New Democrat Member of Parliament Alistair MacGregor recently introduced Bill C-315, to amend the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act. At least, his name is on it. It’s unclear if he actually wrote this legislation.
On the surface, this is a Bill to get Canada’s national pension plan to move away from certain activities, at least as far as investing is concerned. To the novice reader, there’s nothing objectionable. It’s short, and (apparently) straight to the point.
But, at its core, this is a form of economic warfare against certain industries. Companies (or sectors)
Whereas the Canada Pension Plan is a major pillar of Canada’s retirement income system and the Canada Pension Plan fund is one of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world;
Whereas capital markets can have a tremendous impact and influence on environmental and social outcomes;
And whereas Canada, having a long history as a defender of human rights and freedoms, is committed to promoting responsible business practices and holding to account those who violate human, labour and environmental rights;
1 Section 35 of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act is renumbered as subsection 35(1) and is amended by adding the following:
(2) The investment policies, standards and procedures, in order to take into account environmental, social and governance factors, shall provide that no investment may be made or held in an entity if there are reasons to believe that the entity has, in performing acts or carrying out work,
(a) committed human, labour or environmental rights violations;
(b) produced arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war prohibited under international law; or
(c) ordered, controlled or otherwise directed acts of corruption under any of sections 119 to 121 of the Criminal Code or sections 3 or 4 of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.
In fairness, it’s nice that this is transparent about its intent. The CPPIB Act is to be amended to use its financial power to influence social change.
Admittedly, this Bill isn’t entirely bad. It does make sense not to do business with companies that are engaged in arms manufacturing if they may be a threat to Canada.
However, some of the more subjective areas leave opportunities for double standards to take place. Who decides if “environmental rights” have been violated? Considering vaccine passports were a recent issue, what qualifies as “human rights” violations? What about “labour rights”? Would it be illegal to bring in replacement workers? Since none of this is clearly defined, how could any sort of consistency be applied?
This is a common problem in these kinds of bills. Since key terms are undefined, then everything becomes subjective, and impossible to enforce in any uniform matter. Politicians may vote on them, but then it is up to unelected bureaucrats to work out the details.
Bill C-312 is about developing of a national renewable energy strategy, or so it’s claimed.
This Bill (supposedly) was written by New Democrat Member of Parliament Don Davies. However, he seems to be writing the United Nations’ dictates and trying to implement them into Canadian law. Remember how all these international agreements were supposed to be “non-binding”?
To add the usual disclaimer: Private Bills often don’t become law on their own. That being said, the contents can later be slipped into other, larger pieces and get passed with little to no debate.
The text of the Bill says “develop and implement” a national strategy. It’s doesn’t simply want a plan drawn up. The logical conclusion one could draw from this is that it will force closure of industries and businesses that don’t go along with the plan.
Whereas the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been clear that averting catastrophic climate change requires global net human-caused greenhouse gas emissions to fall by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050;
Whereas, on a national scale, jobs in the clean energy sector are projected to grow nearly four times faster than the average in other sectors between 2020 and 2030, and the sector’s contribution to gross domestic product is set to increase at more than double the average over the same period;
And whereas Canada must accelerate its transition to a clean energy future to meet the federal government’s target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030;
Development of national strategy
3 The Minister must, in consultation with the provincial government representatives responsible for energy matters and with Indigenous governing bodies, develop and implement a national strategy to provide that, by December 31, 2030, 100% of electricity generated in Canada must be from renewable energy sources.
Objectives of national strategy
4 The national strategy must include measures designed to achieve the following objectives:
(a) the initiation in each calendar year of twice as many renewable energy production projects as non-renewable energy production projects;
(b) an increase in investment in the research and development of renewable energy technologies;
(c) cooperation between the federal government and provincial governments in the establishment of new large-scale public electric utilities; and
(d) the creation of a renewable energy economy and renewable energy jobs.
5 (1) Within one year after the day on which this Act comes into force, the Minister, together with the Minister of Finance, must design and implement incentives to encourage the development of, and investment in, renewable energy projects related to solar, wind, tidal or biomass electricity generation and to encourage homeowners and businesses to retrofit their properties with new or more efficient renewable energy technologies to increase the proportion of electricity used by these properties that is derived from renewable energy sources.
This Bill, if implemented, will kill of the oil & gas industry in Canada. And it appears designed to do so.
There is a quota system, where there would be at least twice as many “renewable” energy projects started as non-renewables. They would also be subsidized, making them appear artificially cheaper.
This is essentially the “Green New Deal” that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pushed back in 2019. Of course, she wasn’t the original author of that plan, and was simply advancing a scheme developed over a decade earlier.
Isn’t it interesting how so much Canadian legislation can actually be traced back to foreign actors with their own agendas?
Green Party Leader, Elizabeth May, has introduced Bill C-226. This would compel the Government to create a national strategy to address “environmental racism”.
Most Private Bills don’t become law, at least not right away. However, the content may later get slipped into larger pieces, and get passed with little to no debate. Therefore, it’s worth knowing about all the Bills that are being introduced. This one is about to enter Third Reading in the House of Commons. This could very well pass.
May’s connections with various environmental N.G.O.s has been covered previously, and is worth another look. Being a member of the Trudeau Foundation is only the beginning.
-Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes the need to advance environmental justice across Canada and the importance of continuing to work towards eliminating racism and racial discrimination in all their forms and manifestations;
-Whereas a disproportionate number of people who live in environmentally hazardous areas are members of an Indigenous, racialized or other marginalized community;
-Whereas the establishing of environmentally hazardous sites, including landfills and polluting industries, in areas inhabited primarily by members of those communities could be considered a form of racial discrimination;
-Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that it is important to meaningfully involve all Canadians — and, in particular, marginalized communities — in the development of environmental policy and that racial discrimination in the development of environmental policy would constitute environmental racism;
-Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to assessing and preventing environmental racism and to providing affected communities with the opportunity to participate in, among other things, finding solutions to address harm caused by environmental racism;
-And whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that collaboration and a coordinated national strategy are key to promoting effective change and achieving environmental justice;
Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
There are many problems with this, one of them being that this Bill is so vague. It seems to imply that racism is entrenched in major decisions, and that environmental harm is being used to inflict damage on certain groups. However, there are no specifics on anything within the Bill. “Environmental justice” isn’t defined either, and that’s a major part of this legislation.
It invites the option of people gaslighting with accusations of racism, done under the pretext of protecting the environment. It’s difficult to imagine that such a thing could be written like this, unless it was done: (a) to pander; or (b) to cause chaos and division.
Have you heard about the World Circular Economy Forum? If not, let’s take a look at what’s going on over here. This is a collection of people who devise ways to make the economy function in a waste free world.
At first, this organization seems to present as a large scale recycling scheme, devoted to reducing garbage and pollution. While there is truth in that, it appears the goals are much larger.
The first forum took place in 2017, and the most recent one was hosted in 2021. That said, 2017 is an interesting year, since that’s when the Canadian budget started pumping money into alternative protein sources.
It’s a bit amusing that this group goes out of its way to have a name as close as possible to the World Economic Forum. Did they thing no one would notice? Or that no one would care? Anyhow, let’s see who’s supposedly running this thing.
African Circular Economy Alliance
Circular Economy Leadership Canada
City of Toronto
Ellen MacArthur Foundation
European Circular Economy Stakeholders Platform
International Chamber of Commerce
Government of Canada
Government of the Netherlands
United Nations Environmental Program
Strangely, I don’t recall any public figures campaigning on becoming part of such an organization. Nor does there seem to have been anything in the way of media coverage. But at least we aren’t forced to help finance this “circular economy” fad, are we?
It turns out, that we will be. At least that’s what this 2021 report makes pretty clear. Like other eco initiatives, this will require lots of start-up money.
The current state of circular finance
Despite the lack of harmonized frameworks, taxonomies, and metrics, financial institutions are beginning to move forward with initiatives to advance circular finance solutions in various ways. Globally, some financial institutions have set multi-billion dollar targets for investing in circular deals. Large multilateral development banks are supporting financial institutions in developing structured frameworks to accommodate innovative financial solutions and advisory services. A report authored by Patrick Schröder and Jan Raes and published by Chatham House titled, “Financing an inclusive circular economy: De-risking investments for circular business models and the SDGs,” highlights the importance of public investment and stimulus packages to de-risk and incentivize financial investments in circular models.
In order to get this going, billions of dollars will need to be pumped into it. Note: this doesn’t refer to any accounting, just an idea in broad strokes. The report continues:
[Page 8] Circular economy opportunities and priorities are increasingly intersecting with broader ESG considerations such as biodiversity, equity, diversity and inclusion, and climate action goals, although the intersections are not yet well understood. Investment in circular business strategies and operations can result in significant positive social, environmental, and economic benefits. Circular businesses are creating more resilient green jobs and skills that will be needed in a low-carbon future. For instance, the Share, Reuse, Repair Initiative’s Just Circular Recovery and Transition project brings together circular innovators and community organizations to advance employment opportunities within marginalized communities. Additionally, circular businesses are prompting consumers to have conversations around lighter living and to make more sustainable choices.
A study by the Ellen McArthur Foundation shows that 45% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are associated with products and food. Achieving net-zero commitments will require reducing embodied carbon through circular strategies, such as designing for reuse and remanufacturing, product-as-a-service models, and advanced recycling. For instance, the Ellen McArthur foundation estimates that remanufacturing and reusing an engine reduces carbon intensity by 85%
This also ties in with the idea of “alternative” protein sources and eating bugs. After all, if traditional food sources are considered to not be environmentally friendly, they need to be phased out.
It turns out that taxpayer dollars are being used for the “circular economy” initiative, even if they aren’t being directly given to this organization. Here are some of those grants:
And in a turn of events, Canadian taxpayers is also giving large amounts of money directly to the World Economic Forum. In fact, there is a lot they are forced to finance.
Accelerating Sustainability Events Management Inc
Jul 28, 2021
Carboncure Technologies Inc
Jan 8, 2021
City Of Guelph
Mar 13, 2020
Collège D’Enseignement Général Et Professionnel
Feb 6, 2020
Conference Board Of Canada
Mar 31, 2021
Council Of The Great Lakes Region
Mar 18, 2020
Distillerie Maison Alfred Inc.
Dec 5, 2021
Gabriola Island Recycling Organization
Mar 24, 2022
Global Centre For Indigenomics
Oct 27, 2021
Mar 15, 2022
Leading Change For Young Professionals
Jul 28, 2021
Natural Step (Canada) Inc.
Feb 21, 2019
Ontario Genomics Institute
Oct 1, 2021
Leadership Coalition, Natural Step Canada Inc
Mar 18, 2020
Pivot Furniture Technologies Inc.
Feb 1, 2019
Pivot Furniture Technologies Inc.
Sep 16, 2021
Rethink Resource Inc.
May 31, 2021
Rethink Resource Inc.
May 31, 2021
Tgm Tours Inc.
Jan 25, 2021
University Of British Columbia
Mar 18, 2022
World Economic Forum
Dec 23, 2014
World Economic Forum
Sep 29, 2015
World Economic Forum
Dec 14, 2015
World Economic Forum
Dec 3, 2018
World Economic Forum
Apr 25, 2019
World Economic Forum
Jan 17, 2020
World Economic Forum
Mar 16, 2020
The University of British Columbia is a registered charity, so it already receives a favourable tax rate on its income.
It’s also worth mentioning that both Carboncure Technologies Inc. and the Conference Board Of Canada were receiving CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, over the last few years. This is run by the C.R.A. and is used to help pay employees’ wages.
“We’re collectively committing to support the U.N. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12 on responsible consumption and production, and to substantially reduce waste, in all of its forms, by 2030.”
In other words, it’s helping to implement parts of Agenda 2030. The organization just needs large amounts of financial assistance (continuously) to make this happen.
Goal #2 in the U.N. Sustainable Development Agenda is ending hunger in all its forms. One of the methods pushed is phasing out traditional agriculture with alternative protein sources, such as bugs.
Goal #13 in the UNSDA is preventing climate change. There is actually considerable overlap with #2. By stating that certain agricultural practices cause these changes, it provides a further excuse to further shut down farms.
Goal #12 ties in to both #2 and #13. This calls for creating “sustainable food and consumption patterns”. By saying that current models do not suffice in feeding everyone, while asserting they cause climate change, this goal is able to solve the other two. It’s another instance of causing the problem, getting a reaction, then proposing a solution.
A cynic may wonder just how literally the term “circular economy” is meant to be taken. After all, there are efforts to get people in the West eating bugs. After humans are dead and buried, presumably they’ll be eaten by bugs themselves.
WHO WAS THAT MASKED MAN?
Part 1 in an on-going series on the greatest scam this side of the Crab Nebula
There is utterly unfounded public hysteria, driven by the media and politicians… this is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public.”
– Dr. Roger Hodkinson, Pres., Alberta Society of Laboratory Physicians, studies completed at Cambridge Univ.
Before we start on the vaccine – more properly, the gene therapy shot – some words on mask usage. Remember the world-wide calls to stop plastic straw usage? According to Strawless Ocean, there will be more plastic in the ocean by weight than fish in 2050. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering cites research that estimates that three million face masks are throw in the trash every minute across the globe – that’s equivalent to about 129 billion face masks per month (or 3 million a minute). An article in Natural Health 365 concludes “In their paper, the team of researchers, who hail from both Princeton and the University of Southern Denmark, note that disposable face masks are not biodegradable and contain minuscule plastic fibers, microplastics, and nanoplastics. Once these masks are thrown away and end up in the environment, masks are exposed to solar radiation and heat and start to break down to some degree. However, the degradation of plastics within the masks is slow to virtually non-existent – causing them to accumulate in our soil and water. And while there’s not enough data about the true impact of these masks on the environment yet, the researchers strongly suspect that the rampant use of disposable face masks are causing harmful biological and chemical substances to spread and pose health hazards to animals, humans, and the ecosystem. Where do all these face masks go? Among other places, straight into our oceans.”
GreenMedInfo adds: “Not only are masks not being recycled, but their materials make them likely to persist and accumulate in the environment. Because masks may be directly made from micro-sized plastic fibers with a thickness of 1 mm to 10 mm, they may release micro-sized particles into the environment more readily — and faster — than larger plastic items, like plastic bags. Of course, all this is ingested by sea life, impacting their health (save the whales!) as well as the health of all that consume them (birds, sea mammals, humans). Microbes from your mouth, known as oral commensals, frequently enter your lungs, where they have been linked to advanced stage lung cancer; wearing a mask could potentially accelerate this process. The “new normal” of widespread masking is affecting not only the environment but also the mental and physical health of humans.” Specifically, GreenMed tells us “Most disposable face masks contain three layers — a polyester outer layer, a polypropylene or polystyrene middle layer and an inner layer made of absorbent material such as cotton. Polypropylene is already one of the most problematic plastics, as it is widely produced and responsible for large waste accumulation in the environment, as well as being a known asthma trigger. Further, the researchers noted: “Once in the environment, the mask is subjected to solar radiation and heat, but the degradation of polypropylene is retarded due to its high hydrophobicity, high molecular weight, lacking an active functional group, and continuous chain of repetitive methylene units. These recalcitrant properties lead to the persistence and accumulation in the environment.” Of course, once these masks get weathered, they create micro-sized polypropylene particles in a matter of weeks, then break down further into nanoplastics that are less than 1 mm in size.
But then new masks go one worse says GreenMed: “Made from microsized plastic fibers with a thickness of 1 mm to 10 mm, they may release microsized particles into the environment more readily — and faster — than larger plastic items, like plastic bags. Further, “Such impacts can be worsened by a new-generation mask, nanomasks, which directly use nanosized plastic fibers (e.g., diameter <1 mm) and add a new source of nanoplastic pollution.” A report by OceansAsia further estimated that 1.56 billion face masks may have entered the world’s oceans in 2020, based on a global production estimate of 52 billion masks manufactured that year, and a loss rate of 3%, which is conservative…. Based on this data, and an average weight of 3 to 4 grams for a single-use polypropylene surgical mask, the masks would add 4,680 to 6,240 additional metric tons of plastic pollution to the marine environment, which, they note, “will take as long as 450 years to break down.”
Going further down the rabbit hole Greenmed opened up in the link above, “Such plastics also contain contaminants, such as polycyclic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which may be genotoxic (i.e., causing DNA damage that could lead to cancer), along with dyes, plasticizers and other additives linked to additional toxic effects, including reproductive toxicity, carcinogenicity and mutagenicity. Aside from the chemical toxicity, ingestion of microplastics from degraded masks and other plastic waste is also toxic due to the particles themselves as well as the potential that they could carry pathogenic microorganisms. Another issue that’s rarely talked about is the fact that when you wear a mask, tiny microfibers are released, which can cause health problems when inhaled. The risk is increased when masks are reused. This hazard was highlighted in a performance study to be published in the June 2021 issue of Journal of Hazardous Materials, where researchers from Xi’an Jiaotong University said scientists, manufacturers and regulators need to assess the inhalation of microplastic and nanoplastic debris shed from masks — both disposable and cloth.”
Then there is the issue of commensals from the mask furthering lung cancer and impacting fetuses. Again, from GreenMed: “Not only that, but researchers from New York University (NYU) Grossman School of Medicine revealed that when these oral commensals are “enriched” in the lungs, it’s associated with cancer. Specifically, in a study of 83 adults with lung cancer, those with advanced-stage cancer had more oral commensals in their lungs than those with early-stage cancer. Those with an enrichment of oral commensals in their lungs also had decreased survival and worsened tumor progression”; then re. the unborn “t’s also known that microplastics exist in human placentas, and animal studies show that inhaled plastic particles pass through the placenta and into the heart and brains of fetuses. The fetuses exposed to the microplastics also gained less weight in the later part of the pregnancy. “We found the plastic nanoparticles everywhere we looked — in the maternal tissues, in the placenta and in the fetal tissues. We found them in the fetal heart, brain, lungs, liver and kidney,” lead researcher and Assistant Professor Phoebe Stapleton of Rutgers University told The Guardian.” You can read the study directly yourself at Rutgers.edu here.
So here is what we get from masks, per Dr. Jim Meehan:
– Medical masks adversely affect respiratory physiology and function
– Medical masks lower oxygen levels in the blood
– Medical masks raise carbon dioxide levels in the blood
– SAR-CoV-2 has a “furin cleavage” site that makes it more pathogenic, and the virus enters cells more easily when arterial oxygen levels decline, which means wearing a mask could increase COVID-19 severity
– Medical masks trap exhaled virus in the mouth/mask, increasing viral/infectious load and increasing disease severity
– SARS-CoV-2 becomes more dangerous when blood oxygen levels decline
– The furin cleavage site of SARS-CoV-2 increases cellular invasion, especially during low blood oxygen levels
– Cloth masks may increase the risk of contracting COVID-19 and other respiratory infections
– Wearing a face mask may give a false sense of security
– Masks compromise communications and reduce social distancing
– Untrained and inappropriate management of face masks is common
– Masks worn imperfectly are dangerous
– Masks collect and colonize viruses, bacteria and mold
– Wearing a face mask makes the exhaled air go into the eyes
– Contact tracing studies show that asymptomatic carrier transmission is very rare
– Face masks and stay at home orders prevent the development of herd immunity
– Face masks are dangerous and contraindicated for a large number of people with pre-existing medical conditions and disabilities
Oh yes. According to the past president of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, Dr. Lee Merritt, MD, typical ear loop “masks will not provide any protection against COVID-19 (coronavirus) or other viruses or contaminants” in that the viruses are too small for a typical mask. Just like we don’t use a chain link fence to keep out mosquitos, so too masks don’t keep out viruses. Worse, a review of scientific reports, up to February 2021, suggests that universal masking seriously harms people and society without any notable benefit. The author of the review, Denis G. Rancourt, points out multiple ways masks inflict damage and undermine our health. Some of the mask-related adverse health effects reported in a systematic review and meta-analysis were discomfort, irritation, psychological impact, and mask contamination. Pathogens can rapidly accumulate in improperly used masks, and can actually increase the risk of spreading viruses – including SARS-CoV-2 – to others. And what masks are doing to children – who now have more suicide deaths than Covid deaths – is disgusting: Says NaturalHealth 365 “The psychological and developmental implications of mask-wearing are particularly detrimental to children. Numerous studies show that face masks impair face recognition, verbal and non-verbal communication, block emotional signaling and diminish children’s ability to bond and emotionally connect with others.” As of this report in April, 2021 (numbers change monthly, but the reality will not) CDC stats tell us a total of 134 children under the age of 15 died in the USA from COVID. In contrast for the 2019–2020 flu season, 188 children died from the annual flu.). 134 out of around 28,171 kids that age who have died altogether in the past year. I slept through junior high math class, but if you divide 134 by 28,171, that’s 0.45%. And no doubt of those 134 kids, there is no doubt most, if not all, had serious co-morbidities.
There is tons of information on these 3 articles. Rather than rehashing or recreating what they have, here are the links to look for yourself.
3. Coronavirus Patent Application in 2015 (Pirbright)
This may come across as a conspiracy theory (and it sounds like one), but let’s take a look into the patent that Pirbright Institute recently obtained.
Patent number: 10130701
Filed: Jul 23, 2015
Date of Patent: Nov 20, 2018
Patent Publication Number: 20170216427 Assignee: THE PIRBRIGHT INSTITUTE (Woking, Pirbright)
Inventors: Erica Bickerton (Woking), Sarah Keep (Woking), Paul Britton (Woking)
Primary Examiner: Bao Q Li
Application Number: 15/328,179
Jul 23, 2015 – THE PIRBRIGHT INSTITUTE
The present invention provides a live, attenuated coronavirus comprising a variant replicase gene encoding polyproteins comprising a mutation in one or more of non-structural protein(s) (nsp)-10, nsp-14, nsp-15 or nsp-16. The coronavirus may be used as a vaccine for treating and/or preventing a disease, such as infectious bronchitis, in a subject.
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
The present invention relates to an attenuated coronavirus comprising a variant replicase gene, which causes the virus to have reduced pathogenicity. The present invention also relates to the use of such a coronavirus in a vaccine to prevent and/or treat a disease.
Coronaviruses are divided into four groups, as shown below:
Canine coronavirus (CCoV)
Feline coronavirus (FeCoV)
Human coronavirus 229E (HCoV-229E)
Porcine epidemic diarrhoea virus (PEDV)
Transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV)
Human Coronavirus NL63 (NL or New Haven)
Bovine coronavirus (BCoV)
Canine respiratory coronavirus (CRCoV)—Common in SE Asia and Micronesia
Human coronavirus OC43 (HCoV-OC43)
Mouse hepatitis virus (MHV)
Porcine haemagglutinating encephalomyelitis virus (HEV)
Rat coronavirus (Roy). Rat Coronavirus is quite prevalent in Eastern Australia where, as of March/April 2008, it has been found among native and feral rodent colonies.
(No common name as of yet) (HCoV-HKU1)
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV)
Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV)
Infectious bronchitis virus (IBV)
Turkey coronavirus (Bluecomb disease virus)
Guinea fowl coronavirus
Bulbul coronavirus (BuCoV)
Thrush coronavirus (ThCoV)
Munia coronavirus (MuCoV)
Porcine coronavirus (PorCov) HKU15
More information is available here, but the point is this: the coronaviruses were (allegedly) modified to help cure other diseases, such as bronchitis.
The variant replicase gene of the coronavirus of the present invention may be derived from an alphacoronavirus such as TGEV; a betacoronavirus such as MHV; or a gammacoronavirus such as IBV.
As used herein the term “derived from” means that the replicase gene comprises substantially the same nucleotide sequence as the wild-type replicase gene of the relevant coronavirus. For example, the variant replicase gene of the present invention may have up to 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 98% or 99% identity with the wild type replicase sequence. The variant coronavirus replicase gene encodes a protein comprising a mutation in one or more of non-structural protein (nsp)-10, nsp-14, nsp-15 or nsp-16 when compared to the wild-type sequence of the non-structural protein.
This new version is apparently a derivative of an alpha, beta, or gamma coronavirus already in existence. I’ve been told this Wuhan coronavirus has nothing to do with Pirbright’s patent or work. Although the patent information states that the patented version may contain 80-99% of the wildtype replicase sequence.
The variant is essentially a mutation in 1 (or more) non-structural proteins.
Still, one heck of a coincidence to be doing so much research into a specific area and then something else emerges. It will become apparent why soon.
4. Pirbright Institute’s Other Patents
Attenuated African swine fever virus vaccine
Patent number: 10507237
Abstract: The present invention provides an attenuated African Swine Fever (ASF) virus which lacks a functional version of the following genes: multigene-family 360 genes 9L, 10L, 11L, 12L, 13L and 14L; and multigene-family 505 genes 1R, 2R, 3R and 4R. The invention further provides an attenuated African Swine Fever (ASF) virus which lacks a functional version of the DP148R gene. The present invention also provides a vaccine comprising such an attenuated virus and its use to prevent ASF. Further, the invention relates to intranasal administration of an attenuated ASF virus.
Filed: June 19, 2015
Date of Patent: December 17, 2019
Assignee: The Pirbright Institute
Inventors: Charles Abrams, Ana-Luisa Reis, Chris Netherton, Linda Dixon, Dave Chapman, Pedro Sanchez-Cordon
Stabilised FMDV capsids
Patent number: 10294277
Abstract: The present invention relates to the stabilization of foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) capsids, by specific substitution of amino acids in a specific region of FMDV VP2. The invention provides stabilized FMDV capsids and vaccines against FMD.
Filed: March 25, 2014
Date of Patent: May 21, 2019
Assignee: The Pirbright Institute
Inventors: Abhay Kotecha, David Stuart, Elizabeth Fry, Robert Esnouf
Stabilised FMDV Capsids
Publication number: 20190135874
Abstract: The present invention relates to the stabilisation of foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) capsids, by specific substitution of amino acids in a specific region of FMDV VP2. The invention provides stabilised FMDV capsids and vaccines against FMD.
Filed: January 17, 2019
Publication date: May 9, 2019
Applicant: Pirbright Institute
Inventors: Abhay Kotecha, David Stuart, Elizabeth Fry, Robert Esnouf
Chicken cells for improved virus production
Patent number: 10202578
Abstract: The present Invention provides as avian cell in which the expression or activity of one or more of the following genes, or a homologue thereof: Chicken IFITM 1 (SEQ ID No. 1); Chicken IFITM2 (SEQ ID No. 2) and Chicken IFITM3 (SEQ ID No. 3) is reduced. The invention also provides methods for passaging viruses in avian cells, embryos and/or avian cell lines which have reduced expression of one or more IFITM genes and methods which involve investigating the sequence of one or more of the following genes, or a homologue thereof: Chicken IFITM1 (SEQ ID No. 1); Chicken IFITM2 (SEQ ID No. 2) and Chicken IFITM3 (SEQ ID No. 3).
Filed: June 3, 2014
Date of Patent: February 12, 2019
Assignee: THE PIRBRIGHT INSTITUTE
Inventors: Mark Fife, Mark Gibson
That is just a few patents that The Pirbright Institute has. Now it seems harmless enough. But what happens if or when one of their creations becomes weaponized and turned against the public?
5. Gates Foundation Finances Pirbright Inst.
Researchers from The Pirbright Institute have been awarded US $5.5 million by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to establish a Livestock Antibody Hub aimed at improving animal and human health globally. The ambitious programme of work will see extensive collaboration between multiple UK research organisations in order to utilise research outcomes in livestock disease and immunology to support human health as part of the ‘One Health’ agenda.
Six leading scientists from Pirbright will be involved in the project, including Professor John Hammond, Professor Venugopal Nair, Dr Simon Graham, Dr Elma Tchilian, Professor Munir Iqbal and Dr Erica Bickerton. Their combined expert knowledge will drive the study of cattle, pig and poultry antibody responses at high resolution to expand our understanding of protective immunity in species that can also be used as models for a range of human infectious diseases.
The aim is to use Pirbright’s expertise in livestock viral diseases, cutting-edge technology and unique high-containment facilities to bring antibody discovery, manipulation and testing up to the benchmark already seen in the immunological field for rodents and humans. “New tools have given us the opportunity to utilise these detailed antibody responses to make the next generation of vaccines and therapies” said research lead Professor Hammond.
This highly collaborative work will address the needs of the livestock research community whilst bridging the requirements of the vaccine industry. A number of work programmes will focus on studying B cells and antibodies at multiple scales including gene expression, single cell function and the entire antibody response.
Findings from this research will be used to drive vaccine selection and design and test antibody therapies, “which will improve animal health and ultimately human health, as well as ensuring the security of our food supply”, finished Professor Hammond. Pirbright will ultimately act as a ‘Hub’ able to provide specific methods, access to animal models and the associated expertise to drive antibody research within the ‘One Health’ agenda.
“This is the single biggest investment in the immunology of livestock in the UK from an international funder, and the British Society for Immunology will do all we can to support this collaborative initiative and help maximise its impact for the benefit of human and animal health”, commented Dr Doug Brown, Chief Executive of the British Society for Immunology
A major contributor to Pirbright Institute is the Gates Foundation, headed by Bill and Melinda Gates. Yes, those Gates. But why is that an issue? What’s wrong with a wealthy couple contributing to help prevent infectious diseases?
Let’s put it this way: Bill Gates has some views that are (mildly) controversial. He has gone on record with comments that suggest be supports human depopulation — reducing the number of people on Earth. Could this be a way to accomplish that goal?
6. Cull The Population To Save Planet?
(Bill Gates and depopulation, from 2011, clip from video)
(Bill Gates and depopulation, from 2011, entire video)
(Bill Gates, improved health care, overpopulation)
(Bill Gates: health and population correlation)
(Bill Gates: vaccines and Ebola virus)
Yes, Gates flouts the sales pitch that improving health results in less population. His stated reasoning is that people will simply have less children if they know the kids are more likely to survive into adulthood.
Problem is, that hasn’t fared out. Look at Africa and the Middle East. Improvements in health have lead to an exploding population. Granted, their goal (those who are Muslim) is to outbreed and eventually overrun every nation on Earth. But the population drop Gates claims simply isn’t a reality.
Now, is this simply an attitude that Bill Gates has, or has he taken any steps to estimate how the population could be reduced? Instead of lowering birth rates, perhaps there is a simpler and more direct method.
7. Bill Gates Running “Death Scenario”
A viral pandemic could kill 65 million people
Toner’s simulation imagined a fictional virus called CAPS. The analysis, part of a collaboration with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, looked at what would happen if a pandemic originated in Brazil’s pig farms. (The Wuhan virus originated in a seafood market that sold live animals.)
The virus in Toner’s simulation would be resistant to any modern vaccine. It would be deadlier than SARS, but about as easy to catch as the flu.
The pretend outbreak started small: Farmers began coming down with symptoms that resembled the flu or pneumonia. From there, the virus spread to crowded and impoverished urban neighborhoods in South America.
Flights were canceled, and travel bookings dipped by 45%. People disseminated false information on social media.
After six months, the virus had spread around the globe. A year later, it had killed 65 million people.
Sure, this is all just a simulation. It’s just an academic exercise.
Of course, for people like Bill Gates, who claim that Carbon Dioxide has to be cut to save the planet, one has to wonder what his actual goals are. As outlined extensively in the CLIMATE CHANGE SCAM series, Carbon Dioxide isn’t pollution. This whole “industry” is very much a cash grab.
CLICK HERE, for Part II, the Paris Accord. CLICK HERE, for Part III, Saskatchewan Appeals Court Reference. CLICK HERE, for Part IV, Controlled Opposition to Carbon Tax. CLICK HERE, for Part V, UN New Development Funding. CLICK HERE, for Part VI, Disruptive Innovation Framework. CLICK HERE, for Part VII, Blaming Arson On Climate Change. CLICK HERE, for Part VIII, Review Of Green New Deal. CLICK HERE, for Part VIII(II), Sunrise Movement & Green New Deal. CLICK HERE, for Part IX, Propaganda Techniques, Max Boykoff. CLICK HERE, for Part X, GG Pollution Pricing Act & Bill C-97. CLICK HERE, for Part XI, Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai’s explanation of CCS. CLICK HERE, for Part XII, Joel Wood and Carbon tax “option”. CLICK HERE, for Part XIII, controlled opposition going to SCC. CLICK HERE, for Part XIV, Mark Carney’s new UN role. CLICK HERE, for Part XIV(II), Carney, CCX, Goldman, Central Banking. CLICK HERE, for UN global taxation efforts.
So why is Gates pushing an obviously false narrative? Why claim that improving the health of people in Africa and the Middle East will result in a reduced birthrate and lower population? Why claim that Carbon Dioxide is a pollution that will harm the planet?
Is it just a coincidence this “simulation” happened just months before the real thing? Or was this a calculated test run?
8. CBC: Nothing To See Here, People
Public Health Agency of Canada describes it as a possible ‘policy breach,’ no risk to Canadian public
Sure, just a policy breach. Just some minor bureaucratic error that went on. Surely nothing that the peons have to concern themselves with.
“All of this is unproven, but even microbiology, sometimes especially microbiology, can have issues that involve national security.”
It’s something the Canadian Security Intelligence Service has already warned about, said Leah West, who teaches national security law at Carleton’s Norman Paterson School of International Affairs.
“Canada is facing threats from foreign governments seeking to steal intellectual property and that could include state-funded research,” she said.
“The two big things I want to see is whether or not these individuals are charged with crimes by the RCMP …that will give us a lot of information about what is really at stake here.”
West is also interested in seeing how this plays out politically between Canada and the Chinese government.
Sure there’s nothing to worry about. China is a hostile country who kidnapped 2 of our citizens after we locked up one of their spies (Meng). But why should this, or anything else, prohibit the Chinese from getting such clearance into Canadian facilities?
Let’s be clear: diversity is a lie. The vast majority of people’s strongest ties are with those who they share an ethnic (racial) bond with. Letting Chinese nationals into confidential Canadian labs under the guise of “cooperation and diversity”, is coming national suicide.
One has to wonder if the Canadian Government is really trying to kill us with what they allow to happen
9. Depopulation The Real Goal?
This could all be an extremely wild and unlikely coincidence, but it’s difficult to take on the surface. Too much money at stake, and other nations have an agenda.
For people who (claim to) believe that there are too many people on the planet, and that climate change is inevitable, we must ask a question: what would they be willing to do to stop it?
Is potentially killing millions (or billions) of people a way to save the planet by cutting emissions? Even though the climate change scam is based on lies? There is more here than what the public is being told.
And while you’re at it, go check out Civilian Intelligence Network.
On a semi-serious ending, doesn’t the outbreak of Wuhan Coronavirus come across like this (fictional) movie series of Resident Evil?