The world is operating within a certain set of “systems,” “norms” and mindsets since the industrial revolution, scientific management (Frederick Taylor’s) principles and the invention of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). They have been a critical part of human progress and we have gained a lot from these systems. But it is not until recently (despite warnings by experts earlier) that we are questioning them.
The systems, norms and mindsets I am referring to are:
But before we go any further, I would like to explain why I used the term “paradigm shift.”
Why “paradigm shift”
This term has been overused and abused, but there is a very fundamentally logical explanation. American philosopher and scientist Thomas Kuhn coined the term in his 1962 book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” What he said was that, science goes through four phases of being. Let’s use the simple example of listening to music at home to explain the four steps. I have also simplified the names of the phases for the purposes of this blog.
Phase 1: The beginning
In this phase, there are no agreed rules, no shared language. Here, everyone is trying to invent by starting from scratch.
Phase 2: Normal
This is the most common and longest phases. This happens when enough people have aligned to define the rules of the game. They become the boundaries or belief systems under which the other research, “inventions” and “discoveries” happen.
For example, cassettes, CDs and DVDs have been for the longest time, the normal mode of listening to music at home.
Phase 3: Crisis
After operating in “normal” phase, anomalies or inconsistencies come up. These do not fit under the normal “rules.” When enough anomalies have surfaced, people start the question the “rules” or the “systems.” This is the period of crisis.
For example, people wanted to listen to music on the go, leading to the invention of “Walkman’s” and digital music and iPods.
Phase 4: Revolution
A new system, a new set of rules and beliefs are formed — leading to a revolution.
For example, digital and streaming is the new paradigm for music — with Spotify, apple music, etc.
The paradigm shifts required
It is my sincere belief that we are between a crisis and revolution phase when it comes to our planetary habits and human values. We need to push ourselves to the revolution phase and make this the new normal.
Here are the overarching shifts required in the underlying assumptions of our current “normal”:
Major western news publications are running a story about a sinister plot by the Russian government, and—you may want to sit down for this—the sources of the report are anonymous, and the evidence for it is secret.
The New York Times reports that according to anonymous individuals within the US and British governments, Russia is currently plotting to topple the existing government of Ukraine in some way using some method and then somehow install a puppet regime that is sympathetic to Moscow using some sort of means. What specifically those means and methods might be are not revealed to us in this very serious news report.
“The communiqué provided few details about how Russia might go about imposing a new government on Ukraine, and did not say whether such plans were contingent on an invasion by Russian troops,” the Paper of Record informs us. “British officials familiar with the situation, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the intent was both to head off the activation of such plans as well as to put Mr. Putin on notice that this plot had been exposed.”
Sounds like Britain has taken what the US actually did to Ukraine in 2014, and rebooted it for Russia. Here's Obama-Biden official Victoria Nuland & then-US Amb. Geoffrey Pyatt privately deciding to install Arseniy Yatsenyuk ("Yats is the guy") as Ukraine's next Prime Minister: https://t.co/PDoXBIY5kMpic.twitter.com/0fTraRMEvl
Now if you are hoping to be provided with some sort of evidence for these incendiary claims, I’m afraid I’m going to have to disappoint you, because get this: the journalists reporting on this story have not seen any evidence. Apparently they’re just passing on unverified government assertions made by unknown spies to their readers because they were told to, which I guess is something journalists can do now?
I know, I know, I was a little surprised when I learned that too. But here it is, straight from the horse’s mouth:
“The British communiqué provided no evidence to back up its assertion that Russia was plotting to overthrow the Ukrainian government,” the Times reports.
You will be reassured however to learn that despite the actual evidence of the actual Russian nefariousness being kept invisible to us, anonymous officials within the US government have reviewed the intelligence gathered by anonymous British spies for us and concluded on our behalf that the evidence is solid.
“In Washington, officials said they believe the British intelligence is correct. Two officials said it had been collected by British intelligence services,” The New York Times informs us.
You see that? These claims about a devious Russian conspiracy have been confirmed by anonymous government operatives in both the US and the UK. That’s two separate, completely unconnected governments independently verifying that these claims are true. That’s called independent corroboration, gentlesirs. Basically the same as ironclad proof.
This story – which the British government has handed to media outlets – is so fake that it doesn’t sound remotely credible to anyone who knows anything about Ukraine.
If Russia were to conjure a scheme like this, Moscow would choose someone from the largest opposition party. https://t.co/9JfyZ6Atb0— Bryan MacDonald (@27khv) January 23, 2022
It does seem a little strange to me, though, that after taking great license to report anonymous government assertions without evidence The New York Times seems to take issue with the Russian government making unevidenced claims.
“Russian officials have repeatedly denied any intention of launching an attack against Ukraine, dismissing such accusations as ‘hysteria’ and claiming without providing evidence that it is the government in Kyiv that is seeking to escalate tensions,” write the article’s authors.
When this report came out I was a bit surprised by the way unproven claims by anonymous government sources are treated as actual news stories for grown adults to read instead of empty nothing stuff to be ignored and flushed down our mental toilet tubes, as I’m sure you were too. But I did a little digging and it turns out that this sort of thing is actually quite commonplace within western news media institutions, like when we were told without evidence that the Russians were plotting a false flag operation in Ukraine, or like when we were told without evidence that the Russians are using high-tech ray guns to scramble the brains of US diplomats and spies and it turned out to be baseless, or like when we were told without evidence that the Russians were paying Afghan resistance fighters to kill western occupying troops and it turned out to be false and wrong, or like when we were told without evidence that Russians interfered in the United States election and it monopolized all news reports and political discourse for years, or like when we were told without evidence for years and years that Russia was about to invade Ukraine any minute now and then it kept not happening.
I’m sure this time is different, though. After all that practice and all that trial and error, I’m sure our trusted news media institutions have perfected their craft and are now masters at reporting the truth.
In the old days, Americans would derisively speak of “third world countries” that were plagued by high crime rates, corrupt governments, severe economic problems, and an overall lack of civilized behavior. Unfortunately, the tables have turned, and now we are becoming a “third world country”.
The thin veneer of civilization that we all used to take for granted has been steadily disappearing, and our nation seems to become a little bit more degenerate with each passing day. Of course, this didn’t happen overnight. It has taken decades of decline to get us to this point, and now our decline appears to be accelerating.
If you have ever visited a foreign country with a major crime problem, you probably recall the unsettling experience of suddenly realizing that you are the prey and that the predators on the streets won’t hesitate to take advantage of you if they sense an opportunity.
Sadly, many Americans now feel like that on a permanent basis in their own local communities.
In recent years, crime rates in our core urban areas have absolutely skyrocketed. For example, the Daily Mail is reporting that carjackings in some major U.S. cities have risen by up to 510 percent…
Major cities across the US have observed carjackings spike by up to 510 percent in a ‘disturbing’ trend some are attributing to lax punishment and a shift in driving habits.
In line with an overall rise in violent crime across the nation, cities such as Chicago, New York, Philadelphia and New Orleans are experiencing a jump in violent vehicle takeovers as critics slam criminal reform systems.
Other forms of theft has become absolutely rampant as well.
Footage of thousands of discarded boxes and packages that had been stolen from cargo trains in southern California shocked the nation so much that California Governor Gavin Newsom felt compelled to go down there and check it out for himself.
Last week, the governor visited the site as an effort was already underway to clean up the shredded boxes after looters broke into railcars to steal Amazon and UPS packages.
“What the hell is going on?” Reuters quoted Newsom as saying amid the aftermath of the railcar thefts on Union Pacific train tracks in downtown Los Angeles.
Newsom said the scene “looked like a third world, these images, the drone images that were on the nightly news.”
For once, Newsom was actually 100 percent correct.
This sort of thing shouldn’t be happening in a civilized society.
But even when we catch criminals and take them to jail, they are often put back on the streets very quickly.
In Detroit, a drug dealer that doused his pregnant girlfriend with lighter fluid and set her on fire “was granted a $5,000 bond” and is now free to continue terrorizing those around him…
A Detroit drug dealer was granted a $5,000 bond despite allegedly setting fire to his girlfriend who was 27 weeks pregnant with twins, burning 60 percent of her body and leaving her critically-ill.
Convicted drug pusher Devonne Marsh, 42, reportedly doused his 26-year-old girlfriend with lighter fluid and ignited her on fire after the pair had an argument.
Of course, crime is just one piece of the puzzle. Inflation is out of control, there are widespread shortages all over the country, basic services are breaking down, this pandemic has exposed rampant incompetence and deep corruption among our health authorities, and our streets are filled with drug addicts, homeless vagrants, and scam artists.
“Downhill, divided, doubting democracy, falling behind, and tuning out — this is how Americans are feeling as they’re heading into 2022,” Democrat pollster Jeff Horwitt of Hart Research Associates told NBC News.
Biden’s approval remains in the low 40s (43%) and 72% of Americans say the country is headed in the wrong direction. NBC News reports more than 70% saying that in back-to-back polls has happened just six times in the poll’s history, according to the report.
And another recent survey found that just 19 percent of Americans “strongly approve” of Joe Biden’s performance at this point…
Only 19 percent of likely voters strongly approve of President Joe Biden’s performance, down three points in two weeks, a Monday Rasmussen poll revealed.
After Biden’s two-hour press conference last week in which he was questioned why 49 percent of voters believe he is mentally unfit to be president, 49 percent also strongly disapproved of Biden’s presidential performance, a 30 point differential.
Certainly, Biden has been a complete and utter disaster, but all of our problems are not solely his fault.
It has taken decades for America to reach this juncture, and things are getting worse with each passing day. I really like how Victor Davis Hansen summarized the current state of affairs in one of his recent articles…
Hard Left “woke” ideology has all but obliterated the idea of a border. Millions of impoverished foreigners are entering the United States illegally — and during a pandemic without either COVID-19 tests or vaccinations.
The health bureaucracies have lost credibility as official communiques on masks, herd and acquired immunity, vaccinations, and comorbidities apparently change and adjust to perceived political realities.
After decades of improving race relations, America is regressing into a pre-modern tribal society.
Crime soars. Inflation roars. Meritocracy is libeled and so we are governed more by ideology and tribe.
We are so deeply divided, and there is so much anger and hatred in our nation today.
And a house that is divided will surely fall.
If we really want to behave like a third-world country, perhaps we should eat like a third-world country too.
In fact, the elite have already been strongly promoting the idea that we should all become accustomed to eating bugs…
A quick search of the World Economic Forum website reveals an obsession with the idea. Here’s a small selection of articles from the last few years: “Worms for dinner? Europe backs insect based food”; “Good grub: why we might be eating insects soon”; and “Fancy a bug burger?”
The house journals of global capitalism, the Financial Times and The Economist, take a similar line. Both publications advocate for entomophagy beneath perky headlines such as “Eating bugs: a culinary idea with legs” and “Why eating insects makes sense”.
Doesn’t that sound fun?
Actually, at the rate that global food supplies are tightening, bug-eating may become quite popular sooner rather than later.
We live in such troubled times, and I have a feeling that they are about to become a lot more troubled.
But I don’t plan on eating bugs.
And I don’t want to live in a third-world country.
Unfortunately, our politicians don’t listen to people like you and me.
They are just going to keep doing what they are doing, and we are all going to suffer the consequences of their disastrous decisions.
A few weeks after the World Economic Forum launched their ‘Great Reset‘ initiative, it was followed up with the release of a new book titled, ‘Covid-19: The Great Reset‘, authored by the executive chairman of the WEF, Klaus Schwab, and Senior Director of the Global Risk Network at the institution, Thierry Malleret.
Having read the book I wanted to share with you some initial thoughts on the potential significance of the publication.
There are 5 planks to the Great Reset – economic, societal, geopolitical, environmental and technological – all of which the book covers in detail. But I want to focus largely on the conclusion, as it is here where the author’s motivations and rationale for championing a Great Reset, in the wake of Covid-19, become clearer.
Schwab and Malleret characterise the future direction of the world as ‘The Post Pandemic Era‘, a phrase that is repeated ad nauseam throughout. Rather than define it to a particular outcome, the authors opt instead to ask whether this new era will be marked by more or less cooperation between nations. Will countries turn inward resulting in the growth of nationalism and protectionism, or will they sacrifice their own interests for greater interdependence?
No firm prediction is made either way, but we do manage to gain a degree of insight into the authors’ way of thinking when they discuss what they call ‘the direction of the trend.’ They write that concerns over the environment (primarily through the prism of climate change) and the advancement of technology (integral to the Fourth Industrial Revolution) were pervasive long before Covid-19 entered the picture. With the economic and health implications of the lockdowns now ingrained within society, Schwab and Malleret contend that long established worries amongst citizens ‘have been laid bare for all to see‘ and ‘amplified‘ because of the pandemic. In other words, if minds were not concentrated on the problems and threats the world faced before Covid-19, then they certainly are now.
And whilst the direction of these trends on the environment and technology may not have changed, with the onset of Covid-19 it ‘got a lot faster.’ It is why Schwab and Malleret believe that these two issues in particular ‘will force their way onto the political agenda‘ due to increasing public pressure. A movement such as Extinction Rebellion is one example. Another is the rapid growth of the Fintech community which is leading people to question what constitutes money ‘in the digital age.’
As for where they see things going in the future, the suggestion is that current trends are pointing towards a world that will be ‘less open and less cooperative than before the pandemic.’
Effectively, the WEF have presented the world with two potential outcomes. The first is that the Great Reset can be achieved relatively peacefully with nations acquiescing to the objectives being pushed by global planners. The second outcome, they warn, would be far more disruptive and damaging. It would come about through countries failing to address the ‘deep rooted ills of economies and societies‘, which could see a reset being ‘imposed by violent shocks like conflicts and even revolutions.’
And, apparently, we do not have much time to decide our fate. What we have now, according to the authors, is ‘a rare and narrow window of opportunity to reflect, re-imagine and reset our world‘. If a ‘proper reset‘ is to be realised, it can only occur through an increased level of collaboration and cooperation between nations. As Schwab and Malleret see it, the alternative is a world entrenched in perpetual crisis which would eventually lead to the disintegration of the post World War Two ‘rules based global order‘ and a global power vacuum.
There is, therefore, a very real risk of the world becoming ‘more divided, nationalistic and prone to conflicts than it is today.’
One thing the authors do write on from a position of clarity is that never can the world return to normal. Or more to the point, be allowed to return to normal. Their view is that before Covid-19 took hold, a ‘broken sense of normalcy prevailed‘. The situation now is that the virus ‘marks a fundamental inflection point in our global trajectory.’ In a very short space of time it ‘magnified the fault lines that beset our economies and societies‘.
If it was not already obvious, then the authors confirm over the last few pages of the book that the United Nations’ Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development programme is intertwined with the Great Reset. This is evident when studying the WEF’s Strategic Intelligence unit. Sustainable Development and the Great Reset go hand in hand.
For Agenda 2030 to be implemented successfully, Schwab and Malleret offer an alternative to the possibility of countries failing to come together. As you might expect, it revolves around collaboration and cooperation. In their eyes no progress can otherwise be made. Covid-19 offers the opportunity to ‘embed greater societal equality and sustainability into the recovery‘. And, crucially, this would ‘accelerate rather than delay progress towards 2030 Sustainable Development Goals‘.
But it does not end simply with the full implementation of Agenda 2030. Schwab and Malleret want to go further. Their aim is that the open exposure of weaknesses within existing global infrastructure ‘may compel us to act faster by replacing failed institutions, processes and rules with new ones that are better suited to current and future needs.’ To convey the importance of this statement, the authors state that this alone is ‘the essence of the Great Reset’. What they appear to be seeking is global transformation where systems and the age of the algorithm take precedent over political institutions. We are already beginning to see moves by major global institutions like the Trilateral Commission, the World Trade Organisation and the European Union to ‘reform‘ and ‘rejuvenate‘ both their work and membership. Covid-19 has undoubtedly straightened the hand of global planners and their quest for reformation.
As ‘Covid-19: The Great Reset’ was published, it was accompanied by an article written by Schwab and Malleret. Called, ‘COVID-19’s legacy: This is how to get the Great Reset right‘, they stated plainly that not only will a lot of things change forever, ‘the worst of the pandemic is yet to come’:
We will be dealing with its fallout for years, and many things will change forever. It has wrought (and will continue to do so) economic disruption of monumental proportions.
Indeed, no industry or business will be able to avoid the impact of the changes ahead. Either they adapt to fit in with the Great Reset agenda (assuming they have the resources to do so), or they will not survive. According to Schwab and Malleret, ‘millions of companies risk disappearing‘, whilst only ‘a few‘ e.g. corporate monoliths, will be strong enough to withstand the disruption. It is your smaller companies and independent run businesses that are faced with ruin, opening the door to a new era of mergers and acquisitions that will further erode consumer choice and competition.
Schwab and Malleret tell us that the worst of the pandemic is yet to come, and from an economic standpoint I would not doubt them. But let’s look at the health aspect for a moment. Global media coverage of Covid-19 has characterised it as a deadly virus that kills with impunity, and without the antidote of a vaccine could devour communities whole.
Perhaps surprisingly, the authors offer up a little fact based logic. They admit that Covid-19 is ‘one of the least deadly pandemics in the last 2000 years‘, and barring something unforeseen ‘the consequences of the virus will be mild compared to previous pandemics.’ At the time the book was published, 0.006% of the global population were reported to have died from Covid-19. But even this low figure is not altogether accurate.
In the UK for instance the way the death rate has been calculated has meant that people who have been diagnosed with the virus and then succumbed to an accident within 28 days of being tested will have their cause of death marked as Covid-19.
To quote Professor Yoon Loke, from the University of East Anglia, and Professor Carl Heneghan, from Oxford University:
Anyone who has tested COVID positive but subsequently died at a later date of any cause will be included on the PHE COVID death figures.
Schwab and Malleret could not be clearer when they write that Covid-19 ‘does not constitute an existential threat or a shock that will leave its imprint on the world’s population for decades‘. As it stands the Spanish Flu and HIV/AIDS have a larger mortality rate.
It was not an uncontrollable spread of Covid-19 that caused governments around the world to shut down their national economies, but the data modelling of unaccountable technocrats like Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London that predicted hundreds of thousands of people were at immediate risk of dying without the imposition of social restrictions, which we now know to be a combination of social distancing and lockdown measures.
When Schwab and Malleret talk about Covid-19 leaving it’s imprint on the world, the truth of the matter is that it is the measures imposed in the name of Covid-19 that have caused widespread economic destruction, not the virus itself. That distinction is one that mainstream outlets in particular refuse to engage with.
In summary, if we are to take the authors at their word, then they see a rise in nationalism and protectionism off the back of Covid-19 as a detriment to the quest for a Great Reset. The much coveted Sustainable Development Goals could even be at risk should nations turn inward. IMF Managing Director has said the world has a choice between the Great Reset or the Great Reversal (the Great Reversal being ‘more poverty, more fragmentation, and less trade‘) I would argue that there is another way of looking at it.
In the book Schwab and Malleret describe how in an interdependent world – which is precisely the kind of world that global planners have been championing since at least the end of World War Two – ‘risks conflate with each other, amplifying their reciprocal effects and magnifying their consequences‘. When nations are interdependent, ‘the systemic connectivity between risks, issues, challenges determines the future.’ It is the old cliche of dominoes falling. Once one falters it sets off a chain reaction, which was evidenced back in 2008 when Lehman Brothers collapsed.
The scale of change that globalists are calling for through the vehicle of a Great Reset, which by definition is global in nature, will in my view require the implosion of the current world order to lay the foundations for a new world order. The old must make way for the new. And the one method for how that could be achieved is through increased kickback against interdependence. Sustained crises offer many opportunities for global planners. The potential for a contested U.S. election, an upcoming no deal Brexit and warnings of ‘vaccine nationalism‘ are three eventualities that if brought to bear could be exploited and used to advance the cause for a Great Reset. I would say that the further the world appears from collaboration and cooperation, the more people are going to call for those very same things if they become increasingly desperate.
The authors say that there is only a narrow window of opportunity for the Great Reset. Let’s keep in mind though that so far it is only global institutions like the WEF that are promoting the initiative, not national administrations. When it starts to permeate politics is when you know the agenda is advancing. But what exactly will the economic and societal conditions be when the Great Reset becomes part of the global conversation? Has what we have seen up to now been enough to compel people to call for change on a global scale? Has there yet been enough degradation and material change to living standards for citizens to implore global institutions to take action? I would argue not.
Already ‘solutions‘ like Universal Basic Income have been touted. But as yet there is not a widespread clamouring for change. But that time is coming. Whether it be in the name of Agenda 2030 (aka Sustainable Development), The Green New Deal or The Great Reset, it would amount to largely the same outcome – the subjugation once and for all of national sovereignty where the nation state is subordinate to global governance.
A diabolical centuries-old plan to enslave humanity and control the world is nearing fruition.
People are being inducted into the Illuminati cult.
Satanic cults exploit and control their members by corrupting them physically and morally.
The covid-scam is characterized by cult-like behavior: the insistence on blind unquestioning compliance.
The mask signals subservience. The vaccine is the digital-biological interface.
We have been complacent. We have allowed Satanists to subvert every social institution.Inevitably, the cult will go after people who refuse to join. (It’s what satanic cults do.)
We can no longer afford continued complacence.
We need to prepare resistance. What form should this take?
Are you willing to resist enslavement? Or Are you prepared to bow downto Lucifer?
Humanity is being inducted into a satanic cult, Cabalism (Illuminism, Freemasonry, Communism.)
Satanic cults exploit and control their members by corrupting and making them sick. Members are essentially slaves.
On March 10, CNN medical analyst Dr Leana Wen was concerned that millions of Americans would reject the experimental Covid-19 vaccines, especially as businesses are reopening. She told anchor Chris Cuomo that “we have a very narrow window to tie reopening policy to vaccination status. Otherwise, if everything is reopened, what’s the carrot going to be? How are we going to incentivize people to actually get the vaccine?”
Thursday, a contributor Sandra Archibald pointed out that Satanists typically sacrifice their ownchildren as proof of faith in Lucifer. She said people who vaccinate their children are doing this.
Clearly the pressure to vaccinate everyone is driven neither by profit nor health. Covid is merely a pretext to reorganize society along the lines desired by the satanist central bankers. Undoubtedly this involves depopulation.
The White House has denied that vaccine passports will be necessary but already sports venues, casinos and universities are requiring them. Digital passports are on their way. With panic surrounding new phoney “variants,” or if Bill Gates releases a more lethal virus, pressure to be vaccinated will become unbearable.
The unvaccinated will be pariahs subject to persecution.
On April 1, LA Times Columnist Harry Litman tweeted: “Vaccine passports are a good idea. Among other things, it will single out the still large contingent of people who refuse vaccines, who will be foreclosed from doing a lot of things their peers can do. That should help break the resistance down.” He got 21,000 “likes.”
They are already treating adverse reactions as masochist tests of devotion. Satanism is a Death Wish. “The family of a British lawyer who died of a blood clot after an AstraZeneca COVID-19 jab has insisted he was “just extraordinarily unlucky” — and wants people to keep getting the vaccine.”
As David Spangler said, “No one will enter the New World Order unless he take a Luciferian initiation.”
The COVID vaccine is that initiation.
The conflict boils down to accepting or resisting enslavement.
This ambiance of panic and fear – outstrips any sense of reality, when the truth doesn’t matter. People can’t even think any more about the causes and what may be behind it. Nobody believes you (anymore), the Military Games, the high-security biological war … what could have at one point been an eye opener for many, today is sheer conspiracy theory. The power of propaganda. A destabilizing power – destabilizing countries and people, destroying economies, creating hardship for people who may lose their jobs, usually the ones who can least afford it.
The Anti-Christ world leader will be the author of confusion, the master counterfeiter, and through his many images he will deceive the nations. The Antichrist will come on the world stage peaceably, with flatteries, via powerful persuasion and propaganda. By this means he is able to creep into houses and lead captive the masses.
Through his many images and idols he shows himself clever, for acceptance of his 666 mark of the Beast (Revelation 13:16-18) will be the fashion–the logical, the reasonable, the convenient, the safest, the securest, the vital, the norm, that which is accepted in the eyes of man, both small and great.
It’s getting darker and colder all the time, and many people in the world can feel it. They may not understand it, and they don’t always want to admit it, but it’s happening. The sun is setting, the darkness is falling, and the world is looking for hope, for some ray of light. The nations question “Why this and why that? Why all the pain and strife in the world? Why the slaughter of the innocents? Why troubles and sorrows?” These questions are being raised in people’s hearts and minds, and those whose foundations have been built on the sand, or others who had no foundations to begin with, have no answers.
Never in all of history until now has the technology existed for a world dictatorship to rule the world. All they need is the right conditions: a totalitarian world dictatorship to put it into effect. The Antichrist government will use the computer to rule the world in the form of an image to the antichrist. The image of the Beast!
REVELATION 13:14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast (Antichrist); saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast (Antichrist), which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
REVELATION 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
REVELATION 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
REVELATION 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
REVELATION 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six. 666
The technology for the Antichrist’s One World monetary system and “Mark of the Beast” is already developed and ready to be put into effect. Just think, all the peoples of the Earth united, on the same wavelength, the same channel.
All around, every single day, there are signs of the coming End, signs of the Antichrist, signs of the coming One World Order. Man’s knowledge has also increased in these last two years, as it has in other recent years, but it now heads in more dangerous directions than in the past, including attempts to clone human beings, fuse man and beast in the embryo, or genetically modify man. As men seek to unravel the secrets of life, they also seek to combine it with machine. They seek new and improved robots to serve man, giving them artificial intelligence and mobility such as they’ve not had before. They seek to make man himself more of a machine, implanting chips, sensors, and electrodes to enhance man’s powers and intelligence.
These chips and implants come with many benign purposes: They increase security for children and protect them from abduction; they monitor criminals; they check the health of their subjects and release medicine into the body; they make identification quick and easy; they prevent fraud; they monitor and increase productivity; they make life more convenient in many ways. In the last two years we’ve seen a great increase in the knowledge that has made such things possible and public acceptance of the devices themselves.
Despite the promises of technology, modern comforts and conveniences, and affluence unknown in the past, poverty persists. War threatens. Disease stalks and kills many. The world thinks they’ve entered the great new age of technology, and the 21st century is going to thrust them into the greatest glories of their “techno-age.” The technology known as biometrics, for example, the process of collecting, processing and storing details of a person’s physical characteristics, has excited the interest of governments and companies because, unlike other forms of ID (cards, papers, etc.), it knows the target human as well as a mother knows her children. The most popular forms of biometric identification are retina scans, hand geometry, thumb scans, fingerprints, voice recognition, and digitized photographs.
This is the sort of power that will be needed to run the Antichrist’s computers and government. here’s nothing intrinsically wrong with the technology and being able to do things faster and better. But these will be useful mechanisms of the Antichrist’s New World Order. Technology has broken down borders and nations are becoming less important, which will make the creation of his one-world government relatively simpler. It’s happening so gradually that global government will just be a logical next step.
The world will accept him, only to find that the heaven on earth he’s promised them has become hell on earth, with hell hereafter for those who take his 666 Mark of the Beast. They’re trying to control living beings with technology, with chips that they’ve finally managed to incorporate in their brains. And they’ll go on developing that technology until it reaches its apex in the Mark of the Beast, with which evil men would seek to control and monitor men even more.
Are you ready for these great and final events of the end? You can get ready now by receiving Jesus into your heart. Simply pray this little prayer and He will come in: “Dear Jesus, I believe that You are the Son of God and that You died for me. Please forgive me for all my sins. I ask You, Jesus, to please come into my heart and give me Your free Gift of Eternal Life.
URF = VAERS underreporting factor. This is the ratio (# events that actually happen/# events reported in VAERS). So if VAERS has 10 events and the URF=41, then it means 410 events are likely to have happened, but only 10 events were reported to VAERS.
Largest number of deaths reported to VAERS in prior years: 223 (in 1994) (E). You can see this on the same red box page on OpenVAERS by mousing over each year.
Number of deaths in VAERS in the US that mention COVID19 as a symptom: 2087 (F)
To compute the underreporting factor (URF), we solve the equation A=(C*URF)/B. This just says that “the rate in the clinical trial’ = “the rate in VAERS” (adjusted by the URF.
This means URF=(A*B)/C = 2.47/10000 * 97500000/583 = 41.3
To compute the excess deaths, we use deaths = (D-2*E)*URF = (9623-2*223)*41.3 = 379,010. The reason we took out 2*E is that we are looking for excess deaths and since people are seen twice, it’s conservative to double the total number of deaths in a previous year.
While it is possible that some of these 379K excess deaths could have been caused by COVID, doctors are very unlikely to report a COVID death in VAERS since everyone agrees that the vaccines do not cause COVID. Doctors don’t want to pollute the VAERS database with unrelated events and most doctors don’t want to report to VAERS because they don’t want to make the vaccines look dangerous: doing so would make them look bad for recommending the vaccine to their patients.
But to be conservative, anytime COVID19 is mentioned in the symptom field, let’s assume that the patient really died from COVID rather than “with” COVID19. This removes F*URF = 2,087 deaths * 41.3 = 86,193.
We are left with an estimated 292,817 deaths caused by the vaccine using VAERS.
Using 12 other methods, we estimate a death toll of 150,000 or more.
Therefore, 150,000 is a high confidence estimate whereas 300,000 is likely closer to the actual number.
About VAERS
The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is the official system used by the US government to track adverse events from all vaccines. Many people are familiar with the V-Safe program since they ask you to enroll when you get the vaccine. If you report an adverse event in V-Safe, you’ll get a call from HHS and they’ll tell you to report that adverse event to VAERS. Many people don’t do that, or don’t know about VAERS or V-Safe, so VAERS is always underreported.
The URF of 41 is a minimum URF; the URF for “less obvious” events (including death) is always larger than this value. So for example, if you had menstrual problems, peripheral neuropathy, or your cancer got worse after the jab, the URF for that event might be 100 or more.
For example, President Biden had peripheral neuropathy after his booster shot and that event was never reported to VAERS because his expert physicians didn’t realize that it is a very common side-effect of the vaccine.
Therefore, 41 is a “best case” number because it is based on anaphylaxis rates shortly after vaccination which are required by law to be 100% reported to the VAERS system. It doesn’t get any more “clear cut” than that.
What this means in practice is that if you see a number in VAERS such as 9,623 reported deaths, you have to multiply that number by the estimated URF (41 in our case) to get a lower-bound estimate of the actual number of deaths, in this case 394,543. However, not all those deaths were caused by the vaccine which I’ll explain shortly. But that’s how the URF works.
In general, it’s very simple:
Actual # of events = (# from VAERS) * URF
How CDC scientist Dr. John Su deliberately misleads everyone
The top expert on VAERS at the CDC is Dr. John Su. Dr. Su deliberately misleads the outside committees of the FDA and CDC by never talking about the URF at all. This allows him to report rates of adverse events that are 41 times or more lower than the true rates.
Furthermore, despite repeated requests, the FDA and CDC refuse to compute the URF which means it is impossible for anyone to compute an accurate risk-benefit analysis using the government calculated URF. They know exactly what is going on. It is deliberate fraud. This is why they don’t want to talk to me and will never debate me. An open debate would be their worst nightmare.
In short, by ignoring the URF, the CDC is deliberately deceiving the public; it allows the CDC to report numbers which are significantly lower than they really are, making the vaccines appear to be much safer than they really are.
So, for example, the rates of myocarditis they report are, in actuality, likely to be 50 times or more higher than they tell you. This explains how we can see myocarditis rates as high as 1 case for every 95 boys.
Why the huge spike in adverse events including death? Is it just overreporting?
Now let’s look at the numbers from Openvars.com which is a consumer-friendly website for looking at the VAERS data. The red-box summary page for domestic events (slide the slider at the top to the right) shows 9,623 deaths of Americans:
Also, note the deaths graph above. It’s a flatline for 30 years, then spikes up this year. In short, either:
Everyone suddenly decided to start using VAERS this year and these are all background deaths (this is known as the “overreporting hypothesis” OR
The vaccines are super dangerous OR
A combination of 1 and 2.
The final bottom graph is a clue. The death rate peaks one day after vaccination. This is a hint of causality since if it were just likelihood to report, you’d see it exponentially decline from day 0.
If the vaccine were harmless, that fatality graph would be flat. It isn’t.
We also see dose dependency: the symptom profile after dose 1 don’t look like the results after dose 2. This is very difficult (some would say impossible) to explain if the vaccine had no effect.
But the short story on why there is no overreporting is that:
People’s behavior is really hard to change (even with massive amounts of advertising like they did in 2009 which didn’t change the numbers at all),
There has been no campaign to try to encourage reporting to VAERS (in fact, we see exactly the opposite)
Most doctors don’t know about VAERS or report to VAERS (in my interview with Dr. Kreitzman, for example, he said he knew hundreds of doctors and none of them reported to VAERS).
Most doctors truly believe that the vaccines work. Because they don’t want to make the vaccines look dangerous (which would then tarnish their reputation), they are simply going to be less likely to report to VAERS. I can’t tell you how many times I hear the story where a healthcare workers asks, “Did you report it to VAERS?” and the answer is “Of course not.”
We can look at events that are not related to the vaccines at all like the reporting rates for hepatitis, metal poisoning, and otitis media. These are all nearly the same as previous years (metal poisoning is actually down this year by a factor of 5). So if it was overreporting, we’d expect to see these unrelated symptoms to be overreported as well.
We couldn’t find any evidence of anyone reporting at a higher rate than before. In fact, we find evidence of the opposite, like a neurologist who needed to report 2,000 cases this year (she’s never needed to report to VAERS in her 11 year in private practice), yet this year she’s only reported 2 because it was too time consuming.
We have data that supports the argument that VAERS is actually significantly underreported this year. For example, a doctor with 29 years of experience never had to make a VAERS report before now has 25 cases to report (in around 1000 patients). This is a 725-fold increase in adverse events compared to past years. Yet VAERS this year reflects only around a 30-fold increase. You are welcome to do you own survey of doctors to validate this. None of my detractors ever do this, including the FDA.
They never show us any data to back up their claims of “oh, this is just because people are reporting more.” And none of the so-called fact checkers ever ask them for proof of that. So the overreporting hypothesis is simply a hand-waving argument with no evidence to back it up.
The bottom line is this: a conservative estimate of the number of deaths caused by the vaccine is:
(9623-2*223)*41.3 = 379,010
To be more conservative, let’s assume that anyone who had COVID and died, died from COVID. So we remove 2,087 deaths * 41.3 = 86,193 and are left with
292,817 American deaths caused by the vaccine
In short, the US government is responsible for the killing of hundreds of thousand of Americans and not a single member of Congress is calling for a stop to the vaccines. That’s really stunning.
The argument that correlation isn’t causality
Scientists love to argue that correlation isn’t causality.
But we can show all of the Bradford-Hill causality criteria are satisfied.
But it’s simpler just to point out that the excess deaths are there and they are huge. If it wasn’t the vaccine that caused these people to die, then what did?
Nobody can answer that question.
So you can read all the fact checks you want (like this one on Twitter), but at the end of the day, the CDC completely fails to answer the question, “OK, so if the vaccine didn’t cause all these events, then what did?”
How to calculate the URF
We showed how to calculate the URF in the summary at the start of this article.
How to validate the results
We validated the calculations by estimating the excess deaths 12 different ways that didn’t involve using VAERS:
This is why when I talk about the deaths caused by the vaccine, I almost always use the 150,000 figure since it is the most conservative, but my closest estimate to the true number is 300,000 at this time.
The statistics used in the executive summary
Here is the backup for three of the numbers used in the executive summary (B, C, and F). The other numbers are directly available at the website referenced in the summary.
B:
C:
F:
Why are the authorities so afraid to challenge my methods?
No recognized expert on the pro-vaccine side will debate me or any of my statistics and VAERS experts on this. Nobody.
Eric Topol blocked me. The FDA and CDC don’t answer. Even when a former NY Times writer asked, they refused to discuss it with him (so it’s nothing personal). I couldn’t even get a debate with ZdoggMD or Your local epidemiologist. None of these people wants to appear on camera to challenge me on this.
UPenn Professor Jeffrey Morris said my number was wrong, but he admitted he was clueless as to what the number was. Only that it couldn’t be that high. Really? How can he know that if he can’t calculate the number and is clueless himself on how to estimate it?
I point out that I used the methodology of the CDC, I used the death count from the government database, and I used anaphylaxis rates from a study in JAMA. So if I made a mistake, where is it? No answer.
I’ve invited Professor Morris to a live video recorded discussion for everyone to see, and he refuses every time. I’m just a lowly engineer with a couple of degrees from MIT in electrical engineering and computer science. He’s a professor and Director of the Division of Biostatistics at UPenn. But he’s afraid of me. Here’s more on Professor Morris.
Gordon Cormack, a computer science professor at University of Waterloo, loves to argue that he disagrees with my methodology. Hey, I’m just going by the CDC’s methodology and using the most accurate numbers I can find. I’m fine with being wrong if he would just show us all the correct answer. But he never does. Here’s a typical response that I send him:
Why don’t you show me the proper way to estimate the number killed by the vaccine, and then show me 12 independent ways that validate you got it right? What is the number YOU calculated? And if I got it wrong, why not claim the $1M prize I offered on correcting Mathew Crawford’s analysis?
Gordon responds it’s impossible to estimate the number killed. OK, then how can he be so sure that all these calculations by different people using different methods that come to the same answer are all wrong? Well, he can’t. And when I offered to debate him on camera with my standard rules (which are completely fair to both sides), he declined and didn’t propose modifications to the rules. He clearly is not interested in a live debate.
Governments are intensifying their vitriol against the unvaccinated. Trudeau (Canada) says they shouldn’t be tolerated. Macron (France) says he’s “really going to piss them off”. Germany says they are “not human.” Biden (US) says they are the pandemic. If not reversed soon, such rhetoric can easily lead to mass bloodshed.
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
> In a horrifying altercation, a German police officer denounced the humanity of the unvaccinated. This is but one sign that mass formation psychosis is at work
> “Mass formation psychosis” is the explanation for how the Germans accepted the atrocities by the Nazi party in the 1930s, and it’s the explanation for why so many around the world support medical apartheid and the dehumanization of the unvaccinated now
> The stigmatization of the unvaxxed is all the more irrational when you consider that the COVID shot doesn’t prevent infection or spread of the virus. “Fully vaxxed” individuals are just as infectious and “dangerous” as the unjabbed
> While high-level officials continue to use the term “pandemic of the unvaccinated,” suggesting the COVID-jabbed play no role in the epidemiology of COVID-19, there’s ample evidence that the “fully vaccinated” have a relevant role in transmission and outbreaks
> For example, in Massachusetts, 469 new COVID-19 cases were identified during July 2021. Of those, 346 (74%) were either fully or partially jabbed, and 274 (79%) were symptomatic. This proves the COVID jabs cannot end the pandemic, and may in fact be preventing it from dying out naturally
GERMANY 2021: A police officer calls unvaccinated people indirect killers and says they are not human. pic.twitter.com/iM2W7OPVXp
You know you’ve entered a twilight zone of insanity when a police officer tells you you’re a criminal simply because you’re unvaccinated. That’s exactly what happened the other day in Germany. The police officer insisted the unvaccinated man was “a murderer” because he “might infect someone,” and that he’s “not a human.”
The bizarre altercation was posted on Twitter December 12, 2021, (see above). In response, the unvaccinated man tells the cop he’s the one who has “lost all humanity.” Indeed. Who thought we’d ever see the day when individuals are marked as “murderers” and “not human” based on vaccination status alone?
It’s beyond irrational. But then again, insanity does not obey reason, and according to professor Mattias Desmet, a Belgian psychologist, the world has indeed been hypnotized into a state of mass psychosis.1
“Mass formation psychosis” is the explanation for how the Germans accepted the atrocities by the Nazi party in the 1930s, and it’s the explanation for why so many around the world support medical apartheid and the dehumanization of the unvaccinated now.
You Cannot Comply Your Way Out of Tyranny
Auschwitz survivor Marian Turski, 94: "And that's how it is done, step by step, slowly." pic.twitter.com/ewla4GCjeu
The stigmatization and dehumanization of the unvaxxed is all the more irrational when you consider that the COVID shot doesn’t prevent infection or spread of the virus. Those who have received one, two or even three doses are STILL contracting the infection, and at ever-increasing rates, and are spreading it to vaxxed and unvaxxed alike.
Outbreaks among “fully vaccinated” populations, isolated on cruise ships, for example, have occurred on several occasions, proving the shots fail to prevent outbreaks. The COVID-jabbed are clearly just as “dangerous” and likely to “kill” their fellow man as those who are unjabbed.
When either decision — the decision to get the jab or decline it — results in you posing the exact same level of risk to others, how can anyone say that one is more dangerous than the other? Anyone still capable of clear, level-headed thinking will see that it doesn’t add up.
Unfortunately, most countries are experiencing a mass delusional psychosis. They have been manipulated into believing highly irrational absurdities. The same psychological operation was at work in the 1930s, when Jews, the old and infirm, and the mentally and physically handicapped were dehumanized and blamed as carriers of disease and other social ills.
In the short video above, Auschwitz survivor Marian Turski, now 94 years old, describes the incremental dehumanization and ostracizing that took place in Nazi Germany, ultimately ending in the Holocaust. Now, we stand before the same fork in the road yet again. Many, like the German police officer, are choosing the well-trodden road of repeated history.
Stigmatizing Unvaccinated Is Unjustified
November 20, 2021, The Lancet published a letter by Gunter Kampf, titled “COVID-19: Stigmatizing the Unvaccinated Is Not Justified.”2 “In the USA and Germany, high-level officials have used the term pandemic of the unvaccinated, suggesting that people who have been vaccinated are not relevant in the epidemiology of COVID-19,” Kampf writes.
However, he adds, “There is increasing evidence that vaccinated individuals continue to have a relevant role in transmission.” He goes on to cite statistics from Massachusetts, where 469 new COVID-19 cases were identified during July 2021. Of those, 346 (74%) were either fully or partially jabbed, and 274 (79%) were symptomatic.
The cycle threshold values used during PCR testing were also similarly low regardless of COVID jab status (median 22.8 cycles, which minimizes the risk of false positive results), “indicating a high viral load even among people who were fully vaccinated,” Kampf notes. These data are clear evidence that the COVID jabs cannot end the pandemic, and may in fact be preventing it from dying out naturally. Kampf continues:3
“In the USA, a total of 10,262 COVID-19 cases were reported in vaccinated people by April 30, 2021, of whom 2725 (26.6%) were asymptomatic, 995 (9.7%) were hospitalized, and 160 (1.6%) died. In Germany, 55.4% of symptomatic COVID-19 cases in patients aged 60 years or older were in fully vaccinated individuals, and this proportion is increasing each week.
In Münster, Germany, new cases of COVID-19 occurred in at least 85 (22%) of 380 people who were fully vaccinated or who had recovered from COVID-19 and who attended a nightclub.
People who are vaccinated have a lower risk of severe disease but are still a relevant part of the pandemic. It is therefore wrong and dangerous to speak of a pandemic of the unvaccinated.
Historically, both the USA and Germany have engendered negative experiences by stigmatizing parts of the population for their skin color or religion.
I call on high-level officials and scientists to stop the inappropriate stigmatization of unvaccinated people, who include our patients, colleagues, and other fellow citizens, and to put extra effort into bringing society together.”
Human Today, Not Human Tomorrow
It’s important to realize you cannot comply your way out of this tyranny. If you choose to get the COVID shot because you don’t want to be stigmatized, there can be no end to your compliance to future boosters, no matter what the cost to you or your family.
In short order — a handful of months at most — you will suddenly and arbitrarily be deemed an unvaccinated menace to society again, even though you’ve already had one, two or three kill shots.
None of that will matter. You get no brownie points for past compliance. At six months past your second or third dose, your status will go from green to red, from human to not human, literally overnight. You’re “unvaccinated” again, until or unless you get another booster. This cycle will continue until you’re dead. Are you game? Is that how you want to spend the rest of your life?
COVID Shots Keep the ‘Pandemic’ Going
More than 80 studies have confirmed that natural immunity to COVID-19 is equal or superior to what you get from the jab.4 This conforms to well-established medical science, so it’s no surprise. It’s as it should be.
But for the first time in modern medical history, natural immunity is being portrayed as having no benefit whatsoever. Even worse, those with natural immunity are being labeled as dangerous and are shunned and even fired from their jobs for failing to get a shot.
Only the jabbed are protected and can protect others, health authorities now claim — even though it’s those with natural immunity who are most protected and don’t pose a risk to others.
The reality and truth, though, is that natural immunity is long-lasting, protects against all variants and will not contribute to the creation of variants. The same cannot be said for the COVID jab. We now have clear evidence the shots offer, at most, six months’ worth of protection, after which the relative risk reduction drops to zero.
As just one example among many, a Swedish study5 published October 25, 2021, found that while the jabs initially lowered the risk of hospitalization, their effectiveness rapidly waned.
The Pfizer jab went from 92% effectiveness at Day 15 through 30, to 47% at Day 121 through 180, and zero from Day 201 onward.
The Moderna shot had a similar trajectory, being estimated at 59% from Day 181 onward.
The AstraZeneca injection had a lower effectiveness out of the gate, waned faster than the mRNA shots, and had no detectable effectiveness as of Day 121.
This and other studies showing waning immunity were discussed in a December 9, 2021, New England Journal of Medicine interview.6 As noted in that interview, the Delta variant, which is significantly different from the initial SARS-CoV-2 strain, can infect fully jabbed individuals, and its ability to do so increases over time, as the effectiveness of the shot rapidly wanes.
Aside from waning efficacy, the fact that the virus is mutating within “vaccinated” populations also forces it to develop the capacity to circumvent the COVID jab. In short, the deck is stacked against those who rely on the COVID shot to protect them. In the long term, it’s a hopeless situation, as we cannot inoculate our way out of an endemic with a product that doesn’t prevent infection and spread!
Sadly, NEJM, rather than promoting science, toes the line of the official mainstream narrative and suggest boosters are the answer. They should know better, which raises suspicions that conflicts of interest likely impact their clinical judgment.7
Lindsey Baden, one of the interviewees, has received grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust — three institutions that more or less openly support medical tyranny and totalitarian rule by a biosecurity-based police state.
In the video above, Dr. Chris Martenson interviews Desmet about the gravity of our situation, seeing how it’s rooted in a grossly self-destructive psychiatric condition — and one that permits totalitarianism to flourish.
According to Desmet, the mass formation psychosis now appears so widespread that global totalitarianism may be unavoidable. He believes it’ll take over, as we’re seeing in a number of countries already.
The German police officer denouncing the humanity of the unvaccinated is a shining example of the brainwashing propaganda that supports and strengthens the totalitarian state, and allows inconceivable atrocities to be committed in broad daylight. The question is, what can we do to limit the damage?
First and foremost, we must continue to provide true and accurate information to counter the false narratives. Some who aren’t yet fully hypnotized may still be routed back to sanity. Speaking out can also help to limit the atrocities the totalitarian regime is emboldened to implement, because in totalitarianism, atrocities and crimes against humanity increase as dissent decreases.
We can also substitute fear of the virus narratives with narratives that highlight an even greater fear — fear of totalitarianism. That’s a far greater threat to you and your children, by far. Try to appeal to people’s memory. Remind them of the freedoms they grew up with. Do they really want to be responsible for leaving their children with zero freedom to think and act for themselves?
Also, join with other dissenters into larger groups. This gives the larger majority who aren’t fully hypnotized but too fearful to go against the grain an alternative to going along with the totalitarians.
Lastly, start building parallel structures within your local communities that address the four underlying conditions that allowed mass formation psychosis to develop in the first place, namely poor social bonding, lack of meaning in life, free-floating anxiety and discontent, and free-floating frustration and aggression.
A parallel structure is any kind of business, organization, technology, movement or creative pursuit that fits within a totalitarian society while being morally outside of it. Once enough parallel structures are created, a parallel culture is born that functions as a sanctuary of sanity within the totalitarian world.
By rebuilding society, starting locally, into one where people feel connected and valued, the foundational psychological conditions for totalitarianism are undermined and ultimately eliminated. That’s the grand challenge facing all of us.
U.S.-funded experiment in China posed biosafety risks but did not cause Covid-19 pandemic, scientists say.
NIH DOCUMENTS contain new evidence that the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the nearby Wuhan University Center for Animal Experiment, along with their collaborator, the U.S.-based nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance, have engaged in what the U.S. government defines as “gain-of-function research of concern,” intentionally making viruses more pathogenic or transmissible in order to study them, despite stipulations from a U.S. funding agency that the money not be used for that purpose.
Grant money for the controversial experiment came from the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is headed by Anthony Fauci. The award to EcoHealth Alliance, a research organization which studies the spread of viruses from animals to humans, included subawards to Wuhan Institute of Virology and East China Normal University. The principal investigator on the grant is EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak, who has been a key voice in the search for Covid-19’s origins.
Scientists unanimously told The Intercept that the experiment, which involved infecting genetically engineered mice with “chimeric” hybrid viruses, could not have directly sparked the pandemic. None of the viruses listed in the write-ups of the experiment are related to the virus that causes Covid-19, SARS-CoV-2, closely enough to have evolved into it. Still, several scientists said the new information, which the NIH released after it was sued by The Intercept, points to biosafety concerns, highlighting a general lack of oversight for research on pathogens and raising questions about what other information has not been publicly disclosed.
“As a virologist, I personally think creating chimeras of SARS-related bat coronaviruses that are thought to pose high risk to humans entails unacceptable risks,” said Jesse Bloom, who studies the evolution of viruses at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. Severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, is a disease caused, like Covid-19, by an airborne coronavirus.
The experiment also raises questions about assertions from Fauci and NIH Director Francis Collins that NIH-funded projects at the Wuhan Institute of Virology did not involve gain-of-function research. In May, Fauci testified before Congress: “The NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.” The documents do not establish whether Fauci was directly aware of the work.
Scientists working under a 2014 NIH grant to the EcoHealth Alliance to study bat coronaviruses combined the genetic material from a “parent” coronavirus known as WIV1 with other viruses. They twice submitted summaries of their work that showed that, when in the lungs of genetically engineered mice, three altered bat coronaviruses at times reproduced far more quickly than the original virus on which they were based. The altered viruses were also somewhat more pathogenic, with one causing the mice to lose significant weight. The researchers reported, “These results demonstrate varying pathogenicity of SARSr-CoVs with different spike proteins in humanized mice.”
But the terms of the grant clearly stipulated that the funding could not be used for gain-of-function experiments. The grant conditions also required the researchers to immediately report potentially dangerous results and stop their experiments pending further NIH review. According to both the EcoHealth Alliance and NIH, the results were reported to the agency, but NIH determined that rules designed to restrict gain-of-function research did not apply.
The Intercept consulted 11 scientists who are virologists or work in adjacent fields and hold a range of views on both the ethics of gain-of-function research and the Covid-19 origins search. Seven said that the work appears to meet NIH’s criteria for gain-of-function research.
One said that the experiment “absolutely does not meet the bar” for gain-of-function research. “You can’t predict that these viruses would be more pathogenic, or even pathogenic at all in people,” said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist with the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization at the University of Saskatchewan. “They also did not study transmissibility at all in these experiments,” meaning that the scientists did not look at whether the viruses could spread across a population.
Three experts said that, while they did not have enough knowledge of U.S. policies to comment on whether the research met NIH criteria, the experiment involving humanized mice was unnecessarily risky.
One virologist, Vincent Racaniello, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Columbia University, said while he considered the mouse experiment described in the document to clearly fall into the gain-of-function category, he didn’t see it as problematic. “You can do some kinds of gain-of-function research that then has unforeseen consequences and may be a problem, but that’s not the case here,” said Racaniello.
Robert Kessler, communications manager for EcoHealth Alliance, denied that the work on the humanized mice met the definition of gain-of-function research. Kessler insisted that bat viruses are not potential pandemic pathogens because, he said, “a bat virus is not known to be able to infect humans.” The proposal justified the work on WIV1 by explaining that it is “not a select agent” — referring to a list of closely monitored toxins and biological agents that have the potential to pose a severe threat to public health — and “has not been shown to cause human infections, and has not been shown to be transmissible between humans.”Understanding-Risk-Bat-Coronavirus-Emergence-Grant-Notice528 pages
But the group’s bat coronavirus research was focused on the very threat that bat viruses pose to people. Kessler did acknowledge that, while the original bat coronavirus in the experiment did not spread among humans, the research was designed to gauge how bat coronaviruses could evolve to infect humans.
All but two of the scientists consulted agreed that, whatever title it is given, the newly public experiment raised serious concerns about the safety and oversight of federally funded research. “In my point of view, the debate about the definition of ‘gain-of-function’ has been too much focused on technical aspects,” said Jacques van Helden, a professor of bioinformatics at Aix-Marseille Université. “The real question is whether or not research has the potential to create or facilitate the selection of viruses that might infect humans.” The experiments described in the proposal clearly do have that potential, he said.
NIH spokesperson Elizabeth Deatrick said that the agency had considered the research — and decided not to restrict it under its own rules. “In 2016, NIAID determined that the work was not subject to the Gain-of-Function (GoF) research funding pause and the subsequent HHS P3CO Framework,” Deatrick wrote, referring to criteria put in place in 2017 to guide the agency’s funding decisions about research that involves, or is reasonably anticipated to involve, potential pandemic pathogens.
Republican members of Congress have alleged, without sufficient evidence, that gain-of-function research in Wuhan sparked the coronavirus pandemic. As part of an inquiry into the origins of the pandemic, they have twice grilled Fauci in Congress on his role as NIAID director.
In a heated exchange in July, Republican Sen. Rand Paul accused Fauci of lying when he claimed that NIH did not fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Experts now say that the documents support the contention that NIH funded gain-of-function work, though not in the specific instance where Paul alleged it. “There’s no question,” said Racaniello, of Columbia University, who pointed to the decreased weight of the mice infected with the chimeric viruses that was described in the research summaries sent to NIH. “From the weight loss, it’s gain of function. Tony Fauci is wrong saying it’s not.”
But the documents do not prove Paul’s claim that Fauci was lying, as they do not make clear whether Fauci read them. Nor do they in any way support Paul’s allegation that Fauci was “responsible for 4 million people around the world dying of a pandemic” — or that anyone intentionally caused Covid-19. What is clear is that program officers at NIAID, the agency that Fauci oversees, did know about the research.
A paragraph describing the research, as well as two figures illustrating its results, were included in both a 2018 progress report on the bat coronavirus grant and an application for its 2019 renewal. And NIH confirmed that it reviewed them.
“NIH has never approved any research that would make a coronavirus more dangerous to humans,” the agency said in a statement, echoing remarks by Collins, the NIH director, posted to its website in May. “The research we supported in China, where coronaviruses are prevalent, sought to understand the behavior of coronaviruses circulating in bats that have the potential to cause widespread disease.” Similar research funded by NIH had aided in the development of vaccines against the coronavirus, the statement continued.
The White House did not respond to questions about the research.
More and more people feel like something is “off” about our response to the “Covid” pandemic. This pandemic is claimed by political establishment prophets to be the first time in history that we need universal, worldwide “vaccination” to dissipate a respiratory pathogen. The proffered “vaccines” do not provide sterilizing immunity; rather, they lead to regular “breakthrough” infections. Yet we are directed to “mix and match” them as we like, on a regular basis, in order to eat in restaurants and attend events.
Having recovered from the disease itself does not suffice to maintain your rights. The ability to prove that you are not susceptible to the pathogen due to inherent good health does not suffice. To maintain freedom of movement, you must submit to the injections.
Something is off. They want us to take these “vaccines” very badly. They want to build a QR/tracking infrastructure on this “safety” premise very badly. One must ask: did they ever have a legitimate basis to lead us to this point? Did they really believe they could “save grandma” with a lockdown?
By picking apart the superficially flawed justification they gave to the terrified world population for first imposing universal house arrest, we can see that they did not. Both the WHO and the Imperial College modeler Neil Ferguson called for lockdowns specifically based on China’s Wuhan lockdown of January 2020. They admitted that “lockdown” was something no one previously believed would work. When “Xi Jinpeng succeeded,” they abruptly reversed course 180 degrees, calling for the entire world to “copy China.”
“It’s a communist one party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought…and then Italy did it. And we realised we could…If China had not done it, the year would have been very different.” — Neil Ferguson
Six weeks after the discovery of the first case, the WHO, during a press conference, sold the world on lockdown by claiming that “Wuhan’s curve is flatter” compared to other regions of China. The data it used to make this case — a case that it knew would devastate world economies and any individual human who could not earn money by sitting in front of a computer screen— was presumably provided via the communist dictator.
“So here’s the outbreak that happened in the whole country on the bottom. Here’s what the outbreak looked like outside of Hubei. Here are the areas of Hubei outside of Wuhan. And then the last one is Wuhan. And you can see this is a much flatter curve than the others. And that’s what happens when you have an aggressive action that changes the shape that you would expect from an infectious disease outbreak. This is extremely important for China, but it’s extremely important for the rest of the world . . .
The Chinese government and the Chinese people have used the non-pharmaceutical measures (or the social measures) [to] effectively change[] the course of the disease, as evidenced by the epidemic curves…In the report we have recommended this method to the international community.”
This superficially pleasing explanation — one easily accepted by a trusting scared person — raises huge red flags on closer analysis. First, how was the testing in the various regions conducted? Was it randomized throughout the population, or were only those who presented at clinics or hospitals tested? How many tests were conducted per capita? Was that number standard throughout the regions? How can we be sure “asymptomatic” cases were captured?, and so forth. In short, each curve could simply have depicted testing protocol — the tester could quite literally have compiled any curve it wanted.
Even worse, there is a logical flaw so breathtaking that it is impossible to believe it could have been overlooked by all lockdown-imposing world governments. Of the thousands of national, state, and local political and media actors cheering on the lockdowns, at least one must have noticed that while the curve may have been “flatter in Wuhan,” the disease still went awayin all of China. The supposed “flatter” curve in Wuhan had zero net benefit. The residents there suffered through the pain of lockdown, neighboring regions did not, and they all ended up at the same point.
China has not reported any Covid cases in nearly four months. Prior to that, its cases were flatlined for fifteen months, since March 2020. China’s disease “curve” would be comedic if the rest of the world had not given up democracy and precious constitutional rights to “fight the virus”:
Contrast this with the rest of the world — particularly the countries that tried the hardest to replicate the Chinese example — such as Peru, Israel, Australia, Singapore, New Zealand, and Canada. All of them have reported multiple “waves” of Covid despite all of the pain of lockdown. Even mass vaccination has not “stopped” waves of cases. China is the only country with a perfectly flat “curve,” and it did that with a single-city lockdown, despite reporting the presence of the virus in many other regions. Magic.
World governments clearly know about this. They do not trust the communist dictator. If they really believed the disease was serious and China underreported cases, they would not be firing doctors and nurses who refuse the “vaccine” after working safely with covid patients for 18 months. Rather, they know that the rules have no effect. The disease curves rise and fall, rise and fall — it would be absurd and perverse to conclude the rules work sometimes and fail at other times.
Yet they keep imposing rules. The population complies, conditioned to an illusion of control; a superstitious belief that “because we did something, it must have had an effect.” But facts are facts: even the “vaccines” have not stopped the virus, there are “breakthrough infections.” Desiring to be “good people,” everyone stays unthinkingly on the track that started with Wuhan’s lockdown.
They are trying to save grandma, but grandma’s fate is sealed. What is actually happening is they are paving the way to routine universal mandatory vaccination. The political establishment intends to make “the unvaccinated” second-class citizens, to dehumanize them and deny them basic rights many generations have taken for granted. This conditions the population to movement restrictions based on behavior. Compliance gets you rights, like a dog earning treats.
In this system — which is steadily getting underway in country after country — a person who weighs 350 pounds, is completely sedentary, and eats a steady stream of Big Macs is considered “healthy” and accepted in society. The decisive factor is obedience: he dutifully takes all of the “boosters.” By contrast, a world-class athlete such as Novak Djokovic cannot play tennis at the Australian Open. He is deemed an “infection risk” because he insists on maintaining his body using eastern-style health practices, the same ones that made him into the greatest tennis player of all time. (The establishment would rather he copy the Big Mac devotee described above, because it earns them — not him —more profits).
The political establishment is so devoted to this cause that it is hard to see how we can extricate ourselves. Accepting the first lockdown was the decisive point. We sacrificed our rights due to fear, and nearly two years later, we still don’t have them back. It was as obvious then as it is now: power is never seized and then voluntarily returned.
Australia now has “quarantine camps.” “Unvaccinated” Canadians cannot use mass transit. Austrians who refuse the jab cannot leave their homes. It bears repeating: world governments are holding law-abiding adults in house arrest for refusing to take an injection. This is not a drill.
Combine this real-life dystopia with the twisted “logic” used to launch the lockdowns, and it is hard to ignore the sinking feeling that lockdown was a preconceived pathway to where we are now: staring down the barrel at permanent, regular, mandatory adult vaccination — your immune system is now a subscription service — and corresponding movement “passports.”
Why do they want to inject us so badly? Certainly not for our own good. They act in their own self-interest, under cover of fake, “grandma-saving” goodwill. They are stealing from us — from you. How much more will you let them take?
Understanding-Risk-Bat-Coronavirus-Emergence-Grant-Notice528 pages
Global Government 