They Are Creating The Biggest Witch Hunt In American History

By Michael Snyder | End of the American Dream | Waking Times

Prior to this pandemic, if you wanted to weed out all of the “troublemakers”, “independent thinkers” and “non-conformists” from our society, how would you have done it?

I suppose that sending everyone a questionnaire asking them what they believe would be one way to do it, but of course a lot of people would give false answers and many others would simply ignore the questionnaire. Social media profiles contain a wealth of information, but many “non-conformists” are not even on social media and digging through all of that data would take an extraordinary amount of time, money and energy. Up until just recently, there just hasn’t been an easy and efficient way to identify those that are not eager servants of the system.

But now the COVID vaccines have changed everything. These injections are the perfect litmus test, because “troublemakers”, “independent thinkers” and “non-conformists” are pretty much the only ones that are refusing the shots at this point. This makes it exceptionally easy to divide American citizens into two categories, and it also gives authorities a perfect excuse to push all of those “troublemakers”, “independent thinkers” and “non-conformists” to the fringes of society.

As I discussed yesterday, I was literally sick to my stomach as I pondered the implications of Biden’s tyrannical new decrees. Originally, Biden and other Democratic leaders were against any sort of vaccine mandates, but now I think that they have realized that mandates are a tool that they can use to fundamentally reshape our society.

If you don’t understand where I am going with this, just keep reading, because it will become extremely clear by the end of this article.

Biden’s new decrees cover almost every major institution in our society. Just think about it. Any “major institution” is almost certainly going to be employing more than 100 people, and all such organizations are covered by Biden’s mandates.

In addition to businesses of various sizes, we are also talking about colleges, schools, churches, non-profits, political entities, sports teams and charitable organizations.

Millions of Americans that are employed by such institutions could be forced to leave their positions if they refuse to comply with what Biden is demanding.

And the rules that the Biden administration is coming up with will require the institutions to be the enforcers of these draconian new measures.

Your bosses will be forced to make sure that you are submitting to the new rules, because if not they could be hit with massive fines.

In my last article, I used the word “sickening” to describe what Biden is trying to do to all of us, but the truth is that word is not nearly strong enough.

What we are facing is a complete and total national nightmare, and it isn’t going to end any time soon.

Biden’s new mandates are even stricter for employees of the federal government. Previously, employees of the federal government were at least given the option to undergo regular testing if they didn’t want to be vaccinated, but now that option is being taken away.

So now millions of federal employees will have to choose between their principles and their careers.

And considering the fact that so many of these people are barely providing for their families right now, a lot of really heartbreaking choices are going to have to be made.

Earlier today, I posted a video from a woman that works for the U.S. Treasury Department. After all these years, she publicly announced on social media that she is going to leave her job because of Biden’s new mandates.

And countless others will follow her out the door.

Biden’s new decrees will also force nearly everyone in the entire healthcare industry to either get vaccinated or give up their careers.

What a horribly cruel thing to do.

Biden is essentially putting a gun to the heads of these people. So many of them spent an enormous amount of time, energy and money to get their educations, and now Biden is telling them that they have to sacrifice everything that they have worked for if they will not comply with his demands.

As I pointed out yesterday, healthcare workers won’t just be forced out of their current jobs. Because virtually every health care provider in the entire country accepts Medicaid and Medicare, those that refuse to comply will essentially be banned from the entire industry.

At a time when a shortage of qualified workers is causing chaos throughout our economy, Biden’s tyrannical orders could force millions of Americans to suddenly lose their jobs. This is an incredibly foolish thing to do, and it could have very serious ramifications in the years ahead.

Sadly, it won’t just be a few people quitting their jobs. A poll that was just conducted discovered that 72 percent of unvaccinated Americans said that they would quit their current jobs rather than be vaccinated…

Many making this argument have cited a Washington Post-ABC News poll released over the weekend. It showed that just 18 percent unvaccinated people whose employers don’t currently have mandates said they would likely get vaccinated if their employer required it. About 7 in 10 (72 percent) said that, if they couldn’t get a medical or religious exemption, they would probably quit rather than submit to the requirement.

I don’t know what is going on behind the scenes, but it is my opinion that Kamala Harris has had a lot of influence in the recent decisions that Biden has been making.

She has always had authoritarian tendencies, and if she ever becomes president that will truly be a catastrophic scenario.

Needless to say, Biden’s new mandates are going to cause great anxiety for millions upon millions of people, and a recent CNN poll found that the mood of the country was already heading in a very negative direction…

The new poll finds 69% of Americans say things in the country today are going badly, below the pandemic-era high of 77% reached in January just before President Joe Biden took office but well above the 60% who felt that way in a March CNN poll.

And 62% say that economic conditions in the US are poor, up from 45% in April and nearly as high as the pandemic-era peak of 65% reached in May 2020.

My hope is that Republican governors will fight Biden’s new decrees with everything that they have got.

Because the truth is that this is one of the most critical moments in U.S. history.

Our most basic liberties and freedoms are under full assault, and we really are descending into full-blown tyranny.

If Biden’s new mandates are not overturned by the courts, millions of Americans that love liberty and freedom could be forced from their jobs.

It would truly be a witch hunt of unprecedented size and scope, and it would represent the greatest purge of “troublemakers”, “independent thinkers” and “non-conformists” that any of us have ever witnessed.

About the Author

Michael Snyder is editor of End of the American Dream. His new book entitled “7 Year Apocalypse” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.

Image: Unsplash

Shockingly, CDC Now Lists Vaccinated Deaths as Unvaccinated

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

Story at-a-glance

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, you’re not counted as fully vaccinated until a full 14 days have passed since your second injection in the case of Pfizer or Moderna, or 14 days after your first dose of Janssen, despite the fact that over 80% of deaths after the vaccines occur in this window. How convenient
Anyone who dies within the first 14 days post-injection is counted as an unvaccinated death. Not only does this inaccurately inflate the unvaccinated death toll, but it also hides the real dangers of the COVID shots, as the vast majority of deaths from these shots occur within the first two weeks
The CDC also has two different sets of testing guidelines — one for vaccinated patients and another for the unvaccinated. If you’re unvaccinated, CDC guidance says to use a cycle threshold (CT) of 40, known to result in false positives. If you’re vaccinated, they recommend using a CT of 28 or less, which minimizes the risk of false positives
The CDC also hides vaccine failures and props up the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” narrative by only counting breakthrough cases that result in hospitalization or death
Hospitals are still also reporting non-COVID related illnesses as COVID-19

While public health officials and mainstream media claim the COVID-19 pandemic is now “a pandemic of the unvaccinated,”¹ we now know this claim is based on highly misleading statistics.

In a July 16, 2021, White House press briefing,² U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Rochelle Walensky claimed that “over 97% of people who are entering the hospital right now are unvaccinated.” A few weeks later, in an August 5, 2021, statement, she inadvertently revealed how that statistic actually came about.³

As it turns out, the CDC was looking at hospitalization and mortality data from January through June 2021 — a timeframe during which the vast majority of the U.S. population was still unvaccinated.⁴

But that’s not the case at all now. The CDC is also playing with statistics in other ways to create the false and inaccurate impression that unvaccinated people make up the bulk of infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. For example, we now find out the agency is counting anyone who died within the first 14 days post-injection as unvaccinated.

Not only does this inaccurately inflate the unvaccinated death toll, but it also hides the real dangers of the COVID shots, as the vast majority of deaths from these shots occur within the first two weeks.⁵ Now their deaths are counted as unvaccinated deaths rather than being counted as deaths due to vaccine injury or COVID-19 breakthrough infections!

How CDC Counts Breakthrough Cases

According to the CDC,⁶ you’re not counted as fully vaccinated until a full 14 days have passed since your second injection in the case of Pfizer or Moderna, or 14 days after your first dose of Janssen. This is how the CDC defines a vaccine breakthrough case:

“… a vaccine breakthrough infection is defined as the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen in a respiratory specimen collected from a person ≥14 days after they have completed all recommended doses of a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-authorized COVID-19 vaccine.”

In other words, if you’ve received one dose of Pfizer or Moderna and develop symptomatic COVID-19, get admitted to the hospital, and/or die from COVID, you’re counted as an unvaccinated case. If you’ve received two doses and get ill within 14 days, you’re still counted as an unvaccinated case.

The problem with this is that over 80% of hospitalizations and deaths appear to be occurring among those who have received the jabs, but this reality is hidden by the way cases are defined and counted. A really clever and common strategy of the CDC during the pandemic has been to change the definitions and goalposts so it supports their nefarious narrative.

For example, the CDC has quietly changed the definition of “vaccine,” apparently in an attempt to validate calling the COVID mRNA gene therapies vaccines. In an August 26, 2021, archived version⁷ of the vaccine, the CDC defines it as a “product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.”

But a few days later, a new definition appeared on the CDC’s website,⁸ which now says a vaccine is a “preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.” The differences in the definitions are subtle but distinct: The first one defined a vaccine as something that will “produce immunity.”

But, since the COVID-19 vaccines are not designed to stop infection but, rather, to only lessen the degree of infection, it becomes obvious that the new definition was created to cover the COVID vaccines.

Different Testing Guidelines for Vaxxed and Unvaxxed

It’s not just the CDC’s definition of a breakthrough case that skews the data. Even more egregious and illogical is the fact that the CDC even has two different sets of testing guidelines — one for vaccinated patients and another for the unvaccinated.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, the CDC has recommended a PCR test cycle threshold (CT) of 40.⁹ This flies in the face of scientific consensus, which has long been that a CT over 35 will produce 97% false positives,¹⁰ essentially rendering the test useless.^11,12,13

In mid-May 2021, the CDC finally lowered its recommended CT count, but only for patients who have received one or more COVID shots.¹⁴ So, if you have received a COVID injection, the CDC’s guidelines call for your PCR test to be run at a CT of 28 or less. If you are unvaccinated, your PCR test is to be run at a CT of 40, which grossly overestimates the true prevalence of infection.

The end result is that unvaccinated individuals who get tested are FAR more prone to get false positives, while those who have received the jab are more likely to get an accurate diagnosis of infection.

Only Hospitalization and Death Count if You’re COVID Jabbed

Even that’s not all. The CDC also hides vaccine failures and props up the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” narrative by only counting breakthrough cases that result in hospitalization or death.

In other words, if you got your second COVID shot more than 14 days ago and you develop symptoms, you do not count as a breakthrough case unless you’re admitted to the hospital and/or die from COVID-19 in the hospital, even if you test positive. So, to summarize, COVID breakthrough cases count only if all of the following apply:

The patient received the second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna shot at least 14 days ago (or one dose in case of Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose injection)
The patient tests positive for SARS-CoV-2 using a CT of 28 or less, which avoids false positives
The patient is admitted to the hospital for COVID-19 and/or dies in the hospital

Vaccinated Probably Makeup Bulk of Hospitalizations

If vaccinated and unvaccinated were not treated with such varying standards, we’d probably find that the vaccinated now make up the bulk of hospitalizations, making the COVID pandemic one of the vaccinated. An August 30, 2021, exposé by The Epoch Times reveals what’s really happening on the front lines:¹⁵

“After a battery of testing, my friend was diagnosed with pancreatitis. But it was easier for the hospital bureaucracy to register the admission as a COVID case … The mainstream media is reporting that severe COVID cases are mainly among unvaccinated people … Is that what’s really going on?

It’s certainly not the case in Israel, the first country to fully vaccinate a majority of its citizens against the virus. Now it has one of the highest daily infection rates and the majority of people catching the virus (77 percent to 83 percent, depending on age) are already vaccinated, according to data collected by the Israeli government …

After admission, I spoke to the nurse on the COVID ward … The nurse told me that she had gotten both vaccines but she was feeling worried: ‘Two thirds of my patients are fully vaccinated,’ she said. How can there be such a disconnect between what the COVID ward nurse told me and the mainstream media reports?”

The heart of the problem is that the U.S. is not even trying to achieve an accurate count. As noted by The Epoch Times, “the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have publicly acknowledged that they do not have accurate data.”

So, when you hear that cases are rising and that most of them are unvaccinated, you need to ask: “Are these people who have had one vaccine and gotten sick, two vaccines and gotten sick, or no vaccines at all? Without more details, it is impossible to know what is really going on,” The Epoch Times says.¹⁶

All we do know, according to one doctor who spoke with The Epoch Times, is “the vaccines are not as effective as public health officials told us they would be. ‘This is a product that’s not doing what it’s supposed to do. It’s supposed to stop transmission of this virus and it’s not doing that.’”

Counting Non-COVID Illness as COVID Cases

On top of all of that, hospitals are still also reporting non-COVID-related illnesses as COVID. As reported by The Epoch Times:¹⁷

“Health authorities around the world have been doing this since the beginning of the COVID crisis. For example, a young man in Orange County, Florida who died in a motorcycle crash last summer was originally considered a COVID death by state health officials …

And a middle-aged construction worker fell off a ladder in Croatia and was also counted as a death from COVID … To muddy the waters further, even people who test negative for COVID are sometimes counted as COVID deaths.

Consider the case of 26-year-old Matthew Irvin, a father of three from Yamhill County, Oregon. As reported by KGW8 News, Irvin went to the ER with stomach pain, nausea, and diarrhea on July 5, 2020. But instead of admitting him to the hospital, the doctors sent him home.

Five days later, on July 10, 2020, Irvin died. Though his COVID test came back negative two days after his death and his family told reporters and public health officials that no one Irvin had been around had any COVID symptoms, the medical examiner allegedly told the family that an autopsy was not necessary, listing his death as a coronavirus case. It took the Oregon Health Authority two and a half months to correct the mistake.

In an even more striking example of overcounting COVID deaths, a nursing home in New Jersey that only has 90 beds was wrongly reported as having 753 deaths from COVID. According to a spokesman, they had fewer than twenty deaths. In other words, the number of deaths was over-reported by 3,700 percent.”

No Need to Fear the Delta Variant if You’re Unvaccinated

In a June 29, 2021, interview,¹⁸ Fauci called the Delta variant “a game-changer” for unvaccinated people, warning it will devastate the unvaccinated population while vaccinated individuals are protected against it. Alas, in the real world, the converse is turning out to be true, as the Delta variant is running wild primarily among those who got the COVID jab.

In a June 30, 2021, appearance on Fox News (video above), epidemiologist and cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough pointed out that “It is very clear from the U.K. Technical Briefing¹⁹ that was published June 18 that the vaccine provides no protection against the Delta variant.”²⁰

The reason for this is because the Delta variant contains three different mutations, all in the spike protein. This allows this variant to evade the immune responses in those who have received the COVID jabs, but not those who have natural immunity, which is much broader.

Even so, the Delta variant is far milder than previous variants, according to the U.K.’s June 18, 2021, Technical Briefing.²¹ In it, they present data showing the Delta variant is more contagious but far less deadly and easier to treat. As McCullough told Fox News:

“Whether you get the vaccine or not, patients will get some very mild symptoms like a cold and they can be easily managed … Patients who have severe symptoms or at high risk, we can use simple drug combinations at home and get them through the illness. So, there’s no reason now to push vaccinations.”

Contrast that with the following statement made by President Biden during a CNN town hall meeting in Cincinnati, Ohio, in late July 2021:²²

“We have a pandemic for those who haven’t gotten a vaccination. It’s that basic, that simple. If you’re vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, not going to the ICU unit, and not going to die. You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.”

However, Dr. Leana Wen, an emergency doctor and visiting professor of health policy and management at George Washington University’s Milken School of Public Health in Washington, D.C., contradicted the president, saying he had led the American astray by telling them you don’t need a mask if you’re vaccinated, or that you can’t get it or transmit it. As reported by CNN Health:²³

“In particular, Wen took issue with Biden’s incorrect claims that you cannot contract Covid-19 or the Delta variant if you are vaccinated. ‘I was actually disappointed,’ Wen said. ‘I actually thought he was answering questions as if it were a month ago. He’s not really meeting the realities of what’s happening on the ground. I think he may have led people astray.’”

CNN added that Wen had told their political commentator Anderson Cooper that “many unknown answers remain related to Covid-19, and that it is still not known how well protected vaccinated individuals are from mild illness … [or] if you’re vaccinated, could you still be contagious to other people.”

Vaccinated Patients Flood Hospitals Around the World

The U.K. data showing the Delta variant is far milder than previous SARS-CoV-2 viruses deflates the claim that avoiding severe illness is a sign that the shots are working. Since the Delta variant typically doesn’t cause severe illness in the first place, it doesn’t make sense to attribute milder illness to the shot.

But if Delta is the mildest coronavirus variant yet, why are so many “vaccinated” people ending up in the hospital? While we still do not have clear confirmation, this could be a sign that antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) is at work. Alternatively, it could be that vaccine injuries are being misreported as breakthrough cases.

Whatever the case may be, real-world data from areas with high COVID jab rates show a disturbing trend. For example, on August 1, 2021, the director of Israel’s Public Health Services, Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis, announced half of all COVID-19 infections were among the fully vaccinated.²⁴ Signs of more serious disease among fully vaccinated are also emerging, she said, particularly in those over the age of 60.

A few days later, August 5, 2021, Dr. Kobi Haviv, director of the Herzog Hospital in Jerusalem, appeared on Channel 13 News, reporting that 95% of severely ill COVID-19 patients are fully vaccinated and that they make up 85% to 90% of COVID-related hospitalizations overall.²⁵

In Scotland, official data on hospitalizations and deaths show 87% of those who have died from COVID-19 in the third wave that began in early July were vaccinated.²⁶

In Gibraltar, which has a 99% COVID jab compliance rate, COVID cases have risen by 2,500% since June 1, 2021,²⁷ and in Iceland, where over 82% have received the shots, 77% of new COVID cases are among the fully vaccinated.²⁸

Data from the U.K. show a similar trend among those over the age of 50. In this age group, partially and fully “vaccinated” people account for 68% of hospitalizations and 70% of COVID deaths.²⁹

A CDC investigation of an outbreak in Barnstable County, Massachusetts, between July 6, 2021, through July 25, 2021, found 74% of those who received a diagnosis of COVID19, and 80% of hospitalizations, were among the fully vaccinated.^30,31 Most, but not all, had the Delta variant.

The CDC also found that fully vaccinated individuals who contract the infection have as high a viral load in their nasal passages as unvaccinated individuals who get infected.³² The same was found in a British study, a preprint of which was posted mid-August 2021.^33,34 This means the vaccinated are just as infectious as the unvaccinated.

Interestingly, a Lancet preprint study³⁵ that examined breakthrough infections in health care workers in Vietnam who received the AstraZeneca COVID shot found the “viral loads of breakthrough Delta variant infection cases were 251 times higher than those of cases infected with old strains detected between March-April 2020.”

What’s more, they found no correlation between vaccine-induced neutralizing antibody levels and viral loads or the development of symptoms. According to the authors:

“Breakthrough Delta variant infections are associated with high viral loads, prolonged PCR positivity, and low levels of vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies, explaining the transmission between the vaccinated people.”

Not All Vaccinated Are Confirmed Vaccinated

As if all of that weren’t enough, there’s yet one more confounder. Just because you got the COVID shot does not mean you’ve been confirmed as having gotten the shot. You’re only confirmed “vaccinated” if your COVID injection is added to your medical record, and this sometimes doesn’t happen if you’re going to a temporary vaccination clinic, a drive-through, or pharmacy, for example. As reported by CNN:³⁶

“If you are among the countless people who didn’t get the doses at a primary care doctor’s office, there may not be any record of the vaccination on file with your doctor.”

To actually count as a “confirmed vaccinated” individual, you must send your vaccination card to your primary care physician’s office and have them add it to your electronic medical record. If you got the shot at a pharmacy, you’ll need to verify that they forwarded your proof of vaccination to your doctor. Primary care offices are then responsible for sharing their patients’ immunization data with the state’s immunization information system.

Patient-recorded proof of vaccination is only accepted for influenza and pneumococcal vaccines, not COVID-19 injections.³⁷ What this all means is that, say you got the shot several weeks ago at a drive-through vaccination clinic and get admitted to the hospital with COVID symptoms. Unless your COVID shot status has actually been added into the medical system, you will not count as “vaccinated.”

This too can skew the statistics, because we know the CDC ascertains vaccination status by matching SARS-CoV-2 case surveillance and CAIR2 data using person-level identifiers and algorithms.³⁸

As noted by John Zurlo, division director of infectious disease at Thomas Jefferson University, “the lack of reliable vaccine records complicates efforts to precisely understand vaccine effectiveness and determine how many local hospitalizations and deaths are resulting from COVID-19 breakthrough infections.”³⁹

We’re in the Largest Clinical Trial in Medical History

In closing, it’s worth remembering that the COVID injection campaign is part and parcel of a clinical trial. As noted by Dr. Lidiya Angelova in a recent Genuine Prospect article:⁴⁰

“Many people are unaware that they are participating in the largest clinical trial test of our times. It is because World Health Organization, healthcare authorities, politicians, celebrities, and journalists promote the experimental medical treatments (wrongly called COVID-19 vaccines) as safe and efficient while in fact these treatments are in early clinical research stage.

It means that there is not enough data for such claims and that the people who participate are test subject.”

As shown in a graph on Genuine Prospect, under normal circumstances, clinical research follows a strict protocol that begins with tests on cell cultures. After that comes tests on animals, then limited human testing in four phases. In Phase 1 of human testing, up to 100 people are included and followed anywhere from one week to several months.

Phase 2 typically includes several hundred participants and lasts up to two years. In Phase 3, several hundred to 3,000 participants are tested upon for one to four years. Phase 4 typically includes several thousand individuals who are followed for at least one year or longer. After each phase, the data is examined to assess the effectiveness and adverse reactions.

The timelines for these stages and phases were not followed for the COVID “vaccines.” Most Phase 3 trials concluded by the end of 2020, and everyone who got the shots since their rollout under emergency use authorization is part of Phase 4 clinical trial, whether they realize it or not.⁴¹ And since the trials are not completed, you simply cannot make definitive claims about safety, especially long-term safety. As noted by Angelova:⁴²

“When I worked at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) … I went to the course Ethical and Regulatory Aspects of Clinical Research … The first rule we learnt was ‘Clinical research must be ethical’ … All ethical aspects of clinical research are dismissed with the COVID-19 vaccines.

People should know that nobody can require such to participate in everyday activities like using public transportation, shopping, going to school and even hospital. People should know that they should not be punished for refusing to take the experimental medical treatments.

COVID-19 vaccines mass use and COVID-19 measures are an infringe[ment] of the Articles 2, 3, 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 18, 20, 25, 27, 28 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).”

Sources and References

¹ The New York Times July 16, 2021
² WH.gov Press Briefing July 16, 2021
³ Fox News
⁴ Mayo Clinic COVID Vaccine Tracker
⁵ Twitter DX Foundation September 2, 2021
⁶ CDC August 25, 2021
⁷ Web Archive August 26, 2021
⁸ CDC September 1, 2021
⁹ FDA.gov CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR July 13, 2020 (PDF) Page 35
¹⁰ Clinical Infectious Diseases September 28, 2020; ciaa1491
¹¹ The Vaccine Reaction September 29, 2020
¹² Jon Rappoport’s Blog November 6, 2020
¹³ YouTube TWiV 641 July 16, 2020
¹⁴ CDC.gov COVID-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Case Investigation Guidelines (PDF)
^15, ^16, ^17, ²⁸ The Epoch Times August 30, 2021
¹⁸ PBS June 29, 2021
^19, ²¹ Public Health England, SARS-CoV-2 Variants Technical Briefing 16, June 18, 2021 (PDF)
²⁰ Covidcalltohumanity.org July 5, 2021
²² CBS 8 News July 21, 2021
²³ CNN Health July 22, 2021
²⁴ Bloomberg August 1, 2021 (Archived)
²⁵ American Faith August 8, 2021
²⁶ The Daily Expose July 29, 2021
²⁷ Big League Politics August 4, 2021
²⁹ Evening Standard August 20, 2021
³⁰ CDC MMWR July 30, 2021; 70
³¹ CNBC July 30, 2021
³² NBC News August 7, 2021
³³ Impact of Delta on Viral Burden and Vaccine Effectiveness in the UK (PDF)
³⁴ CBS News August 19, 2021
³⁵ The Lancet Preprint August 10, 2021
³⁶ CNN April 26, 2021
³⁷ Immunize.org Documenting Vaccination
³⁸ MMWR August 27, 2021; 70(34): 1170-1176
³⁹ Philadelphia Enquirer August 31, 2021
^40, ⁴² Genuine Prospect August 31, 2021
⁴¹ Red Voice Media June 22, 2021

Constitution Day 2021: It’s Time to Make America Free Again

By John W. Whitehead & Nisha Whitehead | The Rutherford Institute

“That was when they suspended the Constitution. They said it would be temporary. There wasn’t even any rioting in the streets. People stayed home at night, watching television, looking for some direction. There wasn’t even an enemy you could put your finger on.”—Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid’s Tale

The Constitution of the United States represents the classic solution to one of humankind’s greatest political problems: that is, how does a small group of states combine into a strong union without the states losing their individual powers and surrendering their control over local affairs?

The fifty-five delegates who convened in Philadelphia during the sweltering summer of 1787 answered this question with a document that called for a federal plan of government, a system of separation of powers with checks and balances, and a procedure for orderly change to meet the needs and exigencies of future generations.

In an ultimate sense, the Constitution confirmed the proposition that original power resided in the people—not, however, in the people as a whole but in their capacity as people of the several states. To bring forth the requisite union, the people through the states would transfer some of their powers to the new federal government. All powers not reserved by the people in explicit state constitutional limitations remained in the state governments.

Although the Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, the fear of the new federal government was so strong that a “bill of rights” was demanded and became an eventuality.

Intended to protect the citizenry’s fundamental rights or “first liberties” against usurpation by the newly created federal government, the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments of the Constitution—is essentially a list of immunities from interference by the federal government.

Unfortunately, although the Bill of Rights was adopted as a means of protecting the people against government tyranny, in America today, the government does whatever it wants, freedom is damned.

“We the people” have been terrorized, traumatized, and tricked into a semi-permanent state of compliance by a government that cares nothing for our lives or our liberties.

The bogeyman’s names and faces have changed over time (terrorism, the war on drugs, illegal immigration, a viral pandemic, and more to come), but the end result remains the same: in the so-called name of national security, the Constitution has been steadily chipped away at, undermined, eroded, whittled down, and generally discarded with the support of Congress, the White House, and the courts.

A recitation of the Bill of Rights—set against a backdrop of government surveillance, militarized police, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, eminent domain, overcriminalization, armed surveillance drones, whole-body scanners, stop and frisk searches, vaccine mandates, travel lockdowns, and the like (all sanctioned by Congress, the White House, and the courts)—would understandably sound more like a eulogy to freedoms lost than an affirmation of rights we truly possess.

What we are left with today is but a shadow of the robust document adopted more than two centuries ago. Sadly, most of the damage has been inflicted upon the Bill of Rights.

Here is what it means to live under the Constitution, post-9/11 and in the midst of a COVID-19 pandemic.

The First Amendment is supposed to protect the freedom to speak your mind, assemble and protest nonviolently without being bridled by the government. It also protects the freedom of the media, as well as the right to worship and pray without interference. In other words, Americans should not be silenced by the government. To the founders, all of America was a free speech zone.

Despite the clear protections found in the First Amendment, the freedoms described therein are under constant assault. Increasingly, Americans are being arrested and charged with bogus “contempt of cop” charges such as “disrupting the peace” or “resisting arrest” for daring to film police officers engaged in harassment or abusive practices. Journalists are being prosecuted for reporting on whistleblowers. States are passing legislation to muzzle reporting on cruel and abusive corporate practices. Religious ministries are being fined for attempting to feed and house the homeless. Protesters are being tear-gassed, beaten, arrested, and forced into “free speech zones.” And under the guise of “government speech,” the courts have reasoned that the government can discriminate freely against any First Amendment activity that takes place within a so-called government forum.

The Second Amendment was intended to guarantee “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Essentially, this amendment was intended to give the citizenry the means to resist tyrannical government. Yet while gun ownership has been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court as an individual citizen right, Americans remain powerless to defend themselves against SWAT team raids and government agents armed to the teeth with military weapons better suited to the battlefield. As such, this amendment has been rendered nearly null and void.

The Third Amendment reinforces the principle that civilian-elected officials are superior to the military by prohibiting the military from entering any citizen’s home without “the consent of the owner.” With the police increasingly training like the military, acting like the military, and posing as military forces—complete with heavily armed SWAT teams, military weapons, assault vehicles, etc.—it is clear that we now have what the founders feared most—a standing army on American soil.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits government agents from conducting surveillance on you or touching you or invading you unless they have some evidence that you’re up to something criminal. In other words, the Fourth Amendment ensures privacy and bodily integrity. Unfortunately, the Fourth Amendment has suffered the greatest damage in recent years and has been all but eviscerated by an unwarranted expansion of police powers that include strip searches and even anal and vaginal searches of citizens, surveillance (corporate and otherwise), and intrusions justified in the name of fighting terrorism, as well as the outsourcing of otherwise illegal activities to private contractors.

The Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment work in tandem. These amendments supposedly ensure that you are innocent until proven guilty, and government authorities cannot deprive you of your life, your liberty, or your property without the right to an attorney and a fair trial before a civilian judge. However, in the new suspect society in which we live, where surveillance is the norm, these fundamental principles have been upended. Certainly, if the government can arbitrarily freeze, seize or lay claim to your property (money, land, or possessions) under government asset forfeiture schemes, you have no true rights.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees citizens the right to a jury trial. Yet when the populace has no idea of what’s in the Constitution—civic education has virtually disappeared from most school curriculums—that inevitably translates to an ignorant jury incapable of distinguishing justice and the law from their own preconceived notions and fears. However, as a growing number of citizens are coming to realize, the power of the jury to nullify the government’s actions—and thereby help balance the scales of justice—is not to be underestimated. Jury nullification reminds the government that “we the people” retain the power to ultimately determine what laws are just.

The Eighth Amendment is similar to the Sixth in that it is supposed to protect the rights of the accused and forbid the use of cruel and unusual punishment. However, the Supreme Court’s determination that what constitutes “cruel and unusual” should be dependent on the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” leaves us with little protection in the face of a society lacking in morals altogether.

The Ninth Amendment provides that other rights not enumerated in the Constitution are nonetheless retained by the people. Popular sovereignty—the belief that the power to govern flows upward from the people rather than downward from the rulers—is clearly evident in this amendment. However, it has since been turned on its head by a centralized federal government that sees itself as supreme and which continues to pass more and more laws that restrict our freedoms under the pretext that it has an “important government interest” in doing so.

As for the Tenth Amendment’s reminder that the people and the states retain every authority that is not otherwise mentioned in the Constitution, that assurance of a system of government in which power is divided among local, state, and national entities has long since been rendered moot by centralized Washington, DC, power elite—the president, Congress, and the courts.

If there is any sense to be made from this recitation of freedoms lost, it is simply this: our individual freedoms have been eviscerated so that the government’s powers could be expanded.

Yet those who gave us the Constitution and the Bill of Rights believed that the government exists at the behest of its citizens. It is there to protect, defend and even enhance our freedoms, not violate them.

It was no idle happenstance that the Constitution opens with these three powerful words: “We the people.” As the Preamble proclaims:

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION for the United States of America.

In other words, we have the power to make and break the government. We are the masters and they are the servants. We the American people—the citizenry—are the arbiters and ultimate guardians of America’s welfare, defense, liberty, laws, and prosperity.

Still, it’s hard to be a good citizen if you don’t know anything about your rights or how the government is supposed to operate.

As the National Review rightly asks, “How can Americans possibly make intelligent and informed political choices if they don’t understand the fundamental structure of their government? American citizens have the right to self-government, but it seems that we increasingly lack the capacity for it.”

Americans are constitutionally illiterate.

Most citizens have little, if any, knowledge about their basic rights. And our educational system does a poor job of teaching the basic freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. For instance, a survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that a little more than one-third of respondents (36 percent) could name all three branches of the U.S. government, while another one-third (35 percent) could not name a single one.

A survey by the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that only one out of a thousand adults could identify the five rights protected by the First Amendment. On the other hand, more than half (52%) of the respondents could name at least two of the characters in the animated Simpsons television family, and 20% could name all five. And although half could name none of the freedoms in the First Amendment, a majority (54%) could name at least one of the three judges on the TV program American Idol, 41% could name two, and one-fourth could name all three.

It gets worse.

Many who responded to the survey had a strange conception of what was in the First Amendment. For example, 21% said the “right to own a pet” was listed someplace between “Congress shall make no law” and “redress of grievances.” Some 17% said that the First Amendment contained the “right to drive a car,” and 38% believed that “taking the Fifth” was part of the First Amendment.

Teachers and school administrators do not fare much better. A study conducted by the Center for Survey Research and Analysis found that one educator in five was unable to name any of the freedoms in the First Amendment.

In fact, while some educators want students to learn about freedom, they do not necessarily want them to exercise their freedoms in school. As the researchers conclude, “Most educators think that students already have enough freedom and that restrictions on freedom in the school are necessary. Many support filtering the Internet, censoring T-shirts, disallowing student distribution of political or religious material, and conducting a prior review of school newspapers.”

Government leaders and politicians are also ill-informed. Although they take an oath to uphold, support, and defend the Constitution against “enemies foreign and domestic,” their lack of education about our fundamental rights often causes them to be enemies of the Bill of Rights.

So what’s the solution?

Thomas Jefferson recognized that a citizenry educated on “their rights, interests, and duties” is the only real assurance that freedom will survive.

As Jefferson wrote in 1820: “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of our society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”

From the President on down, anyone taking public office should have a working knowledge of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and should be held accountable for upholding their precepts. One way to ensure this would be to require government leaders to take a course on the Constitution and pass a thorough examination thereof before being allowed to take office.

Some critics are advocating that students pass the United States citizenship exam in order to graduate from high school. Others recommend that it must be a prerequisite for attending college. I’d go so far as to argue that students should have to pass the citizenship exam before graduating from grade school.

Here’s an idea to get educated and take a stand for freedom: anyone who signs up to become a member of The Rutherford Institute gets a wallet-sized Bill of Rights card and a Know Your Rights card. Use this card to teach your children the freedoms found in the Bill of Rights.

If this constitutional illiteracy is not remedied and soon, freedom in America will be doomed.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, we have managed to keep the wolf at bay so far. Barely.

Our national priorities need to be re-prioritized. For instance, some argue that we need to make America great again. I, for one, would prefer to make America free again.

ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is the founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His books Battlefield America: The War on the American People and A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State are available at www.amazon.com. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Facebook Lied — It’s Reading Your Private WhatsApp Messages

By Peter Elkind, Jack Gillum and Craig Silverman | ProPublica | The Defender

When Mark Zuckerberg unveiled a new “privacy-focused vision” for Facebook in March 2019, he cited the company’s global messaging service, WhatsApp, as a model.

Acknowledging that “we don’t currently have a strong reputation for building privacy-protective services,” the Facebook CEO wrote that “I believe the future of communication will increasingly shift to private, encrypted services where people can be confident what they say to each other stays secure and their messages and content won’t stick around forever. This is the future I hope we will help bring about. We plan to build this the way we’ve developed WhatsApp.”

Zuckerberg’s vision centered on WhatsApp’s signature feature, which he said the company was planning to apply to Instagram and Facebook Messenger: end-to-end encryption, which converts all messages into an unreadable format that is only unlocked when they reach their intended destinations.

WhatsApp messages are so secure, he said, that nobody else — not even the company — can read a word. As Zuckerberg had put it earlier, in testimony to the U.S. Senate in 2018, “We don’t see any of the content in WhatsApp.”

WhatsApp emphasizes this point so consistently that a flag with a similar assurance automatically appears on-screen before users send messages: “No one outside of this chat, not even WhatsApp, can read or listen to them.”

Those assurances are not true. WhatsApp has more than 1,000 contract workers filling floors of office buildings in Austin, Texas, Dublin, and Singapore, where they examine millions of pieces of users’ content. Seated at computers in pods organized by work assignments, these hourly workers use special Facebook software to sift through streams of private messages, images, and videos that have been reported by WhatsApp users as improper and then screened by the company’s artificial intelligence systems.

These contractors pass judgment on whatever flashes on their screen — claims of everything from fraud or spam to child porn and potential terrorist plotting — typically in less than a minute.

Policing users while assuring them that their privacy is sacrosanct makes for an awkward mission at WhatsApp. A 49-slide internal company marketing presentation from December, obtained by ProPublica, emphasizes the “fierce” promotion of WhatsApp’s “privacy narrative.”

It compares its “brand character” to “the Immigrant Mother” and displays a photo of Malala Yousafzai, who survived a shooting by the Taliban and became a Nobel Peace Prize winner, in a slide titled “Brand tone parameters.” The presentation does not mention the company’s content moderation efforts.

WhatsApp’s director of communications, Carl Woog, acknowledged that teams of contractors in Austin and elsewhere review WhatsApp messages to identify and remove “the worst” abusers. But Woog told ProPublica that the company does not consider this work to be content moderation, saying: “We actually don’t typically use the term for WhatsApp.” The company declined to make executives available for interviews for this article but responded to questions with written comments.

“WhatsApp is a lifeline for millions of people around the world,” the company said. “The decisions we make around how we build our app are focused around the privacy of our users, maintaining a high degree of reliability and preventing abuse.”

WhatsApp’s denial that it moderates content is noticeably different from what Facebook Inc. says about WhatsApp’s corporate siblings, Instagram and Facebook. The company has said that some 15,000 moderators examine content on Facebook and Instagram, neither of which is encrypted. It releases quarterly transparency reports that detail how many accounts Facebook and Instagram have “actioned” for various categories of abusive content. There is no such report for WhatsApp.

Deploying an army of content reviewers is just one of the ways that Facebook Inc. has compromised the privacy of WhatsApp users. Together, the company’s actions have left WhatsApp — the largest messaging app in the world, with two billion users — far less private than its users likely understand or expect.

A ProPublica investigation, drawing on data, documents, and dozens of interviews with current and former employees and contractors, reveals how, since purchasing WhatsApp in 2014, Facebook has quietly undermined its sweeping security assurances in multiple ways. (Two articles this summer noted the existence of WhatsApp’s moderators but focused on their working conditions and pay rather than their effect on users’ privacy. This article is the first to reveal the details and extent of the company’s ability to scrutinize messages and user data — and to examine what the company does with that information.)

Many of the assertions by content moderators working for WhatsApp are echoed by a confidential whistleblower complaint filed last year with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The complaint, which ProPublica obtained, details WhatsApp’s extensive use of outside contractors, artificial intelligence systems, and account information to examine user messages, images, and videos. It alleges that the company’s claims of protecting users’ privacy are false. “We haven’t seen this complaint,” the company spokesperson said. The SEC has taken no public action on it; an agency spokesperson declined to comment.

Facebook Inc. has also downplayed how much data it collects from WhatsApp users, what it does with it and how much it shares with law enforcement authorities. For example, WhatsApp shares metadata, unencrypted records that can reveal a lot about a user’s activity, with law enforcement agencies such as the Department of Justice.

Some rivals, such as Signal, intentionally gather much less metadata to avoid incursions on its users’ privacy and thus share far less with law enforcement. (“WhatsApp responds to valid legal requests,” the company spokesperson said, “including orders that require us to provide on a real-time going forward basis who a specific person is messaging.”)

WhatsApp user data, ProPublica has learned, helped prosecutors build a high-profile case against a Treasury Department employee who leaked confidential documents to BuzzFeed News that exposed how dirty money flows through U.S. banks.

Like other social media and communications platforms, WhatsApp is caught between users who expect privacy and law enforcement entities that effectively demand the opposite: that WhatsApp turns over information that will help combat crime and online abuse.

WhatsApp has responded to this dilemma by asserting that it’s no dilemma at all. “I think we absolutely can have security and safety for people through end-to-end encryption and work with law enforcement to solve crimes,” said Will Cathcart, whose title is Head of WhatsApp, in a YouTube interview with an Australian think tank in July.

The tension between privacy and disseminating information to law enforcement is exacerbated by a second pressure: Facebook’s need to make money from WhatsApp. Since paying $22 billion to buy WhatsApp in 2014, Facebook has been trying to figure out how to generate profits from a service that doesn’t charge its users a penny.

That conundrum has periodically led to moves that anger users, regulators, or both. The goal of monetizing the app was part of the company’s 2016 decision to start sharing WhatsApp user data with Facebook, something the company had told EU regulators was technologically impossible.

The same impulse spurred a controversial plan, abandoned in late 2019, to sell advertising on WhatsApp. And the profit-seeking mandate was behind another botched initiative in January: the introduction of a new privacy policy for user interactions with businesses on WhatsApp, allowing businesses to use customer data in new ways. That announcement triggered a user exodus to competing apps.

WhatsApp’s increasingly aggressive business plan is focused on charging companies for an array of services — letting users make payments via WhatsApp and managing customer service chats — that offer convenience but fewer privacy protections. The result is a confusing two-tiered privacy system within the same app where the protections of end-to-end encryption are further eroded when WhatsApp users employ the service to communicate with businesses.

The company’s December marketing presentation captures WhatsApp’s diverging imperatives. It states that “privacy will remain important.” But it also conveys what seems to be a more urgent mission: the need to “open the aperture of the brand to encompass our future business objectives.”

I. “Content moderation associates”

In many ways, the experience of being a content moderator for WhatsApp in Austin is identical to being a moderator for Facebook or Instagram, according to interviews with 29 current and former moderators. Mostly in their 20s and 30s, many with past experience as store clerks, grocery checkers and baristas, the moderators are hired and employed by Accenture, a huge corporate contractor that works for Facebook and other Fortune 500 behemoths.

The job listings advertise “Content Review” positions and make no mention of Facebook or WhatsApp. Employment documents list the workers’ initial title as “content moderation associate.” Pay starts at around $16.50 an hour. Moderators are instructed to tell anyone who asks that they work for Accenture, and are required to sign sweeping non-disclosure agreements.

Citing the NDAs, almost all the current and former moderators interviewed by ProPublica insisted on anonymity. (An Accenture spokesperson declined to comment, referring all questions about content moderation to WhatsApp.)

When the WhatsApp team was assembled in Austin in 2019, Facebook moderators already occupied the fourth floor of an office tower on Sixth Street, adjacent to the city’s famous bar-and-music scene. The WhatsApp team was installed on the floor above, with new glass-enclosed work pods and nicer bathrooms that sparked a tinge of envy in a few members of the Facebook team.

Most of the WhatsApp team scattered to work from home during the pandemic. Whether in the office or at home, they spend their days in front of screens, using a Facebook software tool to examine a stream of “tickets,” organized by subject into “reactive” and “proactive” queues.

Collectively, the workers scrutinize millions of pieces of WhatsApp content each week. Each reviewer handles upwards of 600 tickets a day, which gives them less than a minute per ticket. WhatsApp declined to reveal how many contract workers are employed for content review, but a partial staffing list reviewed by ProPublica suggests that, at Accenture alone, it’s more than 1,000. WhatsApp moderators, like their Facebook and Instagram counterparts, are expected to meet performance metrics for speed and accuracy, which are audited by Accenture.

Their jobs differ in other ways. Because WhatsApp’s content is encrypted, artificial intelligence systems can’t automatically scan all chats, images, and videos, as they do on Facebook and Instagram. Instead, WhatsApp reviewers gain access to private content when users hit the “report” button on the app, identifying a message as allegedly violating the platform’s terms of service.

This forwards five messages — the allegedly offending one along with the four previous ones in the exchange, including any images or videos — to WhatsApp in unscrambled form, according to former WhatsApp engineers and moderators. Automated systems then feed these tickets into “reactive” queues for contract workers to assess.

Artificial intelligence initiates the second set of queues — so-called proactive ones — by scanning unencrypted data that WhatsApp collects about its users and comparing it against suspicious account information and messaging patterns (a new account rapidly sending out a high volume of chats is evidence of spam), as well as terms and images that have previously been deemed abusive.

The unencrypted data available for scrutiny is extensive. It includes the names and profiles images of a user’s WhatsApp groups as well as their phone number, profile photo, status message, phone battery level, language and time zone, unique mobile phone ID and IP address, wireless signal strength, and phone operating system, as a list of their electronic devices, any related Facebook and Instagram accounts, the last time they used the app and any previous history of violations.

The WhatsApp reviewers have three choices when presented with a ticket for either type of queue: Do nothing, place the user on “watch” for further scrutiny, or ban the account. (Facebook and Instagram content moderators have more options, including removing individual postings. It’s that distinction — the fact that WhatsApp reviewers can’t delete individual items — that the company cites as its basis for asserting that WhatsApp reviewers are not “content moderators.”)

WhatsApp moderators must make subjective, sensitive, and subtle judgments, interviews, and documents examined by ProPublica show. They examine a wide range of categories, including “Spam Report”, “Civic Bad Actor” (political hate speech and disinformation), “Terrorism Global Credible Threat”, “CEI” (child exploitative imagery), and “CP” (child pornography).

Another set of categories addresses the messaging and conduct of millions of small and large businesses that use WhatsApp to chat with customers and sell their wares. These queues have such titles as “business impersonation prevalence,” “commerce policy probable violators” and “business verification.”

Moderators say the guidance they get from WhatsApp and Accenture relies on standards that can be simultaneously arcane and disturbingly graphic. Decisions about abusive sexual imagery, for example, can rest on an assessment of whether a naked child in an image appears adolescent or prepubescent, based on a comparison of hip bones and pubic hair to a medical index chart.

One reviewer recalled a grainy video in a political-speech queue that depicted a machete-wielding man holding up what appeared to be a severed head: “We had to watch and say, ‘Is this a real dead body or a fake dead body?’”

In late 2020, moderators were informed of a new queue for alleged “sextortion.” It was defined in an explanatory memo as “a form of sexual exploitation where people are blackmailed with a nude image of themselves which have been shared by them or someone else on the Internet.” The memo said workers would review messages reported by users that “include predefined keywords typically used in sextortion/blackmail messages.”

WhatsApp’s review system is hampered by impediments, including buggy language translation. The service has users in 180 countries, with the vast majority located outside the U.S. Even though Accenture hires workers who speak a variety of languages, for messages in some languages there’s often no native speaker on-site to assess abuse complaints.

That means using Facebook’s language-translation tool, which reviewers said could be so inaccurate that it sometimes labeled messages in Arabic as being in Spanish. The tool also offered little guidance on local slang, political context, or sexual innuendo. “In the three years I’ve been there,” one moderator said, “it’s always been horrible.”

The process can be rife with errors and misunderstandings. Companies have been flagged for offering weapons for sale when they’re selling straight shaving razors. Bras can be sold, but if the marketing language registers as “adult,” the seller can be labeled a forbidden “sexually oriented business.” And a flawed translation toolset off an alarm when it detected kids for sale and slaughter, which, upon closer scrutiny, turned out to involve young goats intended to be cooked and eaten in halal meals.

The system is also undercut by the human failings of the people who instigate reports. Complaints are frequently filed to punish, harass or prank someone, according to moderators. In messages from Brazil and Mexico, one moderator explained, “we had a couple of months where AI was banning groups left and right because people were messing with their friends by changing their group names” and then reporting them. “At the worst of it, we were probably getting tens of thousands of those. They figured out some words the algorithm did not like.”

Other reports fail to meet WhatsApp standards for an account ban. “Most of it is not violating,” one of the moderators said. “It’s content that is already on the internet, and it’s just people trying to mess with users.” Still, each case can reveal up to five unencrypted messages, which are then examined by moderators.

The judgment of WhatsApp’s AI is less than perfect, moderators say. “There were a lot of innocent photos on there that were not allowed to be on there,” said Carlos Sauceda, who left Accenture last year after nine months. “It might have been a photo of a child taking a bath, and there was nothing wrong with it.” As another WhatsApp moderator put it, “A lot of the time, the artificial intelligence is not that intelligent.”

Facebook’s written guidance to WhatsApp moderators acknowledges many problems, noting “we have made mistakes and our policies have been weaponized by bad actors to get good actors banned. When users write inquiries pertaining to abusive matters like these, it is up to WhatsApp to respond and act (if necessary) accordingly in a timely and pleasant manner.” Of course, if a user appeals a ban that was prompted by a user report, according to one moderator, it entails having a second moderator examine the user’s content.

II. “Industry leaders” in detecting bad behavior

In public statements and on the company’s websites, Facebook Inc. is noticeably vague about WhatsApp’s monitoring process. The company does not provide a regular accounting of how WhatsApp polices the platform. WhatsApp’s FAQ page and online complaint form note that it will receive “the most recent messages” from a user who has been flagged.

They do not, however, disclose how many unencrypted messages are revealed when a report is filed, or that those messages are examined by outside contractors. (WhatsApp told ProPublica it limits that disclosure to keep violators from “gaming” the system.)

By contrast, both Facebook and Instagram post lengthy “Community Standards” documents detailing the criteria its moderators use to police content, along with articles and videos about “the unrecognized heroes who keep Facebook safe” and announcements on new content-review sites. Facebook’s transparency reports detail how many pieces of content are “actioned” for each type of violation. WhatsApp is not included in this report.

When dealing with legislators, Facebook Inc. officials also offer few details — but are eager to assure them that they don’t let encryption stand in the way of protecting users from images of child sexual abuse and exploitation. For example, when members of the Senate Judiciary Committee grilled Facebook about the impact of encrypting its platforms, the company, in written follow-up questions in January 2020, cited WhatsApp in boasting that it would remain responsive to law enforcement.

“Even within an encrypted system,” one respondent noted, “we will still be able to respond to lawful requests for metadata, including the potentially critical location or account information… We already have an encrypted messaging service, WhatsApp, that — in contrast to some other encrypted services — provides a simple way for people to report abuse or safety concerns.”

Sure enough, WhatsApp reported 400,000 instances of possible child-exploitation imagery to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in 2020, according to its head, Cathcart. That was ten times as many as in 2019. “We are by far the industry leaders in finding and detecting that behavior in an end-to-end encrypted service,” he said.

During his YouTube interview with the Australian think tank, Cathcart also described WhatsApp’s reliance on user reporting and its AI systems’ ability to examine account information that isn’t subject to encryption. Asked how many staffers WhatsApp employed to investigate abuse complaints from an app with more than two billion users, Cathcart didn’t mention content moderators or their access to encrypted content.

“There’s a lot of people across Facebook who help with WhatsApp,” he explained. “If you look at people who work full time on WhatsApp, it’s above a thousand. I won’t get into the full breakdown of customer service, user reports, engineering, etc. But it’s a lot of that.”

In written responses for this article, the company spokesperson said: “We build WhatsApp in a manner that limits the data we collect while providing us tools to prevent spam, investigate threats, and ban those engaged in abuse, including based on user reports we receive. This work takes extraordinary effort from security experts and a valued trust and safety team that works tirelessly to help provide the world with private communication.”

The spokesperson noted that WhatsApp has released new privacy features, including “more controls about how people’s messages can disappear” or be viewed only once. He added, “Based on the feedback we’ve received from users, we’re confident people understand when they make reports to WhatsApp we receive the content they send us.”

III. “Deceiving users” about personal privacy

Since the moment Facebook announced plans to buy WhatsApp in 2014, observers wondered how the service, known for its fervent commitment to privacy, would fare inside a corporation known for the opposite.

Zuckerberg had become one of the wealthiest people on the planet by using a “surveillance capitalism” approach: collecting and exploiting reams of user data to sell targeted digital ads. Facebook’s relentless pursuit of growth and profits has generated a series of privacy scandals in which it was accused of deceiving customers and regulators.

By contrast, WhatsApp knew little about its users apart from their phone numbers and shared none of that information with third parties. WhatsApp ran no ads, and its co-founders, Jan Koum and Brian Acton, both former Yahoo engineers, were hostile to them.

“At every company that sells ads,” they wrote in 2012, “a significant portion of their engineering team spends their day tuning data mining, writing better code to collect all your personal data, upgrading the servers that hold all the data, and making sure it’s all being logged and collated and sliced and packed and shipped out,” adding: “Remember when advertising is involved you the user are the product.” At WhatsApp, they noted, “your data isn’t even in the picture. We are simply not interested in any of it.”

Zuckerberg publicly vowed in a 2014 keynote speech that he would keep WhatsApp “exactly the same.” He declared, “We are absolutely not going to change plans around WhatsApp and the way it uses user data. WhatsApp is going to operate completely autonomously.”

In April 2016, WhatsApp completed its long-planned adoption of end-to-end encryption, which helped establish the app as a prized communications platform in 180 countries, including many where text messages and phone calls are cost-prohibitive. International dissidents, whistleblowers, and journalists also turned to WhatsApp to escape government eavesdropping.

Four months later, however, WhatsApp disclosed it would begin sharing user data with Facebook — precisely what Zuckerberg had said would not happen — a move that cleared the way for an array of future revenue-generating plans.

The new WhatsApp terms of service said the app would share information such as users’ phone numbers, profile photos, status messages, and IP addresses for the purposes of ad targeting, fighting spam and abuse, and gathering metrics. “By connecting your phone number with Facebook’s systems,” WhatsApp explained, “Facebook can offer better friend suggestions and show you more relevant ads if you have an account with them.”

Such actions were increasingly bringing Facebook into the crosshairs of regulators. In May 2017, EU antitrust regulators fined the company 110 million euros (about $122 million) for falsely claiming three years earlier that it would be impossible to link the user information between WhatsApp and the Facebook family of apps. The EU concluded that Facebook had “intentionally or negligently” deceived regulators. Facebook insisted its false statements in 2014 were not intentional but didn’t contest the fine.

By the spring of 2018, the WhatsApp co-founders, now both billionaires, were gone. Acton, in what he later described as an act of “penance” for the “crime” of selling WhatsApp to Facebook, gave $50 million to a foundation backing Signal, a free encrypted messaging app that would emerge as a WhatsApp rival. (Acton’s donor-advised fund has also given money to ProPublica.)

Meanwhile, Facebook was under fire for its security and privacy failures as never before. The pressure culminated in a landmark $5 billion fine by the Federal Trade Commission in July 2019 for violating a previous agreement to protect user privacy. The fine was almost 20 times greater than any previous privacy-related penalty, according to the FTC, and Facebook’s transgressions included “deceiving users about their ability to control the privacy of their personal information.”

The FTC announced that it was ordering Facebook to take steps to protect privacy going forward, including for WhatsApp users: “As part of Facebook’s order-mandated privacy program, which covers WhatsApp and Instagram, Facebook must conduct a privacy review of every new or modified product, service, or practice before it is implemented, and document its decisions about user privacy.” Compliance officers would be required to generate a “quarterly privacy review report” and share it with the company and, upon request, the FTC.

Facebook agreed to the FTC’s fine and order. Indeed, the negotiations for that agreement were the backdrop, just four months before that, for Zuckerberg’s announcement of his new commitment to privacy.

By that point, WhatsApp had begun using Accenture and other outside contractors to hire hundreds of content reviewers. But the company was eager not to step on its larger privacy message — or spook its global user base. It said nothing publicly about its hiring of contractors to review content.

IV. “We kill people based on metadata”

Even as Zuckerberg was touting Facebook Inc.’s new commitment to privacy in 2019, he didn’t mention that his company was apparently sharing more of its WhatsApp users’ metadata than ever with the parent company — and with law enforcement.

To the lay ear, the term “metadata” can sound abstract, a word that evokes the intersection of literary criticism and statistics. To use an old, pre-digital analogy, metadata is the equivalent of what’s written on the outside of an envelope — the names and addresses of the sender and recipient and the postmark reflecting where and when it was mailed — while the “content” is what’s written on the letter sealed inside the envelope. So it is with WhatsApp messages: The content is protected, but the envelope reveals a multitude of telling details (as noted: timestamps, phone numbers, and much more).

Those in the information and intelligence fields understand how crucial this information can be. It was metadata, after all, that the National Security Agency was gathering about millions of Americans not suspected of a crime, prompting a global outcry when it was exposed in 2013 by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

“Metadata absolutely tells you everything about somebody’s life,” former NSA general counsel Stewart Baker once said. “If you have enough metadata, you don’t really need content.” In a symposium at Johns Hopkins University in 2014, Gen. Michael Hayden, former director of both the CIA and NSA, went even further: “We kill people based on metadata.”

U.S. law enforcement has used WhatsApp metadata to help put people in jail. ProPublica found more than a dozen instances in which the Justice Department sought court orders for the platform’s metadata since 2017. These represent a fraction of overall requests, known as pen register orders (a phrase borrowed from the technology used to track numbers dialed by landline telephones), as many more are kept from public view by court order.

U.S. government requests for data on outgoing and incoming messages from all Facebook platforms increased by 276% from the first half of 2017 to the second half of 2020, according to Facebook Inc. statistics (which don’t break out the numbers by platform). The company’s rate of handing over at least some data in response to such requests has risen from 84% to 95% during that period.

It’s not clear exactly what government investigators have been able to gather from WhatsApp, as the results of those orders, too, are often kept from public view. Internally, WhatsApp calls such requests for information about users “prospective message pairs,” or PMPs.

These provide data on a user’s messaging patterns in response to requests from U.S. law enforcement agencies, as well as those in at least three other countries — the UK, Brazil, and India — according to a person familiar with the matter who shared this information on the condition of anonymity. Law enforcement requests from other countries might only receive basic subscriber profile information.

WhatsApp metadata was pivotal in the arrest and conviction of Natalie “May” Edwards, a former Treasury Department official with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, for leaking confidential banking reports about suspicious transactions to BuzzFeed News. The FBI’s criminal complaint detailed hundreds of messages between Edwards and a BuzzFeed reporter using an “encrypted application,” which interviews and court records confirmed was WhatsApp.

“On or about August 1, 2018, within approximately six hours of the Edwards pen becoming operative — and the day after the July 2018 Buzzfeed article was published — the Edwards cellphone exchanged approximately 70 messages via the encrypted application with the Reporter-1 cellphone during an approximately 20-minute time span between 12:33 a.m. and 12:54 a.m.,”

FBI Special Agent Emily Eckstut wrote in her October 2018 complaint. Edwards and the reporter used WhatsApp because Edwards believed the platform to be secure, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Edwards was sentenced on June 3 to six months in prison after pleading guilty to a conspiracy charge and reported to prison last week. Edwards’ attorney declined to comment, as did representatives from the FBI and the Justice Department.

WhatsApp has for years downplayed how much-unencrypted information it shares with law enforcement, largely limiting mentions of the practice to boilerplate language buried deep in its terms of service. It does not routinely keep permanent logs of who users are communicating with and how often, but company officials confirmed they do turn on such tracking at their own discretion — even for internal Facebook leak investigations — or in response to law enforcement requests. The company declined to tell ProPublica how frequently it does so.

The privacy page for WhatsApp assures users that they have total control over their own metadata. It says users can “decide if only contacts, everyone, or nobody can see your profile photo” or when they last opened their status updates or when they last opened the app. Regardless of the settings a user chooses, WhatsApp collects and analyzes all of that data — a fact not mentioned anywhere on the page.

V. “Opening the aperture to encompass business objectives”

The conflict between privacy and security on encrypted platforms seems to be only intensifying. Law enforcement and child safety advocates have urged Zuckerberg to abandon his plan to encrypt all of Facebook’s messaging platforms.

In June 2020, three Republican senators introduced the “Lawful Access to Encrypted Data Act,” which would require tech companies to assist in providing access to even encrypted content in response to law enforcement warrants. For its part, WhatsApp recently sued the Indian government to block its requirement that encrypted apps provide “traceability” — a method to identify the sender of any message deemed relevant to law enforcement. WhatsApp has fought similar demands in other countries.

Other encrypted platforms take a vastly different approach to monitoring their users than WhatsApp. Signal employs no content moderators, collects far less user and group data, allows no cloud backups, and generally rejects the notion that it should be policing user activities. It submits no child exploitation reports to NCMEC.

Apple has touted its commitment to privacy as a selling point. It has no “report” button on its iMessage system, and the company has made just a few hundred annual reports to NCMEC, all of them originating from scanning outgoing email, which is unencrypted.

But Apple recently took a new tack and appeared to stumble along the way. Amid intensifying pressure from Congress, in August the company announced a complex new system for identifying child-exploitative imagery on users’ iCloud backups.

Apple insisted the new system poses no threat to private content, but privacy advocates accused the company of creating a backdoor that potentially allows authoritarian governments to demand broader content searches, which could result in the targeting of dissidents, journalists, or other critics of the state. On Sept. 3, Apple announced it would delay the implementation of the new system.

Still, it’s Facebook that seems to face the most constant skepticism among major tech platforms. It is using encryption to market itself as privacy-friendly while saying little about the other ways it collects data, according to Lloyd Richardson, the director of IT at the Canadian Centre for Child Protection.

“This whole idea that they’re doing it for personal protection of people is completely ludicrous,” Richardson said. “You’re trusting an app owned and written by Facebook to do exactly what they’re saying. Do you trust that entity to do that?” (On Sept. 2, Irish authorities announced that they are fining WhatsApp 225 million euros, about $267 million, for failing to properly disclose how the company shares user information with other Facebook platforms. WhatsApp is contesting the finding.)

Facebook’s emphasis on promoting WhatsApp as a paragon of privacy is evident in the December marketing document obtained by ProPublica. The “Brand Foundations” presentation says it was the product of a 21-member global team across all of Facebook, involving a half-dozen workshops, quantitative research, “stakeholder interviews” and “endless brainstorms.”

Its aim: to offer “an emotional articulation” of WhatsApp’s benefits, “an inspirational toolkit that helps us tell our story,” and a “brand purpose to champion the deep human connection that leads to progress.” The marketing deck identifies a feeling of “closeness” as WhatsApp’s “ownable emotional territory,” saying the app delivers “the closest thing to an in-person conversation.”

WhatsApp should portray itself as “courageous,” according to another slide because it’s “taking a strong, public stance that is not financially motivated on things we care about,” such as defending encryption and fighting misinformation. But the presentation also speaks of the need to “open the aperture of the brand to encompass our future business objectives. While privacy will remain important, we must accommodate for future innovations.”

WhatsApp is now in the midst of a major drive to make money. It has experienced a rocky start, in part because of broad suspicions of how WhatsApp will balance privacy and profits. An announced plan to begin running ads inside the app didn’t help — it was abandoned in late 2019, just days before it was set to launch.

Early this January, WhatsApp unveiled a change in its privacy policy — accompanied by a one-month deadline to accept the policy or get cut off from the app. The move sparked a revolt, impelling tens of millions of users to flee to rivals such as Signal and Telegram.

Facebook is “pestering” WhatsApp users to accept a new policy that allows Facebook to collect more data, while gradually removing key features of the app for those who don’t, a coalition of 28 groups say.#TheDefender: SIGN UP –> https://t.co/UTTfyiKViI https://t.co/ba9cMY3OxB

— Children's Health Defense (@ChildrensHD) May 19, 2021

The policy change focused on how messages and data would be handled when users communicate with a business in the ever-expanding array of WhatsApp Business offerings. Companies now could store their chats with users and use information about users for marketing purposes, including targeting them with ads on Facebook or Instagram.

Elon Musk tweeted “Use Signal,” and WhatsApp users rebelled. Facebook delayed for three months the requirement for users to approve the policy update. In the meantime, it struggled to convince users that the change would have no effect on the privacy protections for their personal communications, with a slightly modified version of its usual assurance: “WhatsApp cannot see your personal messages or hear your calls and neither can Facebook.” Just as when the company first bought WhatsApp years before, the message was the same: Trust us.

Originally published by ProPublica.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.

COVID Concentration Camps in Australia

https://rumble.com/embed/vjpzgv/?pub=omyzz

Source: The HighWire with Del Bigtree

Australian localities are erecting ‘mandatory quarantine facilities’ for Covid positive travelers. The cost for this dystopian, compulsory, prison-style retreat? $2,500 for individuals and $5K for families out-of-pocket. No parole unless you can provide a negative #Covid19 test.

Biden’s New MANDATE! Will You COMPLY? (Are You a Lion or a Sheep?)

Video Source: AwakenWithJP

Biden’s New MANDATE! Will You COMPLY? The Biden administration issued a new order for everybody to get the shot who works in a business with more than 100 employees. This is for everyone’s safety and is based on the latest science. Right? Or not? Will you comply?

The Bombshell Outbreak in the Wuhan Lab

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

Story at-a-glance

The House Foreign Affairs Committee reviewed public and classified intelligence to reach their stunning conclusions that the virus did originate in the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), and it was genetically manipulated
Unfortunately, the mainstream media have ignored the report, providing even more evidence experts are hoping to manipulate what you know and what you do
The evidence clearly points to a viral leak from the Wuhan lab before September 12, 2019, the date a public database of 22,000 viral samples from WIV was inexplicably taken offline
In September and October, daily volume at local hospitals was higher than in the past 2.5 years, and researchers found a much higher than average number of searches for COVID symptoms on the Chinese search engine, Baidu
The Committee also concluded there was enough evidence to show genetic modification was viable, that new processes could produce genetic sequencing “indistinguishable from wild type” and that Peter Daszak likely has information about the specific gain-of-function research and should be brought to testify before Congress

Any question about the origin of SARS-CoV-2 has been dispelled by a new addendum from the House Foreign Affairs Committee of the 117th Congress that reviewed public data and classified intelligence to reveal key new facts.¹

In the short video above, Saagar Enjeti talks about a few of the interesting facts revealed in the addendum.² Unfortunately, as has been the case throughout the last 18 months, the mainstream media completely ignored any report like this one, which suggests health experts have been manipulating what you see.

I believe it’s important to share information from the committee’s report with your friends and family as it sheds light on the lies the media have been perpetuating throughout 2020 and 2021. As you will see and can find in the report, much of the information that led to the conclusions were taken from publicly available data.

If the media’s aim were to ferret out the truth and inform the public, this report may never have been necessary. And, if the media haven’t been telling you the truth about the origins of the virus, what else have they been hiding?

A report by the House Foreign Affairs Committee published in September 2020 highlighted the potential that SARS-CoV-2 was leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). However, after discovering further evidence, the committee finds it is “time to completely dismiss the wet market as the source of the outbreak.”³

In the last 18 months, the virus has wreaked havoc on a health care system unwilling to use cost-effective and successful treatment modalities,⁴ and we have an economy that is still reeling from months of lockdowns and social distancing.

People are being forced to either accept the consequences and repercussions of hospital treatment for the infection or seek out successful alternatives that are criticized and discouraged by health agencies.⁵^,6 If successful treatment were truly the objective, why would health experts vilify the use of medications that have been on the market for decades^7,⁸ and the media maintain the lie?

Whether you are interested in the origin of a virus technocrats are using to manipulate human behavior or not, as Enjeti succinctly put it, “Getting to the bottom of it [origin of the pandemic] is vitally important for mankind so we can avoid any of this in the future.” And by “any of this” I take it to mean society’s complete trust in a system that has failed the public.

The Most Stunning Headline: Virus Was Leaked From the Lab

Enjeti believes the most stunning headline of the report is that the committee is convinced the virus was leaked from the lab,⁹ but that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The committee used publicly available data, intelligence reports, and geospatial tracking to make their determination.

It appears the original infections likely occurred well before the December announcement from Wuhan, China. It is important to note that Wuhan is a large metropolitan city, home to some of the tallest skyscrapers, major cultural sites, and multiple universities. As noted in the report, it is five times the size of Houston in landmass with a larger population than Chicago and New York City combined.¹⁰

Before the leak in 2019, the committee noted there had been several safety concerns in labs across the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since 2004. It was at this time that SARS leaked for the Beijing lab, and since then other accidental releases have occurred. From what the committee can discern, it is highly probable that SARS-CoV-2 was released from the Wuhan lab before September 12, 2019.

It was on that date, September 12, 2019, that the online public database WIV of viral sequences and samples disappeared. The database had more than 22,000 entries of pathogens collected from mice and bats, with key information including similarities to other known viruses.

Dr. Shi Zheng-li was the senior scientist at WIV who was listed as the data correspondence author, but as the report highlights, to date has not given a consistent answer as to why the online database was removed or when or if it will be put back online.

Coincidentally, researchers from Harvard Medical School and Boston University School of Public Health had been evaluating 2.5 years of satellite imagery of hospitals in Wuhan.¹¹ They were analyzing parking lot traffic volume and discovered that in September and October 2019, five of the six hospitals in the city had a volume that was much higher than in the previous 2.5 years.

The researchers found this peak correspondent with a higher number of searches for two central COVID symptoms — “cough” and “diarrhea” — on the Chinese search engine Baidu.

Was the 2019 Military Games the Ultimate Superspreader?

Each of these factors and more identified in the report point to the likelihood the virus had been released from the lab before September 12, 2019. Data gathered after the 2019 Military World Games held in Wuhan on October 18, 2019, further support the committee’s assertion that the virus may have been contained to a local outbreak had the truth been told.¹²

The military games are an Olympic-style event that drew 9,308 athletes from 109 countries, including the U.S.¹³^,14 There were 25 countries that sent more than 100 athletes. The government used 236,000 volunteers, 90 hotels, and more than 2,000 drivers. In other words, the games were a hotbed for spreading around the world what could have been contained as a local virus.

One journalist from the Financial Post¹⁵ reported some participants at the games described Wuhan as a “ghost town.” One of the athletes told the reporter, “This was a city of 15 million people that was in lockdown. It was strange, but we were told this was to make it easy for the games’ participants to get around.”¹⁶

The source shared there were 60 Canadian athletes put in isolation on the flight home who had symptoms of coughing and diarrhea. Once home, he reported that the symptoms became worse and included nosebleeds, fever, and pain with breathing. Family members became ill and doctors were unable to identify a source for the infection. Another military source reported:¹⁷

“One-quarter of us got sick, there and when we returned. Some were bedridden for weeks. This made us potential vectors for the virus. The military did nothing. I was sick and others were, too, with Wuhan symptoms … I was eventually given a swab test, which measures only recent exposure, and told to carry on.”

The committee identified four countries that had sent athletes to the games that had people with confirmed COVID-19 in November and December 2019.¹⁸ Those countries were Italy, Brazil, Sweden, and France. In both Italy and France, the individuals infected had no known history of traveling outside the country. This suggests the virus was brought into the country from another source. The Committee concluded:¹⁹

“While much of the public debate was initially focused on the Huanan seafood market in Wuhan as the origin of the pandemic, the preponderance of evidence now suggests that the virus leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Given the WIV’s demonstrated history of conducting gain-of-function experiments on coronaviruses, including genetically manipulating viruses specifically to make them infectious to humans in BSL-2 labs, as well as their possession of one of the world’s largest collections of coronaviruses, it is completely plausible that one or more researcher(s) was accidentally infected and carried the virus out of the lab.”

Committee Also Believes the Virus Was Genetically Modified

Twenty-nine pages into the report, the committee began addressing the topic of genetic modification. Within the first paragraph, they said there was enough evidence to suggest that genetic modification is a “viable hypothesis.”²⁰ The committee included research from a 16-year collaboration between Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance, and Dr. Shi Zheng-li, senior scientist at WIV, which revealed a strong relationship. They wrote:²¹

“Beginning in 2005, and continuing over the next 16 years, Shi and Daszak have collaborated on coronavirus research. Together, they ‘led dozens of expeditions to caves full of bats, to collect samples and analyze them.’

They have identified more than 500 novel coronaviruses, including roughly 50 related to SARS or MERS, and they have repeatedly engaged in gain-of-function research on coronaviruses designed to make them more infectious in humans.”

Information from the papers they co-wrote also appears in the committee report, three of which were papers on bat SARS-like coronaviruses. The paper in 2013 that was published in the journal Nature was called “Isolation and characterization of a bat SARS-like coronavirus that uses the ACE2 receptor.”²²

In 2015, Shi gave Ralph Baric and researchers at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill spike protein sequences and plasmids they identified from bat feces samples in 2013. The Committee reported these were used by American researchers to create:²³

“’… a chimeric virus expressing the spike of bat coronavirus SHC014 in a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV backbone.’ In other words, they removed the spike protein from SHC014 and inserted it into a SARS coronavirus that was genetically manipulated to better infect mice.”

The research was funded by the NIAID and the NIH through the EcoHealth Alliance and the PRC government. In a paper published in 2016, in which Baric was the corresponding author, the writers discussed “moving from disease surveillance to creating chimeric viruses as a means of pandemic preparedness.”²⁴ After reviewing the data, the committee concluded:

“Given the above, it is self-evident that Shi and her colleagues, with funding and support from Daszak, were actively genetically manipulating coronaviruses and testing them against human immune systems in 2018 and 2019, before the beginning of the pandemic.”

The committee’s report delved further into some of the unusual features of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. They point out that critics claim what they say is an apparent “lack of telltale signs of genetic manipulation” is proof that the virus is naturally occurring.

However, Baric had developed and published a novel genetic engineering system to allow for genetic sequencing that would create a new and infectious coronavirus that was “indistinguishable from wild type.”

Daszak’s Dark Relationship With Wuhan

Daszak is the only scientist named in the Executive Summary of the report and whose actions “call into question the way in which U.S. government grants are used in overseas labs and call for more oversight of those grants.”²⁵ To understand the full implications of emails connecting Fauci and Daszak in early 2020, it’s important to understand what happened in the days before.

At the GOP House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, shared email information revealed in a Freedom of Information Act release, which demonstrated Fauci and many other health experts in the world knew the virus was lab-created.²⁶

Jordan quotes from an email Fauci received from British researcher Christian Anderson that said, “The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features look engineered. Eddie, Bob, Mike, and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.”²⁷

In a separate presentation at the House Select Committee on the Coronavirus, Jordan illustrated Fauci’s changing narrative on the issue of gain-of-function research, which is a lab-performed genetic alteration to make a virus more infectious to humans, saying:²⁸

“He initially said the United States taxpayer money did not fund the Wuhan Institute of Virology. He later changed that, saying no, no we did fund it but it was through a sub-grant. He subsequently said no, no we funded it but we did not fund gain-of-function research.

Then just last Sunday he said, well, we funded it, there was gain-of-function research, but it was a sound scientific decision. And then he said this … it would have been negligent to not fund the lab in China.”

In a section of the report from the House Foreign Affairs Committee titled “The Cover-Up, “²⁹ there is evidence that Daszak pushed for a cover-up. His actions included bullying scientists who asked questions and directly lying about the nature of the research and about the low-level safety protocols being used in the research. They conclude his actions cost time and “provide further proof the virus likely leaked from the WIV.”³⁰

Daszak Grateful Fauci on Board With Cover Up

In April 2020, Fauci was at the White House, where he rejected the idea that the coronavirus was created in the lab in Wuhan.³¹ In July 2020, Daszak headed up a second commission to investigate the origin of the virus, The Lancet COVID-19 commission,³² despite his many conflicts of interest and of having openly and repeatedly dismissed the possibility of the pandemic being the result of a lab leak.³³

However, once Fauci’s emails were released under a Freedom of Information Act request, it was discovered that Daszak wrote: “I just wanted to say a personal thank you on behalf of our staff and collaborators, for publicly standing up and stating that the scientific evidence supports a natural origin for COVID-19 from a bat-to-human spillover, not a lab release from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”³⁴

Jordan quotes testimony from “Dr. Jarrar,” whom he identifies as a former assistant secretary for health, that supports the mounting evidence being revealed. Jordan said:³⁵

“Here’s what Dr. Jarrar said. ‘I believe it’s just too much of a coincidence that the worldwide pandemic caused by a novel bat coronavirus that cannot be found in nature started just a few miles away from a secretive laboratory doing potentially dangerous research on bat coronaviruses.'”

In the House Committee’s report, Daszak’s name is mentioned 125 times. The importance of Daszak’s position in gain-of-function research done at WIV and the ensuing coverup is brought home by the committee’s recommendation for the next steps that Congress should take, namely “After this extensive investigation, we believe it is time to call Peter Daszak to testify before Congress.”³⁶

Sources and References

^1, ^3, ^10, ^12, ^13, ^18, ^20, ^21, ^23, ^24, ²⁵ House Foreign Affairs Committee Report, Minority Staff, August 2021
² YouTube, August 5, 2021
⁴ FLCCC.net
⁵ FDA, July 1, 2020
⁶ NIH, February 11, 2021
⁷ Lupus Foundation of America, Hydroxychloroquine 1956
⁸ IS Global, November 21, 2019
⁹ YouTube, August 5, 2021, Min 00:36
¹¹ Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard, Analysis of hospital traffic
¹⁴ US Department of Defense, 7th International Military Sports Council
^15, ^16, ¹⁷ Financial Post, June 25, 2021
¹⁹ House Foreign Affairs Committee Report, Minority Staff, August 2021, Conclusion page 29
²² Nature, 2013; 503
^26, ²⁸ YouTube, June 29, 2021
²⁷ YouTube, June 29, 2021, Minute 00:12
^29, ^30, ³⁶ House Foreign Affairs Committee Report, Minority Staff, August 2021
³¹ Insider, April 18, 2020
³² The Lancet October 10, 2020; 396(10257): 1102
³³ GM Watch September 23, 2020
³⁴ KATV, June 3, 2021
³⁵ YouTube, July 28, 2021, Minute 3:15

What Exactly Is This “Great Reset” People Keep Talking About?

By Jeff Thompson | The Organic Prepper

For those who may not know, (and those who do) here is a primer on The Great Reset.

Buckle your seat belts for this one because it’s more chilling than any horror movie you’ve ever seen. You’ve heard your “crazy” friend at work bring it up in conversation. Perhaps you heard it briefly mentioned on TV the other day. And now you’re left wondering, “Just what on earth is The Great Reset?”

Meet the World Economic Forum (WEF)

You’ve heard of the WEF before. They’ve been in the news quite a bit for the past year or so. The reason? The Great Reset initiative. It is there that a man by the name of Klaus Schwabb runs the show. Schwabb founded the WEF and is one of the most powerful men in the world.

Each year the World Economic Forum hosts an event at a ski resort in the mountains of Switzerland where “the self-proclaimed global elite” meet to discuss global problems they can all work together to “fix.”

Generally, WEF invites 1500 people from roughly 70 countries to attend. All the attendees play major roles in various sectors of society, with a large portion of those invited being major players in the worlds of politics and business.

In 2020, Schwabb released a book titled COVID-19: The Great Reset, in which he lays out his plans for what he believes needs to happen next.

Now, let’s talk about Agendas

First, you need to understand one thing: the World Economic Forum and the United Nations march together hand in hand. In short, they’re two sides of the same coin.

The United Nations previously announced two separate agendas eerily similar to The Great Reset that contain many of the same components. These two UN agendas, Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030, include plans for what needs to happen on earth by 2021 and 2030 (there’s also an Agenda 2050, by the way).

Agenda 2030 has publicly stated goals of promoting racial and gender equality, eradicating global poverty, and abolishing violence, hate, and war from the globe. It also states it will reduce natural resource use in every country and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in every industrialized country.

And how do you suppose Agenda 2030 would accomplish those goals?

Suppose you’re a lumberjack. A global organization has just stated you’re no longer permitted to cut down trees to “reduce natural resource use.” You’re now out of a job and can’t afford to feed your newborn daughter.

Or, let’s say you’re a farmer. A global organization has just stated that your cows produce too much methane. They’re all slaughtered and left to rot in a field (we’ll get to why later). You’ve now lost a significant investment, your primary source of income, and are out of a job. Farmers in non-industrialized nations are permitted to raise cattle. But you’re an American, so you are not.

Why? Because we need to “reduce greenhouse gas emissions in every industrialized country.”

Here’s another example. You’re an American with unalienable rights, a Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. You have the Declaration of Independence and a long history of fierce protection of freedom. Protection of freedom necessitates the possession of arms.

But now, a global organization has landed troops on your shores. Why? To “abolish violence.” The organization deems your possession of arms as a hindrance to such. Therefore, the organization will take measures against you to abolish violence.

The Great Reset incorporates all these ideas into its plans

Publicly, the WEF states The Great Reset is going to be about completely revamping capitalism.

“Every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.” – The WEF [source]

The WEF particularly likes to say they want to instigate “stakeholder capitalism,” where the bulk of the private sector works hand in hand with the government. They say that such “will require stronger and more effective governments.” According to the WEF, there are human and financial costs of capitalism not being addressed. [source]

What do you call it when the government owns and controls all private business?

Communism. You call it communism.

And, what happens when capitalism dies?

As Ayn Rand pointed out in her excellent book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, man on this earth without capitalism is bound. It’s inseparable from true human freedom. Collectivism leads to further and further slavery every single time.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution

A significant component of The Great Reset is a term Schwabb coined back in December 2015 – The Fourth Industrial Revolution. The best way to describe it is to combine The Matrix, Minority Report, and Will Smith’s I, Robot.

According to Schwabb, the goal of The Fourth Industrial Revolution is “Ubiquitous, mobile supercomputing. Intelligent robots. Self-driving cars. Neuro-technological brain enhancements. Genetic editing. The evidence of dramatic change is all around us, and it’s happening at exponential speed.”

In short, Schwabb wants to turn the world into a digital mecca

Perhaps you don’t care about the above “improvements” – they don’t bother you? Well, let’s continue to delve deeper.

As it is, the WEF has already alluded to the possibility of using an AI to govern humanity. Humans would no longer have elected representatives in office (not that the US has that now, but I digress). Instead, super-powerful AI would determine what supplies went where and what prices would be, and so on.

It’s the surrender of humanity to a machine.

Furthermore, what about these brain enhancements and genetic editing?

Look around at the world before you and what “the powers that be” have forced upon society. In a world full of brain enhancements and genetic editing, do you genuinely think you would still be free to choose?

Remember that The Fourth Industrial Revolution heavily ties in with The Great Reset, which seeks a one-world government. In such a world, should it be decreed under the guise of law that overpopulation is a problem, the ability to genetically edit sterility into 20% of the population becomes a reality. Let’s say the lottery system selects both of your kids. Do you really think they would grant you a say?

Freedom would have long been rotting in the grave in such a world.

Further aspects of The Fourth Industrial Revolution include digital surveillance everywhere, made possible worldwide by 5G (with the hope of utilizing 6G eventually). [source]

There would be no privacy in such a world. It would be Nazi Germany on steroids. Have you read Zamyatin’s dystopian novel We (in many ways, the inspiration for 1984)? Practically, you’d be living in a world of glasshouses.

It’s worth noting that there are several other aspects of TGR that bear mentioning. Consider the following:

Rural populations will be forcibly coerced into urban environments

Allegedly, to combat climate change. In reality, it is to have easier control over potential dissidents. It doesn’t matter if you don’t want to leave your farm. The good of the whole compels you, and men who have heartily devoured Mao Zedong’s philosophy on power (“Political power only grows out of the barrel of a gun.”) will be happy to assist you in your mental transition here. [source ]

Citizens now rent everything because they own nothing

Aden Tate wrote about what the world would like without personal property in this article. Aden writes, “Within the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset, the mantra has come out that by the year 2030, ‘you’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy.’”

The government now owns everything, as a group of men comes in to tell you they are stealing what is rightfully yours. The world falls back to a system of feudalism. The Irish are well-familiarized with how such a system works out. [source ]

All media is digital

Climate change, of course. And let’s not forget the recent trend to battle “disinformation’. If everything is digital, it is censorable. This serves as the ultimate means of wholly controlling what it is people read and say. [source]

A Chinese-style social credit system

Good global citizens of the one-world government will have a higher social credit score than the older American who supports those fighting against foreign invaders. These higher scores will permit access to travel “privileges,” better food, and better jobs. And in a world full of brain implants and genetic editing, I wonder what some of the punishments for low-scoring Americans could be? [source]

A digital blockchain currency is now the way forward

Cash becomes a vector of disease, expensive to produce, and inefficient. Of course, this means they can track every purchase you ever make. [source] There is no anonymity of purchases any longer. Given the new ability to pay for food with your palm, the push for using a QR code to pay for anything, and quantum dot tattoos that may be able to store your financial data, this may not be too far off.

What’s for dinner? Bugs and fake, food-like lab products

According to The Great Reset, animals are a “resource-intensive” form of protein. The GR seeks to steer you away from such foods and “towards four main categories of alternatives – aquatic, plant-based, insect-based, and laboratory-cultured.” [source]

The Great Reset and the World Economic Forum are NOT your friends

Should The Great Reset succeed, the world will firmly fall into the grip of a totalitarian government. You will be a slave in every sense of the word, liable to medical experimentation and forced treatments. The state will own your children, and if history serves as a guide, you won’t get to keep them for long. Should the AI determine it’s convenient, your family will be uprooted and transferred to a newly created ghetto.

Forced to ingest chemicals rather than food, you will never know what genetic-altering agents and medications are in those foods.

Your lifelong dream to be a parent could be vaporized as mandates of forced sterility begin. Should woke culture decide masculine men are an issue, would it be outside the scope of the power of a government that owns everything to mandate the creation of eunuchs throughout your town?

Though the rest of the world may have fallen, Americans can never let their country follow suit.

Too much depends upon it.

What are your thoughts about The Great Reset?

What are your thoughts about the Great Reset? Do you believe it is the stuff of conspiracy theories or the advent of global communism and control? Do you intend to fall in line or fight it? Share your thoughts in the comments.

About the Author

Jeff Thompson is an avid fisherman who likes to spend time sailing on his boat and reading while at sea.

SHOCKING! Australia Brazenly Announces a New World Order! | Luke Rudkowski (We Are Change)

Note: At the bottom of this post, watch the 1-min excerpt from George H.W. Bush’s “New World Order” speech on Sept 11, 1990

Source: WeAreChange

By Luke Rudkowski

Holy smokes. It’s here.

You’ve got to hear what Australian public health official Kerry Chant says at the beginning of the above video: “We will be looking at what contract tracing looks like in the New World Order.”

(CLN Editor Note: She announced the arrival of the New World Order almost exactly 31 years to the day after George H.W. Bush announced the coming on the New World Order on September 11, 1990: “We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a New World Order…When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this New World Order – an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the UN’s founders.”)

Watch how she’s calling for denying people freedom and effectively enslaving them because they didn’t do what the government wanted them to do.

And specifically how contact tracing is a part of the New World Order and how the New World Order will play out.

So in the video above, I get into the background of this being a concept that has been espoused and been talked about for a very long time. And now it’s being promoted by a government that has gone totalitarian like China or North Korea.

Additionally, I delve into Twitter’s reaction and rush to censorship, as well as how the MSM is spinning all of this.

Plus, I give you an update on key economic developments in the US and El Salvador.

And I explain how Prince Andrew is fleeing in order to avoid being served in a case brought by his victims.
@@@@

George H.W. Bush’s New World Order Speech on 9/11/1990

“We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order – a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order – an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the UN’s founders.” ~ George H.W. Bush, September 11, 1990

See the transcript of the full speech HERE.

The Great Reset Demands Firing All Unvaccinated Employees

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

Story at-a-glance

The Great Reset has been called a conspiracy theory by many, despite specific plans published on the World Economic Forum (WEF) website and partnerships between the WEF and global organizations like the United Nations and World Health Organization
An investigative report asserts that the ongoing restructuring of processes that control food and data are upending traditional practices so private corporations have more control and influence than the democratically elected government
A part of the Great Reset is a reset of the economy, including jobs. Many across the U.S. are facing unemployment if they do not choose to take a genetic therapy experiment in the form of a COVID-19 vaccine
Employees of six major hospitals in Cincinnati, Ohio, have filed a lawsuit, hoping to stop the mandated vaccine, which health experts are promoting with inconsistent messages, first claiming it does not stop community transmission; yet, requiring it for employment under the guise of preventing the spread of infection

Over the past year and a half, I’ve written many articles detailing the evidence supporting the claim that the COVID pandemic is a ruse to usher in a new system of global centralized governance by unelected leaders, the so-called Great Reset.

The recent release of the House Foreign Affairs Committee report¹ entitled, “The Origins of COVID-19: An Investigation of the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” presented solid evidence that many of the “conspiracy theories” about the virus were in fact true. For example, using some intelligence reports and other public documents, the committee found that:²

“… we now believe it’s time to completely dismiss the wet market as the source of the outbreak. We also believe the preponderance of the evidence proves the virus did leak from the WIV and that it did so sometime before September 12, 2019.”

They presented evidence of genetic modification and wrote this:³

“This report also lays out ample evidence that researchers at the WIV, in conjunction with U.S. scientists and funded by both the PRC [People’s Republic of China] government and the U.S. government, were conducting gain of-function research on coronaviruses at the WIV …

In many instances, the scientists were successful in creating ‘chimeric viruses’ — or viruses created from the pieces of other viruses — that could infect human immune systems.

With dangerous research like this conducted at safety levels similar to a dentist’s office, a natural or genetically modified virus could have easily escaped the lab and infected the community.”

The idea of the Great Reset may feel like a conspiracy theory, especially if life, as you know it where you live, has not dramatically changed. You still go to work, buy food, go to the gym, go out to eat, and attend events. There may be people wearing masks, and you may see or hear news reports about vaccine mandates and vaccine passports, but it hasn’t reached your employer and you may not be personally affected … yet.

But, make no mistake, unless we all do our part to peacefully protest the changes being planned, write to our legislatures, and talk to our neighbors and friends, what is happening in New York,⁴ France,⁵ Germany⁶ and Israel,⁷ will soon be knocking on your front door.

Does ‘Great Reset’ Sound Like a Conspiracy? It May Be Worse

An article titled, “Welcome To 2030: I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy and Life Has Never Been Better” appeared in Forbes Magazine⁸ in November 2016. It was written by Ida Auken, a member of the Denmark Parliament⁹ and agenda contributor at the World Economic Forum (WEF).¹⁰

The article was frightening in the simplistic way it describes the dissolution of society as we know it. And, as time marches forward, we see more evidence of what the WEF has proposed as “perfect sense”¹¹ coming true.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau suggested in September 2020 what other world leaders have also promoted¹² — that the COVID-19 virus, that has killed and devastated the health of many people, provided the world is an:¹³

“… opportunity for a reset … our chance to accelerate our pre-pandemic efforts to re-imagine economic systems that actually address global challenges like extreme poverty, inequality and climate change.”

More than 20 world leaders came together to suggest, “At a time when COVID-19 has exploited our weaknesses and divisions, we must seize this opportunity and come together as a global community for peaceful cooperation that extends beyond this crisis.”¹⁴ And while that sounds noble, altruistic and humanitarian, it is the plan for the future that is in stark contrast to the statement.

Ivan Wecke, a journalist from Open Democracy, did a deep dive into some of what lies behind the WEF’s Great Reset plan and found what he called something “almost as sinister hiding in plain sight. In fact, more sinister because it’s real and it’s happening now. And it involves things as fundamental as our food, our data, and our vaccines.”¹⁵

Although Wecke discounts the plans of the Great Reset to abolish private property, use the virus to solve overpopulation, and enslave the remainder of humanity as “nebulous and hard to pin down,” he goes on to illustrate in detail how the fundamental structure of the world that controls food and data, and ultimately humanity, is being upended and restructured so that private corporations have more control and influence than governments.

WEF Calls It ‘Stakeholder Capitalism’

It comes down to “stakeholder capitalism,” which are the magic words that Klaus Schwab, WEF chairman, has been promoting for decades, and is a central theme in the organization’s Great Reset plan.¹⁶ The concept as Wecke describes it is to transform global capitalism, so corporations create value for stakeholders.¹⁷

These stakeholders can be consumers, employees, communities, and others. This will be carried out through multi-stakeholder partnerships of governments and private-sector businesses across the globe. As he dug deeper into the concept, it became more apparent that this means giving corporations more power and taking that influence away from democratically elected institutions.

The initial plan was drafted after the 2008 economic crisis and included the vision that governments around the world would be only one influencer in a multi-stakeholder model. When he asked himself who would be the other nongovernmental stakeholders, Wecke only had to look at the WEF partners that meet each year in Davos, Switzerland.

These partners are some of the biggest companies in the oil, food, technology, and pharmaceutical. In other words, the companies that could ultimately restructure society and control the supply chain are those that provide everyday necessities. These proposed concepts appear to have started taking shape in a strategic partnership agreement that the WEF signed with the United Nations in 2019.

Harris Gleckman, a senior fellow at the Center for Governance and Sustainability from the University of Massachusetts¹⁸ calls this move an inroad to create a place for corporations inside the United Nations.¹⁹

The WEF is using the concept of multi-stakeholders to change the current system that countries use today to work together. This multilateral system may not always be effective and may have too many layers of bureaucracy, but Wecke says it is “theoretically democratic because it brings together democratically elected leaders of countries to make decisions in the global arena.”²⁰

Big Tech May Run the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation

What’s really happening here, though, is the move toward placing unelected stakeholders in positions of power does not deepen democracy but, rather, puts decision-making in the hands of financially focused corporations. As Wecke points out, this will have real-world implications for how medications are distributed, food systems are organized, and how Big Tech is governed.

Under a democratic rule of law, six corporations already control 90% of the news media consumed by Americans. Tech Startups calls this an “illusion of choice and objectivity.”²¹ How much more propaganda will be thrown in the face of consumers when Big Tech is monitoring and controlling Big Tech?

The year 2030 holds significance for the WEF’s vision²² which is to scale technology and facilitate “inclusive growth.” In the fall of 2021, the UN will bring together the Food Systems Summit to achieve sustainable development goals by 2030.²³ Yet, Sofia Monsalve of FIAN International, a human rights organization focused on food and nutrition, told Wecke:²⁴

“’Abandoning pesticides is not on the table. How come?’ asks Sofia Monsalve of FIAN International, a human rights organisation focused on food and nutrition.

‘There is no discussion on land concentration or holding companies accountable for their environmental and labour abuses.’ This fits into a bigger picture Monsalve sees of large corporations, which dominate the food sector, being reluctant to fix the production system. ‘They just want to come up with new investment opportunities.’”

Wecke also dug into a long list of participants in the 2020 Roadmap For Digital Cooperation²⁵ and found influencers included Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and the WEF.²⁶ The functions for the group appear to be vague, but if the group comes to fruition, it will be a decisive victory for those Big Tech companies that have been pushing to expand their power,²⁷ are fighting antitrust rules²⁸ and are facing accusations of tax evasion.²⁹

The move by the UN and WEF has not gone unnoticed. A group of more than 170 civil organizations has signed an open letter³⁰ detailing why they oppose the plan. At a time when stronger regulations are needed to protect consumers, it appears that the new UN digital roadmap may be seeking less.

Firing the Unvaccinated Is the Start of the Great Job Reset

Finally, Wecke addresses the issue of global vaccine distribution.³¹ Instead of the World Health Organization, which is “the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations system,”³² being responsible for vaccine access, another initiative was created called COVAX. According to the WHO, COVAX is co-led by the WHO, UNICEF, CEPI, and GAVI.³³

As a quick reminder, GAVI (the Vaccine Alliance) and CEPI (Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations) have strong ties with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the WEF and are connected with large pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and more.³⁴

The influence these groups have on the global distribution of the COVID vaccine may have been best illustrated when South Africa and India requested a temporary lift on the rules governing intellectual property to increase manufacturing and distribution to developing countries. Wecke reports³⁵ that although the WHO director-general publicly said that he backed a proposal, others in the COVAX initiative strongly opposed it, and it didn’t happen.

There appear to be enough vaccines available in industrialized nations for the WEF to support any and all employees being fired if they choose not to take the vaccine. The National File³⁶ published a tweet the WEF made in May 2021 which said, “Get your COVID-19 jab — or you could face consequences from your employer #COVID19 #JobsReset21.”

Additionally, the WEF had posted an article³⁷ on their website that made a variety of claims about the percentage of companies that would require employees to be vaccinated and juxtaposed mental health concerns and burnout through the pandemic with being unvaccinated in the article.

After intense backlash, the tweet was deleted and replaced with a question, “Will employees be required to get the COVID-19 vaccination?”³⁸ The new post quickly filled with screenshots of the original post.

Two Cities Promising to Fire Employees

Even before the FDA announced their approval of the Pfizer vaccine,³⁹ Cincinnati, Ohio, area hospital systems had announced that starting October 1, 2021, all health care workers and volunteers are required to be vaccinated. Among those participating in the vaccine mandate are the University of Cincinnati Health, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and the Christ Hospital Health Network.⁴⁰

Health care workers in Cincinnati have now filed a lawsuit against six of the hospital systems saying requiring vaccines for employment is unlawful and violates workers’ Constitutional rights. The lawsuit says, “When there was no vaccine, the workers had to go to work. They were heroes. Now that there is a vaccine, they have to get the vaccine or be fired. Now they are ‘zeros.’”⁴¹

April Hoskins is a lab assistant at St. Elizabeth Edgewood who has worked for 20 years in family practice and hospital oncology. She told a reporter from WLWT5,⁴² “You’ve trusted us this whole time to take care of these patients, unvaccinated, without the proper PPE. And now out of nowhere, you have to get it or you’re going to be terminated? Like, something is wrong with that picture.”

August 23, 2021, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that all public school teachers and staff would be required to have at least one dose of the vaccine by September 27, 2021, or they would no longer have a job. Not soon afterward, the United Federation of Teachers union issued a statement from union president Michael Mulgrew reiterating their desire and priority to keep the students and teachers safe. He went on to say:⁴³

“While the city is asserting its legal authority to establish this mandate, there are many implementation details, including provisions for medical exceptions, that by law must be negotiated with the UFT and other unions, and if necessary, resolved by arbitration.”

It Is Important to Point Out the Inconsistencies

This was the second announcement from de Blasio, who first mandated vaccinations for approximately 400,000 employees in the Department of Education, New York Police Department, and the Fire Department of New York.⁴⁴ In tandem with New York, California Long Beach Unified School District also announced mandatory vaccinations, as has Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot for all Chicago Public School employees by October 15, 2021.

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy also announced mandatory vaccinations or twice-weekly testing requirements for all state employees, effective October 18. It is clear that as different states and municipalities add their own mandates, it’s essential to be aware of what is happening in your local and regional areas, as well as to speak up at public meetings and demand public hearings on the matter.

The mayor of Orland Park, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago, describes an example of how decisions behind closed doors can have a different outcome than those in public.⁴⁵ He also says what is happening now is about “our processes, Constitutionality and the rule of law.”

The inconsistencies from health experts are deafening. Even the World Health Organization advises people who are vaccinated to continue wearing masks due to the Delta variant because “vaccine alone won’t stop community transmission.”⁴⁶ Simultaneously, the public is told that everyone needs the vaccine to prevent the spread of the infection⁴⁷ and if you have the vaccine, you can still spread the virus and put others at risk.⁴⁸

Each person has a responsibility to speak up, share information and ensure that as people make up their minds about vaccination, vaccine passports, civil liberties, and the right to free speech, they have all the information they need and not just what’s shared in mainstream media.

To that end, I encourage you to share my articles with your friends and family. As you know, they are removed from the website 48 hours after publication. Please copy and paste the information, with the sources, and share it!

Sources and References

^1, ^2, ³ House Foreign Affairs Committee, August 2021
⁴ Spectrum News NY1, August 13, 2021
⁵ Schengenvisainfo, August 10, 2021
⁶ AP News, June 10, 2021
⁷ BBC, July 26, 2021
^8, ¹¹ Forbes Magazine, November 10, 2016
⁹ National File, November 16, 2020 image
¹⁰ World Economic Forum, Ida Auken
¹² The Hill, June 25, 2020
¹³ YouTube, September 20, 2020, Minute 1:55
¹⁴ BBC, March 30, 2020, para 6 under the bullets
^15, ^17, ^19, ^20, ^24, ^26, ^31, ^34, ³⁵ Open Democracy, August 16, 2021
¹⁶ World Economic Forum, June 3, 2020
¹⁸ Transnational Institute, Harris Gleckman
²¹ Tech Startups, September 18, 2020
²² World Economic Forum, 2030Vision
²³ United Nations Food Systems Summit 2021
²⁵ United Nations Secretary-General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation
²⁷ The Guardian, August 1, 2021
²⁸ Politico, July 30, 2021
²⁹ The Guardian, May 31, 2021
³⁰ Just Net Coalition
³² United Nations, World Health Organization
³³ World Health Organization, COVAX
^36, ³⁸ National File, May 18, 2021
³⁷ World Economic Forum, May 17, 2021
³⁹ U.S. Food and Drug Administration, August 23, 2021
⁴⁰ Cincinnati Enquirer, August 5, 2021
^41, ⁴² WLWT5, August 25, 2021
⁴³ United Federation of Teachers, August 23, 2021
⁴⁴ CBS, August 24, 2021
⁴⁵ Facebook, Keith Pekau, Bullying, Shaming and Intimidation of Illinois Families
⁴⁶ CNBC June 25, 2021
⁴⁷ Infection Control Today, July 27, 2021
⁴⁸ U.S. News, April 12, 2021

COVID Vaccines: Public Deserves More Than ‘Just Trust Us’

By David Mark | The Defender

Reports over the last few months about the proposed multi-billion-dollar settlements to end huge opioid-related lawsuits clearly reflect the attitude of drug manufacturers and distributors.

Even as they agree to pay record amounts, industry leaders and their public relations representatives maintain there is no connection between Big Pharma and narcotic addiction in the U.S.

Purdue Pharmaceuticals, which marketed the opiate derivative OxyContin as non-addictive, is demanding broad legal immunity in exchange for its $4.5 billion settlement.

With the announcement of the $26 billion offer, Michael Ullmann, executive vice president and general counsel of Johnson & Johnson, gave a carefully worded statement:

“We recognize the opioid crisis is a tremendously complex public health issue, and we have deep sympathy for everyone affected. This settlement will directly support state and local efforts to make meaningful progress in addressing the opioid crisis in the United States.”

With a consistent strategy, and in the wake of Big Pharma’s benevolent status for rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines, the defendants are not taking any responsibility for contributing to the opioid epidemic.

Rather, for their billions, they are demanding all states and municipalities involved in all lawsuits agree to never again associate their products with drug addiction.

Corporations have offered to buy silence about their complicity in the death of half a million people over the last 20 years. This attempted bribe mirrors the morality of a continuing supply of addictive drugs to the uncounted millions who today suffer from prescribed opioid abuse.

Addicts who avoid or survive an overdose must navigate through a society that allows access to narcotics while designating the addicted as outcasts and criminals. Whether the source of their drugs is imported opiates or prescribed pain killers, their suffering is substantially enhanced by a hostile culture and negligent government oversight.

We have turned a blind eye to what is effectively a licensed drug cartel that exploits the vulnerable.

The attorney general of Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro, directly involved in both the Purdue and Johnson & Johnson lawsuits, gave a succinct analysis of his perspective:

“These deaths did not have to happen. This epidemic was manufactured by an army of pharmaceutical executives and drug distributors.”

Short-sighted oversight

Government regulators could have prevented this ongoing tragedy.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), empowered to protect the public, has not been able to resist the commanding influence of the pharmaceutical industry.

The FDA continues to fail in minimizing the pain and suffering of addicts and their families, ravaged by a preventable epidemic of drug dependence.

Dr. Raeford Brown, a former head of the FDA advisory committee for approval of new opioid painkillers, in 2019 said:

“The modus operandi of the agency is that they talk a good game and then nothing happens. Working directly with the agency for the last five years, as I sit and listen to them in meetings, all I can think about is the clock ticking and how many people are dying every moment that they’re not doing anything. The lack of insight that continues to be exhibited by the agency is in many ways willful blindness that borders on the criminal.”

The U.S. government’s war on drugs was misdirected: It should have been waged against the pharmaceutical industry.

But clearly, there hasn’t been an inclination to change anything, primarily because the FDA and Big Pharma have always had a mutually beneficial relationship.

Could it be because the opioid oversight division of the FDA relies on pharmaceutical giants for 75% of its budget? Or perhaps it is due to the revolving door between regulators at the FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and drug industry professionals.

Both of these ongoing structural allowances are overt symptoms of the lack of will to end the flow of huge earnings.

Prescription drugs like Fentanyl and OxyContin, and similar opioids, have been abused because of profit-driven policies that result in ineffective efforts to regulate and restrict their use.

Even as acceptance of a settlement offer is considered, opioid addiction and its ensuing tragic consequences are on the increase.

Beyond huge civil suits, it seems there is no effort to reveal the details of the insidious relationship between profiteers and regulators — and not because the public isn’t aware of the destructive alliance.

New trust in a loathed industry

A Gallup poll in 2019 found the pharmaceutical sector is the most loathed industry in the United States.

By extension, expectation of honest government oversight has been minimal, although the underlying amoral relationship between the FDA and Big Pharma is a topic rarely analyzed in detail.

As the drug giants offer billions in settlement funds to state government programs for what are social and criminal abuses, regulation and oversight by the FDA for protecting public health is minimal.

There is no secret as to who holds the authority in their alliance with the pharmaceutical giants.

And now, as the world faces the challenges of an ongoing pandemic, there is unwarranted blind faith in this same consortium.

The development of vaccines was fast and furious in the name of an explosive health crisis. Yet when scrutiny of every detail is most needed, the pharmaceutical industry has been given extensive room for error and foul play.

Government regulators and Big Pharma maintain their status quo relationship. Should their motivation and honesty regarding an experimental vaccine be accepted at face value?

And why are those who question their veracity condemned and ostracized?

The FDA continues to dance to the tune of the pharmaceutical industry as the vaccine makes staggering profits — this should cause immense concern.

The prescription drug business has earned its reputation for being ruthless in seeking maximum proceeds from medications that are often abused or have numerous associated risks. Nothing has changed.

With a history of malfeasance, there is no room for good faith in a trade whose central interest is protecting profits — yet the public is asked to believe that compassionate concerns are driving the relentless push for vaccination policy.

With a tremendous financial incentive to grow the market, there is very little discussion about how profits might be influencing the promotion of the COVID-19 vaccine.

And now the messaging includes that everyone might need to be dosed repeatedly for new variants, perhaps for years.

An international sales campaign

While ostensibly, all forces have been gathering in the name of ending a worldwide pandemic, there are undoubtedly other motives in vaccine distribution.

From when it was first declared, it was clear that a country could not reach herd immunity independently. Effectiveness and pronouncements aside, six months after the first doses were given, 80% of the COVID-19 vaccines produced have gone to the world’s wealthiest countries.

More doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine produced in South Africa were sent out of the country than given to residents. When this was made public, the company was embarrassed into returning the vaccines to Africa.

Perhaps the universal vaccination campaign is not as equitable as portrayed. Once again, it appears that dependence on a costly drug for countries that can pay is a key component of pharmaceutical marketing. Recipients are told it is free, although nothing is without cost — whether through taxes or side effects.

For Big Pharma, the pandemic holds more potential earnings than from opiates.

Somehow blind trust continues, giving one of the most powerful and wealthiest industries on the planet free rein to push a questionable product. Their huge PR and lobbying forces are hard at work enforcing a subjective view. The new vaccines continue to be presented as a brilliant, humanitarian cure for the pandemic.

As justification for vaccine mandates grows, the drug industry, through its advocates at the FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), is at the center of minimizing dissent.

The industry has created the impression that the COVID-19 vaccine development and rollout could not possibly be flawed or duplicitous.

This manufactured consensus relies on seemingly reasonable logic: It would be impossible for all the well-meaning laboratories, researchers, and doctors across many countries to naively minimize risks or collude in any false narrative about the pandemic or vaccines.

This simplistic myth of their public relations campaign accounts for the general atmosphere — journalists and the public can’t imagine they are not fully informed.

However, it is important to understand this contrived rationale from the broadest perspective. The universal vaccine rollout is unfolding on a planet burning at its edges, with poles melting and oceans rising.

The same governments and corporate forces that have failed in slowing a planetary catastrophe are now asking for absolute confidence regarding our future health.

The impression that corporate, government, and scientific forces are collaborating in our best interests is based on a pretense worth examining. Blind acceptance of any industry’s solutions for a global crisis has no foundation.

Trusting Big Pharma with our well-being is equivalent to expecting that the oil, military, and chemical industries will save the Earth from environmental disaster.

The root problem is no secret: Profit-making eclipses sane decision-making.

The pharmaceutical industry has continuously duped the public. It has collaborated with the medical establishment in the distribution of addictive narcotics. This same commercial enterprise has promoted other questionable vaccines and drugs that are more dangerous than the diseases they prevent or symptoms they treat.

The huge number of people harmed or killed by adverse reactions to vaccines or prescribed drugs has somehow become a reality we accept. Over decades, an atmosphere has been created where poisonous side-effects are tolerated.

Meanwhile, the industry hires experts in generating group-think. Those who don’t agree to participate in their ruse are marginalized.

Challenging the official line of Big Pharma holds great risks. Countering policies that might diminish profits is often guaranteed to end research funding, and very likely, a lucrative career.

As crisis builds, there is even less tolerance for dissenters.

A pandemic of deceit

The greatest symptom of the pandemic is a loss of common sense.

The emotional pleadings and attempts to ostracize anyone who questions whether they should have a COVID-19 vaccination have the telltale signs of a deceitful public relations campaign.

It has been very successful.

Big Pharma also received a PR gift from politicians and pundits who repeat any conjecture, from the unlikely to the outrageous, about the pandemic.

Most legitimate questions about the vaccine program from doctors and scientists are now lumped together with challenges mounted by politically motivated, conspiratorial sensationalists.

There is always misinformation spread by a range of uninformed sources on any topic. Currently, because of a void of understanding and critical, detailed analysis, speculation about the pandemic is rampant.

If more information and detail were available, there would be less conjecture. Instead, anyone who doubts the prescribed reality must be part of a hoax.

The benefits of the vaccine continue to be soberly presented as unquestionable. Doubters must be fools, or at a minimum, ignorant of their value and importance.

There is a cult-like, unconscionable attitude toward those who dispute any aspect of the vaccination plan. As some of the first serious questions about effectiveness appear, with uncertainty about vaccine suppression on future variants of the disease, a softening of the dogmatic atmosphere might be expected.

Instead, angry blame is mounting, with an implication that the unvaccinated are causing the pandemic to continue.

The outrage would be more practically applied if focused on known risk factors such as unhealthy diet and poor nutrition, obesity and diabetes. These and other conditions impacted mortality rates before the pandemic — and they continue to represent the leading underlying causes for hospitalization with life-threatening cases of the virus.

Reporting about those at higher risk for serious illness has decreased since the start of the pandemic. Instead, there is a parade of dramatic stories about perfectly healthy, unvaccinated individuals who suddenly succumb to the virus.

For example, the British press widely reported the death of a so-called, fit and healthy 42-year-old man who regretted not being vaccinated, but failed to mention that he was an asthmatic and was likely using steroids to control his condition. A few articles mention his underlying condition, late in the text, seemingly without realizing the revelation countered the principal assertion of the piece.

This account is one of many that demonstrates how the emotional campaign for everyone to get vaccinated even overshadows efforts to inform those with underlying conditions. Perhaps their health is not the priority in the campaign.

Why isn’t COVID-19 news coverage replete with guidance for those at risk, with convincing articles concerning lifestyle and dietary choices?

It is because nothing but messages that support vaccination production and sales are acceptable. Deviation from this doctrine is taboo.

The fortress must be held

The CDC has admitted that the effectiveness of the vaccine is dropping by double-digit percentages. Concurrently, the need for vaccine boosters is being implemented.

Despite contradiction in terms, inconsistencies ignored and conflicts with previous optimistic data, the PR campaign continues. Indeed, as flaws in the vaccines and deceptive logic become apparent, the greater the intensity to support a distorted reality.

The pharmaceutical industry, the government, and the devoted news media continue to repeat the holy mantra no matter what unfolds: The vaccine is safe, effective, and free.

The self-labeled, fact-checking websites, rather than daring to critique the PR talking points, limit themselves to beating the drum of the CDC, FDA, and Big Pharma. Press research is dominated by those who look for sources of false data from those who question the science behind testing or vaccination.

Most of the news media staunchly hold its position. Critics remain 100% focused on debunking those who question vaccination statistics. Ignoring their greater responsibility for challenging the industry, they repeatedly arrive at an amazingly consistent conclusion about any statistics that imply doubts about the vaccine: All data, when properly analyzed, shows the importance of vaccination, with minimal risks, and in every case, the disparagers are falsifying or exaggerating.

Deviation from this prescriptive interpretation is deemed sacrosanct.

Doctors and analysts who break the prohibition against raising the possibility of other forms of prevention or treatment are marginalized or excommunicated. Knowledgeable physicians with patients who have had serious reactions to the vaccine, and virologists who have dissenting opinions, are shunned as dangerous deviants.

Data on adverse vaccine response is unreported in the mainstream press.

The remedy is truth

The Big Pharma consortium is invested in doing whatever is needed to make sure conventional wisdom has no challengers. Law and government support the industry.

As of May 1, the CDC stopped gathering data on breakthrough cases that were no hospitalizations or deaths. This quiet decision came concurrently with the revelation that newer highly contagious variants could infect the vaccinated. With minimal or no symptoms, these people could continue to infect others unknowingly. It is also possible this could drive new variants.

Somehow a policy that turned away from important details was revealed only more than two months after the change. The CDC announced this decision was made because the agency had more important things to do.

Objections by some scientists and organizations were reported in the press, yet there is no apparent investigation into why this data was intentionally deemed irrelevant.

Ignoring critical information about breakthrough cases directly illustrates how countering vaccine efficacy is off-limits.

This approach to maintaining the status quo for a product is not new.

An atmosphere where marginalizing dissent and minimizing non-supportive data has been the precursor to every abuse and scandal where Big Pharma dominated the conversation.

The industry denies facts and debases critics until evidence overwhelms their manufactured version of reality. Then without accepting fault, they move on — This is a sales trade that has been forced into paying billions of dollars in what is usually referred to as “damages.”

Perhaps there are some people who still believe Big Pharma’s prime directive in facing the pandemic is altruistic benevolence. But if indeed their mission has turned to ending suffering and healing the masses, there should be no problem in agreeing that there is nothing to hide.

For those who understand the foundational morality of the drug industry has not changed, it is a time for more scrutiny than ever before.

We must be vigilant in looking at facts. Blind trust in news media or any single source is dangerous.

The CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System is long overdue for vast improvement. Data on the dangers and complications of the vaccines should be scrupulously gathered and made public.

There is a desperate need for openness and transparency so that every detail can be evaluated with objectivity — the pandemic must be faced with eyes wide open. Our medical decisions must be based on extensively supported, verifiable information.

The public deserves more than “just trust us.”

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.

New Documents Show Fauci LIED to Congress: His Organization DID FUND Fund Gain-of-Function Research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology

Source: NY Post

St. Anthony Fauci just lost his halo.

For more than a year, the media has hailed our kindly scientist grandfather as some sort of infallible holy figure.

But new reporting casts doubt on Fauci’s insistence that no US money went to “gain-of-function” research — where scientists manipulate viruses, often making them more transmittable, to study their effects and develop treatments.

Records acquired by The Intercept detail grants that the US government’s scientific agencies gave to an outfit called EcoHealth Alliance, which funneled some of that money to research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China. One clause in the contract says that “prior to altering mutant viruses,” the NIAID needed a “detailed description” of the proposed changes. Work on coronaviruses “must be submitted to NIAID for review and approval.”

The NIAID is the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, of which Anthony Fauci is the director.

In May, Fauci insisted that the US “has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

Perhaps he defines “gain-of-function” so narrowly that altering mutant viruses doesn’t count, but Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) certainly doesn’t, tweeting, “Surprise, surprise — Fauci lied again.”

READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE: NY Post

@@@

Rand Paul says Fauci should be held responsible for his lies, saying “He has lied dozens of times” – which is a felony offense. Paul has referred this matter to the Department of Justice:

20 Years of Government-Sponsored Tyranny: The Rise of the Security-Industrial Complex from 9/11 to COVID-19

The 20th anniversary of 9/11 provides us with another opportunity to look back at that horrifying false flag operation, now the basis for so much tyranny & war.

By John W. Whitehead & Nisha Whitehead | The Rutherford Institute

“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life.”—Osama bin Laden (October 2001), as reported by CNN

What a strange and harrowing road we’ve walked since September 11, 2001, littered with the debris of our once-vaunted liberties. We have gone from a nation that took great pride in being a model of a representative democracy to being a model of how to persuade a freedom-loving people to march in lockstep with a police state.

Our losses are mounting with every passing day.

What began with the post-9/11 passage of the USA Patriot Act has snowballed into the eradication of every vital safeguard against government overreach, corruption, and abuse.

The citizenry’s unquestioning acquiescence to anything the government wants to do in exchange for the phantom promise of safety and security has resulted in a society where the nation has been locked down into a militarized, mechanized, hypersensitive, legalistic, self-righteous, goose-stepping antithesis of every principle upon which this nation was founded.

Set against a backdrop of government surveillance, militarized police, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, eminent domain, overcriminalization, armed surveillance drones, whole-body scanners, stop and frisk searches, police violence, and the like—all of which have been sanctioned by Congress, the White House and the courts—our constitutional freedoms have been steadily chipped away at, undermined, eroded, whittled down, and generally discarded.

The rights embodied in the Constitution, if not already eviscerated, are on life support.

Free speech, the right to protest, the right to challenge government wrongdoing, due process, a presumption of innocence, the right to self-defense, accountability and transparency in government, privacy, press, sovereignty, assembly, bodily integrity, representative government: all of these and more have become casualties in the government’s war on the American people, a war that has grown more pronounced since 9/11.

Indeed, since the towers fell on 9/11, the U.S. government has posed a greater threat to our freedoms than any terrorist, extremist, or foreign entity ever could.

While nearly 3,000 people died in the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. government and its agents have easily killed at least ten times that the number of civilians in the U.S. and abroad since 9/11 through its police shootings, SWAT team raids, drone strikes, and profit-driven efforts to police the globe, sell weapons to foreign nations (which too often fall into the hands of terrorists), and foment civil unrest in order to keep the security industrial complex gainfully employed.

The American people have been treated like enemy combatants, to be spied on, tracked, scanned, frisked, searched, subjected to all manner of intrusions, intimidated, invaded, raided, manhandled, censored, silenced, shot at, locked up, denied due process, and killed.

In allowing ourselves to be distracted by terror drills, foreign wars, color-coded warnings, pandemic lockdowns, and other carefully constructed exercises in propaganda, sleight of hand, and obfuscation, we failed to recognize that the U.S. government—the government that was supposed to be a “government of the people, by the people, for the people”—has become the enemy of the people.

Consider that the government’s answer to every problem has been more government—at taxpayer expense—and less individual liberty.

Every crisis—manufactured or otherwise—since the nation’s early beginnings has become a make-work opportunity for the government to expand its reach and its power at taxpayer expense while limiting our freedoms at every turn: The Great Depression. The World Wars. The 9/11 terror attacks. The COVID-19 pandemic.

Viewed in this light, the history of the United States is a testament to the old adage that liberty decreases as government (and government bureaucracy) grows. Or, to put it another way, as government expands, liberty contracts.

This is how the emergency state operates, after all, and we should know: after all, we have spent the past 20 years in a state of emergency.

From 9/11 to COVID-19, “we the people” have acted the part of the helpless, gullible victims desperately in need of the government to save us from whatever danger threatens. In turn, the government has been all too accommodating and eager while also expanding its power and authority in the so-called name of national security.

This is a government that has grown so corrupt, greedy, power-hungry, and tyrannical over the course of the past 240-plus years that our constitutional republic has since given way to idiocracy, and representative government has given way to a kleptocracy (a government ruled by thieves) and a kakistocracy (a government-run by unprincipled career politicians, corporations and thieves that panders to the worst vices in our nature and has little regard for the rights of American citizens).

What this really amounts to is a war on the American people, fought on American soil, funded with taxpayer dollars, and waged with a single-minded determination to use national crises, manufactured or otherwise, in order to transform the American homeland into a battlefield.

Indeed, the government’s (mis)management of various states of emergency in the past 20 years has spawned a massive security-industrial complex the likes of which have never been seen before. According to the National Priorities Project at the progressive Institute for Policy Studies, since 9/11, the United States has spent $21 trillion on “militarization, surveillance, and repression.”

Clearly, this is not a government that is a friend to freedom.

Rather, this is a government that, in conjunction with its corporate partners, views the citizenry as consumers and bits of data to be bought, sold, and traded.

This is a government that spies on and treats its people as if they have no right to privacy, especially in their own homes while the freedom to be human is being erased.

This is a government that is laying the groundwork to weaponize the public’s biomedical data as a convenient means by which to penalize certain “unacceptable” social behaviors. Incredibly, a new government agency HARPA (a healthcare counterpart to the Pentagon’s research and development arm DARPA) will take the lead in identifying and targeting “signs” of mental illness or violent inclinations among the populace by using artificial intelligence to collect data from Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echo and Google Home.

This is a government that routinely engages in taxation without representation, whose elected officials lobby for our votes only to ignore us once elected.

This is a government comprised of petty bureaucrats, vigilantes masquerading as cops, and faceless technicians.

This is a government that railroads taxpayers into financing government programs whose only purpose is to increase the power and wealth of the corporate elite.

This is a government—a warring empire—that forces its taxpayers to pay for wars abroad that serve no other purpose except to expand the reach of the military-industrial complex.

This is a government that subjects its people to scans, searches, pat-downs, and other indignities by the TSA and VIPR raids on so-called “soft” targets like shopping malls and bus depots by black-clad, Darth Vader look-alikes.

This is a government that uses fusion centers, which represent the combined surveillance efforts of federal, state, and local law enforcement, to track the citizenry’s movements, record their conversations, and catalog their transactions.

This is a government whose wall-to-wall surveillance has given rise to a suspect society in which the burden of proof has been reversed such that Americans are now assumed guilty until or unless they can prove their innocence.

This is a government that treats its people like second-class citizens who have no rights and is working overtime to stigmatize and dehumanize any and all who do not fit with the government’s plans for this country.

This is a government that uses free speech zones, roving bubble zones, and trespass laws to silence, censor, and marginalize Americans and restrict their First Amendment right to speak truth to power.

This is a government that persists in renewing the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which allows the president and the military to arrest and detain American citizens indefinitely based on the say-so of the government.

This is a government that saddled us with the Patriot Act, which opened the door to all manner of government abuses and intrusions on our privacy.

This is a government that, in direct opposition to the dire warnings of those who founded our country, has allowed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish a standing army by way of programs that transfer surplus military hardware to local and state police.

This is a government that has militarized American’s domestic police, equipping them with military weapons such as “tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; a million hollow-point bullets; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars, and aircraft,” in addition to armored vehicles, sound cannons and the like.

This is a government that has provided cover to police when they shoot and kill unarmed individuals just for standing a certain way, or moving a certain way, or holding something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun or igniting some trigger-centric fear in a police officer’s mind that has nothing to do with an actual threat to their safety.

This is a government that has created a Constitution-free zone within 100 miles inland of the border around the United States, paving the way for Border Patrol agents to search people’s homes, intimately probe their bodies, and rifle through their belongings, all without a warrant. Nearly 66% of Americans (2/3 of the U.S. population, 197.4 million people) now live within that 100-mile-deep, Constitution-free zone.

This is a government that treats public school students as if they were prison inmates, enforcing zero-tolerance policies that criminalize childish behavior, and indoctrinating them with teaching that emphasizes rote memorization and test-taking over learning, synthesizing, and critical thinking.

This is a government that is operating in the negative on every front: it’s spending far more than what it makes (and takes from the American taxpayers) and it is borrowing heavily (from foreign governments and Social Security) to keep the government operating and keep funding its endless wars abroad. Meanwhile, the nation’s sorely neglected infrastructure—railroads, water pipelines, ports, dams, bridges, airports, and roads—is rapidly deteriorating.

This is a government that has empowered police departments to make a profit at the expense of those they have sworn to protect through the use of asset forfeiture laws, speed traps, and red light cameras.

This is a government whose gun violence—inflicted on unarmed individuals by battlefield-trained SWAT teams, militarized police, and bureaucratic government agents trained to shoot first and ask questions later—poses a greater threat to the safety and security of the nation than any mass shooter. There are now reportedly more bureaucratic (non-military) government agents armed with high-tech, deadly weapons than U.S. Marines.

This is a government that has allowed the presidency to become a dictatorship operating above and beyond the law, regardless of which party is in power.

This is a government that treats dissidents, whistleblowers, and freedom fighters as enemies of the state.

This is a government that has in recent decades unleashed untold horrors upon the world—including its own citizenry—in the name of global conquest, the acquisition of greater wealth, scientific experimentation, and technological advances, all packaged in the guise of the greater good.

This is a government that allows its agents to break laws with immunity while average Americans get the book thrown at them.

This is a government that speaks in a language of force. What is this language of force? Militarized police. Riot squads. Camouflage gear. Black uniforms. Armored vehicles. Mass arrests. Pepper spray. Tear gas. Batons. Strip searches. Surveillance cameras. Kevlar vests. Drones. Lethal weapons. less-than-lethal weapons are unleashed with deadly force. Rubber bullets. Water cannons. Stun grenades. Arrests of journalists. Crowd control tactics. Intimidation tactics. Brutality. Contempt of cop charges.

This is a government that justifies all manner of government tyranny and power grabs in the so-called name of national security, national crises, and national emergencies.

This is a government that exports violence worldwide, with one of this country’s most profitable exports being weapons. Indeed, the United States, the world’s largest exporter of arms, has been selling violence to the world in order to prop up the military-industrial complex and maintain its endless wars abroad.

This is a government that is consumed with squeezing every last penny out of the population and seemingly unconcerned if essential freedoms are trampled in the process.

This is a government that routinely undermines the Constitution and rides roughshod over the rights of the citizenry, eviscerating individual freedoms so that its own powers can be expanded.

This is a government that believes it has the authority to search, seize, strip, scan, spy on, probe, pat down, taser, and arrest any individual at any time and for the slightest provocation, the Constitution be damned.

In other words, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, this is not a government that believes in, let alone upholds, freedom.

WC: 2184

ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD

Family of Brit Killed on 9/11 Presents Gov’t With 3,000 Pages of Evidence “Towers Blown Up from Inside”

By Matt Agorist | The Free Thought Project

If you turn on your TV — even if you are watching subscription services — you cannot escape the mainstream media’s incessant harping on the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan. The blood-hungry pundits from both the left and right have been crying for a month that their beloved war is finally coming to an end. Yet not a single outlet covers the reasons, or lack thereof, for why we invaded Afghanistan, killed thousands of their children, maimed countless American troops, and then gave the country over to the Taliban along with billions in weapons.

That reason was 9/11.

Since that fateful day, thousands of well-meaning people have worked tirelessly to uncover the details behind the events of 9/11 which set off decades of horrific wars and killed thousands of people. Many of those working on finding this information is not even from America. Few people realize that 67 citizens of the United Kingdom perished in the fiery inferno on that foreboding day, one of whom was Geoff Campbell.

For the last several years, Campbell’s family has been working to expose evidence, which they say shows the towers were blown up from the inside. Campbell’s family, supported by a team of scientists who have been studying the collapse of the buildings, claim the towers were laced with explosives which is what brought them down — not the airplanes.

“I believe there has been a cover-up. We have scientifically and forensically backed evidence that the official narrative surrounding the Twin Towers collapse on 9/11 is wrong,” Geoff’s older brother Matt Campbell said.

Last week, according to the Mirror, a 3,000-page dossier was handed to the Government’s top legal adviser, acting Attorney General Michael Ellis, detailing their case.

The Mirror reports, according to the family’s research, seismographic recordings picked up ground movement 12 miles from the North Tower, 15 seconds earlier than 8.46 am when a hijacked American Airlines jet struck the building.

“I believe that my brother and thousands of others were murdered on 9/11 and there has been a cover-up,” Matt Campbell said. “We are still overcoming this tragedy, but we will never stop seeking the truth.”

According to the report, the family is using the UK Coroners Act 1988 to present their case. According to the act, they must demonstrate that evidence not considered at the first inquest in 2014 may lead to a different verdict.

“Asking for this inquest is an important step,” said Maureen Campbell, Campbell’s mother. “We need the truth in order to heal.”

According to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth:

The Campbell family’s application includes letters of support from five other family members who lost loved ones in the destruction of the Twin Towers: Drew DePalma, son of Jean DePalma; Barbara Krukowski-Rastelli, mother of firefighter William Krukowski; Bob McIlvaine, father of Bobby McIlvaine; Kacee Papa, daughter of Edward Papa; and Iryna Upham, daughter of Iouri Mouchinski.

The application also includes witness statements from six scientific experts and from five eyewitnesses to the World Trade Center’s destruction, four of whom were first responders that day. All of the experts and eyewitness have offered to give testimony at the new inquest. Altogether, the application contains around 2,500 pages of evidence as well as select volumes of the official reports issued by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology.

While the results of the Campbells’ evidence have yet to be revealed, back in America there has been a slew of evidence released.

At the end of March 2020, researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks issued the final report of a four-year computer modeling study on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. Its results are nothing short of paradigm-shifting.

On September 11, 2001, at 5:20 p.m., World Trade Center Building 7 suddenly collapsed into its own footprint, falling at freefall speed for 2.5 seconds of its seven-second complete destruction. WTC 7 was not hit by a plane. After it collapsed, Americans were told that office fires caused a unique — never before seen — complete architectural failure leading to the building collapsing into its own footprint at the rate of gravity.

Despite calls for the evidence to be preserved, New York City officials had the building’s debris removed and destroyed in the ensuing weeks and months, preventing a proper forensic investigation from ever taking place. Seven years later, federal investigators concluded that WTC 7 was the first steel-framed high-rise ever to have collapsed solely as a result of normal office fires.

Naturally, skeptics like the Campbell family have been questioning the official story for some time and after moving from the realm of conspiracy theory into the realm of science, this extensive university study has found that the official story of fire causing the collapse is simply not true.

Last year, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth announced the completed partnership with the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) in their final report of an in-depth four-year study on what they say actually brought down WTC 7. According to the press release, contrary to the conclusions of NIST, the UAF research team finds that the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11 was not caused by fires but instead was caused by the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

“Our study found that the fires in WTC 7 could not have caused the observed collapse,” said Professor Leroy Hulsey, the study’s principal investigator. “The only way it could have fallen in an observed manner is by the near-simultaneous failure of every column.”

After conducting comprehensive modeling and studying countless scenarios, the study’s authors, J. Leroy Hulsey, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., UAF, Zhili Quan, Ph.D., Bridge Engineer South Carolina Department of Transportation, and Feng Xiao, Ph.D., Associate Professor Nanjing University of Science and Technology Department of Civil Engineering, concluded the following:

Fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

The results of this study cannot be dismissed. It completely destroys the narrative that has been shoved down the throats of Americans for nearly two decades. What’s more, this study backs up thousands of other researchers, scientists, and engineers who have been pointing this out for years.

Finally, after nearly two decades of ridicule, dismissal, and outright intolerance of information contrary to the “official story” of what happened on 9/11, the public may finally learn the whole truth of what happened and who was behind it.

Why the WHO Is a Corrupt, Unhealthy Organization

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

Story at-a-glance

“TrustWHO,” a documentary film produced by Lilian Franck, reveals the clandestine influences that are controlling the World Health Organization, to the peril of public health
Bill Gates is WHO’s No. 1 funder, contributing more to WHO’s $4.84 billion biennial budget than any member-state government
Pharmaceutical companies previously influenced WHO’s 2009 pandemic declaration; experts later called swine flu a “false pandemic” that was driven by Big Pharma, which then cashed in on the health scare
WHO has a strong allegiance to China, and its investigation into COVID-19’s origin was a “fake” investigation from the start
Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, WHO released a statement that it had been in discussions with Facebook to “ensure people can access authoritative information on vaccines and reduce the spread of inaccuracies”
WHO’s history clearly illustrates its allegiance to Big Pharma and other industries, including downplaying the health effects caused by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster and collaborating with opioid giant Purdue
Given the strong and ongoing evidence that WHO is heavily conflicted and controlled by industry, its usefulness as a guardian of public health needs to be seriously reevaluated

“TrustWHO,” a documentary film produced by Lilian Franck, reveals the clandestine influences that are controlling the World Health Organization (WHO) — and that has been since the very beginning. Founded in 1948 by 61 member states whose contributions initially financed the organization, WHO was quickly infiltrated by industry.

From Big Tobacco to the nuclear industry and pharmaceuticals, the industry has historically dictated WHO’s global agenda and continues to do so in the present day, putting profits and power ahead of public health.¹

Bill Gates Is WHO’s No. 1 Funder

In April 2020, Donald Trump suspended U.S. funding to WHO while the administration conducted a review into its “role in severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus.”² This clearly propelled Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation into the WHO’s No.1 funder slot. Upon election, President Joe Biden reversed the Trump administration decision, restoring U.S. funding to WHO.³

However, Bill Gates is still the No. 1 funder, contributing more to WHO’s $4.84 billion biennial budget⁴ than any member-state government. As revealed in a preview copy I received of “Vax-Unvax,”⁵ Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s new book, which will be released in November 2021, “Gates has used his money strategically to infect the international aid agencies with his distorted self-serving priorities. The U.S. historically has been the largest direct donor to WHO.”

However, Bill Gates contributes to WHO via multiple avenues, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as well as GAVI, which was founded by the Gates Foundation in partnership with WHO, the World Bank, and various vaccine manufacturers.

As of 2018, the cumulative contributions from the Gates Foundation and GAVI made Gates the unofficial top sponsor of the WHO, even before the Trump administration’s 2020 move to cut all his support to the organization. And in fact, Gates gives so much that Politico wrote a highly critical article⁶ about his undue financial influence over the WHO’s operations in 2017, which Politico said was causing the agency to spend:

“… a disproportionate amount of its resources on projects with the measurable outcomes Gates prefers … His sway has NGOs and academics worried. Some health advocates fear that because the Gates Foundation’s money comes from investments in big business, it could serve as a Trojan horse for corporate interests to undermine WHO’s role in setting standards and shaping health policies.”

Plus, Gates “also routes funding to WHO through SAGE [Strategic Advisory Group of Experts] and UNICEF and Rotary International bringing his total contributions to over $1 billion,” Kennedy explains in the book, adding that these tax-deductible donations give Gates both leverage and control over international health policy, “which he largely directs to serve the profit interest of his pharma partners.”

As noted in the featured film, when it was founded, WHO could decide how to distribute its contributions. Now, 70% of its budget is tied to specific projects, countries, or regions, which are dictated by the funders.⁷ As such, Gates’ priorities are the backbone of WHO, and it wasn’t a coincidence when he said of WHO, “Our priorities, are your priorities.”⁸

“Gates’ vaccine obsession has diverted WHO’s giving from poverty alleviation, nutrition, and clean water to make vaccine uptake its preeminent public health metric. And Gates is not afraid to throw his weight around,” according to Kennedy’s book. “… The sheer magnitude of his foundation’s financial contributions has made Bill Gates an unofficial — albeit unelected — leader of the WHO.”

Pharma & WHO Cashing Checks in Previous Pandemics

During the 2009 H1N1 (swine flu) pandemic, secret agreements were made between Germany, Great Britain, Italy, and France with the pharmaceutical industry before the H1N1 pandemic began, which stated that they would purchase H1N1 flu vaccinations — but only if a pandemic level 6 was declared by WHO.

The “TrustWHO” documentary shows how, six weeks before the pandemic was declared, no one at WHO was worried about the virus, but the media was nonetheless exaggerating the dangers. Then, in the month leading up to the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, WHO changed the official definition of pandemic, removing the severity and high mortality criteria and leaving the definition of a pandemic as “a worldwide epidemic of a disease.”⁹

This switch in definition allowed WHO to declare swine flu a pandemic after only 144 people had died from the infection worldwide. In 2010, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, then head of health at the Council of Europe, accused pharmaceutical companies of influencing WHO’s pandemic declaration, calling swine flu a “false pandemic” that was driven by Big Pharma, which cashed in on the health scare.¹⁰

According to Wodarg, the swine flu pandemic was “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century.”¹¹ In the investigation into WHO and Big Pharma’s falsification of a pandemic, an inquiry stated:¹²

“… in order to promote their patented drugs and vaccines against flu, pharmaceutical companies influenced scientists and official agencies responsible for public health standards to alarm governments worldwide and make them squander tight health resources for inefficient vaccines strategies, and needlessly expose millions of healthy people to the risk of an unknown amount of side effects of insufficiently tested vaccines.”

While governments ended up with stockpiles of vaccines they would never use, many of those who received the H1N1 swine flu vaccine suffered from adverse effects including Guillian-Barre syndrome, narcolepsy, cataplexy, and other forms of brain damage.¹³

The Origins Cover-Up

WHO’s investigation into COVID-19’s origin was also a “fake” investigation from the start. China was allowed to handpick the members of the WHO’s investigative team, which included Peter Daszak, Ph.D., who has close professional ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

The inclusion of Dazsak on this team virtually guaranteed the dismissal of the lab-origin theory, and in February 2021, WHO cleared WIV and two other biosafety level 4 laboratories in Wuhan, China, of wrongdoing, saying these labs had nothing to do with the COVID-19 outbreak.¹⁴

Only after backlash, including an open letter signed by 26 scientists demanding a full and unrestricted forensic investigation into the pandemic’s origins,¹⁵ did WHO enter damage control mode, with Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and 13 other world leaders joining the U.S. government in expressing “frustration with the level of access China granted an international mission to Wuhan.”¹⁶

A couple of noteworthy points — Gates handpicked Ghebreyesus as WHO’s director-general, not because of his qualifications — Tedros has no medical degree and a background that includes accusations of human rights violations — but due to this loyalty to Gates, again according to Kennedy’s book.

Further, WHO’s allegiance to China was secured years earlier, when China secured WHO votes to ensure its candidates would become director-general. A Sunday Times investigation also revealed that WHO’s independence was severely compromised and its close ties to China allowed COVID-19 to spread in the early days of the pandemic while obfuscating the investigation into its origins. According to the Sunday Times:¹⁷

“The WHO leadership prioritized China’s economic interests over halting the spread of the virus when Covid-19 first emerged. China exerted ultimate control over the WHO investigation into the origins of Covid-19, appointing its chosen experts and negotiating a backroom deal to water down the mandate.”

WHO’s China Ties Played ‘Decisive Role’ in Pandemic

On January 28, 2020, four weeks after Taiwan had alerted WHO that a mysterious respiratory illness was spreading in China, WHO had not yet taken action and continued to praise China.

Tedros even praised China for their transparency and said the Chinese president had “shown ‘rare leadership’ and deserved ‘gratitude and respect for acting to contain the outbreak at the epicenter,” the Sunday Times reported. “These ‘extraordinary steps’ had prevented further spread of the virus, and this was why, he said, there were only a few cases of human-to-human transmission outside China, which we are monitoring very closely.’”¹⁸

Speaking with the Sunday Times, professor Richard Ebright of Rutgers University’s Waksman Institute of Microbiology in New Jersey, said it was this close connection that ultimately steered the course of the pandemic:¹⁹

“Not only did it have a role; it has had a decisive role. It was the only motivation. There was no scientific or medical or policy justification for the stance that the WHO took in January and February 2020. That was entirely premised on maintaining satisfactory ties to the Chinese government.

So at every step of the way, the WHO promoted the position that was sought by the Chinese government … the WHO actively resisted and obstructed efforts by other nations to implement effective border controls that could have limited the spread or even contained the spread of the outbreak.

It is impossible for me to believe that the officials in Geneva, who were making those statements, believed those statements accorded with the facts that were available to them at the time the statements were made. It’s hard not to see that the direct origin of that is the support of the Chinese government for Tedros’s election as director-general …

This was a remarkably high return on [China’s] investment with the relatively small sums that were invested in supporting his election. It paid off on a grand scale for the Chinese government.”

WHO Corruption Runs Deep

Even prior to the pandemic, WHO had released a statement that it had been in discussions with Facebook to “ensure people can access authoritative information on vaccines and reduce the spread of inaccuracies.”²⁰ At WHO’s first Global Vaccination Summit, held in Brussels in September 2019, Jason Hirsch, Facebook’s public policy manager, alluded to the censorship and media manipulation that was to come:²¹

“The first thing that we are doing is reducing the distribution of misinformation about vaccinations and the second thing that we are doing is increasing exposure to credible, authoritative content on vaccinations.”

Rather than putting public health first, such as pushing for safety studies into vaccination, WHO’s history clearly illustrates its allegiance to Big Pharma and other industries. WHO, for instance, has downplayed the health effects caused by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster, stating that only 50 deaths were directly caused by the incident and “a total of up to 4,000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure” from the disaster.²²

WHO signed an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is “promoting the peaceful use of atomic energy,” in 1959, making it subordinate to the agency in relation to ionizing radiation.

WHO’s response to the Fukushima radiation disaster in 2011 was also criticized, with evidence of a high-level coverup.²³ WHO once again downplayed the risks, stating “the predicted risks are low and no observable increases in cancer rates above baseline rates are anticipated.”²⁴

WHO also received more than $1.6 million from opioid giant Purdue from 1999 to 2010 and used industry-supported opioid data to incorporate into its official pro-opioid guidelines. According to the Alliance of Human Research Protection, WHO’s collaboration with Purdue led to expanded opioid use and global addiction.²⁵

Due to its acceptance of private money, a review in the Journal of Integrative Medicine & Therapy went so far as to say the corruption of WHO is the “biggest threat to the world’s public health of our time,” particularly as it relates to WHO’s drug recommendations — including its “list of essential medicines” — which it believes is biased and not reliable.²⁶

Given the strong and ongoing evidence that WHO is heavily conflicted and controlled by industry, its usefulness as a guardian of public health needs to be seriously reevaluated.

Sources and References

^1, ^7, ⁸ BitChute, TrustWHO
² CNBC April 14, 2020
^3, ⁴ KFF January 25, 2021
⁵ Amazon
⁶ Politico May 4, 2017
⁹ Wayback Machine, WHO Pandemic Preparedness September 2, 2009 (PDF)
¹⁰ Daily Mail January 17, 2010
^11, ^12, ¹³ The Times of Israel May 14, 2020
¹⁴ The Washington Post February 9, 2021
¹⁵ Open Letter March 4, 2021 (PDF)
¹⁶ Washington Post March 30, 2021
^17, ^18, ¹⁹ The Sunday Times, Archive.Today August 14, 2021
²⁰ WHO September 4, 2019
²¹ Children’s Health Defense, CDC and WHO Corrupt Financial Entanglements with the Vaccine Industry
²² WHO, Chernobyl: The True Scale of the Accident September 5, 2005
²³ The Ecologist March 8, 2014
²⁴ Forbes March 18, 2013
²⁵ Alliance for Human Research Protection January 30, 2020
²⁶ Journal of Integrative Medicine & Therapy January 2015 Vol. 2, Issue 1