Preface

This is a complimentary piece to "State Of Emergency (RT-PCR, The Pandemic Machine)", which looked at the defining features of the SARS-CoV-2 "pandemic" and the institutional response to it.

The two articles re-published below pre-date SARS-CoV-2 by nearly a decade. So, why did the CDC and WHO feel it necessary to remove them from their servers in the midst of a "deadly global pandemic" (when presumably all hands were on deck) and what can we learn from their targeted self-censorship?
 

Contents

1. Introduction
2. WHO - Health is More Than Influenza
3. CDC - Influenza Deaths: Request for Correction (RFC)

1. Introduction

In their WHO article "Health is more than influenza", authors Luc Bonneux and Wim Van Damme looked at two "pandemics of fear" (their term), H5N1 and A(H1N1) and decried the global health agency's role in these twin "speculative catastrophes" induced by "disease advocacy" experts with "vested interests in exaggeration".

They state:

The pandemic policy was never informed by evidence, but by fear of worst-case scenarios.

Worst-case scenarios modelled by none other than Neil Ferguson of Imperial College whose ludicrous evidence-free "predictions" were dutifully amplified by a complicit media. In the case of H1N1, the WHO altered their definition of a pandemic to enable the release of $18 billion worth of “dormant” flu vaccine contracts.
 

Failing upwards: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation reward key pharmaceutical industry propagandists for their impressive "mistakes".

A simple marketing trick that is used by "public health institutions" as they conduct public relations for their pharmaceutical industry clientelle is to greatly amplify the threat of a disease or virus for which a marketable product exists.

One way this is done is via classification, in the case of influenza the classification "ILI" (Influenza-Like-Illness) allows institutions like the US CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) to conflate Influenza with a range of pneumonias (viral, bacterial, which actually do kill many people) and other serious respiratory illnesses. Then, with a little statistical modelling to compliment their semantic chicanery the CDC is able to imply that the influenza virus is a leading cause of death, killing tens of thousands of Americans every year. 

In his "Request for Correction" letter to the CDC, Stoller points out that ...

according to the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), "influenza and pneumonia" took 62,034 lives in 2001 — 61,777 of which were attributed to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was flu virus positively identified.

Glen Nowak of the CDC's National Immunization Program outlined a "Seven-Step 'Recipe' for Generating Interest in, and Demand for, Flu (or any other) Vaccination", for example, when ...

medical experts and public health authorities publicly state concern and alarm (and predict dire outcomes)

and the media provide ...

continued reports that influenza is causing severe illness and/or affecting lots of people, helping foster the perception that many people are susceptible to a bad case of influenza.

Playing with definitions and classifications (e.g. "died with" vs. "died of"), threat amplification with statistical modelling, propagandistic repetition and media hype, worst-case scenario “pandemic preparedness” planning, all culminating in a pandemic of fear and a "welcome boon" for the pharmaceutical industry. If none of this is reminiscent of the recent SARS-CoV-2 "pandemic" then you really haven't being paying attention.

Our contention, is that both the CDC and the WHO knew these critiques (especially in combination), published many years before SARS-CoV-2, outlined a standard operating procedure that was about as novel as the SARS virus itself. So, in the midst of a deadly "pandemic", they decided to self-censor and scrub them from their websites, lest anyone get any funny ideas that they were in the process of mass testing an experimental synthetic mRNA "vaccine" on a terrorised public. A "vaccine" that would pave the way for vaccine passports / digital IDs (see "roadmap" below), which, in conjunction with central bank digital currencies, would usher in a social credit system¹ for western "democracies". A veritable bucket list bonanza for the technocratic totalitarians driving the global public-private partnership.

Page from the EU Roadmap on Strengthening Cooperation Against Vaccine Preventable Diseases

The two articles re-published below, though no longer on the original publisher's sites (WHO and CDC / Department of Health and Human Services), can (at present) be accessed via the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine:

• Internet Archive:  WHO - Health is more than influenza
• Internet Archive:  CDC -  Influenza Deaths: Request for Correction (RFC)

They're re-published here as recently some pages have even disappeared from the Internet Archive. Additionally, the Internet Archive pages include live links for the references. 

Notes
1.  Social Credit System:  "Rather like feudalism, resource distribution is controlled by a centralised authority, who mete out access to resources dependent upon the citizen’s behaviour. This is the preferred “social credit” method of population control in China. An increasing number of China’s citizens need a good social credit score in order to access resources and society."
Source: "Technocracy: The Operating System For The New International Rules-Based Order"

2. Health is more than influenza

Luc Bonneux (b) & Wim Van Damme (c)

b. Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute, Postbus 11650, The Hague 2502 AR, Netherlands (e-mail: bonneux@nidi.nl).
c. Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium.

Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2011; Volume 89, Number 7, July 2011, 469-544;  89:539-540. doi:
10.2471/BLT.11.089086

The repeated pandemic health scares caused by an avian H5N1 and a new A(H1N1) human influenza virus are part of the culture of fear.^1–3 Worst-case thinking replaced balanced risk assessment. Worst-case thinking is motivated by the belief that the danger we face is so overwhelmingly catastrophic that we must act immediately. Rather than wait for information, we need a pre-emptive strike. But if resources buy lives, wasting resources wastes lives. The precautionary stocking of largely useless antivirals and the irrational vaccination policies against an unusually benign H1N1 virus wasted many billions of euros and eroded the trust of the public in health officials.^4–6 The pandemic policy was never informed by evidence, but by fear of worst-case scenarios.

In both pandemics of fear, the exaggerated claims of a severe public health threat stemmed primarily from disease advocacy by influenza experts. In the highly competitive market of health governance, the struggle for attention, budgets and grants is fierce. The pharmaceutical industry and the media only reacted to this welcome boon. We therefore need fewer, not more “pandemic preparedness” plans or definitions. Vertical influenza planning in the face of speculative catastrophes is a recipe for repeated waste of resources and health scares, induced by influenza experts with vested interests in exaggeration. There is no reason for expecting any upcoming pandemic to be worse than the mild ones of 1957 or 1968,⁷ no reason for striking pre-emptively, no reason for believing that a proportional and balanced response would risk lives.

The opposite of pre-emptive strikes against worst-case scenarios are adaptive strategies that respond to emerging diseases of any nature based on the evidence of observed virulence and the effectiveness of control measures. This requires more generic capacity for disease surveillance, problem identification, risk assessment, risk communication and health-care response.¹ Such strengthened general capacity can respond to all health emergencies, not just influenza. Resources are scarce and need to be allocated to many competing priorities. Scientific advice on resource allocation is best handled by generalists with a comprehensive view on health. Disease experts wish to capture public attention and sway resource allocation decisions in favour of the disease of their interest. We referred previously to the principles of guidance on health by the British National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE),² cited as “We make independent decisions in an open, transparent way, based on the best available evidence and including input from experts and interested parties.” ⁸ Support from disease experts is crucial in delivering opinion, scholarly advice and evidence to a team of independent general scientists. But this team should independently propose decisions to policy-makers and be held accountable for them.

The key to responsible policy-making is not bureaucracy but accountability and independence from interest groups. Decisions must be based on adaptive responses to emerging problems, not on definitions. WHO should learn to be NICE: accountable for reasonableness in a process of openness, transparency and dialogue with all the stakeholders, and particularly the public.⁹

Competing interests:
None declared.

References
1. Bonneux L, Van Damme W. An iatrogenic pandemic of panic. BMJ 2006; 332: 786-8 doi: 10.1136/bmj.332.7544.786 pmid: 16575086.
2. Bonneux L, Van Damme W. Preventing iatrogenic pandemics of panic. Do it in a NICE way. BMJ 2010; 340: c3065- doi: 10.1136/bmj.c3065 pmid: 20534667.
3. Füredi F. Culture of fear: risk-taking and the morality of low expectation. New York: Continuum; 2002.
4. Jefferson T, Di Pietrantonj C, Rivetti A, Bawazeer GA, Al-Ansary LA, Ferroni E. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; 7: CD001269- pmid: 20614424.
5. Jefferson T, Jones M, Doshi P, Del Mar C, Dooley L, Foxlee R. Neuraminidase inhibitors for preventing and treating influenza in healthy adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; 2: CD001265- pmid: 20166059.
6. Cohen D, Carter P. WHO and the pandemic flu “conspiracies”. BMJ 2010; 340: c2912- doi: 10.1136/bmj.c2912 pmid: 20525679.
7. Morens DM, Taubenberger JK. Understanding influenza backward. JAMA 2009; 302: 679-80 doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1127 pmid: 19671909.
8. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence [Internet]. London: NICE; 2011. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/ [accessed 14 April 2011].
9. Daniels N. Accountability for reasonableness. BMJ 2000; 321: 1300-1 doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7272.1300 pmid: 11090498.

3. Influenza Deaths: Request for Correction (RFC)

US data on influenza deaths are false and misleading. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) acknowledges a difference between flu death and flu associated death yet uses the terms interchangeably. Additionally, there are significant statistical incompatibilities between official estimates and national vital statistics data. Compounding these problems is a marketing of fear—a CDC communications strategy in which medical experts "predict dire outcomes" during flu seasons.

The CDC website states what has become commonly accepted and widely reported in the lay and scientific press: annually "about 36 000 [Americans] die from flu" (www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease.htm) and "influenza/pneumonia" is the seventh leading cause of death in the United States (www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm). But why are flu and pneumonia bundled together? Is the relationship so strong or unique to warrant characterizing them as a single cause of death? David Rosenthal, director of Harvard University Health Services, said, "People don't necessarily die, per se, of the [flu] virus—the viraemia. What they die of is a secondary pneumonia. So many of these pneumonias are not viral pneumonias but secondary [pneumonias]." But Dr Rosenthal agreed that the flu/pneumonia relationship was not unique. For instance, a recent study (JAMA 2004;292: 1955-60[Abstract/Free Full Text]) found that stomach acid suppressing drugs are associated with a higher risk of community acquired pneumonia, but such drugs and pneumonia are not compiled as a single statistic. CDC states that the historic 1968-9 "Hong Kong flu" pandemic killed 34 000 Americans. At the same time, CDC claims 36 000 Americans annually die from flu. What is going on?

Meanwhile, according to the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), "influenza and pneumonia" took 62 034 lives in 2001—61 777 of which were attributed to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was flu virus positively identified. Between 1979 and 2002, NCHS data show an average 1348 flu deaths per year (range 257 to 3006). The NCHS data would be compatible with CDC mortality estimates if about half of the deaths classed by the NCHS as pneumonia were actually flu initiated secondary pneumonias. But the NCHS criteria indicate otherwise: "Cause-of-death statistics are based solely on the underlying cause of death... defined by WHO as `the disease or injury which initiated the train of events leading directly to death.'" In a written statement, CDC media relations responded to the diverse statistics: "Typically, influenza causes death when the infection leads to severe medical complications." And as most such cases "are never tested for virus infection...CDC considers these [NCHS] figures to be a very substantial undercounting of the true number of deaths from influenza. Therefore, the CDC uses indirect modelling methods to estimate the number of deaths associated with influenza." CDC's model calculated an average annual 36 155 deaths from influenza associated underlying respiratory and circulatory causes (JAMA 2003;289: 179-86[Abstract/Free Full Text]). Less than a quarter of these (8097) were described as flu or flu associated underlying pneumonia deaths. Thus the much publicised figure of 36 000 is not an estimate of yearly flu deaths, as widely reported in both the lay and scientific press, but an estimate—generated by a model—of flu-associated death. William Thompson of the CDC's National Immunization Program (NIP), and lead author of the CDC's 2003 JAMA article, explained that "influenza-associated mortality" is "a statistical association between deaths and viral data available." He said that an association does not imply an underlying cause of death: "Based on modelling, we think it's associated. I don't know that we would say that it's the underlying cause of death." Yet this stance is incompatible with the CDC assertion that the flu kills 36 000 people a year—a misrepresentation that is yet to be publicly corrected. Before 2003 CDC said that 20 000 influenza-associated deaths occurred each year. The new figure of 36 000 reported in the January 2003 JAMA paper is an estimate of influenza-associated mortality over the 1990s. Keiji Fukuda, a flu researcher and a co-author of the paper, has been quoted as offering two possible causes for this 80% increase: "One is that the number of people older than 65 is growing larger...The second possible reason is the type of virus that predominated in the 1990s [was more virulent]." However, the 65-plus population grew just 12% between 1990 and 2000. And if flu virus was truly more virulent over the 1990s, one would expect more deaths. But flu deaths recorded by the NCHS were on average 30% lower in the 1990s than the 1980s.

At the 2004 "National Influenza Vaccine Summit," co-sponsored by CDC and the American Medical Association, Glen Nowak, associate director for communications at the NIP, spoke on using the media to boost demand for the vaccine. One step of a "Seven-Step `Recipe' for Generating Interest in, and Demand for, Flu (or any other) Vaccination" occurs when "medical experts and public health authorities publicly...state concern and alarm (and predict dire outcomes)—and urge influenza vaccination" (www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/36/2004_flu_nowak.pdf). Another step entails "continued reports...that influenza is causing severe illness and/or affecting lots of people, helping foster the perception that many people are susceptible to a bad case of influenza." Preceding the summit, demand had been low early into the 2003 flu season. "At that point, the manufacturers were telling us that they weren't receiving a lot of orders for vaccine for use in November or even December," recalled Dr Nowak on National Public Radio. "It really did look like we needed to do something to encourage people to get a flu shot." If flu is in fact not a major cause of death, this public relations approach is surely exaggerated. Moreover, by arbitrarily linking flu with pneumonia, current data are statistically biased. Until corrected and until unbiased statistics are developed, the chances for sound discussion and public health policy are limited.

I am a pediatrician and this propaganda affects my practice directly.

Kenneth Stoller
International Hyperbaric Medical Association

Last updated:  29/06/22

Once treated, those who've had the virus will likely have long lasting immunity (memory B and T cell cross-reactivity with SARS-CoV-1 indicate "this type of immunity can last for at least 17 years").  In a sense one can think of such viruses as "self-spreading vaccines"; afterall, they spread themselves and confer immunity to the infected (read: "innoculated").

Dangerous goons in the bio-medical / bio-security world like to think of themselves as mother nature's superior and create documents like: "Technologies To Address Global Catastrophic Biological Risks" [PDF] - Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security [see Executive Summary, p.7 and pages 41-56].

From p.41 - "Medical Countermeasure Distribution, Dispensing, and Administration":

For example, during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, as the new vaccine became publicly available slowly over time, health departments in the United States and health ministries internationally had difficulty reaching and vaccinating high-priority and vulnerable populations. In the United States, only 34% of people in initial priority groups and 29% of adults at high risk were vaccinated. Internationally, the average national vaccine coverage rate was only 13%.

In a truly severe pandemic or GCB event in which vaccines are available, vaccination coverage would need to be much higher than it was in 2009 in order to make a meaningful difference in controlling or stopping spread of the disease.

TRANSLATION:   How do we bypass vaccine hesitancy, those pesky vaccine safety advocates, the Nuremberg Code and informed consent?

Self-spreading vaccines are genetically engineered to move through populations like communicable diseases, but rather than causing disease, they confer protection. The vision is that a small number of individuals in a target population could be vaccinated, and the vaccine strain would then circulate in the population much like a pathogenic virus, resulting in rapid, widespread immunity.

Self-spreading vaccines have been in the works for some time:

• Self-disseminating vaccines for emerging infectious diseases (2015, published in the Expert Review of Vaccines 2016)
• We now have the technology to develop vaccines that spread themselves (New Scientist, August 2020)

We have the technology and strangely we're having many reports of people getting symptoms of vaccine injury after spending time around vaccinated people. Enough to raise some eyebrows in the research community (see the Jaxxen Report @ 42:50 on mRNA "vaccine" shedding - and note the trial concerns expressed by Pfizer).

In 2020 the Daily Express (strangely) published this story: Coronavirus cure: Scientists plan bizarre 'self-spreading vaccine' to fight pandemic.

Ominously, at the end of the article, there was the following reminiscence:

Historically this weaponising of the "self-spreading" vaccine technique has already been considered and possibly developed. South African scientists developed an anti-fertility vaccine to target certain populations during the apartheid era. The sinister research was codenamed Project Coast.

South Africa’s post-apartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commission was informed by the scientists behind the research the project was in line with the World Health Organization’s attempts to control the global population boom.

It's an interesting area of research and no one really knows what these "vaccines" are doing and what they're capable of.  What we do know, is that in conjunction with synthetic mRNA "vaccines", the work on Self-Spreading Vaccines ran in parallel and they are clearly not something in our future, but rather a technology of the present.

Are they part of the current mass experiment? Who knows?  Or perhaps WHO knows.

1. Introduction: State Of Emergency
2. Phase 3: The Human Guinea Pig
3. First Do No Harm (A Quick Look At Some Novel "Vaccine" Tech)
4. Is There An Emergency? (Data & Context)
   i. All Cause Mortality (Deaths) in England & Wales 1900 - 2020
   ii. All Cause Mortality (Deaths) in England & Wales 1971 - 2020
   iii. All Cause Mortality (Deaths) of English & Welsh Residents 2017 - 2020
   iv.. Age Adjusted (WHO) All Cause Mortality (Deaths) in England: 2001 - June 2021
   v.. Hospital Bed Occupancy in England (Year-End 2019 vs 2020)
   vi. Deaths (All Causes) in England & Wales vs COVID-19 "Cases" (+PCR Tests)
5. RT-PCR, The Pandemic Machine
   i. What is PCR?
   ii. What is a Case?
   iii. PCR Amplification Cycle Threshold (Ct) & False Positives
   iv. The Corman-Drosten RT-qPCR: A "Useless Test" Yields Meaningless Data
   v. The Data is False, The Consequences are Real
6. The Asymptomatic Spreader
7. A Viral PR Machine
   i. A Brief History (H1N1)
   ii. Fast Forward to 2020
   iii. Viral Public Relations
   iv. Qui Bono
8. The Future Died In Someone's Past (Collateral "Vaccine" Damage?)
   i. The "Knowns" and the "Known Unknowns"
   ii. Light at the End of the Tunnel (Crimes & Revelations)
9. Changelog (Amendments, Corrections, Additions)

1) Introduction: State Of Emergency

The premature and express roll-out of experimental unlicensed "vaccines" to supress mild to moderate symptoms of the COVID-19 disease (rather than provide immunity or prevent transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus) is premised on the idea that we're in the midst of a global pandemic; a medical emergency.

Regulation 174 of the UK's 2012 Human Medicines Regulations was amended on October 16th 2020 (adding 174A) to enable the temporary authorisation of unlicensed medicines (including vaccines) in response to a public health emergency.

Before we look at whether this emergency necessitates mass human experimentation, let's first look at the "vaccines" and the scarce data from the trials. We'll start with the latter, since many think the trials are behind us, though as you'll see, they absolutely are not.
 

2) Phase 3: The Human Guinea Pig

On the 8th December, the BBC reported: "The Oxford/AstraZeneca Covid vaccine is safe and effective, giving good protection, researchers have confirmed". The Lancet study they were referencing actually stated: "ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials".

Iain Davis, in an excellent piece titled, "What Vaccine Trials?" (published on Off-Guardian, 3rd Jan 2021 and excerpted below), clearly lays out the trial phases and their end-points and states categorically:

"[...] If you decide to have Pfizer and BioNTech’s experimental mRNA-based BNT162b2 (BNT) vaccine, or any other claimed COVID 19 vaccine for that matter, you are a test subject in a drug trial.

[...] The regulators and governments have worked with the pharmaceutical corporations to conflate the limited data from the initial, or phase one trials with the incomplete and ongoing data collection from the substantially larger phase two and three trials. The MSM [mainstream media] have then falsely claimed the 1,2,3 phase trials are complete and insinuated that the untested data demonstrates vaccine efficacy and safety. In reality, not only has the reporting of existing data been manipulated to show efficacy that isn’t evident in the raw data itself, the most important and meaningful phases of the trials have barely begun, let alone been completed.

[... AstraZeneca's] AZD1222 was registered with the U.S. Center for Disease Control as clinical trial NCT04516746 [Archived 29th December 2020]. It is incomplete and the estimated end date is February 21st 2023. The CDC state: "No Study Results Posted"

[...] The start date for [Pfizer BioNTech's trial] NCT04368728 was April 29th [2020] and the estimated trial completion date is January 27th 2023. The estimated end date of the primary or phase one of a three phase trial is June 13th 2021.

Informed consent is a legal obligation and providing false or incomplete information to gain consent for vaccination (or any medical procedure) is a crime. Are recipients being told these "vaccines" are experimental (and don't prevent infection or transmission) and that they are consenting to participate in a pharmaceutical trial?

While we remain unsure of their safety, editor of the British Medical Journal (BMJ), Peter Doshi gleaned enough from the limited data released so far to derive a relative risk reduction for Pfizer and Moderna's "vaccines" between 19% and 29% (not 95% as the respective companies had stated via press release, see "Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines - we need more details and the raw data"). 

The absolute risk reduction (ARR), using Pfizer's own figures is 0.84%:

The absolute risk of developing COVID 19 symptoms without the vaccine is supposedly 0.88% and with the vaccine 0.044%. In absolute terms, the effectiveness of the vaccine is (0.88-0.044)%. A risk reduction of 0.84%.

Later, we'll explain why even these numbers and all data that has guided mask mandates [PDF], lockdown policies and even the COVID-19 "vaccine" trials, are largely meaningless. But before we do, let's look at the "vaccines" themselves.
 

3) First Do No Harm (A Quick Look At Some Novel "Vaccine" Tech)

So far, we have an unlicensed experimental "vaccine" technology with an unknown risk profile, that doesn't prevent infection or transmission but may reduce your risk of developing COVID-19 symptoms by up to 0.84% (ARR). With such modest expected benefits, one should hope these novel products at least do no harm.

There are two main differences between the AstraZeneca (AZ) and Pfizer / Moderna "vaccines" (and here I'm going to attempt a lay translation - more detail and a complete list of ingredients are available here):

The Delivery Mechanism (vector)

• The Pfizer / Moderna vaccines use an engineered lipid nano-particle with a PEG (Polyethylene glycol) coating (which seems to be causing anaphylaxis, also see here)
• AZ use a chimpanzee adenovirus to deliver their payload. The vaccine is grown on an "immortalized" (and potentially tumorigenic?) human cell line MRC-5 (genetically engineered and mass produced) from a 1960s aborted foetus (the contaminants are then "purified" away - in theory)

The Payload (code)

• The Pfizer / Moderna vaccines use mRNA (messenger RNA) to encode the cell to "grow" a (SARS-CoV-2-facsimile) spike protein which provokes an immune response facilitating the production of B-Cell antigens (in the hope that if you get the real thing your immune system will recognise the spike protein and provide a rapid response).
• The AZ "vaccine" is similar but uses more robust DNA (which is why it doesn't require the low temperature during transport) to encode the cell to grow a (SARS-CoV-2-facsimile) spike protein.

In essence, both "vaccines" or "gene therapies" are instructing the body to create something the immune system will attack. Traditional vaccines enter the body as foreign agents (either inactivated virus with adjuvants as with the flu vaccine, or small amounts of live attenuated virus as with the Polio vaccine), these novel "vaccine platforms" seem to muddy the water between what the body regards as "external to self" (and thus foreign) and what is "part of self". A dysregulated immune system may attack its host (mistaking it as foreign); we call such pathologies "auto-immune diseases".

Unfortunately, we're beginning to see disturbing evidence of serious adverse events:  transverse myelitis (AZ), multiple sclerosis (AZ), Bell's palsy (Pf, Mo) were all evident in the early trials and during the mass roll-out phase of the ongoing trials we've seen Acute Idiopathic Thrombocytopenia Purpura (ITP), neurological disorders like akenesia and dystonia, cardiovascular complications and death (in the healthy as well as the frail and old).

The pharmaceutical companies are currently treating any and all such side effects as coincidences. The statistical evidence that these experimental "vaccines" cause "coincidences" is mounting (and perhaps this disease called "coincidence" should be listed as a potential side effect on the COVID vaccine inserts).

If these truly are coincidences, it would appear that they're coincidences of the expected kind. The FDA (US Food & Drug Administration) is looking out for the following:

Source: Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee October 22, 2020 Meeting Presentation (PDF)

The UK's equivalent to the FDA, the MHRA put out a tender (23/10/20, a day after the above advisory) for an Artificial Intelligence Software System to "process the expected high volume of Adverse Drug Reactions" : 

Source: MHRA Tender on TED for "Software package and information systems" (2020/S 207-506291)

So now we've seen the experimental nature of the response to this "unprecedented public health emergency", let's ask a simple, yet forbidden question ...
 

4) Is There An Emergency?

Here we're going to look at data for England & Wales and see if we can find an emergency. We'll start from a historical, bird-eye view and apply a temporal zoom as we go. The historical data series are adjusted for population growth (i.e. deaths per 100,000 of population).

1. All Cause Mortality (Deaths) in England & Wales 1900 - 2020

Source: Alliance for Natural Health (Data: Office of National Statistics, note: the "England & Wales Mortality" series does not include the deaths of nationals overseas or service personnel that died abroad)

So yes, there's an uptick, but we didn't shut down the economy, lock down the population, don masks and conduct mass human experiments during the flu seasons of 1951 and 1968 and we're barely back to where we were in 2003 (a year when two million people protested the Iraq war in London; but not a year remembered for over-flowing morgues - at least not in the UK).

Let's zoom in.
 

2. All Cause Mortality (Deaths) in England & Wales 1971 - 2020

Source: Alliance for Natural Health (Data: Office of National Statistics)

Again, if 2020 was an emergency then all years from 1971 to 2000 were presumably also emergencies. Next, we'll look at 2020 on a month by month basis and see what actually happened.
 

3. All Cause Mortality (Deaths) of English & Welsh Residents 2017 - 2020

Clearly, something happened in April 2020; the one obviously anomalous month, but equally clearly it was largely over by mid-May. How many of these deaths were avoidable and could have been treated with field-tested protocols which doctors across the world were crying out to implement (and in freer jurisdictions, were implementing, often with impressive results) and how many were the result of policy is yet to be determined and something for a tribunal or a trial (of the Nuremberg kind).

Some of these deaths in April were the result of care homes being seeded with COVID-19 patients (i.e. hospitals prematurely transferring infected patients back into care homes); the inappropriate use of ventilators (65% to 80% [NY] of COVID-19 patients die when mechanically ventilated), hospitals turning away or not responding to non-COVID-19 emergencies and people made so afraid by mainstream media coverage and government messaging that they were too scared to visit the hospital when sick. There are likely many deaths that cannot be attributed solely to SARS-CoV-2 infection that compound this April spike and these are often referred to as "lockdown deaths" (i.e. deaths related to the government's response to the virus).

The rising mortality in November and December shouldn't surprise anyone after the government imposed increasingly draconian, hope-sapping lockdowns on an already beleaguered and frustrated population, having made 70,000 households homeless, bankrupted businesses, destroyed incomes and restricted medical procedures, screenings and checkups for non-COVID-19 patients. The BMA estimates that between April and November 2020 there were 2.57 million less elective procedures and 18 million less outpatient attendances.

Now let's pull this all together, and to make sure we're comparing like-for-like we'll apply the WHO's age-standardized mortality rate (a weighted average of the age-specific mortality rates per 100,000). This is an update (see bottom of the article for details), so we can see all the way up to June 2021. 
 

4. Age Adjusted (WHO) All Cause Mortality (Deaths) in England: 2001 - June 2021

Source: Stuart Allan

English deaths from COVID-19 clearly peaked in April 2020 and by June of that year any "emergency" classification had no legitimate basis; the entire "vaccine" roll-out under "emergency use authorisation" was illegitimate (and frankly not lawful).

Aside from the April 2020 bump (much of which can be explained by the response to the "outbreak"), the SARS-CoV-2 "pandemic" year, when compared to all other years looks anything but extraordinary, and nothing like the desperate picture painted by the mainstream media.

This is also born out by the NHS bed occupancy data ...
 

5. Hospital Bed Occupancy in England (Year-End 2019 vs 2020)

Source: UK Column News, 11/01/2021 (@ 22:20)

It's worth keeping in mind, that between 2010 and 2017 hospital beds were reduced by 70,000 in the UK. Any current shortage of NHS capacity is largely the result of government policy, not a coronavirus.

According to the Guardian (as this sequence @ 49:45 from UK Column News, 08/01/21 shows) the NHS has been at breaking-point every year since at least 2012. So, again I'm struggling to see an unprecedented emergency. At this point it's worth posing the question:

If the mainstream media weren't playing COVID-19 every day; if there were no lockdowns or mask mandates and if we weren't mass "testing" for SARS-CoV-2, would we really know we were in the grip of a deadly pandemic?

The final graph in this section may provide some clues as to why so many believe we are.
 

6. Deaths (All Causes) in England & Wales vs COVID-19 "Cases" (+PCR Tests)

Dr Malcolm Kendrick summed up the "pandemic" in his year-end review of COVID-19, "What is left to say?" (30/12/20):

It started in late March and was pretty much finished by mid-May. [...] Two things stand out. First, there was an obvious ‘COVID19 spike’. Second, what we are seeing at present does not differ greatly from previous years. The normal winter spike in deaths [...] It seems to be around the same size as winter 2017/18.

Many (at least those not pimping vaccines or pushing political agendas) agree: if there was a critical emergency, it was over in mid-May. What persists are policies serving powerful interests and positive PCR tests that enthusiastic proponents of "the pandemic" like to call "cases" (they are not cases by any standard definition, more on this in a moment). 

Ultimately, all roads lead to a technology called Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR). The PCR test has become the tool of choice when you need to dial in, crank up and wind down a global "pandemic"; used nefariously, the RT-PCR is a pandemic machine. So what is RT-PCR and how does it work?
 

5) RT-PCR, The Pandemic Machine

1. What is PCR?

Kary Mullis won the Nobel prize for Chemistry for his invention of a process known as polymerase chain reaction (PCR), in which "a small amount of DNA can be copied in large quantities over a short period of time".  The replication is done in cycles where each cycle doubles the quantity of genetic material; the number of cycles it takes to produce something identifiable is called the “cycle threshold", often referred to as the “Ct value”.

When working with RNA (corona viruses are RNA viruses), the RNA is first transcribed in reverse into its DNA complement by a reverse transcriptase enzyme; thus Reverse Transcription PCR (RT-PCR).

In their January 2020 publication “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR” authors Victor Corman and Christian Drosten presented a diagnostic workflow and RT-qPCR protocol for the detection and diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2.

This was to become the infamous PCR test used throughout the world to "detect" SARS-CoV-2 infection.
 

2. What is a Case?

In 2014, commenting on the 2003 SARS [1] outbreak, Christian Drosten said:

"During the [2003] SARS [severe acute respiratory syndrome] outbreak, there was a strict case definition. People who had had contact with SARS patients but showed no symptoms were not tested with PCR. Instead they were tested for antibodies later, to see if an infection had happened. That should happen now in Saudi Arabia, too. Asymptomatic people should not be tested with PCR."

A case (unless you're promoting a pandemic) = symptoms + a positive test (often followed by a reliable confirmatory test).

In a paper titled "Diagnosing COVID-19 infection: the danger of over-reliance on positive test results (PDF)", the authors point out:

"Because of the known problems with PCR testing over many years, the WHO and the US CDC recommended for all the previous epidemics this century – SARS1, MERS, Ebola, and Zika – that:
 

1. PCR should only be used in patients with a high suspicion of having the disease or being exposed to it.
2. The test must be confirmed by a different form of test, or at least by a repeat test from a different laboratory.

Furthermore single test results were considered insufficient for public health decision making".

The current "pandemic", isn't a "casedemic" as many critics have called it; the majority of "cases" aren't cases. Instead we have an epidemic of false positive PCR results. Karry Mullis made clear, PCR was never a diagnostic tool:

"[...] with PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody.”

3. PCR Amplification Cycle Threshold (Ct) & False Positives

PCR works via amplification cycles. So for an RNA virus like SARS-CoV-2, the lower the cycle threshold (Ct) the greater the amount of RNA per sample and vice versa: high Ct = less RNA. Note also, that PCR does not "distinguish between infectious virus and non-infectious nucleic acid".

In "Viral cultures for COVID-19 infectious potential assessment – a systematic review", the authors point out that:

"Two studies reported the odds of live virus culture reduced by approximately 33% for every one unit increase in Ct. [...] Complete live viruses are necessary for transmission, not the fragments identified by PCR. [Tests run] with a high cycle threshold are unlikely to have infectious potential".

Swiss Policy Research in "The Trouble With PCR Tests (24/10/20)" reference the work of professor Raoult who demonstrated the risk of false positives when testing for SARS-CoV-2 in culture:

The research group of French professor Didier Raoult has recently shown that at a cycle threshold (ct) of 25, about 70% of samples remained positive in cell culture (i.e. were infectious); at a ct of 30, 20% of samples remained positive; at a ct of 35, 3% of samples remained positive; and at a ct above 35, no sample remained positive (infectious) in cell culture.

This means that if a person gets a “positive” PCR test result at a cycle threshold of 35 or higher (as applied in most US and many European labs), the chance that the person is infectious is less than 3%. The chance that the person received a “false positive” result is 97% or higher.

So at a Ct of 35 we have a 97% false postive rate. Every additional cycle further reduces the probability of there being live virus by approximately 33%. Clearly, if one wanted an accurate accounting of the number of genuine infectious cases in the real world, you'd test symptomatic people, you'd set the Ct at 30 (max) and you'd record each PCR test's Ct value. However, if you wanted to create as many symptom-free "cases" as worldly possible you'd set a maximum Ct threshold above 35 and test as many people as you could find. 

[...] most commercial tests can run up to 40 to 45 CT and those who receive positive test results are not told the CT value that triggered the positive result. [...]  A positive result with a high CT value will be detecting viral fragments or bits of closely related virus like the common cold that have no ability to infect another person. (source: Alliance for Natural Health)

This is why (outside the mainstream media) we see headlines like: "Portuguese Court Rules PCR Tests “Unreliable” & Quarantines “Unlawful” and "For The First Time, A US State Will Require Disclosure Of PCR 'Cycle Threshold' Data In COVID Tests" And just recently, the W.H.O (who knew all along that this was the case) just "discovered" there might be a false positive issue with PCR. They state: 

Users of RT-PCR reagents should read the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is necessary to account for any background noise which may lead to a specimen with a high cycle threshold (Ct) value result being interpreted as a positive result.

This is the same W.H.O that recommended a Ct of 45, meaning, to quote the inventor, you will "find almost anything in anybody".

4. The Corman-Drosten RT-PCR:  "Useless Test" Yields Meaningless Data

The Corman Drosten Review's Report and Addendum are worth reading for anyone who still believes the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test is fit for purpose. Its authors conclude:

In light of our re-examination of the test protocol to identify SARS-CoV-2 described in the Corman-Drosten paper we have identified concerning errors and inherent fallacies which render the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test useless.

For those who may find the Corman Drosten Review overly technical or heavy-going, Kevin McKernan provides an excellent outline of the PCR technology and its issues when used as a diagnostic tool in an interview called "PCR testing insights" (which you can watch online at PCRClaims, or download in MP4 format). Additionally, Dr Sam Bailey provides a concise and equally thorough examination in her video "The Truth About PCR Tests".

The SARS-CoV-2 PCR test is indeed "useless", or more politely "not fit for purpose" and more importantly, it's producing results that are meaningless. This is vital, since all (so-called) "public health policy", from social distancing, to mask mandates, to lockdowns, to travel bans, to quarantines and now, experimental and unlicensed "vaccines", are based on the Corman-Drosten RT-qPCR test. A PCR test that was never peer-reviewed and as Mary Holland, General Counsel of Children's Health Defense pointed out (@ 12:50) is also an unlicensed and emergency use product:

"[...] these novel mRNA vaccines which most scientists we're listening to say are not really vaccines [...] This is experimental and that's what the EUA (Emergency Use Authorization) designation means.  [...] Right now we have very strong grounds to push back against any efforts to force people to take these vaccines or even the test. The PCR test for COVID is also an EUA product; it has not been licensed for its purpose [...] it is experimental by definition."

5. The Data are False, The Consequences are Real

The damage that has been caused by this incarnation of the PCR test is almost incalculable. But perhaps most worrying is what this means for the "vaccine" experiment that is currently underway.

The vaccine trials rely on the same SARS-CoV-2 PCR test that has: a) been shown to be so flawed as to be utterly "useless"; b) uses a technology that was never intended as a diagnostic tool; and c) was run at Ct values that would provide meaningless results.

All trial data is based on how trial participants tested:

• How many in the "vaccine" group tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 versus how many in the placebo group?
• How did the symptoms of the vaccinated group compare with the symptoms of the non-vaccinated group when participants tested positive (via PCR) for SARS-CoV-2?

If we cannot trust the test upon which all claims of the COVID-19 "vaccines" are based, then we literally know nothing about the efficacy of these experimental "vaccines". We are beginning to find out about their safety however, and frankly I worry for the long term health of every single participant in this ongoing trial.

Ultimately, the real experiment is between the compliant and ill-informed (the vaccinated group) and the non-compliant and well-informed (the control). I'm not looking forward to the results when the trials end in 2023.

6) The Asymptomatic Spreader

There's almost nothing right about the caption on the Tier 3 Alert below (click to enlarge), which reads:

"Around 1 in 3 people with Covid-19 have no symptoms, so will be spreading the virus without realising."

An informed person would look at this and likely muse: "a 33% false-positive rate seems a little low". The sign should of course read:

"Around 1 in 3 people with Covid-19 have no symptoms because they don't have Covid-19."

COVID-19 is the disease. The conflation of the disease with the virus has led many to believe that the "vaccine" prevents infection and transmission of the virus; when in reality the manufacturers claim their "vaccines" merely dampen symptoms of the COVID-19 disease; effectively turning the "vaccinated" into asymptomatic spreaders (which ironically is what the sign is warning you about).

If you were asymptomatic while actually infected with SARS-CoV-2, that would imply your immune system dealt with the infection and prevented the disease state called COVID-19. Peter Doshi in a BMJ article (17/09/20) titled "Covid-19: Do many people have pre-existing immunity?" makes the case that T-Cell cross-immunity from other coronaviruses was likely prevalent in most populations before SARS-CoV-2 arrived:

In a study of donor blood specimens obtained in the US between 2015 and 2018, 50% displayed various forms of T cell reactivity to SARS-CoV-2

So, let's talk about the near mythical "asymptomatic spreader".

Dr Clair Craig in a BMJ Rapid Response to "Mass testing for covid-19 in the UK" wrote:

"Mass testing and accompanying harmful lockdown policies are justified on the assumption that asymptomatic transmission is a genuine risk. [...] However, the only word which can be used to describe the quality of evidence for this is woeful."

In a video titled: "Dr Clare Craig - The trouble with PCR" (which you can watch online at PCRClaims, or download in MP4 format), Dr Craig covers a number of problems with the PCR test that have not been addressed here, she also looks at the Lateral Flow Tests, the death certification issue, and finishes by destroying the mythology around the asymptomatic spreader. I can't put it any more concisely or eloquently than her, so I'll simply recommend you watch the full interview.

What is surprising, is just how scant the evidence for the asymptomatic spreader actually is. In their BMJ pre-print titled "Has the Evidence of Asymptomatic Spread of COVID-19 been Significantly Overstated", Dr Craig and Jonathan Engler (MBChB LLB) state:

The existence of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from asymptomatic individuals has become an accepted truth but the evidence for this phenomenon being anything other than mistaken interpretation of false positive test results is weak. Examination of the underlying data from the most frequently-cited such meta-analyses reveals that the conclusions are based on a surprisingly small number of cases (six in total globally) and, moreover, the possibility that they are all coincidental contacts with false positive results cannot be ruled out.

The only thing I will add is this. The idea of the asymptomatic spreader appears to have been egregiously over-stated. It's an important idea and worthy of promotion, if your goal is to make everyone afraid of everyone else.
 

7) A Viral PR Machine

A Brief History

It's not like we haven't been here before. The prelude to the SARS-CoV-2 "pandemic" was the H1N1 Swine Flu "pandemic" of 2009, in which some familiar names (Fauci, Ferguson, Imperial, W.H.O) used PCR testing to create a second wave ("around a year after the virus had more or less disappeared") which was light on hospitalisations and deaths but heavy on "cases".

Failing upwards: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation reward key pharmaceutical industry propagandists for their impressive "mistakes".

The W.H.O altered their definition of a “pandemic” to create sufficient panic to sell billions of doses of untested flu vaccines. CHD explains what happened next:

The [W.H.O's] declaration of H1N1 as a pandemic launched $18 billion worth of “dormant” flu vaccine contracts, and allowed GSK to push its vaccine, Pandemrix, onto countries all over the world. The Pandemrix vaccine caused severe, life-long, adverse neurological reactions, including narcolepsy and cataplexy (the sudden, brief loss of voluntary muscle tone triggered by strong emotions), in at least 1,300 children across Europe. It’s possible even more children were injured, as it’s estimated that only 10% of adverse reactions are reported through national adverse event reporting systems.

Fast Forward to 2020

• Feb 17th 2020 - Fauci stated: "risk of coronavirus in USA is miniscule"
• Feb 28th 2020 - Bill Gates warned coronavirus may be the "once in a century pathogen we've been worried about"
• March 4th 2020 - CDC issues new guidlines for certifying COVID-19 deaths [PDF]

The CDC's new certification guidelines stated:

"It is important to emphasize that Coronavirus Disease 2019 or COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused  or contributed to death.  [...] Specification of the causal pathway leading to death in Part I of the certificate is also important. For example, in cases when COVID-19 causes pneumonia and fatal respiratory distress, both pneumonia and respiratory distress should be included along with COVID-19 in Part I."

This is important, as Part 1 of the death certificate enters into the data / statistical record. Institutions across the globe were strongly incentivised to mark the bottom line (the underlying cause) as COVID-19. Thus the root cause of death was heavily skewed toward COVID-19, amplifying the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and its pathology.

Italy’s COVID-19 Surveillance Group (part of the National Institute of Health) issued a report in late March 2020 about which Professor Walter Ricciardi (scientific adviser to Italy’s minister of health) commented:

"The way in which we code deaths in our country is very generous in the sense that all the people who die in hospitals with the coronavirus are deemed to be dying of the coronavirus […] On re-evaluation by the National Institute of Health, only 12 per cent of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88 per cent of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity – many had two or three”.

This resulted in some bizarre data anomalies in the medical reporting systems. For example, sentinel hospitals (part of a network of institutions that report health surveillance and admissions data back to the CDC), reported that hospitalisations due to influenza had flat-lined in 2020.

Either COVID-19 cures influenza or we have a serious administration problem. Let's turn to the W.H.O to see if this peculiar phenomenon is mirrored globally.

Source: snapshot of W.H.O's FluNet live data (02.02.21)

Such "anomalies" have not gone unnoticed and many are (and have been) calling for an audit of the death certifications during the COVID "pandemic". The mis-attribution of deaths to COVID-19 (presumably to amplify the perceived threat) has resulted in a corresponding drop in deaths from flu, pneumonia, emphysema and chronic pulmonary disease. This and mass PCR testing are covered in a short film by Jeffrey Peel called "A Tale of 2 Januarys" which looks at the very similar UK mortality rates of January 2015 (a non-"pandemic" year) and January 2021.
 

Viral Public Relations

From the very beginning the mainstream media were "all-in", providing an incessant, breathless "coverage" of the "pandemic", from the dashboards that popped up almost instantaneously, to the early "harrowing" YouTube videos of Hubei residents falling flat on their faces as they dropped dead in the street in front of lucky amateur videographers (a phenomenon that didn't travel well it seems). All this was captured early on by Off-Guardian in a February 2020 piece titled "Media Whipping Covid19 Panic to Unprecedented Heights". If the media were hyperbolic then, they soon went into warp drive and never looked back.
 

Qui Bono

China, the totalitarian state-capitalist poster-child of the World Economic Forum, was the only major economy to report positive GDP growth in 2020. They initiated the repressive "lockdown" policies that so impressed, and were mimicked by, authoritarians around the globe to devastating effect. The true costs (in terms of the economy, health, education, etc) of these policies were outlined by Dr. Scott Atlas in an interview on the theme: "The Efficacy of Lockdowns, Social Distancing and Closings" (well worth a watch if you believe the "cure" has not been far, far worse than the disease).

In terms of nations, China likely stands alone, but when it comes to more specific beneficiaries, I'll refer you to an interesting peer-reviewed paper on this very subject, published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research, titled "Planned Surveillance and Control by Global Technocrats: A Big-Picture Look at the Current Pandemic Beneficiaries" [Full PDF].
 

8) The Future Died In Someone's Past (Collateral "Vaccine" Damage?)

On December 1st 2020, Dr. Michael Yeadon (former CSO at Pfizer) and Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg filed a legal petition [PDF download] with the European Medicines Agency requesting an emergency "stay of action" for all ongoing clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines. A similar petition was filed by Dr. Sin Hang Lee and the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) in the U.S. [PDF download].
 

The "Knowns" and the "Known Unknowns"

In the Yeadon-Wodarg filing (under Section C. Statement of Grounds), there are some insights as to the potential immediate, short and medium term dangers that may lie ahead (on top of the reported deaths and traditional side effects mentioned on the FDA's "safety surveillance" guidelines, see Part 3).

Early on they cite the same flawed PCR problems (pointed out above in Part 5) stating:

[Section C. III]  If the assignment of cases and non-cases during the course of the trials is not accurate, the vaccines will not have been properly tested. If the vaccines are not properly tested, important public policy decisions regarding its use will be based on misleading evidence.

In sub-section VIII, they discuss the issue of Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE), sometimes inaccurately referred to as Immune Dependent Enhancement (IDE). Authors Cardozo and Veazey stated (in their paper, "Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID‐19 vaccines worsening clinical disease", 28/10/20): "the risk of ADE in COVID‐19 vaccines is non‐theoretical and compelling".

In an attempt to create a vaccine for 2003's SARS1, the pharmaceutical industry succeeded in stimulating a robust anti-body response in their animal trials, however when challenged with the wild virus, many of the trial animals suffered an acute reaction caused by ADE and died. ADE via vaccination may cause idiopathic antibodies that act like a Trojan horse for the wild virus, allowing the target virus to enter cells and replicate:

[Section C. VIII]  In some viruses, if a person harbors a non-neutralizing antibody to the virus, a subsequent infection by the virus can cause that person to elicit a more severe reaction to the virus due to the presence of the non-neutralizing antibody. This is not true for all viruses, only particular ones. This is called Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE), and is a common problem with Dengue Virus, Ebola Virus, HIV, RSV, and the family of coronaviruses. In fact, this problem of ADE is a major reason why many previous vaccine trials for other coronaviruses failed. Major safety concerns were observed in animal models. If ADE occurs in an individual, their response to the virus can be worse than their response if they had never developed an antibody in the first place. This can cause a hyperinflammatory response, a cytokine storm, and a generally dysregulation of the immune system that allows the virus to cause more damage to our lungs and other organs of our body. In addition, new cell types throughout our body are now susceptible to viral infection due to the additional viral entry pathway. There are many studies that demonstrate that ADE is a persistent problem with coronaviruses in general, and in particular, with SARS-related viruses.

Sub-section IX would appear to question the status of these "vaccines" as vaccines:

[Section C. IX]  There are some concerning issues with the trial designs, spelled out by Dr. Peter Doshi in the British Medical Journal. Dr. Doshi focuses on the two biggest issues. First, none of the leading vaccine candidate trials is designed to test if the vaccine can reduce severe COVID-19 symptoms, defined as: hospital admissions, ICU or death. And, second, the trials are not designed to test if the vaccine can interrupt transmission (https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/371/bmj.m4037.full.pdf). If neither of these conditions is met, the vaccine in essence performs like a therapeutic drug [...]

Sub-section X deals with the anaphylactic shock issue that Children's Health Defense warned the FDA about on 5th September 2020.

[Section C. X]  In the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine candidate, polyethylene glycol (PEG) is found in the fatty lipid nanoparticle coating around the mRNA. Seventy percent of people make antibodies to PEG and most do not know it, creating a concerning situation where many could have allergic, potentially deadly, reactions to a PEG-containing vaccine.

Sub-section XI is perhaps the most troubling. It deals with the lack of testing around fertility, the latency in fertility issues arising, and a potential method of action for COVID-19 "vaccines" to result in sterility:

[Section C. XI] Several vaccine candidates are expected to induce the formation of humoral antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. Syncytin-1 (see Gallaher, B., “Response to nCoV2019 Against Backdrop of Endogenous Retroviruses”), which is derived from human endogenous retroviruses (HERV) and is responsible for the development of a placenta in mammals and humans and is therefore an essential prerequisite for a successful pregnancy, is also found in homologous form in the spike proteins of SARS viruses. There is no indication whether antibodies against spike proteins of SARS viruses would also act like anti-Syncytin-1 antibodies. However, if this were to be the case this would then also prevent the formation of a placenta which would result in vaccinated women essentially becoming infertile.

To my knowledge, Pfizer/BioNTech has yet to release any samples of written materials provided to patients, so it is unclear what, if any, information regarding (potential) fertility-specific risks caused by antibodies is included. According to section 10.4.2 of the Pfizer/BioNTech trial protocol, a woman of childbearing potential (WOCBP) is eligible to participate if she is not pregnant or breastfeeding, and is using an acceptable contraceptive method as described in the trial protocol during the intervention period (for a minimum of 28 days after the last dose of study intervention). This means that it could take a relatively long time before a noticeable number of cases of post-vaccination infertility could be observed.

The UK government, in their "Reg 174 Information For UK Healthcare Professionals [PDF]", states that "reproductive and developmental toxicity were investigated in rats" but the potential impact on fertility in humans has not been tested and is thus unknown. 

The COVID-19 "vaccines" work by encoding for a spike protein. In biology, form is function, and proteins gain their form via a process called "folding"; the sequence of amino acids in a protein is sufficient to determine its three-dimensional structure and via Brownian motion proteins "fold" into their pre-specified form. However, proteins can, and do, mis-fold and mis-folded proteins in neurons are implicated in disorders such as Parkinson's and Altzheimer's. This short interview with neuroscientist Dr. Chris Shaw looks at previous mRNA vaccine studies which showed that the lipid "vector" or "construct" (the delivery mechanism for the mRNA) and the mRNA itself were not being contained in the target cells and instead made their way to a range of organs including the brain.

So much is unknown regarding the long term effects of these "vaccines", that we won't truly comprehend the true cost of this vast human experiment until long after the trials complete in early 2023.
 

Light at the End of the Tunnel (Crimes & Revelations)

Let's circle back to where we almost began, with Iain Davis in his article "What Vaccine Trials?":

"The degree to which people have been misled into believing that these vaccines are known to be either safe or effective is almost beyond imagination."

The same could be said for how the public have been misled over the course of this entire "pandemic". The primary tool in this criminal deception has been the Corman-Drosten RT-qPCR test - the pandemic machine.

We'll end with two questions:

1. Why have these experimental vaccines been pushed so aggressively?
2. What if the COVID-19 story doesn't end with a vaccine, but actually contains within it the end of vaccines;
   a new paradigm in the treatment of viral diseases generally [PDF]? . . .

Last Updated: 31/07/21
 

Changelog: Amendments, Corrections, Additions

• Amendment (31/07/21): Replaced the InProportion2 cumulative comparison of 2000 and 2020, with an up-to-date Age Standardised (WHO) monthly comparison for 2001 to June 2021.  
• Amendment (14/05/21): Reinstated the link to Rancourt's mask RCT analysis after Baruch Vainshelboim's comprehensive Stanford review was "retracted" / censored at the publisher's (Elsevier) request.
• Amendment (25/04/21): Replaced a link to Dr Merrit's paper "The Treatment of Viral Diseases: Has the Truth Been Suppressed for Decades?" (which is also available in Part 8) with a link to c19early.com (a real-time database and meta analysis of hundreds of studies for COVID-19 therapeutics)
• Amendment (25/04/21): Replaced a link to Rancourt's mask RCT analysis with Baruch Vainshelboim's comprehensive Stanford review called "Facemasks in the COVID-19 era"
• Addition (16/02/21): Added a link to Dr Sam Bailey's "The Truth About PCR Tests"
• Addition (12/02/21): Added a link to the paper "Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID‐19 vaccines worsening clinical disease" on the topic of ADE
• Addition (09/02/21): Added a link to the known ingredients of each of the main COVID-19 "vaccines"
• Addition (04/02/21): Added a brief paragraph on T-Cell cross immunity in relation to asymptomatic infections
• Addition (03/02/21): Added link to the film by Jeffrey Peel called "A Tale of 2 Januarys"
• Addition (03/02/21): Added W.H.O's global circulation of influenza viruses graph for 2020
• Correction (02/02/21): 70,000 ICU beds has been changed to 70,000 hospital beds
• Addition (02/02/21): Added link and quote from the pre-print: "Has the Evidence of Asymptomatic Spread of COVID-19 been Significantly Overstated?"

If vaccines are truly as "safe and effective" as the experts say, one would think they'd sell themselves; yet they don't seem to. Perhaps the humble flu vaccine can provide some clues as to why.

Contents

• [RESEARCH]  No Evidence Vaccination Reduced Hospitalizations Or Mortality Among Elderly
• [RESEARCH]  Vaccination May Have Little Or No Appreciable Effect On Hospitalisations Or Number Of Working Days Lost  
• [RESEARCH]  36% Increase In Corona Virus Infection After Influenza Vaccination
• [RESEARCH]  Influenza Vaccine Recipients Shed 6.3 Times More Viral Load Of Seasonal Influenza Than Non-Vaccinated
• [REPORT]  Flu Vaccines Account For Roughly 50% Of Claims Compensated Via US National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP)
• [SIDE EFFECTS: An Influenza Vaccine Insert]  "Rare" Side Effects May Include, Anaphylaxis, Encephalopathy, Bell's Palsy, Cellulitis, Guillain-Barre Syndrome (paralysis), Transverse Myelitus (often resulting in permanent paralysis), Sudden Blindness, Trouble Breathing
• EPILOGE: An Introduction To Big Pharma & Vaccine Policy (Some Key Facts)
   

Conclusion:  No Evidence Vaccination Reduced Hospitalizations Or Mortality Among Elderly

Study:  The Effect of Influenza Vaccination for the Elderly on Hospitalization and Mortality  (published: Annals of Internal Medicine)
Source:  https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M19-3075
Summary:  "The data included 170 million episodes of care and 7.6 million deaths. Turning 65 was associated with a statistically and clinically significant increase in rate of seasonal influenza vaccination. However, no evidence indicated that vaccination reduced hospitalizations or mortality among elderly persons. The estimates were precise enough to rule out results from many previous studies."
 

Conclusion:  Vaccination May Have Little Or No Appreciable Effect On Hospitalisations Or Number Of Working Days Lost

Study: Vaccines to Prevent Influenza in Healthy Adults  (Cochrane Meta Review)
Source: https://www.cochrane.org/CD001269/ARI_vaccines-prevent-influenza-healthy-adults
Summary: "We found 52 clinical trials of over 80,000 adults. We were unable to determine the impact of bias on about 70% of the included studies due to insufficient reporting of details. Around 15% of the included studies were well designed and conducted. We focused on reporting of results from 25 studies that looked at inactivated vaccines. Injected influenza vaccines probably have a small protective effect against influenza and ILI (moderate-certainty evidence), as 71 people would need to be vaccinated to avoid one influenza case, and 29 would need to be vaccinated to avoid one case of ILI. Vaccination may have little or no appreciable effect on hospitalisations (low-certainty evidence) or number of working days lost."
 

Conclusion:  36% Increase In Corona Virus Infection After Influenza Vaccination

Study: Influenza vaccination and respiratory virus interference among Department of Defense personnel during the 2017–2018 influenza season  (Dept. of Defense, Pentagon Study, pub. Elsevier)
Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X19313647?via%3Dihub
Summary: "Vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus (+36%) and human metapneumovirus."
 

Conclusion:  Influenza Vaccine Recipients Shed 6.3 Times More Viral Load Of Seasonal Influenza Than Non-Vaccinated

Study: Infectious virus in exhaled breath of symptomatic seasonal influenza cases from a college community  (PNAS, National Academy of Sciences, January 30, 2018 115 (5) 1081-1086)
Source:  https://www.pnas.org/content/115/5/1081.full
Summary: "[...] vaccination with both the current and previous year’s seasonal vaccines, however, was significantly associated with greater fine-aerosol shedding in unadjusted and adjusted models (P < 0.01). In adjusted models, we observed 6.3 (95% CI 1.9–21.5) times more aerosol shedding among cases with vaccination in the current and previous season compared with having no vaccination in those two seasons."
 

So Far, So Ineffective ... How About Safety? ...

Conclusion:  Flu Vaccines Account For Roughly 50% Of Claims Compensated Via Us National Vaccine Injury Program

Report: Flu Vaccine Facts: What You Need to Know for 2019-20
Source:  https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/flu-vaccine-facts-what-you-need-to-know-for-2019-20/
Summary: Roughly half of the claims compensated in the NVICP (National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 6,883 claims) have been for influenza vaccine injuries. The total compensation to date is over $4.2 billion. As the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a voluntary surveillance system, is acknowledged by the US government to capture as little as 1% of actual adverse events, the flu vaccine injuries and deaths could be as high as 320,000.

Flu Vaccine Insert: (Possibly Less) Rare (Than Reported) Side Effects

Here's a list of the possible side effects from the insert of one influenza vaccine:

"If experienced, these tend to have a severe expression":

• A Disorder Of The Brachial Plexus, A Bundle Of Nerves In The Shoulder
• A Hypersensitivity Reaction To A Drug
• A Serum Sickness Reaction
• A Significant Type Of Allergic Reaction Called Anaphylaxis
• A Skin Disorder With Blistering And Peeling Skin Called Stevens-Johnson Syndrome
• A Type Of Allergic Reaction Called Angioedema
• A Type Of Brain Function Problem Called Encephalopathy
• Bell's Palsy Paralysis Of One Side Of The Face
• Cellulitis
• Decreased Blood Platelets
• Guillain-Barre Syndrome
• Inflammation Of The Blood Vessels
• Inflammation Of The Spinal Cord  (editor's note: i.e. Transverse Myelitus - often resulting in permanent paralysis)
• Sudden Blindness And Pain Upon Moving The Eye
• Trouble Breathing
   

Epilogue: A Brief Introduction to Big Pharma & US Vaccine Policy (Some Key Facts)

We're focusing on the US here, since when it comes to the pharmaceutical industry, the US is the poster child for a pathologised society and its children (and increasingly the adult population) appear to be mere pin-cushions in the eyes of big pharma:

• In 1986 in the US they classed vaccines as "biologics" which meant they didn't have to be safety tested (via long term, double blind placebo trials) as all other pharmaceuticals are.
• In 1986 the same law also gave big pharma legal immunity from vaccine damage claims (same in the UK - DWP / taxpayer pays vaccine injury claims)
• In 1989 the US changed the vaccine schedule, massively increasing the number and frequency of vaccine doses (so a US child now has up to 72 mandated vaccinations)
• According to the US Department of Health and Human Services (if you were born in 1986 your chance of getting a chronic disease was 12%, since 1986 its grown to 54%)
• In the US four companies make all aforementioned mandated vaccines:  Pfizer, Merck, GSK and Sanofi
• In the last 10 years these companies have paid $35 billion USD in penalties, damages and fines for falsifying science, defrauding regulators, lying to doctors and killing hundreds of thousands of American citizens.
• Vioxx (Merck's flagship painkiller drug) killed between 120,000 and 500,000 Americans (mainly via heart attacks). Merck knew of this danger early on but calculated that their blockbuster drug would raise enough revenue to pay the liabilities ($7 billion USD in fines and not one person went to jail).
• Big Pharma makes $60 billion USD selling vaccines BUT may make as much as $500 billion USD selling treatments for the chronic diseases whose onset may well track back to these very same vaccines. Afterall, one has to wonder why 54% of US children are sick? They weren't born sick.

... Now tell me again why I should get the flu vaccine?

• Introduction
• Two Simple Concepts: "Entity" and "Environment"
• Four Approximate Outcomes
• Political Economic Limbo: The Case of the Sole Trader
• The Confusion Around the Terms "Property" and "Capital"
• An Oxymoron Called "Anarcho-Capitalism"
• Ideological Banks Terraforming the Economic Landscape with "Credit"
• Conclusion
• Epilogue: Application
• Print Version (PDF Download)

Introduction

Political economic history and thought has been intentionally warped and mangled to such a degree that most discussion and "analysis" is an incoherent mess of undefined terms and contradictory generalisations. People often find themselves in disagreement not by their stance but due to a lack of semantic clarity and the mistaken assumption that political terms are universally agreed upon; their understanding commonly shared. Undefined short-forms like "left", "right", "progressive", "populist" are generalisations so vague as to be practically devoid of meaning. This lack of clarity and definition in political language helps maintain often illusory barriers between groups of people who would seem to have far more in common than they have differences.

The purpose of this outline is to set-out some basic definitions and provide a concise and uncontroversial framework in the hope that, should people disagree with one another, they at least will have the tools to pinpoint the exact nature of their disagreement. At present, in the Anglophone west, and likely everywhere else (such has been the reach of neo-liberalism and its suffocating effect on political thought) wild generalisations, ill-defined terms, confusion and false division reign supreme and the only people who benefit from this intellectual morass are those whose power would be threatened by an accurate and sober accounting of the political and economic institutions through which their power and influence is expressed.

In the US, as far as I can gather, socialism has come to mean "centrally planned, nationalised, anti-free market, anti-choice and anti-personal liberty" and capitalism refers to some kind of idealistic dream of (early stage) laissez-faire, free market capitalism conflated with individual liberty and political democracy. Though, in recent years (catalysed by the 2008 financial crisis) the realities of late-stage crony/state capitalism have initiated a marked re-assessment. One attempt to get ahead of this is the World Economic Forum's "Great Reset" (an old plan re-branded) whereby the cause of the disease promotes its remedy (in this case a banal, technocratic eugenics-based tyranny with fluffy "sustainable" and "inclusive" language to round off some of the sharp fascistic edges).

There are different forms of socialism and different forms of capitalism and to understand why they are all so different from one another one needs to pull apart two fundamental concepts, define them and then put them back together.
 

Two Simple Concepts

Concept #1: The Entity

By "entity" I mean an organisation responsible for the production of goods and/or services.

Socialist

If the entity is owned and controlled by the workers, then it is by definition a socialist enterprise (the workers own the means of production) and there is no employer-employee relation and thus no wage exploiting the surplus value of the employee, rather there is a profit dividend shared among the workers. These entities are democratic by nature and often bottom-up in terms of control (though this is highly dependent on concept #2, introduced below).

Capitalist

If the entity is owned by private interests and it employs workers and distributes the surplus value of their labour among the owners (directors, private shareholders etc.), then it is capitalist. Capitalism is by definition the private ownership of the means of production. These entities (corporations in the main) are authoritarian by nature and the control is most definitely top-down.
 

Concept #2: The Environment

By "environment" I'm referring to:

1. the commercial / transactional context in which goods and services are bought and sold, and
2. external influences (such as legislation, state interventions etc.) that significantly transform the entity's "native" structure.

State Controlled

Controlled centrally by a state, whereby the state apparatus decides how much is produced and at what price it is sold ("central planning"). There is no organic "price discovery" via market competition. Here, the state has a central and deterministic role in the operations of the "entity".

Participant Determined

Prices are determined transactionally by participants (via offer and acceptance), often referred to as "price discovery". This is called a "free market" and has been wrongly conflated with capitalism (primarily because capitalists want you to believe it's exclusive to and inextricably linked with private enterprise - it is not). Here, the participants are the determining factor and the state (where it exists) has a "hands-off" or profoundly limited role in the functioning of the "entity".
 

Entity + Environment: 4 Approximate Outcomes

Now let's combine the "environment" with the "entity" and see what we get ...
 

1. Socialist / Participant Determined

If you imagine many worker-owned and controlled enterprises, syndicates, co-operatives (as per anarcho-syndicalism, e.g. the Mondragon Corporation) competing with one another in a free market - this would, by definition be Libertarian Socialism. Some simple examples:  an array of farming co-operatives ("entities") offering their produce for sale in an open farmers' market ("environment"); a tech start-up where ownership is shared among its coding entrepreneurs; a law firm where everyone is a partner. The Mondragon syndicate illustrates quite clearly that whatever a traditional corporation can do, its worker-owned facsimile can do too; there are no theoretical limitations but there are practical ones that need to be addressed (which I'll discuss below). Finally, this model negates the need for unions since the binary dynamic of "worker versus owner" becomes a unitary one; the worker is the owner and vice versa (there is no other side to collectively bargain with). 
 

2. Socialist / State Controlled

If you had a similar setup but instead the state determined how much each enterprise would make and at what price they would sell, this would be called State Socialism or State Communism (and these worker co-ops or nationalised industries wouldn't be independently working for themselves - they'd be working for the centralised state). In terms of state-owned / nationalised entities the workers don't really own the means of production, instead the general public do via a proxy called the state (how much control the public have over the state or vice-versa, then becomes a central issue). In such institutions the worker is largely disenfranchised, becoming a servant of the state (as per the Soviet Union) often with minimal to zero direct control over the entity's operations.
 

3. Capitalist / State Controlled

If the state controls capitalist enterprises (think China), or if an agglomeration of capitalist enterprises control the state (think USA / UK) then you have "State Capitalism" (sometimes referred to as Crony Capitalism) or what Mussolini termed Fascism.

A brief side-note to illustrate:

If we look at two recent methods of social control, in China they have a "social credit system" which acts as a carrot and stick citizen management system governed via the state's surveillance apparatus.

In the US, UK and much of the west a similar system is being introduced via consortia of large corporations (from big tech/social media, banking/fin-tech, big pharma, bio-security, big data/surveillance etc) promoting a purely digital (cashless) financial architecture, digital IDs, vaccine passports and the like, where ones ability to engage in society and function in the economy is in the hands of private actors (who may or may not have connections to the state). In this way, behaviour can be controlled remotely via the ever-present threat of being "de-platformed" socially, silenced politically (even if you're the president) and "disconnected" financially; i.e. if we don't like your behaviour ... you're cut off from the transactional infrastructure (like Wikileaks were with PayPal, Mastercard et al)"  The suffocating effect of these two systems of citizen control will feel similar, the difference however is that in the latter "western" form, it's often harder to pinpoint who exactly is orchestrating what.

There are real differences between China and much of the west, but the tendency is to overstate them. China represents a more classical form of fascism, whereas in the west we've become accustomed to a form of soft fascism (that is hardening rapidly) with its adjunct party-political pantomimes offering the public the illusion of participatory democracy; the sense that they are constituents of import, when the empirical reality shows the actual constituency (and true masters of the political class) are: 1) large (often multinational) corporate interests; 2) the activist NGOs, foundations and think-tanks they patronise; and 3) "global systemically important financial institutions" (and the central banks that represent them).
 

4. Capitalist / Participant Determined

If you have privately owned enterprises (corporations etc.) competing with one another in a free market - this would be called Laissez-faire (or Free Market) Capitalism. The enterprise operates freely but is by definition an authoritarian one which exploits the work-force. Early stage capitalism may start like this but will tend toward fascism as successful enterprises gain sufficient wealth to buy other companies, bribe the political establishment and become increasingly monopolistic and corrupting (what John Titus aptly refers to as "Mafiocracy", currently playing out in the US and most developed western economies).

Note: Most societies are a weighted mix of all 4 of the above. In the US for example, the military is a mix of #2 and #3, the markets are largely a mix of #3 and #4. A major element of the Russian Revolution was Lenin's Bolsheviks crushing #1 to consolidate #2 (see "The Third Revolution"). However, the overall balance is really what determines how a society functions, the degree of corruption, the style of authoritarianism etc. (see Epilogue below).
 

Political Economic Limbo: The Case of the Sole Trader

An interesting way to get this across is to consider the sole trader who has their own business. They are in a kind of political-economic limbo. They are neither capitalist nor socialist or they are both at the same time. They own and control the means of production, but no one else is involved. What Marx understood is that it's all about the relationship between the owner and the worker, when you are both at once, there is no relationship and so Marx would likely have little to say. Where it gets interesting is when the business grows to the point where an additional worker is required. At this juncture the nature of the entity is defined.

If the entrepreneur decides to make the additional worker a partner (co-owner) and shares a degree of ownership and control with the co-worker then this will be a socialist entity. If however, the entrepreneur decides simply to employ the co-worker and pay them a wage, then the entity becomes a capitalist enterprise.
 

The Confusion Around the Terms "Property" and "Capital"

The following quote contains a very common falsehood (though I agree with the bulk of the author's analysis in this piece):

Klaus and his billionaire buddies have big plans, and this faux pandemic crisis was the perfect “opportunity” to achieve their globalist corporate Marxist dreams. [...] Marxism is based upon the abolition of private property, so their (the World Economic Forum's) “you will own nothing, and be happy” slogan tells you all you need to know.

What does the author mean by "corporate Marxist"? A corporation is a privately owned entity involved in the production of goods and/or services; it is by definition capitalist (the private ownership of the means of production). Marx spent his life critiquing capitalism. Are we to believe that the giant corporations (and their shareholders) represented by the World Economic Forum (and others) are going to hand over their capital, their power and their control to the workers of the world or a global council of workers? No, rather the author (whether by ignorance or by choice) has misunderstood the term "property" as it was used by Marx and other 19th century critics of capitalism.

When libertarians like Proudhon or authoritarians like Marx used the term "property" they were referring to what most would now call capital (wealth generating assets).

For example, if you buy a house and live in it, you own a depreciating asset (whose price is as much a function of currency devaluation as it is market forces), likewise owning a guitar, a car or a gold watch, it is your private property and neither Marx nor Proudhon would condemn you for your ownership. If you then buy a second house for the purpose of letting it (providing a revenue stream) then that "property" becomes a wealth generating asset, i.e. "capital" (which Marx referred to as "bourgeois property" - a misleading term in my opinion). It is this, latter form of "property" that critics of capitalism in the 19th and 20th century were attending to.

Property was also scrutinised when its provenance was colonial theft; the act of conquest, the partitioning and staking out of native land (that either belonged to the native population or was regarded by them as belonging to no one), and the concomitant drawing up of deeds under the colonist's legal framework to provide outright theft a sense of legitimacy. This is the other "property" that many critics of the time were concerned with. They were not concerned with the everyday items (whether large or small) that we would today call "private property".

It is thus wrong and highly misleading to call the World Economic Forum's vision that "you will own nothing, and be happy" a "globalist corporate Marxist dream". Actually, it's the dream of state-capitalists (China would seem to be their approximate model) who wish to own everything (something they forgot to disclose) and rent to you, on demand those goods deemed necessary for your prescribed and pre-determined "happiness". This is more the dystopian wet dream of a neo-feudal, corporate plantation owner; a kind of technocratic serfdom. At its root however, is global, centralised state-capitalism (i.e. global fascism).
 

An Oxymoron Called "Anarcho-Capitalism"

A quick word on the oxymoron that is Anarcho-Capitalism (a favourite among elements of the so-called "libertarian right" in America).

Ron Paul makes clear that he's against coercive force impinging on individual rights. People like Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin might have pointed out to Ron Paul that you cannot have anarchism / libertarianism combined with capitalism, because once you have the private ownership of the means of production, you have an authoritarian and exploitative entity. Your acceptance of a wage (as an "employee") means you've rented yourself out for a certain amount of hours and during this period your labour, time and creativity are the property of the entity¹ (the "employer"); you are thus submitting to the entity's coercive rule (this is called "having a job" or in more honest times, "wage slavery"). You may notice, Ron Paul will happily talk about the "environment" (the free market) but will not talk about the coercive nature of the private "entity" (the capitalist enterprise²); someone like Richard Wolff however, happily will (though may be less keen to discuss the coercive nature of the state). Libertarian proponents of laissez-faire capitalism often proffer the old canard that anyone is free to choose who they work for (just as a prostitute is free to choose their clientele); this implies a peculiar definition of liberty; the freedom to choose one's master.  Of course, no one is free to choose non-capitalist enterprises if there aren't any.
 

Ideological Banks Terraforming The Economic Landscape With "Credit"

And this is where the banks come in. Notice that Mondragon has survived largely because it created its own bank. Banks create money out of thin air when they make a loan (private commercial banks create approx. 95% of the money supply) as empirically proven by Richard Werner in his 2013 experiment and follow-up paper called "Can banks individually create money out of nothing?".

The best way to understand banks is like a gardener with a watering hose, where the water is the flow of credit (new money). The banks are like gardeners who favour some flowers (big private corporations) over others (worker-owned and controlled enterprises). If gardeners only water the flowers they favour, the other flowers will not flourish and will instead die. This is why there are so few success stories when it comes to the libertarian socialist co-operative model, they are starved of credit by a profoundly ideological banking system that would be threatened by the existence of a highly efficient and effective co-operative sector. No capitalist wants to see the Mondragon genie properly escape its Spanish bottle (it's also why the co-operative banking sector in Germany is under heavy assault from the ECB).

So if you want a democratic workplace, owned and controlled by the workers, you need to set up well run co-operative banks that will work with, and provide liquidity (sustenance) to co-operative entities.
 

Conclusion

Hopefully by now, it's obvious just how meaningless the terms "left", "right", "socialist" and "capitalist" are when they are bandied about in their unqualified monolithic form. Ultimately the qualifiers are related to the distribution and direction of power.

Is the power concentrated and are decisions made from the top-down in a hierarchy? Or is power and control broadly distributed and decision making largely democratic? Are "managers" elected and unelected by the workforce they serve, or are managers simply the sheepdogs to their masters' labouring flock?

There is no reason why both capitalist and socialist libertarian ("participant determined") models can't co-exist and compete with one another in open and free markets (as both demand a minimal and non-coercive role for the state). Yet, there are few examples (Mondragon is an anomalous worker-controlled big-fish swimming in a sea of privately owned corporations); the main reason for this is that private banks act as gatekeepers by restricting credit to economic entities that are owned and controlled by their workers.

Mainstream political discussion has been purposefully limited to what kind of top-down, highly concentrated power system should be imposed on the population (as in China) or offered to the electorate (as per the US / UK):  Will they accept powerful corporations as puppet masters of the state (the western capitalist model)? Or would they prefer the state apparatus (the party) to play conductor to its vast corporate orchestra (the Chinese capitalist or "capitalism during wartime" model).

You'll notice that missing from this analysis are the post-modern aberrations of "post-truth", "critical race theory" and "intersectionality" (i.e. "identity politics") which are merely the theoretical underpinnings and ideological by-products of a power elite's divide and rule strategy (an attempt to promote discord, distraction and infighting among the broad base of the population).

Likewise, the terms "left" and "right" have long been used as a divisive technique to prevent the vast majority of working people from acknowledging their commonalities, their common interests and perceiving their common enemy; an enemy that is now waging a war against them on a global scale.

 

Epilogue: Application (The 4 Outcomes)

So now we've defined some terms and have a simple framework, let's use it to describe some recent history and some present day battles.
 

The UK 1970's to present (#2 + #4 becomes #3)

In the 1970s the UK was a mixture of #4 (Capitalist / Participant Determined) + #2 (Socialist / State Controlled). It ran a largely capitalist free-market economy in combination with a large sector of nationalised industries and utilities and featured a welfare state "safety net". Such systems are often called "mixed economies" and in political parlance "social democracies" (and for our American friends, is what the "revolutionary socialist" pied-piper Bernie Sanders was advocating just prior to dumping his supporters in the lap of neo-liberals who had opposing agendas prescribed by their corporate "donors").

The 1980s saw the rise of neo-liberalism ("global corporatism") and from the 1980's to the present day #4 (Capitalist / Participant Determined) gradually morphed into #3 (Capitalist / State Controlled - of the western corporate controlled flavour) where corporate interests began to manipulate and direct state power (e.g. crony capitalist "Public Private Partnerships", where public money is siphoned off to corporate insiders) to further enrich themselves and accrue ever more power. Having smashed the nationalised industries in the 1980's / 90's, the #3 (Capitalist / State Controlled) system has been dismantling the social welfare element of the old #2 (Socialist / State Controlled) model and is currently transforming these elements into agencies of state oppression (under the guise of "bio-security").
 

The Sabre Rattling Between China and the United States (two flavours of #3)

China and the US are simply two sides of the same #3 (Capitalist / State Controlled) coin; two super-powered flavours of fascism vying for dominance. The only real ideological difference between the two states is which element holds the reins: private corporate power or state power. The Chinese "Communist" Party is not very different to what people in the US refer to as the "Deep (or Permanent) State" with its adjunct army of legislation-generating think-tanks and revolving-door corporate lobbyists. That said, there is no oppression like state oppression; for its outright violence, its lack of recourse and restitution, and the bleak finality of its judgment.

Note: People should not be surprised when large multi-national corporations, the Chinese State and the Catholic Church all align (as is the case around the Great Reset). Afterall, in terms of their command structure and top-down control these institutions are practically identical.
 

What Trump's "deplorables" and most American working people appear to want: sovereignty / "agency" (craving #4 when #1 is missing)

From this side of the ocean, what most Trump supporters seem to be crying out for is personal sovereignty; the freedom of the individual to be left to their own devices, to get on with their working lives. This manifests itself in a loyalty to the constitution and a distrust and disdain for profound and often overt corporate and state corruption. They would appear to be crying out for model #4 (Capitalist / Participant Determined) and a reining in of coercive and meddlesome corporate and state power.

However, though the reduced role of the state may accrue some personal liberty and "sovereignty" (or "agency") in daily life, unless you're a business owner you have practically zero power as soon as you enter the workplace. If individual ownership and sovereignty are truly the goal, one can make a strong case for model #1 (Socialist / Participant Determined) and this is very likely why this option has been erased from all levels of political education and analysis; why success stories like Mondragon are never mentioned in the media and why this entire quadrant of political theory (libertarian socialism) seems to have calved off the political land-mass and disappeared into a taboo ocean of whisperless quiet.

1. "When you sell your product, you retain your person. But when you sell your labour, you sell yourself, losing the rights of free men and becoming vassals of mammoth establishments of a monied aristocracy that threatens annihilation to anyone who questions their right to enslave and oppress. Those who work in the mills ought to own them, not have the status of machines ruled by private despots who are entrenching monarchic principles on democratic soil as they drive downwards freedom and rights, civilization, health, morals and intellectuality in the new commercial feudalism." -  1840's US Labor Press

2. For this reason all anarchists are socialists but not all socialists are anarchists. However, an argument can be made that democracy is the tyranny of the masses (i.e. "democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner") and thus could be regarded as a form of collective coercion - and I think that's a fair argument, but all I'd say in reply is, I'd rather have the flawed democracy of the workers over the outright tyranny of a board of directors. Ask yourself this, why would workers at Mondragon choose to ship their manufacturing to China and make themselves redundant? They wouldn't and they never did. Did employees of large private corporations in the US and UK ever have such a say when all their jobs were shipped overseas? No, they didn't.

Last updated:  30/12/20

Would the public even call this a vaccine?

We've been following the actual science and genuine news reporting on Covid-19 pretty closely. However, we came across an interesting story in Forbes dated 23rd September 2020, which doesn't seem to have been widely reported on. It's by William A. Haseltine who was a professor at Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health where he founded the Division of Biochemical Pharmacology and the Division of Human Retrovirology.

The article looks at the Covid-19 Vaccine Protocols and suggests that what these pharmaceutical companies are concocting is NOT what the wider public would even regard as a vaccine at all (i.e. no immunity from infection and no amelioration of the worst effects of the virus). By the way the author should probably read what many of you have been pointing out about the (false-positive "case" generating machine called) PCR tests, but that aside ...

Covid-19 Vaccine Protocols Reveal That Trials Are Designed To Succeed

A few snippets:

Moderna, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson are leading candidates for the completion of a Covid-19 vaccine likely to be released in the coming months. These companies have published their vaccine trial protocols. This unusually transparent action during a major drug trial deserves praise, close inspection of the protocols raises surprising concerns. These trials seem designed to prove their vaccines work, even if the measured effects are minimal.

What would a normal vaccine trial look like?

Prevention of infection must be a critical endpoint. Any vaccine trial should include regular antigen testing every three days to test contagiousness to pick up early signs of infection and PCR testing once a week to confirm infection by SARS-CoV-2 test the ability of the vaccines to stave off infection. Prevention of infection is NOT [my emphasis] a criterion for success for any of these vaccines. In fact, their endpoints all require confirmed infections and all those they will include in the analysis for success, the only difference being the severity of symptoms between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Measuring differences amongst only those infected by SARS-CoV-2 underscores the implicit conclusion that the vaccines are not expected to prevent infection, only modify symptoms of those infected.

We all expect an effective vaccine to prevent serious illness if infected. Three of the vaccine protocols—Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca—do not require that their vaccine prevent serious disease only that they prevent moderate symptoms which may be as mild as cough, or headache.

The greatest fear people have is dying from this disease. A vaccine must significantly or entirely reduce deaths from Covid-19. Over two hundred thousand people have died in the United States and nearly a million worldwide. None list mortality as a critical endpoint.

[...]

The second surprise from these protocols is how mild the requirements for contracted Covid-19 symptoms are. A careful reading reveals that the minimum qualification for a case of Covid-19 is a positive PCR test and one or two mild symptoms. These include headache, fever, cough, or mild nausea. This is far from adequate. These vaccine trials are testing to prevent common cold symptoms.

It also points out the pooling fraud behind the numbers of participants involved.

In summary, we're going to have "vaccines" that prevent common cold symptoms, while causing side-effects (in young participants) much worse than most get with the virus itself (and who knows what the long term vaccine damages will look like).

This was all covered recently in the Highwire (@ 23:40) and @ 54:50 two experts tied to OSHA discuss the masks and the fact that there's genuine health risks to mask mandates and a clear social-engineering agenda behind such policies that have nothing to do with health (something we already know, but it's useful to hear it from highly qualified experts close to OSHA).

Our view is that these vaccine trial protocols show quite clearly the "vaccine promise" is a lie and that it's something to put out there for the public while they build the infrastructure for restricted movement of peoples; a technocratic (and profoundly authoritarian / fascistic) population control and surveillance grid.

This thing was over in May 2020

An open letter to all governments considering mandatory vaccination for SARS-CoV-2

We suggest you consider very carefully the steps you are taking with regard to your policies and actions as they relate to COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2, specifically the idea of mandatory vaccinations.

Note: by mandatory we include the carrot and stick approach of excluding non-participants from essential services (including but not limited to financial services, transportation, employment, health and social welfare, state benefits etc.) effectively turning vaccine status into a short-cut toward a Chinese-style social credit digital identity system of citizen control.

We also recommend you reconsider the role of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation both in terms of "academic" funding and policy formation in the context of its global public health track record and Gates' openly stated population control agenda.  

The long term health benefits of any treatment or vaccination cannot be determined as safe until long-term multi-year trials have been conducted. Without which, you are literally conducting an experiment (with no placebo double blind controls) on the entire population. If this is to be done, the consent of the participants in this experiment (without sanction or coercion) is absolutely essential as laid out in the Nuremberg Code (you can see the full guidelines here):

The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

You may think the conjugation of Bill Gates (and by implication a government's "policy" agenda) with the Nuremberg trials is hyperbolic. But let's consider a brief overview of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's track record - often using the WHO in a legitimising (and administrative) role to carry out its vaccination, population control and digital identity agenda.

As recently quoted in the Italian parliament by Italian MP Sara Cunial:

Gates said, I quote exactly from his speech:  “If we do a good job on vaccines, health and reproduction, we can reduce the world population by 10-15%.”  (the full context of this quote is outlined here).

She went on to say:

With his vaccines, Gates managed to sterilize millions of women in Africa. Gates caused a polio epidemic that paralyzed 500,000 children in India and still today with DTP, Gates causes more deaths than the disease itself. And he does the same with GMOs designed by Monsanto and “generously donated” to needy populations. All this while he is already thinking about distributing the quantum tattoo for vaccination recognition and mRNA vaccines as tools for reprogramming our immune system. In addition, Gates also does business with several multinationals that own 5G facilities in the USA.

Here's a more complete list of the crimes against humanity committed by Bill Gates, as summarised (here with sources) by Robert Kennedy Jr (Chairman, Children’s Health Defense, April 09, 2020):
 

Gates’ Vaccine Agenda: A Win-Win for Pharma & Mandatory Vaccination

Vaccines, for Bill Gates, are a strategic philanthropy that feed his many vaccine-related businesses (including Microsoft’s ambition to control a global vaccination ID enterprise) and give him dictatorial control of global health policy.

Gates’ obsession with vaccines seems to be fueled by a conviction to save the world with technology.

Promising his share of $450 million of $1.2 billion to eradicate polio, Gates took control of India’s National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (NTAGI), which mandated up to 50 doses (Table 1) of polio vaccines through overlapping immunization programs to children before the age of five. Indian doctors blame the Gates campaign for a devastating non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) epidemic that paralyzed 490,000 children beyond expected rates between 2000 and 2017. In 2017, the Indian government dialed back Gates’ vaccine regimen and asked Gates and his vaccine policies to leave India. NPAFP rates dropped precipitously.

In 2017, the World Health Organization (WHO) reluctantly admitted that the global explosion in polio is predominantly vaccine strain. The most frightening epidemics in Congo, Afghanistan, and the Philippines, are all linked to vaccines. In fact, by 2018, 70% of global polio cases were vaccine strain.

In 2009, the Gates Foundation funded tests of experimental HPV vaccines, developed by Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK) and Merck, on 23,000 young girls in remote Indian provinces. Approximately 1,200 suffered severe side effects, including autoimmune and fertility disorders. Seven died. Indian government investigations charged that Gates-funded researchers committed pervasive ethical violations: pressuring vulnerable village girls into the trial, bullying parents, forging consent forms, and refusing medical care to the injured girls. The case is now in the country’s Supreme Court.

In 2010, the Gates Foundation funded a phase 3 trial of GSK’s experimental malaria vaccine, killing 151 African infants and causing serious adverse effects, including paralysis, seizure, and febrile convulsions, to 1,048 of the 5,949 children.

During Gates’ 2002 MenAfriVac campaign in Sub-Saharan Africa, Gates’ operatives forcibly vaccinated thousands of African children against meningitis. Approximately 50 of the 500 children vaccinated developed paralysis. South African newspapers complained, “We are guinea pigs for the drug makers.” Nelson Mandela’s former senior economist, Professor Patrick Bond, describes Gates’ philanthropic practices as “ruthless and immoral.”

In 2010, when Gates committed $10 billion to the WHO, he said  “We must make this the decade of vaccines.” A month later, Gates said in a TED Talk that new vaccines “could reduce population.” And, four years later, in 2014, Kenya’s Catholic Doctors Association accused the WHO of chemically sterilizing millions of unwilling Kenyan women with a  “tetanus” vaccine campaign. Independent labs found a sterility formula in every vaccine tested. After denying the charges, WHO finally admitted it had been developing the sterility vaccines for over a decade.  Similar accusations came from Tanzania, Nicaragua, Mexico, and the Philippines.

A 2017 study (Morgenson et. al. 2017) showed that WHO’s popular DTP vaccine is killing more African children than the diseases it prevents. DTP-vaccinated girls suffered 10x the death rate of children who had not yet received the vaccine. WHO has refused to recall the lethal vaccine, which it forces upon tens of millions of African children annually.

Global public health advocates around the world accuse Gates of steering WHO’s agenda away from the projects that are proven to curb infectious diseases: clean water, hygiene, nutrition, and economic development. The Gates Foundation spends only about $650 million of its $5 billion dollar budget on these areas. They say he has diverted agency resources to serve his personal philosophy that good health only comes in a syringe.

In addition to using his philanthropy to control WHO, UNICEF, GAVI, and PATH, Gates funds a private pharmaceutical company that manufactures vaccines and is donating $50 million to 12 pharmaceutical companies to speed up development of a coronavirus vaccine. In his recent media appearances, Gates appears confident that the Covid-19 crisis will now give him the opportunity to force his dictatorial vaccine programs on all American children – and adults.
 

"The victims of these crimes are numbered in the hundreds of thousands" (Nuremberg Trials)

Recently we celebrated VE day in the UK. Are government officials in the UK, Europe and the United States seriously considering ripping up The Nuremberg Code and forcing their citizens to take part in medical experiments (a crime for which Nazi doctors were executed)?

Brigadier General Telford Taylor was Chief of Counsel during the Nuremberg "Doctors Trial", he said the following in the opening statement by the prosecution:

"The defendants in this case are charged with murders, tortures, and other atrocities committed in the name of medical science. The victims of these crimes are numbered in the hundreds of thousands. A handful only are still alive; a few of the survivors will appear in this courtroom. But most of these miserable victims were slaughtered outright or died in the course of the tortures to which they were subjected. For the most part they are nameless dead. To their murderers, these wretched people were not individuals at all. They came in wholesale lots and were treated worse than animals."

After almost 140 days of proceedings, including the testimony of 85 witnesses and the submission of almost 1,500 documents, the American judges pronounced their verdict on August 20, 1947. Sixteen of the doctors were found guilty. Seven were sentenced to death. They were executed on June 2, 1948  (source).

The Nuremberg Code was written precisely because governments (whether they believe what they are doing is morally righteous or not - see the quote from CS Lewis above) have the power of coercion and unless restrained are able to force individuals against their will to participate in activities (which in the case of vaccines, without long-term observation and data, will be experimental by definition) that are potentially detrimental to their well-being (see sources and resources below). The Nuremberg Code of ethics was designed as a barrier to outright authoritarianism in the medical realm; choosing to ignore it would be "crossing the Rubicon" and in so doing you would eschew any semblance of democratic legitimacy.

Bill Gates, via his various proxies, has conducted what can only be described as mass experiments on ill-informed subjects with often no or at best dubious consent. The numbers of dead, paralysed and sterilised humans he has left in his wake is on a scale that is industrial and one that mirrors the horrifying efficiency and disregard for life and well-being of those tried at Nuremberg. Rather than carrying out his vaccine (population control, digital ID) agenda, any responsible government would be calling for his arrest and prosecution.

Voluntary consent was consciously positioned at the heart of the Nuremberg code for good reason. Be warned, attempting to run roughshod over this ethical code puts you in very dangerous company.

In the UK (and mirrored globally), the BBC, Guardian, Imperial College all receive substantial funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. However, the public are far more informed than you think and do not rely on these "news" and "academic" resources for their comprehension.

The idea of mandatory vaccinations (experimental or not, coerced via social and/or financial incentive or not) clearly violates the ethical premise of the Nuremberg Code and is an afront to all those who suffered at the hands of the Nazi Doctors and to the hundreds of thousands of nameless and voiceless victims of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.  

Perhaps most importantly, the entire premise for Bill Gates "population control agenda" as outlined by Bill Gates has been widely debunked in academic circles (NASA, NOAA, Princeton, Harvard, the Royal Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and many others, see Top 10 Climate Studies), if not yet in the mainstream media outlets that Gates in part sponsors.  
 

What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

A software monopolist who knows nothing about the climate or the innate and adaptive immune system wants to forcibly re-code subjects RNA with an experimental vaccine based on science contradicted by NASA, NOAA, Princeton, Harvard, RMS, AGU, SLAC, and many others. A brief look at this monopolist's track record shows quite clearly "what could possibly go wrong".

We trust the words and sentiments of C.S. Lewis and Brigadier General Telford Taylor are comprehensible to the current crop of politicians around the world whose policies eerily echo the agendas of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation; a "coincidence" not lost on the populations they are supposed to represent and serve. 
 

Resources & Sources

• Coronavirus Lockdown and What You Are Not Being Told – Part 1
   
• Coronavirus Lockdown and What You Are Not Being Told – Part 2
   
• Who controls the British Government response to Covid–19?
   
• The Big Pharma players behind UK Government lockdown
   
• A list of "grants" made by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to Imperial College
   
• How Bill Gates Monopolized Global Health
   
• Bill Gates' Plan to Vaccinate the World
   
• Bill Gates And The Population Control Grid
   
• Meet Bill Gates
   
• A Win-Win for Pharma and Mandatory Vaccination
   
• Bypassing animal trials / safety in rush for a (Sars-Cov-2) vaccine (unlikely to work in the elderly)
   
• Pentagon Study Shows 36% Increase in Corona Virus Infection after Influenza Vaccination
   
• How to understand – and report – figures for ‘Covid deaths’
   
• Dr Suzanne Humphries on Vaccines Past & Present
   
• More polio cases now caused by vaccine than by wild virus
   
• Increased Risk of Noninfluenza Respiratory Virus Infections Associated With Receipt of Inactivated Influenza Vaccine
   
• Top 10 Climate Studies
   

The Intro

It was Maurice Strong, guided by the Rockefellers, who set forth the Terms of Reference for the IPCC, creating a rigid, "analytical framework" that would only investigate human effects on the climate. The IPCC, since its very inception, has been an agenda-driven body, operating in an echo chamber of its own design. Its blinkered, predetermined conclusion that humans are the major cause of climate change is the direct result of the IPCC's Terms of Reference, focusing research solely on "man-made climate change"! But the IPCC don't tell you that, do they.

There's a study with two rats in a cage who sporadically receive electric shocks. Because the rats cannot see any other causes, each assumes the other rat is the culprit. The rats have an excuse; the IPCC has Terms of Reference, drawn up by enthusiastic energy interests with a desire for control (see smart grids), not an interest in "saving the planet"; a planet mind, that might well decide to "shake us off like a bad case of fleas ... a surface nuisance" (as George Carlin put it).

So what fraction of climate change is human induced? Well, we cannot know this from IPCC-funded research since the denominator should include all the climate inputs, but the IPCC's Terms of Reference blocks their study, so we have a context free, meaningless answer to a serious question with profound policy ramifications.

Dr Tim Ball explains (jump to 35 mins in):

Re-Make Re-Model

Climate models that do not include (in any meaningful way) the sun are as useful and accurate as economic models that don't include banks, money and debt (like those used by mainstream economists who failed to predict the 2008 financial crisis).

Well, the high priests of CO2 who are responsible for constructing these climate models, upon which most climate reporting and research is founded (and funded), have just realised they'd made a mistake and a large one at that (note: I didn't find the word sorry in their report, I'm guessing apologies aren't within their Terms of Reference):

They've over-estimated CO2 forcing by 50%.

Ben Davidson (of Suspicious 0bservers) sums it all up nicely in these two shorts pieces:

The report authors uncommonly felt the need to provide clarification to the media:

For those who prefer a good read, this article sums it up well.

Why is this so important?

Controller is in complete agreement with Ben Davidson, that the real problem is pollution (which we can do a great deal about); it is NOT climate change which, outside the IPCC's straight-jacketed and thus absurdly unscientific realm, is largely understood to be driven predominantly by the sun; something we can't, or at least shouldn't (see below) do anything about.

"It is generally accepted that the climate warms during periods of strong solar activity (e.g., the Medieval Warm Period) and cools during periods of low solar activity (e.g., the Little Ice Age). - Lyu et al., 2016

Solar Radiation Management (SRM)

Well I'm sure this is just a normal flight path ...

An unusual flight pattern (source: geoengineeringwatch.org)

This is what such flights are doing (hint: these are not normal condensation trails):

Examples of Solar Radiation Management in California (left) and Wales (centre and right)

"Another laborious term for this official program of spraying is Stratospheric Aerosol Geo-engineering (S.A.G) - an officially recognised initiative by the UK Government via the Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative (S.R.M.G.I) which was launched in March 2010 in response to a 2009 Royal Society report called Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty" - Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, Sovereign Wales

On a personal note, I've come around from being very skeptical about this whole topic. After plenty of online research, it was a long trek through Wales that did it for me. I'd watch a steady agglomeration of discrete geometrical criss-cross patterns appearing in the early morning and by afternoon they'd dissipate into a featureless thick haze. It would get incredibly and uncommonly (or rather unnaturally) humid, and though saturated, it would never rain.

Recently, the weather modifiers have stepped out of the shadows and are saying that we need to discuss whether we should do this. They've BEEN doing it for years !!! The discussion should instead be whether those who spray toxic metals into the sky should in fact be prosecuted. No consent has been given by the world's population to be treated like lab rats in an insane and absolutely unjustifiable experiment: putting tons of toxic metals in the upper atmosphere, which later fall to earth and poison water, soil and vegetation, all in the name of a CO2 mythology promoted, behind the scenes, by energy interests diametrically opposed to those with a genuine concern for the environment.

In "About Controller" we said: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions (and increasingly constructed in a lab)". Whether or not their intentions are good (I have my doubts) what is clear is that we're involved in their grand experiment.
 

Solar Cycles

We've just come out of an unusually strong solar maximum (global warming), but now the sun is becoming "quiet" (heading into a solar minimum) earth will enter a cooling period. So, the real menace, if these geoengineers get their way and undertake a program of mass SRM spraying, is that they'll take credit for the cooling (a completely natural phenomenon) and herald their man-made disaster as a great success, leaving us with the toxic consequences of their "mandated" pollution and unaware of their deception.

Source: WoodForTrees.org

"In their groundbreaking New Astronomy paper, Norwegian professors Harald Yndestad and Jan-Erik Solheim indicate that the modern (1940-2015) Grand Maximum of very high solar activity — the highest solar activity levels in 4,000 years — has just ended.   Within 10 years, or by 2025, these scientists project the next solar minimum period (which will be similar in character to the late 18th Century’s Dalton Minimum) will exert its cooling effect on the Earth’s climate." - Global Cooling Starting Due To Low Solar Activity, Principia Scientific

1940-2015 Grand Maximum Of Solar Activity, Highest In 4,000 Years, Just Ended

“Studies that employ cosmogenic isotope data and sunspot data indicate that we are currently leaving a grand activity maximum, which began in approximately 1940 and is now declining (Usoskin et al., 2003; Solanki et al., 2004; Abreu et al., 2008). Because grand maxima  and minima occur on centennial or millennial timescales, they can only be investigated using proxy data, i.e., solar activity reconstructed from 10Be and 14C time-calibrated data. The conclusion is that the activity level of the Modern Maximum (1940–2000) is a relatively rare event, with the previous similarly high levels of solar activity observed 4 and 8 millennia ago (Usoskin et al., 2003). Nineteen grand maxima have been identified by Usoskin et al. (2007) in an 11,000-yr series.”
 

Solar Activity Minimum/Maximum Periods Linked To Colder/Warmer Climates

“Twenty-seven grand minima are identified with a total duration of 1900 years, or approximately 17% of the time during the past 11,500 years (Usoskin et al., 2007). An adjustment-free reconstruction of the solar activity over the last three millennia confirms four grand minima since the year 1000: Maunder (1640–1720), Spörer (1390–1550), Wolf (1270–1340) and Oort (1010–1070) (Usoskin et al., 2007). The Dalton minimum (1790–1820) does not fit the definition of a grand minimum; it is more likely a regular deep minimum that is observed once per century or an immediate state between the grand minimum and normal activity (Usoskin, 2013).  Temperature reconstructions for the last millennium for the Northern Hemisphere (Ljungquist, 2010) show a medieval maximum temperature at approximately the year 1000 [Medieval Warm Period] and a cooling period starting at approximately 1350 [Little Ice Age], immediately after the Wolf minimum and lasting nearly 500 years, with the coldest period in what is referred to as the Little Ice Age (LIA) at the time of the Maunder minimum. A cold period was also observed during the time of the Dalton minimum. The Maunder and the Dalton minima are associated with less solar activity and colder climate periods. In this investigation, minimum solar activity periods may serve as a reference for the identified minimum irradiations in the TSI oscillations.”

Sources: Abstract and full report

The Outro

So with that in mind, perhaps we should think twice before poisoning the planet. Instead we might be better served undertaking a massive clean-up to remediate decades of toxic pollution and focus our attention on the industries that continue to poison our food and water (Big Ag) and who, in so doing, create a market for that other toxic industry, Big Pharma. It's probably time to add to this list, the poisoners of the sky: the Geo-Engineers who, if left to their own devices (vices?) will inscribe on humanity's headstone the words: "aegrescit medendo".

We'll leave it to Truthstream Media to wrap things up:

Regular criminal syndicates, like the mafia, are portrayed at least, with some colour and panache: the don, the consigliere, capos, associates and the like. But truly powerful criminal enterprises cloak themselves in the mundanity of administration and have grey, dull names like: The Financial Stability Board (FSB), the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF), the Bank of International Settlements (BIS). In such nondescript institutions crimes are not committed, they are administered, and unlike their "underworld" counterparts, the real criminals of the international banking cartel are literally immune from prosecution. They write their own laws (which they call "global standards and rules"), determine their own jurisdictions and give themselves immunities above and beyond those enjoyed by U.S. presidents.

But, for bankers to become "made men" they have first to be part of the family. In the case of banks, the family is called G-SIFI ("Global Systemically Important Financial Institutions"); its Don is the Bank of International Settlements and its Underboss is the Financial Stability Board (FSB).

If you ain't in the club, you're not untouchable, as the large UK bank, Standard Chartered found out, likewise traders from Rabobank. One bank that is in the club, is HSBC. The US arm of HSBC confessed to laundering billions of dollars for drug cartels and terrorist groups (their list of crimes is long, here we'll focus on just the money laundering case), yet not a single banker was prosecuted by the US Department of Justice (DOJ).

Everyone assumes this was simply the outcome of corrupt politicians doing their Wall Street friends a favour - but this glib cynicism eschews an opportunity to comprehend the truly stunning reality of how the international banking cartel actually operates.

The FSB provides its G-SIFI members (like HSBC) four major immunities and it is these immunities that dictate the actions of sovereign justice departments throughout much of the industrialised world. The immunities provided under the auspices of the BIS (based in Switzerland) are:

• Immunity from jurisdiction and execution
• Documentary immunity ("all documents and data media belonging to the bank or in its possession, shall be inviolable at all times and in all places") - hard to prosecute a crime when the criminal controls the evidence
• Immunity of assets ("the bank shall enjoy in respect of its property and assets, wherever located and by whomsoever held, immunity from any measure of execution ...") - HSBC got to decide their own "punishment"
• Personal immunity ("officials of the bank, whatever their nationality, shall enjoy immunity from jurisdiction for acts accomplished in the discharge of their duties [...] even after such persons have ceased to be officials of the bank") - i.e. the "made man clause" - stay loyal to the family and you're protected for life.

As the US Congress (who are hardly discontent with their banking overlords) pointed out:

"Since the DOJ is engaged in a criminal cover-up, we should have engaged a special prosecutor. But the cartel controls us too."

John Titus writes and produces outstanding forensic documentaries under the name Best Evidence. In "All the Plenary's Men" (an absolute masterpiece) he provides just that, the very best documentary evidence, proving beyond any reasonable doubt that the banking cartel are above sovereign law and the reason we don't see any of these bankers go to jail is simply because, as long as they are working in the "interests" of their criminal enterprise, they are simply immune from prosecution. The law is for people like you and me, not for the made men of the G-SIFI crime syndicate.

Here's Mr Titus' best evidence: All The Plenary's Men

We humans are not so dissimilar to plants - we absolutely need sunlight and water and our evolution has been governed by the cyclicality of the seasons We're not built to shun the sun (whether through sunscreen, dress or indoor living, especially if we're dark skinned) nor are we built to live all year round in air-conditioned, temperature-regulated habitats. We are now realising some of the inconvenient outcomes of a "convenient lifestyle" embraced as progress and we're about to learn there's nothing particularly civilised or advanced about being sick or developmentally deficient.
 

Healthy High Carb Summers, Calorie Restricted Ketogenic Winters

This is the menu billions of years of evolutionary fine tuning has cooked up for us:

The summer and early autumn months see an abundance of fruits and starchy vegetables (carbohydrates), consuming these causes blood sugar to spike and the pancreas to release insulin. Increased insulin levels prompt the liver to convert the sugars (glucose) into triglycerides which are then stored as fat.

Winter arrives and suddenly there's not much food around, we delve into our fat reserves and what we scavenge is mainly in the form of fat and protein; we shift to a calorie-restricted, high fat, moderate protein, low carb diet (nowadays we call that a calorie-restricted Ketogenic diet). The liver makes ketones, which protect the brain from drops in blood sugar and we make glucagon which does the opposite of insulin, releasing triglycerides from fat stores to burn as fuel.

Incidentally a calorie-restricted (with intermittent fasting) ketogenic diet (including hypothermia, hint hint) is the cornerstone of Thomas Seyfried's metabolic therapy currently being tested by Slocum et al (in Turkey) in their cancer therapy trial (which is having profound successes in their non-toxic treatment of cancer).

So that's what our bio-chemistry is designed to deal with. Unfortunately, progress has been defined by our ability to insulate ourselves from natural cycles to such a degree that there are no winters anymore, not in terms of food scarcity / selection and cold exposure etc. When we look at many western governments' dietary guidelines, we see a complete disregard for the seasons. Instead what they promote is a high carb (i.e. high sugar, high insulin) diet, all your round. Then we wonder why type-2 diabetes, obesity, cancer and neuropathy are epidemics? Puzzling ...

In the following interview, Dr Ben Bikman talks about insulin, and places its dominant role in the context of our evolution: