Category: Vaccines

Posted on

Big Tech Collusion With Big Pharma, And Against Free Speech

https://twitter.com/SimonHarrisTD/status/1198973132385738752
http://archive.is/yBp2k
https://twitter.com/Policy/status/1198993450668048385
http://archive.is/A7WVH

1. Free Speech Under Constant Threat

For more on free speech and the problems we face, check out this series. The right to speak one’s mind and be open are essential in any functioning society. However, there are hurdles and attacks all the time. Also, take a dive down the coronavirus and media rabbit holes. See what else there is.

2. Twitter Admits Shadow-Banning


https://twitter.com/Policy/status/1288854760829980674

In it’s July 30 pinned tweet, Twitter claims to be protecting the idea of an open internet. While the first item (preventing a few people from domination) makes sense, the second item is disturbing. It mentions focusing on “how the content is amplified and discovered”, implying that opinions the hosts don’t like will be supressed.

3. Twitter/UNESCO Collude On Media Literacy

Social media conglomerates are often looked upon with suspicion when it comes to the management of their platforms and collaboration for social development. Media and information literacy is a potent way to help people to critically navigate these information superhighways while enabling them to understand that they have the autonomy to choose what they do online or not.

In a unique partnership with UNESCO, Twitter is launching its updated Teaching and Learning with Twitter Guide during the Global MIL Week celebrations from 24-31 October 2019. The Twitter Learning Guide now has media and information literacy as its focus.

The Twitter Learning Guide benefitted from the direct rewriting and content provided by UNESCO through yearlong consultations. The vision and making of a partnership with Twitter were initiated a year ago when Twitter joined UNESCO on the promotion of Global Media and Information Literacy Week 2018.

This bold move demonstrates Twitter’s open commitment to enhancing the critical capacities of its users to make informed and wise choices about how they use the social media platform and engage with information that they encounter therein.

In October 2019, UNESCO and Twitter announced that they were partnering up for what they call “media and information literacy”.

While a campaign for media literacy sounds great on the surface, the devil is in the details. For example, UNESCO recently published “articles” telling people to only trust official sources for information on the coronavirus “pandemic”.

No one wants to see journalists harmed for doing their job. However, discrediting people for going against the official narratives is weasely and dishonest. See the previous article.

4. Big Tech Supports ChristChurch Call

https://twitter.com/Policy/status/1154304423344136192
http://archive.is/NT9zz
https://twitter.com/Policy/status/1176238961947291649

In summer 2017, Facebook, YouTube, Microsoft and Twitter came together to form the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT).

The objective of the GIFCT has always been to substantially disrupt terrorists’ ability to promote terrorism, disseminate violent extremist propaganda, and exploit or glorify real-world acts of violence on our services. We do this by joining forces with counterterrorism experts in government, civil society and the wider industry around the world. Our work centers around three, interrelated strategies:

Interesting. Microsoft was (until recently), headed by Bill Gates, who now spends his time trying to vaccinate the planet. Microsoft, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are all apparently on board with censoring information they deem harmful.

One has to wonder if this cooperation extends to Gates’ vaccination agenda. Would social media outlets do what they can in order to ensure it succeeds? As it turns out, yes they will.

5. Big Tech Supports Replacement Agenda

Washington: More than a dozen top American technology companies, including Google, Facebook and Microsoft, on Monday joined a lawsuit filed by the Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology against the Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) latest rule that bars international students from staying in the United States unless they attend at least one in-person course.

Seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, these companies, along with the US Chamber of Commerce and other IT advocacy groups, asserted that the July 6 ICE directive will disrupt their recruiting plans, making it impossible to bring on board international students that businesses, including amici, had planned to hire, and disturb the recruiting process on which the firms have relied on to identify and train their future employees.

For all the talk about not interfering in elections, big tech seems to have no issue with suing the Government in order to keep the cheap labour flowing. Then again, it was always about importing people who will work for less.

Of course, with record high unemployment, continuing to bring people in makes no sense to society. But it was never about that.

6. Twitter Openly Censors CV Information

https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1267986500030955520
https://twitter.com/Policy/status/1278095924330364935
http://archive.is/fHoLx

In serving the public conversation, our goal is to make it easy to find credible information on Twitter and to limit the spread of potentially harmful and misleading content. Starting today, we’re introducing new labels and warning messages that will provide additional context and information on some Tweets containing disputed or misleading information related to COVID-19.

In March, we broadened our policy guidance to address content that goes directly against guidance on COVID-19 from authoritative sources of global and local public health information. Moving forward, we may use these labels and warning messages to provide additional explanations or clarifications in situations where the risks of harm associated with a Tweet are less severe but where people may still be confused or misled by the content. This will make it easier to find facts and make informed decisions about what people see on Twitter.

While false or misleading content can take many different forms, we will take action based on three broad categories:
.
(a) Misleading information — statements or assertions that have been confirmed to be false or misleading by subject-matter experts, such as public health authorities.
(b) Disputed claims — statements or assertions in which the accuracy, truthfulness, or credibility of the claim is contested or unknown.
(c) Unverified claims — information (which could be true or false) that is unconfirmed at the time it is shared.

Information that public health authorities or subject matter experts deem to be misleading will be grounds for terminating your account. But what happens to those wanting to fact-check or disprove misleading information from experts or authorities? Guess you’re guilty of wrong-think.

Of course, other media outlets should not get a free pass. Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are notorious for deleting accounts which post information that runs counter to the narrative.

7. AMA Wants Crackdown On Misinformation

The American Medical Association is urging the country’s largest internet technology firms to clamp down on misinformation about vaccines in light of the ongoing series of measles outbreaks.

The nation’s most influential physician organization on Wednesday sent a letter to the CEOs of Amazon, Facebook, Google, Pinterest, Twitter and YouTube expressing concern that their respective internet media channels are spreading false information about the safety and efficacy of vaccines, and as a result have been driving parents to not immunize their children.

In a similar fashion, last month Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif) sent a letter to chief executives at Facebook and Google requesting they address false claims about vaccines made on their platforms.

In March 2019, the AMA, the American Medical Association, urged social media platforms to crack down on what it calls “misinformation” about vaccines and their safety.

Several companies have taken steps to reduce vaccine misinformation in response to the criticism. On March 7, Facebook announced it would block advertisements that included false claims about vaccines and no longer show or recommend content that contained misinformation on its platform or on Instagram. In February, Pinterest announced it had blocked all vaccine-related searches on its platform in an effort to stop the spread of misinformation on anti-vaccination posts. Also, in the same month Google announced it had begun removing ads from videos that promote anti-vaccination content on YouTube.

It seems like these social media companies were already on board with the AMA’s request. They saw no issue with removing information that contradicted the narrative, though the methods differed somewhat.

8. Big Tech Helps Push Vaxx In Ireland

Social media companies have to decide “which side they are on” in the vaccine debate and should consider closing accounts and web pages that spread false information, Minister for Health Simon Harris has said.

Mr. Harris said he had invited Twitter, Facebook, Google and other companies to a “summit” to explain what they can do to support public health and clamp down on misinformation.

“These platforms can be a powerful tool for good, or they can be a vehicle for falsehoods and lies, and they need to decide what side they want to be on,” he said on Tuesday at the announcement of a vaccine alliance aiming to boost the uptake of childhood vaccines and reduce parental hesitancy about them.

Mr Harris said social media companies have to decide if they want their platforms to “be on the side of public health, or to be exploited for lies and disinformation”. He also challenged fellow TDs not to allow themselves to be “used” by asking “irresponsible” parliamentary questions about vaccines.

The Minister said the need for accurate, evidence-based information outweighed the need for “false balance” in the debate about vaccines and that efforts needed to be redoubled in order to save lives.

The Irish Minister of Health, in September 2019, invited big tech companies to Ireland to figure out ways to get people vaccinated in higher numbers. There is no pretense of having an open debate. Instead, the objective is quite clearly to push this agenda.

9. Big Tech Censors CV-19 Information

The rapid spread of the coronavirus in China and around the world has sent Facebook, Google and Twitter scrambling to prevent a different sort of malady — a surge of half-truths and outright falsehoods about the deadly outbreak.

The three Silicon Valley tech giants long have struggled to curtail dangerous health disinformation, including posts, photos and videos that seek to scare people away from much-needed vaccines. But the companies face their great test in the wake of a potential pandemic, now that the coronavirus has infected 4,400 people in China, killing at least 100, while sickening another five in the United States.

Already, Facebook and its peers have tried to battle back pervasive conspiracy theories, including a hoax that wrongly claims U.S. government officials secretly created or obtained a patent for the illness. Some of the misinformation has circulated through private Facebook groups — channels that are hard for researchers to monitor in real-time — that came into existence after news first broke about the coronavirus.

Even in January 2020, Facebook, Google and Twitter had been put to work trying to snuff out so-called “misinformation”. Plainly put, this is information that contradicts official narratives, regardless of how truthful or well researched.

Now, as seen in the tweets earlier in the article, outlets like Twitter are quite open about their agenda. This is not a free speech platform.

10. Big Tech Moves To Censor In EU

A representative for the EU told The Verge the program would be launched “without delays” and that detailed timings would soon be made public. The EU has told tech companies it would rather the data was comprehensive than rushed, and it’s likely the format will be similar to reports produced to tackle misinformation about the 2019 EU elections.

Spokespersons for Google, Facebook, and Twitter, told The Verge they supported the EU’s efforts and had already stepped up plans to combat misinformation about the pandemic on their platforms. Facebook and Google said they were committed to producing new monthly reports, while Twitter said it was still considering how to present this information, but that it would be adding regular updates to its coronavirus misinformation blog.

Similarly to the United States, Google, Twitter, Facebook, and others are being used to manipulate Europeans into believing that vaccines are completely safe. The article is from last month, June 2020. This is despite a litany of legitimate questions about what is in them, and what the side effects are.

11. Tech Censorship Is Done Openly

This isn’t some mystery, or crazy conspiracy theory. Companies like Google, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are being asked — and agreeing — to alter the media to create a more pro-vaxx environment. They are complicit in ensuring that difficult questions aren’t being asked and answered. There is no benefit to this, whether is be from a free-speech perspective, or from a health and safety perspective.

To drive home the point: this censorship and manipulation isn’t some secret plan. It’s all out in the open.

Posted on

CV #39: Forced Or Coerced Vaccination Violates Nuremberg Code

If the Nuremberg Code provides very reasonable guidelines on performing medical experiments, then what possible stretch of logic would prohibit people from refusing forced vaccines?

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

For much more on the coronavirus “pandemic”, check out this series. Know the real story about the lies, inflated death tolls, rampant lobbying, financial conflicts of interest, and other deception that the mainstream media will not report on.

2. Text Of Nuremberg Code

  1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
  2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
  3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
  4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
  5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
  6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
  7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
  8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
  9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
  10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

3. Does Forcing Vaccines Violate Code?


It stands to reason that if forcing people to participate in medical experiments is unethical, then forcing vaccines on people should be as well. Considering the lack of testing and safety mechanisms, it would be hard to argue that this is not still experimental.

Beyond actual force, making it unreasonably difficult to live one’s life without being vaccinated should also imply a lack of informed consent. Would a Government put a “boot on the neck” under the guise of public safety? Well, they are already.

What will happen should this be put in a court challenge? Guess only time will tell.

Posted on

Does Targeting Religious Gatherings Violate 1948 UN Convention On Genocide?

152 countries are part of the United Nations Convention on Preventing and Punishing Genocide. Canada signed the treaty in 1949, and it became effective in 1952.
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide-convention.shtml

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

As always, there is more to the story than most think. For other listings in the coronavirus hoax, check out this series. Know what is really going on v.s. what the media is telling you. Rest assured, you aren’t getting the whole story from mainstream news sources.

2. Context For This Piece

Governments across the Western world have been very perplexing choices in deciding what stays open, and what gets closed during this so-called pandemic. The British Columbia Government, for example, promotes and allows all sorts of degeneracy, but claims it can be done safely. In the meantime, gatherings, including religious gatherings are limited to 50 people. Elsewhere, it is even less.

But what if these weren’t just random, nonsensical choices? What if there really was an agenda, and it was to wage war on the idea of religious institutions. Keep in mind, after the “second wave” hits, (as we are told is coming), how do we know there won’t be more closures?

Is it hyperbolic to compare this to deliberate killings and violence towards a group? Perhaps, but keep in mind, that genocide usually starts off in increments.

3. Text Of 1948 UN Convention On Genocide

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

Article I
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.

Article IV
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be
punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private
individuals.

Allow depraved and degenerate acts to continue, while mandating that religious institutions to only operate in a limited and controlled fashion is a hypocritical double standard. It’s not as if Western Governments are treating “everyone” in the same manner. Instead, there is picking and choosing as to which groups are allowed to operate as normal.

Let’s not get the idea that this is almost over. Governments are hyping up the “second wave” in an act of predictive programming, to get people used to future restrictions.

Sure, we’re not killing people for their religious affiliations — at least for now. At the moment it is reduced to limiting, (or banning outright), how they may practice and worship.

4. Religious Freedom Guaranteed In Charter

Canadian.Charter.Of.Rights.Freedoms

Fundamental freedoms – section 2
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
.
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

Freedom of religion is spelled out quite clearly in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Yet, gatherings are limited, while governments bend over backwards (pardon the pun) to allow and facilitate all kinds of degeneracy and risky behaviour.

However, there is probably a good reason for this double standard. Certainly, our officials have a solid basis for acting the ways that they do. Right?

5. BC Government Admits No Science Involved

BC Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry repeatedly admits there is no science behind the decision to limit gatherings — including religious gatherings — to just 50 people. See 1:00 in the video. Far from being a breath of transparency, Henry admits (and justifies) being entirely arbitrary about how rules are made.

6. SCOTUS Allows This In Nevada

Calvary Chapel Emergency Application for Injunction
scotus.allows.nevada.to.discriminate

CALVARY CHAPEL DAYTON VALLEY v. STEVE
SISOLAK, GOVERNOR OF NEVADA, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
[July 24, 2020]
JUSTICE GORSUCH, dissenting from denial of application for injunctive relief. This is a simple case. Under the Governor’s edict, a 10-screen “multiplex” may host 500 moviegoers at any time. A casino, too, may cater to hundreds at once, with perhaps six people huddled at each craps table here and a similar number gathered around every roulette wheel there. Large numbers and close quarters are fine in such places. But churches, synagogues, and mosques are banned from admitting more than 50 worshippers—no matter how large the building, how distant the individuals, how many wear face masks, no matter the precautions at all. In Nevada, it seems, it is better to be in entertainment than religion. Maybe that is nothing new. But the First Amendment prohibits such obvious discrimination against the exercise of religion. The world we inhabit today, with a pandemic upon us, poses unusual challenges. But there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel.

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), recently declined intervene in appeal from Nevada. The Applicants challenged the double standard of allowing gambling to open up (almost regardless of size), but religious institutions were limited. Justice Gorsuch’s dissent was short but sweet.

One has to wonder about Chief Justice John Roberts, a Bush appointee, who cast the deciding vote. One also has to wonder about his recent black eye and potential deep state ties.

7. A Formal Complaint To The Hague?

Again, it may be viewed as hyperbolic to compare restrictions on religious gatherings to outright mass murder. However, it is clear that governments do target this group, while giving much more risky and immoral behaviour a pass.

In fairness, however, the UN would likely do little, if anything. The World Health Organization seems to back this hoax fully.

This needs to be fought back against, one way or another.

Posted on

CV #37: WHO Admits No Evidence For Universal Masking, Recommends It Anyway

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

This is a lengthy series, but a necessary read in order to understand what is really going on. This so-called pandemic is just a pretense for taking away more and more of your freedoms.

2. June 5, 2020 Interim Guidance

(Download the pdf at the bottom)
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks
WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.4-eng (1)

(from page 4)

There are currently no studies that have evaluated the effectiveness and potential adverse effects of universal or targeted continuous mask use by health workers in preventing transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Despite the lack of evidence the great majority of the WHO COVID-19 IPC GDG members supports the practice of health workers and caregivers in clinical areas (irrespective of whether there are COVID-19 or other patients in the clinical areas) in geographic settings where there is known or suspected community transmission of COVID-19, to continuously wear a medical mask throughout their shift, apart from when eating and drinking or changing the mask after caring for a patient requiring droplet/contact precautions for other reasons (e.g., influenza), to avoid any possibility of cross-transmission

So there are no actual studies to test or research the effectiveness of masks in health care settings. However, it’s common practice to expect them to be worn.

(from page 6)

Available evidence
Studies of influenza, influenza-like illness, and human coronaviruses (not including COVID-19) provide evidence that the use of a medical mask can prevent the spread of infectious droplets from a symptomatic infected person (source control) to someone else and potential contamination of the environment by these droplets.(54, 55) There is limited evidence that wearing a medical mask by healthy individuals in households, in particular those who share a house with a sick person, or among attendees of mass gatherings may be beneficial as a measure preventing transmission.(41, 56-61) A recent meta-analysis of these observational studies, with the intrinsic biases of observational data, showed that either disposable surgical masks or reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks were associated with protection of healthy individuals within households and among contacts of cases.(42)

This could be considered to be indirect evidence for the use of masks (medical or other) by healthy individuals in the wider community; however, these studies suggest that such individuals would need to be in close proximity to an infected person in a household or at a mass gathering where physical distancing cannot be achieved, to become infected with the virus.

Results from cluster randomized controlled trials on the use of masks among young adults living in university residences in the United States of America indicate that face masks may reduce the rate of influenza-like illness, but showed no impact on risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza.(62, 63) At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19

The World Health Organization admits there is no direct evidence that widespread masking of healthy people actually prevents any sort of sickness. They speak on in terms of “indirect evidence” or being “possible”.

(from page 6)

2) Advice to decision makers on the use of masks for the
general public
.
Many countries have recommended the use of fabric masks/face coverings for the general public. At the present time, the widespread use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence and there are potential benefits and harms to consider (see below).

However, taking into account the available studies evaluating pre- and asymptomatic transmission, a growing compendium of observational evidence on the use of masks by the general public in several countries, individual values and preferences, as well as the difficulty of physical distancing in many contexts, WHO has updated its guidance to advise that to prevent COVID-19 transmission effectively in areas of community transmission, governments should encourage the general public to wear masks in specific situations and settings as part of a comprehensive approach to suppress SARS-CoV-2 transmission (Table 2).

So no direct scientific evidence to support masking healthy people, but governments should encourage it anyway. Rather than focusing exclusively on science, it takes “values and preferences” into account. Perhaps this is why BCPHO Bonnie Henry says “there’s no science behind it”. It gets even better.

(from end of page 8/early 9)

A non-medical mask is neither a medical device nor personal protective equipment. However, a non-medical mask standard has been developed by the French Standardization Association (AFNOR Group) to define minimum performance in terms of filtration (minimum 70% solid particle filtration or droplet filtration) and breathability (maximum pressure difference of 0.6 mbar/cm2 or maximum Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19: Interim guidance inhalation resistance of 2.4 mbar and maximum exhalation resistance of 3 mbar).

The lower filtration and breathability standardized requirements, and overall expected performance, indicate that the use of non-medical masks, made of woven fabrics such as cloth, and/or non-woven fabrics, should only be considered for source control (used by infected persons) in community settings and not for prevention. They can be used ad-hoc for specific activities (e.g., while on public transport when physical distancing cannot be maintained), and their use should always be accompanied by frequent hand hygiene and physical distancing.

So a non-medical mask isn’t actually considered PPE. But it’s nice to know that 70% is the new standard for being an acceptable filter. And despite them not being beneficial to healthy people, the World Health Organization recommends them anyway.

(from page 10)

WHO is collaborating with research and development partners and the scientific community engaged in textile
engineering and fabric design to facilitate a better understanding of the effectiveness and efficiency of nonmedical masks. WHO urges countries that have issued recommendations on the use of both medical and non-medical masks by healthy people in community settings to conduct research on this important topic. Such research needs to look at whether SARS-CoV-2 particles can be expelled through non-medical masks of poor quality worn by a person with symptoms of COVID-19 while that person is coughing, sneezing or speaking. Research is also needed on nonmedical mask use by children and other medically
challenging persons and settings as mentioned above.

World Health Organization recommends the use of masks, but admits that research needs to be done, and there’s no hard evidence that they work on healthy people.

3. April 6, 2020 Interim Guidance


https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/331693
WHO-april-6-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020

(page 1/2)

Medical masks should be reserved for health care workers. The use of medical masks in the community may create a false sense of security, with neglect of other essential measures, such as hand hygiene practices and physical distancing, and may lead to touching the face under the masks and under the eyes, result in unnecessary costs, and take symptoms. The true extent of asymptomatic infections will be determined from serologic studies. Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19: interim guidance masks away from those in health care who need them most, especially when masks are in short supply.

(page 2)

Advice to decision makers on the use of masks for healthy people in community settings. As described above, the wide use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not supported by current evidence and carries uncertainties and critical risks. WHO offers the following advice to decision makers so they apply a risk-based approach.

(page 2)

However, the following potential risks should be carefully
taken into account in any decision-making process:
• self-contamination that can occur by touching and
reusing contaminated mask
• depending on type of mask used, potential breathing
difficulties
• false sense of security, leading to potentially less
adherence to other preventive measures such as physical
distancing and hand hygiene
• diversion of mask supplies and consequent shortage of
mask for health care workers
• diversion of resources from effective public health
measures, such as hand hygiene

4. What Changed: April To June?

APRIL 2020: no evidence to support masking healthy people, and they need to be reserved for health care workers anyway.

JUNE 2020: no direct evidence to support masking healthy people, but governments should encourage it anyway.

Even taking the World Health Organization at face value (which is a stretch), they admit there is no hard evidence to support mandatory masking of healthy people. Governments are doing it of their own free will.

Posted on

CV #36: Dark Winter (2001); Atlantic Storm (2005); SPARS (2017); Clade X (2018); Event 201 (2019); Johns Hopkins/Gates

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

Governments across the world are attempting to further crack down on freedoms and civil rights. Of course, this always done under the pretense of safety and security. Read more on this series to fully understand what exactly is going on, and why.

2. Context For This Piece

Evidence is piling up that this “pandemic” had been scheduled long in advance. This article refers to 3 “simulations” that the Gates funded Johns Hopkins undertook in the last 2 decades. This is on top of what has already been covered.

  • Gates provides $750M for GAVI startup (1999)
  • Dark Winter (2001)
  • Atlantic Storm (2005)
  • Rockefeller’s Lockstep Narrative (2010)
  • Theresa Tam & “Outbreak” (2010)
  • Gates/Pirbright & CV patents (2015)
  • Raj Saini & M-132 (2017)
  • GAVI lobbying Ottawa (2018-2020)
  • Clade X (2018)
  • Event 201 (2019)

But sure, it is just a wild conspiracy theory that the current pandemic has been preplanned. Nothing to see here, people. Move along.

3. About Dark Winter (2001)

The Dark Winter exercise, held at Andrews AFB, Washington, DC, June 22-23, 2001, portrayed a fictional scenario depicting a covert smallpox attack on US citizens. The scenario is set in 3 successive National Security Council (NSC) meetings (Segments 1, 2 and 3) that take place over a period of 14 days. Former senior government officials played the roles of NSC members responding to the evolving epidemic; representatives from the media were among the observers of these mock NSC meetings and played journalists during the scenario’s press conferences.

Key Players
-President: The Hon. Sam Nunn
-National Security Advisor: The Hon. David Gergen
-Director of Central Intelligence: The Hon. R. James Woolsey
-Secretary of Defense: The Hon. John White
-Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff: General John Tilelli (USA, Ret.)
-Secretary of Health & Human Services: The Hon. Margaret Hamburg
-Secretary of State: The Hon. Frank Wisner
-Attorney General: The Hon. George Terwilliger
-Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency: Mr. Jerome Hauer
-Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation: The Hon. William Sessions
-Governor of Oklahoma: The Hon. Frank Keating
-Press Secretary of Gov. Frank Keating (OK): Mr. Dan Mahoney
-Correspondent, NBC News: Mr. Jim Miklaszewski
-Pentagon Producer, CBS News: Ms. Mary Walsh
-Reporter, British Broadcasting Corporation: Ms. Sian Edwards
-Reporter, The New York Times: Ms. Judith Miller
-Reporter, Freelance: Mr. Lester Reingold

The Dark Winter exercise was the collaborative effort of 4 organizations. John Hamre of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) initiated and conceived of an exercise wherein senior former officials would respond to a bioterrorist induced national security crisis. Tara O’Toole and Tom Inglesby of the Johns Hopkins Center for Civilian Biodefense Studies and Randy Larsen and Mark DeMier of Analytic Services, Inc., (ANSER) were the principal designers, authors, and controllers of Dark Winter. Sue Reingold of CSIS managed administrative and logistical arrangements. General Dennis Reimer of the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT) provided funding for Dark Winter.

This is a little unsettling. Members of the ACTUAL government are playing fake government officials, and ACTUAL members of the media are playing fake journalists for this scenario. Does no journalist question the current “pandemic” and whether it is just a simulation?

4. About Atlantic Storm (2005)

How would world leaders manage the catastrophe of a fast-moving global epidemic of deadly disease? Atlantic Storm was a ministerial table-top exercise convened on January 14, 2005 by the Center for Biosecurity of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, the Center for Transatlantic Relations of the Johns Hopkins University, and the Transatlantic Biosecurity Network. The exercise used a fictitious scenario designed to mimic a summit of transatlantic leaders forced to respond to a bioterrorist attack. These transatlantic leaders were played by current and former officials from each country or organization represented at the table. There was an audience of observers from governments on both sides of the Atlantic as well as from the private sector, but the venue was designed to focus all attention on the summit principals and their discussions around the table.

Take a ringside seat with Atlantic Storm Interactive: The interactive presentation brings the event to life as you watch the news, learn the facts, read the briefings, and listen to excerpts of the players’ discussions–from the ringside perspective of an observer, or from the hot seat perspective of a world leader facing a global outbreak of a deadly infectious disease. Atlantic Storm Interactive walks you through the day, unveiling events, materials, and developments in the same sequence in which they were unveiled to the players. You can listen to audio that highlights the most important moments in the players’ deliberations, watch videos that brought the scenario to life for the players, and use an interactive timeline to move back and forth through the day. Go to Atlantic Storm Interactive now.

The BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) has known about Atlantic Storm the entire time. Did none of the old timers think to make the connection this time around? Or were they willfully blind to what is going on?

5. About Clade X (2018)

ABOUT CLADE X
Clade X is a day-long pandemic tabletop exercise that simulated a series of National Security Council–convened meetings of 10 US government leaders, played by individuals prominent in the fields of national security or epidemic response.
.
Drawing from actual events, Clade X identified important policy issues and preparedness challenges that could be solved with sufficient political will and attention. These issues were designed in a narrative to engage and educate the participants and the audience.
.
Lessons learned were distilled and shared broadly following the exercise.

PURPOSE
Faced with a rapidly evolving biological threat landscape, government leaders in the United States and abroad are eager to identify long-term policy commitments that will strengthen preparedness and mitigate risk. Clade X illustrated high-level strategic decisions and policies needed to prevent a severe pandemic or diminish its consequences should prevention fail.
.
Similar to findings from the Center’s two previous exercises, Dark Winter and Atlantic Storm, key takeaways from Clade X will educate senior leaders at the highest level of the US government, as well as members of the global policy and preparedness community and the general public. This is distinct from many other forms of tabletop exercises that test protocols or technical policies of a specific organization.
.
In addition, exercises like Clade X are a particularly effective way to help policymakers gain a fuller understanding of the urgent challenges they could face in a dynamic, real-world crisis.

In watching the video, one can’t help but notice Clade X repeatedly goes on about the need and urgency for a vaccine. This is predictive programming, but people aren’t picking up on it.

6. About Event 201 (2019)

Most people already know about Event 201, sponsored by the World Economic Forum and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Consider this a reminder. For those who don’t, take this as another step showing a pattern of planning and premeditation.

7. Gates Foundation Finances Johns Hopkins

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

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

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

For 2016 taxes, start on page 279

Year Amount Purpose
2016 $1,500,000 Family Planning
2016 $700,000 Pneumonia
2016 $265,408 Family Planning
2016 $948,306 Vaccine Delivery
2016 $700,000 K-12 Education
2016 $679,281 Sanitation, Nutrition, Water
2016 $10,149,464 Family Planning
2016 407,929 Diarrheal Diseases
2016 $4,018,969 Family Planning
2016 $1,435,240 Pneumonia
2016 $1,501,812 Neonatal/Child Health

Is this all of them? No, this is just a few contributions from 2016. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a regular contributor to Johns Hopkins, and donates in large amounts. When Johns Hopkins publishes or produces something, always be mindful of where their financing comes from.

8. From Gates Foundation Tax Records

That was just in the 2016 tax returns.

Posted on

CV #59(C): Politicians Push Vaccines Despite Overwhelming Recovery Rates

According to the BC Center for Disease Control (on July 23, 2020), a total of 2,898 out of 3,392 people have recovered from CV-19. This is a total of 85% recovery, according to their own data. 3 people are in intensive care, which is 0.1%.
http://www.bccdc.ca/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19/data

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

For other articles in the coronavirus series, check here. There is an awful lot that you are not being told my the mainstream media, including the lies, lobbying, money changing hands, and one world agenda. Nothing is what it appears to be.

2. Those Pushing Mandatory Vaccine Agenda

(Bill Gates predicts no more mass gathering until vaccine developed.

(See 1:30 mark in this, or original video). Trudeau claims that “normalcy will not return without a vaccine that is widely available, and that could be a very long way off”.

(From March 30, 2020 public announcement). The Government of Alberta is stating is may very well be a year to develop a vaccine.

(At 1:00 in this video, BC Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry admits there is no science behind limiting the group size in BC. In fact she often admits this.)

3. Alberta Reporting, July 23, 2020


https://www.alberta.ca/covid-19-alberta-data.aspx
http://archive.is/axaZB

Alberta uses modelling to anticipate the number of COVID-19 cases over the coming months. This helps us make decisions and prepare hospitals to care for critical and acute patients.
.
These decisions include the aggressive public health measures currently helping to limit the spread of the virus.
.
Modelling data is intended to demonstrate expected trends, and not intended to be a predictor of day-to-day increases in hospitalization rates.

4. Saskatchewan Reporting, July 23, 2020


https://www.saskatchewan.ca/government/health-care-administration-and-provider-resources/treatment-procedures-and-guidelines/emerging-public-health-issues/2019-novel-coronavirus/cases-and-risk-of-covid-19-in-saskatchewan

5. Manitoba Reporting, July 23, 2020


https://www.gov.mb.ca/covid19/updates/index.html
http://archive.is/r4prz

6. Ontario Reporting, July 23, 2020


https://covid-19.ontario.ca/
http://archive.is/iCVo8

7. Quebec Reporting, July 23, 2020


https://www.quebec.ca/en/health/health-issues/a-z/2019-coronavirus/situation-coronavirus-in-quebec/
http://archive.is/IYqhJ

Quebec apparently doesn’t list the number of resolved cases on its site.

8. New Brunswick Reporting, July 23, 2020


https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/8eeb9a2052d641c996dba5de8f25a8aa
http://archive.is/kVF5A

9. Nova Scotia Reporting, July 23, 2020


https://novascotia.ca/coronavirus/data/

10. Newfoundland Reporting, July 23, 2020

https://covid-19-newfoundland-and-labrador-gnl.hub.arcgis.com/

11. PEI Reporting, July 23, 2020


https://www.princeedwardisland.ca/en/topic/covid-19

12. Data Compiled By Province

PROV RECOVERED CASES % DEAD ICU
BC 2,898 3,392 85% 190 3
AB 8,506 9,975 85% 176 21
SK 838 1,072 78% 16 13
MB 319 375 86% 7 1
ON 33,963 38,210 89% 2,755 35
QC ? 58,080 ? 5,662 14
NB 165 170 97% 2 0
NS 1,003 1,067 94% 63 0
NFLD 259 264 98% 3 0
PEI 34 36 94% 0 0

Remind me again why we closed the economy.

13. Case Inflation Needs Factored In

The above listings are the official listings in various provinces. It must be pointed that there is rampant lying and inflating of the death toll of this virus. People who die “with” this virus (but not necessarily as a result of it), as being counted the same as those who die “from” it.

But even with padding the numbers, people are recovering — without any vaccine — in very high numbers. Yet our rulers repeatedly state that there will be no return to normal without this. It doesn’t withstand any level of scrutiny.