Time to Stand Up For Your Rights & the Truth

A Global Uprising is Underway

Dr. MercolaGuest
Waking Times

After six months of intermittent or in some cases near-continuous lockdowns, many have reached their limit and uprisings are finally emerging around the world. The last week of August 2020 saw gatherings of tens of thousands of individuals in Berlin,1 London2 and Dublin,3 protesting stay-at-home orders, business closures, mask and vaccine mandates and Bill Gates’ dictatorial grip on public health matters.

In the U.S., a protest took place August 30, 2020, in Boston, Massachusetts, against a new student flu vaccination mandate,4 and in Virginia, protesters gathered September 2 in opposition of unconstitutional COVID-19 mandates.5

 

 

These are just a few of the many demonstrations that have taken place in recent weeks around the world, as people are starting to realize their human rights are being stripped away over a virus with a lethality on par with that of seasonal influenza and other pandemic viruses, none of which was responded to with a global shutdown of economies and forced quarantining of healthy individuals.

COVID-19 — A Massive Brainwashing Scheme?

In recent weeks and months, more and more experts have come out sharing what they know about the roles of Big Tech, Big Pharma and global health organizations such as the World Health Organization in the creation of a new technocratic world order.

If you missed my interview with financial analyst Patrick Wood, in which he details the technocratic take-over plan, which has been in play for decades, be sure to review it now. Other articles shedding light on what’s happening behind the scenes include “Harvard Professor Exposes Google and Facebook,” featuring a documentary with professor Shoshana Zuboff, and “Plandemic Part 2.”

When you start to put all the puzzle pieces together, it seems clear this pandemic is being used as a cover story for both a global wealth redistribution scheme, and for the implementation of a technocratic system of totalitarian rule by unelected leaders. …

As reported by Reclaim the Net,6 the WHO eavesdrops on everything you do online, from reviewing your social media interactions to analyzing your emotions. To counteract “spread of misleading information” about the pandemic — which was a key area of focus during Event 201 — the WHO has partnered with an analytics company that uses machine learning analysis to scan more than 1.6 million social media posts per week.

The aim of this “social listening approach”— a nicer term than good old-fashioned spying — is to counteract anything that doesn’t align with the WHO’s current narrative on illnesses, treatments, interventions and causes of disease.

Aiding them in this dystopian censoring process is the United Nations, which has launched an army of 10,000 digital volunteers who troll the internet for “false” information and opposing views.

On top of that, most social media platforms have their own highly biased “fact-checkers” who censor for all they’re worth. Back in April 2020, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki, wife of Google product director Dennis Troper, announced they would ban and remove any video from the platform that contradicts the WHO.7  ….

Just How Deadly Is COVID-19?

According to groundbreaking data8 recently released by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, only 6% of the total COVID-19-related deaths in the U.S. had COVID-19 listed as the sole cause of death on the death certificate.

Six percent of 169,044 (the total death toll as of September 2) is 10,143. “For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death,” the CDC states. As reported by Rochester First,9 the top underlying medical conditions included influenza, pneumonia, respiratory failure, high blood pressure, diabetes, dementia, heart problems and renal failure.

However, the list also includes 5,424 intentional and unintentional injury and poisoning deaths, so basically, accidents and suicides in which the individual just happened to test positive (or was suspected of being positive for SARS-CoV-2) are also included in the grand total.

(Please note, these data were accurate as of this writing. The CDC does not notate when data is altered as new death certificates come in, so the numbers may therefore be different from what is reported here, depending on when you’re looking at it. For the most up-to-date figures, see the CDC’s website.10)

The fact that only 6% of COVID-19-related deaths are directly attributable to SARS-CoV-2 is bad news when you’re trying to keep a doomsday narrative going. In what appears to be a blatant attempt to minimize exposure of these data, social media platforms have censored many trying to share it.11

As noted by independent news commentator Tim Pool in the video below, fact-checkers are digging into nitpicky semantics in their effort to censor the CDC data, and in so doing, they’re really stretching the “false” claim ultrathin.

Similar data have emerged from Palm Beach County, Florida, where an investigation by CBS 1212 I-Team revealed only 86 of the reported 658 COVID-19 deaths had “COVID-19 pneumonia” listed as the sole cause of death.

All others had multiple comorbidities,. …

Infection Fatality Rate on Par With the Flu

Keeping the “killer virus” narrative going much longer is probably going to become even more difficult in light of a September 2, 2020 article13 in Annals of Internal Medicine, which points out that:

“Because many cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are asymptomatic, generalizable data on the true number of persons infected are lacking, and that when calculating mortality rates from confirmed cases, you end up overestimating the infection fatality ratio (IFR).”

The paper reads, in part:14

(Go to link to read excerpt)

The estimated infection fatality rate for seasonal influenza listed in this paper is 0.8%. So, the only people for whom SARS-CoV-2 infection is more dangerous than influenza is those over the age of 60.

All others have a lower risk of dying from COVID-19 than they have of dying from the flu. Put another way, if you’re under the age of 60, your chances of dying from the flu is greater than your chance of dying from COVID-19.

White House coronavirus task force coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx also confirmed this far lower than typically reported mortality rate when she, in mid-August 2020, stated that it “becomes more and more difficult” to get people to comply with mask rules “when people start to realize that 99% of us are going to be fine.”(emphasis added)15

Expect Massive Propaganda Campaign to Boost Vaccine Uptake

With death rates being as low as they are for everyone under the age of 60, it really weakens the rationale for vaccinating the entire world, including newborns, the risk to whom the virus poses is virtually nil.

The vaccine looking increasingly unnecessary is likely a reason for why the U.S. government is planning to launch an “overwhelming” COVID-19 vaccine campaign this fall, using carefully researched messages. As detailed in “Health and Autonomy in the 21st Century,” Yale University has conducted a trial16 to determine the type of message that will maximize acceptance and uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine. Messaging slants evaluated in the investigation included:17

Personal freedom message — A message about how COVID-19 is limiting people’s personal freedom and how working together to get enough people vaccinated can preserve society’s personal freedoms.
Economic freedom message — A message about how COVID-19 is limiting people’s economic freedom and how, by working together to get enough people vaccinated, society can preserve its economic freedom.
Self-interest message — A message that COVID-19 presents a real danger to one’s health, even if one is young and healthy, with the idea being that getting vaccinated against COVID-19 is the best way to prevent oneself from getting sick.
Community interest message — A message about the dangers of COVID-19 to the health of loved ones. The idea to promote is that the more people who get vaccinated against COVID-19, the lower the risk that one’s loved ones will get sick. The idea: Society must work together and all get vaccinated.
Economic benefit message — A message about how COVID-19 is wreaking havoc on the economy and the only way to strengthen the economy is to work together to get enough people vaccinated.
Guilt message — This message is about the danger that COVID-19 presents to the health of one’s family and community, with the idea that the best way to protect them is by getting vaccinated, and that society must work together to get enough people vaccinated. Then it asks the participant to imagine the guilt they will feel if they don’t get vaccinated and spread the disease.
Embarrassment message — This message is about the danger that COVID-19 presents to the health of one’s family and community. The idea to promote is that the best way to protect them is by getting vaccinated and by working together to make sure enough people get vaccinated. Then it asks the participant to imagine the embarrassment they will feel if they don’t get vaccinated and subsequently spread the disease.
Anger message — This message is about the danger that COVID-19 presents to the health of one’s family and community. The sales idea is that the best way to protect them is by getting vaccinated and by working together to make sure that enough people get vaccinated. It then asks the participant to imagine the anger they will feel if they don’t get vaccinated and spread the disease.
Trust in science message — A message about how getting vaccinated against COVID-19 is the most effective way of protecting one’s community. It promotes the idea that vaccination is backed by science, and that anyone who doesn’t get vaccinated doesn’t understand how infections are spread or who ignores science.
Not bravery message — A message which describes how firefighters, doctors and front line medical workers are brave, and infers that those who choose not to get vaccinated against COVID-19 are not brave.

The study, which was completed July 8, 2020, also sought to determine:

  • Participant’s confidence in the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine after hearing the message in question
  • Participant’s willingness to persuade others to get vaccinated
  • Their fear of those who have not been vaccinated
  • The social judgment of those who choose not to vaccinate

Prosocial Pressure Tactics Work Best

Harvard Business School in collaboration with the Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have also published a working paper18 comparing self-interested versus prosocial motivations for COVID-19 prevention behaviors.

Considering the messages we’ve been bombarded with over the past few months — calling people who don’t wear masks “grandma killers” and so on — it seems clear that results from these kinds of investigations have been capitalized on.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~ Voltaire

In that paper, “Don’t Get It or Don’t Spread It?” the authors review studies in which various types of messages were compared — messages highlighting the threat to self, versus the threat you might pose to others.

Overall, prosocial messages, i.e., messages that stress the importance of complying with prevention behaviors in order to protect others fared the best. According to the authors:19

(Go to link for excerpt)

Stop Believing in the Lockdown

A powerful essay20 in the American Institute for Economic Research asks the question: Is the lockdown the best way to minimize casualties in this pandemic?

Using historical examples beginning with Voltaire’s words, “those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities,” the author reasons that lockdowns are not going to save the world from COVID-19, if for no other reason than whenever lockdowns are eased, infections naturally start to creep back up.

However, the vast majority of these “infections” or “cases” are asymptomatic. …

Never in medical history has a “case” meant someone who is perfectly healthy and requires testing to determine whether they are infected with a particular pathogen. Would you get tested for the common cold or influenza if you had no symptoms? …

There are other myths, mostly scare tactics, that people are willingly believing that need to be stopped now, too, the author asserts — and it’s time to start questioning what is credulous and what is not. I encourage you to read that essay in its totality.

The Fatal Attraction of Techno-Fascism

Another article21 well worth reading is Mark Petrakis’ “The Fatal Attraction of Techno-Fascism.” This one also starts off with an excellent quote by Cato the Elder: “Those who are serious in ridiculous matters will be ridiculous in serious matters.” One of the first points he makes is that fascism is attractive because:

“… it requires so little from us, so little independent thought; just our basic belief and adherence to a limited set of popularly-shared directives and narratives that once fully accepted, relieve us of the need to address stubborn questions or to fret over subtle differences of opinion and feeling.

Propaganda reassures us that we are complete, that we know all there is to know, that we are rational, pragmatic and pure, that the science has been settled and that we are a part of something special.”

Petrakis goes on to discuss why propaganda and disinformation is required in order to maintain control in a fascist regime, and how truth is a liability that must be disallowed and penalized. In the end, the price we pay for this kind of intellectual laziness is “soul-crushing denial and disconnection.”

No one who has been paying attention this past year in particular can have missed that propaganda is in full swing, 24/7, and that both truthful facts and personal opinions that run counter to the established propaganda narrative are being censored and penalized in equal measure.

When it comes to COVID-19, the propaganda is so pervasive and widespread that it has actually shattered what Petrakis refers to as “the grandest illusion of all” that “must be maintained at all costs,” namely the appearance that the propaganda messages are randomly generated.

“It must always appear that the media’s coverage and the comments of experts are entirely free from any preconceived manipulation,” he says. Today, there is little doubt that the narrative we see is anything but free from bias. There’s little doubt that what we’re told is “weaponized storytelling,” to quote Petrakis yet again.

(Go to link for quote)

Ultimately, the economic system known as technocracy is tailor-made for the transhumanist revolution — which I touch upon in “Will New COVID Vaccine Make You Transhuman?” — where man is merged with technology and AI. As always, the lure will be greater convenience, self-improvement and “a better world for all.”

What’s never mentioned is the ultimate price. The price for all of it is complete subjugation to faceless leaders who profit from your every move, and therefore will dictate all of them.

COVID-19 Rules Mark ‘Hysterical Slide Into Police State’

I’ll end this with some observations by British Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption, who in a March 30, 2020, interview22 with The Post warned that COVID-19 rules are paving the way for despotism — the exercise of absolute power in a cruel and oppressive manner.

“The real problem is that when human societies lose their freedom, it’s not usually because tyrants have taken it away. It’s usually because people willingly surrender their freedom in return for protection against some external threat. And the threat is usually a real threat but usually exaggerated.”

It is time to ask ourselves some very pressing questions. Is it reasonable to expect government to eliminate ALL infection and ALL death? They’ve proven they cannot, yet we keep relinquishing more and more freedoms and liberties because they claim doing so will keep everyone safer. It’s an enticing lie, but a lie nonetheless.

Remember, they sold us on the business shutdowns and home quarantining by saying we just need to flatten the curve of infection to avoid hospital overcrowding. Now the curve is in a visible nosedive and hospitals are far from overcrowded with COVID-19 patients, yet lockdowns remain in many areas and some — Australia being a prime example — have reached astonishing new heights.

Sooner or later everyone must decide which is more important: Personal liberty or false security? Circling back to where I started, the good news is that many are in fact starting to see the writing on the wall; they’re starting to see we’ve been “had,” and are starting to choose liberty over brutal totalitarianism in the name of public health.

 

  • from:    https://www.wakingtimes.com/2020/09/16/a-global-uprising-is-underway/

 

Dr. Mercola Responds

Deep State Trying to Take Down Mercola.com and 2 Decades of Alternative Health Information

Lies Exposed: CSPI’s Organized Attack Against Mercola

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola
Mercola.com

For the past two decades, my mission has been to help you take control of your health. Recent developments now threaten my ability to do that. July 21, 2020, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) issued a press release1 and testified in a Senate hearing on the topic of COVID-19 scams.

The press release contained lies, fabrications and a reckless disregard for truth in an attempt to put an end to me and this website.

Additionally, in an August 12, 2020, email, CSPI president Dr. Peter Lurie2 — a former FDA associate commissioner — claims I’m “profiting from the pandemic” through “anti-vaccine fearmongering” and reporting of science-based nutrition shown to impact your disease risk. According to Lurie:

“Mercola brazenly has claimed that many of his products are coronavirus treatments or cures, including vitamin C, vitamin D, zinc, selenium, ‘molecular hydrogen,’ licorice, and other substances.

Besides profiting from the pandemic, Mercola has seemingly advised people to contract COVID-19 after taking supposedly ‘immunity boosting’ supplements (which of course he sells). Making matters worse, Mercola is a leading proponent of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories — and has been fearmongering against prospective COVID-19 vaccines even before such vaccines are available!”

CSPI is now urging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission “to bring enforcement proceedings against Mercola and his companies for their unlawful disease claims that falsely and misleadingly claim to treat, cure or prevent COVID-19 infections.”

Lurie is asking CSPI members to flood these agencies with prewritten Tweets urging them to take action against us. You may have been one of the people who received this urging if you made the mistake of subscribing to their irresponsibly misleading organization.

How CSPI Is Spinning False Claims

Conveniently omitting the fact that I am a board-certified physician, the CSPI falsely claims I am promoting “at least 22 vitamins, supplements and other products” available on my website as being able to “prevent, treat or cure COVID-19 infection.”

These are some pretty hefty accusations to make, but luckily CSPI has provided an Appendix of Illegal Claims to easily verify the evidence they’ve uncovered, which you can view here.3 According to Lurie, I make COVID-19 claims for products such as Fermented Licorice Powder sold in the Mercola Market.4

You won’t find any claims as Lurie says, because they don’t exist. He is either delusional or lying. In CSPI’s listing for Solspring brand Fermented Licorice Powder in the Appendix, CSPI provides a link to an article about the benefits of glycyrrhizin, a compound found in licorice.

The article contains nine references to scientific journals, including The Lancet. What is not found in this article? Product advertisements or references to fermented licorice powder of any kind, let alone the Solspring brand.

Each product listed in the CSPI Appendix goes through the same bogus rearrangement of information, grabbing a snippet from a newsletter article and falsely applying it to my product pages. In reality, no product claims are made in the articles, and no COVID-19 claims are made on my product pages.

Here’s what The Lancet had to say about licorice:

“Of all the compounds, glycyrrhizin was the most active in inhibiting replication of the SARS-associated virus.”

Is this newsworthy to you? Do you find it interesting and relevant? Do you see any product ads on this page? Can you find any mention of “fermented licorice powder” on this page, as Lurie claims? No. That’s a complete lie and fabrication.

Each product listed in the CSPI Appendix goes through the same bogus rearrangement of information, grabbing a snippet from a newsletter article and falsely applying it to a completely unrelated product advertisement. In reality, no product claims are made in the articles, and no COVID-19 claims are made on any product pages found at the Mercola Market.

So, just what sort of intentional misrepresentation is going on here? What kind of legal charlatan would do something so reckless? It just so happens CSPI is the right charlatan for this con-job.

Two Decades of Health Journalism Are at Stake

For the last 23 years, I’ve fought against putting neurotoxic fluoride in water. I was one of the first doctors to alert the world about the dangers of Vioxx, which killed more than 60,000 patients before it was finally withdrawn from the market. I’ve campaigned against GMO’s and toxic agrichemicals, funding the original signature gathering to get GMO labeling in California in 2012.

For over a decade, I’ve funded the battle to end the use of mercury dental fillings worldwide. I’ve warned against the overuse of antibiotics in human medicine and the dangers of consuming them in CAFO meats.

I’ve funded research and was one of the first physician journalists to bring major awareness to the hazards of vitamin D deficiency. I’m now rallying public awareness of the importance to optimize vitamin D to minimize COVID-19 risks.

This public health advocacy has created an army of well-funded adversaries. They’ve attacked me using expensive PR groups and mass media, captured federal regulatory agencies and pharmaceutical front groups in an attempt to silence and discredit me.

Never before have Americans been exposed to such a coordinated assortment of lies and censorship. The brainwashing, social media surveillance, coercion and destruction of dissenters are accelerating. For a comprehensive overview of this New World Order, an empire built and run by billionaires, see my “Ghost in the Machine” article series.

CSPI Is Bankrolled by Billionaires With Their Own Agenda

Who bankrolls CSPI? Major hint, the general public plays a very tiny role in their funding. According to Influence Watch:5

“In 2017 CSPI’s received 37.6% ($5.3 million) of its revenue from membership dues and subscriptions to its Nutrition Action Healthletter. CSPI also took in 35.6% ($5 million) of its funding from contributions, and 15% ($2.2 million) of its revenue from foundational grants.

A number of foundations have given money to CSPI, among them the Rockefeller Family Fund, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the Tides Foundation, the Public Welfare Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts, and Bloomberg Philanthropies.”

CSPI has also partnered with Bill Gates’ agrichemical PR group, the Cornell Alliance for Science. In fact, Greg Jaffe, who heads up CSPI’s Biotechnology Project, is also the Alliance for Science associate director of legal affairs.6

CSPI Promoted GMOs and Trans Fat

For years, CSPI fought against your right to know the truth about genetically modified organisms(GMOs) in your food, saying GMO labels would be “misleading.”7

Apparently, they think GMO soy and corn drenched in toxic pesticides are in the public’s best interest, and they see no problem with synthetic fertilizer runoff poisoning fresh water supplies, or draining aquifers for irrigation.

Ironically, the top human ingredients from the genetically engineered products are high fructose corn syrup and vegetable oil. CSPI should likely change the name of the ‘Nutrition Action’ newsletter that competes with my own.

As if that isn’t enough, starting in the late 1980s, CSPI championed harmful trans fats,8 a tragically misguided yet thoroughly effective campaign that resulted in epidemic levels of heart disease. In fact, they celebrated their victory of converting Americans away from healthy saturated fats to trans fats, calling it “a great boon to Americans’ arteries.”9

It was largely the result of CSPI’s campaign that fast-food restaurants replaced beef tallow, palm oil and coconut oil with partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, which are high in synthetic trans fats linked to heart disease and other chronic diseases.

As late as 1988, CSPI praised trans fats, saying

“there is little good evidence that trans fats cause any more harm than other fats” and that “much of the anxiety over trans fats stems from their reputation as ‘unnatural.’”10

CSPI is also heavily funded by the American Heart Association,11 a group that in 1948 received a gift of $1.75 million from Procter & Gamble,12 the makers of Crisco, the top trans fat sold for decades. The cash bonanza, thanks to a radio contest, gave the 24-year-old AHA a solid footing to buy its way into America as one of the country’s most influential health organizations from then, on.

If that were not enough, today the AHA is funded in part by pharmaceutical companies making statins that fight the damage caused by trans fat,13,14 such as Pfizer, maker of Lipitor, which in 2011 was the world’s top-selling drug.15 In 2018-2019, Pfizer gifted the AHA with a hefty $824,595. Novartis, which also makes statins, gave the AHA a whopping $3.4 million that same year.

And, back to where we started with CSPI, in its 2018 Form 990 the AHA reports that it gave CSPI $49,500 in cash.16This, despite the fact that in 2003 CSPI published a report on lifting the veil of secrecy on how agencies like itself are funded — at the time, proudly declaring that CSPI doesn’t accept industry funding.17

I guess they think you don’t have to count it as industry money if you’re accepting that money from a major nonprofit that got its money from corporate and industry dollars. You can’t make this stuff up — it is hard to come up with groups that have had a more devastating impact on Americans’ health than the AHA — and CSPI is partly funded by it.

Which Side Is CSPI On?

In 2003, the Weston A. Price Foundation rightfully questioned whether CSPI might actually be promoting the interests of the soy industry rather than public health:18

“It is impossible to measure the hazards and grief … the leaders of the major nutrition ‘activist’ consumer organization have inflicted on many millions of an unknowing public — because CSPI’s campaign was wildly successful.

Thanks to CSPI, healthy traditional fats have almost completely disappeared from the food supply, replaced by manufactured trans fats known to cause many diseases.

By 1990, most fast food chains had switched to partially hydrogenated vegetable oil. In 1982, a McDonald’s meal of chicken McNuggets, large order of fries and a Danish or pie contained 2.4 grams of trans fat, out of a total of 54 grams of fat. In 1992, that same meal contained 19.2 grams trans fats, a 700 percent increase …

Who benefits? Soy, or course. Eighty percent of all partially hydrogenated oil used in processed foods in the US comes from soy, as does 70 percent of all liquid oil.

CSPI claims that its [financial] support comes from subscribers to its Nutrition Action newsletter … but in fact, in CSPI’s January 1991 newsletter, Jacobson notes that ‘our effort was ultimately joined … by the American Soybean Association.’”

CSPI Deceptively Erased Its Deadly History

Today, you’ll have to dig deep to unearth CSPI’s deadly campaign. In an act of deception, they erased it from their history to make people believe they’ve been doing the right thing all along. Notice how their historical timeline19 of trans fat starts at 1993 — the year CSPI realized the jig was up and they had to support the elimination of trans fat.

As reported in my 2015 article, “Did CSPI Kill Millions by Recommending Trans Fats?” CSPI rigorously campaigned for trans fat prior to 1993, resulting in an avalanche of ill health. (Should I mention that in December 1993 the AHA wrote in the journal Circulation that they didn’t believe Americans consumed enough trans fat to have a major effect on their LDL and HDL levels?20)

Post 1993, CSPI spent the next two decades raising funds to lobby against the very same trans fat they’d once promoted. Perhaps CSPI is just angry because I won’t let them get away with hiding their deadly history.

For years, CSPI has worked “in the public’s interest” in name only. Now, they’re attacking your right to be informed about the potential benefits of nutritional supplements and how you can bolster your immune system, thus minimizing your risk of COVID-19 and other infections.

My articles report published science. There’s scientific support for discussing the benefits of certain nutrients and inexpensive treatments against COVID-19 and other viral illnesses. It’s not pure speculation, it’s not fake news and it’s not a danger to public health, as CSPI would like everyone to believe.

It Is Time to Expose CSPI’s Lies

CSPI’s campaign in the 80’s switched Americans onto heart disease causing trans fats. CSPI fought against your right to know GMO’s, and is partnered with Bill Gates’ agrichemical PR group – Alliance for Science. CPSI wants vitamins and supplements banned, and is trying to bring an end to the mercola.com website.

Please share the truth about this dangerous group that is bankrolled by billionaires. Email, tweet, text and share by any method possible and help expose the CSPI lies.

Read the full article at Mercola.com.

from: https://healthimpactnews.com/2020/deep-state-trying-to-take-down-mercola-com-and-2-decades-of-alternative-health-information/

Let’s Learn a Bit About Technocracy

The Pressing Dangers of Technocracy

Dr. MercolaGuest
Waking Times

Patrick Wood — an economist, financial analyst and American constitutionalist — has devoted a lifetime to uncovering the mystery of what is controlling most of the craziness we’re currently seeing, and which has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

He’s written two books on this topic: “Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation” and “Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order.” I was intrigued by his work as my own approach is to seek to understand the foundational cause of any given problem.   …

Wood’s foray into the ideology of technocracy began with a chance meeting with Anthony Sutton at a gold conference in the early 1970s. Sutton has written several books about political science, primarily about the Trilateral Commission, which Wood had studied from a financial angle.

They developed a relationship and eventually wound up collaborating on a newsletter and two books, “Trilaterals Over Washington: Volumes 1 and 2,” which have recently been re-released.   …

Definition of Technocracy

So, what is “technocracy”? As explained by Wood, technocracy is a movement that got started in the 1930s during the height of the Great Depression, when scientists and engineers got together to solve the nation’s economic problems. It looked like capitalism and free enterprise was going to die, so they decided to invent a new economic system from scratch.

They called this system “technocracy.” It was to be a resource-based economic system. Rather than basing the economic system on pricing mechanisms such as supply and demand, this system is instead based on energy resources and social engineering. In a nutshell, under this system, companies would be told what resources they’re allowed to use, when, and for what, and consumers would be told what to buy.

“They actually proposed to use an energy script instead of money, and let energy be the determining factor on what was produced, bought and sold, and consumed, and so on. 

‘Technocracy is the science of social engineering. The scientific operation of the entire social mechanism, to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population.’

First off, you’ll see that it’s the science of social engineering. That ought to be enough to make the hair stand up on the back of your head, because who wants to be scientifically engineered by somebody that you don’t know, somebody that doesn’t know you, but rather has this idea that they can reform you, remake you?

But most importantly, you see the economic aspect that they had in mind, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism — that’s all the people in society — to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population.

This was an economic system from the get go, not a political system. And what’s really important to see in that — the big takeaway here — is that technocracy viewed politics and politicians as an unnecessary, irrelevant, and even just a stumbling block to getting on down the road with society.

They proposed to get rid of all the politicians. Just dismiss them. Dismiss the Senate, the Congress, all the elected officials.    

Scientists Stand Above All Other Individuals

As explained by Wood, the technocrats “had this crazy idea that they were better than everybody else.” This philosophy and mindset can be traced back to Henri de Saint-Simon, a French philosopher from around 1800. Saint-Simon is considered the father of scientism, social sciences, transhumanism and technocracy.

He said in one of his essays, “A scientist … is a man who foresees. It is because science provides the means to predict, that it is useful, and the scientists are superior to all other men.” This was the mindset of technocrats in the 1930s, and it’s the same today. In essence, science is used to manipulate society and keep the economic engine running.

Top Technocrats Rescued Through Operation Paperclip

While technocracy began in the U.S., the first country to ever implement it was Nazi Germany under Hitler. …

When technocracy first began in the U.S., it was a membership organization. At its peak, there were more than 500,000 card-carrying, dues-paying members in the United States and Canada. Incidentally, the head of technocracy in Canada was the grandfather of Elon Musk, founder of Tesla and SpaceX. Around the same time, a technocratic organization also got started in Germany.

“As Hitler rose to power, he realized that the technocrats, as an organization, would be competitive with him becoming a dictator. So, he outlawed the Technocratic party in Germany. …It was discovered later by historians that these technocrats, who were banned from meeting, were actually very active during the course of World War II, during Hitler’s reign. They were the statisticians, the mathematicians, the physicists, the engineers for business and so on; that really enabled Hitler’s expansion and dictatorship.

After the war … a top-secret operation [took place] in the United States … called Operation Paperclip, which brought some 1,200 of these top scientists and engineers from Germany to the United States. They sanitized their resumes and installed them into positions of scientific prowess in the United States, like at the national technology agencies.

So, the very same people that were helping Hitler do what he did, completely bypassed the Nuremberg trial. …

Beauty and the Beast

The Trilateral Commission’s co-founder Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Columbia University professor, brought the concept of technocracy into the Commission in 1973, with the financial support of David Rockefeller.

“Brzezinski wrote this book called ‘Between Two Ages — America’s Role in the Technetronic Era.’ It caught Rockefeller’s eye. And so, Rockefeller and Brzezinski became like the beauty and the beast. They went on to form the Trilateral Commission, which declared, from Day 1, that they wanted to foster a new international economic order.


The Trilateral Commission more or less took over the Jimmy Carter administration, and has dominated the political structure ever since….

Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton were all members. Within two weeks of his inauguration, Barack Obama appointed 11 Trilateral Commission members to top-level positions in his administration, equivalent to 12% of the Commission’s entire U.S. membership.1

What the technocrats are doing is making an end run around national sovereignty. Rather than a frontal assault on the system, which has never been successful, they’ve simply eroded national sovereignty piece by piece.

Their last great power grab in the U.S. was the 9/11 tragedy. It allowed them to push through the Patriot Act, which sacrificed many of our freedoms in one fell swoop. They’re in the process of doing it again with the current pandemic. It’s quite clear the pandemic is being used to move us toward an authoritarian tyranny.

However, the COVID-19 pandemic has provided a platform that will dwarf their 9/11 power-grab and radically increase their ability to continue to erode our civil liberties and control our society. If you find this line of reasoning interesting, I think you will enjoy the video below from Really Graceful, which reviews whether or not you’d even notice if you were living under tyranny.

Technocratic Infrastructure

It’s also crucial to understand that the only reason they’ve not yet been able to overtake the U.S. is because of our Constitution. We’re the biggest barrier worldwide to implementing technocracy, which is why there’s been so much focus on dismantling the freedoms of Americans. …

Rule by algorithm. Operation by algorithm. This is the big predominant thing we see today. When something doesn’t fit into the algorithm, you’ll hear the term ‘Science says.’ We should do that thing.”

To give you just one rather hilarious real-world example of the technocratic “science says” strategy, here’s a sentence from a recent article in The Sun:3 “People who refuse to wear a face mask to reduce the risk of coronavirus have lower cognitive ability, new research has found.”

Not only is it laughable because it’s illogical, it’s also completely irrelevant, since there’s not a single well-designed study showing that mask wearing lowers the spread of viral infections. For the scoop on this, see my interview with Denis Rancourt.

Rule by Algorithm

Initially, science is used to issue suggestions, but those suggestions rapidly turn into mandates. We’ve repeatedly seen that with vaccines, for example. But the COVID-19 pandemic has also revealed there’s a much larger plan that includes implantable digital identifications, medical records and vaccine passports, digital currency and banking — all of which will ultimately be tied together so that algorithms and automation will be able to keep everyone in line, everywhere, all the time. …

Data Is the New Oil

In her book, “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism,” professor Shoshana Zuboff exposes the stunning capacities currently available to surveil, analyze and manipulate our behavior. It’s crucial to realize that as bad as it is today, the predictive power of technology is advancing at an exponential rate, which means their ability to manipulate behavior is increasing at a pace we cannot fully comprehend.   …

What’s the Ultimate Goal?

For instance, years ago, if you searched for a holistic medicine topic, many of my articles would appear at the top of your search. In June 2019, Google quietly started to eliminate Mercola.com from search results. I discussed this in “Google Buries Mercola in Their Latest Search Engine Update, Part 1 and Part 2.”

“You haven’t done anything different. You’re still doing exactly what you did, but Google is treating you as a non-person now,” Wood says.

Google has this power to present information that it wants you to hear or see, and they can manipulate minds and mindsets. …  It’s just amazing. They even said, internally, that they believe they have the power to take the 2020 election away from Trump because of this very feature. Well, wait a minute.

If any person or organization sets themselves up intentionally to overthrow the government of the United States, I think there’s a term for that. It’s called sedition….

 

It doesn’t really have to do with a class of people that they’re censoring, it has to do with the topics that are being censored. That’s the key thing here to understand. One of the key topics today that they are so in love with is this idea of global manipulation of the human [gene] pool, to get the medical hooks into your body.

This is social engineering at its extreme, where they’re not only engineering the society around you, the environment around you, they also want to engineer you personally….

Sustainable Development Isn’t What You Think

Wood also explains why “sustainable development” goals, which sound like a good thing, really aren’t. The United Nations has declared that sustainable development is going to be the new economic system of the future. It’s a resource-based economic system based on energy.

“A couple of years ago, the head of climate change at the UN, Christiana Figueres, gave a press conference in Europe and she said, ‘This is the first time in the history of mankind that we’re setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.’


Their vision for the future of society is this sustainable future where they will control all the resources and all the consumption. In other words, they will tell businesses what they’re allowed to build and they will tell consumers what they’re allowed to consume. …

This is the science of social engineering here. They have the science, you just have to follow and do what they tell you to do. ….”

Taking Back Local Government Is Key

Importantly, what the technocrats are doing is making an end run around national sovereignty. Rather than a frontal assault on the system, which has never been successful, they’ve simply eroded national sovereignty piece by piece. Wood also reviews what we can do to save our republic and thwart the steady march of technocracy:

“I believe very strongly that local activism is the only way to rebuild our country, if there is going to be any rebuilding at all. Local activism — because this is how they got us. They built [the technocratic system] from the bottom up. We cannot tear their house down from the top down. It’s simply is just not going to happen. They’re too powerful,” Wood says.

 

One of the most important elected local officials that you should concern yourself with is your sheriff. They are responsible for enforcing tyrannical edicts from local, state and federal government, and if they choose not to, government has no power. City councils also have a lot of power. They can pass binding resolutions to protect citizens against the technocratic agendas. …

What is Agenda 21? It is the keystone document for Sustainable Development. It was developed in 1992 at the Rio de Janeiro conference of the United Nations’ first Earth summit. This became the agenda for the 21st century. The doctrine that came to be known as Agenda 21 came from a book written by Trilateral Commission member Gro Harlem Brundtland, called “Our Common Future.”

Citizens for Free Speech

We cover a lot of information in this interview, so be sure to listen to it in its entirety, or read through the transcript for more. Also consider picking up one or both of his books, “Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation” and “Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order.”

Wood’s nonprofit organization, Citizens for Free Speech, is another excellent resource where you can learn more about your constitutional rights and how to communicate your ideas to others. For a small donation, Citizens for Free Speech also offers a laminated No Mask Card that you can wear on a lanyard, explaining your First Amendment Right to disobey local mask mandates.

from:    https://www.wakingtimes.com/2020/08/10/the-pressing-dangers-of-technocracy/

Check out the link for the full article

 

The Billionaires’ Plandemic

COVID Advances New World Order – The Empire of Billionaires

Dr. MercolaGuest
Waking Times

The COVID-19 pandemic is being used to facilitate the efforts of a select few to create a one-world government with power concentrated in the hands of an elitist group of billionaires.

In March 2020, the United Nations New World Order (UNNWO) announced their annual International Day of Happiness global campaign, along with a call for solidarity and unity in the global fight against COVID-19.1 The campaign theme, according to UNNWO, was:2

“… a call on all 7.8 billion members of the global human family, and all 206 nations and territories of planet earth, to unite in solidarity, and steadfast resolve, in fighting back against the COVID 19 Coronavirus …”

 

 

While the UNNWO sustainability goals, such as addressing poverty, hunger, polluted waterways, and more, sound admirable,3 they rely on one-world government manipulations such as media censorship, mass surveillance of citizens and total governmental control of your health care decisions, as I will explain in detail in this article.

One clear example of the dangers of one-world initiatives is the World Health Organization’s Immunization Agenda 2030, in which the aim is to vaccinate everyone across the globe.4

Bill Gates of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, a big WHO funder, has stated he intends to vaccinate the global population against COVID-19,5 and then track and monitor each person through digital surveillance.6 The Rockefeller Foundation also supports mass-tracking of the citizenry — all under the guise of “public health.”7 The reasoning for this is to stop the pandemic.

But, will a gigantic global disease surveillance system created under the pretext of COVID-19 be dismantled once the pandemic is declared over? Or, will it simply morph into other surveillance functions also presented as mechanisms to protect the “public health?”

Vaccine Mania Has Gripped the Nation

As the COVID-19 pandemic passed its six-month mark and the number of reported cases in some countries and states rose, the focus on a vaccine intensified, with numerous vaccine makers vying to be first with results.

That distinction came in mid-July, when the initial results from a clinical trial of a vaccine candidate developed by Moderna, sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, received a positive write-up in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)8 and pleased Wall Street.9

What’s interesting is that Moderna has “never produced an approved vaccine or run a large trial,” according to Stat News. Yet, it seized the COVID-19 opportunity10 and forged ahead. When you think about it, though, the exuberance over the vaccine candidate is irrational.

First, as with all vaccines, adverse effects can and will sometimes occur. Even fiercely pro-vaccine advocates have expressed concerns about possible adverse effects of a hurried-up COVID-19 vaccine.

Another concern is that contact tracing and computer apps to determine the whereabouts and contacts of a person who may have been exposed are much too aggressive. For example, even if someone has no symptoms of COVID-19, governments, whether local or national, will have the ability to quarantine a person against their will, according to a YouTuber who recounts her contact tracing training in a video.15

Moreover, according to top legal scholar Alan Dershowitz,16 a 115-year-old U.S. Supreme Court ruling allows authorities to legally inoculate someone with a vaccine against their will for the purpose of safeguarding public health. On the other hand, they cannot do so if the vaccine is intended only to protect a person’s personal health, he says.

Media Matters Pushes Censorship of Vaccine Safety Groups

A smear piece from Media Matters, titled “The Most Notorious Anti-Vax Groups Use Facebook to Lay the Groundwork Against the Novel Coronavirus Vaccine,”19 lays the groundwork for discrediting the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), Children’s Health Defense and Informed Consent Action Network. The article begins by casting such groups as a threat during COVID-19:20

“As novel coronavirus cases spike in the U.S. and numerous efforts are underway to develop a vaccine, the most prominent U.S. anti-vaccination organizations are using Facebook and other social media platforms to poison the well against a potential vaccine.”

Media Matters is angry that Facebook allows the groups’ social media communications to appear educational rather than branding them as “vaccine misinformation.” This is especially important, writes Media Matters, because support for vaccination among the general public is falling:21

Vaccination Is Becoming a Hard Sell

Media Matters cites a 2014 study published in the journal Pediatrics22 that identified four ways in which the desirability of vaccination is promoted and how none of the messages is working. The four attempts to “reduce vaccine misperceptions and increase vaccination rates for measles-mumps-rubella (MMR)” were listed by the journal as:23

  • Information explaining the lack of evidence that MMR causes autism from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  • Textual information about the dangers of the diseases prevented by MMR from the Vaccine Information Statement
  • Images of children who have diseases prevented by the MMR vaccine
  • A dramatic narrative about an infant who almost died of measles from a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention fact sheet

Media Matters Has a Huge Influence on Mainstream Media

Media Matters’ initial $2 million in funding came from wealthy progressives via the Tides Foundation,28 with additional funding from MoveOn.org and the New Democrat Network, according to National Review.29 In 2010, George Soros, one of the richest people in the world, gave the group $1 million, according to The New York Times.30

The self-proclaimed “fact checking group,” founded by conservative-turned-progressive David Brock,31 states that its mission is to counteract conservative media, and it has been very successful.

COVID-19 and Vaccines Are a Pathway to Billionairehood

Forbes compiled a list of 10 health care billionaires who have profited since COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic. Topping the list was Stéphane Bancel, CEO of Moderna, whose vaccine candidate trial results were published by NEJM.38 According to Forbes:39

“When the WHO declared a pandemic, Bancel’s estimated net worth was some $720 million. Since then, Moderna’s stock has rallied more than 103%, lifting his fortune to an estimated $1.5 billion. A French citizen, Bancel first joined the billionaire ranks on April 2, when Moderna’s stock rose on the news that the firm was planning to begin phase two trials of its vaccine.”

Bancel is far from the only person who has become a “biotech billionaire” thanks to the lucrative development of COVID-19 vaccines, treatments and diagnostic tools solicited by governments and funded by taxpayers. Others include:40

1.Gustavo Denegri — With a net worth of $4.5 billion, Denegri has a 45% stake in the Italian biotech company DiaSorin.

2.Seo Jung-Jin — With a net worth of $8.4 billion, Jung-Jin co-founded Celltrion, a biopharma company in Seoul.

3.Alain Mérieux — With a net worth of $7.6 billion, Mérieux’s grandfather founded BioMérieux, a French multinational biotech company.

4.Maja Oeri — With a net worth of $3.2 billion, Oeri is a descendent of Fritz Hoffmann-La Roche, the founder of pharmaceutical giant Roche and owns about 5% of Roche’s shares.

5.Leonard Schleifer — With a net worth of $2.2 billion, Schleifer’s wealth is attributed to Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, which he co-founded.

6.George Yancopoulos — With a net worth of $1.2 billion, Yancopoulos is Regeneron’s chief scientific officer.

7.and 8. Thomas and Andreas Struengmann — With a net worth of $6.9 billion, the Struengmann twins sold their generic drug company Hexal to Novartis in 2005 and have other biotech investments.

9.Li Xiting — With a net worth of $12.6 billion, Xiting cofounded Mindray Medical International, China’s largest medical equipment producer.

Pandemic Profiteering Has Increased the Wealth Gap

The Empire of Billionaires Is a Threat to Public Safety

In summary, as biotech billionaires rush in to profit from the COVID-19 pandemic, your privacy rights are being violated through tracking and contact tracing, and your right to refuse a vaccine may be in jeopardy if it is deemed for the public good. At the same time the very media that should be promoting your right to free speech and to question government’s decisions for your body is advocating for having those rights taken away.

Through the pursuit of an artificial vaccine, natural immunity to viruses like COVID-19 will not occur and future pandemics are assured. But that means mass vaccination will have to be repeated over and over again, which is good news for the pandemic profiteers. But is it good for you?

from:    https://www.wakingtimes.com/2020/07/29/covid-advances-new-world-order-the-empire-of-billionaires/

(Check out link for expanded version of the article)

Dr. Mercola On Bill Gates

(This is a long article, but definitely worth the read or go to THE CORBETT REPORT with James Corbett and watch the 4 PART EXPOSE.)

Deconstructing Bill Gates’ Agenda

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola Fact Checked

Story at-a-glanc

  • Gates has used his staggering wealth to buy control, and he’s done it under the cloak of “charity.” A significant piece of that control is the control over population growth. Gates’ family also has a long history of supporting eugenics
  • According to Gates, the global population could be lowered by 10% to 15% if we “do a really great job on new vaccines, health care [and] reproductive health services.” His theory is that as health improves, families opt to have fewer children
  • In 2017, Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance — founded by the Gates Foundation in partnership with the WHO, the World Bank and vaccine manufacturers — decided to provide every child with a digital biometric identity to ensure 100% vaccine coverage
  • Gates has also invested in the development and implementation of biometric identification programs tied in with digital currencies
  • Ultimately, the plan is to connect everything together — our identity, finances, medical data, vaccine records and more — at which point we will be 100% enslaved

In “How Bill Gates Monopolized Global Health,” I featured Parts 1 and 2 of investigative journalist James Corbett’s report on this unelected global health czar.

Part 1 reviewed how Gates ended up in a position to monopolize global health, despite his lack of health or medical education. In Part 2, he laid out Gates’ plan to vaccinate the global population against COVID-19 (although there’s no reason to imagine the plan would remain limited to a single vaccine).

Here, in Parts 3 and 4, which you’ll find in the playlist above, Corbett dives into the motives, ideology and connections of Gates that appear to have shaped and are driving his post-COVID-19 plans for the world — plans that include an unprecedented campaign to control the global population in its totality, from cradle to grave.

Population Control Is a Chief Aim

As noted by Corbett, Gates has used his staggering wealth to buy control, and he’s done it under the cloak of “charity.” A significant piece of that control is the control over population growth.

Indeed, a meeting1 in May 2009 between Sir Paul Nurse, then-president of Rockefeller University, Warren Buffet, David Rockefeller Jr., George Soros, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey, revolved around how these billionaires could use their wealth to curb population growth — without the input or interference of government agencies.

According to an article2 in The Sunday Times, they met at the request of Gates to discuss “joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.” The article continues:

“Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, said the summit was unprecedented. ‘We only learnt about it afterwards, by accident. Normally these people are happy to talk good causes, but this is different — maybe because they don’t want to be seen as a global cabal,’ he said … Taking their cue from Gates they agreed that overpopulation was a priority …

Another guest said there was ‘nothing as crude as a vote’ but a consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat … ‘They need to be independent of government agencies, which are unable to head off the disaster we all see looming.’”

According to Gates, the global population could be lowered by 10% to 15% if we “do a really great job on new vaccines, health care [and] reproductive health services.” His theory is that “as health improves, families choose to have less children … As you improve health, within a half generation the population growth rate goes down.”

Vaccines to Reduce Fertility

Alas, as Corbett notes,3 “the idea of using vaccines as sterilization agents — even without the public’s knowledge or consent — is not conspiracy lore, but documentable fact.”

He points out an excerpt from the Rockefeller Foundation’s 1968 annual report4 and five-year review, which under the heading “Problems of Population,” states that “very little work is in progress on immunological methods, such as vaccines, to reduce fertility, and much more research is required if a solution is to be found here.”

To address the problem, the Rockefeller Foundation vowed to solicit and fund “established and beginning investigators to turn their attention to aspects of research in reproductive biology that have implications for human fertility and its control.”

In 1972, the Rockefeller-funded Population Council joined forces with the World Health Organization, creating the Task Force on Vaccines for Fertility Regulation, and in 1995, the task force reported they had developed a prototype of an anti-hCG vaccine that would prevent women from carrying a baby to term.

In the early 1990s, “a series of scandals over WHO-led vaccination programs in the Third World led to allegations that tetanus vaccines in places like the Philippines5 and Kenya6 were being laced with hCG in order to implement population control by stealth,” Corbett says. The subsequent controversy chilled campaigns promoting population control via vaccines.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation revived the concept during its 2012 Summit on Family Planning in London, when it was announced the foundation will fund research, development and deployment of “injectable contraceptives,” aimed at the developing world.

“But the Gates were not content to stop there,” Corbett says. “In 2014 it was announced that Microchips Biotech, Inc., a company in Lexington, Massachusetts, had developed a new form of birth control: ‘a wireless implant that can be turned on and off with a remote control and that is designed to last up to 16 years.’

According to MIT Technology Review, the idea originated when Bill Gates visited Robert Langer’s MIT lab in 2012 and asked him if it would be possible to create an implantable birth control device that could be turned on or off remotely.

Langer referred Gates to the controlled release microchip technology he had invented and licensed to MicroCHIPS Biotechnology, and the Gates Foundation granted $20 million to the firm to develop the implants.

Reducing population growth has, by Gates’ own admission, been a core mission of the Gates Foundation since its inception. But in order to really understand what Gates means by ‘population control,’ we have to look beyond the concept of controlling population size. At its most fundamental level, the ‘population control’ that Gates speaks of is not birth control, but control of the population itself.”


Controlling the Population Through Technology

Part 3 continues by reviewing the work of Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance, which was founded by the Gates Foundation in partnership with the WHO, the World Bank and various vaccine manufacturers.

In 2017, Gavi decided to provide every child with a digital biometric identity, which would simultaneously store the child’s vaccination records. Without such a system, a 100% immunization rate simply cannot be reached, Gavi CEO Seth Berkley stated.

Shortly thereafter, Gavi became a founding member of the ID2020 Alliance, alongside Microsoft and the Rockefeller Foundation. In 2019, Gates again collaborated with Langer to develop a novel vaccine delivery method using fluorescent microdot tags — essentially creating an invisible “tattoo” — that can then be read with a modified smartphone.

“It should be no surprise, then, that Big Pharma vaccine manufacturers — in their scramble to produce the coronavirus vaccine that, Gates assures us, is necessary to ‘go back to normal’ — have turned to a novel vaccine delivery method: a dissolvable microneedle array patch,” Corbett says.

“As in so many other aspects of the unfolding crisis, Gates’ unscientific pronouncement that we will need digital certificates to prove our immunity in the ‘new normal’ of the post-coronavirus world is now being implemented by a number of governments.”

Corbett also reviews the rapid development and implementation of biometric identification programs tied in with digital currencies. Undoubtedly, the plan is to connect everything together — your identification, personal finances, medical and vaccination records. Most likely, it will also be embedded on your body, for your own “convenience,” so you cannot lose it. Never mind the fact that everything that can be hacked at some point has been or will be.

“The ID control grid is an essential part of the digitization of the economy,” Corbett says. “And although this is being sold as an opportunity for ‘financial inclusion’ of the world’s poorest in the banking system provided by the likes of Gates and his banking and business associates, it is in fact a system for financial exclusion.

Exclusion of any person or transaction that does not have the approval of the government or the payment providers …

The different parts of this population control grid fit together like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. The vaccination drive ties into the biometric identity drive which ties into the cashless society drive.

In Gates’ vision, everyone will receive the government-mandated vaccinations, and everyone will have their biometric details recorded in nationally administered, globally integrated digital IDs.

These digital identities will be tied to all of our actions and transactions, and, if and when they are deemed illegal, they will simply be shut off by the government — or even the payment providers themselves.”

Indeed, if you think online censorship is bad, consider a world in which your online activity is tied to your biometric chip with all your finances and personal data. What easier way to silence people than to block access to their own money? I’m sure there are many other ways in which such a system could be used to control any and all individuals.

“Only the most willfully obtuse could claim to be unable to see the nightmarish implications for this type of all-seeing, all-pervasive society, where every transaction and every movement of every citizen is monitored, analyzed, and databased in real-time by the government.

And Bill Gates is one of those willfully obtuse people,” Corbett says. “This Gates-driven agenda is not about money. It is about control. Control over every aspect of our daily lives, from where we go, to who we meet, to what we buy and what we do.”

Gates Family History

What drives a man who is rich beyond imagination to spend his life devising schemes to control the human population? Corbett asks. Surely, something other than money must be driving Gates’ insatiable lust for control. To answer that question, Corbett surveys Gates’ family history.

Both his great-grandfather, J.W. Maxwell, and his grandfather, Willard Maxwell, were bankers. Gates’ grandmother, Adele, was a prominent civic leader. His mother, Mary Maxwell Gates, served as director of several companies, including First Interstate Bancorp and KIRO-TV of Seattle. She was also a regent at the University of Washington, and served on the board of the United Way of America.

Gates’ father, William H. Gates, Sr., was a prominent lawyer who co-founded a powerful law and lobbying firm. He also served on several corporate and organizational boards, and headed up Planned Parenthood. As noted by Corbett:7

“From his mother’s banking family he inherited a ‘nose for the dollar,’ as one childhood friend’s father called it. From his hard-driving legal-minded father, he learned the value of legalizing business arrangements … A ‘nose for the dollar’ and a knowledge of how to use the legal system to get what you want were not the only things to emerge from Bill Gates’ childhood, however.

His parents also encouraged discussion about the family’s charity work and the causes they held close to their heart. As Gates revealed to Bill Moyers in 2003, those causes included ‘the population issue’ which sparked a lifelong interest in ‘reproductive health’ …

The topic is particularly controversial, because ‘population control’ and ‘reproductive health’ have been used for half a century as a euphemism for eugenics, the discredited pseudoscience that holds that certain families are fit to be leaders of society by virtue of their superior genes …

As transparent as it seems to us today that this ideology was a self-serving self-justification for the ruling class, it was quickly taken up as the great social crusade of the early 20th century …

A common eugenicist argument was that the scarce resources of society should not be used to support the lower classes, as that only encouraged more of their kind. Instead, life-saving medical care and intervention should be rationed so that those resources can be best put to use elsewhere.

So-called negative eugenicists even took things further, with some, like famed playwright George Bernard Shaw, calling for people to be called before a state-appointed board to justify their existence or be put to death.”

Gates Drives the Modern Eugenics Agenda

As noted by Corbett, eugenics was shunned following the second World War thanks to the atrocious acts of the Nazi’s, yet support for it didn’t die out. Instead, the concept of eugenics simply changed into discussions about population control and reproductive health.

“It is worth questioning why this man, who openly muses about death panels and the trade-offs of providing health care to the elderly, is to be taken completely at face value in his attempts to slow population growth in the third world or to handle a coronavirus health crisis that primarily affects the elderly.

That the Gates agenda is being driven by a eugenicist ideology is suggested by multiple lines of evidence, both historical and current,” Corbett says.8

Like the Maxwell/Gates family, the Rockefeller family has also been funding and promoting eugenics around the world. They even funded the Eugenics Record Office, a department of the Carnegie Institution of Washington Station for Experimental Evolution at Cold Spring Harbor New York.9

As explained on the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory website,10 the Eugenics Record Office “was devoted to the collection and analysis of American family genetics and traits history records.” The studies “collected information such as inborn physical, mental and temperamental properties to enable the family to trace the segregation and recombination of inborn or heritable qualities.”

William Welch, the founding director of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, sat on the Eugenics Record Office board of directors, and the Rockefellers sponsored eugenics researchers at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes in Germany, including Ernst Rüdin, who drafted Nazi Germany’s forced sterilization law.

When the American Eugenics Society closed its doors, its long-time director, Frederick Osborne, became the president of the Population Council — another Rockefeller-funded organization. In his 2009 book, “Showing Up for Life,” Gates Sr. expresses his admiration for the Rockefellers’ decades’ long commitment to and involvement in public health, including their support of vaccination programs.

Epstein’s Controlled Breeding Program

“But the most salacious hints of a deeper agenda are not to be found in the Gates’ public associations, but in the associations that they have tried to hide from the public,” Corbett says. One curious and highly suspicious connection is Gates’ apparent involvement with the now-infamous sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

While Gates has denied knowing Epstein, media reports claim they met on multiple occasions, and were in discussions about co-creating a charitable fund with seed money from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and JPMorgan Chase. Corbett notes:

“According to The Times, Gates emailed his colleagues about Epstein in 2011: ‘His lifestyle is very different and kind of intriguing although it would not work for me.’

Epstein’s will even named Boris Nikolic — a Harvard-trained immunologist who served as the chief scientific advisor to both Microsoft and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and who appears in the sole publicly known photo of Epstein and Gates’ 2011 meeting at Epstein’s Manhattan mansion — as the backup executor of Epstein’s estate.

It is not difficult to see why Gates would try to distance himself from his relationship with a child sex trafficker … But, as it turns out, the attempt to suppress the Gates-Epstein story may have been an attempt to suppress the revelation of an altogether different shared interest …

The already scarcely believable Jeffrey Epstein story took another bizarre turn in August of 2019, when it was reported that Epstein ‘Hoped to Seed the Human Race With His DNA.’11

As The New York Times explained, Epstein’s plan to impregnate 20 women at a time at his New Mexico ranch in order to ‘seed the human race with his DNA’ — plan he told to a number of the ‘scientific luminaries’ he kept in his orbit — put a modern gloss on a very old idea.”

One of those scientific “luminaries” was George Church, a Harvard geneticist who received funding for various projects from Epstein’s foundation, and who brought forth a proposal for a “genetics dating app.” Epstein and Gates both funded a startup company seeking to use gene editing to eliminate diseases.

It’s Time to See the Global Agenda for What It Is

“We cannot expect an answer about Bill Gates true motives to come from Gates himself. By this point the question of Bill Gates’ intentions has been buried under the combined weight of hundreds of millions of dollars of paid PR spin,” Corbett says.

“Now we must confront the question of why this man is motivated to build such a web of control — control over our public health agencies. Control over our identities. Control over our transactions. And even control over our bodies …

We must confront the possibility that this quest for control comes not from a selfless spirit of generosity that never seemed to exist before he became a multi-billionaire, but from the same drive for money, the same desire for domination and the same sense of superiority that motivated him on his way up the corporate ladder.

But if the answer to the question “Who is Bill Gates” is “Bill Gates is a eugenicist,” that tells us some important things about the world that we are living in … If Bill Gates is a eugenicist, driven by a belief in the superiority of himself and his fellow wealthy elitists, then what we are facing is not one man, or even one family, but an ideology.

This is not a trivial point. One man, whatever his wealth, can be stopped easily enough. But even if Bill Gates were to be thrown in jail tomorrow, the agenda that has already been set in motion would continue without missing a beat.

An entire infrastructure of researchers, labs, corporations, governmental agencies and public health bodies exists … driven by the belief of all those millions of people working for these various entities that they are truly working in the best interest of the people.

No, an ideology cannot be stopped by stopping one man. It can only be stopped when enough people learn the truth about this agenda and the world of total, pervasive control that is coming into view. If you have watched all four parts of this exploration on Bill Gates, then you are now one of the most informed people on the planet about the true nature of this agenda …

If you have made it this far, it is incumbent on you to help inoculate those around you against the corrupt ideology of Bill Gates and all those who seek to control the population of the world. You must help to spread this information so that others have a chance to see the bigger picture and decide for themselves whether they are willing to roll up their sleeves and accept what is coming, or not.”

from:   https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/06/13/bill-gates-agenda.aspx

Fudging the Numbers, Fueling the Fears

How Does COVID-19 Compare to the Spanish Flu?

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola
Fact Checked
May 02, 2020

Story at-a-glance

  • While COVID-19 meets the technical definition of a pandemic, the death toll is nowhere near that of earlier serious pandemics that would legitimately justify the extraordinary measures being deployed by the U.S. government
  • An estimated 75 million to 200 million people in Eurasia and as much as 60% of the European population in rural areas were wiped out by the Black Death (bubonic plague) between 1347 and 1351
  • The Spanish flu (swine flu), which hit during World War I in 1918, infected 500 million people worldwide, killing an estimated 50 million, or 2.7% of the global population
  • Using the higher of two prominent COVID-19 trackers, 238,950 people had died, globally, from COVID-19 as of the afternoon on May 2, 2020. Based on a global population of 7.8 billion, 238,950 deaths amount to 0.003% of the global population
  • Mid-March predictions said COVID-19 would kill 2.2 million Americans if allowed to run its course. April 8, 2020, the Murray Model downgraded the threat to 60,000 dead by August, which is lower than the death toll for the seasonal flu of 2017/2018

While COVID-19 meets the technical definition1 of a pandemic (i.e., “an epidemic occurring worldwide, or over a very wide area, crossing international boundaries and usually affecting a large number of people”), the death toll is nowhere near that of earlier serious pandemics2 that would legitimately justify the extraordinary measures being deployed by the U.S. government and others around the globe.

The Black Death

For comparison, the “Black Death,” which swept through Europe between 1347 and 1351 and kept resurfacing at intervals for the next 300 years, decimated up to one-third of the population with each recurrence.3,4

While the Black Death was long thought to be the same as the bubonic plague, in more recent years, researchers have questioned this assumption,5 and at least some of the evidence suggests they were not the same disease.

Either way, the plague killed 75 million to 200 million people in Eurasia, with deaths peaking in Europe from 1347 to 1351.6 As much as 60% of the European population in rural areas were wiped out by the Black Death in the first four-year-long pandemic wave. People died within days of having symptoms.7 This horrific lethality is typically what people think of when they hear the word “pandemic.”

The Spanish Flu

Similarly, the Spanish flu (aka, swine flu), which hit during World War I in 1918, infected 500 million people worldwide, killing an estimated 50 million, or 2.7% of the global population.8

It killed 675,000 in the U.S. alone — more than died in combat during World War I, World War II, the Korean, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined, according to the historical documentary above.

Like the bubonic plague, the Spanish flu was a very rapid killer, causing death in as little as 12 hours. Like the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, the virus also spread very easily and rapidly. Unlike COVID-19, however, people between the ages of 20 and 40 were most susceptible to the infection.

With COVID-19, it’s the elderly and immune compromised that are at greatest risk, but even in these high-risk groups, the mortality rate is nowhere near that of the Spanish flu.

COVID-19

Data points vary, and mortality statistics differ widely depending on the country and area you’re looking at, but using the higher of two prominent COVID-19 trackers — Worldometer,9 opposed to Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center10 — 238,950 people had died, globally, from COVID-19 as of the afternoon on May 2, 2020.

Based on a global population of 7.8 billion,11 238,950 deaths amount to 0.003% of the global population. Even if this tally is off by hundreds of thousands, we’re still only looking at a fraction of a percent of the global population succumbing to COVID-19 in three and a half months.

April 15, there were also 1,403,420 active cases, 96% of which were mild and only 4% of which were serious or critical,12 so clearly, a vast majority of people who are infected make it through and end up having antibodies that will confer long-term immunity.

I for one could see shutting down the global economy for a true plague or something much like the Spanish flu, but COVID-19 simply doesn’t warrant the draconian elimination of personal freedom and liberty we’re currently seeing. Nor is it serious enough to warrant the kinds of long-term surveillance strategies suggested by Bill Gates


Understand What’s Happening Right Now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmHRYzF0dyQ&feature=emb_logo

The Corbett Report above is well worth listening to if you’re still on the fence and think the way we’re going is a good idea to safeguard the vulnerable. Remember, infectious diseases have been with us since the dawn of mankind, and are not going to stop. Ever.

Right now, we’re being told that we have to forgo our civil liberties because we might spread a virus to a potentially vulnerable individual, and if that happens, we’re culpable in their death. So, to prevent “mass homicide” from occurring by people moving about freely, we’re told we have to isolate ourselves and stop living.

Yet every single flu season throughout history, people have moved about, spreading the infection around. Undoubtedly, most people who have ever left their house with a cold, stomach bug or other influenza at any point in the past has unwittingly spread the infection to others, some of which may have ended up with a serious case of illness and some of which may ultimately have died from it.

There is simply no way to prevent such a chain of events in perpetuity. Giving up our civil liberties in an effort to prevent all future deaths from infectious disease is profoundly misguided, and ultimately will not work anyway.

From my perspective, the only mitigating factor in this analysis is that there appears to be solid, well-documented evidence that this is an engineered virus, one that was constructed in biosafety level 3 and 4 labs that are focused on offensive biological weapons research. This may result in unprecedented adverse biological adaptions that impair innate immunity. But at this time, I seriously doubt it.

Mortality Predictions Fall Apart

Mid-March predictions said COVID-19 would kill 2.2 million Americans if allowed to run its course.13 By the end of March, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, downgraded the projected death toll, saying we were probably looking at 100,000 to 240,000 Americans dying.14

April 8, 2020, a new model referred to as the Murray Model15 downgraded the threat further, predicting COVID-19 will kill 60,000 in the U.S. by August16 — a number that is still 20,000 lower than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s death toll numbers attributed to the seasonal flu the winter of 2017/2018.17

In the Liberty Report video above, Dr. Ron Paul, former GOP congressman, also points out that Fauci’s “doom and gloom predictions” have completely collapsed, “with the new official prediction coming in under the normal flu numbers for 2018.”

If COVID-19 is not causing any greater death toll than the regular flu season two years ago, why are we now asked to end society as we know it well into the foreseeable future? There’s no doubt in my mind that there will be far more deaths attributable to the financial collapse and isolation than there will be from the actual infection.

H1N1 Swine Flu Pandemic Response Was a Gift to Big Pharma

The H1N1 swine flu of 2009 was the most recent pandemic of note, and considering Fauci and Gates are both saying we won’t be able (read, allowed) to go back to any semblance of normalcy until or unless we have a vaccine and enforce mandatory vaccination of the global population, it’s worth remembering what happened during the 2009 swine flu pandemic.

The CDC estimates that from April 12, 2009, to April 10, 2010, there were 60.8 million cases of H1N1 infection, 274,000 hospitalizations, and 12,469 deaths (0.02% infection fatality rate/mortality rate) in the United States.

June 11, 2009, the World Health Organization declared a global pandemic of novel influenza A (H1N1).18 A vaccine was rapidly unveiled, and within months, cases of disability and death from the H1N1 vaccine were reported in various parts of the world.

In the aftermath, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) questioned the WHO’s handling of the pandemic. In June 2010, PACE concluded “the handling of the pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO), EU health agencies and national governments led to a ‘waste of large sums of public money, and unjustified scares and fears about the health risks faced by the European public.’”19

Specifically, PACE concluded there was “overwhelming evidence that the seriousness of the pandemic was vastly overrated by WHO,” and that the drug industry had influenced the organization’s decision-making.20 As reported by the Natural Society in 2014:21

“… a joint investigation by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ) has uncovered some serious conflicts of interest between the World Health Organization (WHO), who proposed … heavy vaccinations, and the pharmaceutical companies which created them.

The joint-investigation’s report explains that the WHO profited immensely22 from the scare tactics they utilized to promote the use of a swine flu vaccine.

Creating mass hysteria was the WHO’s emergency advisory committee’s goal … The WHO told the world that up to 7 million people could die without the vaccines they were pushing … The advisory panel was choked with individuals highly connected to the pharmaceutical companies with vested interests in both antiviral and influenza vaccines.

An over $4 billion stake was invested in developing these vaccines, and without a pandemic there would be no use for them. Utilizing propaganda and fear, the drugs were pushed on unsuspecting people, and the money was made.”

Disturbingly, while the WHO was found to have had serious conflicts of interest with the drug industry, nothing has actually changed since then, which makes one wonder whether the WHO’s COVID-19 pandemic response can actually be trusted.

White House Halts Funding to WHO

To Read the rest of the article and get links that may not have been included, go to:    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/05/02/how-does-covid-19-compare-to-the-spanish-flu.aspx

Another Look Into Facebook

Take Control of Your Privacy
3 Reasons to Leave Facebook IMMEDIATELY!
Are you one of over two billion people that use Facebook, the world’s largest social media site?

Facebook has become so deeply ingrained in people’s lives that it has now become the norm to give it access to personal data without much thought, as if this is but a small price to pay for Facebook’s “free” service. But nothing could be further from the truth.

These traceable and sellable data now give Facebook the power to manipulate what we do, how we feel, what we buy and what we believe. The consequences of giving Facebook this much power is only becoming apparent, with mounting lawsuits against their security breaches and lousy privacy settings.

Even CrossFit, the well-established branded fitness regimen, has decided to stop supporting Facebook and its associated services, putting all their activities on Facebook and Instagram to a halt starting May 22, 2019. This decision came in the wake of Facebook’s deletion of the Banting7DayMealPlan user group, which was done without warning or explanation. The group has more than 1.65 million members who post testimonials regarding the efficiency of a low-carb, high-fat diet.

Although the group was later reinstated, Facebook’s action still shows how it acts in the interest of the food and beverage industry. You see, big advertisers on Facebook, like Coca-Cola, don’t want you to have access to this information, and Facebook is more than happy to ban anyone challenging the industrial food system. By doing this, it potentially contributes to the global chronic disease crisis.

Would you continue trusting a company that thinks too little of violating your rights to privacy?

1Facebook’s Primary ‘Product’ Is You

Product

If you think Facebook’s product is the very platform that users interact with, you’re wrong. You are actually Facebook’s primary product. The site makes money off you by meticulously tracking your hobbies, habits and preferences through your “likes,” posts, comments, private messages, friends list, login locations and more. It sells these data, along with your personal information, to whomever wants access to them, potentially facilitating everything from targeted advertising to targeted fraud — this is its entire profit model.

Did you know that it can even access your computer or smartphone’s microphone without your knowledge? So if you’re suddenly receiving ads for products or services that you just spoke out loud about, don’t be surprised — chances are one or more apps linked to your microphone have been eavesdropping on you. These privacy intrusions can continue even after you’ve closed your Facebook account.

Companies can also collect information about the websites you’re visiting or the keywords you’re searching for outside of Facebook’s platform without your permission, and then sell these data to Facebook so it knows which ads to show you. This makes Facebook the most infamous advertising tool ever created, and to increase revenue, it has to continue spying on you.

During Facebook’s early days, its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, assured in an interview that no user information would be sold or shared with anyone the user had not specifically given permission to. However, the site’s blatant disregard for its users’ privacy proves otherwise. In fact, Facebook has been repeatedly caught mishandling user data and lying about their data harvesting, resulting in multiple legal problems.

The origin of Facebook is also far from altruistic, even though it’s said to be created “to make the world more open and connected,” and “give people the power to build community.” A front-runner to Facebook was a site called FaceMash, which was created to rate photos of women — photos that were obtained and used without permission. Some of the women were even compared to farm animals! This speaks volumes about Zuckerberg’s disrespect for privacy. Facebook is basically founded on a misogynistic hate group and it should therefore ban itself.

2Facebook Faces Investigation for Its Lax Security and Privacy Practices

Facebook is currently facing a number of lawsuits regarding its controversial data-sharing practices and poor security measures. Back in 2010, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) revealed that Facebook was sharing user data with third-party software developers without the users’ consent, expressing concerns about the potential misuse of personal information, as Facebook does not track how third parties utilized them.

While Facebook agreed by consent order to “identify risk to personal privacy” and eliminate those risks, they did not actually pay attention to their security lapse. Had they done so, they would’ve been able to prevent the Cambridge Analytica scandal, the main focus of FTC’s first criminal probe. This issue involves Facebook’s deal with a British political consulting firm, allowing it access to around 87 million user data, which was used to influence public opinion in the U.S. presidential election.

Another criminal investigation into Facebook’s data sharing practice is underway. This time, it revolves around Facebook’s partnerships with tech companies and device makers, allowing them to override the users’ privacy settings and giving them broad access to its users’ information.

Amid federal criminal investigations, Zuckerberg announced the company’s latest plan to encrypt messages, so only the sender and the receiver will supposedly be able to decipher what they say. This is ironic, considering it was recently discovered that Facebook stored millions of user passwords in readable plaintext format in its internal platform, potentially compromising the security of millions of its users.

Zuckerberg has repeatedly demonstrated a complete lack of integrity when it comes to fulfilling his promises of privacy. In fact, in a 2010 talk given at the Crunchie awards, he stated that “privacy is no longer a social norm,” implying that using social media automatically strips you of the right to privacy, and that is why they do not respect it.

3Facebook Is a Monopoly

Monopoly

Facebook’s plan to integrate Instagram, Messenger and WhatsApp would turn it into a global super-monopoly. This merger has been criticized by tech experts, as it robs users of their ability to choose between messaging services, leaving them virtually no choice but to submit to Facebook’s invasive privacy settings. This also gives Facebook unprecedented data mining capabilities.

German antitrust regulator, Bundeskartellamt, is the first to prohibit Facebook’s unrestricted data mining, banning Facebook’s services in Germany if it integrates the three messaging platforms. If other countries follow suit, the merger would fall through, as it probably should.

One of the outspoken proponents of breaking up monopolies like Facebook, Google and Amazon is U.S. presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. Her campaign to break up Facebook was censored by the site, taking down three of her ads with a message that said the ads went “against Facebook’s advertising policies.”

After Warren took to Twitter to comment how the censorship simply proves why her proposal was necessary, Facebook then reinstated her ads with the lame excuse that they were only removed because they included Facebook’s logo, which violates the site’s advertising policy.

I’ve Decided — I Am Leaving Facebook

At present, I have nearly 1.8 million Facebook followers, and I am grateful for the support. But a while back, I have expressed my concerns that perhaps I am doing more harm than good by being a part of Facebook, as I could be contributing to the invasive data mining, an idea that never sat well with me.

For those reasons, I decided that leaving the platform and going back to depending on email is the responsible way forward. If you haven’t subscribed to my newsletter yet, I urge you, your family and your friends to sign up now. I polled my audience and they agreed with my decision to leave.

Survey

from:   https://www.mercola.com/forget-facebook.htm

Again, Rethinking Vaccines

Snopes—Nope

Originally published on www.mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • In their purported fact-checking of a report by CBS correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, Snopes spewed propaganda, not real facts, in an attempt to discredit the report and the potential vaccines-autism link
  • Snopes wrote the article without contacting Attkisson, who went on to state that they also listed claims she never made, then declared them to be false, and even were incorrect in one of their own claims
  • It’s dangerous to rely on any one source or group of individuals as authorities on truth, as it sets up the path for inevitable censorship
  • Industry propaganda and censorship of health and media information that strays from the mainstream is a growing problem
  • In your search for the truth, always follow your own guiding light — not one maintained by Snopes or any other internet watchdog or censorship authority that tries to lead you down their own biased path

In the barrage of information you come across daily online, how do you know what’s true and what’s nothing more than hearsay, gossip or all-out lies? Some people use Snopes as their go-to source for online fact-checking, believing it to give the unbiased and credible final word on all those widely-circulated stories.

If you’re relying on Snopes as your arbiter of truth, however, you’re in for a surprise: Snopes engages in massive censorship of natural health and general promotion of industry talking points. What started as a tool to investigate urban legends, hoaxes and folklore has manifested into a self-proclaimed “definitive fact-checking resource” that’s taking on topics like whether or not vaccines can cause autism.

Yet, in their purported fact-checking of a Full Measure report1 by award-winning investigative reporter and former CBS correspondent Sharyl Attkisson,2 Snopes simply spewed propaganda, not real facts, in an attempt to discredit the report and the potential vaccines-autism link. In the end, though, they actually ended up confirming the main point of Attkisson’s report. For this, Attkisson wrote, “Snopes gets an ‘F’ for predictable propaganda in [the] vaccine-autism debate.”

Snopes Attempts to Discredit Investigative Report on Vaccines-Autism Link

Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, a pediatric neurologist, is a pro-vaccine expert witness the U.S. government used to debunk and turn down autism claims in vaccine court. “Zimmerman was the government’s top expert witness and had testified that vaccines didn’t cause autism.

The debate was declared over,” Attkisson reported. “But now Dr. Zimmerman has provided remarkable new information,” she said in the Full Measure report, adding:3

He claims that during the vaccine hearings all those years ago, he privately told government lawyers that vaccines can, and did cause autism in some children. That turnabout from the government’s own chief medical expert stood to change everything about the vaccine-autism debate. If the public were to find out …

And he has come forward and explained how he told the United States government vaccines can cause autism in a certain subset of children and [the] United States government, the Department of Justice [DOJ], suppressed his true opinions.”

Zimmerman declined to be interviewed for the report, but referred Attkisson to his sworn affidavit, dated September 7, 2018, in which he stated that, in 2007, he told DOJ lawyers he had “discovered exceptions in which vaccinations could cause autism.

“I explained that in a subset of children … vaccine-induced fever and immune stimulation … did cause regressive [brain disease] with features of autism spectrum disorder,” Zimmerman wrote.

This reportedly “panicked” the DOJ, which subsequently fired him, saying his services would no longer be needed, but essentially attempting to silence him. According to Zimmerman, the DOJ then went on to misrepresent his opinion in future cases, making no mention of the exceptions he’d informed them of.

“Meantime, CDC [U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] – which promotes vaccines and monitors vaccine safety – never disclosed that the government’s own one-time medical expert concluded vaccines can cause autism – and to this day public health officials deny that’s the case,” according to the Full Measure report.4

Attkisson’s report also reveals how Congressmen who wanted to investigate the autism-vaccine link were bullied, harassed and threatened. Dan Burton (R-IN), Dr. Dave Weldon (R-FL) and Bill Posey (R-FL) are among 11 current and former members of Congress and staff who told Attkisson they were warned by PhRMA lobbyists to drop the vaccine safety issue.

Snopes Gets an ‘F’ for Fact-Checking

In an article that attempts to fact-check Attkisson’s investigation, Snopes calls out many of the claims as false while clearly attempting to “debunk” vaccine-autism claims. However, in a rebuttal, Attkisson explains that Snopes earned a failing grade for its reporting.

“[T]he Snopes article debunks claims that were never made and uses one-sided references as its sources – other propagandists – without disclosing their vaccine industry ties.”5

For starters, Snopes labeled Zimmerman as a supporter of vaccination, as though this was something that Attkisson hid. In contrast, this point was central to Attkisson’s story and a large part of what makes his statements regarding vaccines and autism so noteworthy. Some of the additional egregious tactics Snopes used to try to discredit Attkisson’s report included the following:6

  • Snopes claimed Attkisson’s reading of Zimmerman’s sworn affidavit was flawed when she “simply quoted from the affidavit”
  • Snopes states that Zimmerman’s view is “not held by many scientists,” but did not survey several reputable scientists who hold the view
  • Snopes fails to address what its headline promises: the question of whether the government censored its own expert witness’ opinion

It’s important to note that Snopes also wrote their article without contacting Attkisson, who went on to state that they also listed claims she never made, then declared them to be false, and even were incorrect in one of their own claims, specifically that the existence of a potential link between vaccines, mitochondrial disorder and autism was not news at the time of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services omnibus autism proceedings in 2007.

“In fact, this suspected link was not previously known before the so-called ‘omnibus’ groups of vaccine-autism cases litigated a decade ago, and it is not widely known among doctors or the general public today; at least as of recently. That’s why it has proven to be so newsworthy,” Attkisson wrote, adding:7

Snopes demonstrates reckless disregard for the truth when disparaging my reporting by falsely stating that it contains ‘misleading claims’ …

Refuting claims never made in my report and putting out one-sided vaccine propaganda makes one wonder whether Snopes author Alex Kasprak even read or watched the report he attempts to criticize, or just blindly printed the propaganda provided to him by vaccine industry interests.”

Snopes Author Uses Industry Sources for ‘Facts’

November 16, 2016, Snopes looked into claims made by Food Babe that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) might have shut down its residue testing of glyphosate due to complaints from Monsanto. “False,” Snopes declared.8 Ironically, the page declared that no corporate influence played a role and “the broad scientific consensus is that [glyphosate] is not a risk.”

Yet, a Twitter exchange clearly showed that the fact-checker for Snopes, Kasprak – the same author who wrote the critical review of Attkisson’s investigation – got his information about glyphosate’s safety from Kevin Folta, Ph.D.9

Folta, a University of Florida professor and a vocal advocate of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), who vehemently denied ever receiving any money from Monsanto, was caught lying about his financial ties to the company in 2015. The most flagrant piece of evidence against Folta shows that not only did he solicit funds from Monsanto, but he did so with intent to hide the financial connection between them.

Ironically, getting back to Attkisson’s case, the Snopes report ended up confirming exactly the point she was trying to make, stating, “Zimmerman, a scientist with serious credentials who was once a government expert on vaccines, believes that narrow circumstances might exist in which the combination of preexisting mitochondrial dysfunction and vaccination could trigger ASD [autism spectrum disorders].”10

“Snopes fabricates claims that were never made, debunks the fabricated claims,” Attkisson wrote, “and then ultimately agrees that the report I produced was accurate.”11

Snopes Founders Embroiled in Controversy

It’s dangerous to rely on any one source or group of individuals as authorities on truth, as it sets up the path for inevitable censorship. Even under the best circumstances, everyone is subject to their own biases, but in the case of Snopes, it was founded on fabrications from the start.

Snopes was created in 1995 by Barbara and David Mikkelson, who posed as “The San Fernardo Valley Folklore Society” in the beginning in order to gain credibility. Such a society does not exist as a legal entity, according to an investigation by the Daily Mail.12

The company soon expanded, but ultimately its founders divorced – amid claims that David Mikkelson embezzled company money for prostitutes and Barbara Mikkelson took millions from their joint bank account to buy property in Las Vegas.

According to Daily Mail, Mikkelson’s new wife, Elyssa Young – a former escort, self-proclaimed “courtesan” and porn actress who ran for Congress in Hawaii as a Libertarian in 2004 – was then employed as a Snopes administrator, even though the company claims to have no political leanings.

In response to the allegations, Forbes published an article weighing whether it was just another case of fake news, but ultimately was astonished by the lack of transparency given by the company’s founder when asked for comment, who stated that he was unable to respond due to a confidentiality clause in his divorce settlement. According to Forbes:13

This creates a deeply unsettling environment in which when one tries to fact-check the fact-checker, the answer is the equivalent of ‘its secret’ …

At the end of the day, it is clear that before we rush to place fact-checking organizations like Snopes in charge of arbitrating what is “truth” … we need to have a lot more understanding of how they function internally and much greater transparency into their work.”

Hardcore Censorship of Alternative Health and Media in Progress

Whether it be the recent flu shot stunt at the Golden Globes or the industry-driven “facts” published by Snopes, it’s clear that industry propaganda and censorship of health and media information that strays from the mainstream is a growing problem.

In a 2017 Gallup/Knight Foundation Survey on Trust, Media and Democracy, 73 percent said they believe the proliferation of “fake news” on the internet is a major problem, and only half feel confident that readers can get to the facts by sorting through bias.14 And the fact is, fake news is a real problem. But it’s important to do your own research before believing even “fact-checked” sources like Snopes.

NewsGuard is another outlet to be wary of. The entity is setting itself up as the self-appointed global arbiter of what information is “trustworthy” – based on nine “credibility and transparency” factors – not only for information viewed on private electronic devices, but also for information accessible in public libraries and schools.

Once you’ve installed the NewsGuard browser plugin on your computer or cellphone, the NewsGuard icon rating will appear on all Google and Bing searches and on articles featured in your social media news feeds.

These icons are meant to influence readers, instructing them to disregard content with cautionary colors and cautions, but I believe the true intent will be to bury this content entirely from search results and social media feeds.

It is very likely GoogleFacebook, Twitter and other platforms will use these ratings to lower the visibility of content – making nonconformist views disappear entirely. It’s a concerning prospect, especially since NewsGuard received much of its startup funds from Publicis Groupe, a global communications group whose history of clients includes the drug and tobacco industries.

Now more than ever, it’s important to be aware of what companies may be filtering your news media and how their own agenda may color what you see. In your search for the truth, always follow your own guiding light – not one maintained by Snopes or any other internet watchdog or censorship authority that tries to lead you down their own biased path.

For additional research on the underreported adverse effects of vaccination visit the GreenMedInfo database on the subject. 


References

1, 3, 4 Full Measure January 6, 2019

2, 10 Snopes January 21, 2019

5, 6, 7, 11 SharylAttkisson.com January 21, 2019

8 Snopes November 16, 2016

9 Twitter, Kevin Folta and Alex Kasprak

12 Daily Mail December 21, 2016

13 Forbes December 22, 2016

14 Knight Foundation January 16, 2018

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

GMO’s, Health, Survival

THE PERIL ON YOUR PLATE: FILM EXPLORES THE HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTS OF GENETIC ENGINEERING AND CHEMICAL AGRICULTURE

June 27, 2018

After being told by her doctor that genetically engineered (GE) food and pesticides could be responsible for her son’s food allergies, Ekaterina Yakovleva set out to investigate. Her quest for answers was captured by the Russian Times in the featured film, “The Peril on Your Plate: Genetic Engineering and Chemical Agriculture.”

The film shows Yakovleva and her team traveling the world to meet “the people who lift the lid on the perils of GMOs and the chemicals used in the industry,” as well as proponents of GMOs who argue that genetic engineering is a “high-tech” solution to feeding the world’s growing population. Advocates for genetic engineering tell Yakovleva that the technology is beneficial to farmers in that it increases resistance to pests and disease, as well as produces higher yields. But Yakovleva isn’t convinced.

She learns nothing could be further from the truth after witnessing the devastation caused by mass farmer suicides in India as a result of the failure of Monsanto’s Bt cotton. Yakovleva visits the U.K. where she meets Lady Margaret, Countess of Mar, a member of the House of Lords and a former farmer who suffered from chemical use, and then to the U.S. where she meets with Zen Honeycutt of Moms Across America about the link between GMOs, pesticides and chronic disease in humans.

What Is Genetic Engineering?

In order to better understand genetic engineering and its impact on human health, Yakovleva starts to research the technique and how it’s used. She learns that genetic engineering enables DNA to be transferred not only between different kinds of plants, but even between different kingdoms, meaning scientists can take DNA from an insect or animal and insert it into the genome of a plant.

Many GMO proponents claim that genetic engineering is just an extension of natural breeding methods, and just as safe. Nothing could be further from the truth — on both counts. Genetic engineering is radically different from conventional breeding techniques used to improve a crop. For starters, it’s a laboratory-based technique allowing scientists to create a food that could never be created by nature.

Claire Robinson, editor of GM Watch and coauthor of the book, “GMO Myths and Truths: A Citizen’s Guide to the Evidence on the Safety and Efficacy of Genetically Modified Foods and Crops,” says:

US Leads World in GM Crop Production

Yakovleva learns that an estimated 190 million hectares (469.5 acres) of GE crops1 — an area three times the size of France — are cultivated in 28 countries worldwide.2 The U.S. leads the world in GM crop production, growing about 40 percent,3 while Brazil grows 27 percent and Argentina 13 percent. Canada and India each grow 6 percent.4 GE crops currently in production include squash/pumpkin, alfalfa, sugar beet, potato, papaya, rapeseed oil, corn, soy and cotton.

Monsanto, soon to forgo its name and merge with Bayer, controls a vast majority of GE crops including 80 percent of GE corn and 93 percent of GE soy in the U.S. The first GE crop to hit the market was tobacco. It was genetically modified in 1983 to be resistant to an antibiotic.5 It was later altered for other reasons, including to remove a gene that turns nicotine into a carcinogen in tobacco leaves,6and to increase the amount of nicotine in cigarettes.7

The first genetically engineered food crop was the Flavr Savr tomato, produced by Calgene, a California-based company later bought by Monsanto. The tomato was genetically modified to stay riper longer by inhibiting a gene responsible for producing a protein that makes a tomato soften.8 Calgene is reported to have been transparent in its marketing of the tomato, clearly labeling the product and adding an 800 number for people with questions. Monsanto later removed the Flavr Savr tomato from store shelves.

A Growing List of Countries Say No to GMOs

The film highlights regions that are completely GMO-free, including Romania, which stopped cultivating GE crops despite being the first country in geographical Europe to introduce them.9 Portugal and Spain have reduced the amount of areas under GE crop cultivation,10while a number have enacted a total ban including France, Germany, Austria, Poland, Greece, Switzerland, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

Russia forbids GE crop cultivation,11 but does not prevent GMOs from entering the country’s food chain, according to the film. Yakovleva travels to the Agrarian University in Moscow to meet GMO proponent Arkady Zlochevsky, chairman of the Russian Grain Union. She confronts him about the human health effects of eating GE foods.

“There is absolutely no risk to the human body associated with eating GM foods compared to traditional equivalents, not a single one,” he says, adding that GMOs are “high-tech” and have “significant advantages.” He even went so far as to say that glyphosate, the key active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller, is safer than 100 percent manure.

Glyphosate Doubles as Herbicide and Suicide Poison in India

Unconvinced, Yakovleva travels to India where glyphosate doubles as a lethal human poison. The Punjab region, formally known as the bread basket of India, is now known for colossal suicides among farmers, particularly young farmers between the ages of 20 and 35.

Yakovleva meets with families of farmers who committed suicide. She learns that thousands of farmers have taken their own lives after agriculture corporations granted them loans they could never repay to purchase seeds and pesticides that ultimately failed to provide the profits that were promised.

Inderjit Singh Jaijee, chairman of Punjab’s Baba Nanak Educational Society, says farmers who commit suicide often take drugs, drink alcohol or even take a swig of glyphosate to muster up the courage to go through with it. Singh Jaijee, who is on a mission to raise awareness about the serious issue of suicides in Punjab, says that young farmers are more susceptible because they don’t yet have the experience older people do to survive.

Thousands of Indian Farmers Commit Suicide Over Faulty GE Crops

The amount of suicides in the Punjab region is so massive that some people are making a profit removing dead bodies from a local canal. Ashu Malik, an underwater diver, uses surveillance cameras to monitor the canal for floating bodies. If a body is not claimed, it’s placed back into the water, he says. Ending up in the canal as a result of suicide is so common in this region that families built a house on the canal’s shoreline for them to stay in while they search for their loved ones who are missing.

The exact number of suicides occurring annually in the Punjab region remains unknown. One estimation found the annual suicide rate to be about 2,200. However, Singh Jaijee’s research estimates it to be closer to 4,000 suicides per year, while farmer organizations estimate up to 6,000. Shocked by what’s become a normality for agricultural communities in India, Yakovleva interviews agricultural scientist Kiran Kumar Vissa to learn more about Monsanto’s Bt cotton, the crop responsible for placing so many farmers into debt.

Monsanto’s Bt cotton was marketed as a solution to the challenges faced by cotton farmers, many of whom were in crisis; however, it ended up causing farmers more problems. There are many places where Bt cotton is not suitable for cultivation, including dry, nonirrigated areas, explains Vissa. The packaging says that Bt cotton is suitable for both irrigated and nonirrigated conditions, but it’s not true, says Vissa, adding, that it’s deceptive to farmers.

Big Ag Uses Images of Rich, American Farmers to Sell GMOs Abroad

Next, Yakovleva meets with renowned scholar and environmental activist Vandana Shiva, who blames the mass suicides solely on the corporations that sell the seeds and chemicals. Monsanto spends huge amounts of money on advertising. Between the fiscal years 2011 to 2017, Monsanto spent more than $500 million on advertising worldwide.12

Shiva explains that seed and chemical agents show farmers in India images of American farmers with big tractors and promise them that if they just take this seed, which they can pay for later, they will be rich. But what they don’t tell the farmer is that they can’t save the seed and that it might fail because the seeds aren’t meant for dry, nonirrigated areas, says Shiva.

So, the farmer takes it on credit, not having a good understanding of the costs involved, and the seed fails, Vandana explains, adding that in two years’ time the agents who sold the seed and pesticide return and repossess the farmer’s land because he could not pay his loan. Shiva tells Yakovleva that she has personally spoken to widows whose farmer husbands committed suicide and when she asked what their debt was, they showed her packages of Monsanto’s Bt cotton seed.

Are Farmers Risking Their Health by Using Chemicals?

Yakovleva’s investigation proceeds to the U.K. where she meets with Lady Margaret, Countess of Mar, a member of the House of Lords and a former farmer who suffered from chemical use.

While serving organic tea and pudding, Lady Margaret says she had to give up farming after she was exposed to harmful chemicals while dipping sheep. The sheep dip contained organophosphates, the same class of chemicals to which glyphosate belongs. The chemicals are used as both flame retardants and pesticides. According to National Geographic:

Within weeks of being exposed, Lady Margaret says she began to suffer from intense fatigue and neurological problems. She even felt suicidal. At one point, she was forced to rely on an oxygen tank for up to 16 hours a day. Lady Margaret was ill for three years before doctors diagnosed her with organophosphate poisoning.

Most of Americans Have Glyphosate in Their Bodies

Humans are increasingly testing positive for residues of glyphosate.14 In tests conducted by a University of California San Francisco lab, 93 percent of the participants tested positive for glyphosate residues.15 In the European Union, when 48 members of Parliament volunteered for glyphosate testing, everyone one of them tested positive.16 Humans are exposed to glyphosate via the food they eat, the air they breathe, the water they drink and the lawns, gardens, parks and other environments they frequent.

What impact is this having on human health? To find out, Yakovleva and her team head to the U.S. to meet with Honeycutt, who blames chemicals in our food for the rise in chronic disease. A number of chronic diseases have been linked to pesticides, including autism, cancer, food allergies, endocrine disruption, diabetes and Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease.17

One in 4 females over the age of 30 now has a gluten intolerance, says Honeycutt; however, she believes it’s not gluten that’s the problem, but the glyphosate that’s applied to wheat as a drying agent prior to harvest.

“It’s destroying their gut lining. They can’t process it and then the body acknowledges it as a gluten intolerance,” says Honeycutt, adding that food today not only has more chemicals, but is also less nutritious. Chemical-intensive agriculture has depleted our soils of essential nutrients and has drawn out vitamins and minerals that make our food healthy, she adds.

Long-Term Safety Studies Are Sorely Lacking

Yakovleva and her team reached out to Monsanto regarding the public health concerns tied to its Roundup weed killer, but the company refused to comment, instead directing them to its website which, of course, states that all of their products are safe and environmentally friendly. The deceptive GMO talking points Yakovleva received from the seed and chemical industry failed to convince her that GE crops are safe for human consumption, as there’s no real evidence to support this claim.

While few in number, longer-term animal feeding studies have been published over the past several years showing there’s definite cause for concern. Liver and kidney toxicity and immune reactions tend to be the most prevalent. Digestive system, inflammation and fertility problems have also been seen. A major part of the problem is that safety studies conducted for regulatory purposes to gain market approval for a GE product are too short to show the damage that could occur from life-long consumption of the GE food.

Some independent studies looking at lifetime consumption of GMOs have found rather dramatic health effects, whereas the safety studies used to promote GE foods as safe have all been short-term. There seems to be an agreement among biotech scientists to not test GE foods longer than 90 days in rats, which is only about seven to nine years in human terms. That’s nothing when you consider the average human life span is somewhere in the 70s, and the current generation is fed GMO food from Day 1.

How to Protect Yourself From Toxic Agriculture

The biotech giants have deep pocketbooks and political influence and are fighting to maintain their position of dominance. At the end of the day, we must shatter Monsanto’s grip on the agricultural sector. There is no way to recall GMOs once they have been released into the environment. The stakes could not be higher. Will you continue supporting the corrupt, toxic and unsustainable food system that Monsanto and its industry allies are working so hard to protect?

For more and more people, the answer is no. Consumers are rejecting genetically engineered and pesticide-laden foods. Another positive trend is that there has been strong growth in the global organic and grass-fed sectors. This just proves one thing: We can make a difference if we steadily work toward the same goal.

One of the best things you can do is to buy your foods from a local farmer who runs a small business and uses diverse methods that promote regenerative agriculture. You can also join a community-supported agriculture (CSA) program, where you can buy a “share” of the vegetables produced by the farm, so that you get a regular supply of fresh food.

I believe that joining a CSA is a powerful investment not only in your own health, but in that of your local community and economy as well. In addition, you should also adopt preventive strategies that can help reduce the toxic chemical pollution that assaults your body. I recommend visiting these trustworthy sites for non-GMO food resources in your country as well:

Organic Food Directory (Australia) Eat Wild (Canada)
Organic Explorer (New Zealand) Eat Well Guide (United States and Canada)
Farm Match (United States) Local Harvest (United States)
Weston A. Price Foundation (United States) The Cornucopia Institute
Demeter USA American Grassfed Association

Monsanto and its allies want you to think that they control everything, but they are on the wrong side of history. It’s you, the informed and empowered, who hold the future in your hands. Let’s all work together to topple the biotech industry’s house of cards. Remember — it all starts with shopping smart and making the best food purchases for you and your family.

Biotech Companies Are Gaining Power by Taking Over the Government

to read the rest of the article, go to:    http://www.wakingtimes.com/2018/06/27/the-peril-on-your-plate-film-explores-the-human-health-effects-of-genetic-engineering-and-chemical-agriculture/