Remember – this is irony, tongue-in-cheek, sarcasm… the information is accurate, but the attitude is ridicule. Don’t hesitate to laugh.
Is he going to fire Fauci et al? Or arrest them?
Just hours ago, Friday May 8th 2020, U.S President Donald Trump once again pushed against the Bill Gates financed pandemic expert community and big-pharma vaccine producers, and announced that the novel coronavirus which causes covid-19, would ‘go away without a vaccine‘.
In answering a question from a journalist, Trump responded ‘Well I feel about vaccines like I feel about tests, this is gonna go away without a vaccine’ – inferring perhaps that he felt that the covid-19 tests were also unnecessary.
In a stunning statement, Trump said that he predicts that the coronavirus would ‘go away without a vaccine’ and vowed that America is going to ‘transition to greatness,’ inferring that the economy would begin to return to normal and the lock-down would be lifted.
This statement comes nearly a month after the Surgeon General of the United States, Jerome Adams announced that the U.S would no longer be following the WHO/CDC ‘projected model’ which they found had grossly inflated the potential deaths – even once considering isolation and quarantine. At that time, Dr. Adams explained that the U.S would soon begin to open up – a policy decision which we are now seeing realized.
It is unknown whether Trump’s announcement was timed to work against the stock value of Moderna Inc., based on Moderna’s announcement on May 8th that the Bill Gates-backed and Dr. Fauci approved vaccine company would soon be entering mid-stage testing on live human subjects. It is widely known that a vaccine for a retrovirus can leave the vaccinated more prone to death or serious illness should they contract a live, mutated strain of the same virus later on.
Moderna’s stock value jumped from about $48 to $55 overnight on May 7th, suggesting insider trading a day before the announcement. It climbed to $59 in the following two days, but began to show signs of faltering after the president’s announcement.
If the president ultimately opposes the mandatory vaccine regimen , then Moderna’s stock value may drop to a pre-May 7th valuation. Bill Gates has spent weeks on television insisting that such a vaccine would be mandatory, despite his lack of a formal education in medicine, epidemiology, or virology. Bill Gates has invested significantly in Moderna Inc., as well as other leading vaccine producing companies, under the rubric of ‘philanthropy’.
The president’s hope inspiring words came as the United States recorded its highest rate of unemployment since the Great Depression. At the same time, a second administration staffer tested positive, and the official number of coronavirus deaths in the United States is claimed by CDC officials at more than 76,000.
However, numerous doctors and hospital staffers have come forward candidly to reveal that numerous hospital administrations had pressured staff and attending physicians to count deaths as covid-19 even where a co-morbidity was present and in fact the primary cause. In rather morbid versions of these accounts, at least one nurse said that the hospitals were engaged in criminal levels of health mismanagement that was causing mortalities over and above that which would otherwise occur as a result of covid-19 infection.
Worse than the alleged 76,000 dead are the real unemployment numbers. It is understood in the expert community that each percent increase of unemployment in the U.S indirectly causes some 37,000 deaths. These are due to a whole array of mental and physical health related issues, as well as nutrition and homelessness. The increase of the unemployment rate due to the projected model of the covid-19 contagion, increased to some 30%. This represented something close to a 900% increase in unemployment, and based on the unemployment-casualty model, would indirectly cause over 1.1 million deaths.
As such, Trump has pushed against those in local governments and in the health expert community to view the problem through that lens: getting the economy started and Americans working again will trend against an estimated 1.1 million deaths that may otherwise be caused by unemployment.
‘This is going to go away without a vaccine. It’s going to go away and we’re not going to see it again,‘ Trump said as he admitted, ‘you may have some flare ups.’
ANTONY SUTTON was a research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, from 1968 to 1973. He is a former economics professor at California State University Los Angeles. He was born in London in 1925 and educated at the universities of London, Gottingen and California with a D.Sc. degree from University of Southampton, England.
After 16 books and 25 years in basic research I thought I’d heard it all … the world was a confused mess, probably beyond understanding and certainly beyond salvation – and there was little ‘l could do about it.
Back in 1968 my Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development was published by the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. In three substantial volumes I detailed how the West had built the Soviet Union. However, the work generated a seemingly insoluble puzzle – why have we done this? Why did we build the Soviet Union, while we also transferred technology to Hitler’s Germany? Why does Washington want to conceal these facts? Why have we boosted Soviet military power? And simultaneously boosted our own? In subsequent books, the Wall Street series, I added more questions – but no answers. I had more or less arrived at the conclusion that there was no rational answer that could be proven.
Then a year or so ago I received an eight-inch batch of documents – nothing less than the membership lists of an American secret society. Glancing through the sheets it was more than obvious – this was no ordinary group. The names spelled Power, with a capital P. As I probed each individual a pattern emerged … and a formerly fuzzy world became crystal clear.
The book you will read here is a combined version of a series reporting on this research. Each volume builds on the previous volume in a logical step-by-step process.
These volumes will explain why the West built the Soviets and Hitler; why we go to war, to lose; why Wall Street loves Marxists and Nazis; why the kids can’t read; why the Churches have become propaganda founts; why historical facts are suppressed, why politicians lie and a hundred other whys.
This series is infinitely more important than the original Western Technology series on technological transfers. If I have a magnum opus, this is it.
ANTONY C. SUTTON Phoenix, Arizona July 30, 1983
Nothing makes sense unless you understand the profit angle in sowing chaos:
About the Author: Antony C. Sutton, D.Sc.was born in London, England in 1925, spent most of his life in the United States and has been a citizen for 40 years.
With an academic background in economics and engineering, Sutton has worked in mining exploration, iron and steel industries before graduate school at UCLA. In the 1960s he was Professor of Economics at California State University, Los Angeles, followed by seven years as a Research Fellow at Stanford University.
While at the Hoover Institution (Stanford), Sutton wrote the three volume definitive work on Soviet technology, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development (still in print after 25 years). This was followed by National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union (Arlington House) which accused the Establishment of killing Americans in Vietnam with our own technology. [see linked “tailwind” article below -rw] Hoover Institution, under pressure from the White House, arbitrarily converted Sutton to a “non-person” by removing his Fellowship.
Intrigued by the powerful forces behind this assault, he then researched and wrote another three volumes on the financial and political support given by Wall Street international bankers to three variants of socialism. These were published as Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler and Wall Street and FDR (all in the 1970s).
After leaving Stanford, Sutton edited The Phoenix Letter, a monthly newsletter on the Abuse of Power (still published today) and in 1990 started another newsletter, Future Technology Intelligence Report, covering suppressed technology.
In philosophy a strong constitutionalist, the author freely expresses his contempt for Washington usurpation of political power…but always based on the facts.
GMO vaccines for GMO viruses. With resultant chronic vaccine-caused illness requiring a lifetime of pharmaceuticals to simulate a state of health. You can still get in on the ground floor of this exciting investment opportunity!
[Note: This article represents Part I of a two-part series examining COVID-19 vaccine technologies and their implications.]
For weeks, talking heads have been promoting the liability-free vaccine(s) that will save the world—so Bill Gates and Tony Fauci proclaim—from what Gates has now dubbed “Pandemic I.” As Microsoft News peddles self-congratulatory stories about the Gates Foundation’s reorientation of its priorities to devote “‘total attention’ to the pandemic,” Fauci—making the rounds of talk shows—pledges that a vaccine will make its debut in January 2021. Not to be outdone, the White House has now unveiled “Operation Warp Speed”—a joint pharmaceutical-government-military effort aimed at “substantially shrinking the development time for a vaccine”—and President Trump promises one by the end of the year.
Planet-wide COVID-19 vaccination—the overt objective that has all of these players salivating in anticipation—ignores a number of irrefutable obstacles. For one, the RNA virus being targeted, SARS-CoV-2, already “has mutated into at least 30 different genetic variants.” The variants include 19 never seen before as well as “rare changes that scientists had never imagined could happen.” Knowledge about these mutations may prove useful to clinicians wanting to better tailor their COVID-19 treatments, but the proliferation of mutations makes the chances of developing an effective vaccine immensely more uncertain.
Not to worry, say the entities funded by Gates (and also the Pentagon). Scientists working in the burgeoning field of synthetic biology are confident that they can “outdo” and outsmart nature using next-generation vaccine technologies such as gene transfer and self-assembling nanoparticles—along with invasive new vaccine delivery and record-keeping mechanisms such as smartphone-readable quantum dot tattoos. Does it matter that the researchers who have been experimenting with these approaches have never been able to overcome “nasty side effects”? Apparently not. Aided and abetted by the generous Gates and military funding, high-fanfare COVID-19 vaccine planning is proceeding apace.
Speed, not safety
From a manufacturing standpoint, vaccine makers—and particularly those making viral vaccines—have long chafed at the limitations of traditional vaccine technologies, which rely on processes that necessarily entail “a considerable lag time between antigen production and vaccine delivery.”
Abstract & Background
Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are developmental disorders affecting 1:88 children, and which appear to be associated with a variety of complex immune dysregulations including autoimmunity. The enzyme, alpha-N-acetylgalactosaminidase (Nagalase) deglycosylates serum Gc protein (vitamin D3 – binding protein) rendering it incapable of activating macrophage defenses. Increased Nagalase activity has been associated with a variety of malignancies, immune disorders, viral and bacterial infections.
Macrophage activating factor (GcMAF) has been repeatedly published as an intervention to lower serum Nagalase activity for a variety of cancer and HIV patients. GcMAF is a naturally occurring protein with well-established safety and therapeutic benefits supported by numerous human studies.
Initially, parents of 40 individuals with ASD sought testing for Nagalase serum activity as part of an evaluation of immune dysregulation. Nagalase enzyme activity measurement was performed by the European Laboratory of Nutrients (ELN), Bunnik, the Netherlands, using an end-point enzymatic assay of a chromogenic substrate. Some parents of patients with elevated Nagalase activity opted for weekly GcMAF injections. GcMAF is purified from human serum obtained from the American Red Cross using 25-hydroxyvitamin D3-Sepharose high affinity chromatography. The protein is then further diluted to obtain therapeutically appropriate levels for patients based on their clinical presentations.
Individuals with ASD (32 males and 8 females, n = 40, ages: 1 year 4 months – 21 years 2 months) had initial and post treatment assessment of Nagalase activity. Dosing of GcMAF was recommended based on previously reported response curves adjusted by the treating clinician for age, weight, and Nagalase levels. The average pre-treatment Nagalase activity of the autism group was 1.93 nmol/min/mg of substrate. This was well above the laboratory reported normal range of ,0.95 nmol/min/mg. For the ASD group the average level at the time of second testing was 1.03 nmol/min/mg, reflecting an average reduction of 0.90 nmol/min/mg (P , 0.0001). Apart from the likely immunological benefits of lowering the Nagalase activity of these individuals, uncontrolled observations of GcMAF therapy indicated substantial improvements in language, socialization and cognition. No significant side-effects were reported during the course of injections.
In this first report of Nagalase activity in patients with autism, it appears that most individuals have substantially higher levels than the expected healthy ranges. Although Nagalase is a nonspecific marker of immune dysregulation, its observed levels in autism may have both etiological and therapeutic significance. Importantly, this is also the first report of reduction of Nagalase activity in an autism population with GcMAF injections. …..
Note: github is owned by microsoft.
(Update: as is the norm for anything we seem to be posting on Hackernews lately, this post has been “flagged” after being upvoted rapidly enough to bounce onto the front page.)
It was an Imperial College computer model that forecasted 500K deaths in the UK (and 2.5 million in the US) should policymakers pursue a “herd immunity” approach (a la Sweden), that influenced them to reverse course and go full lockdown instead. The model was produced by a team headed by Neil Ferguson, (who recently resigned his post advising the UK government when it surfaced that he was himself violating lockdown directives by breaking self-isolation for dalliances with a married woman).
The source code behind the model was to be made available to the public, and after numerous delays and excuses in doing so, has finally been posted to GitHub
A code review has been undertaken by an anonymous ex-Google software engineer here, who tells us the GitHub repository code has been heavily massaged by Microsoft engineers, and others, in an effort to whip the code into shape to safely expose it to the pubic. Alas, they seem to have failed and numerous flaws and bugs from the original software persist in the released version. Requests for the unedited version of the original code behind the model have gone unanswered.
The most worrisome outcome of the review is that the code produces “non-deterministic outputs”
Non-deterministic outputs. Due to bugs, the code can produce very different results given identical inputs. They routinely act as if this is unimportant.
This problem makes the code unusable for scientific purposes, given that a key part of the scientific method is the ability to replicate results. Without replication, the findings might not be real at all – as the field of psychology has been finding out to its cost. Even if their original code was released, it’s apparent that the same numbers as in Report 9 might not come out of it.
The documentation proffers the rationalization that iterations of the model should be run and then differing results averaged together to produce a resultant model. However, any decent piece of software, especially one that is creating a model, should produce the same result if it is fed the same initial data, or “seed”. This code doesn’t.
“The documentation says:
The model is stochastic. Multiple runs with different seeds should be undertaken to see average behaviour.
“Stochastic” is just a scientific-sounding word for “random”. That’s not a problem if the randomness is intentional pseudo-randomness, i.e. the randomness is derived from a starting “seed” which is iterated to produce the random numbers. Such randomness is often used in Monte Carlo techniques. It’s safe because the seed can be recorded and the same (pseudo-)random numbers produced from it in future. Any kid who’s played Minecraft is familiar with pseudo-randomness because Minecraft gives you the seeds it uses to generate the random worlds, so by sharing seeds you can share worlds.
Clearly, the documentation wants us to think that, given a starting seed, the model will always produce the same results.
Investigation reveals the truth: the code produces critically different results, even for identical starting seeds and parameters.
In one instance, a team at the Edinburgh University attempted to modify the code so that they could store the data in tables that would make it more efficient to load and run. Performance issues aside, simply moving or optimizing where the input data comes from should have no effect on the output of processing, given the same input data. What the Edinburgh team found however, was this optimization produced a variation in the output, “the resulting predictions varied by around 80,000 deaths after 80 days” which is nearly 3X the total number of UK deaths to date.
Edinburgh reported the bug to Imperial, who dismissed it as “a small non-determinism” and told them the problem goes away if you run the code on a single CPU (which the reviewer notes “is as far away from supercomputing as one can get”).
Alas, the Edinburgh team found that software still produced different results if it was run on a single CPU. It shouldn’t, provided it is coded properly. Whether the software is run on a single CPU or multi-threaded, the only difference should be the speed at which the output is produced. Given the same input conditions, the outputs should be the same. It isn’t, and Imperial knew this.
Nonetheless, that’s how Imperial use the code: they know it breaks when they try to run it faster. It’s clear from reading the code that in 2014 Imperial tried to make the code use multiple CPUs to speed it up, but never made it work reliably. This sort of programming is known to be difficult and usually requires senior, experienced engineers to get good results. Results that randomly change from run to run are a common consequence of thread-safety bugs. More colloquially, these are known as “Heisenbugs“.
Another team even found that the output varied depending on what type of computer it was run on.
In issue #30, someone reports that the model produces different outputs depending on what kind of computer it’s run on (regardless of the number of CPUs). Again, the explanation is that although this new problem “will just add to the issues” … “This isn’t a problem running the model in full as it is stochastic anyway”.
The response illustrates the burning question: Why didn’t the Imperial College team realize their software was so flawed?
Because their code is so deeply riddled with similar bugs and they struggled so much to fix them that they got into the habit of simply averaging the results of multiple runs to cover it up… and eventually this behaviour became normalised within the team….
The mortality statistics for COVID 19 have been incessantly hammered into our heads by the mainstream media (MSM). Every day they report these hardest of facts to justify the lockdown (house arrest) and to prove to us that living in abject fear of the COVID 19 syndrome is the only sensible reaction.
Apparently, only the most lucrative vaccine ever devised can possibly save us.
The COVID 19 mortality statistics are the reason millions will undoubtedly download contact tracing (State surveillance) apps. This will help the vaccinated to secure their very own immunity passports (identity papers) and enable them to prove they are allowed to exist in the post-COVID 19 society, whenever the State demands to see their authorisation.
But how reliable are these statistics? What do they really tell us about what is happening outside the confines of our incarceration? Do they reveal the harsh reality of an unprecedented deadly virus sweeping the nation or does the story of how they have been manipulated, inflated, fudged and exploited tell us something else?…
Following the court decision in the US to award in favour of Dewayne Johnson (exposure to Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer and its active ingredient, glyphosate, caused Johnson to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma), attorney Robert Kennedy Jr said at the post-trial press conference:
The corruption of science, the falsification of science, and we saw all those things happen here. This is a company (Monsanto) that used all of the plays in the playbook developed over 60 years by the tobacco industry to escape the consequences of killing one of every five of its customers… Monsanto… has used those strategies…”
Johnson’s lawyers argued over the course of the month-long trial in 2018 that Monsanto had “fought science” for years and targeted academics who spoke up about possible health risks of the herbicide product.
Long before the Johnson case, critics of Monsanto were already aware of the practices the company had engaged in for decades to undermine science. At the same time, Monsanto and its lobbyists had called anyone who questioned the company’s ‘science’ as engaging in pseudoscience and labelled them ‘anti-science’.
We need look no further than the current coronavirus issue to understand how vested interests are set to profit by spinning the crisis a certain way and how questionable science is again being used to pursue policies that are essentially ‘unscientific’ – governments, the police and the corporate media have become the arbiters of ‘truth’.
We also see anyone challenging the policies and the ‘science’ being censored on social media or not being given a platform on TV and accused of engaging in ‘misinformation’. It’s the same old playbook.
The case-fatality ratio for COVID-19 is so low as to make the lockdown response wholly disproportionate. Yet we are asked to blindly accept government narratives and the policies based on them.
Making an entire country go home and stay home has immense, incalculable costs in terms of well-being and livelihoods. This itself has created a pervasive sense of panic and crisis and is largely a result of the measures taken against the ‘pandemic’ and not of the virus itself.
Certain epidemiologists have said there is very little sturdy evidence to base lockdown policies on, but this has not prevented politicians from acting as if everything they say or do is based on solid science.
The lockdown would not be merited if we were to genuinely adopt a knowledge-based approach. If we look at early projections by Neil Ferguson of Imperial College in the UK, he had grossly overstated the number of possible deaths resulting from the coronavirus and has now backtracked substantially.
Ferguson has a chequered track record, which led UK newspaper The Telegraph to run a piece entitled ‘How accurate was the science that led to lockdown?’ The article outlines Ferguson’s previous flawed predictions about infectious diseases and a number of experts raise serious questions about the modelling that led to lockdown in the UK.
Ferguson’s previous modelling for the spread of epidemics was so off the mark that it may beggar believe that anyone could have faith in anything he says, yet he remains part of the UK government’s scientific advisory group. Officials are now talking of ‘easing’ lockdowns, but Ferguson warns that lockdown in the UK will only be lifted once a vaccine for COVID-19 has been found.
It raises the question: when will Ferguson be held to account for his current and previously flawed work and his exaggerated predictions? Because, on the basis of his modelling, the UK has been in lockdown for many weeks, the results of which are taking a toll on the livelihoods and well-being of the population which are and will continue to far outweigh the effects of COVID-19.
According to a 1982 academic study, a 1% increase in the unemployment rate will be associated with 37,000 deaths [including 20,000 heart attacks, 920 suicides, 650 homicides], 4,000 state mental hospital admissions and 3,300 state prison admissions.
Consider that by 30 April, in the US alone, 30 million had filed for unemployment benefit since the lockdown began. Between 23 and 30 April, some 3.8 million filed for unemployment benefit. Prior to the current crisis, the unemployment rate was 3.5%. Some predict it could eventually reach 30%.
Ferguson – whose model was the basis for policies elsewhere in addition to the UK – is as much to blame as anyone for the current situation. And it is a situation that has been fuelled by a government and media promoted fear narrative that has had members of the public so afraid of the virus that many have been demanding further restrictions of their liberty by the state in order to ‘save’ them.
Even with the promise of easing the lockdown, people seem to be fearful of venturing out in the near future thanks to the fear campaign they have been subjected to.
Instead of encouraging more diverse, informed and objective opinions in the mainstream, we too often see money and power forcing the issue, not least in the form of Bill Gates who tells the world ‘normality’ may not return for another 18 months – until he and his close associates in the pharmaceuticals industry find a vaccine and we are all vaccinated….
Is this to be the new ‘normal’, whereby fear, mistrust, division and suspicion are internalized throughout society? In an age of fear and paranoia, are we all to be ‘contact traced’ and regarded by others as a ‘risk’ until we prove ourselves by wearing face masks and by voluntarily subjecting ourselves to virus tests at the entrances to stores or in airports?
And if we refuse or test positive, are we to be shamed, isolated and forced to comply by being ‘medicated’ (vaccinated and chipped)?
Is this the type of world that’s soon to be regarded as ‘normal’?
A world in which liberty and fundamental rights mean nothing. A world dominated by shaming and spurious notions of personal responsibility that are little more than ideological constructs of a hegemonic narrative which labels rational thinking people as ‘anti-science’ – a world in which the scourge of authoritarianism reigns supreme.