Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by Grizzly » Wed Jan 04, 2023 5:56 am
by stickdog99 » Wed Jan 04, 2023 4:47 pm
I looked at several other interviews with Goodall, and she consistently talks about family planning and education for girls to slow population growth.You misunderstood what she said, like you do every time someone famous uses the word "population". It's always genocide and a super secret plan to reduce the world's population, and they're always talking about it openly in short clips on Youtube or Twitter because they're evil and untouchable and taunting us poor peasants who can't do anything about it. It's the plot to a cheap airport thriller, not reality.
by DrEvil » Wed Jan 04, 2023 6:20 pm
stickdog99 » Wed Jan 04, 2023 10:47 pm wrote:I looked at several other interviews with Goodall, and she consistently talks about family planning and education for girls to slow population growth.You misunderstood what she said, like you do every time someone famous uses the word "population". It's always genocide and a super secret plan to reduce the world's population, and they're always talking about it openly in short clips on Youtube or Twitter because they're evil and untouchable and taunting us poor peasants who can't do anything about it. It's the plot to a cheap airport thriller, not reality.
Show me where I have ever done this before. Seriously. Show me just one other instance in which I falsely concluded a depopulation agenda by taking anyone's words out of context.
In this one case, you may have a point. But that's only because I find any WEF background triggering. And, frankly, I think hostile attribution bias is generally appropriate when it comes to interpreting the ambiguous motives of the WEF. Don't you?
by drstrangelove » Sat Jan 07, 2023 8:16 pm
by DrEvil » Sun Jan 08, 2023 4:54 pm
by drstrangelove » Sun Jan 08, 2023 8:19 pm
by DrEvil » Sun Jan 08, 2023 8:59 pm
by drstrangelove » Sun Jan 08, 2023 10:26 pm
DrEvil » Sun Jan 08, 2023 8:59 pm wrote:That could be the case, but my usual measuring stick for things like this is: can it be explained by stupidity and/or greed? If yes, that's almost always the case. There's almost never a grand plan, just competing interests that occasionally pull in the same direction, creating the illusion of collusion. People want meaning and patterns; they'd rather believe the world is purposely guided than believe there is no one in control and we're just stumbling along at random.
by parel » Sat Jan 14, 2023 5:40 pm
by drstrangelove » Sun Jan 15, 2023 12:58 am
parel » Sat Jan 14, 2023 5:40 pm wrote:When the products (Moderna and Pfizer) were tested (by DOD) they were not categorised as vaccines. They were classified as "counter-measures". This means, they did not have to meet the testing standards for safety and efficacy that pharmaceutical products normally would. I am not sure what military speak "countermeasures" mean, but isn't that something that responds to a threat from an enemy?
by Joe Hillshoist » Sun Jan 15, 2023 3:58 am
parel » 15 Jan 2023 07:40 wrote:Kia ora RI,
It has been a long time since i have posted here, but I do follow the threads from time to time. So Hiii and happy new year to all!
just wanted to throw my hat into the ring on this.
To address the issue of "why" they rolled out this toxic product and "how" it could have been coordinated so well, it might be useful to listen to podcast 124 from the Corona Investigative Committee where they interview Sasha Latypova, a former big pharma research and development executive. When this corona simulation started, she started to dig and found that the response originated with US Department of Defense as part of Operation Warp Speed. When the products (Moderna and Pfizer) were tested (by DOD) they were not categorised as vaccines. They were classified as "counter-measures". This means, they did not have to meet the testing standards for safety and efficacy that pharmaceutical products normally would. I am not sure what military speak "countermeasures" mean, but isn't that something that responds to a threat from an enemy?
https://odysee.com/@Corona-Investigativ ... a-Odysee:c
by parel » Mon Jan 16, 2023 3:20 am
At the Military Olympics, October 2019, Wuhan, China, Athletes Caught Covid
By Jeffrey A. TuckerJeffrey A. Tucker / June 18, 2022 / History, Media
SHARE | PRINT | EMAIL
It’s going to take far more than a few investigators to piece together the timeline of the great disaster of our times, much less figure out all the parties responsible. As an example, I’ve followed this as closely as anyone but one key date somehow eluded my radar until now.
It is the Military World Games held in Wuhan, China, 2019, drawing athletes from all over the world. In this high profile event, 9,308 athletes from 109 countries competed in 329 events in 27 sports. It is highly likely that Covid was already known to be there, a fact which destroys the timelines of many people on all sides of the issue.
So far there have been no deep investigations into the question. US personnel were never tested. But the fact of widespread sickness after the games was well known by everyone who was there, and this was true in most countries. Doctors examining patients at the time described it as a “bad cold” but the symptoms they reported are unmistakably Covid, of the most severe variety (“wild type”), lasting many weeks with long recovery periods.
This was months before Covid made the headlines, and long before Jeremy Farar and Anthony Fauci claimed to have been made aware of the virus (December 31, 2019). Until now, I’ve believed them. I’m beginning to doubt that.
If these games resulted in vast sickness on the part of so many, with unusual but similar symptoms, surely the possibility of a problem perhaps located in Wuhan would have been widely known in those circles.
Another telling sign that everyone noticed upon arrival in Wuhan in October: the city was empty. The highways had no cars. The retail shops were closed. No one was on the streets. For a city of 11 million, this was spooky. The CCP bragged that they had cleared out the city to make life special for the athletes but it was clearly a first sign of lockdown.
Why?
In a brief moment of journalism, the Washington Post actually ran a competent story by Josh Rogin on the topic in June of 2021, one that elicited no serious follow up. Here it is quoted at length.
The games in Wuhan were the largest in the event’s history, and the Chinese government went all out. The U.S. delegation came with 280 athletes and staff representing 17 sports, ranging from wrestling to golf. (Team USA brought home the bronze in the latter competition.)
During the two-week event, however, many of the international athletes noticed that something was amiss in the city of Wuhan. Some later described it as a “ghost town.”
As the covid-19 pandemic took hold worldwide in early 2020, athletes from several countries — including France, Germany, Italy and Luxembourg — claimed publicly they had contracted what they believed to be covid-19 at the games in Wuhan, based on their symptoms and how their illnesses spread to their loved ones. In Washington, military leaders either dismissed the idea out of hand or weren’t aware of it. Meanwhile, no one performed any antibody testing or disease tracing on these thousands of athletes. No one even attempted to find out whether the games in Wuhan was, in fact, the first international pandemic superspreader event.
If more evidence were discovered, it would add to the growing body of evidence that the virus was circulating in Wuhan as early as October 2019, months before the Chinese government acknowledged it to the rest of the world. U.S. intelligence reports have said that researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology were hospitalized with covid-like symptoms in November 2019. But U.S. officials have said they have other information suggesting that the outbreak began even earlier.
Nailing down the timeline of the pandemic’s origin is a crucial task….
These are some of the questions Gallagher is putting to the Pentagon. He noted that Robert Redfield, the former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has said he believes that the virus began spreading in Wuhan during September or October of 2019 and that more evidence has emerged that the virus was already present inside the United States by December 2019…
Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) wrote a separate letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra on this issue Tuesday, asking whether his department was aware of any U.S. athletes who fell ill after returning from Wuhan. He also wanted to know whether HHS was either looking into the issue or discussing it with the Defense Department.
Of course, there’s no way the U.S. government could have such evidence if they never tested the athletes in the first place. Five senior national security officials from the Trump administration told me that no one even thought to test the U.S. military athletes who returned from Wuhan. At that time, they noted, the conventional wisdom was that covid-19 had broken out in December 2019, not two months earlier.
The State Department’s only consideration of the Wuhan Military World Games came when the Chinese foreign ministry began citing the event in its own propaganda in March 2020. The Chinese asserted that U.S. Army personnel might have brought the virus to Wuhan from Fort Detrick in Frederick, Md., where the U.S. Army bioresearch program is based. That didn’t make sense because the first outbreak was in Wuhan, not Maryland. But the Trump team never took it any further than that.
“We were aware in the administration of the Chinese government’s misinformation campaign accusing the U.S. military of bringing covid to Wuhan at those games, which obviously we didn’t take seriously and didn’t consider to be a good-faith effort to get to the bottom of it,” David Feith, a former State Department official, told me. “To the extent there are now or there were all along credible reports of sick athletes from those games, we should certainly chase them down and learn more.”
Determining the timeline of the outbreak is crucial to understanding the origins of the pandemic — and to getting a clearer focus on the scope of the Chinese government’s coverup. The politics don’t matter. It’s a matter of national security and public health.
This same scenario was reported in a lengthy investigation into the virus’s origins conducted by the House Foreign Affairs Committee, resulting in a report issued August 2021.
The earliest report in English that I can find dates from May 17, 2020. “Inside the Games” reported that “More athletes have revealed that they fell ill during the Military World Games in October when the Chinese city of Wuhan hosted the event months before the COVID-19 outbreak.”
Now comes discussion and speculation. No question that many men and women at this October 2019 event became very sick. There was no serious follow up into why. All the symptoms point to Covid of the earliest and most severe sort. I spoke at length to one athlete who was there and his description fit perfectly. If this is true, the entire story of a December 27, 2019, wet-market transmission from animals to humans falls apart, and it raises serious questions about what China knew and when.
The other telling issue: if they knew much earlier, why did Fauci and Farrar not respond with openness and transparency?
If it was a lab leak dating from September 2019 – and we know for sure that they considered the possibility – why were there no efforts at all to get to work right away on therapeutics?
Why were the means by which people are actually made better from this sickness left to be discovered gradually and six months later by independent doctors on the front lines rather than being sponsored by the NIH?
Why were the vaccines with a protein-spike focus considered to be the only solution, with a clear bias in the direction of mRNA technology?
And perhaps the most important question of all: if this virus were known to exist this early, along with the suspicion that it traces to a Wuhan lab, one indirectly funded by the NIH via Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance, why were the American people not told about it?
To point a fine point on it, it feels like a coverup.
Of course all this raises serious questions about the Wuhan lockdown of January 2020. So let us speculate. Let’s say that the CCP knew from September 2019 about the lab leak but had every intention of suppressing the information, a decision about which Fauci/Farrar/Daszik would have approved. In late December and early January, some Chinese scientists began to spill the beans. They were arrested and possibly shot. But still, the word was out.
What to do if you are the CCP? Perhaps you would stage a discovery of the virus, film a series of fake films of people falling dead on the street, distribute those to social media, and film other videos of officials locking people into their apartments and otherwise stopping all activity and generally brutalizing people.
Then you declare victory over the virus thanks to totalitarian tactics.
We know that the CCP worked with the WHO to organize a Western junket to China to show how brilliantly they suppressed the virus. Fauci sent his deputy assistant. The World Health Organization produced a ridiculous report released on February 26, 2020, that claimed that the China way of virus suppression worked beautifully. The very next day, the New York Times flew into action with propaganda urging the US to lockdown.
Perhaps no government in the world is capable of a tactic this clever. And yet, what if the CCP had been cooperating with Fauci the entire time, all motivated by the desire to minimize the damage of the lab leak from a US-funded experiment, and thereby spent the better part of February lining up media to go along with the exportation of the China strategy to the West?
Yes, it all sounds too smart. And yet, on February 27, 2020, the New York Times did two things. First, they dedicated their daily podcast with a reach of millions to whipping up disease panic, thanks to a wild interview with the lead virus reporter Donald J. McNeil, who wrote the next day an op-ed urging a medieval-style policy response.
And that same day, February 27, 2020, the Times ran on its op-ed page an article announcing that a long-anticipated pathogen had arrived and that while we should take extreme action, the whole thing was inevitable. The author of the article: Peter Daszak of the NIH-funded EcoHealth Alliance that gave a grant to the Wuhan lab for gain-of-function research.
Of all the people on the planet earth who could have taken up op-ed real estate on that day, why Daszak?
Don’t bother looking for this article on the Time’s own rendering of the page that day. It does not appear there.
The case for deep investigations is obvious. That so many US military personnel became sick at a locked-down Wuhan event in October 2019 raises profound questions about the timeline, the source of the virus, and who knew what and when, and how a possible attempt to suppress the truth might have contributed to the spreading of a brutal policy the world over.
by Grizzly » Wed Jan 18, 2023 10:57 pm
by Grizzly » Thu Jan 19, 2023 7:48 am
by Elvis » Fri Jan 20, 2023 5:11 am
FTX and the Fall of Cryptocurrency with Robert Hockett
“The irony is that in every one of these cases, there is a clue in the name of the product in question that ought to warn you. If it's called a junk bond, there's a reason for that word "junk" being used.
And if it's called a sub prime mortgage loan or sub prime mortgage-based product, there's a reason for that “sub prime” term.
Similarly with cryptocurrency or crypto assets, one of the most ironical names ever conceived for this kind of product. If the word "crypto" comes into it, then that's a pretty good tip-off that there's something non-transparent about it, that there's something opaque and occluded and difficult to understand about it.”
Bob and Steve talk about the development of Central Bank Digital Currency, or CBDC, which will be as safe as a nation’s fiat currency—Bob likens it to the introduction of the greenback dollar in the 1800s.
Robert C. Hockett is an American lawyer, law professor, and policy advocate. He holds two positions at Cornell University and is senior counsel at investment firm Westwood Capital, LLC.
His latest book is The Citizens’ Ledger: Digitizing Our Money, Democratizing Our Future.
The Citizens' Ledger with Robert Hockett
Robert Hockett joins Steve to talk about his latest book, The Citizens’ Ledger: Digitizing Our Money, Democratizing Our Future. The episode is right at home in our archive of interviews around the topics of fintech, digital wallets, cryptocurrency, CBDCs, and privacy.
Just about everyone acknowledges that digital payment systems offer enormous convenience, but we’re equally aware they come with a cost – we lose all claim to privacy. Bob presents sound arguments for halting the private takeover of the public commons.
“If we think in terms of the commons ... you might say that what the private sector fintech industry is trying to do, and what the private sector crypto industry seems to be trying to do, is to displace actual physical cash; in effect to take away that commons and replace it with a bunch of proprietary fiefdoms.”
Cryptopians, as Bob calls them, are touting Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies as creating some kind of democratic new world of sovereign selfhood. This is patently absurd. Bob makes the case that we could develop a digital system – a digital wallet – with all the attractive attributes of cash, including privacy and universal accessibility.
Bob describes a way for individuals to pay, receive, and save, while completely bypassing private banks and financial institutions. He says it could be run by the Fed, the Treasury, or both. The Fed would have new monetary tools that directly benefit people instead of banks.
Steve and Bob discuss concerns about government overreach and consider the kinds of regulatory laws that would need to be in place.
As for privacy, well, do you have a smartphone with GPS? Are you making purchases online? Or with a credit card? It’s already too easy to peer into our lives. Unlike private entities, neither the Fed nor the Treasury are profiting from our transactions.
“Obviously it's like a never-ending quest to get our data protected and to prevent overreach by federal agencies ... But all I mean to say is that I don't think that introducing the system introduces new vulnerabilities that aren't already there.”
Robert C. Hockett is an American lawyer, law professor, and policy advocate. He holds two positions at Cornell University and is senior counsel at investment firm Westwood Capital, LLC. His latest book is The Citizens’ Ledger: Digitizing Our Money, Democratizing Our Future.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 151 guests