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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The BBC reported that the World Health Organization had changed its position on face masks due to political pressure, not science.
1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”
This series continues into the lies, distortions and manipulations of the coronavirus industry. In order to understand why it’s happening, it’s necessary to show the lobbying, influence peddling and money trail that is going on. This is a multi billion dollar industry, and a lot of people have a vested interest in prolonging it.
Part 1: Gates; Pirbright Institute; Virus Patents Part 3: Gates, GAVI, ID2020, Agenda 2030, WHO, CDC Part 4: Gates using proxies to lobby Trudeau Part 9: M-132, pharma lobbying hearings in Canada Part 11: Pharma lobbying in Ontario, Bill 160 stalled Part 14: lobbying behind $176M grant to AbCellera Part 18: Vaccine bonds industry rising up Part 21: Pharma lobbying by Gates’ many allies Part 24: Gates financing Imperial College London models
2. Tactic Of Inflating The Total Deaths
In most cases, if you want to convince people that a big lie is true, different tactics will be needed. For the coronavirus planned-emic, this is no different. Originally, people in the West were told this was no big deal. Then suddenly, the narrative shifted to one of an urgent pandemic.
However, the lies that governments and the media tell are being exposed. The hype, the overdramatization, and the falsified death tolls are coming out. That’s what the bulk of this article will focus on. And more and more people are seeing through this hoax.
What comes next? There has been a shift as of late to prepare “for the second wave”. Now public figures state that what we saw wasn’t too bad, and that there is still worse to come.
3. Reported Death Tolls Are Based On Lies
Despite the media’s complicity in perpetuating the coronavirus planned-emic, there are many instances of some very powerful people telling the truth. They are just getting lost in the mix, or they change their tune. Here are some of them.
Both videos, here, and here, are of Maria Van Kerkhove, head of the World Health Organization’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit. First, she claims that asymptomatic transfer of this virus is extremely rare. Obvious question, where are the numbers coming from if asymptomatic transfer is so rare? This statement would indicate that the lockdown and shutdown measures are unnecessary, and should be immediately ended. That is the logical conclusion. Then she claims that an estimated 6% to 41% of the global population may be infected but not have symptoms. Supposedly they think it’s around 16%, but refused to disclose how that estimate was arrived at. So nearly half the population could be infected already.
COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death. Certifiers should include as much detail as possible based on their knowledge of the case, medical records, laboratory testing, etc. If the decedent had other chronic conditions such as COPD or asthma that may have also contributed, these conditions can be reported in Part II. (See attached Guidance for Certifying COVID-19 Deaths)
The CDC, the Center for Disease Control, has issues new guidelines which make it easy to declare deaths to be the result of coronavirus, based on “presumption”, not any actual knowledge. Seems easy to fudge the results, especially when there is a financial incentive for doing so.
Comorbidities
Table 3 shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death. The number of deaths with each condition or cause is shown for all deaths and by age groups.
The CDC Admits that 94% of deaths had at least one other major co-morbidity. The actual mortality rate of coronavirus is actually much lower.
7. Deborah Birx, White House
Perhaps Anthony Fauci thinks that Deborah Birx is lying when she stated that the virus death tolls are being inflated. Apparently, simply having the virus and dying with it can be conflated as dying from it. However, on a May 2 followup interview, Birx repeatedly dodged that same question about inflation of CV deaths.
8. Anthony Fauci Lies About Masks
Anthony Fauci later claimed he only recommended against masks in order to prevent a buying spree which would have left no masks available for health care workers. Motives aside, he blatantly lied to the public. In the third video, he appears to take the mask off as soon as the cameras are off. But remember, trust the experts and official sources. True, this does not “directly” have to do with inflated number of cases. However, if Fauci is willing to perpetuate this hoax, it’s fair to assume he would go along with inflating the number of CV deaths.
9. State Of Colorado Conflating Cases
The State of Colorado was recently exposed for inflating the death toll for how it calculates CV deaths. Check out their reporting and the inflation that has been exposed.
10. Minnesota Senator, Dr. Scott Jensen
Dr. Scott Jensen, also a Minnesota State Senator, shares what he received with regarding classifying deaths are CV deaths. Involves fudging the cause of death.
11. Mobile County, Alabama Health Dept.
In Mobile County, Alabama there was at least one case (that’s been admitted to) that a death unrelated to CV was written up as a CV death. The State Health Department claims it was just a “clerical error”, and that there was no ill intent.
As of May 18, the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) has reported 18,433 cases of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and 1,001 deaths in Washington state due to the virus.
However, Freedom Foundation research indicates DOH’s reported COVID-19 death total is inflated by as much as 13 percent due to state’s practice of counting every person who tests positive for COVID-19 and subsequently dies, even if the death was not caused by COVID-19.
On Friday, the Colorado Department of Health and Environment revised that state’s total deaths “due to” COVID-19 downward from 1,150 to 878 after local news reported the state was inflating its fatality count in a similar fashion.
Freedom Foundation reported that Washington State has been inflating the death toll by including people who have died while having the disease, but not actually dying from it.
13. Montana Physician Dr. Annie Bukacek
There is a talk by Montana physician Dr. Annie Bukacek on how COVID 19 death certificates are being manipulated. Actual CV deaths and “presumptive” deaths are being conflated.
The Government of Pennsylvania claims that it is a very small number (about 2%) of total deaths which are considered probable. One has to wonder how many autopsies were actually done.
15. New York State Counting “Probable” Cases
Still, quantifying fatalities and the mortality rate remains elusive. Case in point: New York City. As the New York Times reported yesterday, Gotham’s Health Department abruptly added 3,700 victims to the COVID-19 death toll even though these decedents were not tested.
Despite the lack of coronavirus diagnoses in these cases, the inference that it was a factor in death (or, as the city insists, the proximate cause) is not irrational. The Health Department says that 3,000 more people died in the last month than would ordinarily have been expected in the City this time of year. The City has been vexed by the sparse availability of testing. By counting only people who had tested positive, it was surely undercounting COVID-19 deaths to some degree.
One has to wonder how New York got to be the so-called epicenter of this outbreak. Was it just assuming that people who died has died of this virus, without doing any testing?
16. Motorcycle Crash In Florida, COD Is CV-19
A motorcycle crash in Florida which killed someone was written up as CV-19. There was some “justification” that well, CV-19 could have led to it. There are also very vague guidelines which allow fudging the numbers.
Also in Illinois, simply dying while having this virus is enough to be “counted” as a covid death, even if it was something else entirely that did the person in.
18. White House Press Core Knows It’s A Hoax
Reporters at the White House press briefings where masks when the press conferences are going on. But they know that the masks (and the death tolls), are all just a show to keep the public in line.
19. Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister
Trudeau dodging questions about his hypocrisy in attending race-protests. Shutting down the country is necessary for public safety, but protesting woke causes doesn’t pose a serious risk. Okay, sure.
Now, it’s been addressed elsewhere that this is likely just his double, but that’s a story for another time.
Tam can’t even give a straight answer on whether the test results are accurate. Of course, it’s hard to take this “person” seriously when publicly saying that participating in race riots is not dangerous to public health. And let’s not forget about this 2010 film that Tam co-starred in.
Tam admits that the overwhelming majority of people have already recovered — without an vaccine — yet still pushes the agenda.
Also, protesting woke causes apparently doesn’t lead to more cases. Tam claimed the protests on “systemic racism” didn’t lead to more cases.
21. Quebec Gov’t Doesn’t Want Autopsies
The Government of Quebec decided that in cases where CV was suspected in a death, there was to be no autopsy. Instead, the cause of death was to be ruled as CV-19.
22. ON Admits 50% Are False Postives
People really think that testing is going to solve the entire problem, and it isn’t. It’s one component of a response. If you test someone today, you only know if they’re infected today. And in fact, of you’re testing in a population that doesn’t have very much covid, you’ll get false positives, almost half the time. That is, the person doesn’t actually have covid. They have something else. They may have nothing. So, it will just complicate the picture. On the other hand, if we have evidence of a case, even a suspect case in school, all the contacts, be it a child or a teacher, would be tested.
Associate Medical Health Officer of Ontario, Barbara Yaffe, admits that the CV tests are pretty useless, and can result in up to 50% false positives. It can be nothing, or it can be something else.
Of course, Doug Ford won’t give a straight answer when called out on it. He seems to try to make himself blameless by always deferring to someone else. Not that he’s the Premier or anything.
23. Ontario Government, Doug Ford
Ontario Premier Ford, and Health Minister Elliot admit there have been cases where CV was written up as the cause of death, even when that was not the case. No amount of sugar coating can hide it.
Toronto Public Health has admitted to fabricating its death toll. If a person dies WITH coronavirus, it is reported that they died BECAUSE of coronavirus. These are two entirely different things.
Total number of people who had a positive test result for COVID-19 and died within 28 days of the first positive test, reported on or up to the date of death or reporting date (depending on availability).
People who died more than 28 days after their first positive test are not included, whether or not COVID-19 was the cause of death. People who died within 28 days of a positive test are included: the actual cause of death may not be COVID-19 in all cases. People who died from COVID-19 but had not been tested or had not tested positive are not included.
Death data can be presented by when death occurred (date of death) or when the death was reported (date reported) and the availability of each of these time series varies by area:
So who is claiming that the death tolls are exaggerated, or outright made up? Here is the list again. Despite this, our freedoms are still being taken away. Take a good long look at it.
Here are concrete examples, (among others), that coronavirus death counts are being inflated. How is this so? Because if a person does WITH this virus, it is counted as being the CAUSE OF the deaths, even when the deaths had nothing to do with the virus. In short, various governments are blatantly lying to their people in order to justify draconian measures.
Watch starting around the 35:15 mark. BC Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry admits that there was no science behind the decision to limit gatherings to 50 people.
On June 9, the World Health Organization responded to considerable confusion from an earlier statement that asymptomatic transmission was very rare. They now believe (or claim to believe) that the actual 6% and 41% of the general population is infected but not showing symptoms. That said, they estimate that it is close to 16%, or 1 in 6 people globally.
So if between 468 million and 3.2 billion people are already infected, but asymptomatic, what exactly are you planning to do?
Other variations of that are coming up, but the new narrative seems to be that infection rate is far, far beyond what was originally thought. Obvious question: if up to half the planet is infected, and there are no symptoms, what exactly is the health crisis?
The World Economic Forum is now promoting the same narrative, that there are many times more infected people than originally thought. They estimate (using Chinese data), that 80% of people infected have little to no symptoms.
Obvious question: if people are infected on such a level and not dying, how will the scam keep going? That takes us to the new narrative ==> prepare for the second wave.
32. Diversion To: 2nd Wave Is Coming
A quick search will reveal hundreds of articles and videos, telling people that the second wave is coming and that we need to prepare. Incidently, the renewed pressure to get everyone wearing masks is at least partly to keep a continuous reminder that there is a pandemic.
Since Western governments aren’t slaughtering millions of people (at least for now), it’s necessary to keep people constantly aware that there is a pandemic. They have to know that their lives are in constant danger.
What does Victorian Premier Dan Andrews have to say?
“changing behaviour”
“changing your routine”
“changing your habits”
“changing your routine”
“making it so you can’t leave home without one”
The lies about the death toll are being exposed. Therefore the powers that be need to shift the narrative to one where the worst is still to come.
The reality is that this quest for control is a long term plan. They have no intention of just giving up on it, regardless of what we expose.
This has been a lengthy series on the lies, distortions and manipulations of the coronavirus industry. In order to understand why it’s happening, it’s necessary to show the lobbying, influence peddling and money trail that is going on. This is a multi billion dollar industry, and a lot of people have a vested interest in prolonging it.
2. WHO Claims Asymptomatic Transfer Rare
Maria Van Kerkhove, head of the World Health Organization’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, claims that asymptomatic transfer of this virus is extremely rare. This statement would indicate that the lockdown and shutdown measures are unnecessary, and should be immediately ended. That is the logical conclusion.
3. WHO Immediately Flip Flops On Position
Looking at this “revised” statement, Maria Van Kerkhove now claims that an estimated 6% to 41% of the global population may be infected but not have symptoms. Supposedly they think it’s around 16%, but refused to disclose how that estimate was arrived at. So nearly half the population could be infected already.
There’s also a Clinton-esque parsing of words. Apparently, “very rare” doesn’t actually mean “very rare.
Let’s do some quick math.
There are 7.8 billion people on the planet as of March 2020 (according to Wikipedia). Let’s take that at face value here.
At 6% infection, there would be 468 million infected people.
At 16% infection, there would be 1.248 billion infected people.
At 41% infection, there would be 3.198 billion infected people.
Also keep in mind those estimates are from nearly a month ago. It is surely higher now. It was reported on June 18 by Reuters, that CV deaths had exceeded 500,000. Okay, let’s use that.
If 6% is infected, then 500,000/468M = 0.107% mortality.
If 16% is infected, then 500,000/1.248B = 0.04% mortality.
If 41% is infected, then 500,000/3.198B = 0.016% mortality.
For some context, using WHO’s “estimates” of 6-41% of asymptomatic global infection (which is almost a month old), try this. If you had a town of 100,000 people, and 100% had the virus, between 16 and 107 of them would die from it.
Does this sound very deadly?
Of course, we should also point out that the overwhelming majority of people had underlying health problems, and that many jurisdictions are deliberately inflating their death tolls. There are skeptics (such as me), who wonder if this virus was a hoax to begin with.
4. WHO Additionally “Clarifies” Itself
Apparently, they have no idea how many people are infected but show no symptoms. WHO also doesn’t have a clue how many asymptomatic people can go on to infect others.
Also, singing and shouting seem to be a health hazard, since it will infect people a distance away, even though WHO doesn’t know how often this actually happens. Even giving WHO the benefit of the doubt every step of the way (and assuming there is no intentional deceit), it becomes clear they don’t have a clue what they’re doing.
5. WHO: Transmission Is An Evolving Science
Supposedly the WHO has said since early February that spreading by asymptomatic people is possible, but that they didn’t know the degree of which it happens. That’s not very encouraging. The position, in a nutshell: we don’t have a clue how this spreads or transmits, so let’s just shut down society and see what happens.
6. WHO: Woke Protests Don’t Spread CV
At 3:27 in the video, Trudeau talks about loosening the “population control measures”. Yes, he actually used that term. This was always about control, and never about public health.
Some will remember that Theresa Tam (who also works for the World Health Organization), said that protesting certain causes is okay and can be done safely. Just remember to wear a mask, and don’t shout. Very interesting. Walking the wrong way down a grocery aisle is a safety issue, but mass gatherings to protest “systematic racism” can be done without spiking the cases.
7. WHO: Confirmed Cases Just Tip Of Iceberg
According to Theresa Tam, who again, works for the World Health Organization, the number of laboratory confirmed cases is just the tip of the iceberg. This implies that it is many, MANY times higher than what it is thought to be. Isn’t is reasonable to infer that if such widespread infection has already happened, that this “virus” isn’t nearly as deadly as originally thought?
Oddly, in the video, Tam talks in circles to avoid answering the question as to whether the testing numbers are accurate.
So which is it?
Is this a virus that is spread extremely easily, that many millions of people are already infected, but that it’s not really that deadly a disease? Or is it a deadly virus that relatively few people have, and it’s not easily spreading? It can’t simultaneously be both cases.
8. Canada Planning For Second Wave
This could just be poor wording, but Ottawa is supposedly planning (did they mean “preparing”?), for a second wave of this virus.
These statements seem to be contradictory to what was said before. If the number of official cases was just the tip of the iceberg (and WHO estimates 6% to 41% are already infected, how exactly would a second wave happen? Society is already infected on a huge scale.
If this transmissibility rate is anywhere near accurate, then the population is already infected, rending this second wave a non-issue. This of course assumes that CV-19 is a real thing, and not a media concoction.
Remember, in it’s “clarified” statement, the World Health Organization said that it estimates that between 6% and 41% of the population is already infected, and figures that the real total is close to 16%.
9. Death Tolls All Based On Lies
Perhaps Anthony Fauci thinks that Deborah Birx is lying when she stated that the virus death tolls are being inflated. Apparently, simply having the virus and dying with it can be conflated as dying from it.
(among others), that coronavirus death counts are being inflated. How is this so? Because if a person does WITH this virus, it is counted as being the CAUSE OF the deaths, even when the deaths had nothing to do with the virus. In short, various governments are blatantly lying to their people in order to justify draconian measures.
10. This Is All About Control
The measures we are seeing have nothing to do with promoting or protecting public health. They are not about making society a healthier place to be.
This is all about control. It’s about controlling your ability to earn a living, travel, go about your daily life, attend mass and other gatherings. This was never about helping the population. As Trudeau (or his double), put it, this is about “controlling” the population.
Just to repeat: the World Health Organization estimates that between 6% and 41% of the population is infected, and believes it is close to 16% (or about 1 in 6 total).
At 6% infection, there would be 468 million infected people.
At 16% infection, there would be 1.248 billion infected people.
At 41% infection, there would be 3.198 billion infected people.
If 6% is infected, then 500,000/468M = 0.107% mortality.
If 16% is infected, then 500,000/1.248B = 0.04% mortality.
If 41% is infected, then 500,000/3.198B = 0.016% mortality.
If people are willing to accept “this” as normal, then they will likely accept anything, such as vaccines and implanted ID. Of course, people need to think that this is a real pandemic. They need to believe that this is a deadly virus and easily transmissible.
The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. The Gates Foundation finances: the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the British Broadcasting Corporation, 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.
2. Disclaimer: Limited Personal Knowledge
To start out with a disclaimer, I am hardly any sort of expert on cell phone technology. So this article is written from a more lay perspective. Nonetheless, the announcement of the contact tracing app in Canada opens up a lot of hard questions that need to be answered. Can the Government (or any government) be trusted with this claim, and is it even feasible?
This isn’t meant to be an alarmist piece, but there are very real concerns and doubts about just how confidential all of this will remain. Consider the following.
3. Research Into Re-Identification, 2019
While rich medical, behavioral, and socio-demographic data are key to modern data-driven research, their collection and use raise legitimate privacy concerns. Anonymizing datasets through de-identification and sampling before sharing them has been the main tool used to address those concerns. We here propose a generative copula-based method that can accurately estimate the likelihood of a specific person to be correctly re-identified, even in a heavily incomplete dataset. On 210 populations, our method obtains AUC scores for predicting individual uniqueness ranging from 0.84 to 0.97, with low false-discovery rate. Using our model, we find that 99.98% of Americans would be correctly re-identified in any dataset using 15 demographic attributes. Our results suggest that even heavily sampled anonymized datasets are unlikely to satisfy the modern standards for anonymization set forth by GDPR and seriously challenge the technical and legal adequacy of the de-identification release-and-forget model.
De-identification, the process of anonymizing datasets before sharing them, has been the main paradigm used in research and elsewhere to share data while preserving people’s privacy. Data protection laws worldwide consider anonymous data as not personal data anymore allowing it to be freely used, shared, and sold. Academic journals are, e.g., increasingly requiring authors to make anonymous data available to the research community. While standards for anonymous data vary, modern data protection laws, such as the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), consider that each and every person in a dataset has to be protected for the dataset to be considered anonymous. This new higher standard for anonymization is further made clear by the introduction in GDPR of pseudonymous data: data that does not contain obvious identifiers but might be re-identifiable and is therefore within the scope of the law.
This was a research paper released in 2019, before the coronavirus planned-emic hit the world stage. While to long to into depth here, the researchers found and listed many examples of people being able to re-identify people using supposedly anonymized data sets. While original data had many modifiers removed, it was possible to reverse engineer it, and re-establish people’s identities using multiple sets of incomplete data.
Two of the biggest issues in the research were health care data and internet browsing data. They were initially anonymized, but then computers were able to piece together to data and provide names. While not always correct, these techniques were overall very accurate in re-establishing identities.
Research data is widely shared for many purposes. Laws in the West allow for personal information to be shared as long as it is “anonymized” first. However, if that can be undone, then an end run around privacy laws can be accomplished.
Now, this type of bypass of privacy has been underway for a long time. People have to ask whether it will continue (or even escalate), in the face of this so-called pandemic.
This is an old case, but a good one. Former Massachusetts Governor William Weld was able to have his medical history re-identified from anonymized medical information. How so? State voter rolls provided birth date and zip code information. Being a public figure, people knew quite a bit about him. Even with redacted records, it was possible to piece it together.
But one doesn’t have to be a politician. With the information available from various databases, a computer scientist can easily piece profiles together.
Keep in mind this was done in 1997, and led to HIPPA, new privacy regulations coming into place. However, that was over 20 years ago, and computers have advanced a long way since. Moreover, internet usage has resulted in astronomical amounts of personal information being available online.
Now for some questions about this app.
5. Will The App Really Be Anonymous?
The first thing that people should be asking is whether claims that this app will be anonymous at all. A healthy distrust of the your government is helpful in all cases. Everything they say and promise should be met with some degree of skepticism.
Bear in mind, this is the same government that thought nothing of having Statistics Canada do data mining of over 500,000 Canadians. They then threw StatsCan under the bus when there was public backlash. It was just 2 years ago, and addressed in those articles.
Beyond distrust of the government, a follow-up must be asked. Even if this were anonymous, as advertised, can it be de-anonymized at a later point? Can the app makers use some decryption to identify users? What about other third parties?
How easy will it be to use AI or to combine partial data sets to re-identify people? What happens when the profiles are “Frankenstein-ed” together? Who gets the data? How will it be used, and will we even know?
6. What Qualifies As Contact?
Is passing someone on the street or in the grocery store sufficient to count as “coming in contact” with someone? is a few seconds enough? A minute? 5 minutes? Sure there is more information coming out, but having some standard would be nice. Knowing what the standard is would also help.
7. Positive Test Linked To Phone Number?
There are plenty of issues with the coronavirus testing itself. However, that is a piece for another day. This is about the privacy aspects.
Suppose you test positive for this virus. What happens then? Do you change the settings on your phone, or does the medical staff then insert your phone number or “random number” into a database of people who have tested positive? Is that result then connected to anything and anyplace you go, or that your phone is reported to have a connection to?
8. Lies About Phone Not Geo-Tagging?
There are claims that there will be no geo-tagging, or storing of locations. How exactly does that work though? How can a phone app determine that a user has been close to someone who has tested positive? It’s difficult to believe that phones would just start collecting the random assigned numbers of everyone it has been close to (though possible I guess), but not record any sort of geographical data?
Any sort of mainstream technology that has GPS tracking can find places, people or things, but does so with reference to spots on a map. How could this contact tracing app determine when phones are close to each other, but not have any geographical reference?
It seems possible that this government app could use geographical references, but then not store the data. However, considering outfits like Google are well ahead in tracking movements, it seems strange to develop this app to not record location data.
9. StatsCan Provides Microdata For Free
Unrestricted access to microdata
Statistics Canada offers Public Use Microdata Files (PUMFs) to institutions and individuals. They are non-aggregated data which are carefully modified and then reviewed to ensure that no individual or business is directly or indirectly identified. These can be accessed directly through the Data Liberation Initiative (DLI) or the PUMF Collection for a subscription fee. Individual files can also be requested at no cost.
For reference, a files can be ordered for free. A purchase of $5,000 per year, which gives unlimited access to all of the microdata used by StatCan in its various research and publications. The data is supposed to be anonymized, but one has to ask how easy it would be to piece together individual or businesses, based on this information, plus other available sources.
StatsCan already has plenty of CV-19 research released and available for the public. It isn’t too much of a stretch to think that searching for where people cluster, or amount of time spent in an area is researched.
10. StatsCan’s “Approved Microdata Linkages”
What does Statistics Canada do with your personal information?
.
We use it to its full potential
Whether Statistics Canada received your information directly from you or through a third party such as another government entity, we use it to its full potential. We avoid having to ask the same question more than once so that we can produce relevant, timely and accurate statistics. Linking Canadians’ information from different files enables Statistics Canada to produce more statistics and research, which are in turn used by decision makers. We will only link personal information when its value to the public good outweighs the intrusion of privacy. For example, we can take the answers you gave on a survey and link them to your tax record. The objective is to draw conclusions based on a large sample of the population. More information on all Approved microdata linkages.
StatsCan openly admits that it will combine data from various sources and combine it. So this “anonymizing” is only done AFTER various things are combined, if it even done at all.
Approved microdata linkages
.
The linking of separate records from different sources can be a very useful and cost-efficient technique in the design, production, analysis and evaluation of statistical data. It can lead to important savings in cost, time, and respondent burden, and, in some cases, it may be the only feasible way to obtain important statistical information. When possible, rather than conducting additional surveys, Statistics Canada uses the information that individuals, businesses and institutions have already provided to the Agency or to other government departments for methodological purposes, data enhancement and subject-matter studies. The following is a list of the microdata linkage submissions that have been reviewed and approved in accordance with the Statistics Canada Directive on Microdata Linkage, starting in January 2000. Choose any of the following titles to view a summary:
To be clear, Statistics Canada already has the system of combining various datasets (including information provided by other government agencies, schools, businesses and institutions. In fact, it has gone this for a good 20 years now. Presumably the anonymising is done AFTER this is compiled.
Looking at the approved microdata linking from 2019 (the most recent year), we get:
Evaluating the Information Content in the Business Outlook Survey (002-2019)
Evaluating the Information Content in the Business Outlook Survey (002-2019)
The impact of Intellectual Property on the Canadian Economy (003-2019)
The impact of Intellectual Property on the Canadian Economy (003-2019)
LASS 2016 to Census 2016, Census 2011 and NHS 2011 Linkage (004-2019)
LASS 2016 to Census 2016, Census 2011 and NHS 2011 Linkage (004-2019)
Linkage of the National Dose Registry to cancer and mortality outcomes, an update (005-2019)
Linkage of the National Dose Registry to cancer and mortality outcomes, an update (005-2019)
Municipal Wastewater Systems in Canada (MWSC): Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) Effluent Regulatory Reporting Information System (ERRIS) linkage to Census Data (006-2019)
Municipal Wastewater Systems in Canada (MWSC): Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) Effluent Regulatory Reporting Information System (ERRIS) linkage to Census Data (006-2019)
Adding Gender to the Corporations Returns Act (CRA) database (007-2019)
Adding Gender to the Corporations Returns Act (CRA) database (007-2019)
Between and within-firm earnings inequality in Canada (008-2019)
Between and within-firm earnings inequality in Canada (008-2019)
Indian Register linked to tax data, (Longitudinal Indian Register Database (LIRD)) (009-2019)
Indian Register linked to tax data, (Longitudinal Indian Register Database (LIRD)) (009-2019)
2016 Census of Population linkage to income tax files and benefits records to monitor tax filing behaviour and take-up rate of various benefit programs (011-2019)
2016 Census of Population linkage to income tax files and benefits records to monitor tax filing behaviour and take-up rate of various benefit programs (011-2019)
Linkage of the 2002 Canadian Community Health Survey – Mental Health and Well-being – Canadian Forces (CCHS-CF) to the 2018 Canadian Armed Forces Members and Veterans Mental Health Follow-up Survey (CAFVMHS) (021-2019)
Linkage of the 2002 Canadian Community Health Survey – Mental Health and Well-being – Canadian Forces (CCHS-CF) to the 2018 Canadian Armed Forces Members and Veterans Mental Health Follow-up Survey (CAFVMHS) (021-2019)
Socioeconomic and Ethnocultural Disparities in Perinatal Health in Canada: Current Pattern and Changes Over Time (023-2019)
Socioeconomic and Ethnocultural Disparities in Perinatal Health in Canada: Current Pattern and Changes Over Time (023-2019)
Linkage of the Canadian Housing Survey to historical income information, information on social and affordable housing, measures on proximity to services and measures on income dispersion in communities (024-2019)
Linkage of the Canadian Housing Survey to historical income information, information on social and affordable housing, measures on proximity to services and measures on income dispersion in communities (024-2019)
Linkage of Labour Force Survey with Longitudinal Workers File (025-2019)
Linkage of Labour Force Survey with Longitudinal Workers File (025-2019)
The Economic and Environmental Impacts of Voluntary Energy Conservation Programs: Evidence from the Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conservation (026-2019)
The Economic and Environmental Impacts of Voluntary Energy Conservation Programs: Evidence from the Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conservation (026-2019)
Since Statistics Canada already incorporates health information and combines various sets of data to make “more complete profiles”, it is clearly possible to add CV tests — both positive and negative as well. While calling for it publicly is political poison, who’s to say it won’t be quietly slipped in at some point?
Remember as well, these profiles are combined, and only then anonymized. However, the more information in the profile, the easier it would be for researchers to reverse engineer the anonymizing techniques to restore identities. In fact, it’s quite possible that the algorithm and techniques will be readily available.
Remember, StatsCan allows people to order individual files for free. It you want a full 1-year subscription, it costs a mere $5,000. If you are interested in real data mining, it’s pocket change.
11. Shopify & Blackberry Develop App
Canada will launch a nationwide contact tracing app using the Apple-Google Exposure Notification framework, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Thursday.
The Apple-Google Exposure Notification API exited beta in May. It allows public health authorities to build deeply integrated, cross-platform contact tracing apps to track and curb the spread of coronavirus.
The Canadian app was developed by Shopify, BlackBerry and the government of Ontario. As is required by Apple and Google, the app will be completely voluntary, will only store data in a decentralized manner and will be led by the Canadian Digital Service Initiative, iPhoneInCanada reported.
Blackberry and Shopify developed the app for use in Canada. Companies like Google are well known for obtaining huge amounts of data on their users so this is a huge red flag. How do we know there isn’t some sort of back door built into the platform?
By contrast, a few countries, like Norway, have banned such an app, out of privacy concerns.
12. Government Already Compiles The Info
As seen in earlier sections, StatsCan already combines sources to build “more complete” profiles of the people it wants to survey. Even your credit isn’t safe if StatsCan wants it. As for the finished project, the information can be bought, and individual files requested for free. How difficult would it be to take the raw data provided, and cross reference across other social media or other databases? How long until the original names are restored to the profiles?
With all this data compilation, it won’t be difficult to link a positive test to a real name, an address, or a date of birth. The suggestion that all of this will remain completely anonymous flies in the face of what the government and StatsCan do.
It also isn’t much of a stretch to see the “anonymized” results sold or given to third parties to conduct their own research. Stay away from the app would be some good advice. It would be nice to just take at face value the claims that there are no privacy issues. However, that’s very naïve.
Again, this is not meant to send people into a panic, but much more has to be known and discussed to make such an app a real solution, if it is at all.
The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. The Gates Foundation finances: the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the British Broadcasting Corporation, 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.
2. Alternate Theory On Models
Epidemiologist Neil Ferguson has (justifiably) taken a lot of criticism for his doomsday computer modelling of how the coronavirus “planned-emic” was supposed to play out.
Considering Ferguson’s laughable failures in other predictions before, people are wondering why anyone still takes this man seriously. That is a fair question to ask.
But consider an alternate theory. Let’s suppose these doomsday scenarios were cooked up on purpose. Perhaps this modelling INTENTIONALLY led to overhyped conclusions and estimates. It wasn’t incompetence, but deliberate.
Why would someone do this? To answer this, think about where Imperial College London gets a good amount of its financing from. There are many vested interests who would stand to make a fortune if countries around the world were desperate for a vaccine. In this scenario, Ferguson’s modelling should not be taken as research, but as a calculated effort at propaganda.
Disclaimer: I don’t have any hard evidence to support such a theory. However, it is interesting that Ferguson’s work is financed by people who would greatly benefit from him reaching a doomsday conclusion. It’s reasonable to assume he would become more cautious after his repeated failure, but he hasn’t.
3. Gates Grants To Imperial College London
This chart was compiled from information posted on the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation website. The following grants are just those provided to Imperial College London. Note: it seems that computer modelling is just one small part of what they do.
DATE
AMOUNT
PURPOSE
June 2002
$31,928,231
Schistosomiasis Control
July 2002
$30,000,000
HIV Prevention
Jan 2003
$200,000,000
AIDS, Malaria, Other Diseases
July 2005
$12,501,971
Tuberculosis
Oct 2005
$8,636,543
Test CD4+, T-lymphnodes
Nov 2005
$8,600,000
AIDS Testing
June 2006
$9,185,813
Novel Recombinant Adenovirus
Oct 2006
$9,826,566
Health Package in Dev. World
Dec 2006
$46,700,000
Neglected Tropical Diseases
Sept 2007
$3,565,073
Neglected Tropical Dis.
Oct 2007
$47,616
STD, Infections
Oct 2008
$100,000
Prevent TB Replication
Oct 2008
$7,344,583
HIV/AIDS Research
Feb 2009
$7,300,000
HIV/AIDS Research
Feb 2009
$871,544
Collab W/Euro Partners
Sept 2009
$16,529,688
Feeding Prog in Africa
Oct 2009
$100,000
“Homing Factors” As Vax Adjuvants
Oct 2009
$100,000
Enzymes, Malaria Parasites
Nov 2009
$1,200,000
Nutrition Research
Sept 2010
$2,692,835
Euro Agri Development
Oct 2010
$3,044,244
HIV Computer Modelling***
Oct 2010
$1,648,585
Neglected Tropical Disease
Nov 2010
2.7M (pounds)
Agricultural Research
Dec 2010
$1,500,000
Disease From Livestock
Apr 2011
$100,000
Polio Vaccine, India
Oct 2011
$100,000
Self-Replicating Biosensor
Oct 2011
$2,724,038
Malaria Blocker Research
May 2012
$3,018,257
Oral Polio Vaccine
Oct 2012
$3,589,972
Malaria Computer Models***
Oct 2012
$1,132,773
HIV, Hormone Contraceptives
June 2013
$5,194,767
HIV, Intervention, Planning
June 2013
$1,397,325
Merger, Computer Modelling***
oct 2013
$1,894,953
Advocacy, EU Donors
Oct 2013
$648,060
Product Development, Misc.
Nov 2013
$772,341
Polio Computer Modelling***
Nov 2013
$2,054,944
DNA Vaccine, HIV
Nov 2013
$582,541
TB Computer Modelling***
Nov 2013
$2,743,052
Health Care Consulting
Sept 2014
$74,433
Information Dissemination
Oct 2014
$36,752
Vaxx Research Meetings
Oct 2014
$98,934
Cell Phones, Meals
Oct 2014
$181,868
Cost Estimates, Vaccines
Apr 2015
$100,000
Meals Or Shoes For Vaxx
May 2015
$249,549
Optical Imaging, Gut Lesions
July 2015
$1,271,423
HIV/AIDS Testing
Nov 2015
$180,000
Child Health, Africa
Dec 2015
$15,558,425
Global Health Care
Apr 2016
$100,000
Vaxx for HIV, mucosal
May 2016
$37,468,960
Stop Malaria Transmission
Nov 2016
$100,000
Malaria Tracing Modelling***
Nov 2016
$5,625,310
Vaxx Computer Modelling***
Nov 2016
$3,752,342
Mosquito Tampering
Nov 2017
$736,222
Malaria Tracking
May 2018
$1,320,030
HIV Prevention
Sept 2018
$505,207
HIV/Reprod Modelling***
Sept 2018
$292,318
Mosquito Sporozoites
Nov 2018
$326,707
TB Computer Modelling***
May 2019
$100,000
Crop Viruses
July 2019
$11,300
Attend Mosquito Summit
Nov 2019
$959,389
Typhoid Surveillance
Mar 2020
$79,006,570
Malaria Control, Africa
May 2020
$52,180
Testing Gene Drives
May 2020
$2,699,443
Degradable Contraceptive Implant
June 2020
$3,375,098
Population Replacement In Genes
As for just the funds directly provided to Imperial College London for computer modelling, these are the donations listed on the site.
DATE
AMOUNT
PURPOSE
Oct 2010
$3,044,244
HIV Computer Modelling***
Oct 2012
$3,589,972
Malaria Computer Models***
June 2013
$1,397,325
Merger, Computer Modelling***
Nov 2013
$772,341
Polio Computer Modelling***
Nov 2013
$582,541
TB Computer Modelling***
Nov 2016
$100,000
Malaria Tracing Modelling***
Nov 2016
$5,625,310
Vaxx Computer Modelling***
Sept 2018
$505,207
HIV/Reprod Modelling***
Nov 2018
$326,707
TB Computer Modelling***
Yes, the Gates Foundation directly finances a lot of the computer modelling that Imperial College London is involved with. Some $16 million or so directly granted for these computer models.
But do these doomsday models actually work? Are they supposed to? Perhaps not. After all, if they predicted that there weren’t deadly pandemic, then there would be no need to develop a vaccine.
Don’t worry. It’s not like this is any major conflict of interest, or anything like that.
5. Imperial College London Admits Grants
Even a quick look of the website for Imperial College London will show many grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
6. GAVI Funded By Gates Foundation
This is probably the most well known link in the chain. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation helped found GAVI, the Global Vaccine Alliance in 1999, and has made regular contributions to it. The foundation essentially runs the show.
The Global Vaccine Alliance, as the name suggests, is an organization devoted to pushing vaccinations on the public all across the world. Bill Gates has long been a proponent of mass vaccinations.
One of (but certainly not the only) lobbyist for the vaccine agenda is a firm called Crestview Strategy. They lobbied the Federal Government on behalf of GAVI, on 20 separate occasions. See Part 4 in the series.
7. Gates/GAVI Issuing Vaccine Bonds
(Information on what the International Finance Facility for Immunization, or IFFIm, really is and does)
This was covered in Part 18 of the series. Vaccine bonds are now a real thing, and GAVI is involved in running the operation. Of course, the bonds market would completely dry up if there weren’t a pandemic to deal with. Pretty convenient.
While this is by no means an exhaustive list, the point is clear. See Part 21 in the series. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust (which is separate from the Foundation), owns stocks and bonds in many pharmaceutical companies that are pushing the Federal Government for money to develop a vaccine.
9. Gates Funding WHO & CDC
It’s pretty well known at this point that the World Health Organization and Center for Disease Control in the U.S. both are heavily funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Consequently, they toe the line that coronavirus is a deadly pandemic, and that vaccines are necessary.
10. Immunization 2030, ID2020
This was addressed in Part 3. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is heavily involved in both ID2020 and Immunization Agenda 2030. The Foundation also supports some version of a “vaccine certification” which would be needed to go about life in the new normal.
Of course, advancing these agendas depends on there being a pandemic (or perceived pandemic). Good thing Ferguson was so completely off in his computer modelling. Make no mistake, it’s not only helpful that the death rates be inflated, but essential that they are.
11. Models Supposed To Be Wrong?
Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. Charlotte Reid, a farmer’s neighbor, recalls: “I remember that appalling time. Sheep were left starving in fields near us. Then came the open air slaughter. The poor animals were panic stricken. It was one of the worst things I’ve witnessed. And all based on a model — if’s but’s and maybe’s.”
In 2002, Ferguson predicted that, by 2080, up to 150,000 people could die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. In the U.K., there were only 177 deaths from BSE.
In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.
In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the U.K.
Last March, Ferguson admitted that his Imperial College model of the COVID-19 disease was based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus. Ferguson declined to release his original code so other scientists could check his results. He only released a heavily revised set of code last week, after a six-week delay.
Could it be that Ferguson is truly incompetent, and has no clue what he is doing? Or, are his predictions exaggerated on purpose? There’s no reason to take him or his models seriously, yet governments still do.
While this all sounds like an absurd conspiracy theory, consider what else is going on. Would there be a growing vaccine bonds industry without this so-called pandemic? Would it be easy to get the public on board with implanting a vaccine certificate, or pushing Immunization 2030? How else could one get the public on board with making mask wearing seem normal?
It is possible that there is nothing malevolent here, and that Ferguson is just a serial screwup. But it’s undeniable that these screwups help advance other parts of the agenda.
