More must-read articles

The current focus of this post is on the Coronavirus chaos and implications. Note: Many more articles follow these latest seven.

Evidence that Covid-19 is a Bioweapon

Evidence that Covid-19 is a Bioweapon  By Stefan Stanford, AllNewsPipeline, 29 May 2020

All the way back on January 27th, just days after the first case of coronavirus was reported in America on January 21st, we published a story on ANP titled “Has The ‘Perfect Bioweapon’ Been Unleashed Upon The World? Non-Symptomatic People Being Contagious To Others For Up To Two Weeks Is A Recipe For Disaster” within which we laid out the evidence that covid-19 had been ‘created’ in a lab, a theory that the mainstream media has continually called ‘disinformation’ or a ‘conspiracy theory’.

While we had also reported just days before then in this story titled “Coronavirus Patent Granted To Bill Gates Funded Institute In 2018 Gives More Credence To The Theory It Might Be A Bioweapon” that the mainstream media had been colluding around a particular narrative surrounding the pandemic which was then still in its infancy by supporting the sweeping lockdown taken by the totalitarian govt of China, a hint of what was ahead for America, now 4 months later we’re seeing more critical scientific acceptance of the theory we put forth all the way back in January.

As Zero Hedge now reports in this new story titled “‘Like It Was Designed To Infect Humans’: COVID-19 ‘Cell Culture’ Theory Gains Steam”, according to Flinders University Professor Nikolai Petrovsky, something isn’t quite right with this virus. As, instead of the cells of the virus binding most to it’s ‘original host animal’, they bind more strongly to human cells than any other animal. As we hear in the 1st video at the bottom of this story, scientists are now warning that Covid-19 ‘perfectly adapted to humans from day one’From Zero Hedge before we continue.:

scientific study which found COVID-19 may have been a “cell-culture” uniquely adapted for transmission to humans (more so than any other animal – including bats), is gaining steam. 

The paper, currently under peer review, comes from Flinders University Professor Nikolai Petrovsky, who has spent over two decades developing vaccines against influenza, Ebola, and animal Sars. He says his findings allow for the possibility that COVID-19 leaked from a laboratory, according to Sky News

“The two possibilities which I think are both still open is that it was a chance transmission of a virus from an as yet unidentified animal to human. The other possibility is that it was an accidental release of the virus from a laboratory,” said Petrovsky, adding “Certainly we can’t exclude the possibility that this came from a laboratory experiment rather than from an animal. They are both open possibilities.”  

Professor Petrovsky, who is the Chairman and Research Director of Vaxine Pty Ltd, said COVID-19 has genetic elements similar to bat coronaviruses as well as other coronaviruses. 

The way coronavirus enters human cells is by binding to a protein on the surface of lung-cells called ACE2. The study showed the virus bound more tightly to human-ACE2 than to any of the other animals they tested. 

“It was like it was designed to infect humans,” he said. 

 “One of the possibilities is that an animal host was infected by two coronaviruses at the same time and COVID-19 is the progeny of that interaction between the two viruses. -Sky News 

“The same process can happen in a petri-dish,” added Petrovsky. “If you have cells in culture and you have human cells in that culture which the viruses are infecting, then if there are two viruses in that dish, they can swap genetic information and you can accidentally or deliberately create a whole third new virus out of that system.” 

“In other words COVID-19 could have been created from that recombination event in an animal host 
or it could have occurred in a cell-culture experiment.” 

(PLEASE HELP SUPPORT ANPWith Independent Media being censored on almost every internet platform, reader donations are what keeps websites like ANP up and running. Your donations are greatly appreciated. Thank you, Stefan and Susan.)

As the Zero Hedge story continued, Professor Petrovsky is now calling for an immediate investigation into these strange findings while also addressing the fact that the mainstream media is calling any attempts to label covid-19 as created in a lab a ‘conspiracy theory’ or ‘fake news’.

When asked why mainstream scientists are still clinging to the theory that the virus originated in a Wuhan wet market, he said that scientists “try not to be political” but that that scientists who support the lab escape theory risk negatively impacting their industry with tighter laboratory controls

“For instance, if it was to turn out that this virus may have come about because of an accidental lab release that would have implications for how we do viral research in laboratories all around the world which could make doing research much harder,” he said, adding 
“So I think the inclination of virus researchers would be to presume that it came from an animal until proven otherwise because that would have less ramifications for how we are able to do research in the future. The alternative obviously has quite major implications for science and science on viruses, not just obviously political ramifications which we’re all well aware of.” 

Petrovsky has called for 
immediate investigation now, and not when the pandemic is over – calling any delay in fact finding a “mistake.” 

“I’m certainly very much in favour of a scientific investigation. It’s only objective should be to get to the bottom of how did this pandemic happen and 
how do we prevent a future pandemic…. not to have a witch-hunt.”

So while we’ll totally agree that an investigation should be undertaken into exactly how covid-19 was ‘created’ or ‘evolved’ and as soon as possiblewe also believe that should such an investigation turn up wrongdoing, especially should it be tied to China or ‘nazi science death operatives’ like Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has been accused of collaborating with the Wuhan lab to ‘create‘ covid-19, or Bill Gates or others, then those who have unleashed this plague upon our planet absolutely MUST BE held accountable.

Two other stories which we published on ANP back in March and February within which we had reported information had emerged which suggesting Covid-19 was likely a bioweapon included the following:

“This Is How Quickly America Could Be Transformed From A Free Society Into A ‘Medical Tyranny’ – Bioweapons Expert Warns ANP: ‘A Vaccine Will Probably Be More Dangerous Than Useless'”     

“Bioweapons Expert Warns ANP: The ‘Nazi Death Science Biological Warfare Work’ Going On In America MUST Be Stopped! This Is What YOU Can Do To Help Protect America – In A ‘Worst Case Scenario’, Coronavirus Could Collapse America’s”

And as we had reported within both of those stories, our source for the information we had reported was Dr. Franklin Boyle, author of the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989. Sadly, even back then the mainstream media had reported that Dr. Boyle’s warnings were ‘fake news’ despite his official standing as an ‘expert’ who had authored a global anti-terrorism paper.

So with more and more information emerging now that indeed, covid-19 was ‘created’ in a lab and ‘designed to infect humans’, as the website ‘Big League Politics’ had pointed out, with ‘race specific bioweapons’ now a reality and the globalists clearly pushing their ‘depopulation agenda’, none of us should be surprised if Professor Petrovsky soon meets his untimely end or he simply ‘disappears’ with mysterious deaths and arrests of covid-19 scientists and researchers already taking place. From this story over at Big League Politics.

Big League Politics has noted that even the mainstream experts admit that the age of bioweapon is at hand and individuals should be very concerned with the possibility of these being set off

Just months before the coronavirus pandemic hit the world, 
scientists at Cambridge University warned of the reality of race-specific bioweapons. 

Cambridge University’s Center for the Study of Existential Risk released their report last summer to tell world governments that 
they urgently need to prepare for this threat, or otherwise they would potentially deal with its lethal ramifications after it’s already too late. 

They called for independent groups to be formed to study technology and 
how it can be used as a weapon to target populations, and come up with ways to solve them through rules, regulations and other protocols. 

“The technology is becoming increasingly sophisticated at ever cheaper prices, democratizing the ability to harm more quickly and lethally,” the authors of the report wrote. “In a particularly bad case, 
a bio-weapon could be built to target a specific ethnic group based on its genomic profile.” 

The coronavirus pandemic may signal that the worst fears of these researchers has come to life. Although globalist authority figures, Chinese communist tyrants, and social media commissars want to mute the concerns, whistleblowers have sounded the alarm about coronavirus strain possibly being a bioweapon. 

If Petrovsky mysteriously disappears in the upcoming days, it is probably not a coincidence

So with more and more evidence emerging that covid-19 was likely created in a laboratory; the very real chance that Dr. Anthony Fauci had collaborated in its creation; and now the democrats/globalists using covid-19 to impose tyranny; if this ‘pandemic’ was indeed ‘created’ and those who are responsible for its creation are not held accountable, we’ll likely witness many more ‘covid-19’s in the future as the globalists race to crush humanity while also using it to usher in their socialist agenda as they’ve admitted in their own words to ‘using this crisis as an opportunity’.


Virtually no evidence to justify lockdowns

Virtually no evidence to justify lockdowns  By Ryan McMaken, The Mises Institute, 28 May 2020

Governments throughout the world and across the US justified extreme, draconian, undemocratic, and unconstitutional (in most US states) “lockdown” and stay-at-home orders on the grounds that the COVID-19 virus was exceptionally fatal.


In March, the World Health Organization (WHO) was claiming that the fatality rate was a very high 3.4 percent.

Duration 1:08

Yet as time went on, it became increasingly clear that such high estimates were essentially meaningless because researchers had no idea how many people were actually infected with the disease. Tests were largely being conducted on those with symptoms serious enough to end up in emergency rooms or doctor’s offices.

By late April, many researchers were publishing new studies showing that the number of people with the disease was actually much higher than was previously thought. Thus, it became clear that the percentage of people with the disease who died from it suddenly became much smaller.

Now, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has released new estimates suggesting that the real fatality rate is around 0.26 percent.

Specifically, the report concludes that the “symptomatic case fatality ratio” is 0.4 percent. But that’s just symptomatic cases. In the same report, the CDC also claims that 35 percent of all cases are asymptomatic.

Or, as the Washington Post reported this week:

The agency offered a “current best estimate” of 0.4 percent. The agency also gave a best estimate that 35 percent of people infected never develop symptoms. Those numbers when put together would produce an infection fatality rate of 0.26, which is lower than many of the estimates produced by scientists and modelers to date.”

Of course, not all scientists have been wrong on this. Back in March, Stanford scientist John Ioannidis was much, much closer to the CDC’s estimate than the WHO. The Wall Street Journal noted in April:

In a March article for Stat News, Dr. Ioannidis argued that Covid-19 is far less deadly than modelers were assuming. He considered the experience of the Diamond Princess cruise ship, which was quarantined Feb. 4 in Japan. Nine of 700 infected passengers and crew died. Based on the demographics of the ship’s population, Dr. Ioannidis estimated that the U.S. fatality rate could be as low as 0.025% to 0.625% and put the upper bound at 0.05% to 1%—comparable to that of seasonal flu.

Not that this will settle the matter.

Proponents of destroying human rights and the rule of law in order to carry out lockdowns will continue to insist that “we didn’t know” what the fatality rate was back in March. The lack of evidence, however, didn’t stop proponents of lockdowns from implementing policies that destroyed the ability of families to earn a living, and which also created social conditions that caused child abuse and suicides to spike.

But for more sane people, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Those who have claimed that lockdowns are “the only option” had virtually no evidence at all to support their position. Indeed, such extreme over-the-top measures such as the general lockdowns required an extreme level of high-quality, nearly irrefutable evidence that lockdowns would work and were necessary in the face of a disease with an extremely high fatality rate. But the only “data” the prolockdown people could offer was speculation and hyperbolic predictions of bodies piling up in the streets. 

But that became politically unimportant.

The people who wanted lockdowns had gained the obeisance  of powerful people in government institutions and in the media. So actual data, science, or respect for human rights suddenly became meaningless. All that mattered was getting those lockdowns. So the lockdown crowd destroyed the lives of millions in the developed world—and more than a hundred million in the developing worldto satisfy the hunches of a tiny handful of politicians and technocrats.


Mandatory vaccinations, biometric identification and digital payments coming soon


Mandatory vaccinations, biometric identification and digital payments coming soon  By Alexandra Bruce, via CairnsNew, 28 May 2020

 “But time is not on our side. Even as we speak, mass vaccination campaigns are being prepared. Biometric identification schemes and “immunity passports” are already being rolled-out. Programs for tracking tracing and surveilling the entire population are already being beta-tested and the digital payment infrastructure; the system of financial exclusion that will allow governments to turn off our access to the economy at will is being put into place….”

As we have seen in our exploration of Gates’s rise as unelected global health czar and population control advocate, the question of who Bill Gates really is is no mere philosophical pursuit. Given that we are currently living through a crisis that has been predicted by Bill Gates, which is triggering a response from the global health organizations that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has bankrolled and driving us toward a vaccination and biometric ID solution, which Bill Gates has been working on for years, the answer to the question, “Who is Bill Gates?” is quickly becoming one of the most important questions of our lives.

 That answer will not only tell us about the world that we are living in but about the one that we are being thrust into and how we can avoid it. Today, we will attempt to answer that question, as we examine the motives, the ideology and the connections of this man who has been so instrumental in shaping the post-coronavirus world…

 So, who is Bill Gates? Some argue that he’s a genius who leveraged his natural computer-savvy into a billion dollar fortune. Others insist that he is a visionary who has changed our lives with his foresight and bold imagination. He has been hailed as a shrewd executive who built the Microsoft empire with his remarkable talent for business and he has been praised as a philanthropist who is selflessly devoting his wealth to improving the lives of people around the world but like anyone of his status, he has his detractors…

 In the 1990s, he was often portrayed as the greedy head of the evil Microsoft monopoly but in the age of the coronavirus crisis he is most often treated like some sort of epidemiologist or leading health researcher. But in truth, none of these perspectives are accurate…

 As Gates admits, it is not a spirit of selfless generosity that motivates his interest in vaccines and other lucrative health interventions. He tells one reporter, seen here that his foundation has received $100 billion overall “and there’s been over a 20-to-1 return. So, if you just look at the economic benefits that’s a pretty strong number compared to anything else.”

 Gates’ philanthropic investment scheme has paid off well, with his $50 billion dollar net worth having ballooned to over $100 billion after his decade of altruism in the vaccine market.

 As critics of his foundation have repeatedly pointed out, the nine million people who die every year of hunger would be best served by securing food supplies, running water and other basic necessities – not costly medical interventions for rare diseases. But there is no return on investment to be made from that kind of charity.

 No, this is not about charity. It is about control. The population control grid that Gates has been quietly funding into existence for the past decade; a biometric identification system tied to a digital payments infrastructure that will be used to track, catalogue and control every movement, every transaction and every interaction of every citizen is just now coming into view but the real question is, why is he doing this?

 What drives a man like Bill Gates, a man rich beyond the wildest dreams of avarice to spend his time and invest his fortune in schemes to control the population? To find the answer to that question we have to examine Gates’ family background.

 Bill Gates, it should not be surprising to learn was born into money. His great-grandfather, JW Maxwell was the President of National City Bank in Seattle. His grandfather, Willard was also a banker and his grandmother, Adele a prominent Seattle civic leader.

 Bill Gates’ mother Mary Maxwell Gates was a scion of the Maxwell banking family and by all accounts, as hard-driving as her forebears. She served as a director of several companies including First Interstate Bank Corp and KIROTV of Seattle. She served as a regent at the University of Washington and she was appointed to the board of the United Way of America where, as we have seen, she persuaded IBM CEO, John Opel to help her son in his fledgling software development career.

 Bill’s father William H Gates Sr was a prominent Seattle area lawyer. He co-founded a powerful law and lobbying firm, helped Howard Schultz in his bid to buy Starbucks, served on the boards of numerous companies and organizations and along the way, had a profound influence on his son’s life and career.

 Bill Gates learned much from his parents. From his mother’s banking family, he inherited a “nose for the dollar,” as one childhood friend’s father called it. From his hard-driving legal minded father, he learned the value of legalizing business arrangements. As a child, he even had a legal contract drawn up to grant him the use of his older sister’s baseball mitt…

 A “nose for the dollar” and a knowledge of how to use the legal system to get what you want were not the only things to emerge from Bill Gates’ childhood, however. His parents also encouraged discussion about the family’s charity work and the causes they held close to their heart. As Gates revealed to Bill Moyers in 2003, those causes included the population issue, which sparked a lifelong interest in reproductive health…

 Gates tips his hand when he equates “issues related to population” with “reproductive health”. The topic is particularly controversial, because “population control” and “reproductive health” have been used for half a century as a euphemism for eugenics, the discredited pseudoscience that holds that certain families are fit to be leaders of society by virtue of their superior genes…

 As transparent as it seems to us today, that this ideology was a self-serving, self-justification for the ruling class, it was quickly taken up as the great social crusade of the early 20th century. From Teddy Roosevelt to HG Wells to Julian Huxley to Winston Churchill, there was widespread support for the eugenicist notion that society must strive to make sure that the rich and well-born breed as much as possible and the poor infirm and feeble-minded be prevented from having children…

 But in the post-World War II era, as the name of eugenics became tarred by association with the Nazi atrocities, the talk of death panels and other harsh eugenicist notions was dropped from public conversation. Now, the quest to reduce the size of the poor population with spoken of as “population control” and “reproductive health”. Still occasionally, these old negative eugenics ideas are revisited in moments of candor.

 It is worth questioning why this man, who openly muses about death panels and the trade-offs of providing health care to the elderly is to be taken completely at face value, in his attempts to slow population growth in the Third World or to handle a coronavirus health crisis that primarily affects the elderly. That the Gates agenda is being driven by a eugenicist ideology is suggested by multiple lines of evidence, both historical and current…

 The Rockefeller family was instrumental in funding and promoting eugenics, both in America and overseas. The Rockefellers helped fund the Eugenics Record Office. The founding director of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, William Welch sat on the ERO’s board and helped direct its activities.

 The Rockefellers sponsored the studies of the eugenics researchers at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute’s in Germany, including Ernst Rudin, who would go on to draft Nazi Germany’s forced sterilization law.

 And when the American Eugenics Society became embarrassed of its own name, its longtime director Fredrick Osborn merrily took over as president of the Rockefeller-funded Population Council.

 This dedication to the cause of “public health” did not escape the approving gaze of Bill Gates Sr. In a chapter of his 2009 book, ‘Showing Up For Life’ called “Walking with Giants”, he writes admiringly of the Rockefellers and their influence in the field:

“Every corner we’ve turned in the field of global health, we’ve found that the Rockefellers were already there and had been there for years…

“A lesson we learned from studying and working with the Rockefellers is that to succeed in pursuing audacious goals, you need like-minded partners with whom to collaborate and we learned that such goals are not prizes claimed by the short-winded. The Rockefellers stay with tough problems for generations.”

 As Gates Sr suggests, it is by working with like-minded partners that such great achievements in the field of global health can be made. For the Gates’, these like-minded partners include the Rockefellers, themselves.

 Bill Gates Sr got to discuss global health, agriculture and environment with the likes of David Rockefeller Sr and David Rockefeller Jr at a meeting on “Philanthropy in a Global Century” at Rockefeller University campus in 2000. And Bill Gates, as we have seen, co-hosted a meeting on reducing the population with David Rockefeller in 2009.

 But the most salacious hints of a deeper agenda are not to be found in the Gates’s public associations but in the associations that they have tried to hide from the public.

 Beginning in August of last year, a string of information connecting Bill Gates to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein began to emerge. Flight logs revealed that Gates had flown on Jeffrey Epstein’s private jet. An email surfaced, showing disgraced MIT Media Lab director, Joichi Ito, who resigned from his position after it was discovered, that he had helped cover up Jeffrey Epstein’s identity as an anonymous donor to the lab, informing his staff that a $2 million dollar donation to the lab in 2014 was a gift from Bill Gates directed by Jeffrey Epstein.

 As the story gained momentum, Gates tried to downplay the relationship, with a Gates spokesperson protesting that Gates didn’t know it was Epstein’s plane and Gates, himself insisting that, “I didn’t have any business relationship or friendship with Epstein.”

 This was immediately contradicted by the New York Times, who reported in October of 2012 that Gates had, in fact met with Epstein on multiple occasions, even going so far as to discuss the creation of a multi-billion dollar charitable fund with seed money from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and JPMorgan Chase, according to The Times.

 Gates emailed his colleagues about Epstein in 2011: “His lifestyle is very different and kind of intriguing, although it would not work for me.”

 Epstein’s will even named Boris Nikolic, a Harvard-trained immunologist who served as the chief scientific adviser to both Microsoft and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation…as the backup executor of Epstein’s estate.

 It is not difficult to see why Gates would try to distance himself from his relationship with a child sex trafficker. Epstein, after all, is suspected of ensnaring high-ranking politicians, businessmen and even royalty in an intelligence-directed honeypot operation, recording them in the act of sexually abusing underage girls and using that evidence as blackmail.

 But as it turns out, the attempt to suppress the Gates-Epstein story may have been an attempt to suppress the revelation of an altogether different shared interest. Sources say several accusers have come forward in New Mexico, where Epstein owns a sprawling ranch.

 The already scarcely-believable Jeffrey Epstein story took another bizarre turn in August of 2019 when it was reported that Epstein hoped to “seed the human race with his DNA.” As the New York Times explained, Epstein’s plan to impregnate 20 women at a time it is New Mexico ranch in order to seed the human race with his DNA, a plan he told to a number of the scientific luminaries he kept in his orbit put a modern gloss on a very old idea.

 Mr Epstein’s vision reflected his long-standing fascination with what has become known as transhumanism, the science of improving the human population through technologies, like genetic engineering and artificial intelligence. Critics have likened transhumanism to a modern-day version of eugenics, the discredited field of improving the human race through controlled breeding.

 Epstein’s interest in genetics led him to sponsor a number of scientists working in the field, including George Church, a Harvard geneticist whose lab received funding from Epstein’s foundation from 2005 to 2007 for “cutting-edge science”.

 Church publicly apologized for his connection to Epstein, which included several meetings a year from 2014 onward. This was neither the first nor the last time that this unassuming Harvard biologist, whose cutting-edge science often strays into controversial areas caused the public scandal.

 In 2019, Church proposed a genetics dating app, which was immediately denounced as “applied eugenics”. Church also acted a scientific adviser to Editas Medicine, a startup seeking to use the genome editing tool, CRISPR-Cas9 to eliminate diseases by deleting the parts of a genetic code responsible for the illness.

In 2015, the company announced it had raised $120 million from a group led by Epstein’s appointed backup executor, Dr Boris Nikolic. Naturally, that group of investors included Bill Gates.

Yes, Bill Gates is certainly following his father’s advice to “collaborate with like-minded partners.” So, the question remains: Is Bill Gates motivated by eugenics, given that eugenics went underground over half a century ago? We are unlikely ever to unearth a frank admission along those lines from Gates, himself. After all, there are no longer any card-carrying members of the American Eugenics Society.

 The Society was rebranded in the 1970s when, as the society founder noted, “It became evident that changes of eugenic nature would be made for reasons other than eugenics and that tying a eugenic label on them would more often hinder than help their adoption.”

 But there was an American Eugenics Society in the 1920s and it just so happened to boast a William H Gates on its member roster but perhaps that is just a coincidence.

 And perhaps it was coincidence that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation organized their London Summit on Family Planning, at which the Gates recommitted themselves to funding population control in the Third World in July 2012, on the anniversary of the First International Eugenics Congress, held in London, exactly 100 years prior…(!!!)

No, we cannot expect an answer about Bill Gates’ true motives to come from Gates himself. By this point, the question of Bill Gates’s intentions has been buried under the combined weight of hundreds of millions of dollars of paid PR spin. Like the Rockefellers before them, the Gates’ have long since learned the secret of enlarging their family fortune, not to mention their control over the human population by donning the mask of philanthropy…

 Now, we must confront the question of why this man is motivated to build such a web of control? Control over our public health agencies. Control over our identities. Control over our transactions. And even control over our bodies.

 We must confront the possibility that this quest for control comes not from a selfless spirit of generosity that never seemed to exist before he became a multi-billionaire but from the same drive for money, the same desire for domination and the same sense of superiority that motivated him on his way up the corporate ladder.

 But if the answer to the question, “Who is Bill Gates? Is Bill Gates is a eugenicist?” That tells us some important things about the world that we are living in.

 It tells us that Gates is deceiving the public into supporting his takeover of the world with a false front of philanthropy. It tells us that the goal of the Gates’, like the goal of the Rockefellers before them is not to improve the world for humankind but to improve the world for their kind.

 And most importantly, it tells us that Bill Gates is no comic book supervillain, single-handedly directing all of the chaos that is unfolding in the world or single-handedly bringing his own order to that chaos.

 No. If Bill Gates is a eugenicist, driven by a belief in the superiority of himself and his fellow wealthy elitists, then what we are facing is not one man or even one family but an ideology. This is not a trivial point.

 One man, whatever his wealth can be stopped easily enough. But even if Bill Gates were to be thrown in jail tomorrow, the agenda that has already been set in motion would continue without missing a beat. An entire infrastructure of researchers, labs corporations, governmental agencies and public health bodies exists, funded more often than not by Gates but driven by the belief of all those millions of people working for these various entities that they are truly working in the best interest of the people.

 No. An ideology cannot be stopped by stopping one man. It can only be stopped when enough people learn the truth about this agenda and the world of total pervasive control that is coming into view.

 If you have watched all four parts of this exploration on Bill Gates, then you are now one of the most informed people on the planet about the true nature of this. You have seen how the takeover of public health has been used to railroad the world into a headlong rush toward mandatory vaccinations, biometric identification and digital payments. You have seen how the pieces of this puzzle fit together and how they represent a far greater threat to the future of humanity than any virus.

 Here is the good news: Armed with this information, you have the antidote to the scourge of this eugenicist ideology. The truth is that ideologies are viruses of the mind. They spread from person to person, infecting them with ideas that can lead to a disease of the body politic.

 But here is the even greater truth: Inoculations do work. Inoculation of truth against the lies of those spreading their poisonous ideology. If you have made it this far, it is incumbent on you to help inoculate those around you against the corrupt ideology of Bill Gates and all those who seek to control the population of the world. You must help to spread this information, so that others have a chance to see the bigger picture and decide for themselves whether they are willing to roll up their sleeves and accept what is coming or not.

 But time is not on our side. Even as we speak, mass vaccination campaigns are being prepared. Biometric identification schemes and “immunity passports” are already being rolled-out. Programs for tracking tracing and surveilling the entire population are already being beta-tested and the digital payment infrastructure; the system of financial exclusion that will allow governments to turn off our access to the economy at will is being put into place.

 We must spread the word about the dark nature of this population control agenda to as many people as we can, before our ability to speak out against this agenda is taken away for good. Thanks to the likes of Bill Gates, the virus of this population control agenda is already here. It is threatening to crash the system as we’ve known it but if Bill Gates has taught us anything, it’s how to deal with a virus: It’s time for a hard reset.




There can be no doubt that nanotechnology is, indeed, very much involved in cutting-edge vaccine research

There has never been a greater opportunity to deploy one vaccine against so many people. So it’s certainly not out of line to consider a “dual use.”

I have already covered the devastating effects of experimental RNA/DNA vaccine technologies—both of which could be launched with a COVID vaccine. Putting that aside for the moment, could the vaccine serve another purpose?

In this article, I raise questions. Questions about the potential covert use of nanotechnology in the COVID vaccine.

From nanotechnology: “The branch of technology that deals with dimensions and tolerances of less than 100 nanometers, especially the manipulation of individual atoms and molecules.”

Are researchers interested in marrying nanotechnology and vaccines?

Here is a quote from Frontiers in Immunology, January 24, 2019, “Nanoparticle-Based Vaccines Against Respiratory Viruses”: A new generation of vaccines based on nanoparticles has shown great potential to address most of the limitations of conventional and subunit vaccines. This is due to recent advances in chemical and biological engineering, which allow the design of nanoparticles with a precise control over the size, shape, functionality and surface properties, leading to enhanced antigen presentation and strong immunogenicity. This short review provides an overview of the advantages associated with the use of nanoparticles as vaccine delivery platforms to immunize against respiratory viruses…” [such as the purported COVID-19 virus?]

Here is another quote, also from Frontiers in Immunology, October 4, 2018, “Nanoparticle Vaccines Against Infectious Diseases”: In the last several years, the use of nanoparticle-based vaccines has received a great attention to improve vaccine efficacy, immunization strategies, and targeted delivery to achieve desired immune responses at the cellular level…Nanocarriers composed of lipids, proteins, metals or polymers have already been used…This review article focuses on the applications of nanocarrier-based vaccine formulations and the strategies used for the functionalization of nanoparticles to accomplish efficient delivery of vaccines in order to induce desired host immunity against infectious diseases.”

There can be no doubt that nanotechnology is, indeed, very much involved in cutting-edge vaccine research.

Now let’s shift into another use of nanotech.

Here are astonishing quotes from the journal Nano Today, from a 2019 paper titled: “Nanowire probes could drive high-resolution brain-machine interfaces.” Its authors are Chinese and American:

“…advances can enable investigations of dynamics in the brain [through nano-sensor-implants] and drive the development of new brain-machine interfaces with unprecedented resolution and precision.”

“…output electrical signals of brain activity or input electrical stimuli to modulate brain activity in concert with external machines, including computer processors and prosthetics, for human enhancement…”

Aside from research into prosthetics and, perhaps, the reversal of certain paralyses, this avenue of investigation also suggests “modulation” of the brain remotely connected to machines, for the purpose of control.

Modulation…such as control of basic thought-impulses, sensations, emotions?

ONE: Nano-sensors, implanted in the body and brain, would issue real time data-reports on body/brain functioning to ops centers.

TWO: And from those ops centers, data—including instructions—would be sent back to the nano-sensors, which would impose those instructions on the brain and body.

If this seems impossible, consider nanotech research aimed at improving the use of prosthetics. In that field, imposing instructions on the body/brain appears to be the whole point.

The question is: how far along the road of development is this technology? I can only say we are seeing the public published face of nanotech. What lies behind it, in secret research, is a matter for estimation and speculation.

I offer one speculation: the “promotion” of the social agenda of collectivist thought, through nanotech. Utilizing the Internet of Things, an attempt would be made to hook up and “harmonize” many, many brains with one another. Same basic feelings, same impulses—shared.

Who would be interested in such a program? Think Chinese government, DARPA (the technology arm of the Pentagon), and numerous other international actors. Think Rockefeller medical researchers. Think technocracy and Brave New World.


Here is an interesting quote from a 3/11/20 S&P Global article, “Early-stage nanotechnology poised for ‘inflection point’”:

“One of the most pressing global healthcare challenges in 2020 is the coronavirus outbreak and Moderna Inc….is on the front line of vaccine development for this new biological threat.”

“Moderna’s nanoparticle-driven science uses genetic engineering to trigger cells to create proteins that prevent certain infections. Its vaccines for Zika virus and influenza have already progressed to early clinical stages…”

If Moderna’s COVID vaccine is indeed using nanoparticles, I have not seen this mentioned in current press reports.

The S&P Global article states, “One of the leaders in the field of biological nanotech engineering is Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Robert Langer, who has helped found about 40 companies based on technology created and developed in his Langer Lab…Moderna Inc., one of the companies Langer helped found…”

Does Moderna’s COVID vaccine use nanoparticles? If so, what can these particles actually do? These are pressing questions that need to be answered.

I offer two backgrounders I wrote several months ago. They involve the flood of highly significant scientific research across borders.

BACKGROUNDER ONE: Behind the explosive Charles Lieber nanotech scandal

Once upon a time, they called it espionage. Then they called it “illegal technology transfer.” Then they casually and admiringly called it Globalism.

Imagine this.

A cutting-edge technology, which has applications for weaponry, transportation, medicine, artificial intelligence, surveillance, mind control…is being openly shared between the US and China. And by implication, who knows how many other nations?

As just one example, tiny sensors would, up the road, be placed inside the human body. These sensors would automatically monitor and report thousands of changes, in real time, in the body—as a way of diagnosing diseases.

The sensors will transmit all this information, through the emerging Internet of Things—using the 5G pipeline—to medical centers—where AI corporate and government analysts will make the disease diagnoses and prescribe treatments.

Eventually, a few billion people (patients) would, through these sensors in their bodies, be hooked up to the 5G Internet of Things.

—HOWEVER, as I’ve reported many times in these pages, the standard definitions of diseases and disorders are often incorrect, or even invented. But because the future system I’ve just sketched is automated, the patient is enclosed in a fake and dangerous bubble. Among other problems, the disease treatments, the drugs and vaccines, are toxic.

What is the technology that is on the way to producing these body sensors?

Nanoscience. Nano-engineering.

From nanotechnology: “The branch of technology that deals with dimensions and tolerances of less than 100 nanometers, especially the manipulation of individual atoms and molecules.”

One of the leading nanoscience researchers in the world was recently arrested on a charge of concealing his connections to China.

Major US science star busted by the feds.

Charles Lieber, now suspended by Harvard, is the University’s chairman of the chemistry department.

I have read two articles from a foreign news outlet headlined with the claim that Lieber stole and smuggled the “new coronavirus” from the US to China. In both cases, the text of the articles mentioned nothing about such a theft. I’m not writing this article about “coronavirus.” I’ve been writing many articles rejecting the premise of an “epidemic” caused by the “virus.”

I decided to look into this situation, because Lieber does apparently have big-time connections to China. Sharing research on his specialty, nanoscience, with China would be one more case of “technology transfer.”

Bloomberg News, February 12, 2020: “Lieber’s arrest on Jan. 28 came in connection with his dealings in China. He hasn’t been charged with any type of economic espionage, intellectual-property theft, or export violations. Instead, he’s accused of lying to U.S. Department of Defense investigators about his work with the People’s Republic…”

“…by targeting Lieber, the chairman of Harvard’s chemistry department and a veritable ivory tower blue blood, prosecutors struck at the crimson heart of the academic elite, raising fears that globalism, when it comes to doing science with China, is being criminalized.”

“According to a government affidavit, signed by a Federal Bureau of Investigation agent named Robert Plumb, Lieber signed at least three agreements with Wuhan Technology University, or WUT, in central China. These included a contract with the state-sponsored Thousand Talents Plan—an effort by Beijing to attract mostly expatriate [Chinese] researchers and their know-how back home—worth a total of about $653,000 a year in pay [to Lieber] and living expenses for three years, plus $1.74 million [to Lieber] to support a new ‘Harvard-WUT Nano Key Lab’ in Wuhan. The government offered no evidence that Lieber actually received those sums… Lieber also deceived Harvard about his China contracts, the [federal] affidavit said.”

“Whatever extracurricular arrangements Lieber may have had in China, his Harvard lab was a paragon of U.S.-China collaboration. He relied on a pipeline of China’s brightest Ph.D. students and postdocs, often more than a dozen at a time, to produce prize-winning research on the revolutionary potential of so-called nanowires in biomedical implants. Dozens of Lieber’s 100 or so former lab members from China have chosen to stay in the U.S. Many now lead their own nanoscience labs at top universities, including Duke, Georgia Tech, MIT, Stanford, University of California at Berkeley, and UCLA.”

I’d say that’s a pretty big technology-transfer WOW right there.

“In the 1990s and 2000s, as Lieber’s achievements and stature were taking off, U.S. research institutions and grant makers pumped money and moral support into expanding the burgeoning collaborations between scientists in the U.S. and other countries, particularly China. The new paradigm was globalization, China was an emerging economic power, and Lieber’s lab became an exemplar of pan-Pacific collaboration. “

Another WOW. Not a leak of information. A flood.

“A more controversial Lieber protégé is Liqiang Mai, the international dean and chair of materials science at WUT, the little-known school in Wuhan that prosecutors allege recruited Lieber to be a ‘strategic scientist’ in 2011, for $50,000 a month. Mai, who hasn’t been named in any U.S. filings against Lieber, earned a doctorate at WUT in 2004 and worked as a postdoc in Lieber’s lab from 2008 to 2011, according to Mai’s WUT online bio….”

How big a star is Lieber? Wikpedia: “Charles M. Lieber (born 1959) is an American chemist and pioneer in the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology. In 2011, Lieber was recognized by Thomson Reuters as the leading chemist in the world for the decade 2000-2010 based on the impact of his scientific publications. Lieber has published over 400 papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals and has edited and contributed to many books on nanoscience. He is the principal inventor on over fifty issued US patents and applications, and founded the nanotechnology company Nanosys in 2001 and Vista Therapeutics in 2007. He is known for his contributions to the synthesis, assembly and characterization of nanoscale materials and nanodevices, the application of nanoelectronic devices in biology, and as a mentor to numerous leaders in nanoscience. In 2012, Lieber was awarded Israel’s Wolf Prize in Chemistry.”

Chemistry and Engineering News, January 28, 2020: “In addition, Lieber allegedly signed a contract that obligated Harvard to become part of a cooperative research program that allowed WUT [Chinese] scientists to visit the university up to two months each year. The [federal] complaint says he did not inform university officials of the agreement, which was for ‘advanced research and development of nano wire-based lithium-ion batteries with high performance for electric vehicles’.”

Another “technology transfer” of great value.

“…the NIH [US National Institutes of Health, a federal agency] asked Harvard about whether the university or Lieber failed to disclose his financial relationship with China. Lieber has been a principal investigator on at least three NIH grants totaling $10 million since 2008. After interviewing Lieber, Harvard [incorrectly, supposedly based on Lieber’s statements] responded to the NIH that he [Lieber] had ‘no formal association with WUT [Wuhan Institute of Technology]’ and ‘is not and has never been a participant in’ the [Chinese] Thousand Talents program.”

NIH has strict regulations about its researchers disclosing their conflict-of-interest connections. The feds obviously believe Lieber has failed to report his China connections to NIH. This would become a factor in his prosecution.

Lieber was operating a robust center at Harvard: Lieber Research Group. Its focus is nanoscience and nanotechnology. So it’s natural to ask, what kind of research findings would be shared with China?

On the Group’s website, there is this, right off the bat: “We are pioneering the interface between nanoelectronics and the life sciences…sensors for real-time disease detection…”

Hence, the picture of the future I sketched at the beginning of this backgrounder.

I may report further on nanoscience. Of course, the ominous technological innovations apply to both China and the US, and the rest of the world…

The Chinese government has the clout, will, force, and intent to impose, without hesitation, every sort of possible control on its 1.4 billion citizens. It is in the process of building many new “smart cities.” These centers will be models of wall-to-wall surveillance. AI, Internet of Things, 5G, the works. If nanoscience can achieve much more intimate access to people, through implanted sensors, why wouldn’t the Chinese government jump at the chance to deploy it? The rationale and the cover story are obvious: WE MUST HAVE EARLY KNOWLEDGE OF NEW VIRUS EPIDEMICS. WE WILL DETECT THEM DIRECTLY FROM THE BODIES OF OUR PEOPLE IN REAL TIME.

All hail, Globalism and technocracy.

BACKGROUNDER TWO: Nano-technology: one world, one brain

From nanotechnology: “The branch of technology that deals with dimensions and tolerances of less than 100 nanometers, especially the manipulation of individual atoms and molecules.”

The recent arrest of Harvard pioneer in the field of nanotechnology, Charles Lieber—on charges of lying to federal authorities about his business connections to China—has exposed wide-ranging relationships among American and Chinese researchers.

These relationships include, above all, the open sharing of sensitive technologies that, once upon a time, would have been considered closely guarded state secrets.

Here are quotes from the journal Nano Today, from a 2019 paper titled: “Nanowire probes could drive high-resolution brain-machine interfaces”. Its authors are Chinese and American:

“…advances can enable investigations of dynamics in the brain [through tiny sensor-implants] and drive the development of new brain-machine interfaces with unprecedented resolution and precision.”

“…output electrical signals of brain activity or input electrical stimuli to modulate brain activity in concert with external machines, including computer processors and prosthetics, for human enhancement…”

Aside from research into prosthetics and, perhaps, the reversal of certain paralyses, this avenue of investigation also suggests “modulation” of the brain, hooked to machines, for the purpose of control. Control of basic thoughts, sensations, emotions.

And along with the Internet of Things, why couldn’t that control eventually be extended, in order to “harmonize” many, many brains with one another?

Who would be interested in such a thing? Think Chinese government, DARPA (the technology arm of the Pentagon), and numerous other international actors. Think Rockefeller medical researchers. Think technocracy and Brave New World.

Over the past few decades, the flow of all sorts of ultra-sensitive scientific information, between the US and China, hasn’t consisted of rare leaks. It’s a flood, out in the open, in labs and universities. All part of the new share-and-care Globalist agenda.

Nanotechnology, to choose one branch of such research-exchange, has applications in weaponry, transportation, surveillance, medicine, etc. And of course, mind control.

“Look, I’m certainly willing to share my latest research on nano-brain implants. But I need your, ahem, assurance that your government won’t use this for dark purposes.”

“I understand completely. My government would no more do that than your government would.”

“All right. Then we’re good.”

“Yes. Good.”

How did US-China relations get to this point? At one time, it appeared the two governments were involved in a cold war. Oh, that’s right, President Nixon opened up China to trade, in 1972, after 25 years of no diplomatic relations. Nixon was the agent of David Rockefeller, who, years earlier, had rescued him from a broken career as a politician. David Rockefeller, arch Globalist.

Here’s what Rockefeller blithely wrote in 1973, a year after Nixon had worked his China miracle:

“Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.” (“From a China Traveler”. NY Times. August 10, 1973.)

Millions of people dead, freedom crushed, a whole population under the boot of the Communist regime, but somehow that’s not what David Rockefeller saw, or pretended to see. He, like other of his elite Globalist colleagues, admired the Chinese government for the capacity to control its own people, to such a high degree.

Flash forward 47 years. Scientists from both countries are blowing each other kisses, as they collaborate on developing a technology that has the potential to gain intimate influence inside the human brain itself.

—Of course, remember, when political push comes to shove, and it always does, China is the friend of China. In the case of American corporate and government big shots, hometown loyalty tends to be conditional, depending on which sources and countries are putting money on the table.



The idea of ‘social distancing’ came from a 14-year-old’s scientific study

The idea of ‘social distancing’ came from a 14-year-old’s scientific study  By Jeffrey A. Tucker, 26 May 2020

Jeffrey A. Tucker is editorial director for the American Institute for Economic Research. He is the author of many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press and eight books in five languages, most recently ‘The Market Loves You.’ He is also the editor of ‘The Best of Mises.’ He tweets at @jeffreyatucker.

The lockdown measures implemented across the US – and failing to save us from either Covid-19 or economic ruin – have roots in a 2006 schoolgirl’s science project. They became law despite several academics’ resistance.

Now begins the grand effort, on display in thousands of articles and news broadcasts daily, somehow to normalize the lockdown and all its destruction of the last two months. We didn’t lock down almost the entire country in 1968/69, 1957, or 1949-1952, or even during 1918. But in a terrifying few days in March 2020, it happened to all of us, causing an avalanche of social, cultural, and economic destruction that will ring through the ages. 

There was nothing normal about it all. We’ll be trying to figure out what happened to us for decades hence. 

Anti-social distancing: The darker side of a remote world, from execution orders to digital governance

How did a temporary plan to preserve hospital capacity turn into two-to-three months of near-universal house arrest that ended up causing worker furloughs at 256 hospitals, a stoppage of international travel, a 40 percent job loss among people earning less than $40,000 per year, devastation of every economic sector, mass confusion and demoralization, a complete ignoring of all fundamental rights and liberties, not to mention the mass confiscation of private property with forced closures of millions of businesses?  

Whatever the answer, it’s got to be a bizarre tale. What’s truly surprising is just how recent the theory behind lockdown and forced distancing actually is. So far as anyone can tell, the intellectual machinery that made this mess was invented 14 years ago, and not by epidemiologists but by computer-simulation modelers. It was adopted not by experienced doctors – they warned ferociously against it – but by politicians. 

Let’s start with the phrase social distancing, which has mutated into forced human separation. The first I had heard it was in the 2011 movie ‘Contagion.’ The first time it appeared in the New York Times was February 12, 2006:

“If the avian flu goes pandemic while Tamiflu and vaccines are still in short supply, experts say, the only protection most Americans will have is ‘social distancing,’ which is the new politically correct way of saying ‘quarantine.’

But distancing also encompasses less drastic measures, like wearing face masks, staying out of elevators – and the [elbow] bump. Such stratagems, those experts say, will rewrite the ways we interact, at least during the weeks when the waves of influenza are washing over us.”

School project gone too far

Maybe you don’t remember that the avian flu of 2006 didn’t amount to much. It’s true, despite all the extreme warnings about its lethality, H5N1 didn’t turn into much at all. What it did do, however, was send the existing president, George W. Bush, to the library to read about the 1918 flu and its catastrophic results. He asked for some experts to submit some plans to him about what to do when the real thing comes along.

The New York Times (April 22, 2020) tells the story from there: 

“Fourteen years ago, two federal government doctors, Richard Hatchett and Carter Mecher, met with a colleague at a burger joint in suburban Washington for a final review of a proposal they knew would be treated like a pinata: telling Americans to stay home from work and school the next time the country was hit by a deadly pandemic.

“When they presented their plan not long after, it was met with skepticism and a degree of ridicule by senior officials, who like others in the United States had grown accustomed to relying on the pharmaceutical industry, with its ever-growing array of new treatments, to confront evolving health challenges.

“Drs Hatchett and Mecher were proposing instead that Americans in some places might have to turn back to an approach, self-isolation, first widely employed in the Middle Ages.

“How that idea – born out of a request by President George W. Bush to ensure the nation was better prepared for the next contagious disease outbreak – became the heart of the national playbook for responding to a pandemic is one of the untold stories of the coronavirus crisis.

“It required the key proponents – Dr Mecher, a Department of Veterans Affairs physician, and Dr Hatchett, an oncologist turned White House adviser – to overcome intense initial opposition.

“It brought their work together with that of a Defense Department team assigned to a similar task.

“And it had some unexpected detours, including a deep dive into the history of the 1918 Spanish flu and an important discovery kicked off by a high school research project pursued by the daughter of a scientist at the Sandia National Laboratories.

“The concept of social distancing is now intimately familiar to almost everyone. But as it first made its way through the federal bureaucracy in 2006 and 2007, it was viewed as impractical, unnecessary and politically infeasible.”

Notice that in the course of this planning, neither legal nor economic experts were brought in to consult and advise. Instead it fell to Mecher (formerly of Chicago and an intensive care doctor with no previous expertise in pandemics) and the oncologist Hatchett.

But what is this mention of the high-school daughter of 14? Her name is Laura M. Glass, and she recently declined to be interviewed when the Albuquerque Journal did a deep dive of this history. 

“Laura, with some guidance from her dad, devised a computer simulation that showed how people – family members, co-workers, students in schools, people in social situations – interact. What she discovered was that school kids come in contact with about 140 people a day, more than any other group. Based on that finding, her program showed that in a hypothetical town of 10,000 people, 5,000 would be infected during a pandemic if no measures were taken, but only 500 would be infected if the schools were closed.”

Laura’s name appears on the foundational paper arguing for lockdowns and forced human separation. That paper is Targeted Social Distancing Designs for Pandemic Influenza (2006). It set out a model for forced separation and applied it with good results backwards in time to 1957. They conclude with a chilling call for what amounts to a totalitarian lockdown, all stated very matter-of-factly. 

“Implementation of social distancing strategies is challenging. They likely must be imposed for the duration of the local epidemic and possibly until a strain-specific vaccine is developed and distributed. If compliance with the strategy is high over this period, an epidemic within a community can be averted. However, if neighboring communities do not also use these interventions, infected neighbors will continue to introduce influenza and prolong the local epidemic, albeit at a depressed level more easily accommodated by healthcare systems.”

In other words, it was a high-school science experiment that eventually became law of the land, and through a circuitous route propelled not by science but politics.

Scientists push back

The primary author of this paper was Robert J. Glass, a complex-systems analyst with Sandia National Laboratories. He had no medical training, much less an expertise in immunology or epidemiology. 

That explains why Dr D.A. Henderson, “who had been the leader of the international effort to eradicate smallpox,” completely rejected the whole scheme. 

Says the NYT:

“Dr Henderson was convinced that it made no sense to force schools to close or public gatherings to stop. Teenagers would escape their homes to hang out at the mall. School lunch programs would close, and impoverished children would not have enough to eat. Hospital staffs would have a hard time going to work if their children were at home.

The measures embraced by Drs Mecher and Hatchett would “result in significant disruption of the social functioning of communities and result in possibly serious economic problems,” Dr Henderson wrote in his own academic paper responding to their ideas.

The answer, he insisted, was to tough it out: “Let the pandemic spread, treat people who get sick and work quickly to develop a vaccine to prevent it from coming back.”

AIER’s Phil Magness got to work to find the literature responding to the 2006 paper by Robert and Sarah Glass and discovered the following manifesto: Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza. The authors included D.A. Henderson, along with three professors from Johns Hopkins: infectious disease specialist Thomas V.Inglesby, epidemiologist Jennifer B. Nuzzo, and physician Tara O’Toole. 

Their paper is a remarkably readable refutation of the entire lock-down model. 

“There are no historical observations or scientific studies that support the confinement by quarantine of groups of possibly infected people for extended periods in order to slow the spread of influenza… It is difficult to identify circumstances in the past half-century when large-scale quarantine has been effectively used in the control of any disease. The negative consequences of large-scale quarantine are so extreme (forced confinement of sick people with the well; complete restriction of movement of large populations; difficulty in getting critical supplies, medicines, and food to people inside the quarantine zone) that this mitigation measure should be eliminated from serious consideration

“Home quarantine also raises ethical questions. Implementation of home quarantine could result in healthy, uninfected people being placed at risk of infection from sick household members. Practices to reduce the chance of transmission (hand-washing, maintaining a distance of three feet from infected people, etc.) could be recommended, but a policy imposing home quarantine would preclude, for example, sending healthy children to stay with relatives when a family member becomes ill. Such a policy would also be particularly hard on and dangerous to people living in close quarters, where the risk of infection would be heightened…. 

“Travel restrictions, such as closing airports and screening travelers at borders, have historically been ineffective. The World Health Organization Writing Group concluded that ‘screening and quarantining entering travelers at international borders did not substantially delay virus introduction in past pandemics… and will likely be even less effective in the modern era’… It is reasonable to assume that the economic costs of shutting down air or train travel would be very high, and the societal costs involved in interrupting all air or train travel would be extreme

“During seasonal influenza epidemics, public events with an expected large attendance have sometimes been canceled or postponed, the rationale being to decrease the number of contacts with those who might be contagious. There are, however, no certain indications that these actions have had any definitive effect on the severity or duration of an epidemic. Were consideration to be given to doing this on a more extensive scale and for an extended period, questions immediately arise as to how many such events would be affected. There are many social gatherings that involve close contacts among people, and this prohibition might include church services, athletic events, perhaps all meetings of more than 100 people. It might mean closing theaters, restaurants, malls, large stores, and bars. Implementing such measures would have seriously disruptive consequences

“Schools are often closed for one–two weeks early in the development of seasonal community outbreaks of influenza primarily because of high absentee rates, especially in elementary schools, and because of illness among teachers. This would seem reasonable on practical grounds. However, to close schools for longer periods is not only impracticable but carries the possibility of a serious adverse outcome….

“Thus, canceling or postponing large meetings would not be likely to have any significant effect on the development of the epidemic. While local concerns may result in the closure of particular events for logical reasons, a policy directing communitywide closure of public events seems inadvisable. Quarantine. As experience shows, there is no basis for recommending quarantine either of groups or individuals. The problems in implementing such measures are formidable, and secondary effects of absenteeism and community disruption as well as possible adverse consequences, such as loss of public trust in government and stigmatization of quarantined people and groups, are likely to be considerable….”

US states rush-recruiting Covid-19 contact tracers are overcompensating for their incompetence with authoritarianism

Finally, the remarkable conclusion:

“Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted. Strong political and public health leadership to provide reassurance and to ensure that needed medical care services are provided are critical elements. If either is seen to be less than optimal, a manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe.”

Confronting a manageable epidemic and turning it into a catastrophe: that seems like a good description of everything that has happened in the Covid-19 crisis of 2020.

Ideas have consequences

Thus, did some of the most highly trained and experienced experts on epidemics warn with biting rhetoric against everything that the advocates of lockdown proposed. It was not even a real-world idea in the first place and showed no actual knowledge of viruses and disease mitigation. Again, the idea was born of a high-school science experiment using agent-based modeling techniques having nothing at all to do with real life, real science, or real medicine.

So the question becomes: How did the extreme view prevail?

The New York Times has the answer:

“The [Bush] administration ultimately sided with the proponents of social distancing and shutdowns – though their victory was little noticed outside of public health circles. Their policy would become the basis for government planning and would be used extensively in simulations used to prepare for pandemics, and in a limited way in 2009 during an outbreak of the influenza called H1N1. Then the coronavirus came, and the plan was put to work across the country for the first time.”

You can read the 2007 CDC paper here. It is arguable that this paper did not favor full lockdown. I’ve spoken to Rajeev Venkayya, MD, who regards the 2007 plan as more liberal, and assures me that they never envisioned this level of lockdown: “lockdowns and shelter-in-place were not part of the recommendations.” To my mind, fleshing out the full relationship between this 2007 document and current policy requires a separate article.

The Times called one of the pro-lockdown researchers, Dr Howard Markel, and asked what he thought of the lockdowns. His answer: he is glad that his work was used to “save lives” but added, It is also horrifying.”

“We always knew this would be applied in worst-case scenarios,” he said. “Even when you are working on dystopian concepts, you always hope it will never be used.”

Ideas have consequences, as they say. Dream up an idea for a virus-controling totalitarian society, one without an endgame and eschewing any experienced-based evidence that it would achieve the goal, and you might see it implemented someday. Lockdown might be the new orthodoxy but that doesn’t make it medically sound or morally correct. At least now we know that many great doctors and scholars in 2006 did their best to stop this nightmare from unfolding. Their mighty paper should serve as a blueprint for dealing with the next pandemic. 

This article was originally published here

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.


COVID-19 lockdowns are ruining economies

COVID-19 lockdowns are ruining economies  By John Rofe, 20 May 2020

Editor’s note: The email copied below was sent to the New Zealand Prime Minister, several ministers, shadow ministers and major NZ media. It demonstrates how excessive knee-jerk actions attempting to curtail COVID-19 virus are causing dire unintended consequences. These include ruining economies, bringing in totalitarian rules and causing sharply-rising numbers of deaths in other health categories.

 From: John Rofe []
Sent: Tuesday, 19 May 2020 10:52 a.m.
To: ‘’; ‘Rt. Hon. Winston Peters’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘Hon Judith Collins’; ‘Hon Simon Bridges’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’
Cc: ‘leighton smith’; ‘Rod Oram’; ‘Liam Dann’; ‘Andrew Laxon’
Subject: Delusions of Grandeur on display thanks to Q&A

I am an expert in consulting to distressed organisations (my vocation for 40-years) but never thought I would see the day when deluded children were put in charge of the nation’s treasury.  Thankfully, I am now retired.

It isn’t unusual for socialists to exhibit ignorance of the real world because for them their polemic justifies all.  Just as it did for a place once called the USSR.

Last night on Q&A it became clear that the Finance Minister is still seemingly unaware that at his leader’s behest his Government has opened “Pandora’s Box”.  It is full of invoices, only a few of which the taxpayers can afford to pay.

He seems to be unaware that by closing the NZ borders to tourists and locking down 95% of business, they made whole swathes of New Zealand companies instantly insolvent.  This is because there are two tests for insolvency.  One is that the directors of the company cannot continue to trade after they are unable to pay the debts they incur as and when those debts fall due. 

Ergo…..No sales revenue with which to pay overheads  =   Inevitable insolvency, unless someone else with the wherewithal to pay guarantees payment of all expenses as and when they fall due.

Prudently cashed up businesses can survive, but if in the tourist industry they may consider hibernation as a more sensible way to eke those out.  Placing large hotels/motels on “care and maintenance” may be something that affected councils like those in Central Otago and Rotorua would favour supporting with reduced rates and insurers would also support. That makes survival for the rest possible.

The failure to comply with the Insolvency provisions of the Companies Act before incurring further costs of any sort (not just wages) makes a company liable for the claim they traded while insolvent and so directors and officers of the company will all become personally liable for their company’s debts – if they risk trading on.

The idea that the Finance Minister can tamper with insolvency regulations to somehow protect the companies that have lost 30-100% of their sales revenue is delusional.  The damage is too widespread.  The idea that by paying a proportion of employee wages for 8 weeks he is somehow going to be giving an ongoing lifeline to businesses is also ignorant of the breakdown of the cost structure of 99% of companies trading today. 

Interviewer Jack Tame perceptively asked whether the Government would support the tourism sector for the duration of the closure of the country’s borders.  He pointed out that the Government was considered by many to have a moral responsibility to do so.  The response from the Finance Minister was deliberately and necessarily evasive.

It seems to me that what PM Ardern has always hoped to do is to show how ineffectual capitalism is.  Well she has succeeded.  The people of New Zealand have woken now to find themselves living in a totalitarian Socialist state.  The process of Labour politicians blaming business owners for shutting their businesses down despite offers of money to pay staff for a while, has begun.  That is self-serving, and a hint of how the PM intends to put capitalism on trial for the consequences of her own hubris.  Paying 1.7 million people’s wages is a good way to win votes.  The failed businesses, business owners and managers are just collateral damage.

As Baroness Thatcher once said, “Socialism is all very well, but sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”

At this point the public is also unaware of the economic realities set in train by the harsh lockdown gambit.  The global economy is also crashing, because today there are 100 million Chinese now under Covid-19 lockdown and 37 million Americans unemployed.  Even Japan has just signalled it is in recession.  Europe is struggling.   It will be a steep, hard road back.

It may take several years for the global economy to return to prosperity and for people to travel to distant shores with confidence.  Travellers confidence is gone, and business confidence is gone.

I think someone who has the nickname “Socialist Cindy” (and with a background in charge of the engine room of global socialism) cannot have been totally blind to what would happen as a result of achieving a level of total business reliance on Government money-printing.  One of her objectives in a previous role was to get rid of capitalism and replace it with Socialism.  She may be surprised though that it came about so easily in New Zealand from taking advantage of a pandemic.  When elected to PM status at the last election, many thought her aspiration was to achieve this same position through the implementation of a faux “Climate Emergency”. 

She should thank her lucky stars the pandemic came along when it did as we are now going into a 200 year event called a Grand Solar Minimum…a very different sort of climate emergency could now emerge to the one she favours.

From a lifetime’s experience, I figure that the people in business who will be most likely to make a successful transition to new commercial realities are those who accept their loss, so they can minimise them and quickly move on.  Reliance on politicians doesn’t look like a good option to me.

BTW, where is the Government assistance for training of people to work on the land or for increasing the processing of the raw materials we ship out instead of adding value to?   I don’t mean wasteful tree planting and weed control wanted by the Greens, that will achieve no revenue for at least 27 years.   I mean the constructive stuff for the horticultural and farming sector!

Productive, meaningful jobs with career prospects instead of sending young people into the bush without any prospect of a future.

As Cameron Bagrie said on TV on budget day, the budget for 2020 was just “borrow and hope”.  It seems that Grant Robertson needs some more expert advice.  Sadly for many, hope may be all that some now have left.

That is reality.  So, I hope everyone can stay safe, and prosper…

Kind regards

John Rofe


How will history judge our coronavirus lockdown?

How will history judge our coronavirus lockdown  By Maurice Newman, The Australian, 18 May 2020

As businesses reopen and normal life gradually returns, it’s important to reflect — why did Australia so easily accept weeks of police state-restrictions?

As they fretted their way through weeks of police-state restrictions, many Australians must have ­marvelled at the ease with which their governments put them under virtual house arrest.

All it took was emergency COVID-19 legislation and the drafting of enforceable new rules. In the blink of an eye, basic civil rights were outlawed.

As if they were children being lectured by their parents, the public was assured that the harsh measures were for their own good. Expert medical advice was tendered. The nation’s Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Paul Kelly, warned: “In a worst-case scenario, 15 million people would get the coronavirus and 150,000 would die.” For the optimists, his best-case scenario was an infection rate of 20 per cent where about 50,000 people out of 5 million infected would die.

However illogical many rules seemed, most people did as they were told. They stayed indoors, ­received no visitors and exercised responsibly. Even when schools and places of worship were closed, they raised few objections. Nor did they issue any kind of a challenge when the states ­ignored the Constitution by sealing their borders and denying free movement of people.

It was the same for businesses in “non-essential” industries. When forcibly put into “hibernation”, they offered little resistance. Landlords, too, were mostly silent when they were ordered not to terminate leases or evict tenants for non-payment of rent.

Overwhelmingly, the nation accepted this was necessary and that sacrifice would be rewarded “on the other side”. Wartime ­analogies were drawn, forgetting that in war, the economy and employment are at full capacity.

Shuttering the economy to defeat this enemy has already resulted in nosebleed deficits and almost eight million applications for JobSeeker and JobKeeper support. Prospects of early employment are bleak. Many on JobKeeper work for zombie companies that may fail when the scheme ends in September. In stark contrast, public sector jobs remain safe and on full pay, making the claim “We’re all in this together” sound hollow.

Unsurprisingly, the lockdown has exacted a terrible social price. Suicide rates have hugely outstripped deaths from COVID-19, while cases of child abuse and domestic violence have risen sharply.

The emergency measures may have been well-intentioned and based on medical advice, and they have certainly limited infections. However, history will judge the cure as worse than the disease. With fewer than 7000 cases and not 100 deaths so far, the early modelling seems to have been more panic than science. An unwillingness to admit this — particularly at the state level — is no doubt delaying the easing of restrictions.

Having dug the hole, the bigger task is how to exit. So far, the states’ approach to relaxation has been unworldly, with the likely impact on activity minimal.

But with the incompetence and then cover-ups associated with the Ruby Princess and Cedar Meats cases, it seems amateurs are driving policy.

The road to recovery is also made difficult by some of the media’s endorsement of state messaging. Indeed, some of its COVID-19 obsession is bordering on the macabre. But then for a 24/7 news industry hungry for content, pandemics are never-ending fodder for tabloid journalism, especially at the ABC. Its journalists become natural allies of the many politicians seizing on catastrophism as their political weapon of choice. Predicting an apocalyptic future attracts attention and helps them shape public opinion to their ­advantage.

For example, the ABC’s in-house medical catastrophist, Dr Norman Swan, predicted a doubling of reported coronavirus cases every three days, tweeting: “Primary school maths. Someone should go figure. No magic fairy will bring that down. 14-20 days behind Italy. Believe in maths not magic.” Presenter Fran Kelly asserted: “On current projections, hospitals will be overwhelmed by mid-April. We need more ventilators.” Hardly. There’s about 20 COVID-19 patients occupying intensive care beds, with even fewer requiring mechanical ventilation. Australia has 2023 intensive care beds fitted with ventilators.

Go figure indeed.

That said, it is important that this pandemic’s serious threat to human health, particularly for the ageing and those with comorbidities, be acknowledged. Personal hygiene, social distancing and wider testing will continue to be important.

Government health policies should sensibly reflect risks to older populations and hospitals. The most vulnerable must exercise personal responsibility.

No doubt, as restrictions continue to be relaxed, infections will rise. Risk-averse medical experts will argue that the easing is premature. But they are just postponing the inevitable. It should be obvious by now that COVID-19 will survive longer than a heavily handicapped economy can remain solvent. Indeed, rather than validate the wisdom of state control, history will judge authorities as having waited too long to ease. We live in the real world, not a test tube.

Lost in all the noise is how easy it has been for those with despotic tendencies to take away our freedoms. All they needed was a climate of fear and the long arm of the law. The 19th-century French diplomat Alexis De Tocqueville warned about this in his classic, Democracy in America. He foresaw the prospect of “an immense protective power” resembling “parental authority” keeping the people “in perpetual childhood”. And that power would be the sole judge of everyone’s happiness.

When, from our COVID-19 bunkers, we watched police snatch an infant from his mother’s arms as she was dragged away for standing up for their basic ­freedoms, Australians could surely have wondered if this was a ­rehearsal of things to come. Fanciful? Well, when 72 per cent of the nation’s workforce is dependent on government for an income, it is surely time to ask, in De Tocqueville’s words, if “a liberal, wise and energetic government can spring from the suffrages of a subservient people”?


Previous articles

August 2016

July 2016

June 2016

May 2016

April 2016

March 2016

February 2016

January 2016

December 2015

November 2015

October 2015

September 2015

August 2015

    •  A sea of frothing, sweary, often pompous, intolerance  By Tim Black, Spiked Online, 29 August 2015

July 2015

June 2015

May 2015

April 2015

March 2015

February 2015


January 2015