” and the specifics of “virus-host” interaction
• Researchers now have advanced molecular technologies, such as reverse genetics, which allow them to produce de novo recombinant “viruses” from cloned cDNA (i.e. they are synthetic lab creations)
• Researchers also use targeted host or “viral” genome modification using small interfering RNA or the bacterial CRISPR-associated protein-9 nuclease as an editing tool
• Dr. Yoshihiro Kawaoka, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, classified types of GoF research depending on the outcome of the experiments:
  1. The fisrt category is “gain of function research of concern,” includes the generation of “viruses” with properties that do not exist in nature
     • The now famous example he gave is the production of H5N1 influenza A “viruses” that are airborne-transmissible among ferrets, compared to the non-airborne transmissible wild type
  2. The second category deals with the generation of “viruses” that may be more pathogenic and/or transmissible than the wild type “viruses” but are still comparable to or less problematic than those existing in nature (which is odd considering no “viruses” have been found in nature…)
     • Kawaoka argued that the majority of strains studied have low pathogenicity, but mutations found in natural isolates (there are no natural isolates) will improve their replication in mammalian cells
  3. The third category, which is somewhere in between the first two categories, includes the generation of highly pathogenic and/or transmissible “viruses” in animal models that nevertheless do not appear to be a major public health concern
     • An example is the high-growth A/PR/8/34 influenza strain found to have increased pathogenicity in mice but not in humans
• Dr. Thomas Briese, Columbia University, further described GoF research done in the laboratory as being a “proactive” approach to understand what will eventually happen in nature
• GoF mutations are naturally arising all the time and escape mutants isolated in the laboratory appear “every time someone is infected with influenza.”
• In other words, they can never sequence the same “virus” every time so what they do in the lab in GoF studies is no different than how they culture and “isolate viruses” in order to sequence the genomes in the first place

• A 2012 study supposedly showed that it takes as few as five mutations to turn the H5N1 avian influenza “virus” into an airborne spreader in mammals—and this launched a historic debate on scientific accountability and transparency
• In the lengthy report, Ron Fouchier, PhD, of Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands and colleagues describe how they used a combination of genetic engineering and serial infection of ferrets to create a mutant H5N1 “virus” that can spread among ferrets without direct contact
• Fouchier’s team started with an H5N1 “virus” collected in Indonesia and used reverse genetics to introduce mutations that have been shown in previous research to make H5N1 “viruses” more human-like in how they bind to airway cells or in other ways
• The amino acid changes the team chose included N182K, Q222L, and G224S, the numbers referring to positions in the “virus’s” HA protein, the “viral” surface molecule that attaches to host cells
• The scientists created three mutant H5N1 “virus” strains to launch their experiment: one containing N182K, one with Q222L and G2242, and one with all three changes
• They then launched their lengthy series of ferret experiments by inoculating groups of six ferrets with one of these three mutants or the wild-type H5N1 “virus”
• Analysis of samples during the 7-day experiment showed that ferrets infected with the wild-type “virus” shed far more “virus” than those infected with the mutants
• In a second step, the team used a mutation in a different “viral” gene, PB2, the polymerase complex protein
• The researchers found that this mutation, when added to two of the HA mutations (Q224L and G224S), did not produce a “virus” that grew more vigorously in ferrets, and the “virus” did not spread through the air from infected ferrets to uninfected ones
• Seeing that the this mutant failed to achieve airborne transmission, the researchers decided to “passage” this strain through a series of ferrets in an effort to force it to adapt to the mammalian respiratory tract
• This was the move that Fouchier called “really, really stupid” (are we sure he wasn’t referring to the whole study?)
• They inoculated one ferret with the three-mutation strain and another with the wild-type “virus” and took daily samples until they euthanized the animals on day 4 and took tissue samples (nasal turbinates and lungs)
• Material from the tissue samples was then used to inoculate another pair of ferrets, and this step was carried out six times
• For the last four passages, the scientists used nasal-wash samples instead of tissue samples, in an effort to harvest “viruses” that were secreted from the upper respiratory tract
• In other words, they completely changed the source material from tissue to nasal secretions more than halfway through the experiment
• It was said that the amount of mutant “virus” found in the nasal turbinate and nose swab samples increased with the number of passages while “viral” titers in the samples from ferrets infected with the wild-type “virus” stayed the same

Quick Sidenote From the Supplemtary Materials:

“After inoculation with A/H5N1wildtype, virus titers in the nasal turbinates were variable but high, ranging from 1.6 x 105 to 7.9 x 106 TCID50/gram tissue (panel A), with no further increase observed with repeated passage. After inoculation with A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K, virus titers in nasal turbinates averaged 1.6 x 104 in the first three passages, 2.5 x 105 in passage four to seven and 6.3 x 105 TCID50/gram tissue in the last three passages, suggestive of improved replication and virus adaptation. In the lungs, no apparent adaptation was observed for animals inoculated with either virus. Virus titers in lungs were highly variable; presumably it was a matter of chance whether the virus reached the lower airways.”

In other words, the “wildtype virus” titers remained and stayed high while the “mutant virus” started low and elevated throughout passaging yet was still underneath the amount seen in the “wildtype” strain. They also note that finding “virus” in the lungs was a “matter of chance” with either “virus.”

End Quick Sidenote.

• The next step was to test whether the “viruses” produced through passaging could achieve airborne transmission so four ferrets were inoculated with samples of the “passage-10” mutant “virus,” and two ferrets were inoculated with the passage-10 wild strain
• Uninfected ferrets were placed in cages next to the infected ones but not close enough for direct contact
• The ferrets exposed to those with the wild “virus” remained uninfected, but three of the four ferrets placed near those harboring the mutant “virus” did get infected (“infected” meaning they found “viral” RNA)
• Thus, a total of six ferrets became “infected” with the mutant “virus” via airborne transmission
• However, the level of “viral” shedding indicated the airborne “virus” didn’t transmit as efficiently as the 2009 H1N1 “virus”
• In the course of the airborne transmission experiments, the ferrets showed signs of illness, including lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur (no consideration is given to the fact that the animals were caged, tortured, and experimented on)
• One of the directly inoculated ferrets died, but all those infected via airborne “viruses” survived
• When the scientists sequenced the genomes of the “viruses” that spread through the air, they found only two amino acid switches, both in HA, that occurred in all six “viruses:” H103Y and T156A
• They noted several other mutations, but none that occurred in all six airborne “viruses”
• In other words, once again they were unable to sequence the exact same genome in the samples from each ferret
• In further steps, the researchers inoculated intratracheally six ferrets with high doses of the airborne-transmissible “virus;” after 3 days, the ferrets were either dead or “moribund”
• They stated: “Intratracheal inoculations at such high doses do not represent the natural route of infection and are generally used only to test the ability of viruses to cause pneumonia”

• Highly “pathogenic” avian influenza A/H5N1 “virus” can cause morbidity and mortality in humans but thus far has not acquired the ability to be transmitted by aerosol or respiratory droplet (“airborne transmission”) between humans
• To address the concern that the “virus” could acquire this ability under natural conditions, the researchers genetically modified A/H5N1 “virus” by site-directed mutagenesis and subsequent serial passage in ferrets
• In other words, in order to test whether the “virus” could mutate naturally, they mutated it synthetically…
• The genetically modified A/H5N1 “virus” acquired mutations during passage in ferrets, ultimately becoming airborne transmissible in ferrets (all “viruses” aquire mutations every time they are sequenced as no “viral” genome is ever the same as the original)
• None of the recipient ferrets died after airborne infection with the mutant A/H5N1 “viruses”
• Wild birds in the orders Anseriformes (ducks, geese, and swans) and Charadriiformes (gulls, terns, and waders) are thought to form the “virus” reservoir in nature
• Since 2003, more than 600 laboratory-confirmed cases of HPAI A/H5N1 “virus” infections in humans have been reported from 15 countries
• Although limited A/H5N1 “virus” transmission between persons in close contact has been reported, sustained human-to-human transmission of HPAI A/H5N1 “virus” has not been detected
• Whether this “virus” may acquire the ability to be transmitted via aerosols or respiratory droplets among mammals, including humans, to trigger a future pandemic is a key question for pandemic preparedness
• The factors that determine airborne transmission of influenza “viruses” among mammals, a trait necessary for a “virus” to become pandemic, have remained largely unknown
• The “viruses” that caused the major pandemics of the past century emerged upon reassortment (that is, genetic mixing) of animal and human influenza “viruses”
• However, given that “viruses” from only four pandemics are available for analyses, they cannot exclude the possibility that a future pandemic may be triggered by a wholly avian “virus” without the requirement of reassortment
• No reassortants between A/H5N1 “viruses” and seasonal or pandemic human influenza “viruses” have been detected in nature and their goal was to understand the biological properties needed for an influenza “virus” to become airborne transmissible in mammals
• They chose the ferret (Mustela putorius furo) as the animal model for the studies as ferrets have been used in influenza research since 1933 because they are susceptible to infection with human and avian influenza “viruses”
• There is no exact particle size cut-off at which transmission changes from exclusively large droplets to aerosols
• It is generally accepted that for infectious particles with a diameter of 5 mm or less, transmission occurs via aerosols
• The researchers used the QuickChange multisite-directed mutagenesis kit to introduce amino acid substitutions in the HA of wild-type “virus”
• For experiment 1, they inoculated these mutant “viruses” and the A/H5N1wildtype “virus” intranasally into groups of six ferrets for each “virus”
• Throat and nasal swabs were collected daily, and “virus” titers were determined by end-point dilution in Madin Darby canine kidney (MDCK) cells to quantify “virus” shedding from the ferret URT
• When four naïve ferrets were housed in cages adjacent to those with four inoculated animals to test for airborne transmission as described previously, A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was not transmitted
• Because the mutant “virus” harboring the E627K mutation in PB2 and Q222L and G224S in HA did not transmit in experiment 2, they designed an experiment to force the “virus” to adapt to replication in the mammalian respiratory tract and to select “virus” variants by repeated passage (10 passages in total) of the constructed A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K “virus” and A/H5N1wildtype “virus” in the ferret URT
• In experiment 3, one ferret was inoculated intranasally with A/H5N1wildtype and one ferret with A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K
• Throat and nose swabs were collected daily from live animals until 4 days postinoculation (dpi), at which time the animals were euthanized to collect samples from nasal turbinates and lungs
• The nasal turbinates were homogenized in 3 ml of “virus-transport” medium, tissue debris was pelleted by centrifugation, and 0.5 ml of the supernatant was subsequently used to inoculate the next ferret intranasally (passage 2)
• This procedure was repeated until passage 6
• From passage 6 onward, in addition to the samples described above, a nasal wash was also collected at 3 dpi
• To this end, 1 ml of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) was delivered dropwise to the nostrils of the ferrets to induce sneezing
• Approximately 200 ml of the “sneeze” was collected in a Petri dish, and PBS was added to a final volume of 2 ml
• The nasal-wash samples were used for intranasal inoculation of the ferrets for the subsequent passages 7 through 10
• They changed the source of inoculum during the course of the experiment, because passaging nasal washes may facilitate the selection of “viruses” that were secreted from the URT
• Because influenza “viruses” mutate rapidly, they anticipated (i.e.guessed arbitrarily) that 10 passages would be sufficient for the “virus” to adapt to efficient replication in mammals
• The genetic composition of the “viral” quasi-species present in the nasal washe of ferrets after 10 passages of A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was determined by sequence analysis using the 454/Roche GS-FLX sequencing platform
• The mutations introduced in A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K by reverse genetics remained present in the “virus” population after 10 consecutive passages at a frequency >99.5%
• Numerous additional nucleotide substitutions were detected in all “viral” gene segments of A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K after passaging, except in segment 7
• Of the 30 nucleotide substitutions selected during serial passage, 53% resulted in amino acid substitutions
• The only amino acid substitution detected upon repeated passage of both A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was T156A
• In experiment 4, nasal-wash samples, collected at 3 dpi from ferrets at passage 10, were used in transmission experiments to test whether airborne-transmissible “virus” was present in the “virus” quasi-species
• For this purpose, nasal-wash samples were diluted 1:2 in PBS and subsequently used to inoculate six naïve ferrets intranasally
• Although mutations had accumulated in the “viral” genome after passaging of A/H5N1wildtype in ferrets, they did not detect replicating “virus” upon inoculation of MDCK cells with swabs collected from naïve recipient ferrets after they were paired with donor ferrets inoculated with passage 10 A/H5N1wildtype “virus”
• In contrast, they did detect “virus” in recipient ferrets paired with those inoculated with passage 10 A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K “virus”
• Three out of four naïve recipient ferrets became “infected” as confirmed by the presence of replicating “virus” in the collected nasal and throat swabs (in other words, they saw CPE in a cell culture and claimed “virus” was present)
• A “virus isolate” was obtained after inoculation of MDCK cells with a nose swab collected from ferret F5 at 7 dpi
• They used conventional Sanger sequencing to determine the consensus genome sequences of viruses recovered from the six ferrets that acquired “virus” via airborne transmission and all six samples still harbored substitutions Q222L, G224S, and E627K that had been introduced by reverse genetics
• In other words, they created consensus sequencing through alignment to reference genomes using computer software and algorithms from unpurified material
• They observed several other mutations for which their occurrence was not consistent among the airborne “viruses,” indicating that of the heterogeneous “virus” populations generated by passaging in ferrets, “viruses” with different genotypes were transmissible
• In other words, they were unable to sequence the exact same “virus” genome every time…and if that wasn’t clear 
• In addition, a single transmission experiment is not sufficient to select for clonal airborne-transmissible “viruses” because, for example, the consensus sequence of “virus” isolated from F6 differed from the sequence of parental “virus” isolated from F2
• Together, they claim that these results suggest that as few as five amino acid substitutions (four in HA and one in PB2) may be sufficient to confer airborne transmission of HPAI A/H5N1 “virus” between mammals
• During the course of the transmission experiments with the airborne-transmissible “viruses,” ferrets displayed lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur after intranasal inoculation
• It should be noted that inoculation of immunologically naïve ferrets with a dose of 1 × 106 TCID50 of A/H5N1 “virus” and the subsequent course of disease is not representative of the natural situation in humans
• Importantly, although the six ferrets that became “infected” via respiratory droplets or aerosol also displayed lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur, none of these animals died within the course of the experiment
• After intratracheal (in the throat) inoculation, six ferrets inoculated with 1 × 106 TCID50 of airborne-transmissible “virus” F5 in a 3-ml volume of PBS died or were moribund at day 3
• Intratracheal inoculations at such high doses do not represent the natural route of infection and are generally used only to test the ability of “viruses” to cause pneumonia, as is done for vaccination-challenge studies
• Although the airborne-transmissible “virus” is lethal to ferrets upon intratracheal inoculation at high doses, the “virus” was not lethal after airborne transmission
• They openly admit that the route of injection and the amount of toxic culture goo injected causes the severity of disease, which does not require the “virus” as an explanation
• They state that although experiments showed that A/H5N1 “virus” can acquire a capacity for airborne transmission, the efficiency of this mode remains unclear
• They pointed out that their experimental design for studying transmission is not quantitative (i.e. they do not know how much “virus” is required for airborne transmission and assume it occurs via PCR results)
• They airborne transmission could be tested in a second mammalian model system such as guinea pigs, but this would still not provide conclusive evidence that transmission among humans would occur
• The mutations they identified need to be tested for their effect on transmission in other A/H5N1 “virus” lineages, and experiments are needed to quantify how they affect “viral” fitness and “virulence” in birds and mammals
• Their findings indicate that HPAI A/H5N1 “viruses” have the potential to evolve directly to transmit by aerosol or respiratory droplets between mammals, without reassortment in any intermediate host, and thus pose a risk of becoming pandemic in human
• Of course, the only place reassortment occurs is in a lab so they never need a host…
• Identification of the minimal requirements for “virus” transmission between mammals may have prognostic and diagnostic value for improving pandemic preparedness
• Influenza “virus” A/Indonesia/5/2005 (A/H5N1) was isolated from a human case of HPAI “virus” infection and passaged once in embryonated chicken eggs followed by a single passage in Madin-Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK) cells
• All eight gene segments were amplified by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and cloned in a modified version of the bidirectional reverse genetics plasmid pHW2000
• Mutations of interest were introduced in reverse genetics vectors using the QuikChange multi-site-directed mutagenesis kit
• Recombinant “viruses” were produced upon transfection of 293T cells and “virus” stocks were propagated and titrated in MDCK cells
• MDCK cells (canine) were cultured in Eagle’s minimal essential medium supplemented with:
  1. 10% fetal calf serum (FCS)
  2. 100 IU/ml penicillin
  3. 100 μg/ml streptomycin
  4. 2 mM glutamine
  5. 1.5 mg/ml sodium bicarbonate
  6. 10 mM Hepes
  7. Non-essential amino acids
• 293T cells (human embryonic kidney) were cultured in Dulbecco modified Eagle’s medium supplemented with:
  1. 10% FCS
  2. 100 IU/ml penicillin
  3. 100 mg/ml streptomycin
  4. 2mM glutamine
  5. 1mM sodium pyruvate
  6. Non-essential amino acids
• For “virus” titrations, MDCK cells were inoculated with tenfold serial dilutions of “virus” preparations, homogenized tissues, nose swabs, and throat swabs
• Cells were washed with PBS one hour after inoculation and cultured in 200μl of infection media, consisting of EMEM supplemented with:
  1. 100 U/ml penicillin
  2. 100 μg/ml streptomycin
  3. 2mM glutamine
  4. 1.5mg/ml sodium bicarbonate
  5. 10mM Hepes
  6. Non-essential amino acids
  7. 20 μg/ml trypsin
• Three days after inoculation, supernatants of infected cell cultures were tested for agglutinating activity using turkey erythrocytes as an indicator of “virus” replication in the cells
• Infectious “virus” titers were calculated from four replicates each of the homogenized tissue samples, nose swabs, and throat swabs and for ten replicates of the “virus” preparations by the method of Spearman-Karber

The only way that the gain of function/bioweapon narrative makes any sense is if the original Latin definition for the word “virus” is used to explain what is happening in this research. In Latin, “virus” means “liquid poision” and what virologists are doing is simply creating a liquid poison in a lab using cell cultures. What they are not doing is creating “infectious agents of a small size and simple composition that can multiply only in living cells of animals, plants, or bacteria” which is the modern definition for the word according to the Britannica. The only way the liquid poison can potentially harm one is through injection. Cell cultured soup is not transmitted through the air nor is it infectious and/or contagious. In other words, GOF studies are not creating “viruses” in the modern sense of the word and can only be considered as such if viewed through the original Latin lens.

What must be realized about the GOF studies and the bioweapon narrative is that these stories are designed to keep people believing in the lies of Germ Theory. This is yet another fear-based tactic utilized by those in power to ensure that the masses are frightened of an invisible enemy that can be unleashed upon the world either accidentally or intentionally at a moments notice. There will be figureheads who appear to be on the side of truth, questioning the natural existence of “SARS-COV-2,” challenging the safety of the vaccines, promoting alternative therapies, etc. who will also continue to push the idea that “viruses” exist and can be manipulated in a lab. These people are the Pied Pipers leading those who are going astray back into the fold. There is no need to create a “virus” bioweapon when all that was needed to control the masses is a PCR test and some well-designed propaganda.

To anyone who may have been taken in by this GOF/Bioweapon narrative, remember that there is no evidence of any purified and isolated “viral” particles ever coming directly from human samples that are then proven pathogenic in a natural way. Virology does not dispute this. If they can not find a “virus” in nature, they can not create one in a lab. That is truly all you need to know.

Connect with Mike Stone at Viroliegy

cover image based on creative commons work of 13452116/pixaby

Disney is Grooming Your Children?!

by JP Sears, AwakenWithJP
April 6, 2022



Is Disney grooming your children? In this special report we look into the “Secret Gay Agenda” of Disney employees to indoctrinate your children. Also Governor Ron DeSantis is fighting back!

Connect with JP Sears

Elon Musk Is Driving Us Toward a “Smoother” Singularity

You can drive a Ford F-150 off a cliff, or your Tesla can drive you off instead. Either way, you crash and burn

by Joe Allen, Singularity Weekly
April 5, 2022

Tapping the brakes on Ray Kurzweil’s techno-prophecy, Elon Musk recently predicted a “smoother” transition to the extinction of legacy humans. It’s cool, though, cuz free speech and Ukraine satellites and stuff. Besides, who cares about a transhuman Fourth Industrial Revolution so long as it happens slowly?

Either way, you have to wonder where Musk gets these zany ideas.

Ray Kurzweil, a top Google R&D director, famously predicts that around 2045 the converging fields of genomics, robotics, nanotech, and artificial intelligence will reach an inflection point. As he wrote in his 2005 book The Singularity Is Near:

[W]ithin several decades, information-based technologies will encompass all human knowledge and proficiency, ultimately including the pattern-recognition powers, problem-solving skills, and emotional and moral intelligence of the human brain itself. … The Singularity will represent the culmination of the merger of our biological thinking and existence with our technology, resulting in a world that is still human but that transcends our biological roots. There will be no distinction, post-Singularity, between human and machine or between physical and virtual reality.

Following the “law of accelerating returns,” this Singularity will see machines self-improve so quickly, they’ll abruptly become incomprehensible to their human creators—and therefore completely our of our control—forcing us to fuse with them like barnacles on a ship hull.

That is, if they don’t just kill us first.

Because acceleration toward the Singularity will be exponential, according to Kurzweil, it’ll be as if the transformation happened all at once. Whereas most legacy humans are horrified by the prospect, Kurzweil honestly believes rapid assimilation to this nanobot borg will be the best thing to happen to us since sliced bread.

Being slightly more sane, at least in public, Musk has long voiced concerns that an artificial intelligence explosion could mean our extinction. His view is deeply informed by the transhumanist Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom, whose 2014 book Superintelligence emphasizes how unpredictable this situation really is:

Expert opinions about the future of AI vary wildly. There is disagreement about timescales as well as about what forms AI might eventually take. Predictions about the future development of artificial intelligence, one study noted, “are as confident as they are diverse.”

With that diversity in mind, Bostrom works out every possible way an artificial superintelligence could quietly outpace humanity, gain a decisive strategic advantage, and then consume everything in its path:

The treacherous turn … When the AI gets sufficiently strong—without warning or provocation—it strikes, forms a singleton, and begins directly to optimize the world according to the criteria implied by its final values.

In other words, humans are turned into robot fuel. Elon Musk takes this idea very seriously, but that hasn’t stopped him from attempting to develop strong AI.

You can’t stop progress, man.

When asked for his take on the Singularity in a March 26 interview with Business Insider, Musk offered a curiously blasé response:

I’m not sure if there is a very sharp boundary. I think it is much smoother. … We’ve already amplified our human brains massively with computers. It could be an interesting ratio to roughly calculate the amount of compute that is digital, divided by the amount of compute that is biological. And how does that ratio change over time. With so much digital compute happening so fast, that ratio should be increasing rapidly.

To put it another way, as our minds are absorbed by machines, our brains are being digitized. When asked if one day we could “download our human brain capacity” into Tesla’s new humanoid robot, Optimus, “which would be a different way of eternal life,” Musk replied:

Yes, we could download the things that we believe make ourselves unique…as far as preserving our memories, our personality, I think we could do that.

At one point, Musk’s interviewer lost his grip and went full on fanboy. “You have solved so many problems of mankind and presented so many solutions,” he gushed. But what about increased longevity?

That would cause asphyxiation of society because the truth is, most people don’t change their mind. They just die. So if they don’t die, we will be stuck with old ideas and society wouldn’t advance.

A few days later, Musk took to Twitter to remind the world we need more babies, presumably to jab Neuralink chips into like squalling macaques.

A few days after that, Musk bought nearly ten percent of Twitter’s stock, making him the company’s largest stakeholder. Our hero! Now the masses can discuss post-op tranny suicides and racially insensitive crime stats as they upload their personalities to the borg.

Meanwhile, Tesla is developing an army of robot slaves to place in people’s homes next year, where they can do chores and upload their masters’ every thought and action. The company is already filling the highways with electric self-driving cars—from the Western world to China—simultaneously reducing carbon emissions and human autonomy.

All the while, these bots will be gathering real-world data. Perhaps Musk can add confidential Twitter data to the massive influx.

This flood of physical, digital, and psychological information will soon pour into Tesla’s data centers to train the company’s already impressive AI systems. As Tesla’s algorithms come to resemble the workings of the human brain—or rather, some autistic alien brain—Musk hopes to make the breakthrough to artificial general intelligence, aka the Super Computer God.

Foreseeing this digital deity’s supreme power, Musk hopes his Neuralink brain chips will allow us to interface with the divinized Machine.

The Singularity may be coming on slowly, but Elon Musk is moving fast.

As the Great Reset unfolds, it’s fitting that the world’s richest man is also a transhumanist celebrity. Robots, sentient AI, bionic brain chips, fully immersive virtual reality, space colonization, simulation theory—I’m struggling to think of one tenet of transhumanism that Musk hasn’t brought to public consciousness.

It’s impossible to know where his head is at, but piecing together Musk’s sound bytes and tweets, one hears echoes of the Carnegie Mellon roboticist, Hans Moravec. In fact, the simulation theory—that cornball, screen-junkie delusion that we actually live in a computer simulation, which Musk has repeated publicly many times—has its origins in Moravec.

Without a doubt, Moravec’s lucid, transhuman vision had a profound impact on Bostrom and Kurzweil, who in turn influenced Musk. Like a prophet by the waters of Babylon, Moravec spelled out our fate in his 1988 book Mind Children: The Future of Robot and Human Intelligence:

What awaits is not oblivion but rather a future which, from our present vantage point, is best described by the words “postbiological” or even “supernatural.” It is a world in which the human race has been swept away by the tide of cultural change, usurped by its own artificial progeny.

Out with the old, in with the new!

The ultimate consequences are unknown, though many intermediate steps are not only predictable but have already been taken. Today, our machines are still simple creations, requiring the parental care and hovering attention of any newborn, hardly worthy of the word “intelligent.” But within the next century they will mature into entities as complex as ourselves, and eventually into something transcending everything we know—in whom we can take pride when they refer to themselves as our descendants.

Without shedding a single tear, these robotic “mind children” will replace us.

Unleashed from the plodding pace of biological evolution, the children of our minds will be free to grow to confront immense and fundamental challenges in the larger universe. We humans will benefit for a time from their labors, but sooner or later, like natural children, they will seek their own fortunes while we, their aged parents, silently fade away. Very little need be lost in this passing of the torch—it will be in our artificial offspring’s power, and to their benefit, to remember almost everything about us, even, perhaps, the detailed workings of individual minds.

Imagine becoming a digital wraith, left to float around a data cloud for all eternity. And you thought mass immigration and trans kids were bad ideas.

Transhumanism is a dreamworld where technology is the highest power. In recent decades, this techno-religion has spread from the intellectual fringe to the world’s wealthiest men, and by extension, the most powerful corporations. Klaus Schwab, Kai-Fu Lee, Eric Schmidt, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos—all of them offer transhuman fantasies, each with its particular emphasis.

According to his own hype, Elon Musk is making these dreams come true, from sentient robots to AI-powered brain chips. Musk is the embodiment of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, a close partner to China, and arguably the greatest benefactor of the Great Reset. In other words, he’s no friend to legacy humans.

Yes, yes—a little “free speech” is great news in the short-term. Now conservatives can be smartasses on Twitter again. I can’t wait. But where is this tech revolution ultimately going?

When Musk says we’re already cyborgs, perpetually attached our smartphones, he’s not wrong. Rather than waving pompoms because the world’s richest transhumanist bought a stake in Twitter, otherwise sane observers should ask why we’re all plugging into the corporate borg.

See related:

Connect with Joe Allen

cover image credit: mollyroselee / pixabay

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. with T.J. Coles, Ph.D.: Transhumanism, Biofascism Are Tools of the ‘Technological Elite’

 

Transhumanism, Biofascism Are Tools of the ‘Technological Elite,’ Author Tells RFK, Jr.

Virology’s Unproven Assumptions

by Mike Stone, Viroliegy
March 4, 2022

If you are looking for one of the most masterful takedowns of virology to date, this presentation by Alec Zeck, Dr. Jordan Grant, Mike Donio, Jacob Diaz, and John Blaid is one of the best out there. When I first watched it a month ago, I was blown away and I had intended to share it here but, as often happens, I got sidetracked and sadly forgot to upload it. I hope you can take away a great deal of value from this presentation as the guys delve into the numerous fallacies and assumptions related to this fraudulent field.

In this presentation, you will find:

• A break down of the ridiculous cell culture experiments
• The lack of adhering to the scientific method
• The foundational issues with virology from the very beginning
• The inherent problems with and the limitations of electron microscopy imaging
• The lack of any purified and isolated physical “viral” particles found directly in human samples
• The issues related to the creation of the theoretical genome
• The fabrication and lack of validation of the PCR test for “SARS-COV-2”
• A thorough explanation of the Stefan Lanka control experiments
• The myths of contagion and other possible explanations for dis-ease
• The FOI requests and the burden of proof

As I said, a masterful takedown of the pseudoscience called virology!

Virology’s Unproven Assumptions

In this episode, Alec Zeck has a discussion with Mike Donio, Jacob Diaz, Dr. Jordan Grant MD, and John Blaid on the fallacious reasoning, unproven assumptions, and lack of proof for virus theory.



Connect with Viroliegy

cover image credit: Alexandra_Koch / pixabay

How Much Longer Will We Let Children Listen to Lectures About Sex Instead of Enjoying a Handful of Years Pretending to Be Princesses and Superheroes?

image credit: poupoune5 / pixabay

How Much Longer Will We Let Children Listen to Lectures About Sex Instead of Enjoying a Handful of Years Pretending to Be Princesses and Superheroes?

How Far Will the Pendulum Swing and Where Will It Stop?

by Neil Oliver, GB News
April 2, 2022

Transcript

I wonder how far all this will go. By “all this”, I mean the headlong push, always in the same direction, always away from the world I recognise. To me it seems as though a pendulum is swinging, has been swinging for years now, but always and only one way – further and further from the point where I stand. I wonder too, how far that pendulum can swing before it must stop and, inevitably swing back the other way, and with a vengeance. Every action, after all, has an equal and opposite reaction.

To me there seems no avoiding the conclusion that, as a key part of all this, official misinformation and propaganda all over the world has been shaped to make reasonable people feel like they’re simply going mad, that they have lost the ability to understand and interpret events and make decisions for themselves. Many people have felt the only option was to toe the line – even when it seemed pointless, or counterproductive, even insane. The name of the game was avoiding the anger of those shouting loudest.

Last week US President Joe Biden spoke in front of millions about how: “there’s going to be a new world order out there”

New World Order: three words that have been floating around on social media like something unpleasant that just won’t flush. Hardly were the words out of the president’s mouth before commentators – on his side of the line, at least – were gleefully reporting his statement … while somehow simultaneously offering the opinion that only the tin-hat-wearing, swivel eyed loons (which includes people like me, apparently) had been triggered by his language.

The Independent website, for instance, reported the story under a headline reading: “Joe Biden said New World Order and conspiracy theorists lost it”

This is no more than a clumsy attempt at a verbal sleight of hand, yet another reminder that the official line has it that only crazy people ever suspect that something, somewhere might be amiss.

In a speech delivered to the Australian National University in Canberra, Sir Jeremy Fleming, director of GCHQ, told his audience that the pandemic, followed by war in Ukraine, added up to: “a period of generational upheaval.”

Both Biden and Sir Jeremy – to take just two prominent spokesmen speaking at the same moment in history – seeking to normalise the thought that every few generations, the world must change whether we want it to or not, as though the world has always changed every two or three generations, which it hasn’t.

New World Order, generational upheaval, always the pendulum swinging one way and one way only. Forget how things used to be, that’s over now, get ready for change, for something new, whether you want it or not. What’s a person – a person bedevilled, anyway, by a cost-of-living crisis, the dogged pursuit of Net Zero, a reawakened fear of nuclear war and still coming to terms with the will-they-won’t-they uncertainty of Covid rules left smouldering like embers that might reignite at any moment – to make of such unsettling prophesying?

More verbal gymnastics followed when Mr Biden said recently that Mr Putin should no longer be in power in Russia. The president had told his audience in Poland that Putin: “…cannot remain in power”. But yet more verbal contortions somehow enabled the White House to say that regime change in Russia was not US government policy.

How can both statements be true at the same time?

How can this inside out, upside down line of thinking do anything but leave the average reasonable person feeling they simply do not have a clue about what’s going on anymore?

I say the average reasonable person – which is how I still understand myself, even after all this time of madness – but clearly those on the other side of the debate from me, that viciously polarised debate, now regard me and millions of other reasonable people as wild-eyed extremists, politically to the right of Atilla the Hun.

And yet I look on at the la-la land of Hollywood, at actor Will Smith slapping comedian Chris Rock at the Oscars and then getting a standing ovation for winning the statuette for Best Actor. What does a reasonable person, or even a wild-eyed extremist even begin to do with such a sequence of events compressed into such a short space of time? If I hit someone at a work event I might expect to be fired, rather than given a standing ovation and the award for employee of the year. But that’s showbiz, apparently.

The Oscars have been growing increasingly unbearable for years, of course. Watching millionaires in receipt of goodie bags worth more than what 99 percent of the world’s population earns in a year, while speechifying and shedding crocodile tears about the plight of the poor and the oppressed, had long required a muscular suspension of disbelief. But now surely the pretence of the Oscars as moral spokesman for the world is finally over, and forever, the bubble well and truly burst. I can’t look at it anymore, not after metaphorically watching A-listers on the toilet all these years.

Everywhere you look there’s more to confuse and disorientate. Talk of white privilege, men in women’s sports, big tech censorship. Last week Florida passed a bill to prevent the sexualisation of children up to the age of seven or so. A large majority of Floridians – both Republican and Democrat – agreed it was common sense that children so young should not receive instruction in the classroom about “sexual orientation” or “gender identity”. You might think third graders and younger would do best to get to grips with “The Cat Sat on the Mat” in preparation for later learning what a pronoun actually is – maybe in the context of an English lesson – before being invited to pick pronouns to describe their own understanding of their genders.

Over in the Magic Kingdom, in California, Disney joined those taking strenuous exception to the Florida bill and pushing a blatant lie that it was about stopping teachers saying the word ‘Gay’. All at once the bill was, according to Disney, and other showbiz types, about: “Don’t say gay.”

In fact there was no use of the word gay anywhere in the bill, and in polling, the majority of people of all stripes agreed with it. But that didn’t stop Disney and others insisting that word was being banned in Florida schools and kindergartens.

At the same time, Disney announced it had done away with any and all references to “Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls” at any of its theme parks. Never again, presumably, will a little girl be welcomed as a “princess” as had previously been a commonplace. How much money Disney had made selling princess dresses to uncounted millions of little children hardly bears thinking about. No more, we might assume.

Many parents have known a child insist on dressing as a princess one week, and superman the next. Most of those parents have understood those steps not as permanent life choices, but as the multicoloured stages of being a child growing up.

To be frank, I have never understood the pressure about pronouns, either. I was brought up never to refer to anyone – anyone actually in the room with me – via a pronoun. To point to someone and call them ‘she’ – referring to that person in the third person singular while that person was actually standing in front of me, was to invite, from a grown up, the withering putdown, “Who’s ‘she’, the cat’s mother?”

The use of ‘she’, ‘her’, ‘he’, ‘him’ in regard to a person who was RIGHT THERE, was simply rude, regardless of any other consideration. Good manners dictated that each person in the room was to be addressed and referred to by their name. If you experienced the small agony of forgetting the name of someone you’d been introduced to … too bad … you just had to apologise for the lapse and ask them to say their name a second time. Third person pronouns were for the mention of someone who was elsewhere, absent from the scene. In my world there should be no need for those pronouns while actually with a person. And so what sort of self-obsessed narcissist tries to dictate how others talk about them when they’re not even there?

And always, woven through the confusing madness like dry rot, is the sinister obsession with children and also with the family.

In my homeland of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon’s Scottish government has already seen to it that children as young as four can pick a different gender while in school – without the need for their parents to know anything about it. Previously the Scottish government pursued a so-called Named Persons bill – that would have seen a state sponsored stranger slipped between every child and parent in the land. That named person would have been able to establish a relationship with the child, have conversations with the child about anything and everything under the sun – again without the need for parents to be informed.

The Daily Mail had a story last week about a London-based psychologist reporting a sharp rise in the number of people calling his clinic to report symptoms of what he has called ‘Doomsday anxiety’ – which he describes as “fear of the end of the world or life as we know it.”

I know that feeling and I’m not surprised in the least that more and more people are burdened by hopeless, doom-laden thoughts. After all, the incessant pushing of the pendulum has left more and more people no other choice but to fear the worst.

What interests me more and more though, as I said at the top, is how much further away from me, and millions like me, the pendulum must swing. How much further CAN it swing? How much further away must we watch the pendulum pushed away – away from everything so many of us know to be common sense, decent, honourable and true? How much more will we watch them do to marginalise and then break up the family? How much longer will we let our youngest children watch and listen to lectures about sex, to be encouraged to contemplate things sexual instead of enjoying a handful of years being welcomed as boys and girls and pretending to be princesses one day and superheroes the next?

However far the pendulum swings, it must and will eventually swing back the other way, faster and faster. How far will it swing then, and where will it stop?

Connect with GB News

cover image credit: stocksnap / pixabay

While You Were Distracted by Will Smith, the International Elitists Met at the World Government Summit

by Derrick Broze, The Last American Vagabond
April 1, 2022

Guests included Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum and Kristalina Georgieva of the International Monetary Fund. 

While much of the “mainstream” world has spent the last few days obsessing over and debating the celebrity spectacle surrounding American actor Will Smith slapping American comedian Chris Rock, the international elitists were meeting in Dubai for the 2022 World Government Summit.

From March 28th to the 30th, corporate media journalists, heads of state, and CEOs of some of the most profitable companies in the world met for discussions on shaping the direction of the next decade and beyond. Anyone with a functioning brain should ignore the tabloids and instead pay attention to this little known gathering of globalist Technocrats.

Let’s take a look at the speakers and the panels, starting with Mr. Great Reset himself, Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum.

Schwab gave a talk entitled, Our World Today… Why Government Must Act Now?.  “Thank you, to his excellency for enabling this initiative to define a longer-term narrative to make the world more resilient more inclusive and more sustainable,” Schwab stated during his address. The use of the term narrative is important because in January 2021, Klaus and the World Economic Forum announced the next phase of The Great Reset, The Great Narrative.

As with The Great Narrative event, the World Government Summit was also held in Dubai. As I wrote during the Great Narrative meeting:

“While the political leaders of the UAE and Klaus Schwab may promote themselves as the heroes of our times, we should judge them according to their actions and the company they keep, not the flowery language they use to distract us. The simple fact is the UAE has a horrible record on human rights. The nation is known for deporting those who renounce Islam, limited press freedoms, and enforcing elements of Sharia law.”

During Schwab’s short talk he also mentioned his pet project “the 4th Industrial Revolution“, which is essentially the digital panopticon of the future, where digital surveillance is omnipresent and humanity uses digital technology to alter our lives. Often associated with terms like the Internet of Things, the Internet of Bodies, the Internet of Humans, and the Internet of Senses, this world will be powered by 5G and 6G technology. Of course, for Schwab and other globalists, the 4IR also lends itself towards more central planning and top-down control. The goal is a track and trace society where all transactions are logged, every person has a digital ID that can be tracked, and social malcontents are locked out of society via social credit scores.

Immediately following Schwab was a panel which made no attempt to hide the goals of the globalists. The panel, Are We Ready for A New World Order?, featured Fred Kempe, president and CEO of the Atlantic Council since 2007, as well as an anchor for CNN and a former advisor to former US president George W. Bush. Before joining the Council, Kempe was a prize-winning editor and reporter at the Wall Street Journal for more than 25 years.

In fact, the Atlantic Council had a fairly large presence at the World Government Summit, including appearances by Defne Arslan, senior director of the Atlantic Council IN TURKEY program, and Olga Khakova, Deputy Director of Global Energy Center of Atlantic Council.

For those who are unfamiliar with the Atlantic Council, I first reported in May 2018 that Facebook had partnered with the thinktank connected to NATO. I wrote:

“The Atlantic Council of the United States was established in 1961 to bolster support for international relations. Although not officially connected to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Atlantic Council has spent decades promoting causes and issues which are beneficial to NATO member states. In addition, The Atlantic Council is a member of the Atlantic Treaty Organization, an umbrella organization which “acts as a network facilitator in the Euro-Atlantic and beyond.” The ATO works similarly to the Atlantic Council, bringing together political leaders, academics, military officials, journalists and diplomats to promote values that are favorable to the NATO member states. Officially, ATO is independent of NATO, but the line between the two is razor thin.

Essentially, the Atlantic Council is a think tank which can offer companies or nation states access to military officials, politicians, journalists, diplomats, etc. to help them develop a plan to implement their strategy or vision. These strategies often involve getting NATO governments or industry insiders to make decisions they might not have made without a visit from the Atlantic Council team. This allows individuals or nations to push forth their ideas under the cover of hiring what appears to be a public relations agency but is actually selling access to high-profile individuals with power to affect public policy. Indeed, everyone from George H.W. Bush to Bill Clinton to the family of international agent of disorder Zbigniew Brzezinski have spoken at or attended council events.”

Less than 6 months after Facebook and The Atlantic Council announced their partnership, more than 500 FB pages were accused of being “Russian disinformation” and deleted. The pages largely consisted of anti-war, police accountability, and independent journalism outlets. These pages and journalists directly challenged the narratives spun by the Atlantic Council stooges.

Dissecting the World Government Summit: Ukraine, SDGs, ESG, Blockchain, and AI

While many of the names in attendance might be unfamiliar to a western audience, the speakers are men and women who absolutely play a vital role in international geopolitics.

Some of the featured speakers include:

• – António Guterres, Secretary General of United Nations, giving a talk tiled Is Our World Today… Our World of Tomorrow?
• – Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus, Director General of World Health Organization
• – David Pekoske, Administrator of USA Transportation Security Administration
• – Dr. Kaitlyn Sadtler, an American immunologist and bioengineer and Stadtman Tenure-Track Investigator at the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, part of the US NIH. She gave a presentation about Re-engineering Immunity with Next Generation Technologies
• – H.H. Sheikh Sabah AlSabah, Prime Minister of Government of the State of Kuwait
• – Jeon Hae cheol, Minister of the Interior and Safety of Government of the Republic of Korea
• – Supattanapong Punmeechaow, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Energy of Secretariat of the Prime Minister of Thailand
• – Mrs. Belinda Balluku is the Minister of Infrastructure and Energy of the Republic of Albania
• – Mohammad Sanusi Barkindo Secretary General of OPEC, speaking about “Oil and Gas in a Net-Zero World“

The Russia-Ukraine conflict ​​​​​​​was also part of the discussions. Notably, Maxim Timchenko, CEO of DTEK, made an appearance. His bio states, “under his leadership, DTEK has evolved from a regional conventional energy company into Ukraine’s largest private investor as well as leading energy company.”

The appearance of Mr. Timchenko should not be overlooked, especially because he appears in a discussion called Post-Crisis Ukraine: New Energy for a New Europe, featuring Olga Khakova of the Atlantic Council, and Paula Dobriansk, Senior Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School of Government of Atlantic Council. Again, the presence of the Atlantic Council should not be taken lightly. They are the representatives of the Western Bloc of the New World Order.

The Russia-Ukraine conflict also factors into another panel title, Getting Off Russian Gas: Practical Steps for Europe, featuring more of the Atlantic Council goons, including Richard Morningstar, Founding Chairman of Global Energy Center, Atlantic Council, and Phillip Cornell, Senior Fellow of Global Energy Center, Atlantic Council.

The World Government Summit also spent considerable time discussing the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which form the core of the Agenda 2030, itself part of The Great Reset agenda. Some speakers discussing the SDGs include:

• – Dr. Mahmoud Safwat Mohieldi, the United Nations Special Envoy for the 2030 Finance Agenda, who is speaking on a panel about Arab Nations and the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
• – María Sandoval, First Lady of Colombia of Government of Republic of Colombia, discussed “The Role of Women in Achieving the SDGs“. The first day of the summit was actually dedicated to the role women will play in rolling out the so-called New World Order and global governance schemes. Sandoval celebrated the fact that Colombian President Ivan Duque launched “the first national development plan that was directly aligned with the SDGs, and this of course was something that provided a wider spectrum for women to act react and participate in these achievements of the SDGs.”
• – Catherine Russell, Executive Director of United Nations Children Fund, participated in a panel titled SDGs for Every Child

The Summit also addressed the Environmental, Social, and Governance criteria (ESG) promoted by the UN in a panel entitled, Where does ESG Go From Here?. ESG investing is also sometimes referred to as sustainable investing, responsible investing, or socially responsible investing (SRI). The practice has become an increasingly popular way to promote the SDGs. The panel featured Neil R. Brown, Managing Director, KKR Global Institute and KKR Infrastructure. KKR Global Institute is the same organization that former US Army General and former CIA Director David Petraeus joined in 2013.

Additionally, a panel entitled, Is the World Ready for A Future Beyond Oil?, featured H.E. Suhail bin Mohamed AlMazrouei, Minister of Energy and Infrastructure of Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure; H.R.H Prince Abdulaziz Al Saud, Minister of Energy of Ministry of Energy – Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; and H.E. Masrour Barzani, Prime Minister of Kurdistan Regional Government.

Blockchain and Artificial Intelligence are a major piece of the Technocratic vision for 2030, so naturally there were several discussions on the use of blockchain, AI, and even 6G (the eventual successor to 5G technology).

There was a discussion on blockchain technology in a panel entitled, The Future of Blockchain… A Perspective from Industry Pioneer, featuring Changpeng Zhao, Chief Executive Officer of Binance, among others. Other panels focused on De-Fi (decentralized finance) featured Jamie Crawley, Editor in Chief of Coin Desk, and Charles Hoskinson, Co-Founder of Ethereum. I have recently reported on Hoskinson’s statements regarding using blockchain to implement ESG and SDG programs and the danger they pose to privacy and liberty.

There was also a panel focused on the introduction of Central Bank Digital Currencies entitled, CBDCs and Stablecoins: Can They Co-Exist?. The CBDCs schemes being rolled out in nations around the world are a crucial component of The Great Reset.

One panel focuses on a concept called Human Meta-Cities, which sound like a rebranding or updating of the so-called Smart Cities. The panel description states,

“in a world of change and rapid technological development, we shed light on a new vision for planning future cities centered around human needs and aspirations. This new framework will help governments refine their role in planning the new world taking advantage of the digital transformation opportunities that are taking place.”

Another panel which makes clear the Technocratic dream was entitled, The Invisible Government: Eliminating Bureaucracy Through Technology. The description of the panel states:

“Technology is creating new possibilities as it simplifies processes, enables instant feedback, and ultimately improves customer experience. In the public sector, digitalization and artificial intelligence are creating a new model of governance – “invisible” governments that are more agile, responsive, human-centric, and data-driven. In this session, global policymakers and experts will share their bold vision and experience in utilizing technology to eliminate bureaucracy and innovate government services for the future.”

What goes unsaid in the panel description is that making the government “invisible” will actually lead to a world of no accountability for government and politicians. In reality, the Technocrats imagine a world where the tyrannical technological systems are invisible and the average person has zero recourse for preventing exclusion or punishment based on their social credit score.

This is the world these technocrats — many of whom are unelected — envision. The only way this vision will not come to pass is if the people of the world throw their televisions away, ignore the celebrity drama, and start exiting from these slavery systems. 

Derrick Broze, a staff writer for The Last American Vagabond, is a journalist, author, public speaker, and activist. He is the co-host of Free Thinker Radio on 90.1 Houston, as well as the founder of The Conscious Resistance Network & The Houston Free Thinkers.

Connect with The Last American Vagabond

Iain Davis on the New World Order and How to Oppose It

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
March 31, 2022

Biden has warned that there is going to be a New World Order. Putin and Xi are writing joint statements about the creation of a New World Order. In fact, all of the globalists are interested in a New World Order. Today, Iain Davis of In-This-Together.com joins us to discuss the history of the “International Rules-Based Order,” reveal its “operating system” (technocracy), and discuss how we can fruitfully oppose it.



Watch on Archive / BitChute / Minds / Odysee or Download the mp4

SHOW NOTES:

In-This-Together.com

President Biden: There’s Going To Be A New World Order, It Hasn’t Happened In A While And America Has To Lead It

Technocracy: The Operating System For The New International Rules-Based Order

Joint Statement of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China on the International Relations Entering a New Era and the Global Sustainable Development

World Order: What, Exactly, are the Rules? (Stewart Patrick of CFR)

Interview 1668 – Iain Davis Dissects the Pseudopandemic

Episode 416 – SHOCKING Document Reveals Trudeau’s REAL Plan!

China orders 51 million into lockdown as COVID surges

From a China Traveler – David Rockefeller | New York Times 1973

Episode 297 – China and the New World Order

How & Why Big Oil Conquered the World

Technocracy Study Course

Connect with James Corbett

Why 2022 Is 1973 — Klaus Schwab Is Zbigniew Brzezinski

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
March 24, 2022

I wrote the following piece five years ago. It describes an elite group— whose globalist goals have been exported to the World Economic Forum (WEF), headed by Klaus Schwab.

Remember David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission? They’re still around. But their quiet style has been replaced by the big brassy in-your-face Schwab circus: WE’RE TRANSFORMING THE WORLD. OKAY? WE ADMIT IT. ACHTUNG, BABY.

Let’s revisit the Trilaterals. It’s instructive. There are a few shockers. Here we go:

Who is in charge of destroying borders and separate nations?

One group has been virtually forgotten. Its influence is enormous. It has existed since 1973.

It’s called the Trilateral Commission (TC).

Keep in mind that the original stated goal of the TC was to create “a new international economic order.”

In the run-up to his inauguration after the 2008 presidential election, Obama was tutored by the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

In 1969, four years before birthing the TC with David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote: “[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”

Goodbye, separate nations.

Any doubt on the question of TC goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, the founder of the TC, in his Memoirs (2003): “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Patrick Wood, author of Trilaterals Over Washington, points out there are only 87 members of the Trilateral Commission who live in America. Obama appointed eleven of them to posts in his administration.

For example:

* Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary

* James Jones, National Security Advisor

* Paul Volker, Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee

* Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence

Here is a stunning piece of forgotten history, a 1978 conversation between a US reporter and two members of the Trilateral Commission. (Source: Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management; ed. by Holly Sklar, 1980, South End Press, Pages 192-3).

The conversation was public knowledge at the time.

Anyone who was anyone in Washington politics, in media, in think-tanks, had access to it. Understood its meaning.

But no one shouted from the rooftops. No one used the conversation to force a scandal. No one protested loudly.

The conversation revealed that the entire basis of the US Constitution had been torpedoed, that the people who were running US national policy were agents of an elite shadow group. No question about it.

And yet: official silence. Media silence. The Dept. of Justice made no moves, Congress undertook no serious inquiries, and the President, Jimmy Carter, issued no statements. Carter was himself an agent of the Trilateral Commission in the White House. He had been plucked from obscurity by David Rockefeller, and through elite TC press connections, vaulted into the spotlight as a pre-eminent choice for the Presidency.

The following 1978 conversation featured reporter, Jeremiah Novak, and two Trilateral Commission members, Karl Kaiser and Richard Cooper. The interview took up the issue of who exactly, during President Carter’s administration, was formulating US economic and political policy.

The careless and off-hand attitude of Trilateralists Kaiser and Cooper is astonishing. It’s as if they’re saying, “What we’re revealing is already out in the open, it’s too late to do anything about it, why are you so worked up, we’ve already won…”

NOVAK (the reporter): Is it true that a private [Trilateral committee] led by Henry Owen of the US and made up of [Trilateral] representatives of the US, UK, West Germany, Japan, France and the EEC is coordinating the economic and political policies of the Trilateral countries [which would include the US]?

COOPER: Yes, they have met three times.

NOVAK: Yet, in your recent paper you state that this committee should remain informal because to formalize ‘this function might well prove offensive to some of the Trilateral and other countries which do not take part.’ Who are you afraid of?

KAISER: Many countries in Europe would resent the dominant role that West Germany plays at these [Trilateral] meetings.

COOPER: Many people still live in a world of separate nations, and they would resent such coordination [of policy].

NOVAK: But this [Trilateral] committee is essential to your whole policy. How can you keep it a secret or fail to try to get popular support [for its decisions on how nations will conduct their economic and political policies]?

COOPER: Well, I guess it’s the press’ job to publicize it.

NOVAK: Yes, but why doesn’t President Carter come out with it and tell the American people that [US] economic and political power is being coordinated by a [Trilateral] committee made up of Henry Owen and six others? After all, if [US] policy is being made on a multinational level, the people should know.

COOPER: President Carter and Secretary of State Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches. [a lie]

KAISER: It just hasn’t become an issue.

This interview slipped under the mainstream media radar, which is to say, it was buried.

US (and other nations’) economic and political policy run by a committee of the Trilateral Commission—the Commission created in 1973 by David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

When Carter won the presidential election (1976), his aide, Hamilton Jordan, said that if after the inauguration, Cy Vance and Brzezinski came on board as secretary of state and national security adviser, “We’ve lost. And I’ll quit.” Lost—because both men were powerful members of the Trilateral Commission and their appointment to key positions would signal a surrender of White House control to the Commission.

Vance and Brzezinski were appointed secretary of state and national security adviser, as Jordan feared. But he didn’t quit. He became Carter’s chief of staff.

Now consider the vast propaganda efforts of the past 40 years, on so many levels, to install the idea that all nations and peoples of the world are a single Collective.

From a very high level of political and economic power, this propaganda op has had the objective of grooming the population for a planet that is one coagulated mass, run and managed by one force. A central engine of that force is the Trilateral Commission.

—One planet, with national borders erased, under one management system, with a planned global economy, “to restore stability,” “for the good of all, for lasting harmony.”

And one day in the future, a student would ask his teacher, “What happened to the United States?” And the teacher would say, “It was a criminal enterprise based on individual freedom. Fortunately, our leaders rescued the people and taught them the superior nature of HARMONY AND COOPERATION.”

Connect with Jon Rappoport

cover image credit:  Wendelin Jacober / Wikimedia Commons

Shocking Document Reveals Trudeau’s Real Plan

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
March 18, 2022

We all know that when a politician walks like a globalist, talks like a globalist, acts like a globalist and quacks like a globalist, that means they’re a globalist, right?

And what about when that politician comes out with an unbelievable, in-your-face endorsement of the UN-led Agenda 2030 to remodel the world order and lead us into the maws of the 4th Industrial Revolution and the Great Reset in the name of “sustainable development.”

Then we all know they’re a globalist, right?

Well, get a load of this. . .



Watch on Archive / BitChute / Minds / Odysee or Download the mp4

SHOW NOTES:
Klaus Schwab Bragging About Infiltrating World Governments | The Great Reset WEF

Canada to send more lethal aid to Ukraine, intends to ban crude oil imports from Russia | FULL

Announcing mandatory vaccination for the federal workforce and transportation sectors

The Canadian MEDIA $600M BAILOUT Exposed! – What You NEED To Know!

PM Justin Trudeau speaks at inaugural global summit on artificial intelligence – December 4, 2020

Justin Trudeau Admires Communist China’s “Basic Dictatorship”

Joint Statement on the International Relations Entering a New Era and the Global Sustainable Development

Klaus Schwab Bragging About Infiltrating World Governments | The Great Reset WEF

Russia’s Putin announces ‘military operation’ in Ukraine

Putin Signs “Fake News” and “Internet Insults” Bill

Censorship, arrests, shutdowns: Putin crushes Russian media | The Listening Post

Protester arrested by Russian jackboots for holding sign that says “Two Words”

Russian President Vladimir Putin says country needs to step up vaccination campaign

Russia : Moscow, St. Petersburg and Perm Restaurants to “Hire” Robots to Check Qr Codes of Vaccinate

Putin and Herman Gref at Sberbank’s Artificial intelligence conference

Putin praises China’s achievements in combating COVID-19

Vladimir Putin says he drove a taxi after fall of Soviet Union

Special Address by Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation | DAVOS AGENDA 2021

Episode 381 – Who Will Fact Check the Fact Checkers?

“Putin and Kissinger have maintained warm personal relations over a number of years”

“Putin and Kissinger have held more than a dozen meetings”

Putin Welcomes Kissinger: ‘Old Friends’ to Talk Shop?

“No War” an arrestable offence in Russia, even printing photos of “No War” graffiti is illegal

Sputnik V: What you’re not being told

Sputnik V is a scam

Russia’s Gamaleya Research, UK-Swedish Astrazeneca Sign Memorandum of Cooperation in COVID-19 Fight

Trump calls vaccines the “greatest achievement”

Trump brags that he’s boosted, admonishes hecklers

World Economic Forum Freezes ‘All Relations’ With Russia to Dodge Sanctions

Interview 1703 – Riley Waggaman on Russian Myths vs. Russian Reality

Russia Joins Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution Network

10 Signs The War In Ukraine Is Part Of The Great Reset

Is the Narrative Shifting? Or Is This Phase 2 Mass Psychosis?

ESG muscle flexing

China and Russia Creating “Alternate” Banking System

China’s Digital Yuan May Aid Russia Bypass SWIFT Ban, But Will It?

Bank of Russia Proceeds With Digital Ruble, Renews Push for Crypto Ban

Zelensky Receives Standing Ovation From EU Parliament in Emotional Scenes

Episode 369 – Globalization is Dead. Long Live the New World Order!

Connect with James Corbett

Del Bigtree Sues CDC Over Mask Mandate

by Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN)
March 17, 2022

After the White House and Congress dropped their mask mandates last week, Del Bigtree said, “enough is enough” and, through his attorneys, has now sued the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) challenging its mandate requiring masks on planes, trains, and buses.

It is incredible that our elected leaders have dropped mask mandates for themselves but yet everyday Americans must still mask.  There is a term for when those that govern impose requirements on the governed but exclude themselves.  Just compare the picture on the left with the those on the right:

While the science on masking should be enough for the mask mandate to disappear, the lawsuit challenges the mandate on the grounds that the CDC does not have the authority to implement or enforce the mandate.

You can read the complaint in its entirety here and we will keep you apprised of the lawsuit.  Thank you for supporting ICAN’s ongoing efforts to ensure that our civil liberties are restored.

Connect with ICAN

cover image credit: Surprising_Shots / pixabay

Elite American Support for Russia: A Tradition

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
March 17, 2022

In 1971, Gary Allen published his book, None Dare Call it Conspiracy. It quickly became an unofficial best seller.

Over the years, several million copies have been sold.

Allen’s thesis was stark: super-rich American capitalists were financing socialism. This bizarre paradox was resolved when socialism was properly understood—not as “power to the people”—but as elite power over the people. In other words, as a hoax.

These days, the socialist hoax is still unknown to most of the population.

Cloak a global power grab as progress for all of humanity.

Here, from chapter six of None Dare Call it Conspiracy, “The Rockefellers and the Reds,” is a passage commenting on the period just after the Russian Revolution of 1917:

“The Rockefellers assigned their public relations agent, Ivy Lee, to sell the American public the idea that the Bolsheviks were merely misunderstood idealists who were actually kind benefactors of mankind.”

“After the Bolshevik Revolution, Standard Oil of New Jersey [Rockefeller] bought 50 per cent of the Nobel’s huge Caucasus oil fields even though the property had theoretically been nationalized [by Russia]. (O’Connor, Harvey, The Empire Of Oil, Monthly Review Press, New York, 1955, p.270.)”

“In 1927, Standard Oil of New York [Rockefeller] built a refinery in Russia, thereby helping the Bolsheviks put their economy back on its feet. Professor [Antony] Sutton states: ‘This was the first United States investment in Russia since the Revolution.’ (Ibid, Vol.1, p.38)”

“Shortly thereafter Standard Oil of New York and its subsidiary, Vacuum Oil Company [Rockefeller], concluded a deal to market Soviet oil in European countries and it was reported that a loan of $75,009,000 to the Bolsheviks was arranged. (National Republic, Sept.1927.)”

“…Wherever Standard Oil would go, Chase National Bank was sure to follow. (The Rockefeller’s Chase Bank was later merged with the Warburg’s Manhattan Bank to form the present Chase Manhattan Bank.) In order to rescue the Bolsheviks, who were supposedly an archenemy, the Chase National Bank was instrumental in establishing the American-Russian Chamber of Commerce in 1922. President of the Chamber was Reeve Schley, a vice-president of Chase National Bank. (Ibid, Vol.11, p.288) According to Professor Sutton: ‘In 1925, negotiations between Chase and [Russian] Prombank extended beyond the finance of raw materials and mapped out a complete program for financing Soviet raw material exports to the U. S. and imports of U. S. cotton and machinery.’ (Ibid, Vol.11, p.226) Sutton also reports that ‘Chase National Bank and the Equitable Trust Company were leaders in the Soviet credit business.’ (Ibid, p.277)”

“The Rockefeller’s Chase National Bank also was involved in selling Bolshevik bonds in the United States in 1928. Patriotic organizations denounced the Chase as an ‘international fence.’ Chase was called ‘a disgrace to America… They will go to any lengths for a few dollars profits.’ (Ibid, Vol.11, p.291) Congressman Louis McFadden, chairman of the House Banking Committee, maintained in a speech to his fellow Congressmen:”

“’The Soviet government has been given United States Treasury funds by the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks acting through the Chase Bank and the Guaranty Trust Company and other banks in New York City.”

“’Open up the books of Amtorg, the trading organization of the Soviet government in New York, and of Gostorg, the general office of the Soviet Trade Organization, and of the State Bank of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and you will be staggered to see how much American money has been taken from the United States’ Treasury for the benefit of Russia. Find out what business has been transacted for the State Bank of Soviet Russia by its correspondent, the Chase Bank of New York’. (Congressional Record, June 15, 1933.)”

“But the Rockefellers apparently were not alone in financing the Communist arm of the Insiders’ conspiracy. According to Professor Sutton ‘… there is a report in the State Department files that names Kuhn, Loeb & Co. (the long established and important financial house in New York) as the financier of the [Russians’] First Five Year Plan. See U. S. State Dept. Decimal File, 811.51/3711 and 861.50 FIVE YEAR PLAN/236.’ (Sutton, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 340n.)”

“Professor Sutton proves conclusively in his three volume history of Soviet technological development that the Soviet Union was almost literally manufactured by the U.S.A…”

“…Sutton shows that there is hardly a segment of the Soviet economy which is not a result of the transference of Western, particularly American, technology.”

“This cannot be wholly the result of accident. For fifty years the Federal Reserve-CFR-Rockefeller-lnsider crowd has advocated and carried out policies aimed at increasing the power of their satellite, the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, America spends $75 billion a year on defense to protect itself from the enemy the Insiders are building up.”

Getting the picture? I hope so.

Connect with Jon Rappoport

cover image credit: Joa70 / pixabay

Counterinsurgency, PSYOPS and the Military Origins of the Internet

by Dustin Broadbery, Off Guardian
March 16, 2022

Part 1: Look a Gift Horse in the Mouth

As the digital revolution was underway in the mid-nineties, research departments at the CIA and NSA were developing programs to predict the usefulness of the world wide web as a tool for capturing what they dubbed “birds of a feather” formations. That’s when flocks of sparrows make sudden movements together in rhythmical patterns.

They were particularly interested in how these principles would influence the way that people would eventually move together on the burgeoning internet: Would groups and communities move together in the same way as ‘birds of a feather, so that they could be tracked in an organised way? And if their movements could be indexed and recorded, could they be identified later by their digital fingerprints?

To answer these questions, the CIA and NSA established a series of initiatives called Massive Digital Data Systems (MDDS) to directly fund tech entrepreneurs through an inter-university disbursement program. Naming their first unclassified briefing for computer scientists ‘birds of a feather,’ which took place in San Jose in the spring of 1995.

Amongst the first grants provided by the MDDS program to capture the ‘birds of a feather’ theory towards building a massive digital library and indexing system – using the internet as its backbone – were dispersed to two Stanford University PHD’s, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, who were making significant headways in the development of web-page ranking technology that would track user movements online.

Those disbursements, together with $4.5 million in grants from a multi-agency consortium including NASA and DARPA, became the seed funding that was used to establish Google.

Eventually MDDS was integrated into DARPA’s global eavesdropping and data-mining activities that would attempt total information awareness over US citizens. Few understand the extent to which Silicon Valley is the alter-ego of Pentagon-land, even fewer realise the impact this has had on the social sphere.   But the story does not begin with Google, nor the military origins of the internet, it goes back much further in time, to the dawn of counterinsurgency and PSYOPs during the second world war.

The Dawn of PSYOPs

According to historian Joy Rhodes, a renowned physicist told U.S. defence secretary Robert McNamara in 1961:

While World War I might have been considered the chemists’ war, and World War II was considered the physicists’ war, World War III . . . might well have to be considered the social scientists’ war.”

The intersection of social science and military intelligence is recognised by the US Army to have begun during WW1 when pre-war journalist Captain Blankenhorn established the Psychological Subsection in the War Department to coordinate combat propaganda.

These grey-area operations, as they become known, plateaued during world war II, when military strategists, building on wartime research in crowd psychology, drafted social scientists into the war effort through the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD). The office would aggregate information about the German people and develop propaganda and psychological operations (PSYOPS) to lower their morale. This culminated in 1942, with the US federal government becoming the leading employer of psychologists in the US.

OSRD was an early administration of the Manhattan Project and responsible for important wartime developments in technology, including radar. The agency was Directed by engineer and inventor, Vannevar Bush – a key player in the history of computing, known for his work on The Memex, an early hypothetical computer device, that would store and index a user’s books, records and other information, and which would go on to inspire most major advancements in the development of personal computers over the next 70 years.

As the second world war ended, and a new threat emerged from post war ravaged Europe, scholars and soldiers once again reunited to defeat an invisible and aggressively expansionist adversary.  Though this opponent may sound like COVID-19, it was in fact the Soviet Union.

Across the Soviet satellites in Europe and in the nations threatened by communism in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, cold war special operations, as they become known, were a nebulous category of military activity that included psychological and political warfare, guerrilla operations and counterinsurgency.  To mobilise these ‘special warfare tactics’ the army established the Office of the Chief of Psychological Warfare (OCPW) in 1951, whose mission was to recruit, organise, equip, train, and provide doctrinal support to Psywarriors.

The office was directed by General Robert McClure, a founding father of psychological warfare and friend of the Shah of Iran, who was instrumental in the overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddegh in the 1953 Iranian coup d’état.

Integral to the projects of McClure’s OCPW, was a quasi-academic institution with a long history of military service called the Human Relations Area Files (HRAF). Founded by anthropologist turned FBI whistle-blower George Murdock, HRAF was set up to collect and standardise data on primitive cultures around the world. During WW2 its researchers worked hand in glove with naval intelligence to develop propaganda materials that would help the US liberate pacific nations from Japanese control.  By 1954, the department had grown into an inter-university consortium of 16 academic institutions, funded by the army, CIA, and private philanthropies.

In 1954 the OCPW negotiated a contract with the HRAF to author a series of special warfare handbooks, disguised as scholarship, that sought to understand the intellectual and emotional character of strategically important people, particularly their thoughts, motivations and actions, with entire chapters compiled on the attitudes and subversive potentials of foreign nationals, while other chapters focussed on the means of transmitting propaganda in each target nation, whether news, radio or word of mouth.  This was, of course, decades before the internet.

SORO

In 1956, the Special Operations Research Office (SORO) emerged from these programs. Charged with managing the US Army’s psychological and unconventional warfare tactics during the cold war and taking the work of HRAF to the next level, SORO set about the monumental task of defining the political and social causes of Communist revolution, the laws governing social change and the theories of communication and persuasion that could be used to transform public perception.

SORO formed a central component of the Pentagons militarisation of social research, and particularly the ideas and doctrine that would usher in a gradual shift towards an American-led world order.

Its research team was located on the campus of American University in Washington, D.C, and comprised the era’s pre-eminent intellectuals and academics. SORO’s ensemble team, from the fields of psychology, sociology and anthropology, would immerse themselves in social system theory, analysing the society and culture of numerous target countries, particularly in Latin America, while confronting the universal laws governing social behaviour and the mechanisms of communication and persuasion in each jurisdiction.

If the US Army could understand the psychological factors that sparked revolution, they could, in theory, predict and intercept revolutions before they got off the ground.

SORO was part of a rapidly expanding nexus of federally Funded Research Centres (FCRC’s), that reoriented academia towards national security interests. Working at the intersection of science and the state, SORON’s, as they were known, advocated for an expert-directed democracy, regardless of the totalitarian consequences of social engineers and technocrats acquiring control over the thoughts, actions, and values of ordinary people.

In those early days of the cold war, academics and scientists working at the intersection of military and academia firmly believed that intellectuals should guide geopolitics. This was accepted as the most stable form of governance to take the free world into the next century. It explains how we have arrived under the rubric of the ‘settled science’ today. Or at least, policies masquerading as science. From the biosecurity state to the fundamentalism of climate science, much of what was achieved in those golden years of militarised social research shapes the twenty first century.

By 1962, sixty-six federally funded military research institutions were in operation. Between 1951 to 1967, the number tripled, while funding skyrocketed from $122 million to $1.6 billion.

But as opposition to the Vietnam War intensified in the 1960s, a growing number of intellectuals, policymakers and academics became increasingly concerned that the national security state was morphing into the statist, globalist force it had been fighting during the cold war and began publicly criticising Pentagon-funded social scientists as technocratic social engineers.

This inspired a wave of discontent for the militarisation of social research to grip America, culminating in 1969 with American University’s administrators banishing SORO from their campus and severing ties with their military partners.

The move was endemic of the changing attitude towards these grey area special operations and resulted in the 1960’s and 1970’s with the excommunication of military research centres from university campuses across the US. A move that forced the military to look elsewhere – towards the private sector for their alternative warfare capabilities.

Following a long tradition of public-private military cooperation, from the Rand Corporation to the Smithsonian Group, these quasi-private institutions were being spun-out of the military at a rate of knots since the 1940’s.

Project Camelot

One of the programs conceived by SORO was ‘Methods for Predicting and Influencing Social Change and Internal War Potential. Codenamed Project Camelot, the landmark program sought to understand the causes of social revolution and identify actions, within the realm of behavioural science, that could be taken to suppress insurrection. The goal, according to defence analyst, Joy Rhodes, was to ‘build a radar system for left wing revolutionaries.’ 

A sort of ‘computerised early warning system that could predict and prevent political movements before they ever got off the ground.’

‘This computer system’ writes Joy Rhodes, ‘could check up to date intelligence against a list of preconditions, and revolutions could be stopped before the instigators even knew they were headed down the path of revolution.’

The research collected by Project Camelot would produce predictive models of the revolutionary process and profile what social scientists deemed ‘revolutionary tendencies and traits.’ It was anticipated that such knowledge would not only help military leaders anticipate the trajectory of social change, but it would also enable them to design effective interventions that could, in theory, channel or suppress change in ways that were favourable to U.S. foreign policy interests.

It was intended that the information gathered by Project Camelot would funnel into a large ‘computerised database’ for forecasting, social engineering, and counterinsurgency, that could be tapped at any time by the military and intelligence community.

But the project was beleaguered by controversy when academics in South America discovered its military funding and imperialism motives.

The ensuing backlash resulted in Project Camelot being, ostensibly, shut down, though the core of its project survived. Multiple military research projects picked up on Project Camelot’s ‘early warning radar system for left wing revolutionaries,’ while its computerised database for ‘forecasting, social engineering, and counterinsurgency’ went onto inspire a nascent technology developed in the years to come, that would eventually become known to the world as the internet.

Part 2: The Military Origins of the Internet

At the height of the Cold War, US military commanders were pursuing a decentralised computer communications system without a base of operations or headquarters, that could withstand a Soviet strike, without blacking-out or destroying the entire network.

The project was coordinated by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), created by President Eisenhower in 1958, for the development of technologies that would expand the frontiers of science and technology and help the US close the missile gap with the Soviets.

DARPA has since been at the vanguard of every major advancement in the development of personal computers ever since the cold war, culminating in 1969 with the first computers being in universities across the US.

A few years later and DARPA would develop the protocols to enable connected computers to communicate transparently across multiple networks.  Known as The Internetting Project, DARPA’s prototypical communications network, the ARPANET, was born in 1973.

The project was eventually transferred to the Defence Communications Agency and integrated into the numerous new networks that had emerged. By 1983 the ARPANET was divided into two constituents: MILNET to be used by military and defence agencies, while the civilian version, would retain the ARPANET handle.

Fast forward to 1990 and the ARPANET was officially decommissioned, and the Internet privatised to a consortium of corporations including IBM and MCI.  Eventually the federal government created a dozen or so network providers and spun them off to the private sector, building companies that would become the backbone of today’s internet, including Verizon Time-Warner, AT&T and Comcast.

That’s the same six corporations who not only own 90% of US media outlets, they control the flow of global communications, through a process of absolute vertical-horizontal alignment of legacy media with digital media, and the infrastructures and technologies that enable their mass communication, including cable, satellite and wireless,  the devices and hardware, software and operating systems

JCR Licklider

A central player in the development of the ARPANET, who many consider the founding father of computing, was American psychologist, JCR Licklider.

Lick, as he was known, was the first Director of the agency tasked with executing DARPA’s information technology programs, The Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO), that has been responsible for just about major advancement in computer communications since the sixties.

As Stephen J. Lukasik, a contributor to the ARPANET project reflected in his paper ‘ ‘Why the Arpanet Was Built’:

Lick saw information technology and behavioural and cognitive science issues as connected.”

Lick was essentially predicting how the internet would go on to evoke real world social processes that would radically transform how we communicate, organise and process information. It is no coincidence that a psychologist of ‘Licks calibre was at the vanguard of a new technology designed to exploit basic vulnerabilities in the human psyche.

In the 1960’s Lick oversaw DARPA’s strategic interest in the new frontier of information technology, called Brain Computer Interfaces (BCI’s). In his famous paper, considered one of the most important in the history of computing, Lick put forward the then radical idea that the human mind would one day merge seamlessly with computers.

He was anticipating the evolution of AI and the role that DARPA would go on to play in funding just about every major advancement in BCI technology over eight decades, including Elon Musk’s fully-implanted, wireless, brain-machine interface company, Neuralink.

The Vietnam War

The ARPANET brought together the Pentagon’s war machine with university research departments and the Bay area’s counterculture scene. Inspiring much of the anecdotal idealism that would define the early years of cyberspace as a liberating new frontier for humanity. Cyberspace, it was lauded by its early adopters, would free information and provide universal connectivity. The realms of possibility were, indeed, endless.

But war hawks and intelligence analysts had other ideas. If the lessons of the Vietnam war were anything to go by, the future of US warfare would not be with nation states, it would be with ideologies, or more specifically, grassroots movements, such as the Viet Cong, who had the power to stoke the flames of civil unrest, that could lead to uprisings, or worse, revolution. Alternative approaches were, therefore, needed to infiltrate and disrupt this new threat to the free world.

As the war raged in Southeast Asia, another psychology PHD, Robert Taylor, joined DARPA as the agency’s third director. Taylor transferred to Vietnam in 1967, to establish the first computer centre at the Military Assistance Command base in Saigon, a central pillar in the DoD’s psychological warfare operations. The move was endemic of the changing rules of military engagement that saw DARPA, and indeed, this new technology, playing a major role in the war effort, both in Southeast Asia, and at home on US soil, against the growing anti-war movement.

In 1968, Taylor and ‘Lick published their seminal paper “The Computer as a Communication Device.” Laying out the future of what the Internet would eventually become. The paper began with the visionary statement: “In a few years, men will be able to communicate more effectively through a machine than face to face.”  Anticipating the meteoric rise of social media, particularly Facebook, in the decades to come.

Bringing the PSYOP Back Home

The origins of Facebook coincide with a controversial military program that was mysteriously shut down the same year Facebook launched.

The military program in question, LifeLog, was developed by DARPA’s Information Processing Techniques Office, with the stated aim of creating a permanent and searchable electronic diary of a person’s entire life – a dataset of their most personal information, including their movements,  conversations, connections, and everything they listened to, watched, read and bought.

But would people willingly give up a record of their private lives to a military intelligence social media platform?

Probably not. Enter Facebook.

LifeLog, meanwhile, was ostensibly shut down, but this was not the first nor the last time that a project of this magnitude would be proposed.

In a 1945 article for The Atlantic, Vannevar Bush who, the reader will recall, directed the US Army’s psychological operations during World War II, discussed his hypothetical project, The Memex, as a device “in which an individual stores all his books, records and communications, and which is mechanised so that it may be consulted with exceeding speed and flexibility.”

In immortalising people’s lives, it was hoped that LifeLog would eventually contribute to the emerging field of artificial intelligence (AI), that would one day think just like a human, intersecting with another DARPA backed project – the Personal Assistant That Learns (PAL) – a cognitive computing system designed to make military decision-making more efficient, which was eventually spun-off as Siri, the virtual assistant on Apple’s operating system, present in the homes of 1 billion unsuspecting people.

But LifeLog is just one part of the story. There was another DARPA program that was also ‘disappeared’ one year before Facebook mad its debut. Often cited as the precursor to Facebook. The Information Awareness Office (IAO) brought together several DARPA surveillance and information technology projects including MDDS which provided Googles seed funding.

The stated aim of the IAO was to gather and store the personal information of every US citizen, including their personal emails, social networks, lifestyles, credit card records, phone calls, medical records, without, of course, the need for a search warrant.  This information would funnel back to intelligence agencies, under the guise of predicting and preventing terrorist incidents before they happened. Reminiscent of Project Camelot’s early warning radar system for left wing revolutionaries.

Despite the government, apparently, abandoning their gambit for total information awareness over ordinary Americans, the core of the project survived.

I draw your attention to Palantir, the spooky data analytics firm founded by Facebook’s board member, Peter Thiel.

Portrayed as science fiction in the firm Minority Report, Palantir’s predictive policing analytics have been deployed extensively against insurgents in Iraq and by police departments in the US.

This is, of course, nothing new for the Chinese. The convergence of big tech data analytics with China’s social credits system has been used for many years to weed out and punish dissidents who can find themselves held indefinitely without charge or trial in political re-education camps for holding the wrong set of political beliefs.

But it must also be accepted, these Orwellian methods of repression did not originate in China.  The encroachment of the CIA onto the public sphere has been happening since the 1960’s, when the US imported years of counterinsurgency from the soviet satellites to tackle the anti-war and civil rights movements. This was ramped up in the wake of 9/11. And now through the backdoor of COVID-19 total information awareness is coming home to roost, as China’s social credits system has been implemented on the back of the Green Pass.

Before anti-vaxxer’s and conspiracy theorists, you had civil rights and anti-war activists. The ideology guiding dissent may have changed, but the military tactics used to counter it remain the same.

Part 3: The War Is Over, the Good Guys Lost

If insurgency is defined as an organised political struggle by a hostile minority, attempting to seize power through revolutionary means, then counterinsurgency is the military doctrine historically used against non-state actors, that sets out to infiltrate and eradicate those movements.

Unlike conventional soldiers, insurgents are considered dangerous, not because of their physical presence on the battlefield, but because of their ideology.

As David Galula, a French commander who was an expert in counterinsurgency warfare during the Algerian War, emphasised:

In any situation, whatever the cause, there will be an active minority for the cause, a neutral majority, and an active minority against the cause. The technique of power consists in relying on the favourable minority in order to rally the neutral majority and to neutralise or eliminate the hostile minority.”

Overtime, however, the intelligence state lost touch with reality, as the focus of its counterinsurgency programs shifted from foreign to domestic populations, from national security risks to ordinary citizens, particularly in the wake of 9/11, when the NSA and its British counterpart, GCHQ, began mapping out the Internet.

Thanks to Edward Snowden’s revelations in 2013, we now know that the NSA were collecting 200 billion pieces of data every month, including the cell phone records, emails, web searches and live chats of more than 200 million ordinary Americans. This was extracted from the world’s largest internet companies via a lesser-known, militarised data mining program called Prism.

There’s another name for this, and its total information awareness. But it’s also the highest attainment of a paranoid state, haunted by fear and looking and seeking absolute control over the general population. What ceases to be worth the candle is that their right to privacy is enshrined under the US Constitution’s fourth amendment.

Few understand how lockdowns are ripples on these troubled waters. Decades of counterinsurgency waged against one subset of society, branded insurgents for their Marxist ideals have, overtime, shifted to anyone holding anti-establishment views.  The predictive policing of track and trace and the theory of asymptomatic transmission are the unwelcome repercussions of an intelligence state seeking total information awareness.

Throughout COVID-19 anyone audacious enough to want to think for themselves or do their own research has had a target painted on their back.  But according to the EU, one third of Europe is unvaccinated. This correlates precisely with David Galula’s theory of counterinsurgency. Remember, one third of society is the active minority ‘against the cause,’ who must be neutralised or eliminated.

And for good reason. The freedom movement is within sniffing distance of mobilising popular support from the neutral majority and toppling the house of cards.  What follows is a protracted campaign to neutralise the opposition.

It was not so long ago that journalists were called muckrakers, for their proclivity for digging up dirt on the Robber Barons. But the targets of their derision learned how to throw mud back, using smear and innuendo. That’s where ‘conspiracy theorists,’ ‘anti-vaxxer’ and ‘right-wing extremist’ enters the lexicon.

When Domestic Populations Become the Battlefield

The use of counterinsurgency in the UK goes back to colonial India in the 1800s. According to historians, this is the first time the British government used methods of repression and social control against indigenous communities who were audacious enough to want to liberate their homeland from Imperialist rule.

Counterinsurgency was used extensively during The Troubles in Northern Ireland against another anti-imperialist faction, also looking to liberate their homeland from The Crown.  Much of the lessons learned in Northern Ireland were later transferred into the everyday policing and criminal justice policies of mainland Britain. And it wasn’t just dissenters who were targeted by these operations, it was anyone with left wing ideals, particularly trade unionists who, it could be argued, were conspiring with the Kremlin to overthrow parliamentary democracy.

I draw your attention to the spying and dirty tricks operations against the 1980s miners’ strike. This continued right up until 2012, when the police and intelligence communities were implicated in a plot to blacklist construction industry workers deemed troublesome for their union views.

The existence of a secret blacklist was first exposed in 2009, when investigators from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) raided an unassuming office in Droitwich, Worcestershire, and discovered an extensive database used by construction firms to vet and ultimately blacklist workers belonging to trade unions. More than 40 construction firms, including Balfour Beatty and Sir Robert McAlpine, had been funding the confidential database and keeping people out of work for many years.

If you want to know what happened to the left, look no further than Project Camelot’s early warning radar system for left wing revolutionaries. Decades of infiltration has recalibrated the left into genuflections of establishment interests. It was the unions who scuppered the easing of lockdowns in the UK and consistently called on the Department of Education to postpone the reopening of schools. This is despite the impact which school closures had on marginalised families, who were statistically more at risk from the fallout of lockdowns, and supposedly represented by union interests.

From the infiltration of unions to the co-option of activism, a judge-led public enquiry in 2016 revealed 144 undercover police operations had infiltrated and spied on more than 1,000 political groups in long term deployments since 1968. With covert spymasters rising in the ranks to hold influential leadership positions, guiding policy and strategy, and in some cases, radicalising those movements from within to damage their reputation and weaken public support.

We also need to talk about big philanthropy.  George Soros’ Open Foundation is the largest global donor to the twenty-first century’s equivalent of activist groups. The agitprop used in the former Soviet Union evolved, overtime, into the masthead of Extinction Rebellion. A motley crew of eco-warriors courted by high profile financial donors and aligned ideologically with the very multinational energy corporations they are supposedly at odds with. The theory of climate change came out of the UN, organiser of COP20, for what reason ER had to protest the event is anyone’s guess.

ER doner, George Soros, is also a seed investor in Avaaz, often cited as the world’s largest and most powerful online activist network. When the US was on the brink of insurrection, following the first lockdown, Black Lives Matter entered the fray, not so much a grassroots movement, but a proxy for the Democrats to essentially redirect the public’s outrage against lockdowns into the wrong, established-endorsed cause.

Counterinsurgency in the US

In the US, COINTELPRO was a series of illegal operations conducted by the FBI between 1956-1971, to disrupt, discredit and neutralise anyone considered a threat to national security. In the loosest possible definition, this included members of the Women’s Liberation Movement and even the Boy Scouts of America.

And it wasn’t just the customary wiretapping, infiltration and media manipulation, the FBI committed blackmail and murder.

Take for example the infamous forced suicide letter addressed to Martin Luther King that threatened to release a sex tape of the civil rights leaders’ extramarital activities, unless he took his own life. Consider also the FBI’s assassination of Black Panther Party chairman Fred Hampton.

In the 1960’s a Washington Post expose by army intelligence whistle-blower, Christopher Pyle, revealed a massive surveillance operation run by the Army, called CONUS Intel, involving thousands of undercover military agents infiltrating and spying on virtually everybody active on what they deemed ‘civil disturbances.’ It turns out, many of those targeted had done nothing even remotely subversive, unless you consider attending a left-wing college presentation or church meeting, revolutionary.

These programs came to a head in the 1970’s, when an investigation by the US Senate, conducted by the Church Committee, uncovered decades of serious, systemic abuse by the CIA. This included intercepting the mail and eavesdropping on the telephone calls of civil rights and anti-war leaders over two decades. As if predicting the internet as an instrument for mass surveillance, Senator Frank Church warned that the NSA’s capabilities could “at any time could be turned around on the American people.”

And turned around they were.

USAGM

Before the internet, the deployment of PSYOPS was limited to legacy media and permitted only on foreign soil. But that all changed in 2013, when the government granted themselves permission to target ordinary Americans.

Conceived at the end of the cold war as the Broadcasting Board of Governors, USAGM is a lesser-known government agency charged with broadcasting thousands of weekly hours of US propaganda to foreign audiences, that has played a major role in pushing pro-American stories to former Soviet Bloc countries ever since Perestroika.

Ostensibly concerned with maintaining US interests abroad, USAGM is also the primary funder of the Tor Project since inception. Tor, also known as The Onion Browser, is the mainstay of encrypted, anonymous search used by activists, hackers, and the anonymous community, if you can get your head around the fact that the confidential internet activity of anarchists has been framed by a PSYOP since the get-go.

For decades an anti-propaganda law, known as the Smith-Mundt Act, made it illegal for the government to conduct PSYOPS against US citizens. But that all changed in 2013 when the National Defence Authorization Act repealed that law and granted USAGM a licence to broadcast pro-government propaganda inside the United States.

To what extent US citizens are being targeted by propaganda is anyone’s guess, since PSYOPS largely take place online, where it’s difficult to distinguish between foreign and domestic audiences.

What we do know is that in 2009 the military budget for winning hearts and minds at home and abroad had grown by 63% to $4.7 billion annually. At that time the Pentagon accounted for more than half the Federal Government’s  $1 billion PR Budget.

An Associated Press (AP) investigation in 2016 revealed that the Pentagon employed a staggering 40% of the 5,000 working in the Federal Government’s PR machines, with the Department of Defence, far and wide, the largest and most expensive PR operation of the United States government, spending more money on public relations than all other departments combined.

Things are not so different in the UK.

During COVID-19 the British government became the biggest national advertiser. Even Tik Tok and Snapchat were deployed by the Scottish government to push COVID PSYOPS to children.

Last year Boris Johnson announced record defence spending for an artificial intelligence agency and the creation of a national cyber force. That’s a group of militarised computer hackers to conduct offensive operations.

Offensive operations against who, you might ask.

Britain was not at war, but in an article for the Daily Mail last year, Britain’s top counter-terrorism officer, Neil Basu confirmed that the UK was waging an ideological war against anti-vaccination conspiracy theorists. Ideological wars of this nature typically take place online, where much of the government’s military budget was being spent.

Since the vaccine roll-out there has been a protracted effort to paint the 33% of British citizens who have a problem with lockdowns and vaccine mandates, as violent extremists, with one member of the commentariat drawing parallels with US style militias.

It doesn’t take a genius to see where this is heading.

The Facebook’s-Intelligence-Harvard Connection

Consistent with the opaque nature of Facebook’s origins, shortly after its launch in 2014, co-founders Mark Zuckerberg and Dustin Moskovitz brought Napster founder Sean Parker on board. At the age of 16, Parker hacked into the network of a Fortune 500 company and was later arrested and charged by the FBI.  Around this time Parker was recruited by the CIA.

To what end, we don’t know.

What we do know is that Parker brought Peter Thiel to Facebook as its first outside investor. Theil, who remains on Facebook’s board, also sits on the Steering Committee of globalist think tank, the Bilderberg Group. As previously stated, Thiel is the founder of Palantir, the spooky intelligence firm pretending to be a private company.

The CIA would join the FBI, DoD and NSA in becoming a Palantir customer in 2005, later acquiring an equity stake in the firm through their venture capital arm, In-Q-Tel.  At the time of his first meetings with Facebook, Theil had been working on resurrecting several controversial DARPA programs.

Which begs the question:  With intelligence assets embedded in Facebook’s management structure from the get-go, is everything as it seems at 1 Hacker Way?

According to Lauren Smith, writing for Wrong Kind of Green:

Some of Facebook’s allure to users is that Mark Zuckerberg and his friends started the company from a Harvard dorm room and that he remains the chairman and chief operating officer. If he didn’t exist, he would need to be invented by Facebook’s marketing department.”

By the same token, if Facebook didn’t exist it would need to be invented by the Pentagon.

To achieve this, you would need to embed government officials in Facebook’s leadership and governance. Cherry-picking your candidates from, say, the US Department of Treasury, and launching the platform from an academic institution, Harvard University, for example.

According to the official record, Zuckerberg built the first version of Facebook at Harvard in 2004. Like J.C.R Licklider before him, he was a psychology major.

Harvard’s President at that time was economist Lawrence Summers, a career public servant who served as Chief Economist at the World Bank, Secretary of the Treasury under the Clinton Administration, and 8th Director of the National Economic Council.

Now here’s where it gets interesting. Summers’ protege, Sheryl Sandberg, is Facebook’s COO since 2008. Sandberg was at the dials during the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and predictably, manages Facebook’s Washington relationships. Before Facebook, Sandberg served as Chief of Staff at the Treasury under Summers and began her career as an economist, also under Summer, at the World Bank.

Another Summers-Harvard-Treasury connection is Facebook’s Board Member, Nancy Killefer, who served under Summers as CFO at the Treasury Department.

It doesn’t end there. Facebook’s Chief Business Officer, Marne Levine also served under Summers at the Department of Treasury, National Economic Council and Harvard University.

The CIA connection is Robert M. Kimmet.  According to West Point, Kimmet “has contributed significantly our nation’s security…seamlessly blending the roles of soldier, statesman and businessman. In addition to serving on Facebook’s board of Directors, Kimmet is a National Security Adviser to the CIA, and the recipient of the CIA Director’s Award.

The icing on the cake, however, is former DAPRA Director, Regina Dugan, who joined Facebook’s hardware lab, Building 8, in 2016, to roll out number of mysterious DARPA funded-projects that would hack people’s minds with brain-computer interfaces.

Dugan currently serves as CEO of Welcome Leap. A technology spin-off of the world’s most powerful health foundation, concerned with the development Artificial Intelligence (AI), including transdermal vaccines. Welcome Leap brings DARPA’s military-intelligence innovation to “the most pressing global health challenges of our time,” called COVID-19.

Connecting the dots: Welcome Leap was launched at the World Economic Forum, with funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Its founder is Jeremy Ferrar, former SAGE member, long-time collaborator of Chris Witty and Neil Ferguson and the patsy taking the wrap for the Wuhan leak cover-up story.

George Carlin wasn’t joking when he said: ‘it’s one big club, and you’re not in it.’

As luck would have it, just before Duggan’s arrival at Facebook, the social media giant orchestrated the controversial mood manipulation PSYOP, known as the Social Contagion Study. The experiment would anticipate the role social media went onto play during the pandemic.

In the study, Facebook manipulated the posts of 700,000 unsuspecting Facebook users to determine the extent to which emotional states can be transmitted across social media. To achieve this, they altered the news feed content of users to control the number of posts that contained positive or negative charged emotions.

As you would expect, the findings of the study revealed that negative feeds caused users to make negative posts, whereas positive feeds resulted in users making positive posts. In other words, Facebook is not only a fertile ground for emotional manipulation, but emotions can also be contagious across its networks.

Once we understand this, it becomes clear how fear of a disease, which predominantly targeted people beyond life expectancy with multiple comorbidities who were dying anyway, spread like wildfire in the wake of the Wuhan Virus. In locking down the UK, Boris Johnson warned the British public that we would all lose family members to the disease.

When nothing could be further from the truth. The pandemic largely happened in the flawed doomsday modelling of epidemiologists, it happened across a corporate united in whipping up mass hysteria, and it happened on social media platforms like Facebook, where our social networks were weaponised as echo chambers of the fear-narrative. It wasn’t so much a pandemic, but the social contagion experiment playing out in real time.

But there was more than just social media manipulating our emotional states, fear, shame, and scapegoating was fife throughout as the British government deployed behavioural economics to, essentially, nudge the public towards compliance.

Launched under David Cameron’s Government, the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT), who are affectionately known as the Nudge Unit, are a team of crack psychologists and career civil servants tasked with positively influencing appropriate behaviour with tiny changes.

But according to whose measure of appropriate behaviour, exactly?

A clue lies in the fact that the Nudge Unit was directed by Sir Mark Sedwill during the first lockdown. He’s one of Britain’s most senior national security advisors with links to M15 and MI6.

Put another way, that’s an intelligence operative ruling the British people by psychological manipulation, though we are led to believe that in a democracy – government is an agency of the people and parliament is given force of law by the will of the people.

But what happens when our consent is manipulated by those in power?

One consequence is that the foxes take charge of the chicken coop. Another is that we begin to see drastic changes to the constitutional landscape, as politicians acquire impunity from public scrutiny and an entire nation is kept under house arrest.

But this demonisation of the masses is also the backwash of a protracted counterinsurgency crusade waged against ordinary folks. When the Berlin wall came down in the nineties and decades of counterinsurgency was rendered obsolete, the battlelines moved from East to the West, from the Soviets to the lower orders of society. The mythos of communist infiltration, that gave rise to the threat of terrorism, is the ancestor of today’s biosecurity state. A government that tightens its grip, using fear of a common enemy, will find no shortage of common enemies, to continue tightening its grip.

Conclusions

Strongarming the world’s population under the rubric of biosecurity would not have been possible without the internet, and if the expulsion of the military and intelligence community from academic institutions in the 1960’s had not resulted in the creation of Silicon Valley, they would not have acquired total information awareness, the precursor to the Green Pass.

But this formidable goal also caused the US to morph into the opponent it had been fighting during the cold war, as predicted by public intellectuals in the 1960s.

And so, with an annual budget of $750 billion and 23,000 military and civilian personnel in their employment, the Pentagon failed to denounce what many armchair researchers called out in the early days of the pandemic. That a global coup was underway was patently obvious, as crisis actors played dead in Wuhan, China.

Instead, those charged with protecting the west from Soviet-style putsch failed to apprehend it happening right under their noses. It’s not so much that they were caught with their trousers down, it’s that they aided and abetted the coop. Years of fighting a statist, expansionist adversary, caused the intelligence state to mutate into their nemesis, namely China.

It is uncanny that the country with the worst human rights record on earth become the global pacemaker for lockdowns, as western democracies exonerated their existential threat and bowed to China’s distinct brand of tyranny.

As a result, the big tech data analytics pioneered by Silicon Valley luminaries, that was road-tested in China, finally landed on the shorelines of western democracies.

Another story entirely is the infiltration of sovereign nation states by the United Nations, whose special agency, the WHO, sparked the events that would lead to the fall of the West. In keeping with tradition, the UN’s foundation at Bretton Woods was infiltrated by communist spies, driven by socialist values, and funded by powerful petroleum dollars. The same corporations looking to shore up new markets for their monopolies, who would leave their legacy to Silicon Valley.

In an ironic twist of fate, the intelligence state created at the end of world war II, under the National Security Act, conceived the very corporations that would bring about the end of constitutional democracy, that would author a new bill of rights from their own community standards de jour, and that would shift us from sovereign nation states to global governance, into the collectivist future the Pentagon had been charged with protecting us from.

Nowadays, it doesn’t matter if you’re in the dusty slew of a Calcutta slum or enjoying pristine views over Central Park, everyone is subject to the same scrutiny and surveillance, policed by the same community standards, manipulated by same algorithms, and indexed by the same intelligence agencies. No matter where you are, Silicon Valley is limiting what information you can see, share, communicate and learn from online. They are raising your kids, shaping your worldview and in the wake of COVID-19 and climate change, they have assumed the role of science administrator.

Founded on the principles of freedom of expression and heralded as a liberating new frontier for humanity, the internet has criminalised free speech, divorced is from our nature and ensnared us under a dragnet of surveillance.

But above all else, cyberspace has bought into existence a substructure of reality that is cannibalising the five-sensory world, while forcing humanity to embark on the greatest exodus in human history, from the tangible world to the digital nexus, from our real lives to the metaverse.

As Goethe quote goes ‘None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.’ Namely, anyone still looking through rose-tinted lens at the digital age, oblivious to the fact they are victims of systematic addiction. The bread and circuses of the internet influences the same dopamine rewards centres and neural circuitry motivators as slot machines, cigarettes, and cocaine, as was originally intended by psychologists like JCR Licklider, at the helm of this new technology that would exploit basic vulnerabilities in the human psyche.

And as we descend further into the maelstrom of the digital age, the algorithms will get smarter, the psychological drivers will become more persuasive and digital rubric will become more real. Until eventually we will lose touch with reality altogether.

But don’t worry, this war of attrition is happening in conjunction with the roll out of new software and devices, and most will be too busy building their digital avatars or dissenting on social media to know any better.

Dustin Broadbery is based in London and is interested in social theory and particularly how a mutual society could bring about great advancements in the social fabric. You can read more of his work at TheCogent.org and contact him through his Twitter.

Connect with OffGuardian

The Transhumanist Agenda & the Planned Digital Dictatorship

What You Need to Know About the Transhumanist Agenda

by Dr. Joseph Mercola
March 16, 2022



According to Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF), the goal of The Fourth Industrial Revolution¹ is to change what it means to be human by merging man and machine. In short, while the term “transhumanism” is not being used, that’s exactly where the global cabal intends to take us, willing or not.

In a November 2019 interview with CNN,² history professor and bestselling author Yuval Noah Harari, a Klaus Schwab disciple, warned that “humans are now hackable animals,” meaning, the technology now exists by which a company or government can know you better than you know yourself, and that can be very dangerous if misused.

He predicted that algorithms will increasingly be used to make decisions that historically have been made by humans, either yourself or someone else, including whether or not you’ll be hired for a particular job, whether you’ll be granted a loan, what scholastic curriculum you will follow and even who you will marry.

Profound Dangers Ahead

There’s also an ever-increasing risk of being manipulated by these outside forces that you’re not even fully aware of. Looking back over the last two years, it’s rather easy to confirm that mass manipulation is taking place at a staggering scale, and that it’s phenomenally effective.

As noted by Harari in 2019,³ the available capabilities already go far beyond Orwell’s “1984” authoritarian vision, and it’s only going to become more powerful from here. He’s certain that in short order, there will be the ability to monitor your emotional state through something as simple as a wearable wristband.

You may dutifully smile and clap when listening to a speech by a government official, but they’ll know you’re angry or don’t agree with what’s being said, and could therefore take action against you based on your most personal, internal emotions rather than what you outwardly express.

Importantly, Harari warned that if we allow the establishment of this kind of digital dictatorship, where the system, be it a corporation or a government, knows the most intimate details about each and every person, it will be impossible to dismantle it. Its control will be total and irreversible. And, Harari believes we may have only a decade, at most two, to prevent this digital dictatorship from taking over.

Reengineering Life Itself

Harari also discussed the coming transhumanism at the WEF’s 2020 annual meeting in Davos (above), and in this speech, he went even further. Not only does the global elite have the technological capability to create a global digital dictatorship, but “elites may gain the power to reengineer the future of life itself.”

“For four billion years, nothing fundamental changed in the basic rules of the game of life,” he said. “All of life was subject to the laws of natural selection and the laws of organic biochemistry. But this is now about to change.

Science is replacing evolution by natural selection with evolution by intelligent design, not the intelligent design of some god in the clouds, [but] OUR intelligent design, and the design of our ‘clouds,’ the IBM cloud, the Microsoft cloud. These are the new driving forces of evolution.”

It’s hard to determine whether Harari is for or against transhumanism. He speaks of it as an inevitability, and something that can be used for tremendous good. But he also recognizes its profound dangers, and seems to believe we need to discuss how these technological capabilities can be used, and whether they should.

In the featured Davos speech, it sounds as though he’s a proponent of this human intelligent design venture, but in his 2019 interview with CNN, he also stated that “we must never underestimate the stupidity of humans.” The fact that we have the technology to design new life forms, including new kinds of humans, does not necessarily mean that we’re smart enough to design something better than what natural evolution has come up with thus far.

In his Davos speech, Harari also pointed out that science is now enabling us to create life not only in the organic realm but in the inorganic realm as well. We’re talking about “living” robots and the like. He also raises the question as to who “owns” your DNA, if it can be charted and hacked. Does it belong to you, a corporation, or the government?

‘The Days of Free Will Are Over’

Whatever Harari’s true feelings about transhumanism, he emphatically states that the idea that we have a soul and free will, those days “are over.” In other clips that have been inserted into the featured video, Harari predicts that in the future, people will be able to look back and see that the COVID pandemic was the turning point where biological surveillance took over and became norm.

The explanation for how that was able to occur is given by Schwab, who has publicly admitted (see featured video) that participants in the WEF’s Young Global Leaders program have “penetrated the cabinets” of many world governments.

In Canada, for example, about half the politicians, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, have taken Schwab’s training. Schwab is all about ushering in transhumanism and changing what it means to be human, and his minions of global leaders are sure doing everything they can to make those dreams a reality. This is a dystopian future WEF and its global allies are actively trying to implement, whether humanity at large agrees with it or not.

Changing What It Means To Be Human



Schwab dreams of a world in which humans are connected to the cloud, able to access the internet through their own brains. This, of course, also means that your brain would be accessible to people who might like to tinker with your thoughts, emotions, beliefs and behavior, be they the technocratic elite themselves or random hackers.

If you believe that your thoughts and behavior are and always will remain under your own control, think again. We already have the technology to directly alter thoughts, emotions and behavior. Some of these capabilities are described in a 2021 project report by the U.K. Ministry of Defense, created in partnership with the German Bundeswehr Office for Defense Planning.

The report, “Human Augmentation — The Dawn of a New Paradigm, a Strategic Implications Project,”⁴ reviews the scientific goals of the U.K. and German defense ministries, and they are precisely what the title suggests. Human augmentation is stressed as being a key area to focus on in order to win future wars:⁵

“Human augmentation will become increasingly relevant, partly because it can directly enhance human capability and behavior and partly because it is the binding agent between people and machines.”

Key words I’d like to draw your attention to are the affirmation that human augmentation can “directly enhance behavior.” If you can enhance behavior, that means you can change someone’s behavior. And if you can change a person’s behavior in a positive way, you can also control it to the person’s own detriment.

Theoretically, absolutely anyone, any random civilian with a brain-to-cloud connection and the needed biological augmentation (such as strength or speed) could be given wireless instructions to carry out an assassination, for example, and pull it off flawlessly, even without prior training.

Alternatively, their physical body could temporarily be taken over by a remote operator with the prerequisite skills. Proof of concept already exists, and is reviewed by Dr. Charles Morgan, professor in the department of national security at the University of New Haven, in the lecture below. Using the internet and brain implants, thoughts can be transferred from one person to another. The sender can also directly influence the physical movements of the receiver.



Schwab dreams of a world in which humans are connected to the cloud, able to access the internet through their own brains. This, of course, also means that your brain would be accessible to people who might like to tinker with your thoughts, emotions, beliefs and behavior, be they the technocratic elite themselves or random hackers.

If you believe that your thoughts and behavior are and always will remain under your own control, think again. We already have the technology to directly alter thoughts, emotions and behavior. Some of these capabilities are described in a 2021 project report by the U.K. Ministry of Defense, created in partnership with the German Bundeswehr Office for Defense Planning.

Human augmentation can ‘directly enhance behavior.’ And if you can change a person’s behavior in a positive way, you can also control it to the person’s own detriment.

The report, “Human Augmentation — The Dawn of a New Paradigm, a Strategic Implications Project,”4 reviews the scientific goals of the U.K. and German defense ministries, and they are precisely what the title suggests. Human augmentation is stressed as being a key area to focus on in order to win future wars:5

“Human augmentation will become increasingly relevant, partly because it can directly enhance human capability and behavior and partly because it is the binding agent between people and machines.”

Key words I’d like to draw your attention to are the affirmation that human augmentation can “directly enhance behavior.” If you can enhance behavior, that means you can change someone’s behavior. And if you can change a person’s behavior in a positive way, you can also control it to the person’s own detriment.

Theoretically, absolutely anyone, any random civilian with a brain-to-cloud connection and the needed biological augmentation (such as strength or speed) could be given wireless instructions to carry out an assassination, for example, and pull it off flawlessly, even without prior training.

Alternatively, their physical body could temporarily be taken over by a remote operator with the prerequisite skills. Proof of concept already exists, and is reviewed by Dr. Charles Morgan, professor in the department of national security at the University of New Haven, in the lecture below. Using the internet and brain implants, thoughts can be transferred from one person to another. The sender can also directly influence the physical movements of the receiver.



Project Immortality

Historically, the striving for immortality has been a faith-based venture, based in the idea that the soul is immortal while the body perishes, which is a concept I am in complete alignment with. Transhumanists more or less reverse this idea. They discard the notion of soul altogether and aim for the preservation of the perceived personality, first through radical life extension of the physical body, and later through the transfer of brain data into a replacement form.

According to Dmitry Itskov, the Russian founder of the Immortality 2045 project,⁶ only 2% of people are ready to accept death — a statistic that he uses to justify the search for immortality through things like artificial organs, artificial body constructs, the simulation of mental processes and, ultimately, the transferring of one’s mind into an artificial carrier.

The goals of this project include not only the creation of the cybernetic technologies needed to achieve an immortal body, but also the creation of “a new philosophical paradigm for humanity.” Schwab has talked about the same thing, using the term “social contract” rather than “philosophical paradigm.”

The Immortality 2045’s vision, published in 2011, starts with the creation of the first robotic copy of a human body that can be remotely controlled by 2020. By 2025, they want an avatar into which the human brain can be transplanted at the end of life. By 2035, they want an avatar with a synthetic brain, into which the human personality can be transferred and, by 2045, they imagine a holographic-like avatar. Itskov says:⁷

“The aim of the first project, known as ‘Avatar,’ is the creation of a robot copy of a human being controllable through a ‘brain-computer’ interface. When I’m asked to give the gist of this project, I tell people to recall the film ‘Surrogates,’ which depicts a world in which every person has an artificial body that he controls remotely.

The makers of that blockbuster put an accent on the negative side of such a scenario. Nonetheless, the film’s highly graphic demonstration of the idea allows one to get an immediate sense of what it is.”

Does living through an avatar sound like a life devoid of spirituality to you? Not so, Itskov says, because by ending our dependency on our physical bodies, “many things will open up spiritually.” I have my doubts about that, as most spiritual adepts will tell you that being hooked on technology tends to hinder rather than elevate spiritual pursuits, which are most easily achieved by living simply, in close contact with the natural world.

I just don’t foresee being able to elevate spiritually when any number of outside parties can access your brain and dictate what you think, feel and believe. Transhumanists like Itskov tend to focus only on the perceived benefits of synthetic life. For example, he promises that his avatars will be affordable for everyone who wants them, regardless of income bracket.

Yet the WEF has clearly announced that by 2030, nobody will own anything, and while not clearly stated, that will likely even include your own body. So, to think that your avatar would be “yours” is probably unrealistic.

Looked at through the lens of the WEF’s Fourth Industrial Revolution, it seems the plan is for the elite to literally own all of humanity, which will be refashioned to their own liking. And, if people can be hacked and controlled remotely, then we can be sure they will be. That’s particularly true for synthetic or mechanical avatars that can’t “live” or remain “conscious” without a cloud connection.

Resource to Understand the Transhuman Agenda — Blockchained

Corey Lynn is a top-notch investigative journalist who covers topics the mainstream won’t touch, including the transhumanist agenda. On her website, Corey’s Digs,⁸ you can find select chapters from her book, “Global Landscape on Vaccine ID Passports.”

Chapter 4 in the book is titled “Blockchained,” which explains what digital identity is all about. Digital ID is not just a piece of identification, with which you can prove who you are. It will collect and monitor ALL of your data, from your personal finances, education, work history, GPS location 24/7, everything you’ve ever typed on your computer, your search history, social media presence, emotional status and physical biometrics, down to your DNA.

I will only cover a minor part of that chapter here, the part on human augmentation and artificial intelligence (AI), so for more, be sure to browse through her website or, better yet, read her book, which can be purchased on her site. The digital PDF is only $9.95 and a print copy is $19.95.

Big Data, Data Sharing and AI

Make no mistake, transhumanism is the ultimate goal of the technocratic elite, and both “big data” and AI are integral components of that. Without one or both of those, the transhumanist dream is dead in the water. The goal of transhumanism is undoubtedly why there’s been so much focus on those two areas in the first place.

So, remember, data gathering, data sharing and AI are not about making your life more convenient. They’re to make you obsolete. The intention is to replace you with a synthetic copy of you that can be remotely controlled.

In 2021, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), an intergovernmental organization that consists of 38 countries that work with various working groups and policy makers, issued a report on the “State of Implementation of the OECD AI principles.” So far, 46 countries have adopted these AI principles.

The strategy is to develop centralized repositories of public datasets in each country, and then enable public-private data sharing to build a vast network where each dataset is connected with all the others.

Biosecurity Will Be Used to Justify Surveillance Tyranny

Another report, by the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI), founded “to advance the development of artificial intelligence” and “comprehensively address the national security and defense needs of the United States,” highlights the need to combat digital disinformation and prioritizing biosecurity.

To help with that, a U.S. government-funded supercomputer is being set up at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory under the direction of the Department of Energy. This AI supercomputer can do more than 1 quintillion calculations per second.

Some of this data sharing is already taking place. As noted by Corey, NATO launched an in-house biometrics system for data sharing between nations in November 2020, and in May 2021, the U.S. military merged its biometrics-enabled watch list with the Department of Defense’s automated biometric identification system (ABIS).

“They are working on multi-modal fusion matching and improving biometric face-matching capability through AI and machine learning, and have already improved their long-range infrared cameras,” Corey writes. “Looking toward the near future, they are also focused on palm print biometrics, faces in crowds, integration to identify threats online, and non-traditional latent DNA collection.”

We Need Biometric Privacy Laws NOW

While surveillance science is moving at lightning speed, regulations and privacy laws are trailing at a snail’s pace. A federal biometric privacy bill, the National Biometric Information Privacy Act, was introduced in 2020 but didn’t go anywhere. As noted by Corey, it could be resurrected if enough people speak up.

In the U.S., a handful of states do have biometric privacy laws, Illinois’ being one of the strictest, but the vast majority have no such protections in place. As reported by Corey:

“The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) requires private entities to inform people in writing that their information is being collected and stored, what the purpose is, and term for collection and storage, and must secure a written release from the person.

Those same private entities are not allowed to sell, lease, trade, or profit from a person’s biometric information. A person may file suit at $1,000 for each negligent violation or $5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation, plus attorneys’ fees and costs. Actual harm is not required to establish standing.”

Clearly, we need these kinds of protections everywhere, in all states and all countries, because as it stands, the global cabal of transhumanist technocrats are building a data-sharing system that is intended to become global. The lack of legal protections against data collection, analysis and sharing is what allows this reckless expansion of surveillance. As noted by Corey:

“If it’s not crystal clear by now, globalists and eugenicists (sometimes one in the same) are running the show, and they are working very hard at achieving their ultimate desires of a controlled human race, evolution of transhumanism with a strong artificial intelligence taking the place of many humans, while they fly to Mars during their years of immortality, and observe humanity through endless surveillance systems. But their dream only becomes a reality if people allow it to.”

• ¹ WEF The Fourth Industrial Revolution
• ^2, 3 CNN November 26, 2019
• ^4, 5 Human Augmentation — The Dawn of a New Paradigm, a Strategic Implications Project May 2021
• ^6, 7 2045.com October 16, 2011
• ⁸ Corey’s Digs

Connect with Dr. Joseph Mercola

cover image credit: geralt / pixabay

Anti-Russia? Try This On for Size

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
March 16, 2022

The prodigious author and researcher, Antony Sutton (1925-2002), wrote about hidden men behind momentous events.

In 1999, Kris Millegan, researcher and head of TrineDay publishers, wrote:

“Antony C. Sutton, 74, has been persecuted but never prosecuted for his research and subsequent publishing of his findings. His mainstream career was shattered by his devotion towards uncovering the truth. In 1968, his Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development was published by The Hoover Institute at Stanford University. Sutton showed how the Soviet state’s technological and manufacturing base, which was then engaged in supplying the North Vietnamese the armaments and supplies to kill and wound American soldiers, was built by US firms and mostly paid for by the US taxpayers. From their largest steel and iron plant, to automobile manufacturing equipment, to precision ball-bearings and computers, basically the majority of the Soviet’s large industrial enterprises had been built with the United States help or technical assistance.”

Here is a telling Antony Sutton quote from his book, The Best Enemy Money Can Buy (1986):

“By using data of Russian origin it is possible to make an accurate analysis of the origins of this equipment. It was found that all the main diesel and steam-turbine propulsion systems of the ninety-six Soviet ships on the Haiphong supply run [to the North Vietnamese] that could be identified (i.e., eighty-four out of the ninety-six) originated in design or construction outside the USSR. We can conclude, therefore, that if the [US] State and Commerce Departments, in the 1950s and 1960s, had consistently enforced the legislation passed by Congress in 1949, the Soviets would not have had the ability to supply the Vietnamese War – and 50,000 more Americans and countless Vietnamese would be alive today.”

“Who were the government officials responsible for this transfer of known military technology? The concept originally came from National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger, who reportedly sold President Nixon on the idea that giving military technology to the Soviets would temper their global territorial ambitions. How Henry arrived at this gigantic non sequitur is not known. Sufficient to state that he aroused considerable concern over his motivations. Not least that Henry had been a paid family employee of the Rockefellers since 1958 and has served as International Advisory Committee Chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank, a Rockefeller concern.”

If you think such traitorous actions could never have occurred, I point you to another researcher, Charles Higham, and his 1983 classic, Trading with the Enemy.

Higham focuses on World War 2. The men behind the curtain Higham exposed are in the same basic group that Antony Sutton exposed.

Higham, Trading with the Enemy:

“What would have happened if millions of American and British people, struggling with coupons and lines at the gas stations, had learned that in 1942 Standard Oil of New Jersey [part of the Rockefeller empire] managers shipped the enemy’s [Germany’s] fuel through neutral Switzerland and that the enemy was shipping Allied fuel? Suppose the public had discovered that the Chase Bank in Nazi-occupied Paris after Pearl Harbor was doing millions of dollars’ worth of business with the enemy with the full knowledge of the head office in Manhattan [the Rockefeller family among others?] Or that Ford trucks were being built for the German occupation troops in France with authorization from Dearborn, Michigan? Or that Colonel Sosthenes Behn, the head of the international American telephone conglomerate ITT, flew from New York to Madrid to Berne during the war to help improve Hitler’s communications systems and improve the robot bombs that devastated London? Or that ITT built the FockeWulfs that dropped bombs on British and American troops? Or that crucial ball bearings were shipped to Nazi-associated customers in Latin America with the collusion of the vice-chairman of the U.S. War Production Board in partnership with Goering’s cousin in Philadelphia when American forces were desperately short of them? Or that such arrangements were known about in Washington and either sanctioned or deliberately ignored?”

Getting the picture?

War, what is it good for? With the same elites backing both sides, it’s good for business. It’s good for creating chaos and destruction. It’s good for launching new global organizations, in the aftermath; organizations that exert a level of control and reach that didn’t exist before. It’s good for launching organizations like the United Nations and the European Union and the World Trade Organization—dedicated to Globalism, which in turn is dedicated to planned civilization, in which the individual is demeaned and the group is All.

Freedom is demeaned; and dominance by the few over the many is hailed as peace in our time.

Connect with Jon Rappoport

cover image credit: FelixMittermeier / pixabay

Witness Exposes False Flag Operation In Ukraine

by Patrick Lancaster
March 11, 2022



Original video available at Patrick Lancaster YouTube channel.

English subtitles for Russian part of the video:

“How is the situation?”

“Anxious, of course. We still hear the shelling somewhere around. Thanks God, everything is calm here.”

“Recently Ukraine controlled everything here, right?”

“Of course, Ukrainian army is shelling. It was a Ukrainian army.”

“And how was it like during that time?”

“How was it? Two tanks were driving. I saw that with my own eyes because I was on the street. Two Ukrainian tanks were driving. The third tank stopped a little; it lagged behind them. Two of them jumped up the mountain with crazy speed and the third began to shell the village.

“It fired its grenades three times, or whatever the tanks shoots. It hit that way twice, and the third time it destroyed a corner of the kindergarten. I saw this with my own eyes because I ran to the basement.”

“So you claim that Ukrainian tank was firing to a Ukrainian village themselves, right?”

“Yes, they have been firing at our village.”

“But they have been in control of it. How is it possible?”

“How is it possible? How do they do it all the time? They make destruction on purpose. If you have come here to fight, why do you destroy houses?

“And here are simple houses. Why do they do it? And also we had a crazy fight here in the center. And I’m telling you, it was 100% provocation. Here, near the village council, there was an armored personnel carrier. It contained a Russian uniform and rations.

“Why the hell would this Russian armored personnel carrier hide here and shoot at its own Russians, if they took a position there. Russian lads, seven tanks near the well took up a position there. And these idiots jumped out from Balka, from Bakhchevik and did a provocation here. And they left their Javilins here.”

“It was a provocation. Who…”

“Of course! It was a provocation by Ukrops. A real one. I’ll tell you now, my husband served in the tank troops. Tankers are never given a spare uniform for a tank. So they got into their tank, and took a spare uniform with them. What kind of idiocy is this?

“Do they think we are all morons?”

“So you are saying that it was a Ukrainian tank.”

“Yes, the left from Balka. I guess you don’t know the area. They came out of the Balka and made a provocation. And the Russian tanks stood there on a hillock where the well was, and they fired over there. And these here did a provocation. They wanted others to believe that it was the Russians who did this here. I saw with my own eyes.”

“As a false flag, right?”

“Of course, yes. As a false flag. I was in the center and saw it all. I’ve been sitting in the basement for two hours. I sit and then I go out to look.”

“What do you think, why did they do it?”

“Because they don’t need us. We are not needed. They want everything to look as if Putin has done all of it.”

“And what did they do? Tell me again.”

“They have been doing a provocation. I’m 100% sure.”

“What kind?”

“Oh god. While I’m telling you this, they distribute humanitarian aid. Our seven tanks reached the well, took up defensive positions in that directions, because there was Volnovakha and the Ukrainian army was further there.

“So those seven tanks took up defensive positions. Three tanks went a little further away, and the other two tanks in a slightly different direction, because their angle of fire is different. The tank has a straight muzzle, it does not rise like that. Yes, I know it all.

“And the Ukrainian army…they had two armored personnel carriers, one of them was here and the other one near a hospital. So they came from Balka, from over there. And they started…If that were Russians, why the hell would they fire the other Russians? Isn’t that right? It’s all clear.”

“So here they had a fight. They fired from different machine guns. Then, when everything was already quiet, we went out to look and here was this armored personnel carrier, which propped up the village council. Our lads climbed in and said that ‘it is a Russian, here is a Russian uniform, Russian rations’. It’s all nonsense. It was Ukraine who was trying to do the provocation.

“Then, when everything calmed down here a little, our tanks, which were shooting back there, went to the quarry and gave hit to Bakhchevik, because all those whores who came to us were sitting there. They calmed them there and everything became peaceful.”

“The Ukrainian army was quickly driven away from you here, right?”

“Quickly! Well done lads, very fast. It was very scary, but they quickly did it.”

“And how did the Ukrainian military behave?”

“Well, you know…What can I tell you? I didn’t communicate with them.”

“What is your name?”

“Oh god! My name is Lyuda.”

“And your surname?”

“Vodneva.”

“Thank you. Where are we now?”

“We are at the village of Anadol, it is in the Donetsk region at Volnovakha district. Everyone is alive and safe. Of course, we have losses, we have suffered houses.

“Well, I think that everything will recover with time. In general, everyone lives, only frightened. But thank God.”

“What do you want it to be here, Donestsk People’s Republic or what?”

“Yes, we are for Donetsk, for DPR, for Russia. Because this country will never leave us. This is a big country and it will not let us fall.”

“Thank you.”

[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light Odysee, BitChute, Rumble and Brighteon channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]

Connect with Patrick Lancaster at Telegram

Illusion Warfare Report: The Road to Ukraine

by Lez Luthor via Twitter
[TCTL editor’s note: This is a Twitter thread, not an edited article.]

Illusion Warfare Report:
The Road to Ukraine.

-Join me as i LARP my way onto the Hollywood movie set we know as Ukraine.

Will the matrix allow me to peak behind the curtains of a manufactured and manipulated world staged event?

The Journey begins…

On the 3/3 I took a flight from Luton, England to Krakow, Poland.

Via Poland seemed the easiest way into the Ukraine.

Note: all the 33’s.



Evan tho unvaxxed, I entered Poland with ease on the condition I left within 24 hours.

So I wasted no time, and took a train from Krakow to Przemysl.

The only sign of WAR was the name of the cafe’



Lights, Camera….ACTION!!!

Przemysl Train Station (the Refugee movie set)

A well planned stage managed route ensures the Ukrainians arriving are bottled necked and compressed into the ticket hall so the media can create the illusion of ‘hell on Earth’.



Visual effects are key!

Outside the Refugee train station, police vehicles leave the lights flashing.

Every 20 minutes, the sirens turn on and vehicle does a loop around the block.



Stage Management …

The ‘Video Village’ of Przemysl.
Here we find the director and producer of the refugee movie.

All staged photos need good lighting.



I am unable to find a hostel or hotel,
full of refugees you ask?

No! All the hotels in this town are taken up by the press

Whilst these scumbags sleep in luxury, poor Ukrainians are left to sleep at the railway station.

Creating more staged photo opportunities for the press



1min walk away from the movie set…

Life is normal.



Creating a Scene??

Here you can see how perfectly fine doors are blocked by signs and volunteers(aka stage hands)…

Bottle necking everyone through one door, the camera crews set up to capture this manufacturing chaos for the cameras.



Strike a pose…

You larp as a photographer, il larp as a young man heading off to war.



The train into Lviv, Ukraine.



Lviv, Ukraine(Railway station)… another movie set.

I arrive around 2am, I help an old lady with her bags as she seeks information on travel to her home town of Odessa.

Once she is sorted with tickets I take a closer look around.

(The 33 continues to follow me)



Lviv Railway station…

Manufactured chaos once again, a curfew is enforced form 8pm till 8am meaning travellers can’t leave the station and are forced into participating the fully immersive 4D crisis experience, complete with props like the TRASH CAN FIRE.



The train into Kyiv

-I talked my way onto the overnight train.

(Around £5 and a warm place to sleep).

There are many Ukrainians heading back in.



Just for the record, you can just buy a regular train ticket into Kyiv, either online or at the station.

Trains are running as normal.

(4th March I arrived)



Filming around Kyiv train station was near impossible.

Talking/texting on the phone was ok.

The moment you turned the phone into the filming position… Agent Smiths with guns would appear.

(Agent Smith=Government/police)

I got pulled aside twice within 10mins.

So I left.



I take a walk to the supermarket, no signs of a war yet.

Only the very familiar feeling of a LOCKDOWN, is this the result of war? Or is this the government and corporations creating the illusion of a war to economically force People out of the city?



The Media claimed intense fighting had reached Kyiv.

I walk the street and see no evidence of this as of yet.

(6th of March)



My first Air raid siren… and no one cares.

Audio sound effects are another way to create the illusion of war.

(6th of March)



Illusion warfare tactics…

Shut everyone inside for a curfew and blast sirens across the city to scare the shit out of people.

(There is never a follow up explosion)



Everyone told me “there is no hotels or hostels in Kyiv, it’s a war zone!!”…

Truth, there is an abundance of places to stay!!

I picked a cheap hostel as I’m on a budget.

(so everyone understands, im a night club bouncer with about £1000 to my name).

Each day I wake up, grab a coffee and continue to walk the streets in search of a War.

I gave up on taxi drivers on day one, they wanted cash (which is hard to find in Kyiv as all ATMs are dry) but understandably they didn’t want the attention of driving a foreigner to Irpin.

Kyiv, Ukraine.

grannies walk their dogs as normal, the reporters wear flak Jackets.

The city of Kyiv is now a Movie set…

Come experience the illusion of war as we walk though the Hollywood set know as Kyiv.

PROPS such as abandoned cars, blockades and checkpoints are placed around the city by the visual effects team for a fully immersive 4D experience.

Tip: Always carry an item and receipt whilst walking around a movie set like Kyiv.

(There are many Agent Smiths in blacked out vehicles driving around)

There is lots of food in Kyiv!

If there are people in the city that can’t eat it’s more likely because they have been economically destroyed by the government shutting down any way to earn a living.

Alcohol has been prohibited.

I walk in the direction of Irpin and come across this hospital, there’s armed guards outside so I film the side.

Irpin is a 30min drive away, wouldn’t there be sounds of war? And wounded soldiers?

(Just think with this blank canvas how much digital overlay fakery is possible)

I walk and walk, getting onto the Irpin film set is near impossible.

The metro is open and running but has armed police that want to search you before entry.

It’s ‘papers please’ even for regular Ukrainians.

Kaboom!!!! Has a bomb lander close by????

No, the boiler fell off the wall and the water is spraying across the shower room slowly flooding the 1st floor.

Good news is I get moved to a room with a heater. Nearly had room 33.

The 8th of March…

And blizzard with coffee to start the morning.

After endless walking around the city for the past few days, I decide to revisit Kyiv’s main train station.

Another manipulated crisis situation that could be avoided if the government really cared about its people.

Still no visible signs of a war in the city.

Kyiv is the big cheese is this illusion, I have no interest in the hundreds of ex soviet empty and derelict villages.

The military has been using those villages for target practice and war games since the USSR fell.

The more people that leave Kyiv the more the city becomes a blank canvas… just think how many ‘soldiers fighting’ they could digitally add to this scene.

“The noose is tightening around the capital” -a reporter in Kyiv train station wearing a flak jacket whilst nobody else is.

It’s true, the station was mad busy a few days ago, but he has perfectly placed himself on the walk way, the lower levels are empty these days.

The Q(ueue) movement in Kyiv…

I would encourage people to look up ‘The Art of Queueing’…
Disney has invested billions into the psychological research of Queueing.

Queueing is a demoralising activity and very important in all PSYCHOLOGY OPERATIONS.

https://www.artsprofessional.co.uk/magazine/good-read/art-queueing



And ACTION!!
(Cue the Tank??)

One tank drives down the street.
Do you think he’s just driving the long way to the front lines?

Or is this part of the illusion? ordering one tank down the street to scare people.

Believe it not, whilst I was filming this I had an army guy walking 2 steps behind me (I didn’t know of course).

He asked what I was doing here. I just replied “google said there is a supermarket close by, do you know where it is?”

(He spoke good English, he was a nice guy)

Running out of food they say….

Or maybe they are not aloud to work and earn money?
Maybe their right to ignore this and carry on living has been taken away.

Maybe the innocent Ukrainians are being economically forced into LARPing this war.

Filmed on the 9th of March.

The Battle for Kyiv.

Active fighting has hit the streets they said.

Russian tanks rolling in they said.

I beg to differ good sir.

Followup tweets by Lez Luthor in response to comments:

So a mass of people are fleeing Kyiv, they decide to put on a reduced train service,
And of course the mainstream media will feast on the manufactured chaos.

-we are all waiting so long we have time to switched over to a diesel train, Ukrainians say it’s faster (sorry Greta) pic.twitter.com/ISTeBt3IEw

— ILLUSION WARFARE (@LezLuthor) March 12, 2022

This ain't my first rodeo…

I also lived in Egypt during the revolution and worked in a hospital during the scamdemic.
Born and bred in London with the non stop illusion of terrorism from the IRA and Islamic extremists.

All war is illusion. https://t.co/kcQLdBeSv3

— ILLUSION WARFARE (@LezLuthor) March 12, 2022

🎯
The illusion manifests into a real human response. https://t.co/7teXRURi20

— ILLUSION WARFARE (@LezLuthor) March 12, 2022

https://twitter.com/LezLuthor/status/1502593749276315648?cxt=HHwWgMCytbnDpNopAAAA

So a mass of people are fleeing Kyiv, they decide to put on a reduced train service,
And of course the mainstream media will feast on the manufactured chaos.

-we are all waiting so long we have time to switched over to a diesel train, Ukrainians say it’s faster (sorry Greta) pic.twitter.com/ISTeBt3IEw

— ILLUSION WARFARE (@LezLuthor) March 12, 2022

10 hours later we finally leave Kyiv.

Whilst on the train I chat to regular Ukrainians, they tell me that actually the train service is always terrible (regardless of the phoney war)

Quote ‘the train could leave in 1 minute or 10 hours, you just don’t know” pic.twitter.com/Pz7nbqHSwR

— ILLUSION WARFARE (@LezLuthor) March 12, 2022

Follow Lez Luthor on Twitter

cover image based on creative commons work of mohamed_hassan

The Road to Manzanar: The Story of an American Internment Camp (Documentary)

by Melissa Dykes, Truthstream Media
March 8, 2022

I put together this documentary on the Manzanar War Relocation Center in California — one of ten internment camps the Army used to house Japanese-Americans without charge or trial after the bombing of Pearl Harbor during WWII. We happened to pass by Manzanar off the side of the road during a filming road trip back in 2020 prior to the lockdowns and when I saw the guard tower at the entrance to a national park, I had no idea what it was.

Despite having earned a master’s degree, I had never been taught about the history of Japanese-American internment in school, and that includes completing two university level American history classes (one of which specifically covered WWII supposedly in-depth). I wouldn’t learn about this dark chapter in American history until years later during my own history research. Why wasn’t this ever taught?

What follows is one of the saddest pieces I have ever made, but I think people need learn about this, so history doesn’t get to repeat these human rights violations on the next “minority” simply because of the majority’s hysteria and fear.

Watching now. Pretty wild to think I would have been hauled away living where I am right now in the 1940’s https://t.co/fve6DtDxvy

— Gonz (@FaceLikeTheSun) March 8, 2022



Video available at Truthstream Media Odysee and YouTube

Connect with Truthstream Media

DuckDuckGo Search Engine Is Now Manipulating Results — Brave Search and Presearch Are Still Committed to Providing Unbiased Search Results

by Tom Parker, Reclaim the Net
March 10, 2022

After DuckDuckGo announced that it would be abandoning its years-long commitment to “unbiased” search results by down-ranking “Russian disinformation,” two alternative search engines, Brave Search and Presearch, have committed to not censoring their search results.

Brendan Eich, the CEO of Brave Software (the company behind the privacy-focused Brave browser, Brave Search, and other products), told journalist and producer Naomi Brockwell that Brave Search doesn’t censor its results and detailed how Brave Search is expanding its own search index.

Currently, over 90% of Brave Search’s queries are provided by its independent search index which was built from scratch. Eich noted that Brave Search currently relies on Bing for the less than 10% of queries where it doesn’t have good results and acknowledged that this fallback “could be censored.”

“We’ll get to full independence,” Eich added. “Fallback necessary rn, but fades.”

Eich continued by noting that Brave Search has an “Info” link above each search results page (which shows whether all the search results on the page came from the Brave Search index) and a “Search results independence” percentage in Brave Search’s settings (which shows the percentage of all Brave Search results that currently come from its independent index).

Presearch, a private, decentralized, blockchain-powered search engine, also tweeted that it “doesn’t censor.”

Presearch added: “That’s the power of decentralized, unbiased search. The need for decentralized, unbiased search will only grow from here.”

As Presearch notes in its tweets, its search indexes are built and hosted by a decentralized network of node operators. It’s also open-source which means users can contribute code that’s shown its search results pages.

In addition to the commitment to not censoring their results, both search engines have several unique aspects and features that enhance your search experience.

Brave Search has search shortcuts (which let you quickly jump to search results on a specific site), visual autosuggest, search filters (that let you filter by format, date, country, and more), featured snippets, and shelves that highlight recent news and videos.

Presearch has an integrated PRE cryptocurrency that’s used to reward node operators and users and can be staked by advertisers who want to display ads against specific keywords. It also has knowledge panels, a news shelf, a video shelf, quick links to related articles and related searches, search filters (that let you filter by image, video, or news), and quick links for conducting your searches via other sites.

You can start searching with Brave Search here.

You can start searching with Presearch here.

Connect with Reclaim the Net

The Great Reset is The Great Con

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
March 11, 2022

More than a year ago, I pointed out that you shouldn’t look for logic in trying to figure out why COVID necessitates The Great Reset.

It’s a hustle, and not a very good one.

The main PR grifter, Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, points to the devastating economic consequences stemming from the pandemic. THAT’S why we have to reorder the whole planet.

But digging down a few inches below his bloviation, we see this: the economic devastation equals THE LOCKDOWNS.

In other words, the lockdown policy of governments brought on the economic horror story—and now, to correct THAT action—which never should have been taken in the first place—we have to transform the world by putting Globalists in complete control.

If you buy that line of thought, I have condos for sale on Jupiter.

Here is another translation of what Schwab is saying: With people reeling from the COVID restrictions, Globalists can pull a smoke and mirrors act and steal everything they haven’t already stolen.

Schwab then follows this up with a new pile of gibberish about turning corporations into “stakeholder capitalists.”

Meaning: These companies would care more about their workers, their communities, their environmental impacts, and the planet.

The vague generalities are a tip-off. Somebody is going to have to define them and enforce them. That would be…who? A bureaucracy of vast size working for a global governance body.

If you have faith in such a system, I’m selling all of Jupiter. Cash only, up front.

A word about environmental impacts. If polluting corporations themselves weren’t controlling national departments of justice, we would already have a far cleaner environment. And many corporate CEOs—friends of Schwab—would be in prison.

Transforming “the global order” isn’t going to solve environmental problems. Reducing “our carbon footprint” by lowering energy production across the world—thus creating more poverty—isn’t a solution.

The need for a Reset doesn’t flow from COVID. The false pandemic was launched SO THAT a Reset could be ushered in.

Unfortunately, we have millions and millions of rubes and yokels who—when billionaires say LOVE AND PEACE and WE’RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER—get down on their knees and exclaim FINALLY, A BETTER WORLD.

What would that better world actually consist of?

Wall to wall surveillance; universal guaranteed income tied to social credit score; elimination of private property; massive censorship; freezing and seizure of bank accounts; technologies deployed to re-program humans—this “Great Reset” is—miracle of miracles—a set of plans that sprang to life full-blown in the minds of Humanitarian Leaders AFTER COVID was announced in January of 2020.

Sure. You bet. Uh-huh.

The oldest con of cons is bait and switch.

Bait people with a story about a virus, and then while you’re “protecting them” from the fairy tale germ, switch over to the Reset. And say, “Don’t worry, it’s part of the protection.”

Here’s an argument mentally challenged people are fond of making: If you sincerely and earnestly want a better planet, that’s all that counts. The details, and who will take charge in creating that planet, are of minor importance. Leave the job to the experts.

But wishing doesn’t make it so. Generalities don’t automatically translate into desired outcomes.

How do you think leaders have always conned their followers? By promising them pain, suffering, poverty, and slavery? Leaders offer peace and happiness. They have to. The happiness will come in this life or the next. And it will be managed by entities the leaders promote.

Even when the manager is God Himself, it’s not your God, it’s the God in the stories the political leaders tell. He’s the one they want you to worship. They know you have your own, and they try to make you believe theirs and yours are the same.

They say there is a Plague in the land, and God or the Devil or Nature or a Lab sent it; and just over the horizon sits the overarching Answer; the beautiful Dawn. The Promise.

But it’s not the Promise in your heart. It’s the one in theirs.

So use your power to look into their hearts.

See what’s there.

Connect with Jon Rappoport

cover image credit: Prawny / pixabay

Project Veritas: Pulitzer Prize Winner Reveals More About “Tug of War” Inside the NY Times, Mentioning CIA & NSA Sources

New York Times Reporter Discusses CIA / NSA Sources; ‘Ridiculous Pee Tape Didn’t Exist’ … ‘Crazier Leftist Sh*t’ Influences Reporting

by James O’Keefe, Project Veritas
March 9, 2022

• Rosenberg on infamous pee tape: “It involved CIA and NSA. It involved Trump and involved that ridiculous, like, ‘pee tape’, which of course doesn’t exist.”

• Rosenberg: “I think there’s like a real internal tug of war [at NYT] between, like the reasonable people and some of the crazier leftist sh*t that’s worked its way in there.”

• Rosenberg said his colleagues at the NYT were “not the clearest thinkers, some of them” before calling the people that end up at the paper “very neurotic people.”

• Rosenberg on colleague Adam Goldman: “He’s a terrible writer…He’s just not good at conceptualizing things. He’s not good with words. It’s a skill. It’s a hard one.”

• Rosenberg on the NYT’s ongoing lawsuit with Project Veritas: “James O’Keefe, that was a f*ck up. We may well lose that one.”

[NEW YORK – Mar. 9, 2022] Project Veritas released part 2 of its series on NYT reporter, Matthew Rosenberg, on Wednesday night. This story focused on statements Rosenberg makes about what happens inside the New York Times as well as his confidential sources in agencies like the CIA and NSA.



One of the most surprising moments of the footage was Rosenberg speaking about his confidential sources, including the source of what Rosenberg calls “that ridiculous, like pee tape.”

Rosenberg is likely referring to Buzzfeed’s 2017 publishing of sections of an unverified intelligence report on former President Trump’s relationship with Russia, frequently referred to as the “Steele dossier.” The “Steele dossier” claimed that a tape existed of Trump engaging in lewd acts while visiting Russia, but Rosenberg tells a Project Veritas undercover reporter that the tape “doesn’t exist.”

Rosenberg also discussed what happens in the newsroom at the New York Times revealing that there is “a real internal tug of war between, like the reasonable people and some of the crazier leftist sh*t that’s worked its way in there.”

Rosenberg added, “They’re not the majority, but they’re very vocal, loud minority that dominate social media and, therefore, has just hugely outsized influence.” Rosenberg also said he thinks this is “alienating” its subscribers who he describes as “prosperous.”

Rosenberg then said his colleagues at the NYT are “bullies” and “not the clearest thinkers, some of them” before calling the people that end up at the paper “very neurotic people.”

Rosenberg, who’s been with the New York Times for over a decade, also spent some time discussing one colleague in particular, Adam Goldman, saying, “He’s a terrible writer…He’s just not good at conceptualizing things. He’s not good with words. It’s a skill. It’s a hard one.” Rosenberg added that “editors do all his writing for him.”

After going deeper into the internal schism at the New York Times, Rosenberg commented on the Times’ ongoing legal fight with Project Veritas. “James O’Keefe, that was a f*ck up. We may well lose that one,” said Rosenberg.

When interviewed by James O’Keefe, Rosenberg said he “absolutely” stands by the comments made in the undercover footage.

See also:

NYT Reporter: Jan 6 Media ‘Overreaction,’ FBI Involved; Traumatized Colleagues are “Fu*king Bit*hes” 



NYT Reporter tells O’Keefe he “Absolutely” stands by comments made on undercover video



Connect with Project Veritas

What’s Next: CIA a Shining Star? The New Blitz of Wartime Propaganda. What’s the End Game?

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
March 10, 2022

Note to readers: I reached the payoff to this article, at the end, by working my way through the weeds, at the beginning. I considered editing out the beginning and middle and cutting right to the chase, but I decided exposing the whole trip was worth it. Sometimes you hack enough stuff away in the woods and you come to a clearing…

As I’ve recently explained, we’re supposed to make a key (and ridiculous) distinction between war and foreign policy.

War is big, brassy, out front. Foreign policy is dark, slippery, unknowable—and never probed by the news.

Here are a few examples of US foreign policy from something called history. See if this looks like war:

1949: Colonel Adib Shishakli backed by CIA in a coup in Syria. Shishakli took over the presidency four years later.

1953: the CIA staged a coup and overthrew Mohammad Mosaddegh, the prime minister of Iran.

1954: the CIA staged a coup and overthrew of the president of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz.

1960: The CIA backed the overthrow of Patrice Lumumba, the Prime Minister of the Congo Republic.

There is much, much more, but you get the idea.

Foreign policy. Don’t worry your pretty little heads about it. It’s not war. Of course not. The US only engages in war when it has to. When it’s provoked by some evil enemy. The US does NOT continuously wage war. The CIA media make sure we understand this.

For years, reports have been surfacing about the CIA training “insurgents” in the Ukraine. These groups are also called neo-Nazis. Let’s see, hmm. What would this foreign policy move be all about?

An attempt to goad Putin into a war? An attempt to create an international force labeled “white supremacists”—as a prelude to a new level of US “anti-terror” operations?

In the latter case, the CIA could take the lead in attacking the force it helped to nurture.

If you don’t have enough enemies, you need to invent them.

What’s the main point here? The massive current propaganda push to demonize Russia conveniently overlooks the fact that the US has been waging overt and covert war (foreign policy) for a very long time. Non-stop.

But the US government and the CIA media are now trying to install some kind of patriotism based on a very old concept: WE are always innocent; THEY are always guilty.

A concept of innocence is sorely needed these days. Forget the pandemic and the vast criminality associated with it. Forget the George Floyd riots and lootings and killings in several hundred US cities. Let’s wipe the slate clean. Let’s all rally behind the notion that we’re RIGHT and GOOD and JUST and Russia is the Devil.

Hey, the Roman Church wrote the book on that. It used it to justify Inquisitions, torture, and murder. INNOCENTLY undertaken, on behalf of God.

If you’ve been following the news lately, you’ve been seeing the same pattern that emerged after the initial announcement of the pandemic in 2020: WALL TO WALL MESSAGING.

An overnight unified response: “Virus deadly, we lock down.”

An overnight unified response. “We good and innocent, Russia Devil.”

You don’t achieve that kind of coverage spontaneously. You have a structure. You have many, many people in key positions on board.

What’s the end game?

There are lots of possibilities, lots of speculations. But one stands out boldly. When you poke conflicting parties so they go up against each other (Russia-US), you’re looking for an overarching “solution” in the aftermath. Something that creates a larger organization than the one you started with. An organization you control.

In this case, the solution would be “a new level and system of cooperation” in the area of currency, money, banking.

“No one wants to see this sort of interference in another nation’s banking again. It’s corrosive and disruptive, and The People suffer as a result. Therefore, the new agreements are extremely positive. They prove once more that the world is interdependent; what hurts one hurts all…”

A currency reset.

Brought to you by the World Economic Forum, acting on behalf of the biggest banks on Earth.

Notice the clever transition that would be engineered in the US. Starting with a crazed cartoon of intense nationalistic patriotism and a fitting enemy—Russia—we wind up with “greater global closeness than ever previously achieved.”

The “peace treaty” is always a source of astonishing grift and con and hustle at high levels.

Let’s go back in time. A year or two. Because there was a PRELUDE to all this:

People and platforms who were labeled racist or extremist had their bank accounts frozen or seized. They couldn’t find banks who would do business with them.

What a concept! It was a bit alarming. It also conditioned us to the possibility of warfare conducted in that manner.

Then, of course, we had Canada and Trudeau. Wow. The government froze/seized accounts of truckers and supporters. They’re still doing it. A federal government adopted that policy. It further conditioned us to this way of conducting warfare.

And NOW, Russia is the target. Cut them off from SWIFT. Interfere with their banking.

Well, sure, people now say. Great strategy. They’ve been conditioned to accept it as a way of waging war.

So NATURALLY, the solution to all this will be a rearrangement of the international banking system, which will involve greater digitization and something closer to a complete currency reset.

ONE: When it comes to war, the US is always innocent. History doesn’t exist. Foreign policy is never war. It’s too complex for the public to understand.

TWO: We’re innocent as lambs on the first day of creation, and Russia is Satan.

THREE: Punish Russia. Go after their money, their banks.

FOUR: Make peace. Ensure this regrettable form of money-war can’t happen again. A new and improved currency system. A RESET.

Is that a nice logical progression? Of course not. But governments and CIA press operations can make it look like one.

They’re experts in that area.

Connect with Jon Rappoport

cover image based on creative commons work of ArtTower & Clkr-Free-Vector-Images

Ukraine — a Different View: A Close-Up Look at the U.S. Coup in 2014 & Events That Followed

Here’s some of what you may not know about Ukraine—about the US coup eight years ago, what’s happened since, and what is happening right now

Videos that offer us a view quite different from the one we’re getting from the media non-stop, across the board—a propaganda narrative devoid of truth or decency

by Mark Crispin Miller
March 7, 2022

First, I strongly recommend, to those who haven’t seen them, Oliver Stone’s two documentaries, Ukraine on Fire (2015) and Revealing Ukraine (2019).

“What You’re Not Being Told” about Ukraine: a video on the US coup in 2014, including parts of the hacked phone conversation between Victoria Nuland, of the State Department, and Geoffrey Pyatt, US ambassador to Ukraine:



The entire phone conversation between Nuland and Pyatt:



After the recording of that phone call went up online, the Obama administration sought (with much success) to obfuscate the issue—i.e., that the US State Department had been caught planning the make-up of another country’s government—by making a Big Deal over the hack of a private phone call. The New York Times et al. obligingly made that the issue, speculating, to nobody’s surprise, that Russia was behind the hack.

Here’s Jen Psaki, who at the time was lying for the State Department, in a diverting back-and-forth with several journalists who weren’t inclined to buy her line that the hack—“a new low for Russian tradecraft,” she called it—was the real issue, as opposed to US officials “midwifing the process” of selecting Ukraine’s government:



Moving on to the horrendous consequences of the US coup, here’s a video about the children killed by the “punisher battalions” in East Ukraine:



A Ukrainian’s view of the difference between cities now under Russian control and those held by the Ukrainian forces:

Connect with Mark Crispin Miller



cover image credit: KELLEPICS / pixabay

Understanding Today’s Hybrid War

by Dr. Joseph Mercola
March 4, 2022



STORY AT-A-GLANCE

In an interview with Joe Rogan, Maajid Nawaz, a former Islamist revolutionary who became an anti-extremism activist, discusses the manufacturing of consent around things that aren’t true

• Nawaz believes we’re in a hybrid war where information is the primary weapon
• Relativism, the idea that truth is relative and personally subjective, is dangerous because without objective truth, there’s no objective reality, and without objective reality, whoever has the power gets to dictate reality. In the end, you end up with authoritarianism
• The reason why government leaders have repeatedly shifted the goal post and then played with our memories of what they promised is to disorient and confuse people to the point that they don’t have the strength to question government
• Another control mechanism will be the implementation of programmable central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) — digital cash that can be programmed so that it can only be spent on goods or services that an employer or government agrees with or deems sensible

In the video above, podcaster Joe Rogan interviews Maajid Nawaz, author of “Radical,” a former Islamist revolutionary who eventually became an anti-extremism activist. This is another three-hour-long interview. If you want, you can skip the first hour as it gets more applicable to current day issues after the first hour.

Nawaz’s past experience with recruiting extremists to infiltrate and overthrow Western governments helped him to more clearly recognize the psychological mind games waged against the civilian public during the COVID pandemic. He’s basically spent much of his later life opposing “the manufacturing of consent around something that isn’t true.”

According to Nawaz, we’re in a “hybrid war.” It’s basically an information war, because the primary weapon is information, and whoever gets to define reality with their narrative wins.

He explains how, when recruiting extremists for your cause, you first have to dismantle and destroy their current view of the world. After that, you can then indoctrinate them with your view of the world.

Big Tech obviously plays a crucial role in this war, as they have the technology and the algorithms to influence, manipulate and mold people’s minds by deciding what narratives they’re allowed to see. Social media platforms can easily make it appear as though a minority, fringe position is actually backed by a majority.

Ironically, as Rogan points out, the people who are being brainwashed are in many cases fiercely defending the right of these companies to mold and manipulate them. They support the censorship, they support cancel culture, seemingly not understanding the impact it’s having on their view and understanding of reality and the world at large.

Power Grabs Through ‘Emergency Powers’

One answer to how we got to where we are today is that governments have invoked emergency powers, and those emergency powers often end up becoming permanent. That’s why they were invoked in the first place.

As explained by Nawaz, “emergencies are always used by the state for power grabs.” Once they’ve been able to expand a power under the banner of a national emergency, they keep it. They don’t roll it back. So, when, in 2020, the COVID pandemic was used to suspend human rights, Nawaz knew we were on a slippery slope.

And, as he feared, we’re now experiencing a very radical shift in our social contract with the state. Before the pandemic, the social contract, the generally accepted modus operandi, was that everyone has the right to bodily autonomy. While it’s good to donate blood, for example, you are not required to do so — even if someone’s life hangs in the balance.

No one can demand that you donate a kidney because you have two functioning kidneys and someone else needs one. You have the right to keep both of your kidneys, even if it means the other person dies for lack of organ donation.

Also, if someone is vulnerable to illness due to preexisting conditions, that person has always been expected to take their own precautions. If you have a peanut allergy, you make sure you don’t eat anything with peanuts, for example, and others are encouraged, but not mandated or required, to make accommodations for and be considerate of those who are vulnerable.

What we have never done, Nawaz notes, is make other people responsible for our comorbidities and preexisting conditions and force them to submit to a medical intervention that could harm or kill them in order to improve our chances of survival.

A Radical Shift in Our Social Contract

If the state is going to tell us that we must get vaccinated because it is our duty to protect other people, then that is a very deep and radical shift of our social contract.

So much so, Nawaz argues, that it should require serious public dialogue followed by a democratic mandate. But that’s not happening. We’re now told that we must surrender our bodily autonomy for the common good. If you disagree, you’re simply canceled and eliminated from the public forum.

While not specifically discussed in this interview, this new social contract, sprung on us during the COVID crisis, is actually part and parcel of The Great Reset.1 The surrendering of individual rights — some for now, but eventually all of them — is the “new social contract” that Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum has envisioned and is pushing out to the world through his installed leaders.

As noted by Nawaz, at the end of the day, it comes down to what kind of society, what kind of world, we want to live in, and “We can’t go from democracy to a ‘papers please’ society … without having any consultation with the public on this,” he says. We need to have a “proper conversation about how this will permanently change the structure of our society.”

The fundamental problem here is that we’re told we must simply trust that the government knows what’s best and always acts in our best interest. Yet we know the state can get things very wrong indeed. In the interview, Nawaz recounts many examples where governments lied and acted against the best interest of their people.

The same goes for Big Pharma. We’re told to trust their products, their science and that they’re working to protect our health, always. Yet for those of us who know the criminal history of some of these drug companies, that’s a tall order.

As noted by Nawaz, the largest criminal fine in history was levied against Pfizer. They have a very long rap sheet, yet we’re to take their experimental gene transfer product on faith alone. Moreover, we’re told to ignore all the data that suggests Pfizer is not, in fact, being entirely honest about the benefits and risks of their product.

When There’s No Truth, Power Gets to Define Reality

One of the primary ways debate is shut down is by throwing labels at people. It doesn’t matter whether they’re factually correct or not. Nawaz has been called an “anti-vaxxer” for questioning vaccine mandates, yet he’s double jabbed. He’s been called an “anti-Muslim extremist,” despite spending four years in prison for his Muslim extremism.

“But there’s a deeper point here,” Nawaz says. For many years, we’ve been shifting into relativism, this idea that truth is relative, that it’s subjective and based on your personal experience. Your truth doesn’t have to be what my truth is. You decide what your truth is and there’s no such thing as “reality.”

This, Nawaz argues, has had devastating consequences because without objective truth, there’s no objective reality, and without objective reality, whomever has the power gets to dictate what reality is — because you have no way to determine whether that power is telling the truth or not. In the end, you end up with authoritarianism.

“When you promote the idea that there is no such thing as truth, and when you shut down debate that is seeking truth — not that it claims truth but it’s seeking it — in aid of this idea that truth is relative … what happens when you do that?

When there’s no such thing as truth, you can’t define reality. And when you can’t define reality, the only thing that matters is power … because power gets to define reality,” he says. “Power steps into that void when reason no longer exists, and defines reality for you, from up above.”

Psychological Warfare

You can see then, how and why information is the most powerful weapon in this fight for power. As noted by Nawaz, most people work full-time jobs and have families and simply don’t have the time to do the research required to discern the truth.

Instead, they turn to trusted voices in the media to give them their best interpretation of what the truth and reality is. The problem we now have is that the media are peddling the narratives of those trying to get more power. And without truthful information, it becomes difficult to define reality, which makes it difficult to challenge government.

This is also why leaders have repeatedly shifted the goal post and then played with our memories of what they promised. The goal is to disorient and confuse people to the point that they don’t have the strength to question their government. This is psychological warfare.

The harsh reality that everyone must face now is that once rights have been taken from you, government never voluntarily gives them back. The only option people have is to TAKE their rights back through peaceful activism.

Coming Next: Financial Warfare

Nawaz and Rogan also discuss how the global cabal is planning to control the world population through the use of programmable central bank digital currencies (CBDCs).

Programmable currency is digital cash that can be programmed such that it can only be spent on certain goods or services that an employer or government deem sensible.2 In other words, the issuer of the money can control how the recipient spends it. With that, the issuer would have near-total control over your behavior.

As noted by Nawaz, with a programmable CBDC, government would have complete control over anyone who disagrees with their policies or activities. If someone expresses dissent, the government could simply restrict how they can use their money, or shut down their bank account altogether.

For example, if the government didn’t want Nawaz to appear on Rogan’s show, they could simply reprogram his CBDCs with the click of a button, such that he would not be allowed to purchase a plane ticket.

What the globalists are now fighting to implement is a platform that will give them complete control over people — something that will tie everything in your life together in one central spot, such as your employment records, medical records, financial records and more.

This is why they’re fighting so hard for vaccine passports, even though it’s clear that they are completely irrational. What good is a vaccine passport when the “vaccine” doesn’t prevent infection or spread?

Some nations are now scrapping the vaccine passports and shifting to digital IDs instead. It’s important to realize that digital IDs serve the same exact purpose as the vaccine passport, so the fight for freedom is far from over, even if your government has publicly said no to vaccine passports. As explained by Nawaz, we’re also seeing evidence of a digital credit score being set into place.

Global Leadership Has Been Infiltrated

Nawaz also discusses how governments around the world have been infiltrated by World Economic Forum (WEF) members whose agenda it is to implement global authoritarianism, using the psychological, information war techniques summarized above.

As noted by Nawaz, Schwab has worked on “embedding people in government who are subscribed to The Great Reset agenda,” and in his 2020 book, “COVID-19: The Great Reset,” Schwab openly argues that the COVID-19 response should be used to “revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions.”

The WEF has also clearly articulated3 its interest in developing a global digital ID system. So, what we can look forward to is a never-ending process where the goal post keeps moving toward more and more authoritarianism. And they’ve told us this, openly, Nawaz says. All we need to do is believe them.

Due to the vast scope of this interview, I really encourage you to listen to it in its entirety. If you don’t have much time then just skip the first hour.

Connect with Dr. Joseph Mercola

cover image credit: geralt 

Gary D. Barnett: “The Masses Are Tricked by Their Masters and Media Into Picking a Side… They Are Being Played as Fools by Those Holding Power Over Them.”

The Power of Propaganda: State Control of the Press and Media Will Be the Death Knell of Freedom

by Gary D. Barnett
March 4, 2022

“Until you realize how easy it is for your mind to be manipulated, you remain the puppet of someone else’s game.”
~ Evita Ochel

Once again, black is white and white is black. We are all living in a state-created inversion. The press, as has been noted in this country and others since the beginning, was charged with the noble role of informing the people about what is actually going on around them. The freedom of the press has been lauded as necessary for any free society to exist. America’s own so-called ‘Bill of Rights’ in the third amendment states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, but all government ‘guarantees,’ as has been exposed, are as worthless as the paper on which they are printed. If all this is true, then why is the entirety of all mainstream and major press and media so corrupt, dishonest, colluding, state-supporting, evil, and essentially controlled by the CIA? Why are virtually all ‘news’ reporting entities owned by the same small group of individuals and companies, or the state itself? Why is most all the ‘reporting’ just propaganda, regardless of the venue?

The only sane position to take in this day and age is to understand that every word coming from the whores in the press, the politicians, and the media are absolute lies. Everything should be considered a falsehood, and should be ignored until and unless it is completely verified and supported by fact.

We are living in madness; we are living in total absurdity. There is no other way to explain our current situation. So why does the bulk of society, not just in this country, but around the world, still cling to every word coming from the state and its minions in the press and media? Why do people believe whatever they are told to believe, without the benefit of any facts or logic; even to the point of voluntarily destroying their own life’s work, their families and loved ones, their communities, and their very souls? Can this ever be legitimately explained?

All this boils down to the sad truth that the people at large desire a master/slave relationship in order to function, without putting forth the effort necessary to live as free men. This is of course pathetic, but it is a fact of life in modern times. Because of this dependent nature, humanity is facing hell on earth, and even possible extinction. That is quite a price to pay for being too lazy, stupid, and gullible to function as responsible individuals. Instead of relying on one’s own abilities, one’s own moral compass; most rely on government to tell them how to act, how to think, what to believe and not believe, and what to condemn or accept.

One major example of this current behavior is brutally evident, and is a very dangerous risk to all. That is the plotted and planned U.S, NATO, Russia, and Ukraine, debacle that is playing out in front of us. There are no ‘good guys’ here, only evil tyrants and government stooges without the capability to see the fatal risk in the games they play, or any soul to care about the outcome. Of course, the masses are tricked by their masters and media into picking a side. As is always the case, another nefarious coup is turned into one of each side hating the other; each supporting the evil intent of both, without the ability to ascertain the truth, which is that they are being played as fools by those holding power over them. Once sides are taken, the ability to control all increases dramatically, just as was planned all along by the state actors.

In this case, those siding with the West against Russia, scream for protection and war to protect poor, ‘innocent’ Ukraine, a country steeped in total corruption, and controlled by the U.S. through a puppet put in power by the same U.S in 2014. Those siding with Russia, especially in the alternative media, due to U.S. aggression against them for decades, falsely assume that Putin is some sort of innocent patriot who is only prosecuting a war that he said he would never do, just because he was pushed to the limit by the U.S. and NATO, and had to protect ‘his’ country. This is total nonsense. The complete idiocy of both sides is beyond astounding. The proletariat hordes are doing exactly as they were coached to do by their state masters, while the mainstream and much of the alternative media take sides in a no-win contest of ignorance and planned chaos.

U.S. aggression, brutality, corruption, warmongering, arrogant interference in other countries, and mass murder are evident, and have been ongoing for nearly the entirety of its existence, but what about the evil Putin and his Russian government? Putin has a very checkered background; from his time in the KGB, to his political rise with support from the U.S., his criminal methods to gain power, and his treatment of those opposing him. He, like the rest of the world rulers, was fully engaged in terror against the Russian people concerning the fake ‘virus pandemic’ labeled as ‘Covid.’ No tracking system for deaths from ‘vaccine’ is allowed by the Russian government, and that website was completely shut down. Putin praised AsrtraZeneca and signed a fast-track deal to get poisonous bio-weapon injections into the population, no different than the evil Trump and Biden. He set up biometric tracking and tagging of school children through a corrupt banking system with strong ties to the World Economic Forum, all under the guise of ‘child safety.’ The same bank is also in charge of launching state-sponsored digital Cryptocurrency, and with the likes of JP Morgan, so as to control the currency and monetary system of Russia.

This is just an extremely brief list of some of the things done by or with the blessing of Putin, who is no innocent saint, but a pure ruling globalist, not different than all the others. He is likely no better or no worse than the rest of the globalist cabal, but in this arena, all are evil. To take sides with any of the ruling class is not only a terrible and possible fatal mistake, but one that guarantees siding with malevolent monsters whose own ambitions always run completely counter to the best interests of the people.

In the midst of all this, the falsely claimed scourge of the earth called ‘Covid-19, that which was said to threaten every man, woman, and child on this planet, temporarily disappeared overnight in favor of the next media narrative; this without a shred of explanation or comment. At the same time, economic turmoil in the realm of major monetary disruption, was an obvious play to continue the drive to eliminate cash and privacy in order for central bank control of currency. This continued plot is now fully underway.

What will be the next narrative change? What new supposed threat will emerge when this one has played out its use? There will always be another emergency, another threat, and another false flag waiting to be released by the powerful globalists and their ilk. Will it be war, another fake virus, a monetary collapse, a bio-weapon release, a targeted nuclear attack, a bogus climate change’ disaster,’ another warning that China may side with Russia, or another U.S./NATO plot meant to stoke more unrest and fear among the commoners?

So long as the people continue to blindly obey and believe the propaganda, there will always be another threat, another emergency, another plot, or another scam meant to subdue and control them.

“One of the greatest responsibilities for the people of our time is to accept everything that he hears in the pro-government media as a lie and to investigate the truth from independent sources personally!”
~ Mehmet Murat ildan

References and Links:

Special thanks to James Corbett and Riley Waggaman (aka—Edward Slavsquat substack)

CIA funds WePlot startup for journalists

Real war vs phony war

Russian government shuts down ‘vaccine’ death tracking site

Russia’s biometric tagging of school children

The Russian government’s big-pharma alliance

Putin’s AstraZeneca ties

Russia’s largest bank to launch state-controlled crypto digital currency

Connect with Gary D. Barnett

cover image credit: OpenClipArt-Vectors / pixabay

The New York Times’ Disgraceful and Deceitful Attack on Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

by Edward Curtin, Behind the Curtain
March 2, 2022

The New York Times, floundering in the deep waters of truth and desperately trying to stay afloat in the shallows by continuing its history of lying for its CIA masters, has just published a front page of propaganda worthy of the finest house organs of totalitarian regimes.  Right below its February 26, 2022 headline denouncing Russia and Putin as evil dogs pursuant to the American empire’s dictates concerning Ukraine, it posts an unflattering photo of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. sandwiched between American flags with the title of its hit piece, “A Kennedy’s Crusade Against Covid Vaccines Anguishes Family and Friends.”

It’s an exquisite juxtaposition: Putin as Hitler and Kennedy as a junior demon, suggestive of the relationship between C. S. Lewis’s Screwtape and his nephew Wormwood in The Screwtape Letters.  Evil personified.

The Times is big into anguish these days, not only for Nazis in Ukraine and upper class apartment hunters who can’t find a place for less than a few million, but for Robert Kennedy, Jr.’s family and friends.  It’s very touching.  That his sister, Kerry Kennedy, would harshly criticize him once again is genuinely pathetic, but of course she has to add how much she loves him, ostensibly to take the sting out of her inability to remain sisterly silent.

If he is so wrong about his work with Children’s Health Defense and his book, The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health, rather than ripping him to the press, why doesn’t she or her siblings, who agree with her, write a comprehensive article or book refuting his facts?

They don’t because they can’t; so the next best thing is to criticize their brother to media glad for any way to disparage the Kennedys.  One senses a very weird masochistic family dynamic at work.

Kennedy’s siblings do not seem to understand why the media have been attacking him for years.  His stance on vaccines and Anthony Fauci are the cover story they use to criticize him, and his siblings don’t get it.  That their brother has become a major thorn in the side of the CIA escapes them, the CIA that has caused so much devastation to their family and the world.  The CIA that has been deeply involved in the global vaccine push, working with medical technocrats like Anthony Fauci, billionaires such as Bill Gates, the military, media, Big Pharma, the World Economic Forum, etc.  Calling your brother brilliant while ignoring his book’s searing, evidence-based indictment of the intelligence-run Covid-19 operation is more than sad, especially when doing so to The New York Times, the CIA’s paper of record together with The Washington Post.

Character assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is what the CIA and its media mouthpieces have been doing for years. This has become more and more necessary as they have realized the great growing danger he poses to their agenda. Calling him an anti-vaxxer, conspiracy theorist, and names far worse, is part of a concerted smear campaign to turn the public away from his message, which is multi-faceted and supported by deep research and impeccable logic. Like his father and uncle, he has become an irrepressibly eloquent opponent of the demonic forces intent on destroying the democratic dream.

The Times article by Adam Nagourney is a blatant hatchet job filled with sly jabs, innuendos, and ignorant lies.  As is par for the course, his hack piece completely avoids Kennedy’s arguments but relies on a form of social gossip that substitutes for logic and evidence.  He seems to have learned much from The National Enquirer and The New York Post’s “Page Six” whose styles the NY Times has emulated.

Nagourney tells the reader that RFK, Jr.’s work as the face of the vaccine resistance movement has “tested,” “rattled,” “anguished,” and “mystified” family, friends and his Hollywood crowd; that this man “of the often troubled life” …. “has effectively used his talent and one of the most prominent names in American political history as a platform for fueling resistance to vaccines that could save countless lives.”

Translation: Kennedy, a Hollywood hobnobber and former drug addict, is so mentally unbalanced that he will betray his family and friends and kill people with medical advice that runs counter to the truth.

No evidence is required to establish this “truth,” just Nagourney’s word and those of those he can get to say the same thing, in other words.  Such as:

His conduct ‘undercuts 50 years of public health vaccine practice, and he’s done it in a way I’ve never see [sic] anyone else do it,’ said Michael T. Osterholm, the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. ‘He is among the most dangerous because of the credibility of who he is and what his family name has brought to this issue.’

Notice the implication:  that these experimental mRNA so-called vaccines have been around 50 years and Kennedy is against all vaccines, both of which are false.

Furthermore, Nagourney says RFK, Jr. not only “inveighs” against vaccines, especially Covid vaccinations, but has adopted other weird “unorthodox” views (implication: orthodox views are good) over the years.

One is his claim that Sirhan Sirhan did not kill his father Senator Robert F. Kennedy.  Nagourney might do a smidgen of research and discover that Kennedy is correct; but doing so would disrupt the flow of his ad hominem attack.  All serious writers on the case know that the senator was not shot by Sirhan; they know there are deep CIA connections to the assassination. The evidence conclusively proves, as the autopsy has shown, that Sirhan was in front of the senator when he fired his pistol but RFK was shot from the rear at very close range with all bullets entering his body from the rear.  Nagourney either knows nothing about the assassination or is dissembling the facts, which must be “unorthodox.”

Sounding like a U.S. government spokesmen telling the press something is true without an iota of evidence, he writes the following sentence as if it were true simply because he wrote it, while making sure not to mention the book’s title – The Real Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy – a brilliant, deeply researched and sourced book The Times will not review:

In a best-selling new book, he claimed that Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, who is President Biden’s top medical adviser for the coronavirus pandemic, and Bill Gates, the co-founder of Microsoft, were in cahoots with the pharmaceutical industry to profiteer off dangerous vaccines.

Notice Nagourney’s insidious method.  State RFK’s claim as if it’s false because Nagourney stated it, when in fact it is so abundantly true and backed up by massive evidence that if Nagourney dared to engage in actual journalism by checking Kennedy’s book he would discover it.  But his job is not to search for truth but to defile a man’s reputation. He accuses Kennedy of circulating false information on the coronavirus and the vaccines but of course doesn’t say what that is or why it is false.

His entire article is an ad hominem attack by statement with the author cunningly hidden behind deceitful objectivity.

He writes:

To the public distress of his wife, the actress Cheryl Hines, Mr. Kennedy invoked Anne Frank, the young German-Dutch diarist who died in a Nazi prison camp, as he compared government measures for containing the pandemic with the Holocaust at that rally in Washington.

However, that is not what he said.  He said that during the Holocaust Anne Frank could hide for a while and others could flee out of Germany, but with the new “turnkey totalitarianism” being introduced today, which is technological, it will be harder to escape, for every aspect of life will be monitored by the authorities in a digital dystopia. Such a perspective is in no way unusual, for it is shared by many scholars of technology and only the most naïve would consider it eccentric. His point and words were twisted to serve others’ purposes and to paint him as an insensitive Holocaust denier.  Here’s what he said:

What we’re seeing today is what I call turnkey totalitarianism. They are putting in place all of these technological mechanisms for control we’ve never seen before. It’s been the ambition of every totalitarian state since the beginning of mankind to control every aspect of behavior, of conduct, of thought and to obliterate dissent. None of them have been able to do it. They didn’t have the technological capacity.

Even in Hitler’s Germany, you could cross the Alps into Switzerland. You could hide in an attic like Anne Frank did. I visited in 1962 East Germany with my father and met people who had climbed the wall and escaped, so it was possible. Many died … but it was possible.

Yet his sister Kerry also ripped him for making a statement that was clearly true if you accept his argument about the technological lockdowns in progress.  You can disagree (I don’t) but to impugn his intentions and his words is really despicable, but Nagourney adds it to his ad hominem attacks, making sure to include his sister Kerry’s Tweet:

Bobby’s lies and fear-mongering yesterday were both sickening and repulsive. I strongly condemn him for his hateful rhetoric.

Nagourney: “ Even his most prominent critics say they do not doubt his sincerity, even as he has become one of the most prominent spreaders of misinformation on vaccines.”

Translation: RFK, Jr. means well but he’s deluded.

Big Daddy Fauci is introduced to tell the young whippersnapper the following after Kennedy delivered a briefing at The National Institutes of Health:

When it was over, Dr. Fauci walked Mr. Kennedy out of the conference room.

“I said, ‘Bobby, I’m sorry we didn’t come to any agreement here,’” he said. “‘Although I disagree factually with everything you are saying, I do understand and I respect that deep down you are really concerned about the safety of children.’ I said that in a very sincere way.”

Condescension and sincerity overflow as the “conspiracy theorist” patient is told by the good doctor that he means well but needs help.

Then, making sure to include The New York Times endlessly repeated CIA talking point, our no-nothing author writes:

The assassination of President John F. Kennedy, his uncle, in 1963, when Robert was 9, helped foster a modern culture of conspiracy theories. Now, many of the arguments that Mr. Kennedy has embraced — including that Dr. Fauci is part of a “historic coup d’état against Western democracy” — recall the theories of a secret assassin helping Lee Harvey Oswald from the grassy knoll in Dallas.

That it was the CIA that weaponized the use of the term “conspiracy theory” in a 1967 dispatch – #1035-960 – in order to disparage those questioning The Warren Commission and it’s cover-up of the CIA’s role in JFK’s assassination is another fact that our fair-minded scribe conveniently omits while insidiously implying that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK.  Yes, there are magic bullets and magical tricks used to make sure RFK, Jr. is seen as a “sincere” nutcase.

RFK, Jr. has been and is an astute critic of the CIA and all its machinations, including its involvement in the assassinations of his uncle JFK, his father Senator Robert F. Kennedy, its involvement in the COVID propaganda, and in its extensive deadly deeds and disinformation at home and abroad.  His critical siblings praise him for his great intelligence and political acumen but seem clueless themselves.  So they ally with the same media that have been stenographers for the CIA.  The Kennedy family may be very well known, but in these ways they are very typical of American families that are divided by those who know and those who don’t know who the real devils are.

But let me make two final points about this sickening piece of character assassination.

RFK, Jr. has spent decades as an environmental lawyer fighting the pollution of our air, earth, and water.  In other words, the pollution also of human beings who live in nature while nature lives in us. Some people know the outside and the inside are connected.  Yet Nagourney bemoans the tragic turn he took from such good work with the environment to such terrible work with Children’s Health Defense and vaccines. He writes:

The swerve in Mr. Kennedy’s career, from the environment to vaccines, is particularly startling because for many family members and other Kennedy associates, Robert Kennedy Jr. is the sibling who most recalls the level of charisma and political appeal of his late father.

Startling?  No, very consistent for one who can think.  There is an obvious link between the major corporate polluters of the outside environment and the major polluters of human bodies.  Big pharmaceutical, oil, chemical, agribusiness, military, etc. are an interrelated lot of criminal enterprises despoiling all life on earth.  Kennedy’s lifetime work has followed a natural trajectory and underlying it all is his critique of the CIA and its media accomplices, such as The New York Times.

Yes, those family and friends who say he’s brilliant are right, and he is following in his father’s footsteps in ways they do not grasp; for he is able to connect the dots, diagnose the patterns, and expose with facts the criminal syndicates that are destroying democracy and so many lives.

The reason The New York Times publishes hit pieces like this and does not review his recent books is because his critique of these nefarious forces has gained a large audience and as a result many people are awakening to the truths concealed by the likes of “the paper of record” with its propaganda.

Hit pieces like Nagourney’s should cause anyone reading it intense “anguish.”  There is nothing “mystifying” about it.

It’s simply disgraceful and deceitful.

Connect with Edward Curtin

cover image credit: Adam63  / Wikimedia Commons

WHO Moving Foward on GLOBAL Vaccine Passport Program

Tech giants and US gov’t co-operate on “SMART Health Cards”, and their use is spreading across the US…& maybe the world.

by Kit Knightly, OffGuardian
March 2, 2022

Countries all over the world are totally scrubbing their Covid measures, mask mandates and social distancing rules.

The CDC has changed their guidance on vaccine doses, and said people don’t need to wear masks anymore. Boris has done the same, and (some) of the UK’s emergency powers are going to expire soon.

It seems like Covid is over, and the good guys won, right?

Well, not exactly.

The pandemic narrative may be fading away, but certainly not without a trace. Covid might be dying, but vaccine passports are still very much alive.

This week, while the eyes of the world are fixed on Ukraine and the next wave of propaganda, the World Health Organization is launching an initiative to create a “trust network” on vaccination and international travel.

According to a report in Politico published last week:

WHO making moves on international vaccine ‘passport’”

The article quotes Brian Anderson, co-founder of the Vaccination Credential Initiative, which describes itself as:

a voluntary coalition of public and private organizations committed to empowering individuals with access to verifiable clinical information including a trustworthy and verifiable copy of their vaccination records in digital or paper form using open, interoperable standards.

They are, to take the PR agency sheen off this phrase, a corporate/government joint project researching and promoting digital medical identification papers.

In short, vaccine passports.

The VCI has existed since January 2021, and its list of “members” is very revealing, including Google, Amazon, dozens of insurance companies, hospitals, “bio-security firms” and seemingly every major university in the US.

It’s run by a steering committee made up of representatives from Apple, Microsoft, the MAYO Clinic and the MITRE Corporation, a multi-billion-dollar government-funded research organization.

Anderson – who was an employee of MITRE before founding the VCI – tells Politico that the current system of international travel and vaccine records is:

piecemeal, not coordinated and done nation to nation…It can be a real challenge.”

Discussion of an international “Pandemic Treaty” gets underway today in Geneva, and any eventual agreement will doubtless include provisions on the matter of international vaccine certification.

If the VCI is involved – and with their backers, they doubtless will be – any international system will likely be based on their SMART Health Cards system.

Smart Cards in the US – a Covert Federal Vaccine Passport

VCI’s SMART Health Cards are the dominant tech in the emerging field of biosurveillance and “inoculation certification”. They are already implemented by 25 different US states, plus Puerto Rico and DC, and have become the US’s de-facto national passport

According to this article from Forbes (a puff piece which is little more than an advertisement):

While the United States government has not issued a federal digital vaccine pass, a national standard has nevertheless emerged.

They use the word “emerged” as if it’s a natural, organic process. But it’s not.

The US government, unlike many European countries, has not issued their own official vaccine passport, knowing such a move would rankle with the more Libertarian-leaning US public, not to mention get tangled in the question of state vs federal law.

The SMART cards allow them to sidestep this issue. They are technically only implemented by each state individually via agreements with VCI, which is technically a private entity.

However, since the SMART cards are indirectly funded by the US government, their implementation across every state makes them a national standard in all but name.

The Politico article repeats the claim the US has no national system, adding that the US doesn’t have a federal vaccine database either:

The Biden administration has said it wouldn’t issue digital credentials and hasn’t rolled out standards for vaccine credentials it said it would issue. Complicating the situation is that the U.S. doesn’t have a national inoculation database.

The propaganda message here is underlining what the government doesn’t have and doesn’t know. The suggestion being that the SMART system is totally separate from the government, that it’s a private company that would never share your medical records with the state.

But only the terminally naive would believe that.

SMART Health Cards are run by VCI, which was created by the MITRE Corporation, which is funded by the United States government.

If you give SMART access to your medical records, you’d better believe the US government and its agencies will get their hands on them. They might not have their own database, but they would have access to MITRE’s database when and if they needed or wanted it.

And so would Apple, Amazon, Google and Microsoft.

That’s how private-public partnerships work. Symbiosis.

Corporate giants serve as fronts for government programs and, in return, they get a big cut of the profits, bailouts if they’re needed, and regulatory “reforms” that cripple their smaller competitors.

We’ve seen this social media already.

Quasi-monopolies like Facebook and Twitter harvest data for the government and censor anyone they are told to, then they are rewarded with “regulation” that barely hurts them whilst targeting smaller companies such as Gab, Parler or Telegram.

The Smart Health Cards clearly fall into this model.

Microsoft, Google et al. take government money to help create the tech, they then run the program, harvest and store the data, and make it available to the government when they want it.

This allows the federal government “truthfully” claim to not be implementing a federal passport system, OR keeping a vaccination database, all the while they are sub-contracting tech giants to do it for them.

This system of backdoor government surveillance via corporate veneer is already spreading across the US, and it looks like it will play some part in any future “pandemic treaty” too.

They may have stopped talking about Covid for now, but they got a good chunk of what they wanted out of it.

And if they don’t get the rest of what they want out of the war in Ukraine, they’ll just bring Covid back.

Connect with OffGuardian

cover image based on creative commons work of Tumisu