“COVI-PASS™ is the new digital health passport powered by the revolutionary and patented VCODE® and VPLATFORM® technology that was developed by the multi-award winning British cyber-security firm VST Enterprises. As a secure Digital Health Passport, COVI-PASS™ links and displays a certified Covid-19 test result to the user’s Health and Immunoresponse, using a secure biometric gateway, allowing individuals to return to work and life safely.” [Sep 2020: the above covipass.com domain name links to the Internet Archive to display this product as of June 2020. It now redirects to something called TentoHealth. Interesting that the current site contains much more toned-down imagery and verbiage. Perhaps this is a reflection of the August CDC US Covid-19 death curve indicating this virus has run its course.]
[B]iosecurity has shown itself capable of presenting the absolute cessation of all political activity and all social relations as the maximum form of civic participation.... At issue is an entire conception of the destinies of human society from a perspective that, in many ways, seems to have adopted the apocalyptic idea of the end of the world from religions which are now in their sunset. Having replaced politics with the economy, now in order to secure governance even this must be integrated with the new paradigm of biosecurity, to which all other exigencies will have to be sacrificed. It is legitimate to ask whether such a society can still be defined as human or whether the loss of sensible relations, of the face, of friendship, of love can be truly compensated for by an abstract and presumably completely fictitious health security.
Pandemic of Fear
Follow The Money
Corruption of Medical Research
from infectious to chronic diseases The One Speaking To The Many Self-Anointed Global Health Czar Gates C-19 PCR “Gold Standard” Test Isn’t HCQ & Needless Untold Deaths Mask Off! Every Breath Renews Life’s Gift Confront Fear, Censorship - Stay Human References
In early April a group of correspondents convened to evaluate and analyze the unfolding lockdown blanketing the world. Chronicling and archiving a shifted perspective, Pandemic Parallax View (PPV) is a reflection of the group’s ongoing engagement. Focusing on the upside down world humanity has been dragged into, this correspondence is networking to broadcast and promote vital, Life-affirming critical thinking & analysis, research, reporting, as well as chronicling medical doctors experience and information being censored, distorted, ignored, denied, and dismissed by Foundation/Corporate/State-sponsored monetized media. The following is a distillation of some of what is being cataloged within to introduce the contents of the PPV directory.
Ernest Becker’s classic book, The Denial of Death (1973) highlights an essential quality of this civilization. Living in societies of constant, neurotic denial of the fact of death, we are somehow led to believe that it doesn’t have to happen to us. Becker makes the point that when you’re in the grip of the fear of death it causes you to embrace your preconceptions even more tightly. You become more firmly wedded to your assumptions and beliefs, your tribal feelings. And when we’re traumatized we naturally turn to authoritative voices for some kind of assurance, some kind of advice as to what we can do.
The inspiration for this essay is Giorgio Agamben’s thoughts (above) on health security:
It is striking about the reactions to the apparatuses of exception that have been put in place in our country (and not only in this one) is the inability to observe them beyond the immediate context in which they seem to operate. Rare are those who attempt to interpret them as symptoms and signs of a broader experiment — as any serious political analysis would require — in which what is at stake is a new paradigm for the governance of men and things....
It is evident that, apart from the emergency situation, linked to a certain virus that may in the future be replaced by another, at issue is the design of a paradigm of governance whose efficacy will exceed that of all forms of government known thus far in the political history of the West. If already, in the progressive decline of ideologies and political beliefs, security reasons allowed citizens to accept limitations on their liberty that they previously were unwilling to accept, biosecurity has shown itself capable of presenting the absolute cessation of all political activity and all social relations as the maximum form of civic participation.
It is evident — and government authorities themselves do not cease to remind us of it — that so-called “social distancing” will become the model of politics that awaits us, and that (as representatives of a so-called “task force” announced, whose members are in an obvious conflict of interest with the role that they are expected to exercise) advantage will be taken of this distancing to substitute digital technological apparatuses everywhere in place of human physicality, which as such becomes suspect of contagion (political contagion, let it be understood). University lessons, as MIUR has already recommended, will be stably online from next year; you will no longer recognize yourself by looking at your face, which might be covered with a mask, but through digital devices that recognize bio-data which is compulsorily collected; and any “crowd,” whether formed for political reasons or simply for friendship, will continue to be prohibited.
Back in March, we were told in Boston that schools would be closed until late April, later the til end of May, later through June, then starting in September until November, now sometime next year...... Do any of us actually comprehend the stakes and consequences of what we are tacitly agreeing to here? Where is the opportunity and in what venue do we get to actually debate what we are being told is necessary for sake of health security? When was it decided—and by whom—that biological security must replace systems of self governance and human rights defined in national constitutions as well as the freedom to make individual choices by right of birth as human beings?
Agamben poses the central question: “It is legitimate to ask whether such a society can still be defined as human or whether the loss of sensible relations, of the face, of friendship, of love can be truly compensated for by an abstract and presumably completely fictitious health security.” An attempt is made herein to critique and analyse the apparatuses of exception beyond the immediate context in which they seem to operate.
Pandemic of Fear
US data on influenza deaths are a mess. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) acknowledges a difference between flu death and flu associated death yet uses the terms interchangeably. Additionally, there are significant statistical incompatibilities between official estimates and national vital statistics data. Compounding these problems is a marketing of fear—a CDC communications strategy in which medical experts “predict dire outcomes” during flu seasons.—Peter Doshi (2005) 
Fear is the most powerful activator of human decision making. Deep in the brain located on top of the brainstem and underneath the cortex is the limbic system, sometimes called the “lizard brain” as this part of brain anatomy is most of what reptiles possess in brain function. Responsible for behavioral and emotional reactions, the limbic system directs survival functions including fight or flight, fear and anxiety. Higher cognitive functions such as reasoning and intellect are suspended when perception and awareness is overwhelmed by the sense of danger causing responses based on the fear reflex.
With the advent of what is being called the coronavirus pandemic corporate/foundation/state-sponsored media is promoting 24/7 a fear-based narrative focusing on imminent biological danger to humanity. The employment of fear to manage perceptions is an age-old practice. Written 14 years ago by Etienne de Harven, MD, the following Foreword is necessarily ever more relevant today.
The Content of This Book Has To Be Read, Quickly and Worldwide
The book Virus Mania by Torsten Engelbrecht and Claus Köhnlein presents a tragic message that will, hopefully, contribute to the re-insertion of ethical values in the conduct of virus research, public health policies, media communications, and activities of the pharmaceutical companies. Obviously, elementary ethical rules have been, to a very dangerous extent, neglected in many of these fields for an alarming number of years.
When American journalist Celia Farber courageously published, in Harper’s Magazine (March 2006) the article “Out of control—AIDS and the corruption of medical science,” some readers probably attempted to reassure themselves that this “corruption” was an isolated case. This is very far from the truth as documented so well in this book by Engelbrecht and Köhnlein. It is only the tip of the iceberg. Corruption of research is a widespread phenomenon currently found in many major, supposedly contagious health problems, ranging from AIDS to Hepatitis C, Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or “mad cow disease”), SARS, Avian flu and current vaccination practices (human papillomavirus or HPV vaccination) .
In research on all of these six distinct public health concerns scientific research on viruses (or prions in the case of BSE) slipped onto the wrong track following basically the same systematic pathway. This pathway always includes several key steps: inventing the risk of a disastrous epidemic, incriminating an elusive pathogen, ignoring alternative toxic causes, manipulating epidemiology with non-verifiable numbers to maximize the false perception of an imminent catastrophe, and promising salvation with vaccines. This guarantees large financial returns. But how is it possible to achieve all of this? Simply by relying on the most powerful activator of human decision making process, i.e. FEAR!
We are not witnessing viral epidemics; we are witnessing epidemics of fear. And both the media and the pharmaceutical industry carry most of the responsibility for amplifying fears, fears that happen, incidentally, to always ignite fantastically profitable business. Research hypotheses covering these areas of virus research are practically never scientifically verified with appropriate controls. Instead, they are established by “consensus.” This is then rapidly reshaped into a dogma, efficiently perpetuated in a quasi-religious manner by the media, including ensuring that research funding is restricted to projects supporting the dogma, excluding research into alternative hypotheses. An important tool to keep dissenting voices out of the debate is censorship at various levels ranging from the popular media to scientific publications.
We haven’t learnt well from past experiences.
Indeed, collectively we have not learned from the past and are now suffering catastrophic consequences of ignoring the categorized history of the corruption of medical research by the pharmaceutical industry and its willing cohort, monetized media. Echoing the above, precisely the same playbook is today being writ large as never before:
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
Follow The Money
“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”—Arnold Relman (2003) 
The leading lobbying industry in the U.S. is Pharmaceuticals. It spends almost twice that of Electronics Mfg & Equip and Insurance and more than twice of Oil & Gas to influence Congress and federal agencies. 60 years ago three vaccines were deemed necessary. For today’s children, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommends 72 doses of 16 vaccines. The explosion of new vaccines began after the passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NVICA) of 1986. With 282 references, detailed analysis of vaccine programs in the U.S. is provided in the May 2019 ebook, Conflicts of Interest Undermine Children’s Health. From pages 4-5:
[T]he [NVCIA] legislation was Congress’s response to intense pressure from vaccine industry lobbyists seeking protection from lawsuits related to the infamously brain-damaging diphtheria, whole-cell pertussis and tetanus (DPT) vaccine.
The industry’s lobbying efforts paid off in spades. Replacing judicial action with a more circumscribed “alternative remedy...for specified vaccine-related injuries,” the Act created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), funded by taxpayers through an excise tax on childhood vaccines. With the stroke of a pen, Congress essentially abolished vaccine injury lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers (or health providers), while creating an administrative mechanism (subsequently nicknamed “vaccine court”) from which individuals could seek—but not necessarily obtain— redress for vaccine injuries through “Special Masters” designated to serve as arbiters.
The NCVIA gave pharmaceutical companies what amounted to blanket immunity from liability for injuries resulting from childhood vaccines— “no matter how toxic the ingredients, how negligent the manufacturer or how grievous the harm” —while also exempting companies from the transparency and document discovery normally associated with litigation.
Summarizing the legislation’s far-reaching implications, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has stated: “That extraordinary law eliminated a principal cost associated with making...drugs and left the industry with little economic incentive to make vaccines safe. It also removed lawyers, judges and courts from their traditional roles as guardians of vaccine safety. Since the law’s passage, industry revenues have skyrocketed from $1 billion to $44 billion.”
The NCVIA requires that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) review childhood vaccine safety on a biannual basis and report to Congress on measures taken to improve safety. However, legislators appear to have intended that stipulation largely as window dressing, because—as revealed in a lawsuit filed by the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.—HHS officials have never complied with the statutory safety review and reporting requirements even once in over thirty years.
- Challoner A. “How can vaccines cause damage?” [Letter] BMJ 2004;328:483.
- H.R. 5546 - National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.
- Attkisson S. “Vaccine court.” CBS News, June 27, 2008.
- Holland MS. “Liability for vaccine injury: The United States, the European Union, and the developing world.” Emory Law Journal 2018;67(3):415. (PDF)
- Kennedy, Jr. RF. “Vaccines and the liberal mind.” Children’s Health Defense, June 14, 2018.
- RFK, Jr. Proves HHS is in Violation of the “Mandate for Safer Childhood Vaccines” as Stipulated in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Act, CHD, 13 Sep 2018.
Corruption of Medical Research
“The corrupting influence of the pharmaceutical industry on medical research and its published literature, has derailed the medical profession from its humanitarian mission and its professional objectivity.”—Vera Sharav (2017) 
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. serves as President of Waterkeeper Alliance, as well as Founder, Chairman of the Board, and Chief Legal Counsel for Children’s Health Defense. For more than a decade he has sought to debate vaccine safety with an advocate for vaccination including Peter Hotez, Paul Offit, and Ian Lipkin. No one would agree to debate him. This summer attorney and Constitutional lawyer Alan Dershowitz agreed and the discussion was held on July 23, moderated by Patrick Bet-David. The two attorneys debated a range of issues including vaccine mandates, the PREP Act, the lack of vaccine safety studies, Jacobson vs. Massachusetts, and HHS’s failure to act on provisions of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act as well as raising questions on Are compulsory vaccines even legal? Should any government be able to force medical procedures on families?
Early in the debate Mr. Kennedy described how the belief that smallpox and polio were eradicated by vaccination is controversial. He pointed out how these and other infectious diseases “all disappeared at the same time without vaccination.”
Now CDC actually examined that because it became such a part of the orthodoxy of vaccines, the idea that smallpox and polio were abolished because of vaccines and these other diseases. Johns Hopkins and CDC in 2000 did a comprehensive study of that proposition. The study was published in Pediatrics which is the Journal for the American Association of Pediatrics which is kind of a readout fortification for vaccine orthodoxy. It’s a publication very very friendly in support of vaccination....
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
The conclusion of that study is that the abolishment of mortalities from infectious diseases that took place during the first half of the 20th century had virtually nothing to do with vaccines. It had everything to do with sanitation, with nutrition, with hygiene, with electric refrigerators, with reduction in population densities, essentially an engineering solution: clean water, good food. And actually there was a guy called Dr. Edward Kass who was head of Harvard Medical School at that time who gave a very very famous speech in which he warned that people who were promoting vaccines and other technologies would try to take credit for those reductions in mortalities from infectious disease and he said beware of them because they’ll try to monetize them and use that to increase their power and their prestige.
Beginning at 51:06, Mr. Kennedy touched on the corrupting influence of financial profit compromising the integrity and professed duty of U.S. public health agencies:
FDA gets 50 percent of its budget from vaccine companies, from the industry. 50 percent. The CDC has an $11.5 billion budget and 4.9 billion of that is buying and selling and distributing vaccines. CDC is a vaccine company. It owns 57 vaccine patents so it can make money on every sale of a vaccine. NIH owns hundreds of vaccine patents. NIH owns half the patent for the Moderna vaccine. There’s five individuals in NIH and the rules at NIH is if you’re a scientist or an official who worked on a vaccine, you’re allowed to collect $150,000 a year in royalties on sales that that vaccine makes. These regulatory agencies are actually vaccine companies. The vaccine marketing sales part of those agencies is the tail that is now wagging the regulatory dog.
In a 2011 Supreme Court ruling vaccines were termed “unavoidably unsafe”. At issue here are moral, ethical, and legal constraints based on the Nuremberg Principles of informed consent. As described above, the “NCVIA gave pharmaceutical companies what amounted to blanket immunity from liability for injuries resulting from childhood vaccines.” Robert Kennedy Jr. addressed this situation in a May 2 interview with Patrick Bet-David. Beginning at 19:33:
My party, the Democratic Party is the worst on this issue. It’s very odd to me that they’re mandating these vaccines that are untested. How can you mandate any medication for a human being? How can you tell somebody, We are gonna force you to take a medication that you don’t want to take? We signed a treaty, the Nuremberg Charter, after World War Two because the Nazis were doing that. They were testing vaccines on people and all these other medical treatments and we said that is a war crime. We don’t do that to people. And we signed the Siracusa Principles, UN Charter on Human Rights, Helsinki Accords, the Nuremberg Charter—all of those say in them, you cannot give a medication to somebody against their will even if a life of the nation is at stake. That’s a quote.58. No state party shall, even in time of emergency threatening the life of the nation, derogate from the Covenant’s guarantees of the right to life; freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and from medical or scientific experimentation without free consent; freedom from slavery or involuntary servitude; the right not to be imprisoned for contractual debt; the right not to be convicted or sentenced to a heavier penalty by virtue of retroactive criminal legislation; the right to recognition as a person before the law; and freedom of thought, conscience and religion. These rights are not derogable under any conditions even for the asserted purpose of preserving the life of the nation.
And yet we’re mandating these drugs and not only are we forcing people to take one and we know they cause injury. The Vaccine Court has paid out four billion dollars. And they are severely limited, those judgments. Even HHS admits at the Vaccine Court, fewer than 1% of injuries ever gets reported or awarded. So make that four hundred billion. We know they cause a lot of injuries. Even if they cause one injury how can you force a human being to take it against their will? It makes no sense.Permissible Medical Experiments
- The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
Vaccine Consequences: from infectious to chronic diseases
This is about vaccines. And I think it’s important to recognize that no routine vaccine was tested for overall effects on mortality in randomized trials before being introduced. I guess most of you think we know what our vaccines are doing. We don’t.—Peter Aaby (2019) 
As we have heard since the SARS-COV-2 coronavirus was declared to be a pandemic earlier this year, Bill Gates has been repeating his mantra that “things won’t go back to truly normal until we have a vaccine that we’ve gotten out to basically the entire world”. Beyond the obvious desire to increase his financial wealth, Gates has consistently indicated his belief that technology—as directed by him—can save the world. His pushing vaccines as redemption for humanity has reached the point where this unelected, unaccountable, self-proclaimed health expert’s vaccination agenda is in overdrive—in the words of the Sherwin-Williams Paint company—to Cover The Earth in vaccinated human beings.
But what about the history of vaccine non-safety Congressional legislation that was inaugurated with the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act described above and the consequences to children beginning soon after that? As Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. explained in a May 15th interview:
what happened was, you suddenly had all these vaccines that hit the schedule, beginning in 1989. And 1989 is the beginning of what we call The Vaccine Generation. It is the sickest generation in history, not from infectious disease, but from chronic disease. Chronic disease level in this country in 1940 was 6%. In 1986, when we had 11 vaccines on the schedule, it was 12.8%. If you were born prior to 1989, your chance of having a chronic disease is 12.8%. If you are born after 1989, your chance of having a chronic disease is 54% to 60%. And what are those chronic diseases? There are three main categories.
- The neurodevelopmental diseases: ADD, ADHD, SIDS, speech delay, learning disabilities, sleep disorders—these are all neurodevelopmental—tics, Tourette’s syndrome, narcolepsy, ASD, autism. In my generation 1 in 10,000 people have autism. Today, in my children’s generation, 1 in every 34 kids, 1 in every 22 boys.
- Then, you have allergies. Vaccines are designed to give you an allergic response to the antigen, to the microbe. They also give you an allergic response to anything else that is injected—the peanut oil excipient, the Timothy weed outbreaks that are occurring at the time you get the vaccines—you now have a lifetime allergy to those. So, children who are vaccinated have 30 times the allergic rhinitis as children who are unvaccinated. Peanut allergies went from 1 in 1,200 Americans, to 1 in every 12. And then you had anaphylaxis and asthma, which are allergic diseases.
- Finally, the last category is autoimmune diseases. And those just exploded. And that’s a whole range of diseases where your body essentially gets an allergic reaction to your own organs, and the immune system begins attacking your own organs. So, juvenile diabetes—I only knew one kid growing up who had diabetes; now, it’s everywhere—, rheumatoid arthritis, Guillain-Barre, all these fibromyalgias, and, multiple sclerosis. All these other diseases that exploded....
The vaccine industry when I was a kid was making about 200 million dollars a year. Today it’s making 60 billion. They make 60 billion from the mandated vaccines. But they’re making 500 billion a year treating injuries that are listed as side effects on their vaccines. They are selling us the albuterol inhalers for our children’s asthma, the EpiPens, the anti-seizure medications, the Prozac for the depression, the diabetes medications, the arthritis medications, all of these other—and if you look at the top 20 blockbuster drugs for these four companies, virtually all of them are targeted to treat injuries that are listed as a side effect on their own vaccine inserts. It’s a racket. It is the perfect business model: you make people sick the day they are born, you keep making them sick till their 18th birthday, and then you have a permanent customer. Listen, if you get a measles infection, what’s the treatment? A week in bed, chicken soup, and vitamin D. None of that can be patented. Pharma makes nothing on measles. If you have a measles vaccine, and you give that child seizures, and epilepsy, and encephalopathy, and all these other injuries, you have a permanent customer for life. It’s the perfect business model, but it’s killing our country....
The primary beneficiaries of astronomical profits garnered by the pharmaceutical industry are industry executives and major shareholders. In the eleven year period from 2006 to 2015 these two circles claimed 99% of gains in excess of $500 billion. Such concentrated financial power to influence and control governmental rules and regulations is the proverbial tip of the iceberg where corporate capture of Federal agencies and departments is concerned. A 2014 joint study by Princeton and Northwestern University Professors concluded the U.S. is an oligarchy, not a democracy based on how frequently individuals of specific income levels as well as organized interest groups achieved their policy goals. The “payoff” of concentration of economic power into the rarified strata of billionaires is influence and control. Mainstream broadcast and print media conglomerates are an especially effective investment to further concentrate the consolidation of power and management of perceptions.
The One Speaking To The Many
“Those who tell the stories rule society”
Plato’s statement can be made current with, “Those who employ those who tell the stories rule society.” It is difficult to overstate the influence on the manufactured states of consensus reality presented every moment by a very few human souls financially owning and thus controlling the content of monetized broadcast, print, and digital media. Think what Joseph Goebbels would have given for television. Catherine Ingram begins her introduction to Bad Magic: The Failure of Technology, a 1991 interview with Jerry Mander, by emphasizing the catastrophic danger inherent in the one speaking to the many:
When Jerry Mander suggested in his book Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television, published in 1978, that television was not reformable no matter who controlled the medium, it represented the first time anyone had dared suggest that we do away with television altogether. Mander argued that television is a primary tool in the ongoing mediation of human experience, the visual intoxicant that entrances the viewer into a hypnotic state and thereby replaces other forms of knowledge with the imagery of its programmers. It infuses young children with high-tech, high-speed expectations of life, so that a walk in nature would likely seem interminably boring. It is the tool used not only to sell the resources that have been dug up, melted, forged, and otherwise appropriated from the earth, but to sell us back our feelings, which the entrancement has eclipsed. Television colonizes its viewers by way of an artificial reality replete with its own values. From a political point of view, it is particularly dangerous because “it is the one speaking to the many,” as Mander describes anyone from the corporate sponsor to the nightly anchorperson. And it is bad for our bodies as well, creating mental and physical sickness by the mesmerizing phosphorescent glow of its artificial light.
At the moment when the natural environment was altered beyond the point that it could be personally observed, the definitions of knowledge itself began to change. No longer based on direct experience, knowledge began to depend on scientific, technological, industrial proof.
Scientists, technologists, psychologists, industrialists, economists and the media which translate and disseminate their findings and opinions became our source. Now they tell us what nature is, what we are, how we relate to the cosmos, what we need for survival and happiness, and what are the appropriate ways to organize our existence.
There is little wonder, therefore, that we should begin to doubt the evidence of our own experience and begin to be blind to the self-evident. Our experience is not valid until science says it is. (Mother’s milk is healthy!)
It is also little wonder that we feel removed from participation in the larger issues which shape our lives. We feel removed because we are removed.
As we continue to separate ourselves from direct experience of the planet, the hierarchy of techno-scientism advances. This creates astounding problems for a society that is supposed to be democratic.”
Jerry Mander, 4 Arguments
Sixteen years ago, the 2004 edition of Ben Bagdikian’s The New Media Monopoly analyzed how “[f]ive global-dimension firms, operating with many of the characteristics of a cartel, own most of the newspapers, magazines, book publishers, motion picture studios, and radio and television stations in the United States.” As a ratio, the current total 2,095 billionaires makes up 0.00002 percent, or one "bill" per 3,723,150 humans of the 7.8+ billion people on Mother Earth. The influence this global cartel produces to manage and direct the perceptions of humanity serves one of the oldest time-proven strategies for power and control: divide and conquer. Coming in second behind Lord Bezos—who has increased his monetary wealth from 7 Apr 2020 to 19 Sep 2020 by $62 billion—is Bill Gates—who has increased his monetary wealth by $16.7 billion. While the vast majority of humanity has suffered unprecedented financial contraction and collapse as a result of locking down societies worldwide since the spring, the financial titans have seen their monetary holdings increase by billions. It is instructive to scratch the surface of the pursuits by the second most financially wealthy man on Earth.
Self-Anointed Global Health Czar Gates
Who is Bill Gates? A software developer? A businessman? A philanthropist? A global health expert? This question, once merely academic, is becoming a very real question for those who are beginning to realize that Gates’ unimaginable wealth has been used to gain control over every corner of the fields of public health, medical research and vaccine development. And now that we are presented with the very problem that Gates has been talking about for years, we will soon find that this software developer with no medical training is going to leverage that wealth into control over the fates of billions of people.—James Corbett (2020) 
The transformation of William Tyler Gates III from ruthless computer tycoon monopolist into benevolent global philanthropist is a primary instance of unbridled power exercised by the one speaking to the many. In November 1999 U.S. federal judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ruled Microsoft Corp exercised monopoly power in the market for personal computer operating systems. Following years of legal battles, and taking a page from other magnates-turned-altruists like John D. Rockefeller, over the past 20 years Bill Gates has rebranded himself as the benevolent benefactor of humanity. Employing the vehicle of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, he has more than doubled his net worth from $50 billion to over $110 billion in just the past ten years.
Part 1 lays out the enormous influence on consensus reality exercised thru funding media by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
And, like Rockefeller, Gates’ transformation has been helped along by a well-funded public relations campaign. Gone are the theatrical tricks of the PR pioneers—the ubiquitous ice cream cones of Gates’ mentor Warren Buffett are the last remaining holdout of the old Rockefeller-handing-out-dimes gimmick. No, Gates has guided his public image into that of a modern-day saint through an even simpler tactic: buying good publicity.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation spends tens of millions of dollars per year on media partnerships, sponsoring coverage of its program areas across the board. Gates funds The Guardian’s Global Development website. Gates funds NPR’s global health coverage. Gates funds the Our World in Data website that is tracking the latest statistics and research on the coronavirus pandemic. Gates funds BBC coverage of global health and development issues, both through its BBC Media Action organization and the BBC itself. Gates funds world health coverage on ABC News.
When the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer was given a $3.5 million Gates foundation grant to set up a special unit to report on global health issues, NewsHour communications chief Rob Flynn was asked about the potential conflict of interest that such a unit would have in reporting on issues that the Gates Foundation is itself involved in. “In some regards I guess you might say that there are not a heck of a lot of things you could touch in global health these days that would not have some kind of Gates tentacle,” Flynn responded.
Indeed, it would be almost impossible to find any area of global health that has been left untouched by the tentacles of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
It was Gates who sponsored the meeting that led to the creation of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, a global public-private partnership bringing together state sponsors and big pharmaceutical companies, whose specific goals include the creation of “healthy markets for vaccines and other immunisation products.” As a founding partner of the alliance, the Gates Foundation provided $750 million in seed funding and has gone on to make over $4.1 billion in commitments to the group.
The history of Bill Gates influence on media coverage of global health is revelatory in its assessment of how a person with no medical training or regulatory experience aggressively buys the kind of medical science “reporting” that furthers the goals of this proven monopolist. One of the core funding areas for the Gates Foundation is “vaccine development and surveillance”. In 2010 the Gates-founded “Decade of Vaccines” project committed $10 billion in funding to implement a Global Vaccine Action Plan. As stated at the project’s launch:
The Global Vaccine Action Plan will enable greater coordination across all stakeholder groups – national governments, multilateral organizations, civil society, the private sector and philanthropic organizations – and will identify critical policy, resource, and other gaps that must be addressed to realize the life-saving potential of vaccines.... Prof. Pedro Alonso, Director for the Institute for Global Health of Barcelona and Dr. Christopher Elias, President and CEO of PATH, have been appointed co-chairs of the Steering Committee and the Secretariat. “Vaccines are miracles,” said Prof. Alonso, “For just a few dollars per child, vaccines prevent disease and disability for a lifetime. We must make sure that people understand that vaccines are one of the best investments in health.”
Yet, as noted above, the comprehensive 2000 study by Johns Hopkins and the CDC concluded that the elimination of mortalities due to infectious diseases during the first half of the 20th century had nothing to do with vaccines and everything to do with what was in essence, an engineering solution: clean water and healthy food. According to World Health Organization Voluntary contributions in 2018, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation contributed $99+ million to the General Fund, the third largest contributor after the GAVI Alliance ($140+ million) and the United States ($132+ million). As James Corbett points out, “It was Gates who sponsored the meeting that led to the creation of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, a global public-private partnership bringing together state sponsors and big pharmaceutical companies, whose specific goals include the creation of ‘healthy markets for vaccines and other immunisation products.’ As a founding partner of the alliance, the Gates Foundation provided $750 million in seed funding and has gone on to make over $4.1 billion in commitments to the group.”
Given this, an obvious question is what epic purpose motivates and drives Bill Gates actions? Apparently not money as he certainly has enough of that. In April, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. posited the following regarding what makes Bill go? “Vaccines, for Bill Gates, are a strategic philanthropy that feed his many vaccine-related businesses (including Microsoft’s ambition to control a global vaccination ID enterprise) and give him dictatorial control of global health policy. Gates’s obsession with vaccines seems to be fueled by a conviction to save the world with technology.”Utilizing the device of a cartoon format to great effect, Willy G.’s Dystopian Future’s one-and-only offering on his goo-goo-tube channel is the 12 May 2020 production of BGPuppetShot. A transcript provides sources to some of what Cartoon Bill shares. Abragini84 left a succinct comment (among the 7+K) summing up Cartoon Bill’s statements: “These where by far the most honest 3 minutes and 46 seconds of Bill’s life.” While for some this may seem preposterous, Willy G. has done his homework in an effective and informative manner.
C-19 PCR “Gold Standard” Test Isn’t
Kary Mullis was a scientist. He never spoke like a globalist, and said once, memorably, when accused of making statements about HIV that could endanger lives: “I’m a scientist. I’m not a lifeguard.” That’s a very important line in the sand. Somebody who goes around claiming they are “saving lives,” is a very dangerous animal, and you should run in the opposite direction when you encounter them. Their weapon is fear, and their favorite word is “could.” They entrap you with a form of bio-debt, creating simulations of every imaginable thing that “could” happen, yet hasn’t. Bill Gates has been waiting a long time for a virus with this much, as he put it, “pandemic potential.” But Gates has a problem, and it’s called PCR.—Celia Farber (2020) “In any other disease we would have a clearly defined specification that would usually involve signs, symptoms, and a test result,” says Carl Heneghan, director of the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine at the University of Oxford and the editor of BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine. “We are moving into a biotech world where the norms of clinical reasoning are going out of the window. A PCR test does not equal covid-19; it should not, but in some definitions it does.”—Elisabeth Mahase (2020) 
Kary Mullis was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1993 for his invention of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) process. The inspiration for this method of making unlimited copies of DNA fragments came to Mullis in 1983. As he described the process in 1990, “the polymerase chain reaction makes life much easier for molecular biologists: it gives them as much of a particular DNA as they want.” In 2020, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states: “The ‘gold standard’ for clinical diagnostic detection of SARS-CoV-2 remains RT-PCR.” Websters Dictionary defines diagnosis as “1 a : the art or act of identifying a disease from its signs and symptoms, b : the decision reached by diagnosis”. U.S. Public Health Agencies current policies regarding how to address the SARS-COV-2 virus are founded on the PCR test. What is not at all clear is on what basis this was chosen to be the CDC’s “‘gold standard’ for clinical diagnostic detection” given blatant contradictions in such items as U.S. test kits; for example as in this one from Creative Diagnostics: “This product is intended for the detection of 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV). The detection result of this product is only for clinical reference, and it should not be used as the only evidence for clinical diagnosis and treatment.”
With a background in biology and medical study, science writer David Crowe produced concise summaries earlier this year on Issues with the RT-PCR Coronavirus Test and Isolation versus Purification with respect to the SARS-COV-2 virus. In an interview with journalist Celia Farber about Kary Mullis, he lamented how “I’m sad that he isn’t here to defend his manufacturing technique ... Kary did not invent a test. He invented a very powerful manufacturing technique that is being abused. What are the best applications for PCR? Not medical diagnostics. He knew that and he always said that.” As Crowe writes in Flaws in Coronavirus Pandemic Theory, “The COVID-19 test is based on PCR, a DNA manufacturing technique. When used as a test it does not produce a positive/negative result, but simply the number of cycles required to detect sufficient material to beat the arbitrary cutoff between positive and negative. If positive means infected and negative means uninfected, then there are cases of people going from infected to uninfected and back to infected again in a couple of days.”
The issue of defining the cycle threshold that identifies whether or not a given RNA fragment contains the coronavirus is central to ongoing policies being enacted by most country’s governments including the United States. In early August The Center for Evidence-Based Medicine published an analysis of how PCR results reflect infectivity. The latter half of this paper explains what the cycle threshold is and how PCR detection of RNA viruses does not differentiate fragments that are no longer infectious.
Why does the cycle threshold cut-off matter?
RT-PCR uses an enzyme called reverse transcriptase to change a specific piece of RNA into a matching piece of DNA. The PCR then amplifies the DNA exponentially, by doubling the number of molecules time and again. A fluorescent signal can be attached to the copies of the DNA, and a test is considered positive when the fluorescent signal is amplified sufficiently to be detectable.
The cycle threshold (referred to as the Ct value) is the number of amplification cycles required for the fluorescent signal to cross a certain threshold. This allows very small samples of RNA to be amplified and detected.
The lower the cycle threshold level the greater the amount of RNA (genetic material) there is in the sample. The higher the cycle number, the less RNA there is in the sample.What does this mean?
This detection problem is ubiquitous for RNA viruses detection. SARS-CoV, MERS, Influenza Ebola and Zika viral RNA can be detected long after the disappearance of the infectious virus.
The immune system works to neutralise the virus and prevent further infection. Whilst an infectious stage may last a week or so, because inactivated RNA degrades slowly over time it may still be detected many weeks after infectiousness has dissipated.
PCR detection of viruses is helpful so long as its limitations are understood; while it detects RNA in minute quantities, caution needs to be applied to the results as it often does not detect infectious virus.What can we conclude?
These studies provided limited data of variable quality that PCR results per se are unlikely to predict viral culture from human samples. Insufficient attention may have been paid [to] how PCR results relate to disease. The relation with infectiousness is unclear and more data are needed on this.
If this is not understood, PCR results may lead to restrictions for large groups of people who do not present an infection risk.
The results indicate that viral RNA load cut-offs should be used: to understand who is infectious, the extent of any outbreak and for controlling transmission.
As stated above, SARS-CoV-2 can be detected long after the disappearance of the infectious virus. Someone shedding an active virus and someone else who has inactive leftover RNA from infection can both receive the same positive result. The occurrences of false positive test results can lead to unwarranted and serious consequences for persons so mis-identified with this. Page two of the U.S. FDA Fact Sheet, CDC - 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel (local copy), acknowledges the dangers posed by false positives:
The CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel has been designed to minimize the likelihood of false positive test results. However, in the event of a false positive result, risks to patients could include the following: a recommendation for isolation of the patient, monitoring of household or other close contacts for symptoms, patient isolation that might limit contact with family or friends and may increase contact with other potentially COVID-19 patients, limits in the ability to work, the delayed diagnosis and treatment for the true infection causing the symptoms, unnecessary prescription of a treatment or therapy, or other unintended adverse effects.
At this point the PCR is picking up people who are asymptomatic with no detectible signs. It’s picking up people who have recovered from covid a month or more ago. It’s finding non-infectious viral fragments. The PCR test at this stage is driving hysteria, producing wholly unnecessary and utterly avoidable results. Testing is up, up, up and mainstream media is obsessed with hyping “cases”. Ivor Cummins is a biochemical engineer with 30+ years experience in corporate technical leadership positions. His focus is on solving the root of chronic disease. Cummins points out that in early August this epidemic has waned and has been replaced with an irrational, unscientific Casedemic.
In mid September Bose Ravenel (MD, FAAP, Retired) observed that “Public health authorities currently are basing societal mitigation policies and recommendations almost exclusively upon this [PCR] technology by tracking putative numbers of ‘cases’ instead of deaths and hospitalizations, and the result is an unprecedented negative impact on society that is futile and unnecessary.” This is not the first time cases replaced deaths and hospitalizations as the barometer of what was then as is now being called a pandemic. First announced in April 2009, the H1N1 flu panic played out with very similar fixated hyper-focusing on cases. As Ivor Cummins describes this beginning at 2:59:
This is very interesting from 2009 and the swine flu. ragnar_lives on twitter pulled all this out from official government documentation. We see here the tracking in 2008 into 2009 flu season and there would have been mortality there for sure. But then something fascinating happened. A new PCR-type rapid testing FluChip came in and it was focused on looking at the swine flu. That was the flavor of the month back then. influenza A(H1N1)pdm09”]—and there was an enormous panic because all these cases were being seen mounting and mounting. But they were primarily driven by, of course, PCR-type testing. Then into the fall there was a lot of H1N1 being seen and huge amounts of tests and again people were panicking but no one really died or at least tiny numbers. Then it began to fade out and they just gave up testing.In late July Nobel Laureate and Stanford biophysics Professor Michael Levitt predicted that Covid-19 would be “done” by 25 August. On 29 August the CDC published the following table indicating the death curve from Covid-19 “Week ending 2/1/2020 through 8/22/2020” was back to mid-March levels of mortality.
“John D (PhD, etc.)” describes himself on Twitter with “I used to juggle numbers for a living. Now doing my best to help you navigate the ocean of data.” On 14 September he posted the following graph with the text: “Time for an update. I added some noise to all-cause deaths FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY. Otherwise, that’s just daily average of this year’s deaths (60.2 million). Sources Covid ecdc.europa.eu All-cause deaths: UN Population Division quoted by ourworlddata.orgposted an updated graphic comprised of data from EuroMOMO, “a European mortality monitoring activity, aiming to detect and measure excess deaths related to seasonal influenza, pandemics and other public health threats.” This was in response to Dr Clare Craig FRCPath who had posted the following: “I had assumed non-COVID excess deaths in April were likely undiagnosed COVID. This coroner’s audit suggests more likely lockdown deaths. Only 2/67 autopsies had COVID: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(20)30180-8/fulltext”
Clearly, measuring the actual active infectivity of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is THE metric to apply where implementing world wide government health policy is concerned. While using the polymerase chain reaction technique is not new with Covid-19 (e.g. introduction of the PCR-type rapid testing FluChip for H1N1 “swine flu’ of 2008-2009), it is even more questionable why this manufacturing technique is still treated as the “gold standard” by the CDC. As Tom Jefferson et al conclude in their 3 September COVID-19 infectivity assessment:
Prospective routine testing of reference and culture specimens are necessary for each country involved in the pandemic to establish the usefulness and reliability of PCR for Covid-19 and its relation to patients’ factors. Infectivity is related to the date of onset of symptoms and cycle threshold level. A binary Yes/No approach to the interpretation RT-PCR unvalidated against viral culture will result in false positives with segregation of large numbers of people who are no longer infectious and hence not a threat to public health.
As Kary Mullis himself spoke in 1997 about the misuse of PCR:
Question: How did they misuse PCR to estimate all these so supposed three viral RNAs that may or may not be there?
Kary Mullis: I think misused PCR is not quite—I don’t think you can misuse PCR. The results, the interpretation of it—see, if you can say, if they could find this virus in you at all—and with PCR, if you do it well you can find almost anything in anybody—it starts making you believe in the sort of Buddhist notion that everything is contained in everything else. Because if you can amplify one single molecule up to to something that you can really measure, which PCR can do, then there’s just very few molecules that you don’t have at least one single one of them in your body.
So that could be thought of as a misuse of it just to claim that it’s meaningful. But the real misuse of it is that you don’t need to test for HIV, you don’t need to test for the other 10,000 retroviruses that are unnamed, also in the subject. See somebody that’s got HIV generally is going to have almost anything that you can test for because they have definitely—HIV is a fairly rare virus. There’s only one million of us out of 250, 300 million people in America that have that virus. So you have to get around, either your mother had to have it and pass it to you, or you have to really be paying a lot of attention to people that do have it and paying only attention to them and get a pretty good chance of getting it that way. It’s hard to get it.
But it if you have it, there’s a good chance you’ve also got a lot of other ones.... To test for that one and say that has any special meaning is what I think is the problem. Not that PCR has been misused.
Question: Is it more like, is it an estimation?
Mullis: It’s not an estimation, no it’s a really quantitative thing. It tells you something about nature and about what’s there. But it allows you to take a very minuscule amount of anything and make it measurable and then talk about it in meetings and stuff like it is important. That’s not a misuse. That’s just a misinterpretation. There’s very little of what they call HIV and what’s been brought out here by Phil Pott and [...]
The measurement for it is not is not exact at all. It’s not as good as our measurement for things like apples. An apple is an apple. You can get something that’s kind of like, if you’ve got enough things that look kind of like an apple and you stick them all together you might think of it as an apple. And HIV is like that. Those tests are all based on things that are invisible and they are—the results are inferred in a sense.
PCR is separate from that. It’s just a process that’s used to make a whole lot of something out of something. It doesn’t tell you that you’re sick and it doesn’t tell you that the thing you ended up with really was gonna hurt you or anything like that.
Kary Mullis’ observations about his PCR method in terms of HIV are more relevant than ever with today’s coronavirus. Remember that the common cold is also designated in the category of coronavirus. Finally, it is essential to re-emphasize that Mullis differentiates “PCR” from “tests” and that as a process to take a tiny amount of something down at the molecular level and make a whole lot more out of it, PCR does not tell you that you are sick and it does not tell you if what you have will make you sick.”
From all this, the question must be pursued: Why is the PCR test, invented as a DNA manufacturing technique, the CDC’s “gold standard” for diagnosing the presence of actively infectious SARS-COV-2 when its inventor always affirmed it was never intended to serve as a medical diagnostic tool? Additionally, why do SARS-CoV-2 testing kits state “For research use only, not for use in diagnostic procedures”? When such necessary and fundamental questions are not being raised and debated by mainstream media, one is left to think there is something terribly misguided and wrong with policies being mandated by government public health officials.
HCQ & Needless Untold Deaths
Fauci, Birx and Redfield, all incestuously complicit in the HIV/AIDS frauds and malpractice, today hold the future of not only American public health, but also of the entire world economy in their hands. Not a good situation. As their work on the proved HIV=AIDS fraud shows, the coronavirus tests do not at all prove presence of a deadly virus in any patient. If this is so, it is perhaps the greatest criminal fraud in medical history.— F. William Engdahl (2020) I am usually accustomed to advocating for positions within the mainstream of medicine, so have been flummoxed to find that, in the midst of a crisis, I am fighting for a treatment that the data fully support but which, for reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science, has been pushed to the sidelines. As a result, tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying unnecessarily. Fortunately, the situation can be reversed easily and quickly.
I am referring, of course, to the medication hydroxychloroquine. When this inexpensive oral medication is given very early in the course of illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control, it has shown to be highly effective, especially when given in combination with the antibiotics azithromycin or doxycycline and the nutritional supplement zinc.— Harvey A. Risch (2020) 
There has been quite a bit of coincidence theory about events held prior to this year that simulated or predicted what is now being called the 2020 global pandemic.
At the White House on 20 March 2020, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated, “we are in a live exercise”. Clearly a great deal of thought and consideration has gone into gaming, simulating, and preparing for the potential of a global pandemic by scientists collaborating with public health and military officials, as well as corporate and university representatives.
On 10 January 2017, days before the inauguration of Donald Trump, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Director Anthony Fauci gave the Keynote Address at Georgetown University on the subject of “Pandemic Preparedness in the Next Administration.” Hosted by the Center for Global Health Science and Security at Georgetown University Medical Center partnering with the Harvard Global Health Institute, the meeting brought together “leading thinkers from across sectors, and representing disciplines from practitioners to policymakers, to listen, learn, and discuss ways the next presidential administration can contribute to pandemic preparedness, global health security, and domestic readiness and resilience.” Beginning at 2:52 of his presentation, Fauci said:
Given, as you heard from the introduction, that I have been around for awhile and have had the opportunity and the privilege and the pleasure of serving in five administrations, I thought I would bring that perspective to the topic today, is the issue of pandemic preparedness. And if there is one message that I want to leave with you today, based on my experience, and you’ll see that in a moment, is that there is no question that there will be a challenge [to] the coming administration in the arena of infectious diseases—both chronic infectious diseases in the sense of already on-going disease—and we have certainly a large burden of that—but also there will be a surprise outbreak. And I hope by the end of my relatively short presentation you will understand why history, and the history of the last 32 years that I have been the Director of the NIAID, will tell the next administration that there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that they will be faced with the challenges that their predecessors were faced with.
As stated, Anthony Fauci has been the Director of NAIAD for a long time. Appointed in 1984, he is an immunologist by training. Given all the practice runs for pandemics listed above and Fauci’s professed certainty in January 2017 that “there will be a surprise outbreak” for “the coming administration”, there are glaring contradictions and inconsistencies between numerous levels of anticipation of this crisis and the actual responses that have occurred. Of primary concern here is how and why prospective therapeutic drugs such as Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) that have proved remarkably effective in treating people afflicted with Covid-19 have adamantly been steadfastly rejected by Fauci and so-called experts promoted by MSM broadcast and print mediums.
In August the Alliance for Human Research Protection (AHRP) published an analysis “How a False COVID-19 Narrative Was Created & Sustained for Six Months” It began by citing the work of Meryl Nass, MD—an internal medicine physician with expertise in anthrax and bioterrorism and focus on prevention, investigation, amelioration, and safe effective medical response—and cites her own analysis, “How a false hydroxychloroquine narrative was created, and more.” First published in late June, Dr. Nass continues updating this evaluation. The beginning summary encapsulates the hypothesis that suppression of HCQ may be intentional to keep the pandemic going:
It is remarkable that a large series of events taking place over the past 5 months produced a unified message about hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), and produced similar policies about the drug in the US, Canada, Australia, NZ and western Europe. The message is that generic, inexpensive hydroxychloroquine (costing only $1.00 to produce a full course) is dangerous and should not be used to treat a potentially fatal disease, Covid-19, for which there are no (other) reliable treatments.
Hydroxychloroquine has been used safely for 65 years in many millions of patients. And so the message was crafted that the drug is safe for its other uses, but dangerous when used for Covid-19. It doesn’t make sense, but it seems to have worked.
In the US, “Never Trump” morphed into “Never Hydroxychloroquine,” and the result for the pandemic is “Never Over.” But while anti-Trump spin is what characterized suppression strategies in the US, the frauds perpetrated about hydroxychloroquine and the pandemic include most western countries.
Why do I say “Never Over”? I am expanding on this claim with a), b), c) on August 30. Later in the paper additional evidence is provided.
- Because if people were treated with HCQ at the onset of their illness, over 99% would quickly resolve the infection, avoiding progression to the late stage disease characterized by cytokine storm, thrombophilia and organ failure. Despite claims to the contrary, this treatment is very safe. (Yet outpatient treatment is banned in many US states.)
- If people were treated prophylactically with this drug (using only 2 tablets weekly) as is done in some areas and in some occupational groups in India, there would probably be at least 50% fewer cases after exposure. (Such treatment is currently banned in much of the US, including in my state of Maine.)
- Protocols for in-hospital treatment (that were unknown during the initial peak of illness in the US and Europe) using HCQ and individually selected blood thinners, steroids, vitamins, zinc and other drugs such as used at NYU, have significantly reduced mortality of the very small number of people who might still progress to a serious illness. (The FDA, however, recommends against the use of HCQ outside of clinical trials, and the CDC and NIH recommend against it.)
If we followed a), b) and c) the result would be much briefer periods of infectiousness, lower viral loads, less severe illness and considerably less transmission. The R zero (average number of people each case infects) would drop below one and the pandemic would soon die out.
Were acts to suppress the use of HCQ carefully orchestrated? You decide.
Might these events have been planned to keep the pandemic going? To sell expensive drugs and vaccines to a captive population? Could these acts result in prolonged economic and social hardship, eventually transferring wealth from the middle class to the very rich? Are these events evidence of a conspiracy?
Here is a list of what happened, in no special order. Please help add to this list if you know of other actions I should include. This will be a living document, added to as new information becomes available.
I have penned this as if it is the “To Do” list of items to be accomplished by those who pull the strings. The items on the list have already been carried out. One wonders what else might be on their list, yet to be carried out, for this pandemic.
As of October 27 the “To Do list” Dr. Nass articulates comprises 52 entries. Following this is listed 14 instances of The People and the Professionals Fight Back.
The AHRP analysis continued by outlining “a case against government officials’ collusion to demonize an effective existing medicine.”
They even designed clinical trials that required high doses of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine that were known – to the medical profession – to be toxic and potentially lethal. These officials bear responsibility for causing preventable deaths of possibly hundreds of thousands of patients.
Following publication by The Lancet of a demonstrably FRAUDULENT study, the World Health Organization suspended its hydroxychloroquine studies and urged countries around the world to suspend both their clinical trials, and prevent doctors from using the drug for Covid. Several governments did ban the use of the drug. Some, like Switzerland, lifted the ban after the Lancet study was retracted two weeks after publication.
Switzerland, which had been using the drug for months, banned Hydroxychloroquine from May 27th until June 11th. Here is the Johns Hopkins graph documenting the precipitous increase in the case fatality rate (CFR) – i.e., preventable deaths that occurred in Switzerland during the 13-day period during which patients were denied this life-saving treatment.The graph charting high Covid-19 deaths in Switzerland during the 13 day ban, following the fraudulent Lancet report proves that the drug had reduced the rate of deaths; that rate increased precipitously when the drug was withheld. The Swiss death rate from Covid-19 dropped as soon as patients were again treated with Hydroxychloroquine. [Source: Covid-19: hydroxychloroquine works, a proof?,” Michel Jullian and Xavier Azalbert, FranceSoir, 16 Jul 2020]
This constitutes scientific proof of the curative effect of Hydroxychloroquine for patients with Covid-19, by means of challenge-dechallenge-rechallenge. In this case, it was not an experiment by design, but rather the result of government edicts.
The graph further demonstrates that France whose government issued a series of regulations to restrict the use of this effective treatment, such as changing the drugs’ status from over-the-counter to prescription only on January 13th, followed by a ban on the use of the drug two months later. In contrast to Switzerland, France has a high 19.12% Covid-19 mortality rate.
Further evidence demonstrating the life-saving benefit of Hydroxychloroquine for Covid-19 infected patients comes from clinical trials conducted by the world renowned virologist, Didier Raoult, MD, PhD: patients treated with Hydroxychloroquine were at minimal risk of death: 0.52%.
While there is extensive analysis on the efficacy of HCQ for early treatment, it is being censored in MSM print and broadcast mediums. Why? A group of dynamically updated reference sites are producing ongoing compilations of world-wide data studies:
The scope and level of detail being developed in c19study.com’s ongoing correlation of highly efficacious early treatment by HCQ of Covid-19 is incredibly good news. As of 24 October, hcqtrial.com states “The treatment group has a 70.7% lower death rate.” These are exceedingly important, vital, and life-promoting statistics. Yet they are not being acknowledged, much less acted upon by governments shown in red countries in the Countries based on current HCQ/CQ usage map above. Further, a cross-section of published papers, analysis, and articles affirm the efficacy of HCQ as well as detail the horrendous—nay criminal—censorship of its benefits.
The estimated number of human lives lost from not believing HCQ is effective is:
724,753based on a meta-analysis of 23 early treatment studies and excluding areas already using HCQ. 100% studies report a positive effect, with a 64% improvement in a random-effects meta-analysis, relative risk 0.36 [0.28-0.46].
The lives lost of people who would have lived if they had received early treatment of HCQ is too hideous for words. Suppressing and censoring any—much less open—societal debate of the above analyses is indefensible, unconscionable, and criminal. This information proffers the necessary antidote to the lie Fauci et al have been claiming that Hydroxychloroquine is dangerous and ineffective. THE logical and central question that must be accountably addressed is: Who benefits by claiming early use of HCQ is not efficacious and harmful? As Dr. Nass sums up this situation, “Remember: the system would not be going to these lengths if hydroxychloroquine didn’t work. Please think about that.”
Beyond all this—even though the entire North American continent is indicated as LIMITED USE in the Global HCQ/CQ Use map above—there ARE ways to access and receive the benefits of these life-saving medications. America’s Frontline Doctors provides information and sources on HCQ availability: learn about options for you or your doctor to obtain/prescribe HCQ for early treatment via America’s Frontline Doctors Telemedicine Affiliate, SpeakWithAnMD.com. There are also pages on HCQ Information & Frequently Asked Questions as well as HCQ Protocols which lists four Treatment Protocols:
Mask Off! Every Breath Renews Life’s Gift
Cloth face covers are not protective equipment and do not protect the person wearing a cloth face cover fromCOVID-19.—CAL OSHA (2020) [T]here is currently no evidence that wearing a mask (whether medical or other types) by healthy persons in the wider community setting, including universal community masking, can prevent them from infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.—World Health Organization (2020) I’ve been wearing masks for 25 years in my role as an operating-room nurse. So I have a firm grasp on masks’ risks and benefits and how to use them correctly. I’m having a hard time watching the misuse of masks all around me after the folly of influential public-health officials promote universal-mask-wearing recommendations to control COVID-19.—Cindy Gough (2020) 
Every breath renews the gift we are graced with since birth. In our now-upside-down world, one of the primary imperatives the majority of public health and political officials around much of the globe are urging and mandating is to wear a mask for health and safety. (Soon, all too soon, it may be that a national mandate becomes law forcing everyone to wear masks throughout the United States.) Given the holes in this supposedly air-tight claim of increasing security from infection, the following provides a doses of critical analysis to actually assess what is being imposed everywhere. It is also a very partial compilation on the efficacy and intelligence of using masks for the purposes claimed by health authorities. And, there is no substitute for everyone conducting their own research to determine what the facts are in this sphere.
On 6 June, BARRICADE GARAGE - No Problems, Only Solutions, produced a short, extremely cogent satirically framed analysis of mask mania.
MASK OFF (3:24)
“There is zero scientific proof that the virus is spread by A-symptomatic people and they aren’t able to provide a study that even proves their claims but yet we have a reputable scientific study that proves A-symptomatic people DON’T spread the virus so you can use your imagination to figure out why the media hasn’t reported on this.”
“A wise man once said, ‘to guard with jealous attention the public liberty and suspect anyone who comes near that precious jewel.’ That being said the fact that you can wear a mask made out of literally any material lets me know this is not about safety. This is about social engineering.”
- “CDC estimates COVID 19 mortality rate is 0.4%, significantly lower than previously reported - The data is based on five scenarios, including the best estimate for a mortality rate, which is 0.4% overall,” Alex Shabad, WCNC, 28 May 2020
- And if mask are so effective then why weren’t we instructed to wear them back in 2018 when Tuberculosis killed over 1.5 million people including over 200 thousand children?
“A total of 1.5 million people died from TB in 2018 ... 1.1 million children fell ill with TB globally, and there were 205 000 child deaths due to TB ...”
Tuberculosis, World Health Organization, 24 Mar 2020
- There is zero scientific proof that the virus is spread by A-symptomatic people and they aren’t able to provide a study that even proves their claims but yet we have a reputable scientific study that proves A-symptomatic people DON’T spread the virus so you can use your imagination to figure out why the media hasn’t reported on this.
Gao M, Yang L, Chen X, et al. “A study on infectivity of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers.” Respiratory Medicine 2020;169:106026. doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2020.106026
- World Health Organization states as of April 2nd there has been no documented A-symptomatic transmission
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), Situation Report – 73, Data as reported by national authorities by 10:00 CET 2 April 2020, World Health Organization (local PDF)
Denis Rancourt, PhD
There are at least eight randomized control trial (RCT) studies of masks as barriers against respiratory viruses. These types of studies are the true gold standard of scientific research conducted over the past two decades. They all found that masks are not effective at blocking transmission of respiratory viruses. Seven of these RCTs are reviewed by Denis Rancourt in a paper he published on ResearchGate in April 2020. With a PhD in Physics (1984, University of Toronto), Rancourt is a former tenured Full Professor (University of Ottawa), and has published over one hundred articles in leading science journals. He joined the Ontario Civil Liberties Association as a volunteer Researcher in 2014. The Summary/Abstract for this paper states:
Masks and respirators do not work. There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles. Furthermore, the relevant known physics and biology, which I review, are such that masks and respirators should not work. It would be a paradox if masks and respirators worked, given what we know about viral respiratory diseases: The main transmission path is long-residence-time aerosol particles (< 2.5 μm), which are too fine to be blocked, and the minimum-infective-dose is smaller than one aerosol particle. The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.
There is more than ample cause to critique and assess the unprecedented experiment in medical and political history occurring at this moment. Rancourt’s paper was titled “Masks Don’t Work: A review of science relevant to COVID-19 social policy.” After reaching 400,000 reads, it was banned on ResearchGate on 3 June (but not before it was republished and archived). In a 5 June article, “COVID censorship at ResearchGate: Things scientists cannot say,” (complete PDF), Rancourt describes his correspondence with the two managing Directors of ResearchGate (endnotes delimited in square brackets):
... they are stating that they judge my article – which argues that there is no scientific basis for public use of masks, a position in line with express longstanding statements made by the WHO[“Can masks protect against the new coronavirus infection?”, WHO, https://youtu.be/Ded_AxFfJoQ] – a threat to human safety because it “was broadly linked to from a variety of social media accounts”. This is censorship of my scientific work like I have never experienced before. It deprives me of the advantages of the ResearchGate platform. It also kills the many links to the article, from a multitude of media and social-media venues. As such, it infringes on the public’s right to freely access information in a democracy, without undue or illegal interference. The actions of ResearchGate are contrary to science, freedom, and democracy. In my opinion, ResearchGate is using the public internet infrastructure, while actuating an apparent bias aligned with its funding sources.[“ResearchGate raises $52.6M for its social research network for scientists”, TechCrunch: “This latest tranche of money comes from an impressive list of strategic and financial investors that include the Wellcome Trust, Goldman Sachs Investment Partners, and Four Rivers Group, Ashton Kutcher, LVMH, Xavier Niel, Bill Gates, Benchmark, and Founders Fund, some of whom (like Gates, Benchmark and Founders Fund) were investors in previous rounds.”]
The eighth RCT is titled, A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers. Published in 2015, its conclusion stated: “This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.”
Dr. Arthur Firstenberg is the author of The Invisible Rainbow, A History of Electricity and Life (Chelsea Green, March 2020). From the publisher’s biography page: “Arthur Firstenberg is a scientist and journalist who is at the forefront of a global movement to tear down the taboo surrounding this subject. After graduating Phi Beta Kappa from Cornell University with a degree in mathematics, he attended the University of California, Irvine School of Medicine from 1978 to 1982. Injury by X-ray overdose cut short his medical career. For the past thirty-eight years he has been a researcher, consultant, and lecturer on the health and environmental effects of electromagnetic radiation, as well as a practitioner of several healing arts.“
[excerpt from Dr. Firstenberg’s newsletter dated August 11, 2020]
Instead of acknowledging the harm from radio waves, society is tearing its fabric apart by instituting measures that are protecting no one and are instead sickening and killing people. I will mention just one of those measures here: facial masks.
As a person who went to medical school, I was shocked when I read Neil Orr’s study, published in 1981 in the Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. Dr. Orr was a surgeon in the Severalls Surgical Unit in Colchester. And for six months, from March through August 1980, the surgeons and staff in that unit decided to see what would happen if they did not wear masks during surgeries. They wore no masks for six months, and compared the rate of surgical wound infections from March through August 1980 with the rate of wound infections from March through August of the previous four years. And they discovered, to their amazement, that when nobody wore masks during surgeries, the rate of wound infections was less than half what it was when everyone wore masks. Their conclusion: “It would appear that minimum contamination can best be achieved by not wearing a mask at all” and that wearing a mask during surgery “is a standard procedure that could be abandoned.”
I was so amazed that I scoured the medical literature, sure that this was a fluke and that newer studies must show the utility of masks in preventing the spread of disease. But to my surprise the medical literature for the past forty-five years has been consistent: masks are useless in preventing the spread of disease and, if anything, are unsanitary objects that themselves spread bacteria and viruses.
- Ritter et al., in 1975, found that “the wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination.”
- Ha’eri and Wiley, in 1980, applied human albumin microspheres to the interior of surgical masks in 20 operations. At the end of each operation, wound washings were examined under the microscope. “Particle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments.”
- Laslett and Sabin, in 1989, found that caps and masks were not necessary during cardiac catheterization. “No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used,” they wrote. Sjøl and Kelbaek came to the same conclusion in 2002.
- In Tunevall’s 1991 study, a general surgical team wore no masks in half of their surgeries for two years. After 1,537 operations performed with masks, the wound infection rate was 4.7%, while after 1,551 operations performed without masks, the wound infection rate was only 3.5%.
- A review by Skinner and Sutton in 2001 concluded that “The evidence for discontinuing the use of surgical face masks would appear to be stronger than the evidence available to support their continued use.”
- Lahme et al., in 2001, wrote that “surgical face masks worn by patients during regional anaesthesia, did not reduce the concentration of airborne bacteria over the operation field in our study. Thus they are dispensable.”
- Figueiredo et al., in 2001, reported that in five years of doing peritoneal dialysis without masks, rates of peritonitis in their unit were no different than rates in hospitals where masks were worn.
- Bahli did a systematic literature review in 2009 and found that “no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative wound infection was observed between masks groups and groups operated with no masks.”
- Surgeons at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, recognizing the lack of evidence supporting the use of masks, ceased requiring them in 2010 for anesthesiologists and other non-scrubbed personnel in the operating room. “Our decision to no longer require routine surgical masks for personnel not scrubbed for surgery is a departure from common practice. But the evidence to support this practice does not exist,” wrote Dr. Eva Sellden.
- Webster et al., in 2010, reported on obstetric, gynecological, general, orthopaedic, breast and urological surgeries performed on 827 patients. All non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries, and none of the non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries. Surgical site infections occurred in 11.5% of the Mask group, and in only 9.0% of the No Mask group.
- Lipp and Edwards reviewed the surgical literature in 2014 and found “no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials.” Vincent and Edwards updated this review in 2016 and the conclusion was the same.
- Carøe, in a 2014 review based on four studies and 6,006 patients, wrote that “none of the four studies found a difference in the number of post-operative infections whether you used a surgical mask or not.”
- Salassa and Swiontkowski, in 2014, investigated the necessity of scrubs, masks and head coverings in the operating room and concluded that “there is no evidence that these measures reduce the prevalence of surgical site infection.”
- Da Zhou et al., reviewing the literature in 2015, concluded that “there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.”
Schools in China are now prohibiting students from wearing masks while exercising. Why? Because it was killing them. It was depriving them of oxygen and it was killing them. At least three children died during Physical Education classes — two of them while running on their school’s track while wearing a mask. And a 26-year-old man suffered a collapsed lung after running two and a half miles while wearing a mask.
Mandating masks has not kept death rates down anywhere. The 20 U.S. states that have never ordered people to wear face masks indoors and out have dramatically lower COVID-19 death rates than the 30 states that have mandated masks. Most of the no-mask states have COVID-19 death rates below 20 per 100,000 population, and none have a death rate higher than 55. All 13 states that have death rates higher 55 are states that have required the wearing of masks in all public places. It has not protected them.
Mark Crispin Miller, PhD
On 3 September author and NYU Professor Mark Crispin Miller published the 46-page essay, “Masking Ourselves to Death: A stunning propaganda win for voodoo epidemiology (COMPLETE first half)”.
As he introduced it on his News From Underground feed:
A few days ago, when I sent out the first third of this text, I wrote that I would send the rest in two further installments.
But, in light of what’s been happening over just these last few days, I’ve decided to send all of it out now. As RFK, Jr. said so powerfully in Berlin (to over a million people), what’s looming on the near horizon is totalitarianism—a threat not just in some few “closed societies” ruled by dictators right or left, but an unprecedented global system of control by governments and corporations, and the elite interests backing them.
Our conquest by that system will depend on our compliance with the “rules” established (with no democratic process whatsoever) by the COVID-19 panic that’s been stoked, and is being now protracted, by “our free press” and its counterparts worldwide. As mask mandates have been crucial to exacting that compliance, and are now being perversely tightened even as the COVID crisis ends, those of us who will not give up our humanity, or have our children huddling “safe” in constant fear and isolation, must now stand up together and refuse those mandates, which have no scientific basis, and are doing us immeasurably more harm than “the coronavirus” ever could.
There is abundant evidence, of several kinds, that masks are ineffective and unhealthy; and I’ve attempted to present it here, as clearly (and readably) as I can. I hope that you will see it as a trove of ammunition to be used against the mammoth propaganda drive that has so many healthy millions injuring themselves, and taking all the joy out of our world, by wearing masks.
Jim Meehan, MD
On 10 October, Jim Meehan, MD, published: An Evidence Based Scientific Analysis of Why Masks are Ineffective, Unnecessary, and Harmful. Dr. Meehan is well suited to evaluate the science on Masks. The beginning of this analysis follows. Links below go into the 45-page PDF file version.
Jim Meehan, MD is an ophthalmologist and preventive medicine specialist with over 20 years of experience and advanced training in immunology, inflammation, and infectious disease. He has performed well over 10,000 surgical procedures. His research experience includes investigating associations between military vaccinations and Gulf War Syndrome. Dr. Meehan is also trained in internal medicine, addiction medicine, endocrinology, integrative medicine, functional medicine, and nutrition.
Dr. Meehan is a former editor of the medical journal, Ocular Immunology and Inflammation. Dr. Meehan has peer-reviewed thousands of medical research studies. With this experience and expertise, Dr. Meehan has dedicated his career to protecting his patients and the public from the fraud, corruption, and pseudoscience so often used by agents and agencies whose motives and interests have resulted in American medicine and pharmaceutical drugs becoming the third leading cause of death in the United States.NOTE: 4. Masks are Harmfull: 17 Ways that Masks Can Cause Harm is provided in hypertext with the 17 points linked for direct access and sourcingKey Points
- Decades of the highest-level scientific evidence (meta-analyses of multiple randomized controlled trials) overwhelmingly conclude that medical masks are ineffective at preventing the transmission of respiratory viruses, including SAR-CoV-2.
- Those arguing for masks are relying on low-level evidence (observational retrospective trials and mechanistic theories), none of which are powered to counter the evidence, arguments, and risks of mask mandates.
- The majority of the population is at very low to almost no risk of severe or lethal disease from CoVID-19. Children are at an extraordinarily low risk of dying from CoVID-19. Based on CDC published data, 99.99815% of children that contract CoVID-19 survive.
- Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among children in schools and daycares is very rare.
- Masks worn properly are well documented to cause harm to their wearers. Masks worn improperly, re-used, or contaminated are dangerous.
- Any reasonable risk to benefit analysis of medical masks concludes that the risks overwhelmingly outweigh the benefits.
- Children are at imminent risk of harm from mask mandates.
- Evidence Based Medicine: How we (should) make decisions in science and medicine
- Masks are Ineffective
- Masks are Unnecessary
- Fear and Politics are Subverting Science and Reason
- Masking Children in Schools is Unnecessary - So Says The Science
- Masks are Harmful: 17 Ways that Masks Can Cause Harm
- Masking School Children is Ineffective, Unnecessary, and Harmful
- Mandatory masks in school are a ‘major threat’ to children’s’ health, doctors warn
- Forcing Children to Wear Face Masks is Unnecessary
- Forcing Children to Wear Masks for Long Periods Risks Causing Them Physical Injuries
- Forcing Children to Wear Masks for Long Periods Risks Causing Them Mental and Psychological Injuries
The is a great deal of lucid critical analysis in the above concerning the health effects of wearing masks. In a recent interview, Mark Crispin Miller described what is not acknowledged or debated in MSM news reporting about the actual health effects and costs of forcing people to wear masks.
[Masks are] positively unhealthy. They cause hypoxia which is deoxygenation which can cause brain damage. It certainly impairs short-term memory. And here we have a mandate that includes children in school all over the country.... They’re there to learn, not to be traumatized with social distancing and compulsory mask wearing.
It causes hypoxia. it causes hypercapnia which is CO2 overload. And maybe even more important it weakens your immune system. The lungs are an excretory organ, like the bladder or the colon. The lungs naturally expel pathogens from the body, pathogens that your body wants to get rid of. If you’re wearing a mask you are breathing that stuff in again.
So what we have going on now because of this propaganda is a kind of global medical experiment on healthy populations as people are spending hours and hours wearing masks, even outdoors, even during exercise. And doctors are reporting a strange increase in bacterial pneumonia and outbreaks of strep in schools, there’s one in Michigan. Dentists are discovering all kinds of gum infections. People are developing rashes on their faces because they’re not wearing these masks the way health professionals do: just for a little bit of time a day and knowing how to do it. They’re wearing them all the time and they’re often not clean, they often fiddle with them.
Let me just say one last thing about the health effects. There’s also the fact which the police and politicians and avid maskers don’t care about: there are many many people who have medical conditions that mean they should not wear masks and the authority for this is OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. This is a federal agency. One of the few honest ones which has the job of making sure that workplaces are safe for workers. They regard mask wearing as a serious issue because if you have asthma, if you have diabetes, if you have COPD, if you have hypertension, if you have heart disease, you should not ever be made to wear a mask. You are federally exempt because of those conditions.
So how do these governors and mayors and Dr Fauci and the rest of them, the World Health Organization, how is it that they all demand that everybody wear masks? That even children over the age of two, as in many states, wear masks? This is not just ill-advised, this is downright perverse. This is so perverse that it really makes a rational person wonder if they’re not trying to get people, [to] make people sick, if they’re not trying to do that.
Largest RCT Study on Masks Rejected by Three Top Medical Journals
And now the Journal of the American Medical Association, New England Journal of Medicine, and The Lancet have all refused to run the first RCT on masks’ effectiveness against COVID-19. As published in The Blaze on 22 October: “Horowitz: Danish newspaper reveals largest study on masks has been rejected by 3 medical journals - ‘The study and its size are unique in the world,’ one study author told the paper.” Excerpting the beginning and conclusion of the op-ed:
Why not just conduct a randomized controlled trial to test whether masks work against COVID-19? Why assume such a draconian and dehumanizing mandate works as if it’s an article of faith and create such division when we can discover which side is correct? That’s what a group of Danish researchers felt, which is why, over the spring, they conducted such a study. So why have the results not been published, three months later? According to one Danish newspaper, the study has been rejected by three medical journals because the results are too controversial....
After reading this, if you were a betting man, do you think this study shows any degree of effectiveness in mask-wearing against the spread of COVID-19? Remember, this is the only study of its kind. If it truly showed what the media-political-scientific complex wants it to show, why would it not be published expeditiously? This is the most vexing question of our time. Yet nobody seems interested in having a debate or finding out the truth.
The phobia among the political elites against subjecting mask-wearing mandates to the scientific method is not surprising. In July, Dr. Fauci told a group of Georgetown University students that he has no intention of conducting a controlled study in the U.S.
Well, if I were a betting man, I’d say the realm of possibilities likely range from no effect at all to ... making the spread worse! Time will tell, but this ordeal raises a larger question: How many other scientific and academic studies covering an array of very consequential policy questions rooted in scientific debate are being censored because they don’t fit the narrative of the political elites? What’s next? Will they ban maps showing the world is not flat?
Primary Doctor Medical Journal
A peer-reviewed journal by physicians and scientists without commercial influence
In this doublethink mind-trap of public health officialdom continuing to stubbornly dictate policy founded on the basis that masks are effective in preventing transmission of respiratory viruses a primary, overriding question must be accountably addressed: Why is open, public, scientific debate being censored and blocked about the efficacy of masks in preventing transmission of respiratory viruses like Covid-19?
Confront Fear, Censorship - Stay Human
Propaganda wants no argument. It’s not like oratory in ancient Greece where one speaker would follow another, they would disagree publicly, and the people would listen and make up their own minds. That’s not how propaganda works. Propaganda wants to monopolize all the space around it. It wants to monopolize every mind within its reach. It wants no contradiction. Those who dissent, those who disagree are either censored or vilified or both and that’s one sign of the fact that we’re living in the shadow of a totalitarian roll out, the likes of which the world has never known because this is global.
Imagine running out of imagine
Mistaking authority for power
Weaving lifes free spirit
Into patterns of control—John Trudell (2001)
There are many sources presenting coherent, critical analysis that are worthy of scrutiny. A very few of these include:
[W]e’re here to say that there is good news: the coronavirus is a seasonal virus that causes illness and symptoms from December to April, and that for people who have symptoms there are treatments like inhale steroids, hydroxychloroquine and zinc, so there is no need for the lockdown, there is no need for fear, there is no need for masks, for social distancing, or for quarantining people. They are locking people in their homes for last year’s flu, for where there is an effective treatment.
[A]cross the world we are setting up a new custodian movement, custodians of our health, our heritage and our freedom; And what we want to do, we want to support Dr. Schöning as well as his WirKraft movement, is to actually support businesses and new innovative technologies that actually support the values of freedom of speech and freedom of health. So we will be looking at a new food movement, a new health movement, and to brand restaurants and hotels and airlines that respect our rights for freedom of movement, freedom of speech, and that we have the right to be informed about true health and the correct statistics about disease, and to hold of the regulators and doctors and advisors of government that if they are saying things and taking away people’s freedom and health, that it needs to be supported by the evidence. So as President of the World Doctors Association I’m very happy to stand with these doctors today, and to lead the march in Berlin, which we hope will be millions of people, so that all of the doctors, regulators and politicians and people of the world will realize: you can take off the masks and welcome to our side for freedom!
While critical and essential to understand and be informed of, the good news Professor Cahill summarizes herein has been steadfastly—and of increasing concern and indicative of much greater danger—censored right, left, and center on not just Foundation/Corporate/Government media platforms, but also local community sites. Consider the instance of the open letter Stephen Malthouse, MD, of Denman Island, British Columbia, wrote to Dr. Bonnie Henry, British Columbia Provincial Health Officer, Ministry of Health, BC. Bill Showkowy PhD, a subscriber to News From Underground, wrote about the letter (including a copy of it) and how, after being posted on “a supposedly liberal forum reflecting our culture here on Salt Spring Island”, the letter and a petition it linked to were summarily erased.
Last evening, a friend posted a link to a petition on the Exchange penned by a local doctor (located on another Southern Gulf Island) which is a highly articulate and well-researched call for a reassessment of our flawed public health response to Sars Cov2 based upon dubious RT-PCR “positive” cases. Lately, we have been informed that cases here in B.C. are in fact spiking and more hospitalizations due to the virus are occurring: more “second wave” fear mongering as if on cue. We see frightened (or virtue signalling?) people here driving with masks on in their own cars. We do not need oxygen-deprived seniors behind the wheel here or anywhere!
So I signed the petition, hosted on Change.org (as did approximately 50 people locally here within a couple of hours when I last checked). I received a confirmation that Change.org had registered my signature. So far so good.
However, today I checked the Exchange and the post from my friend referencing the petition had been deleted with no explanation. I checked Change.org and the petition was deleted there as well! All within less than 24 hours. Just wow.
The increasingly dire indicators of totalitarianism’s hooks sinking into the societal and cultural foundations of the U.S. and abroad are profoundly alarming and reveal the increasingly suffocating control of people’s thoughts and minds. As Cynthia McKinney wrote on 28 October: “If you’re a Republican or a Democrat, stop talking about that. Stop identifying yourself. The enemy is Big Tech, Big Data, Big Oil, Big Pharma!”
The Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. quote is from his 24 October Statement on Freedom of Speech and Censorship and Open Debate. His statement was acknowledging and supporting worldwide rallies in 15 countries—“The Global Resistance today will stage coordinated mass protests in Argentina, Bolivia, Peru, Uruguay, Italy, Germany, Poland, Belgium, Netherlands, UK, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, France, Austria”—and emphasized that “You are on the front lines of the most important battle in history and it is the battle to save democracy, and freedom, and human liberty, and human dignity from this totalitarian cartel that is trying to rob us—simultaneously in every nation in the world—of the rights that every human being is born with.” A central concern he pointed out was how fear manipulates people.
During the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt, who was one of the greatest presidents in American history, said to the American people: the only thing that we have to fear is fear itself. And we grow up hearing that but people don’t really understand what it means.
It was a very, very profound warning by Roosevelt because he saw what the Great Depression was doing in Eastern Europe and Italy, in Germany and Spain, where that crisis was turning people towards fascism – in the eastern countries, where the same crisis was turning citizens and governments towards communism and also causing the collapse of governments all over the world.
And in our country, in the United States, it’s hard for people to remember today that that almost a third of the people in our country were completely disillusioned with capitalism and wanted to turn to communism. And another third wanted to turn to fascism. And Franklin Roosevelt wanted to preserve our country for democracy, for free market capitalism, for civil rights and to preserve our constitution.
He recognized that the weapon of authoritarian control was going to be fear.
And when I spoke a few weeks ago in Berlin, I reminded the people of Germany of a very famous story that happened during the Nuremberg trials after World War II, when Hitler’s closest lieutenant, the head of the Luftwaffe, Hermann Goring, was asked by one of the prosecutors: how did you get the German people (the German people, the most educated people in the world that were some of the most tolerant people in the world – the Weimar Republic was one of the strongest democracies in the world) – how did you take – these people [who] were so well educated and so awakened and so tolerant – and turn them into obedient slaves who committed some of the worst atrocities in human history" And Goring said: Oh, that’s a simple thing. (And any of you can look up his quote and I urge you to do so). And he said that it works not just in a fascist government but it works in a democracy, in a monarchy, in a communist government, in any government that you want.
The job of the government is to put the people in fear. And if you can keep them in fear, you can get them to do anything that you want them to do – that they will turn into sheep....
The method of control exercised through the promulgation and maintenance of fear must employ censorship to shut out all other sources of information and perspectives that contradict official narratives. Censorship carried out today is attempting to eliminate the exercise of independent thought, critical thinking, reasoning, and questioning what is actually occurring in the world. THE first and primary casualty of censorship is freedom of speech as well as freedom of thought.
In order to transform the government so that it will reward the rich with even more wealth, the people who want to do that in the large corporations – who want to orchestrate that kind of change – have to get rid of civil rights. And the first civil right that they begin with is freedom of speech.
They need to clamp down censorship because censorship is the most important right. In our country, we put it number one – the first amendment, the constitution. Because all the other rights depend on it....
The coup d’etat that we are all fighting today is a coup d’etat that starts with a conspiracy between the government agencies and the big technology companies – the Silicon Valley billionaires. People like Zuckerberg and Bill Gates. And the people who run Google and Facebook and Pinterest and all of these other Silicon Valley corporations who are now in this conspiracy – to make sure that we cannot talk about our grievances.
We cannot say bad things about pharmaceutical products. We cannot question government policies that make no sense to us. And I’m going to say a few things about some of those government policies. Number one: I am not a conspiracy theorist. I follow the facts. I don’t know that the COVID illness was laboratory generated in Wuhan. There is plenty of evidence that it was, but not enough evidence for me to say that it’s a fact.
But my question is: Why don’t we know the answer to that? Why is Tony Fauci not being asked that question? Why is President Trump not launching an investigation? Or President Xi? Or the president of any of these countries saying: Where did this come from? Because we need to know that. The global citizens – This is the worst calamity in history! And nobody seems curious about where this actually comes from. We know it didn’t come from a bat in the wet market in Wuhan. And that story was a fable, that it now has no basis in fact.
And we have Nobel laureates, and we have large institutions, and investigative agencies. And prosecutorial agencies are saying: we think it came from Wuhan lab and we think that it may have come from studies that were funded by Bill Gates and Tony Fauci. I don’t know if this is true, but why are our government officials not asking that as the number one question? Why, instead of sending their police to suppress dissent, are they not sending the police to question people who may know the answer to that question?...
There are many other questions that I’d like to know the answer. Questions about masks.... Most Americans and most of the people on this planet – we want leadership but we don’t want bullying. And we know the difference between bullying and leadership. We want to know the truth about hydroxychloroquine. We want to know why are we spending 18 billion dollars on vaccines and only 1.4 billion on therapeutic drugs. What is the sense of that?
There are many, many other questions that we, in a democracy, have a right to have answered – without being called conspiracy theorists, without being vilified as being inconsiderate, or being bad citizens.The only way we can win it is with democracy. We need to fight to get our democracy back, to reclaim our democracy from these villains who are stealing it from us. And you notice the people who are getting riches from this quarantine are the same people who are censoring criticism of the quarantine.Who is becoming the richest? Jeffrey Bezos. Eighty-three billion dollars he’s made. And he owns Amazon. And he is censoring books that criticize the quarantine. Zuckerberg – who owns Facebook,who’s made tens of billions of dollars by this quarantine. And he is censoring information that is critical of the quarantine. He censors my Instagram. He censors my Facebook. My Twitter page is also censored. All of these people are the people who are making billions of dollars on the quarantine.
And what I want to know is a simple question: Is the quarantine actually effective? You know, we’ve had plenty of pandemics in the past. In 1969 we had a Hong Kong flu pandemic that killed 100,000 people in the United States. It’s the equivalent of 200,000 people today. That’s the same number of people who are being killed by coronavirus. Did we go on to lock down? No. Did we wear masks? No. We went to Woodstock. We went to the Democratic convention in Chicago and had huge crowds of people. Nobody was told to lock down. And don’t see your girlfriend. And wear a mask. And don’t go out of your house. And shut down your business. And bankrupt every business in the country.
Last year there were 1.6 million people in the world who died from tuberculosis.... We’re not wearing masks. We’re not on lock down. What’s the difference between tuberculosis and coronavirus? Tuberculosis has a vaccine. And the vaccine costs about three dollars. And that’s why we’re not on lock down – because nobody is making thirty-nine dollars a vaccine or three hundred dollars a vaccine – the way that Moderna and Astrazeneca and Johnson & Johnson are making from this catastrophe. And that is the only reason that I can think of.
And I’m happy if somebody tells me there’s another reason. But, let’s hear it. Don’t just shut me up. Don’t just tell me that I can’t debate.
Here’s what we need to do. We need to do exactly what you’re doing today. We need to come out on the street and we need to stick together. What the big tech villains and scoundrels and Mark Zuckerberg and Jeffrey Bezos and Bill Gates and Tony Fauci want you to do is – they want us fighting with each other. They want blacks fighting against whites. They want Republicans fighting against Democrats. They want everybody polarized. They want everybody fragmented.
Because they know that if we all get together we’re going to start asking questions. And those are questions that they can’t answer.
- Why are you getting rich?
- And why are we all getting poor?
- And what’s the difference between tuberculosis and coronavirus?
- And why are we not wearing masks for the tuberculosis, but we are for the coronavirus?
- And where did it all come from?
And all of those questions that we deserve an answer to and we’re not getting answers. We need to stick together. If you’re a Republican or Democrat, stop talking about that. Stop identifying yourself.
The enemy is Big Tech, Big Data, Big Oil, Big Pharma, the medical cartel, the government totalitarian elements that are trying to oppress us – that are trying to rob us of our liberties, of our democracy, of our freedom of thought, of our freedom of expression, of our freedom of assembly, and all of the freedoms that give dignity to humanity. And the last thing that all of us need to do is we need to stay educated and informed.
Following this, Mr. Kennedy announced the launch of the Children’s Health Defense new newsletter, The Defender. Its focus “explores the theme of small (children) vs. Big Pharma, Big Tech, Big Energy, Big Food, Big Chemical and how these industries have subverted and corrupted our democracy, our regulatory agencies, the scientific research arms of academic institutions and the media to the point where these institutions, created to protect us and our children from corporate greed, now protect corporate profits.” Detailing Why The Defender, the overriding necessity is to educate and inform concerning the reality of the level to which Our children are sick—
The levels of thought manipulation in the present day would not be possible without one of the most successful memes ever invented—by none other than, in Buckminster Fuller’s words, Capitalism’s Invisible Army. “Conspiracy theorist” was weaponized by the Central Intelligence Agency in 1967 to initially discredit and inhibit critical analysis of the Warren Report. Albert Rossi has written an extensive in-depth essay on this with the title, “The Necessary Rebuff of Conspiracy (Theory).” Provocative in the best sense of that word, Rossi covers a wide swath of the impact on people’s perceptions and further concentration of economic and political power this meme has produced. One small corner of critical thinking applied is a useful summary for our purposes here:
Hollywood ... is representative of nearly everything that flows through our waking consciousness from the media today concerning conspiracy. The engines of pop culture constantly churn together all conspiracies as if their factual basis and truth content were all the same. Any reasonable person, given just a little pause, can grasp that there is a world of difference between believing aliens are walking among us, controlling our thoughts or sending messages through the Dewey Decimal System, and holding that John Kennedy was assassinated by extremists in the National Security State. Yet that is one of the more effective ways serious questions concerning the secret conduct of policy in a supposedly democratic republic get squelched. You make the dirty truth look incredible by association with what most would judge to be fatuous and worthy of ridicule. It is powerful conditioning.
On 1 November Mark Crispin Miller posted the following on News From Underground: “While ‘the left’ continues to push lockdown, despite its catastrophic impact on the poor worldwide, this cleric, and other people of faith, can clearly see that evil policy for what it is.” The source is: “Archbishop Viganò: An Open Letter Warning President Trump As The Election Approaches,” written by Carlo Maria Viganò, Tit. Archbishop of Ulpiana, Former Apostolic Nuncio to the U.S. (OnePeterFive, 30 Oct 2020).
Until a few months ago, it was easy to smear as “conspiracy theorists” those who denounced these terrible plans, which we now see being carried out down to the smallest detail. No one, up until last February, would ever have thought that, in all of our cities, citizens would be arrested simply for wanting to walk down the street, to breathe, to want to keep their business open, to want to go to church on Sunday. Yet now it is happening all over the world, even in picture-postcard Italy that many Americans consider to be a small enchanted country, with its ancient monuments, its churches, its charming cities, its characteristic villages. And while the politicians are barricaded inside their palaces promulgating decrees like Persian satraps, businesses are failing, shops are closing, and people are prevented from living, traveling, working, and praying. The disastrous psychological consequences of this operation are already being seen, beginning with the suicides of desperate entrepreneurs and of our children, segregated from friends and classmates, told to follow their classes while sitting at home alone in front of a computer."
The Fear Merchants have sought to jump-start their world-changing pandemic for a long time. This go’round they finally succeeded in establishing critical mass. On 3 October, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich presented a 49 minute statement on Crimes Against Humanity with respect to the 2020 Corona Crisis. For 26 years a consumer protection trial lawyer in California and Germany, Fuellmich is one of four founding members of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee. In this statement, Dr. Fuellmich describes how “Since July 10, 2020, this committee has been listening to a large number of international scientists’ and experts’ testimony to find answers to questions about the corona crisis, which more and more people worldwide are asking.” He goes on to state:
This Corona crisis, according to all we know today, must be renamed a Corona scandal, and those responsible for it must be criminally prosecuted and sued for civil law damages. On a political level, everything must be done to make sure that no one will ever again be in a position of such power as to be able to defraud humanity or to attempt to manipulate us with their corrupt agendas....
The three major questions to be answered in the context of a judicial approach to the Corona scandal are:
- Is there a Corona pandemic, or is there only a PCR test pandemic? specifically: Does a positive PCR test result mean that the person tested is infected with Covid-19, or does it mean absolutely nothing in connection with the Covid 19 infection?
- Do the so-called anti-corona measures, such as the lockdown, mandatory face masks, social distancing, and quarantine regulations serve to protect the world’s population from Corona? Or do these measures serve only to make people panic so that they believe—without asking any questions—that their lives are in danger, so that in the end the pharmaceutical and tech industries can generate huge profits from the sale of PCR tests, antigen and antibody tests and vaccines, as well as the harvesting of our genetic fingerprints?
- Is it true that the German government was massively lobbied—more so than any other country—by the chief protagonists of this so-called Corona pandemic, Mr. Drosten, virologist at Charité hospital in Berlin, Mr. Wieler, veterinarian and head of the German equivalent of the CDC, the RKI, and Mr. Tedros, head of the World Health Organization, or WHO, because Germany is known as a particularly disciplined country and was therefore to become a role model for the rest of the world for it’s strict, and, of course, successful adherence to the corona measures?
In a complete annotated transcript, Mr. Fuellmich proceeds with an analysis that examines the following outline:
Shown at the beginning of this was COVI-PASS™ “most secure Digital Health Passport, built on patented technology, awarded the ‘Seal of Excellence’ by the European Commission and being used by various United Nations Projects”. It appeared to be going great guns back in June. The second of three slides painted a rosy picture of HOW COVI-PASS™ WORKS:
This language reflects a surging confidence last Spring in the continued ascension of the biosecurity industry: allowing individuals to return to work and life safely. The makers of this device evidently were excited to be the ones who would ALLOW individuals to RETURN TO LIFE SAFELY! The kind of “biometric security” instantiated in the COVI-PASS™ Digital Health Passport was in high gear in 2019 as reported in “ID2020 and partners launch program to provide digital ID with vaccines”: “The ID2020 Alliance has launched a new digital identity program at its annual summit in New York, in collaboration with the Government of Bangladesh, vaccine alliance Gavi, and new partners in government, academia, and humanitarian relief.” A founding member of Gavi is the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. As staff writer Derrick Broze explained in July, Gates continues growing his “network and influence on WHO, GAVI and other organizations in order to shape public health policy in a way that reaps profits for the Gates themselves.”
Holocaust survivor Vera Sharav is the founder and president of the the Alliance for Human Research Protection (AHRP), Advancing Voluntary, Informed Consent to Medical Intervention. In a 12 October interview she described what occurs when medicine works in partnership with government:
Public Health is government. And that was what happened in Nazi Germany. All of medicine wound up being Public Health. Once you have medicine in partnership with government there is no individual care. The Hippocratic Oath goes out the window. And since you have government behind you, the doctor is not responsible for their actions. They’re working together with the state. That’s when medicine becomes weaponized.
As “America’s Doctor,” Anthony Fauci is the face of Public Health in the United States. His steadfast rejection of employing Hydroxychloroquine for early treatment of Covid-19 is an unethical and criminal illustration of when, dictating with governmental authority, the doctor is treated as not responsible nor accountable for his actions. As Vera Sharav observed, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and New York State Health Commissioner Howard Zucker are likewise treated as not responsible nor accountable for the order they issued “that older people coming to a hospital should be turned to a nursing home, with or without testing, whether they had covid or not, and disregarding completely that those nursing homes were completely ill-equipped.... In fact, Governor Cuomo gave the nursing homes total immunity. ... It’s unheard of that this should happen today in 2020 and this is called civilized way of dealing with a public health emergency?”
Beyond Bill Gates’ obsessive drive as unaccountable global public health czar to save the world with technology, the growth and influence of the biosecurity industry and its increasingly dangerous attacks on basic human rights in the name of public health are increasingly evident. As a descendant of COVI-PASS, a digital certificate called CommonPass is well on its way to being implemented as the next stage of Covid-19 security measures making health a prerequisite for travel. Trust Stamp is an artificial intelligence-based biometric digital identity platform—in partnership with Gates-backed Gavi and Mastercard—being launched in West Africa to combine Covid-19 vaccinations, cashless payments, and potential law enforcement applications. And where implantable biochips and AI-enabled diagnostic tools are concerned, a new mRNA diagnostic tool developed at Stanford University and funded by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is bringing implantable biochip technology closer to reality.
As beneficiaries of the Fear Pandemic, Klaus Schwab is another luminary alongside such players as Gates, Fauci, Bezos, Bloomberg, and Zuckerberg. As founder and executive director of the Davos World Economic Forum (WEF), Schwab announced “The Great Reset” on 3 June. The product being sold here includes such previous ideas as the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR). Announced by the WEF in 2016, their introductory video stated, “We’re now in the early stages of the fourth industrial revolution which is bringing together digital, physical, and biological systems”. Mr. Schwab explained that “one of the features of this fourth industrial revolution is that it doesn’t change what we are doing but it changes us.” The consequences to humanity regarding the fourth industrial revolution are hammered home in two books by Schwab. The first is from Klaus Schwab with Nicholas Davis, Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution: A Guide to Building a Better World (Geneva: WEF, 2018, ebook):
The mind-boggling innovations triggered by the fourth industrial revolution, from biotechnology to AI, are redefining what it means to be human ...
The following are from Klaus Schwab, The Fourth Industrial Revolution (Geneva: WEF, 2016, ebook):
The future will challenge our understanding of what it means to be human, from both a biological and a social standpoint ...
Already, advances in neurotechnologies and biotechnologies are forcing us to question what it means to be human ...
Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies will not stop at becoming part of the physical world around us—they will become part of us. Indeed, some of us already feel that our smartphones have become an extension of ourselves. Today’s external devices—from wearable computers to virtual reality headsets—will almost certainly become implantable in our bodies and brains. Exoskeletons and prosthetics will increase our physical power, while advances in neurotechnology enhance our cognitive abilities.
We will become better able to manipulate our own genes, and those of our children. These developments raise profound questions: Where do we draw the line between human and machine? What does it mean to be human?
Alison McDowell has done her homework and is a wealth of knowledge. Her blog is Wrench In The Gears. On 27 Oct she published a transcript with inlined images of a presentation she gave the day before on Who Voted In Davos? How Data-Driven Government and the Internet of Bodies Are Poised To Transform Smart Sustainable Cities Into Social Impact Prisons. In less than 14 minutes, it provides a potent summation of what is at stake in this present moment. A central issue McDowell has researched and written extensively about is Blockchain technology. In Blockchain Education, A Ticket To Digital Serfdom (22 Sep 2020) she opens with:
What is blockchain?
Those in power will say:
Blockchain is a secure way for people to own and control their digital footprint, the data they create living through devices and wearable / implantable / ingestible technology in “smart” environments. In essence, it is a digital ledger that keeps track of EVERYTHING across a decentralized computer network that is said to be permanent and secure. Picture a real time account book that keeps track not only of your monetary assets (bitcoin – this is how much folks understand blockchain); but also civil records like birth certificates, marriage certificates, and court proceedings; voting records; property ownership; certifications and education credentials; health information, including DNA, bioinformatics, and data from wearable technologies; public benefit access like food stamps; and now even one’s movements (geolocation data) and social interactions via QR code health passports and contact tracing.
What I say:
Whether we know it or not, when we agree to have our lives linked to blockchain, we are agreeing to live in a behaviorist panopticon. In exchange for convenience and limited privileges, we give up our free will. The future being handed to us is one that will be shaped by surveillance, artificial intelligence, predictive analytics, machine learning, and feedback loops. We risk swapping our vibrant human spirits, beautiful in their passionate creativity and flawed vulnerability, for sanitized digital twins that will be managed as human capital by callous technocrats to profit social impact investors. Before we walk through the door of digital identity, realize it opens onto a maze designed to disorient, confuse, and control us.
The reason it’s important to talk about this now is because states are setting up task forces on blockchain government. Illinois convened a blockchain working group in 2018. California issued Blockchain in California: A Road Map this July. An August webinar sponsored by the Rhode Island Israel Collaborative on their big-data Covid reopen partnership started with a discussion about the timeliness of moving to blockchain systems and digital governance. All of this is being spurred by the push to virtualize social interactions in response to the lockdowns we’ve experienced over the past six months. With this great rush to adopt emerging technologies, it is important to grasp the bigger picture.
The NAACP spent time considering the racial implications of this technology in 2019 and adopted a resolution that opposed linking blockchain identity to receiving any public service, including education. That resolution passed first in California and later at the July 2019 national meeting in Detroit. You can see the resolution below, pages 62 and 63 of this document, NAACP Resolutions Ratified By the National Board of Directors At Its October 2019 Board of Directors Meeting.
The two resolutions to the NAACP statement on Opposition to the Use of the Blockchain Identity are very precise:
BE IT RESOLVED, that the NAACP opposes any state or federal legislation that would require an individual to create a Blockchain identity in order to receive any public services or benefits, including but not limited to education, healthcare, addiction treatment, behavioral health services, law enforcement, housing, and/or food and nutrition.
IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the NAACP will engage in community education efforts to communicate to the public about the structure, function, benefits and inherent risks of Blockchain technologies.
McDowell goes on to list Ten things you need to know about blockchain. At the end of her 27 October Who Voted In Davos? recording, she summed up her understanding of what we are confronted with in the attempt to institute a global adoption of Blockchain Identity infrastructure in this civilization and how this clear and present danger must engage the next Abolition Movement.
We just have to be really clear about these technologies. In that respect I collaborated on a resolution that was passed in California and later at the national meeting of the NAACP last summer in Detroit where they wrote a resolution saying that no one should be compelled to create a digital identity to access public benefits. That includes education, health care, housing, judicial involvement—no one should make you create a digital identity to access these things. It was unanimously passed with exception of some small group in Brooklyn that was looking to data mine kids in New York City schools.
So that passed. That exists and there’s a model. So it’s not just random people saying this is a problem. It’s the NAACP looking at racial capitalism in the context of blockchain. But meanwhile currently in Chula Vista, California, which is an area of San Diego, students are being asked to give blood tests for Covid on Blockchain. Think about that. Essentially what we’re saying is that children, to have right of face-to-face education, are having their blood—bodily fluids—taken and uploaded to a blockchain health record. That is happening through their school district and no one’s talking about that yet. And nobody really knows about this Blockchain Resolution.
When we talk about abolition, for me, I feel like this is the next Abolition Movement, is Blockchain Identity. Because if we agree to become data commodities with privacy to protect us from surveillance it’s over. I think that’s really important for people to know because no mainstream media is going to put that out and it’s not fake news because you can google it; they have the PDF of their 2019 resolutions online, it’s page 62.
The Best We Can Do
A society that kills its old people,
So we must do everything we can
And then we’ll find a way to see them.
—Mark Crispin Miller 30 Oct 2020
When people like Marc Benioff—a World Economic Forum Board of Trustees member, whose net worth is approximately $7.8 billion and who owns TIME magazine—devotes an entire issue to THE GREAT RESET, this agenda is on track to enter mainstream consciousness. Staying human in the face of such a global marketing campaign by the world’s richest of the rich is becoming evermore critical in the face of such Orwellian doublethink. Vandana Shiva points to the antidote to this in her new book, Oneness vs. the 1%: Shattering Illusions, Seeding Freedom (Chelsea Green Publishing, August 2020):
On March 26, at a peak of the coronavirus pandemic and in the midst of the lockdown, Microsoft was granted a patent by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Patent WO 060606 declares that “Human Body Activity associated with a task provided to a user may be used in a mining process of a cryptocurrency system....”
The “body activity” that Microsoft wants to mine includes radiation emitted from the human body, brain activities, body fluid flow, blood flow, organ activity, body movement such as eye movement, facial movement and muscle movement, as well as any other activities that can be sensed and represented by images, waves, signals, texts, numbers, degrees or any other information or data.
The patent is an intellectual property claim over our bodies and minds. In colonialism, colonizers assign themselves the right to take the land and resources of indigenous people, extinguish their cultures and sovereignty, and in extreme cases exterminate them. Patent WO 060606 is a declaration by Microsoft that our bodies and minds are its new colonies. We are mines of “raw material” — the data extracted from our bodies. Rather than sovereign, spiritual, conscious, intelligent beings making decisions and choices with wisdom and ethical values about the impacts of our actions on the natural and social world of which we are a part, and to which we are inextricably related, we are “users.” A “user” is a consumer without choice in the digital empire.
But that’s not the totality of Gates’ vision. In fact, it is even more sinister — to colonize the minds, bodies and spirits of our children before they even have the opportunity to understand what freedom and sovereignty look and feel like, beginning with the most vulnerable.
As I look to the future in a world of Gates and Tech Barons, I see a humanity that is further polarized into large numbers of “throw away” people who have no place in the new Empire. Those who are included in the new Empire will be little more than digital slaves....
Or, we can resist. We can seed another future, deepen our democracies, reclaim our commons, regenerate the earth as living members of a One Earth Family, rich in our diversity and freedom, one in our unity and interconnectedness. It is a healthier future. It is one we must fight for. It is one we must claim.
We stand at a precipice of extinction. Will we allow our humanity as living, conscious, intelligent, autonomous beings to be extinguished by a greed machine that does not know limits and is unable to put a break on its colonization and destruction? Or will we stop the machine and defend our humanity, freedom and autonomy to protect life on earth?
Buying Ourselves Back
The necessity for ever-growing markets, the need to create new need, the search for nuances of artificial discontent within previous artificial discontent have required delving ever more deeply inside the human psyche to root out more subtle aspects of experience. Thousands of psychologists, behavioral scientists, perceptual researchers, sociologists, and others have found extremely high salaries and steady, interesting work aiding advertisers. Like miners seeking new deposits of coal in the mountains, these social scientists attempt to mine the internal wilderness of human beings. (p. 129)
Ivan Illich, a leading critic of the expropriation of knowledge into a nether world of experts and abstraction, argues in Medical Nemesis that professional medicine may be causing more harm than good. We go to doctors as we go to mechanics. They speak a language that remains impenetrable to us. We take their cures on faith.
Illich remarks that this may be producing more illness than cure: It has separated people from knowledge about keeping themselves healthy, a knowledge that was once ingrained in the culture. Although some of our techno-scientific methods work, some do not, and the doctors who use them may not understand them or may be inexpert in their use. The doctors, Illich believes, are also taking the validity of techno-medicine on faith. Their source is usually the chemical and drug industry, which has a stake in disrupting natural healing methods. How else could they sell their chemicals? (p. 71)
—Jerry Mander, Four Arguments for the ELIMINATION of Television, 1977
Ahead of its time in 1977, Mander’s nonpareil critique of television maintains and extends its searing relevance FORTY-THREE years later. Seeing one’s way clear to remaining human in an ever-accelerating world of technological seduction that urges the relinquishment of behavior and values that honor human ancestral collective experience is the supreme challenge of our epoch. In his autobiography, Carl Jung distilled the work of a lifetime into the understanding: “As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being. It may even be assumed that just as the unconscious affects us, so the increase in our consciousness affects the unconscious.”
Many people have expanded and illuminated understanding of how our society actually operates. Among these iridescent souls, Richard Grossman constantly practiced the art of provocation: to arouse, stimulate, and incite new avenues of understanding as well as to address critical issues created by, and confronting, the human project. Less than one month before his death, Grossman was interviewed in the CORPORATE CRIME REPORTER:
[In 1990] I ... began researching the history of corporations, constitutional history and law, past people’s struggles.... My work over the last twenty years has been to provoke new and different conversation, thought and action among people dissatisfied with what is going on in the USA, among people trying to change the nature of our work – to rethink and reframe problems, our assumptions about this country and our goals, arenas of struggle into which we bring our battles, the language we use, our strategies and tactics.
“You want sanity, democracy, community, an intact Earth? We can’t get there obeying Constitutional theory and law crafted by slave masters, imperialists, corporate masters, and Nature destroyers. We can’t get there kneeling before robed lawyers stockpiling class plunder precedent up their venerable sleeves. So isn’t disobedience the challenge of our age? Principled, inventive, escalating disobedience to liberate our souls, to transfigure our work as humans on this Earth.”
Human Rights Historian, Author: 1943-2011
If humanity is to succeed in staying human it will require a level of push-back, unyielding determination, and courage that increasingly magnifies what was expressed in places like Berlin and around the world on August 29th.
We find our selves living in the time of
ko.yaa.nis.qatsi (from the Hopi Language)
n. 1. crazy life.
2. life in turmoil. 3. life out of balance. 4. life disintegrating.
5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.
May we all continually awaken to and be renewed by recognition of
our participation in and partaking of Life at this unique time.
|Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation||99 051 511 (pg 6)|
|GAVI Alliance||140 356 949 (pg 7)|
|United States of America||132 951 856 (pg 6)|
I’m here because what I see as true is not shared by everyone. I’m here because I am sick and tired of seeing press releases and advertisements in the guise of science, in the place of real news. I’m here because I believe the American media has not done its jobs. And I’ve asked you guys to be here because you’re my friends and friends of friends in the entertainment business. The business that really helps blow this thing out-of-the-water. Without our involvement this wouldn’t be the largest, most-funded public relations scare campaign in history. We’re here to talk, informally, with people who know what they’re talking about with different people from different parts of the world. One of the things I notice is that no matter where you go, in England, in Australia, people have these same reservations but they’re not covered.Kary Mullis - Corporate Greed & AIDS (2:36:06), Santa Monica, July 12, 1997
Packaged in holistic linguistics, key buzzwords (thrive, thriving, imagine, imagination, reimagine, build back better), new deals, and emotive imagery, those serving capital and current power structures have been tasked with building and obtaining the social license required.But what exactly is the vision? Here, Paul takes you on a journey, using direct quotes from Klaus Schwab, from his recent books including “COVID-19, The Great Reset”. Both riveting – and terrifying, due to the depraved ideologies and goals described within, I suggest people find a quiet place, to read every word of this overview. Please share in broader circles.
From Say “No” to The New Deal For Nature Campaign (click for hi res):