Category: World

Posted on

Omidyar Group; Luminate; Reset; Reset Australia; Push For A Misinformation Ban

The Omidyar Group, started by e-Bay Founder, Pierre Omidyar, is involved in many areas of social change. To address the elephant in the room: it does appear there are legitimate areas that the Omidyar Group and its many affiliates are involved with. However, there is one in particular that needs to be looked at. NGOs are pushing to ban what they call “misinformation” around the so-called “pandemic”.

1. Important Links

https://www.omidyargroup.com/
https://luminategroup.com/
https://www.sandlerfoundation.org/
https://www.fidelitycharitable.org/
https://twitter.com/ausreset/status/1353402187762847746
https://au.reset.tech/
https://www.reset.tech/about/
https://www.reset.tech/people/
https://archive.is/AuwcW
https://www.weforum.org/people/pia-mancini

2. Omidyar Group: Finance Independent Media

Omidyar Group was launched by Pierre Omidyar (who founded e-Bay in 1995), and his Wife, Pam. This NGO has several interests, including promoting a “more informed citizenry”, which sounds fine on the surface. The organizations that Omidyar funds include:

  • Democracy Fund
  • First Look Media
  • Flourish
  • Hopelab
  • Humanity United
  • Imaginable Futures
  • Luminate
  • Omidyar Network
  • Omidyar Network India
  • Ulupono Initiative

The Democracy Fund
The Democracy Fund’s Public Square program invests in innovations and institutions that are reinventing local media and expanding the “public square” to ensure that people can access diverse sources of information and different points of view. The Public Square program supports efforts to combat misinformation deepen individuals’ engagement in civic life though new venues for reasoned debate and deliberation.

First Look Media
First Look Media – a bold independent media company that empowers the most ambitious voices in journalism, arts and entertainment. Launched by eBay founder and philanthropist, Pierre Omidyar, First Look Media today operates across several areas, including an entertainment studio, Topic, which develops, produces and finances feature films, documentaries, television and digital content; the newly launched digital storytelling destination, Topic.com; the award-winning investigative journalism outlet, The Intercept; the critically acclaimed documentary film unit, Field of Vision; and the popular political satire cartoon, The Nib. The company’s first feature film, “Spotlight,” won the 2016 Academy Award® for Best Picture.

Honolulu Civil Beat
Honolulu Civil Beat is an award-winning investigative and watchdog online media enterprise aimed at informing and engaging community members through public affairs and investigative reporting on topics of critical importance to Hawaii.

Humanity United
Humanity United engages and supports media partners, reporters and storytellers to raise awareness and educate key audiences about important social issues. Humanity United supports The Guardian’s media platform titled “Modern Day Slavery in Focus,” a series investigating human trafficking and exploitation around the world.

Luminate
Luminate supports organizations that are committed to defending a vibrant, free press that uncovers the truth and holds power to account. It also works to enable people to shape the decisions that affect their lives and access the services they need, with a focus on those groups that are marginalised or underserved.

Omidyar Network India
Omidyar Network India supports independent journalism that reports on issues concerning citizens and civil society through support such as equity investments in new business models.

The World Post
An advocate for quality journalism, Pierre Omidyar serves on the editorial board of the World Post, a platform for understanding current events through a global lens.

To be clear, there is nothing wrong with bringing new voices into the public discussion. Viewpoint diversity is a great thing. However, when such initiatives are used to shut down or gaslight others, there is a serious problem. Omidyar funds Luminate, who in turn funds Reset. It’s unclear if the goals got corrupted, or if this was always the purpose.

It’s also a bit misleading to think that these outfits are really independent, considering they are controlled by the same people.

3. Luminate: Fund For Public Interest Media

Luminate funds and supports non-profit and for-profit organisations and advocates for policies and actions that can drive change. We prioritise delivering impact in four connected areas that underpin strong societies: Civic Empowerment, Data & Digital Rights, Financial Transparency, and Independent Media.

A free press gives people the information they need to participate in the issues shaping their lives. But press freedom is at a low ebb. Research by Freedom House shows that less than 20 percent of the world now benefits from a truly independent media. Journalists are being imprisoned and killed for reporting the truth, while ‘fake news laws’, ostensibly created to prevent misinformation, are instead being used to censor and silence.

Changes in the media market are contributing to the crisis. Dominant ad-driven models reward tech platforms such as Google and Facebook over publications and journalists. Driven by clicks, these models often favour sensationalism over considered reportage, contributing to declining trust in the media, the spread of misinformation, and the increasing polarisation of communities.

A world without depth, independence, and plurality in the media is vulnerable to corruption and authoritarianism. Now, more than ever, we need a strong fourth estate, free from vested interests.

Thankfully, we are seeing shoots of recovery. Innovative business models, such as membership-driven news sites, are emerging that can support editorially independent media outlets. These models are focused on building trust with audiences and improving coverage representation. Meanwhile, data scientists and journalists are increasingly collaborating to uncover stories of public importance hidden within vast tracts of newly available data. This represents an exciting wave of innovation in independent media.

What we do
We support independent media wherever press freedom is under threat. We do this by investing in courageous investigative journalism, fact-checking organisations, and financial models able to support news outlets free from vested interests.

While all of this sounds fine, the devil is in the details. It all really depends if the groups getting these funds are interested in objective truth, or whether they are interested in promoting a narrative they have decided is truth. One such group they fund is Reset (which also funds Reset Australia).

Luminate is in control of many groups, which again, leads to questions about how independent any of this is.

4. Reset’s Censorship Agenda

We are an initiative engaged in programmatic work on technology and democracy. We provide grants and contracts while working alongside partners with a shared policy, technology, and advocacy goal in countries with immediate opportunities for change. We operate internationally to ensure that the commercial interests of Big Tech companies are compatible with the values of robust and resilient democracies.

We must reset the rules to stop Big Tech companies profiting from public harm. We can redirect their ambition and innovation to achieve better goals. Code can be changed, markets can be regulated, democracy can be strengthened.
.
Every other major industry – automotive, pharmaceutical, telecommunications, banking – must follow rules that protect the public interest. The Big Tech companies which now have a huge impact on so much of our daily lives should be no different. Yes, businesses should pursue commercial success. But they should do well by doing good.
.
We believe the internet can once again become a force for good, not a marketplace for manipulation by the highest bidder.

We work to combat digital threats to democracy in two ways.
.
First, we develop and promote a public policy agenda that sets fair rules and standards for Big Tech companies. Our integrated and comprehensive strategy drives policy reform across content moderation, data privacy, competition, elections, security, taxation, education and public service media. We support research that builds the case for change.
.
Second, we work to develop and communicate a vision of the internet that serves democracy – explaining problems, offering solutions, prototyping new technologies and engaging in education and activism.

To make this clear, Reset doesn’t put forward good ideas that will better shape how society is run. There would be nothing wrong with this. Instead, Reset wants to change the rules of the internet — namely shut down dissenting views — in order to ensure that their ideas win out. This is censorship, plain and simple.

Luminate, a major donor prides itself on funding independent media. Makes one wonder if they have no idea about this, or they know, but support the agenda.

5. Mancini/Wood, World Economic Forum

Pia Mancini
Democracy activist, open source technology sustainer, co-founder & CEO at Open Collective and Chair of DemocracyEarth Foundation. Pia worked in politics in Argentina and developed technology for democracy around the world. Y Combinator Alum, Forum of Young Global Leaders (World Economic Forum), globe-trotter, and Roma’s mum

Poppy Wood
As a consultant on public policy, Poppy leads on Reset’s UK policy and political strategy. Combining her expertise in policy and technology, Poppy’s mission is to maximise Reset’s impact in the UK, and driving its powerful policy agenda. As well as having run multiple technology advisory businesses, supporting some of the world’s leading technology companies and start-ups, Poppy also worked in Downing Street for two years where she was an advisor on public appointments and tech policy. Poppy is a World Economic Forum “Global Shaper” and in 2018 was recognised in Brummell Magazine’s “Ones to Watch” list celebrating London’s high-potential talent.

Interesting that 2 women pushing to prevent criticism (globally), of “misinformation” surrounding the coronavirus are also part of the World Economic Forum, which is promoting lockdowns.

6. Reset Australia, Branch Of RESET

We work to raise awareness and advocate for better policy to address digital threats to Australian democracy in two ways:
.
First, we develop and promote a public policy agenda that sets fair rules and standards for Big Tech companies that align with democratic values in Australia. Our integrated strategy drives policy reform across content moderation, data privacy, elections, security, child safety and protection from foreign interference. We support research that builds the case for change.
.
Second, we work to build public support for an internet that serves democracy – explaining the issues, co-creating solutions and building public support for change.
.
We are an Australian affiliate of Reset, an initiative working to counter digital threats to democracy across the world. Reset Australia is a not-for-profit charity registered in Australia with close ties to our international partner. We share a common mission and organisational values. Our teams are coordinated in our goals and activities, and we benefit from the knowledge, relationships, and financial resources of Reset’s international network.

Just like their parent company, Reset Australia seems to have little interest in searching for truth. Instead, the media in general — and social media in particular — must change their behaviour in order to comply with how things ought to be. And who is running the organization?

Simon Goff
Simon has deep experience working on some of the world’s most complex problems – crafting new ways to channel the power of culture toward positive social change. Through his career he has built unique partnerships to harness the potential of powerful storytelling to mobilise people to action. He is currently Managing Director and Partner at Purpose, where he has led projects with clients including The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the LEGO Foundation, the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, Google, Unilever, the World Health Organization, the Red Cross, AGL, and The Fred Hollows Foundation on issues including early childhood development, digital rights, climate change, avoidable blindness, and women’s empowerment.

Ben Scott
Ben is executive director at Reset, where he is responsible for strategic direction, overseeing the coordination of policy, technology and civic engagement work, providing expert counsel on policy development and advocacy. His mission is to push financial, knowledge and relational resources into a global network of organisations working to achieve shared aims. Before starting Reset, he co-led the Stiftung Neue Verantwortung (SNV) in Berlin, helping develop the organisation into a leading tech policy voice in German politics. He was also a Senior Adviser to New America in Washington DC, helping design the Public Interest Technology Initiative, and led the technology policy advisory group for the 2016 Clinton US presidential campaign.

Amit Singh
Amit Singh is a consultant specialising in economics and policy and advises clients in financial services, government and the tech sector. He is a managing director at the consultancy, AlphaBeta. He was previously head of global economic and work policy at Uber in San Francisco. He has also served as senior economic adviser to two Australian Prime Ministers. Earlier in his career, he worked as a capital markets lawyer and co-founded a consumer aggregator with over 350,000 members. He has delivered papers and presentations on digital marketplaces and the future of work at the OECD and ILO.

These aren’t some nobodies here. These people have real connections, and some real political clout. So, if they want to shut down criticism of the Covid-19 narrative, under the guise of “fighting misinformation”, they have a real chance to make it law.

7. Reset Australia’s Censorship Drive

The above screenshots of Reset Australia’s Twitter feed is just a small sample of that they are tweeting and retweeting. They are clearly, unambiguously, and repeatedly calling for censorship under the guise of public safety.

Posted on

World Economic Forum And Emotional Manipulation To Boost “Vaccine Confidence”

It’s interesting the claim that 73% of people globally support getting the vaccine, while this video is ratioed pretty hard. Small sample size, but still. And if everyone is proud of the work they do, why exactly is the video unlisted?

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the GREAT RESET. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. The International Health Regulations are legally binding. The media is paid off. The virus was never isolated, PCR tests are a fraud, as are forced masks, social bubbles, and 2m distancing.

2. Important Links

YouTube Webinar On Increasing Vaccine Confidence
IRS Charity Tax Records Search
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Heidi Larson’s LinkedIn Page
Vaccine Confidence Project Leadership
Imperial College London And Their Gates Funding
Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium, Gates FinancingVaccine Confidence Project Twitter Account
Ben Page’s LinkedIn Page
Tan Chuan’s Profile Page For Yale
Mustafa Alrawi’s LinkedIn Page

3. WEF Talk On Increasing Vaccine Confidence

This 1/2 hour talk was filled with lots of important information. Let’s pull some of the main points out.

To address the elephant in the room: at no point does this panel address vaccine safety, or ways to make them more safe. Instead, it’s all about PERSUADING people that they already are safe. A huge difference.

Heidi Larson works for both the Vaccine Confidence Project, and the London School for Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. Those organizations have ties to big pharma, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Larson openly admits that she works with Facebook, monitoring what she calls “misinformation”. She encourages social media companies to delete certain topics under the guise of “safety”.

Providing information no longer enough. In order to convince people, “telling stories” may be seen as a more effective technique to pitch the vaccines.

The best time to “build trust” is supposedly in between pandemics. Does this imply that more are to come?

People who question the official narrative are conspiracy theorists, pushing deliberate and harmful misinformation.

What matters is having a consistent message.

Trust is important, insofar as it enables one to proceed with their agenda without hurdles. It must be maintained, not for altruistic reasons, but to make future acts easier to sell.

4. Gates Foundation Tax Returns

Link to search IRS charity tax records:
https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/

Let’s clarify here: there are actually 2 separate entities. The Foundation is the group that distributes money to various organizations and institutions. The Foundation Trust, however, is concerned primarily about asset management.

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION
EIN: 56-2618866
gates.foundation.taxes.2016
gates.foundation.taxes.2017
gates.foundation.taxes.2018

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION TRUST
EIN: 91-1663695
gates.foundation.trust.taxes.2018

Is it unfair to vilify the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for their role in advancing the big pharma agenda and mass vaccinations? Not really, once one looks at the actual money involved.

5. Heidi Larson: LSHTM & VCP Operative

Heidi Larson, who appeared on this talk, is both a Professor at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, and the Director of the Vaccine Confidence Project.

The London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine has long been a recipient of big money from Gates. Of course, this also applies to Imperial College London, and to VIMC, Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium.

Funders of Vaccine Confidence Project

  • European Commission
  • European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA)
  • Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI)
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Johnson & Johnson
  • Merck
  • UNICEF
  • University College London

Partners of the Vaccine Confidence Project

  • Brighton Collaboration
  • Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC)
  • Chatham House
  • European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)
  • European Commission
  • European Medicines Agency
  • Facebook
  • Gallup International
  • Imperial College London
  • International Pediatric Association
  • International Vaccine Institute
  • LVCT Kenya
  • National University of Singapore
  • ProMED
  • Public Health England (PHE)
  • Public Health Foundation of India
  • Sabin Vaccine Institute
  • World Health Organization (WHO)

Do any of the these partners and funders for the Vaccine Confidence Project looks familiar? Many of the names should set off alarms. While the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation isn’t specifically listed, many of the partners are funded by Gates.

Is there any separation between Vaccine Confidence Project and London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine? Aside from overlap in donors, they have many of the same people

  • Prof. Heidi Larson
  • Dr. Pauline Paterson
  • Valerie Heywood
  • Emilie Karafillakis
  • Fiona Sun
  • Kristen de Graaf
  • Simon Piatek
  • Dr. Leesa Lin
  • Gillian McKay
  • Penda Johm
  • Caroline Marshall

Two separate organizations, but many of the same personnel, donors and partners. And they serve to advance the same goals.

6. Ben Page, Chief Executive Ipsos MORI

Interesting omission from Page. Not only is he in charge of Ipsos MORI, a global research firm, he’s also a Council Member of the World Economic Forum. He has in interesting work history, to put it mildly.

7. Professor Tan Chorh Chuan

Chief Health Scientist and Executive Director, Office for Healthcare Transformation, Ministry of Health, Singapore
.
Professor Tan Chorh Chuan was appointed as the inaugural Chief Health Scientist and concurrently, Executive Director of the new Office for Healthcare Transformation in Singapore’s Ministry of Health with effect from 1 January 2018.

Professor Tan’s concurrent appointments include the Chairman of the Board of the National University Health System; member, Board of Directors of the Monetary Authority of Singapore; and member, Board of Directors of Mandai Park Development.

Professor Tan served as President of the National University of Singapore (NUS) from 2008 to 2017. He held the positions of NUS Provost, then Senior Deputy President from 2004 to 2008. He was former Dean of the NUS Faculty of Medicine and served as the Director of Medical Services, Ministry of Health, from 2000 to 2004, in which capacity he was responsible for leading the public health response to the 2003 SARS epidemic. As the inaugural Chief Executive of the National University Health System in 2008, he brought the NUS Medical and Dental Schools and the National University Hospital under single governance. As NUS president, he oversaw the formation of Yale-NUS College.

This is certainly an interesting mix of people: university professor and propagandist (Larson), a Government Official in Singapore (Chuan), a researcher and pollster (Page), and a journalist (Alrawi).

8. Mustafa Alrawi, Assistant Editor, The National

Alrawi has been in various media outlets across the globe over the last 2 decades. Side note: he is formerly a production assistant in 2000 for the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation), which receives regular funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

9. This is Psychological Warfare

Nothing in this talk shows any concern that people might be seriously harmed by these experimental vaccines. Instead, the focus is on “pitching” it to the public. Sympathy is feigned, but only for the purposes of learning how other people’s minds work.

Posted on

CV #37(C): WHO’s Own Documents Show It Knew The Entire Time PCR Testing Was A Fraud

The PCR tests (polymerase chain reaction) are held up publicly as this gold standard for testing for infectious diseases. But what does the World Health Organization actually have to say about this?

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the “Great Reset“. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy compromised, shown: here, here, here, and here.

2. Important Links

January 17, 2020 Testing Guidelines For WHO
March 19, 2020 Testing Guidelines For WHO
September 11, 2020 Testing Guidelines For WHO
September 11, 2020 WHO-2019-nCoV-Antigen_Detection
WHO: January, March, September 2020 Guidelines
WHO’s January 13, 2021 Posting On Test Guidelines

January 31 Global Surveillance For Human Infection
March 20 Global Surveillance For Human Infection
May 10 Global Surveillance For Human Infection
August 7 Global Surveillance For Human Infection
December 16 Global Surveillance For Human Infection

https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf
WHO Guidelines Classification Of Death

WHO Case Definition Guidelines

BCCDC: No Idea Actual Error Rate Of PCR Tests
BC COVID19_SerologyTestingGuidelines (1)
BC COVID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR

Tricity: Bonnie Henry – False Positives Overwhelming Hospitals
CBC: Bonnie Henry Warning About False Negatives

WHO’s Definition Of “Herd Immunity”
WHO Posting On Herd Immunity Definition
WHO’s Other Definition Of Herd Immunity

Kary Mullis, Creator Of The PCR Test

3. BCPHO Bonnie Henry Getting Duper’s Delight

BC Provincial Health Officer Bonnie admits that Covid-19 testing is highly flawed and can have a 30% false negative rate. She also admits there’s no science behind her dictate that gatherings of 50 were allowed. Currently visitors and gatherings are prohibited.

That being said, it doesn’t mean this lunatic can’t enjoy a moment of fun now and again. It’s not like she destroyed B.C., or anything like that. The reality is that there is no science behind nearly everything that she’s been doing.

Bonnie is on record saying that she doesn’t support mass testing of asymptomatic people, since false positives could overwhelm hospitals. In other words, she’s fully aware that it doesn’t work.

4. BCCDC Record Shows 30% Error A Hoax

2. What do the test results mean?
 Positive: Viral RNA is detected by NAT and this means that the patient is confirmed to have COVID-19 infection.
A positive NAT does not necessarily mean that a patient is infectious, as viral RNA can be shed in the respiratory tract for weeks but cultivatable (live) virus is typically not detected beyond 8 to 10 days after symptom onset.
 Negative: Viral RNA is not detected in the sample. However, a negative test result does not totally rule out COVID-19 infection as there may be reasons beyond test performance that can result in a lack of RNA detection in patients with COVID-19 infection (false negatives; see below).
 Indeterminate: The NAT result is outside the validated range of the test (i.e., RNA concentration is below the limit of detection, or a non-specific reaction), or this might occur when the sample collected is of poor quality
(i.e., does not contain a sufficient amount of human cells). Indeterminate results do not rule in or rule out
infection

5. What is the clinical sensitivity of the NAT test?
A statistic commonly quoted is that there is a 30% chance of a false negative result for a NAT test in a patient with COVID-19 infection (i.e., a 70% sensitivity). These and other similar estimates are based on a small number studies that compared the correlation between CT scan findings suggestive of COVID-19 infection to NAT on upper respiratory tract specimens. In these studies, 20-30% of people with a positive CT scan result had negative NAT results – and as discussed above a number of factors can contribute to false negative results. CT scan is not a gold standard for diagnosis of COVID-19 infection, and CT scan cannot differentiate amongst the many microbiological causes of pneumonia.
.
Ultimately, for COVID-19 testing, there is currently no gold standard, and the overall clinical sensitivity and specificity of NAT in patients with COVID-19 infection is unknown (i.e., how well NAT results correlate with clinical infection, “true positivity” or “true negativity” rate).

That comes from the BC CDC, the BC Centre for Disease Control. To summarize, the tests can’t tell for certain whether a person is positive or negative, regardless of the result.

Moreover, the Government can’t tell you what the error rates are either for false positives or false negatives, because they don’t know. When Bonnie Henry says 30%, she is quoting a statistic that is throw around for other viruses. A little transparency would be nice.

5. WHO’s January 17, 2020 Testing Guidance

[Page 1]
3. Specimen collection and shipment Rapid collection and testing of appropriate specimens from suspected cases is a priority and should be guided by a laboratory expert. As extensive testing is still needed to confirm the 2019-nCoV and the role of mixed infection has not been verified, multiple tests may need to be performed and sampling sufficient clinical material is recommended. Local guidelines should be followed regarding patient or guardian’s informed consent for specimen collection, testing and potentially future research.

This is a warning sign. Multiple tests are recommended since a mixed infection cannot be ruled out. How reliable can the test be then>

6. WHO’s March 19, 2020 Testing Guidance

[Page 2/3]
Laboratory-confirmed case by NAAT in areas with established COVID-19 virus circulation.
In areas where COVID-19 virus is widely spread a simpler algorithm might be adopted in which, for example, screening by rRT-PCR of a single discriminatory target is considered sufficient.

One or more negative results do not rule out the possibility of COVID-19 virus infection. A number of factors could lead to a negative result in an infected individual, including:
 poor quality of the specimen, containing little patient material (as a control, consider determining whether there is adequate human DNA in the sample
by including a human target in the PCR testing).
 the specimen was collected late or very early in the infection.
 the specimen was not handled and shipped appropriately.
 technical reasons inherent in the test, e.g. virus mutation or PCR inhibition.

If a negative result is obtained from a patient with a high index of suspicion for COVID-19 virus infection, particularly when only upper respiratory tract specimens were collected, additional specimens, including from the lower respiratory tract if possible, should be collected and tested.

Each NAAT run should include both external and internal controls, and laboratories are encouraged to participate in external quality assessment schemes when they become available. It is also recommended to laboratories that order their own primers and probes to perform entry testing/validation on functionality and potential contaminants.

Even if a person tests negative, it doesn’t mean they are actually negative. Even if they test negative multiple times, it doesn’t mean they are cleared. These tests aren’t even screening for the virus, but rather, just a single marker. And of course, there is this little gem below, from the bottom of page 3.

Viral culture
Virus isolation is not recommended as a routine diagnostic procedure.

It’s not recommended to try to isolate the virus for the purposes of diagnosis. Just checking for a few (or even one) target is considered sufficient. And the test can’t be that reliable when it’s recommended to retest based on suspicion.

7. WHO’s September 11, 2020 Testing Guidance

[Page 5]
Nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)
Wherever possible, suspected active SARS-CoV-2 infections should be tested with NAAT, such as rRT-PCR. NAAT assays should target the SARS-CoV-2 genome. Since there is currently no known circulation of SARS-CoV-1 globally, a sarbecovirus-specific sequence is also a reasonable target. For commercial assays, interpretation of results should be done according to the instructions for use. Optimal diagnostics consist of a NAAT assay with at least two independent targets on the SARS-CoV-2 genome, however, in areas with widespread transmission of SARS-CoV-2, a simple algorithm might be adopted with one single discriminatory target. When using a one-target assay, it is recommended to have a strategy in place to monitor for mutations that might affect performance. For more details, see section below on “Background information on monitoring for mutations in primer and probe regions”.

[Page 6]
Careful interpretation of weak positive NAAT results is needed, as some of the assays have shown to produce false signals at high Ct values. When test results turn out to be invalid or questionable, the patient should be resampled and retested. If additional samples from the patient are not available, RNA should be re-extracted from the original samples and retested by highly experienced staff. Results can be confirmed by an alternative NAAT test or via virus sequencing if the viral load is sufficiently high. Laboratories are urged to seek reference laboratory confirmation of any unexpected results

[Page 7]
Rapid diagnostic tests that detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins (antigens) in respiratory tract specimens are being developed and commercialized. Most of these are lateral flow immunoassays (LFI), which are typically completed within 30 minutes. In contrast to NAATs, there is no amplification of the target that is detected, making antigen tests less sensitive. Additionally, false positive (indicating that a person is infected when they are not) results may occur if the antibodies on the test strip also recognize antigens of viruses other than SARS-CoV-2, such other human coronaviruses.

[Page 8]
Virus isolation is not recommended as a routine diagnostic procedure. All procedures involving viral isolation in cell culture require trained staff and BSL-3 facilities. A thorough risk assessment should be carried out when culturing specimens from potential SARSCoV-2 patients for other respiratory viruses because SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to grow on a variety of cell lines

Some points to take away from here: (a) still not testing for the virus, but for a single target; (b) false positives are still a significant problem; (c) antigen tests cannot distinguish between different viruses; and (d) virus isolation is still not recommended

8. WHO’s January 13, 2021 Testing Guidance

WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.

Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.

More guidance which give legitimate concerns that the tests themselves are completely bogus. If retesting is recommended so readily, what does it say about the reliability of the test? If test accuracy is dependent on community prevalence, what does it say about the test? If “patient history” must be confirmed, then what does it say about the test?

9. Barbara Yaffe: Mouthpiece For Ford/WHO

Interestingly, this research has answered an old question. Ontario Deputy Medical Officer Barbara Yaffe has been the butt of many jokes ever since she said that you can get 50% false positives when testing in an area where there isn’t very much Covid. It’s likely that she was simply parroting back one of WHO’s talking points, but wasn’t able to explain it in any sensible manner.

As for those vaccines that are already being rolled out in Canada, Yaffe admits they don’t know if they actually work. It’s a nice bait-and-switch, considering the public has been repeatedly told that testing was a success.

Then again, she just says whatever they write down for her, so there probably isn’t much thinking done at all on her part.

Not much different than Deborah Birx in the United States. If half of your cases are false positives, then there’s something seriously wrong with the test. There’s no good way to spin things.

10. Test’s Creator Denounces Infection Usage

Kary Mullis, the creator of the PCR test, has stated publicly that it was never designed to test for active infection, and hence, is useless for that task. It makes sense, as such a setup wouldn’t be able to distinguish between dead genetic material, and something that was active.

11. WHO Redefines “Herd Immunity”

The World Health Organization was recently called out for changing the definition of “herd immunity”. Previously, it meant immunity from some vaccination, or previous infection. It was changed to only reflect the vaccination option. After the public caught on, however, it was restored to the original version.

Posted on

CV #66: Compilation — The Carnage Left Behind From Order 66

Now we see the fallout that comes from pushing rushed, untested, experimental, DNA altering substances on people. What could possibly go wrong? But hey, we’re saving lives. No copyright claimed or intended with the Star Wars gif.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the “Great Reset“. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy compromised, shown: here, here, here, and here.

2. List Of Incidents

  • Tiffany Dover, Tennessee (Staged?)
  • Dr. João Pedro R. Feitosa, Brazil
  • Dr. Michael Gregory, Florida
  • 10 dead in Germany
  • 13 deaths in the U.S.A.
  • 23 seniors’ deaths in Norway
  • 24 seniors died in LTC home in New York

3. Tiffany Dover, Death Covered Up

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TX9tswvRtxI&feature=youtu.be

Does this look like the same woman? A Catholic Health Initiatives Memorial Hospital in Chattanooga, Tennessee, Tiffany Dover, apparently collapsed and supposedly died. Now, under extremely suspicious circumstances, a woman claiming to be her says that she’s fine. Is this a ruse to diffuse panic and alarm?

4. Dr. João Pedro R. Feitosa, Brazil

The man has been named as 28-year-old doctor João Pedro R. Feitosa from Brazil.

He was taking part in the Brazilian trials of the coronavirus vaccine candidate being developed by the university and pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca when he died on October 15.

No official information on the cause of his death has been given, though unofficially, it has been reported he died of complications due to COVID-19.

Equally, the vaccine developers are unable to confirm whether Dr Feitosa was on the vaccine or the placebo as part of the trial, however an unnamed person close to the trial process revealed to Bloomberg that he had been given the placebo

Interesting. Officially, there is no comment whether or not it is as a result of vaccine, and it’s off the record that it’s declared to be the placebo

5. Dr. Michael Gregory, Miami, Florida

Health authorities are investigating the case of a Florida doctor who died from an unusually severe blood disorder 16 days after receiving the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine.

Dr. Gregory Michael, a 56-year-old obstetrician and gynecologist in Miami Beach, received the vaccine at Mount Sinai Medical Center on Dec. 18 and died 16 days later from a brain hemorrhage, his wife, Heidi Neckelmann, wrote in a Facebook post.

Shortly after receiving the vaccine, Michael developed an extremely serious form of a condition known as acute immune thrombocytopenia, which prevented his blood from clotting properly.

A doctor in Florida died 16 days after receiving the vaccine. Nothing to be worried about, obviously.

6. 10 Seniors Have Died In Germany

After the deaths of 10 people who passed away soon after having been inoculated against the novel coronavirus disease, Specialists from Germany’s Paul Ehrlich Institute are looking into it. Brigitte Keller-Stanislawski, the head of the institute’s department of the safety of medicinal products and medical devices, said on Thursday.

The deceased were aged between 79 to 93, all with antecedent diseases. The time between vaccination and death ranged from several hours to four days, according to the medical expert.

An investigation is underway, following the deaths of 10 people in Germany, all of whom were recently vaccinated. Of course, these people all were old with underlying health conditions. However, that apparently isn’t an issue when it comes to classifying deaths.

7. 13 Dead In the United States

Given the abysmal track record of VAERS in capturing serious adverse events, it is noteworthy that 13 deaths — a subset of 3,916 total adverse events reported following COVID-19 vaccination — had already been recorded by the system by the end of December (as per the MedAlerts search engine).

Nine of the deaths followed the Pfizer vaccine and four followed the Moderna shot (see table below). Nearly all of the deceased were institutionalized (primarily in nursing homes), although one 63-year-old male received the injection at work.

Five (and possibly six) of the deaths occurred on the same day as vaccination, all in women and sometimes within 60 to 90 minutes of the injection — and without any “immediate adverse reaction” having been observed.

At least 13 deaths have been reported in the U.S., as of the end of December 2020.

8. 23 Seniors Dead In Norway

A top doctor for Norway’s drug regulatory agency on Friday suggested side effects from the Pfizer/BioNTech coronavirus vaccine may have contributed to deaths in some older patients.

Dr. Sigurd Hortemo, chief physician at the Norwegian Medicines Agency, said in a statement that common side effects like fever and nausea shortly after vaccination may have led to more serious outcomes and deaths among elderly, frail patients.

According to the Norwegian Medicines Agency, as of Thursday, reports of 23 suspected deaths were sent to the Norwegian ADR health registry, including 13 reports assessed by health officials. The patients died within a week of vaccination, a spokesperson said.

In Norway, side effects from taking a Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine may have led to the deaths of some 23 seniors. At a minimum, it cannot be ruled out that it has hastened their deaths.

8. 24 Seniors Dead In Auburn, New York

December 29, when deaths of residents with coronavirus began occurring at The Commons, is also, Mulder’s article discloses, seven days days after the nursing home began giving coronavirus vaccinations to residents, with 80 percent of residents so far having been vaccinated.
.
Over a period of less than two weeks since December 29, Mulder relates that 24 coronavirus-infected residents at the 300-bed nursing home have died.
.
The nursing home began vaccinating residents Dec. 22.
.
So far 193 residents, or 80%, and 113 employees, or less than half the staff, have been vaccinated.
.
The nursing home plans to do more vaccinations Jan. 12.
.
Is the timing just a strange coincidence?

A nursing home in Auburn, New York, had no Covid-19 deaths. However, within days of vaccinating residents, some 24 people have died. Are the deaths connected to the vaccine, or some very bizarre coincidence?

9. Compilation To Be Added To

Sad, but this won’t be the entire article. Many more will surely die as a result of these vaccines.

Posted on

CCS #22: European Environmental Agency Relies On UNIPCC For Its Climate Change Data

The following exchange came from a reader who has had dealings with the EEA, or European Environmental Agency. In short, the EEA doesn’t prove climate change is real. Instead, it relies on the United Nations to provide such data.

1. Email Exchange Between Researcher And EEA

An interesting discovery. The EEA doesn’t actually do anything to prove that climate change exists as its advertised. Instead, it relies on the UN to TELL THEM that it happens.

2. Debunking The Climate Change Scam

The entire climate change industry, (and yes, it is an industry) is a hoax perpetrated by the people in power, run by international bankers. Plenty has also been covered on the climate scam, the propaganda machine in action, and some of the court documents in Canada. Carbon taxes are just a small part of the picture, and conservatives are intentionally sabotaging their court cases.

Posted on

IBC #9: BIS, Central Banks On Digital Currency Implementation

BIS, the Bank for International Settlements, is working towards implementing a digital currency that would replace cash. There doesn’t appear to be any ideological concerns against this. Instead, it becomes a matter of details.

1. More On The International Banking Cartel

For more on the banking cartel, check this page. The Canadian Government, like so many others, has sold out the independence and sovereignty of its monetary system to foreign interests. BIS, like its central banks, exceed their agenda and try to influence other social agendas. See who is really controlling things, and the common lies that politicians and media figures tell. Now, the bankers work with the climate mafia and pandemic pushers to promote control and debt slavery.

2. Important Links

https://www.bis.org/press/p201009.htm
https://www.bis.org/publ/othp33.pdf
BIS Digital Currency Paper
BIS Video Promoting Digital Currency
Citi On Digital Currency (Video)
Digital Currency Discussion, India(Video)
Various Digital Currency Options
World Affairs Council On Digital Currency (Video)
Bank For International Settlements Innovation Hub
BIS on digital innovation options

3. BIS Working Our Details Of Digital Currency

Yet the world is changing. Even before Covid-19, cash use in payments was declining in some advanced economies. Commercially provided, fast and convenient digital payments have grown enormously in volume and diversity. To evolve and pursue their public policy objectives in a digital world, central banks are actively researching the pros and cons of offering a digital currency to the public (a “general purpose” central bank digital currency (CBDC)). Understanding of CBDCs has advanced significantly in the last few years. Published research, policy work and proofs-of-concept from central banks have gone a long way towards establishing the potential benefits and risks.

For the central banks contributing to this report, the common motivation for exploring a general purpose CBDC is its use as a means of payment. Providing cash to the public is a core responsibility of central banks and a public good. All the contributing central banks commit to continue providing cash as long as there is public demand. Yet a CBDC could provide a complementary central bank money to the public, supporting a more resilient and diverse domestic payment system. It might also offer opportunities not possible with cash while supporting innovation.

2.1 Payment motivations and challenges
2.1.1 Continued access to central bank money
In jurisdictions where access to cash is in decline, there is a danger that households and businesses will no longer have access to risk-free central bank money. Some central banks consider it an obligation to provide public access and that this access could be crucial for confidence in a currency. A CBDC could act like a “digital banknote” and could fulfil this obligation.

2.1.2 Resilience
Cash serves as a backup payment method to electronic systems if those networks cease to function. However, if access to cash is marginalised, it will be less useful as a backup method if the need arises. A CBDC system could act as an additional payment method, improving operational resilience. Compared to cash, a CBDC system might provide a better means to distribute and use funds in geographically remote locations or during natural disasters.

However, significant offline capabilities would need to be developed, both for the CBDC system and any dependencies (eg some availability of electricity for mobile devices). Counterfeiting and cyber risk present a challenge. Cash has sophisticated anti-counterfeiting features and large-scale issues rarely occur. Theoretically, a successful cyber attack on a digital CBDC system could quickly threaten a significant number of users and their confidence in the wider system (as it could for a large bank or payment service provider). Defending against cyber attacks will be made more difficult as the number of endpoints in a general purpose CBDC system will be significantly larger than those of current wholesale central bank systems.

References

  • Adrian, T and T Mancini Griffoli (2019): “The rise of digital money”, IMF FinTech Notes, no 19/001, July.
  • Auer, R and R Böhme (2020): “The technology of retail central bank digital currency”, BIS Quarterly Review,
    March, pp 85–100.
  • Auer, R, G Cornelli and J Frost (2020): Rise of the central bank digital currencies: drivers, approaches and
    technologies”, BIS Working Papers, no 880, August.
  • Auer, R, P Haene and H Holden (2020): Multi CBDC arrangements and the future of cross-border payments,
    BIS papers, forthcoming.
  • Bank of Canada (2020): Contingency planning for a central bank digital currency, February.
  • Bank of Canada and Monetary Authority of Singapore (2019): Enabling cross-border high value transfer
    using distributed ledger technologies, May.
  • Bank of England (2020): Central bank digital currency: opportunities, challenges and design, March.
  • Bank of Thailand and Hong Kong Monetary Authority (2020): Inthanon-LionRock: leveraging distributed
    ledger technology to increase efficiency in cross-border payments, January.
  • Bech, M and R Garratt (2017): “Central bank cryptocurrencies”, BIS Quarterly Review, September, pp 55–
    70.
  • Bindseil, U (2020): “Tiered CBDC and the financial system”, ECB Working Paper Series, no 2351, January.
  • Boar, C, H Holden and A Wadsworth (2020): “Impending arrival – a sequel to the survey on central bank
    digital currency”, BIS Papers, no 107, January.
  • Bossone, B (2001): “Should banks be narrowed?”, IMF Working Papers, WP/01/159, October.
  • Brunnermeier, M, H James and J-P Landau (2019): “The digitalization of money”, NBER Working Papers, no
    26300, September.
  • Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (2018): Cross-border retail payments, February.
    ——— (2020): Enhancing cross-border payments: building blocks of a global roadmap, July.
  • Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures and Markets Committee (2018): Central bank digital
    currencies, March.
  • Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures and World Bank Group (2020): Payment aspects of
    financial inclusion in the fintech era, April.
  • Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems (2003): The role of central bank money in payment
    systems, August.
  • European Central Bank and Bank of Japan (2019): Synchronised cross-border payments, June.
  • European Central Bank and Bank of Japan (2020): Balancing confidentiality and auditability in a distributed
    ledger environment, February.
  • Ferrari, M, A Mehl and L Stracca (2020): Central bank digital currency in the open economy, forthcoming.
    G7 Working Group on Stablecoins (2019): Investigating the impact of global stablecoins, October.
  • Kahn, C, F Rivadeneyra and R Wong (2018): “Should the central bank issue e-money?”, Bank of Canada Staff Working Paper, 2018-58, December.
  • Sveriges Riksbank (2018): The Riksbank’s e-krona project, report 2, October

This goes far beyond some academic theory. There has been serious research and study into issuing digital currency, and it has gone on for quite some time. The “pandemic” seems to be a pretext to push it further along.

Nice to see that some of the major risks are addressed, such as hacking, or system malfunction erasing financial information.

Also, this must be pointed out: most central banks are privately owned and/or controlled. This means that countries must borrow (at interest) in order to get money for day to day operations. Such a system is not necessary, but is enacted for the purposes of creating endless debt slavery. Politicians go along with this because they have no interest in the well being of their people.

4. The Fraud Of Private Central Banking

One of the reasons that digital currency is touted is supposedly to combat money laundering. Interesting, because private central banking (money borrowed at interest), is arguably the greatest financial fraud ever perpetuated. In this scheme, the only way countries can get money — created from nothing — is to borrow it at interest.

5. Digital Currency Openly Discussed

This discussion is hardly limited to BIS. Banks and financial institutions across the planet are talking about how to implement such a system, and have been doing so for many years.

A curious point: things like Bitcoin are promoted as a decentralized way to make transactions, yet banks talk about ways to centrally manage these.

6. Bank For Int’l Settlements Innovation Hub

Hub projects and topics will evolve over time, and the BIS has been working to identify areas of work for the Hub that reflect the innovation priorities of the central bank community and which could be scaled up through international cooperation. Topics under consideration for the work agenda include central bank digital currencies, global stablecoins, payment innovations, the impact of big tech on financial intermediation, regtech and suptech, fast-paced electronic markets, and digitalisation of trade finance.

What does the BIS Innovation Hub do?
The mandate of the BIS Innovation Hub is to identify and develop in-depth insights into critical trends in financial technology of relevance to central banks, to explore the development of public goods to enhance the functioning of the global financial system, and to serve as a focal point for a network of central bank experts on innovation. It complements the already well established cooperation within the BIS-hosted committees.

Digital currency is just one of the things that BIS is working on. The group wants to be at the forefront of the trends that are emerging in financing and payment processing.

7. Privacy Element Missing From Discussion

What about people who want to make business transactions without there being a record for many years? Not everyone is okay with every food or minor purchase being a record available for others to see. Although a growing population seems unconcerned with such things, there is the inherent loss of privacy.

And what about the loss of anonymity or choice when it comes to association, or viewpoints? Is it not easier to connect a person (and their public statements), to their finances? If they happen to hold “incorrect” views, what’s to stop there digital currency from being erased? What’s to prevent institutions from refusing to do business with them? For a concrete example, banks these days are promoting forced diversity and globalism, although many are opposed to it.

Although this sounds farfetched, what’s to stop a Chinese style “social credit” system from making someone’s life impossible to live? Such a thing is possible then finance and identity cannot be separated.