UPDATE 25. May 2020: YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS NEXT? - Just Check Out the Gameplans
UPDATE 17. May 2020: Bill Gates depopulation agenda and the hunger games are on track.
UPDATE 08. May 2020: Bill Gates’ Plan to Vaccinate the World
How Bill Gates Monopolized Global Health
By The Corbett Report - 01. May 2020
Who is Bill Gates?
A software developer? A businessman?
A philanthropist? A global health expert?
This question, once merely academic, is becoming a very real question for those who are beginning to realize that Gates’ unimaginable wealth has been used to gain control over every corner of the fields of public health, medical research and vaccine development.
And now that we are presented with the very problem that Gates has been talking about for years, we will soon find that this software developer with no medical training is going to leverage that wealth into control over the fates of billions of people.
For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.
For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).
BILL GATES: Hello. I’m Bill Gates, chairman of Microsoft. In this video you’re going to see the future.
Who is Bill Gates? A software developer? A businessman? A philanthropist? A global health expert?
This question, once merely academic, is becoming a very real question for those who are beginning to realize that Gates’ unimaginable wealth has been used to gain control over every corner of the fields of public health, medical research and vaccine development. And now that we are presented with the very problem that Gates has been talking about for years, we will soon find that this software developer with no medical training is going to leverage that wealth into control over the fates of billions of people.
GATES: [. . .] because until we get almost everybody vaccinated globally, we still won’t be fully back to normal.
Bill Gates is no public health expert. He is not a doctor, an epidemiologist or an infectious disease researcher. Yet somehow he has become a central figure in the lives of billions of people, presuming to dictate the medical actions that will be required for the world to go “back to normal.” The transformation of Bill Gates from computer kingpin to global health czar is as remarkable as it is instructive, and it tells us a great deal about where we are heading as the world plunges into a crisis the likes of which we have not seen before.
This is the story of How Bill Gates Monopolized Global Health.
You’re tuned into The Corbett Report.
Until his reinvention as a philanthropist in the past decade, this is what many people thought of when they thought of Bill Gates:
NARRATOR: In the case of the United States vs Microsoft, the US Justice Department contended that the software giant had breached antitrust laws by competing unfairly against Netscape Communications in the internet browser market, effectively creating a monopoly. Bill’s first concern was that the prosecution could potentially block the release of his company’s latest operating system, Windows 98.
GATES: Are you asking me about when I wrote this e-mail or what are you asking me about?
DAVID BOIES: I’m asking you about January of 1996.
GATES: That month?
BOIES: Yes, sir.
GATES: And what about it?
BOIES: What non-Microsoft browsers were you concerned about in January of 96?
GATES: I don’t know what you mean, “concerned.”
BOIES: What is it about the word concerned that you don’t understand?
GATES: I’m not sure what you mean by it.
SOURCE: Bill Gates Deposition
STEVE JOBS: We’re going to be working together on Microsoft Office on Internet Explorer on Java and I think that it’s going to lead to a very healthy relationship. So it’s a package announcement today. We’re very, very happy about it, we’re very very excited about it. And I happen to have a special guest with me today via satellite downlink, and if we could get him up on the stage right now.
[BILL GATES APPEARS, CROWD BOOS]
DAN RATHER: Police and security guards in Belgium were caught flat-footed today by a cowardly sneak attack on one of the world’s wealthiest men. The target was Microsoft chairman Bill Gates, arriving for a meeting with community leaders. Watch what happens when a team of hitmen meet him first with a pie in the face.
[GATES HIT IN THE FACE WITH PIE]
RATHER: Gates was momentarily and understand to be shaken but he was not injured. The hit squad piled on with two more pies before one of them was wrestled to the ground and arrested, the others at least for the moment got away. Gates went inside, wiped his face clean, and made no comment. He then went ahead with his scheduled meeting. No word on the motive for this attack.
SOURCE: Bill Gates Pie in Face
But, once reviled for the massive wealth and the monopolistic power that his virus-laden software afforded him, Gates is now hailed as a visionary who is leveraging that wealth and power for the greater good of humanity.
KLAUS SCHWAB: If in the 22nd century a book will be written about the entrepreneur of the 21st century [. . .] I’m sure that the person who will foremost come to the mind of those historians is certainly Bill Gates. [applause]
ANDREW ROSS SORKIN: I don’t think it’s hyperbole to say that Bill Gates is singularly—I would argue—the most consequential individual of our generation. I mean that.
ELLEN DEGENERES: Our next guest is one of the richest and most generous men in the world. Please welcome Bill Gates.
JUDY WOODRUFF: At a time when everyone is looking to understand the scope of the pandemic and how to minimize the threat, one of the best informed voices is that of businessman and philanthropist Bill Gates.
The process by which this reinvention of Gates’ public image took place is not mysterious. It’s the same process by which every billionaire has revived their public image since John D. Rockefeller hired Ivy Ledbetter Lee to transform him from the head of the Standard Oil Hydra into the kind old man handing out dimes to strangers.
MAN OFF CAMERA: Don’t you give dimes, Mr. Rockefeller? Please, go ahead.
WOMAN: Thank you, sir.
MAN: Thank you very much.
ROCKEFELLER: Thank you for the ride!
MAN: I consider myself more than amply paid.
ROCKEFELLER: Bless you! Bless you! Bless you!
More to the point, John D. Rockefeller knew that to gain the adoration of the public, he had to appear to give them what they want: money. He devoted hundreds of millions of dollars of his vast oil monopoly fortune to establishing institutions that, he claimed, were for the public good. The General Education Board. The Rockefeller Institute of Medical Research. The Rockefeller Foundation.
Similarly, Bill Gates has spent much of the past two decades transforming himself from software magnate into a benefactor of humanity through his own Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. In fact, Gates has surpassed Rockefeller’s legacy with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation long having eclipsed The Rockefeller Foundation as the largest private foundation in the world, with $46.8 billion of assets on its books that it wields in its stated program areas of global health and development, global growth, and global policy advocacy.
And, like Rockefeller, Gates’ transformation has been helped along by a well-funded public relations campaign. Gone are the theatrical tricks of the PR pioneers—the ubiquitous ice cream cones of Gates’ mentor Warren Buffett are the last remaining hold-out of the old Rockefeller-handing-out-dimes gimmick. No, Gates has guided his public image into that of a modern-day saint through an even simpler tactic: buying good publicity.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation spends tens of millions of dollars per year on media partnerships, sponsoring coverage of its program areas across the board. Gates funds The Guardian‘s Global Development website. Gates funds NPR’s global health coverage. Gates funds the Our World in Data website that is tracking the latest statistics and research on the coronavirus pandemic. Gates funds BBC coverage of global health and development issues, both through its BBC Media Action organization and the BBC itself. Gates funds world health coverage on ABC News.
When the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer was given a $3.5 million Gates foundation grant to set up a special unit to report on global health issues, NewsHour communications chief Rob Flynn was asked about the potential conflict of interest that such a unit would have in reporting on issues that the Gates Foundation is itself involved in. “In some regards I guess you might say that there are not a heck of a lot of things you could touch in global health these days that would not have some kind of Gates tentacle,” Flynn responded.
Indeed, it would be almost possible to find any area of global health that has been left untouched by the tentacles of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
It was Gates who sponsored the meeting that led to the creation of Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance, a global public-private partnership bringing together state sponsors and big pharmaceutical companies whose specific goals include the creation of “healthy markets for vaccines and other immunisation products.” As a founding partner of the alliance, the Gates Foundation provided $750 million in seed funding and has gone on to make over $4.1 billion in commitments to the group.
Gates provided the seed money that created The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, a public-private partnership that acts as a finance vehicle for governmental AIDS, TB, and malaria programs.
When a public-private partnership of governments, world health bodies and 13 leading pharmaceutical companies came together in 2012 “to accelerate progress toward eliminating or controlling 10 neglected tropical diseases,” there was the Gates Foundation with $363 million of support.
When The Global Financing Facility for Women, Children and Adolescents was launched in 2015 to leverage billions of dollars in public and private financing for global health and development programs, there was the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as a founding partner with a $275 million contribution.
When the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations was launched at the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2017 to develop vaccines against emerging infectious diseases, there was the Gates Foundation with an initial injection of $100 million.
The examples go on and on. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s fingerprints can be seen on every major global health initiative of the past two decades. And beyond the flashy, billion-dollar global partnerships, the Foundation is behind hundreds of smaller country and region-specific grants—$10 million to combat a locus infestation in East Africa, or $300 million to support agricultural research in Africa and Asia—that add up to billions of dollars in commitments.
It comes as no surprise, then, that—far beyond the $250 million that the Gates Foundation has pledged to the “fight” against coronavirus—every aspect of the current coronavirus pandemic involves organizations, groups and individuals with direct ties to Gates funding.
From the start, the World Health Organization has directed the global response to the current pandemic. From its initial monitoring of the outbreak in Wuhan and its declaration in January that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission to its live media briefings and its technical guidance on country-level planning and other matters, the WHO has been the body setting the guidelines and recommendations shaping the global response to this outbreak.
But even the World Health Organization itself is largely reliant on funds from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The WHO’S most recent donor report shows that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the organization’s second-largest donor behind the United States government. The Gates Foundation single-handedly contributes more to the world health body than Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Russia and the UK combined.
What’s more, current World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus is in fact, like Bill Gates himself, not a medical doctor at all, but the controversial ex-Minister of Health of Ethiopia, who was accused of covering up three cholera outbreaks in the country during his tenure. Before joining the WHO he served as chair of the Gates-founded Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and sat on the board of the Gates-founded Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and the Gates-funded Stop TB Partnership.
The current round of lockdowns and restrictive stay-home orders in western countries were enacted on the back of alarming models predicting millions of deaths in the United States and hundreds of thousands in the UK.
HAYLEY MINOGUE: Imperial College in London released a COVID-19 report and that’s where most of our US leaders are getting the information they’re basing their decision making on.
[. . .]
The report runs us through a few different ways this could turn out depending on what our responses are. If we don’t do anything to control this virus, over 80% of people in the US would be infected over the course of the epidemic, with 2.2 million deaths from Covid-19.
BORIS JOHNSON: From this evening I must give the British people a very simple instruction: you must stay at home.
JUSTIN TRUDEAU: Enough is enough. Go home and stay home.
GAVIN NEWSOM: . . . a statewide order for people to stay at home
The work of two research groups was crucial in shaping the decision of the UK and US governments to implement wide-ranging lockdowns, and, in turn, governments around the world. The first group, the Imperial College Covid-19 Research Team, issued a report on March 16th that predicted up to 500,000 deaths in the UK and 2.2 million deaths in the US unless strict government measures were put in place.
The second group, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation in Bill Gates’ home state of Washington, helped provide data that corroborated the White House’s initial estimates of the virus’ effects, estimates that have been repeatedly downgraded as the situation has progressed.
Unsurprisingly, the Gates Foundation has injected substantial sums of money into both groups. This year alone, the Gates Foundation has already given $79 million to Imperial College, and in 2017 the Foundation announced a $279 million investment into the IHME to expand its work collecting health data and creating models.
Anthony Fauci, meanwhile, has become the face of the US government’s coronavirus response, echoing Bill Gates’ assertion that the country will not “get back to normal” until “a good vaccine” can be found to insure the public’s safety.
ANTHONY FAUCI: If you want to get to pre-coronavirus . . . You know, that might not ever happen, in the sense of the fact that the threat is there. But I believe with the therapies that will be coming online, and with the fact that I feel confident that over a period of time we will get a good vaccine, that we will never have to get back to where we are right back now.
Beyond just their frequent collaborations and cooperation in the past, Fauci has direct ties to Gates projects and funding. In 2010, he was appointed to the Leadership Council of the Gates-founded “Decade of Vaccines” project to implement a Global Vaccine Action Plan, a project to which Gates committed $10 billion of funding. And in October of last year, just as the current pandemic was beginning, the Gates Foundation announced a $100 million contribution to the National Institute of Health to help, among other programs, Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ research into HIV.
Also in October of last year, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation partnered with the World Economic Forum and The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security to stage Event 201, a tabletop exercise gauging the economic and societal impact of a globally-spreading coronavirus pandemic.
NARRATOR: It began in healthy-looking pigs months, perhaps years, ago: a new coronavirus.
ANITA CICERO: The mission of the pandemic emergency board is to provide recommendations to deal with the major global challenges arising in response to an unfolding pandemic. The board is comprised of highly experienced leaders from business Public Health and civil society.
TOM INGLESBY: We’re at the start of what’s looking like it will be a severe pandemic and there are problems emerging that can only be solved by global business and governments working together.
STEPHEN REDD: Governments need to be willing to do things that are out of their historical perspective, or . . . for the most part. It’s really a war footing that we need to be on.
Given the incredible reach that the tentacles of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have into every corner of the global health markets, it should not be surprising that the foundation has been intimately involved with every stage of the current pandemic crisis, either. In effect, Gates has merely used the wealth from his domination of the software market to leverage himself into a similar position in the world of global health.
The whole process has been cloaked in the mantle of selfless philanthropy, but the foundation is not structured as a charitable endeavour. Instead, it maintains a dual structure: the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation distributes money to grantees, but a separate entity, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust, manages the endowment assets. These two entities often have overlapping interests, and, as has been noted many times in the past, grants given by the foundation often directly benefit the value of the trust’s assets:
MELINDA GATES: One of my favorite parts of my job at the Gates Foundation is that I get to travel to the developing world, and I do that quite regularly.
[. . .]
My first trip in India, I was in a person’s home where they had dirt floors, no running water, no electricity, and that’s really what I see all over the world. So in short, I’m startled by all the things that they don’t have. But I am surprised by one thing that they do have: Coca-Cola. Coke is everywhere. In fact, when I travel to the developing world, Coke feels ubiquitous.
And so when I come back from these trips, and I’m thinking about development, and I’m flying home and I’m thinking, we’re trying to deliver condoms to people or vaccinations, you know? Coke’s success kind of stops and makes you wonder: How is it that they can get Coke to these far-flung places? If they can do that, why can’t governments and NGOs do the same thing?
AMY GOODMAN: And the charity of billionaire Microsoft founder Bill Gates and his wife Melinda is under criticism following the disclosure it’s substantially increased its holdings in the agribusiness giant Monsanto to over $23 million. Critics say the investment in Monsanto contradicts the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s stated commitment to helping farmers and sustainable development in Africa.
LAURENCE LEE: The study from the pressure group Global Justice now paints a picture of the Gates Foundation partly as an expression of corporate America’s desire to profit from Africa, and partly a damning critique of its effects.
POLLY JONES: You could have a case where the initial research is done by a Gates-funded institution. And the media reporting on how well that research is conducted is done, the media outlet is a Gates-funded outlet, or maybe a Gates-funded journalist from a media program. And then the program is implemented more widely by a Gates-funded NGO. I mean . . . There are some very insular circles here.
LEE: Among the many criticisms, the idea that private finance can solve the problems of the developing world. Should poor farmers be trapped into debt by having to use chemicals or fertilizers under written by offshoot of the foundation?
This is no mere theoretical conflict of interest. Gates is held up as a hero for donating $35.8 billion worth of his Microsoft stock to the foundation, but during the course of his “Decade of Vaccines,” Gates’ net worth has actually doubled, from $54 billion to $103.1 billion.
The Rockefeller story provides an instructive template for this vision of tycoon-turned-philanthropist. When Rockefeller faced a public backlash, he helped spearhead the creation of a system of private foundations that connected in with his business interests. Leveraging his unprecedented oil monopoly fortune into unprecedented control over wide swathes of public life, Rockefeller was able to kill two birds with one stone: moulding society in his families’ own interests even as he became a beloved figure in the public imagination.
Similarly, Bill Gates has leveraged his software empire into a global health, development and education empire, steering the course of investment and research and ensuring healthy markets for vaccines and other immunisation products. And, like Rockefeller, Gates has been transformed from the feared and reviled head of a formidable hydra into a kindly old man generously giving his wealth back to the public.
But not everyone has been taken in by this PR trick. Even The Lancet observed this worrying transformation from software monopolist to health monopolist back in 2009, when the extent of this Gates-led monopoly was becoming apparent to all:
The first guiding principle of the [Bill & Melinda Gates] Foundation is that it is “driven by the interests and passions of the Gates family.” An annual letter from Bill Gates summarises those passions, referring to newspaper articles, books, and chance events that have shaped the Foundation’s strategy. For such a large and influential investor in global health, is such a whimsical governance principle good enough?
This brings us back to the question: Who is Bill Gates? What are his driving interests? What motivates his decisions?
These are not academic questions. Gates’ decisions have controlled the flows of billions of dollars, formed international partnerships pursuing wide-ranging agendas, ensured the creation of “healthy markets” for big pharma vaccine manufacturers. And now, as we are seeing, his decisions are shaping the entire global response to the coronavirus pandemic.
Next week, we will further explore Gates’ vaccination initiatives, the business interests behind them, and the larger agenda that is beginning to take shape as we enter the “new normal” of the Covid-19 crisis.
Bill Gates’ Plan to Vaccinate the World
By The Corbett Report - 08. May 2020
POPPY HARLOW: Ten billion dollars. I mean, just speak about the magnitude of that. That is by far the biggest commitment of the foundation, isn’t it, Bill? I mean this is by far the largest.
BILL GATES: That’s right, we’ve been spending a lot on vaccines. With this commitment, over eight million additional lives will be saved. So it’s one of the most effective ways that health in the poorest countries can be dramatically improved.
In January of 2010, Bill and Melinda Gates used the World Economic Forum at Davos to announce a staggering $10 billion commitment to research and develop vaccines for the world’s poorest countries, kicking off what he called a “decade of vaccines.”
GATES: Today we’re announcing a commitment over this next decade, which we think of as a decade of vaccines having incredible impact. We’re announcing that we’ll spend over $10 billion on vaccines.
Hailed by the Gates-funded media . . .
HARI SREENIVASAN: For the record, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a NewsHour underwriter.
. . . and applauded by the pharmaceutical companies who stood to reap the benefits of that largesse, the record-setting commitment made waves in the international community, helping to underwrite a Global Vaccine Action Plan coordinated by the Gates-funded World Health Organization.
But contrary to Gates’ own PR spin that this $10 billion pledge was an unalloyed good and would save 8 million lives, the truth is that this attempt to reorient the global health economy was part of a much bigger agenda. An agenda that would ultimately lead to greater profits for big pharma companies, greater control for the Gates Foundation over the field of global health, and greater power for Bill Gates to shape the course of the future for billions of people around the planet.
This is Bill Gates’ Plan to Vaccinate the World.
You’re tuned into The Corbett Report.
Given Gates’ pledge to make this a “Decade of Vaccines,” it should come as no surprise that, since the dawn of this coronavirus crisis, he has been adamant that the world will not go back to normal until a vaccine has been developed.
GATES: We’re gonna have this intermediate period of opening up, and it won’t be normal until we get an amazing vaccine to the entire world.
GATES: The vaccine is critical, because, until you have that, things aren’t really going to be normal. They can open up to some degree, but the risk of a rebound will be there until we have very broad vaccination.
GATES: They won’t be back to normal until we either have that phenomenal vaccine or a therapeutic that’s like over 95% effective. And so we have to assume that’s going to be almost 18 months from now.
GATES: And then the final solution—which is a year or two years off—is the vaccine.
COLBERT: Just to head off the conspiracy theorists, maybe we shouldn’t call the vaccine “the final solution.”
GATES: Good point.
COLBERT: Maybe just “the best solution.”
More interestingly, since Gates began delivering this same talking point in every one of his many media appearances of late, it has been picked up and repeated by heads of state, health officials, doctors and media talking heads, right down to the scientifically arbitrary but very specific 18-month time frame.
ZEKE EMANUEL: Realistically, COVID-19 will be here for the next 18 months or more. We will not be able to return to normalcy until we find a vaccine or effective medications.
DOUG FORD: The hard fact is, until we have a vaccine, going back to normal means putting lives at risk.
JUSTIN TRUDEAU: This will be the new normal until a vaccine is developed.
NORMAN SWAN: The only thing that will really allow life as we once knew it to resume is a vaccine.
DONALD TRUMP: Obviously, we continue to work on the vaccines, but the vaccines have to be down the road by probably 14, 15, 16 months. We’re doing great on the vaccines.
The fact that so many heads of state, health ministers and media commentators are dutifully echoing Gates’ pronouncement about the need for a vaccine will not be surprising to those who saw last week’s exploration of How Bill Gates Monopolized Global Health. As we have seen, the Gates Foundation’s tentacles have penetrated into every corner of the field of public health. Billions of dollars in funding and entire public policy agendas are under the control of this man, an unelected, unaccountable software developer with no medical research experience or training.
And nowhere is Gates’ control of global public health more apparent than in the realm of vaccines.
Gates launched the Decade of Vaccines with a $10 billion pledge.
Gates helped found Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, aiming to develop “healthy markets” for vaccine manufacturers.
Gates helped launch Gavi with a $1 billion donation in 2011, going on to contribute $4.1 billion over the course of the Decade of Vaccines.
GATES: And so I’m pleased to announce to you that we’re pledging an additional billion dollars—
GATES: Thank you.
GATES: Alright, thank you. It’s not everyday we give away a billion dollars.
SOURCE: Gates’ mammoth vaccine pledge
One of the Gates Foundation’s core funding areas is “vaccine development and surveillance,” which has resulted in the channeling of billions of dollars into vaccine development, a seat at the table to develop vaccination campaigns in countries around the globe, and the opportunity to shape public thinking around Bill Gates’ pet project of the past five years: preparing rapid development and deployment of vaccines in the event of a globally-spreading pandemic.
GATES: If anything kills over 10 million people in the next few decades, it’s most likely to be a highly infectious virus.
GATES: Whether it occurs by a quirk of nature or at the hand of a terrorist, epidemiologists show through their models that a respiratory spread pathogen would kill more than 30 million people in less than a year and there is a reasonable probability of that taking place in the years ahead.
BABITA SHARMA: Many high-profile personalities have been meeting at this week’s World Economic Forum in Davos, which aims to discuss the globe’s most pressing issues. Amongst them is Microsoft founder Bill Gates, whose foundation is investing millions in the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations to help combat infectious diseases. Here’s some of what he had to say about his push to develop new vaccines.
SOURCE: BBC Newsday January 19, 2017
GATES: Unfortunately, it takes many years to do a completely new vaccine. The design, the safety review, the manufacturing; all those things mean that an epidemic can be very widespread before that tool would come along. And so after ebola the global health community talked a lot about this, including a new type of vaccine platform called DNA/RNA that should speed things along.
And so this Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Initiative [sic], CEPI, is three countries—Japan, Norway, Germany—and two foundations—Wellcome Trust, [who] we work with on a lot of things, and our foundation, the Gates Foundation—coming together to fund . . . actually trying to use that platform and make some vaccines. And so that would help us in the future.
NARRATORS: We know vaccines can protect us. We just need to be better prepared. So let’s come together, let’s research and invest. Let’s save lives. Let’s outsmart epidemics.
SOURCE: Let’s #OutsmartEpidemics
Given Gates’ mammoth investment in vaccines over the past decade, his insistence that . . .
GATES: Things won’t go back to truly normal until we have a vaccine that we’ve gotten out to basically the entire world.
. . . is hardly surprising.
What should be surprising is that this strangely specific and continuously repeated message—that we will not go “back to normal” until we get a vaccine in 18 months—has no scientific basis whatsoever. Medical researchers have already conceded that a vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 may not even be possible, pointing to the inability of researchers to develop any kind of immunization against previous coronavirus outbreaks, like SARS or MERS.
But even if such a vaccine were possible, serious concerns remain about the safety of developing, testing and delivering such an “amazing vaccine” to “the entire world” in this remarkably short timeframe. Even proponents of vaccine development openly worry that the rush to vaccinate billions of people with a largely untested, experimental coronavirus vaccine will itself present grave risks to the public.
One of these risks involves “disease enhancement.” It has been known for over a decade that vaccination for some viral infections—including coronaviruses—actually enhances susceptibility to viral infection or even causes infections in healthy vaccine recipients.
ANTHONY FAUCI: Now, the issue of safety. Something that I want to make sure the American public understand: It’s not only safety when you inject somebody and they get maybe an idiosyncratic reaction, they get a little allergic reaction, they get pain. There’s safety associated. “Does the vaccine make you worse?” And there are diseases in which you vaccinate someone, they get infected with what you’re trying to protect them with, and you actually enhance the infection.
This is no mere theoretical risk. As researchers who were trying to develop a vaccine for the original SARS outbreak discovered, the vaccine actually made the lab animals subjected to it more susceptible to the disease.
PETER HOTEZ: One of the things we are not hearing a lot about is potential safety problems of coronavirus vaccines. This was first found in the 1960s with Respiratory Syncytial Virus vaccines done in Washington with the NIH and Children’s National Medical Center. Some of those kids who got the vaccine actually did worse, and I believe there were two deaths as a consequence of that study. Because what happens with certain types of respiratory virus vaccines, you get immunized and then when you get actually exposed to the virus you get this kind of paradoxical immune enhancement phenomenon and what—and we we don’t entirely understand the basis of it. But we recognize that it’s a real problem for certain respiratory virus vaccines. That killed the RSV program for decades. Now the Gates Foundation is taking it up again. But when we started developing coronavirus vaccines—and our colleagues—we noticed in laboratory animals that they started to show some of the same immune pathology that resembled what had happened 50 years earlier.
This specific issue regarding coronavirus vaccines is exacerbated by the arbitrary and unscientific 18-month timeframe that Gates is inisisting on for the vaccine’s development. In order to meet that deadline, vaccine developers are being urged to use new and largely unproven methods for creating their experimental immunizations, including DNA and mRNA vaccines.
KELLY O’DONNELL: For a self-described wartime president victory over COVID-19 equals a vaccine.
TRUMP: I hope we can have a vaccine and we’re going to fast-track it like you’ve never seen before.
O’DONNELL: Adding Trump-style branding, the administration launched “Operation Warp Speed,” a multi-billion dollar research and manufacturing effort to shorten the typical year-plus vaccine development timeline.
ANTHONY FAUCI: We’re gonna start ramping up production with the companies involved, and you do that at risk. In other words, you don’t wait until you get an answer before you start manufacturing. You at risk proactively start making it, assuming it’s going to work.
BECKY QUICK: You’re thinking 18 months even with all the work that you’ve already done to this point and the planning that you are taking with lots of different potential vaccinations and building up for that now
GATES: Yeah, so the there’s an approach called RNA vaccine that people like Moderna, CureVac and others are using that in 2015 we identified that is very promising for pandemics and for other applications as well. And so if everything goes perfectly with the RNA approach we could actually beat the 18 months. We don’t want to create unrealistic expectations.
RHIJU DAS: So the concept of an RNA vaccine is: Let’s inject the RNA molecule that encodes for the spike protein.
ANGELA RASMUSSEN: It’s making your cell effectively do the work of creating this viral protein that is going to be recognized by your immune system and trigger the development of these antibodies.
DAS: Our bodies won’t make a full-fledged infectious virus. They’ll just make a little piece and then learn to recognize it and then get ready to destroy the virus if it then later comes and invades us.
[. . .]
DAS: It’s a relatively new, unproven technology. And there’s still no example of an RNA vaccine that’s been deployed worldwide in the way that we need for the coronavirus.
RASMUSSEN: There is the possibility for unforeseen, adverse effects.
AKIKO IWASAKI: So this is all new territory. Whether it would elicit protective, robust immune response against this virus is just unknown right now.
Rushing at “Warp Speed” to develop a new vaccine using experimental technology and then mass producing and delivering billions of doses to be injected into “basically the entire world” before adequate testing is even done amounts to one of the most dangerous experiments in the history of the world, one that could alter the lives of untold numbers of people.
That an experimental vaccine—developed in a brand new way and rushed through with a special, shortened testing regime—should be given to adults, children, pregnant women, newborn babies, and the elderly alike, would be, in any other situation, unthinkable. To suggest that such a vaccine should be given to the entire planet would have been called lunacy mere months ago. But now the public is being asked to accept this premise without question.
Even Gates himself acknowledges the inherent risks of such a project. But his concern is not for the lives that will be irrevocably altered in the event that the vaccines cause damage to the population. Instead, he is more concerned that the pharmaceutical companies and the researchers are given legal immunity for any such damage.
GATES: You know, if we have you know, one in 10,000 side effects, that’s, you know, way more, 700,000, you know, people who will suffer from that. So really understanding the safety at gigantic scale across all age ranges—you know, pregnant, male, female, undernourished, existing comorbidities—it’s very very hard. And that actual decision of, “OK, let’s go and give this vaccine to the entire world,” governments will have to be involved because there will be some risk and indemnification needed before that can be decided on.
As we have already seen, in the arena of global health, what Bill Gates wants is what the world gets. So it should be no surprise that immunity for the Big Pharma vaccine manufacturers and the vaccination program planners is already being worked on.
In the US, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a declaration that retroactively provides “liability immunity for activities related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19,” including manufacturers, distributors and program planners of “any vaccine, used to treat, diagnose, cure, prevent, or mitigate COVID-19.” The declaration was issued on March 17th but retroactively covers any activity back to February 4, 2020, the day before the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation announced an emergency $100 million to fund treatment efforts and to develop new vaccines for COVID-19.
The plan to inject everyone on the planet with an experimental vaccine is no aberration in Bill Gates’ envisioned “Decade of Vaccines.” It is its culmination.
The Decade of Vaccines kicked off with a Gates-funded $3.6 million observational study of HPV vaccines in India that, according to a government investigation, violated the human rights of the study participants with “gross violations” of consent, and failed to properly report adverse events experienced by the vaccine recipients. After the deaths of seven girls involved in the trial were reported, a parliamentary investigation concluded that the Gates-funded Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH), which ran the study, had been engaged in a scheme to help ensure “healthy markets” for GlaxoSmithKline and Merck, the manufacturers of the Gardasil and Cervarix vaccines that had been so generously donated for use in the trial:
“Had PATH been successful in getting the HPV vaccine included in the universal immunization program of the concerned countries, this would have generated windfall profit for the manufacturer(s) by way of automatic sale, year after year, without any promotional or marketing expenses. It is well known that once introduced into the immunization program it becomes politically impossible to stop any vaccination.”
Chandra M. Gulhati, editor of the influential Monthly Index of Medical Specialities, remarked that “It is shocking to see how an American organization used surreptitious methods to establish itself in India” and Samiran Nundy, editor emeritus of the National Medical Journal of India lamented that “This is an obvious case where Indians were being used as guinea pigs.”
Throughout the decade, India’s concerns about the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and its corporate partners’ influence on the country’s national immunization programs grew. In 2016, the steering group of the country’s National Health Mission blasted the government for allowing the country’s National Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation—the primary body advising the government on all vaccination-related matters—to be effectively purchased by the Gates Foundation.
As one steering group member noted: “The NTAGI secretariat has been moved out of the [government’s health] ministry to the office of Public Health Foundation of India and the 32 staff members in that secretariat draw their salaries from the BMGF. There is a clear conflict of interest—on one hand, the BMGF funds the secretariat that is the highest decision making body in vaccines and, on the other, it partners the pharma industry in GAVI. This is unacceptable.”
In 2017, the government responded by cutting all financial ties between the advisory group and the Gates Foundation.
Similar stories play out across the Gates Foundation’s Decade of Vaccines.
There’s the Gates-founded and funded Meningitis Vaccine Project, which led to the creation and testing of MenAfriVac, a $0.50 per dose immunization against meningococcal meningitis. The tests led to reports of between 40 and 500 children suffering seizures and convulsions and eventually becoming paralyzed.
There’s the 2017 confirmation that the Gates-supported oral polio vaccine was actually responsible for the majority of new polio cases, and the 2018 follow up showing that 80% of polio cases are now vaccine-derived.
There’s the 2018 paper in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health concluding that over 490,000 people in India developed paralysis as a result of the oral polio vaccine between 2000 and 2017.
There’s even the WHO’s own malaria chief, Dr. Arata Kochi, who complained in an internal memo that Gates’ influence meant that the world’s leading malaria scientists are now “locked up in a ‘cartel’ with their own research funding being linked to those of others within the group,” and that the foundation “was stifling debate on the best ways to treat and combat malaria, prioritizing only those methods that relied on new technology or developing new drugs.”
Kochi’s complaint, written in 2008, highlights the most common criticism of the global health web that Gates has spun in the past two decades: That the public health industry has become a racket run by and for Big Pharma and its partners for the benefit of big business.
At the time that Kochi was writing his memo, the executive director of the Gates Foundation’s Global Health program was Tachi Yamada. Yamada left his position as Chairman of Research and Development at GlaxoSmithKline to take up the position at the Gates Foundation in 2006, and left the foundation five years later to become Chief Medical and Scientific Officer at Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Yamada’s replacement as head of Gates’ Global health program, Trevor Mundel was himself a clinical researcher at Pfizer and Parke-Davis and spent time as head of development with Novartis before joining the foundation.
This use of foundation funds to set public policy to drive up corporate profits is not a secret conspiracy. It is a perfectly open one.
When the Center for Global Development formed a working group to “develop a practical approach to the vaccine challenge,” they concluded that the best way to incentivize pharmaceutical companies to produce more vaccines for the third world was for governments to promise to buy vaccines before they were even developed. They titled their report “Making Markets for Vaccines.”
ALICE ALBRIGHT: The project “Making Markets for Vaccines” was really designed to address a problem that’s existed for a long time, which is insufficient research and development budgets as well as investment capacity in vaccine development and production for the third world. How do you create better incentives to get the pharma community—the vaccine community—to produce products that are specifically dedicated for the developing world.
RUTH LEVINE: Michael Kramer, a professor at Harvard, had been thinking about this problem for many years.
OWEN BARDER: He realized that if the rich countries of the world were to make a promise that they would buy a malaria vaccine if somebody produced it, that would give an incentive to the pharmaceutical industry to go and do the research and development needed to make one. But this idea was unfamiliar. No government had made a commitment to buy a product that didn’t already exist.
SOURCE: Making Markets for Vaccines
When the first such “Advanced Market Commitment” was made in 2007—a $1.5 billion promise to buy yet-to-be-produced vaccines from Big Pharma manufacturers—there was the Gates Foundation as the only non-nation sponsor.
The Gates-founded Gavi Vaccine Alliance is an open partnership between the Gates Foundation, the World Health Organization, the World Bank and the vaccine manufacturers. Their stated goals includes “introducing new vaccines into the routine schedules of national immunization programmes” and to engage in “market shaping efforts” to ensure “healthy markets for vaccines and other immunization products.”
If “introducing new vaccines” and ensuring healthy markets for them was the aim of Gates’ “Decade of Vaccines,” there can be no doubt that COVID-19 has seen that goal realized in spectacular fashion.
URSULA VON DER LEYEN: Let’s start the pledging.
KATIE STEPHENS: The EU kicked off its fundraising drive with 1 billion euros. In the hours that followed, pledges were beamed in from across the globe.
TAWFIG ALRABIAH: The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has pledged 500 million dollars.
STEPHENS: Even pop icon Madonna made a last-minute donation of a million euros.
MELINDA GATES: By combining the world’s expertise and brainpower and resources, we can attack this disease in the way it’s attacking us: globally. Our foundation is proud to partner with you and I’m pleased to announce today that we will pledge a hundred million dollars towards this effort.
KATIE STEPHENS: Germany was one of the leading donors, pledging over five hundred million euros. The money is earmarked for international health organizations and research networks in a bid to speed up the development of a vaccine.
And there, at the center of this web, is the Gates Foundation, connected to every major organization, research institution, international alliance and vaccine manufacturer involved in the current crisis.
Certainly, the Gates—like the Rockefellers—have profited from their years as “the most generous people on the planet.” As curious as it might seem to those who don’t understand the true nature of this monopoly cartel, despite all of these grants and pledges—commitments of tens of billions of dollars—Bill Gates’ personal net worth has actually doubled during this Decade of Vaccines, from $50 billion to over $100 billion.
But once again we come back to the question: Who is Bill Gates? Is he motivated simply by money? Is this incessant drive to vaccinate the entire population of the planet merely the result of greed? Or is there something else driving this agenda?
As we shall see next time, money is not the end goal of Gates’ “philanthropic” activities. Money is just the tool that he is using to purchase what he really wants: control. Control not just of the health industry, but control of the human population itself.
Bill Gates and the Population Control Grid
•May 17, 2020
TRANSCRIPT AND SOURCES: https://www.corbettreport.com/gates
The takeover of public health that we have documented in How Bill Gates Monopolized Global Health and the remarkably brazen push to vaccinate everyone on the planet that we have documented in Bill Gates' Plan to Vaccinate the World was not, at base, about money. The unimaginable wealth that Gates has accrued is now being used to purchase something much more useful: control. Control not just of the global health bodies that can coordinate a worldwide vaccination program, or the governments that will mandate such an unprecedented campaign, but control over the global population itself.
💉 LEAKED VIDEO Pentagon Vaccine to Modify Behavior 2005 Bill Gates
Pentagon Vaccine to Modify Behavior (2005)(Bill Gates)
•Apr 27, 2020
Leaked Pentagon Video Shows Vaccine Designed to Modify Behavior. Bill Gates is leading the proposal presentation.. Para más información acerca del programa y de la vacuna: - For a leaked report showing further development of FunVax (Fundamentalist Vaccine) - https://www.wanttoknow.info/health/fu... - For further information on this disturbing Pentagon vaccine and what you can do - https://www.wanttoknow.info/health/fu... - For dozens of revealing major media news articles on vaccine risks and dangers - https://www.wanttoknow.info/vaccinesn... Video and links source - https://www.personalgrowthcourses.net...
The video above was already removed by Youtube from https://youtu.be/QzOIFKTZJ0Q - in case it happens again, here a backup: https://www.bitchute.com/video/dXDPKDpZt0o/
And for sure there is a piece of counter-propaganda that tries to limit damage to Bill Gates:
But who believes that Bill Gates does NOT work on such?
To see what Bill Gates through the research labs at John Hopkins is also up to, read HERE - and realize that these sick researchers call it FunVax when they design viral biological agents that affect human brains.
The Global Health Mafia Protection Racket
•May 8, 2020
BOOM revelations get bigger as we go along. Stay with me!
Fauci, Event201, Foundations ...and something called the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board.
I expose the front organizations covering for the Global Health Mafia.
NYT Coronovirus Fundraiser: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/04/wo...
DZAU bio Ottawa Heart Institute: https://www.ottawaheart.ca/researcher...
GPMB Board of Directors: https://apps.who.int/gpmb/board.html
GPMB publication, Sept 2019: https://apps.who.int/gpmb/assets/annu...
Philanthropy News Digest: Klausner Fauci: https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/ne...
Johns Hopkins commissioned by the GPMB: https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.o...
Event 201 Players List: https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.o...
National Herald: https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/i...
Fauci Gates Foundation Grand Challenges board: https://gcgh.grandchallenges.org/abou...
VIDEO: Fauci “No doubt” of surprise outbreak: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNXGA...
CEPI April pledges: https://cepi.net/news_cepi/belgium-an...
VIDEO: Victor Dzau at McGill “School of Population and Global Health: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebylu...
Tedros worked for the Global Fund: https://www.theglobalfund.org/en/news...
VIDEO: Corbett Report on Gates domination of “Global Health” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQSYd...
Why is the BRD (aka Federal Republic of Germany) the only state representative in the board of the Bill Gates financed GPMB (Global Preparedness Monitoring Board), that in itself is a front for and a joint venture of the WHO and the WorldBank ???
Whistleblower Dr. Judy Mikovits - 11 Minutes That BLEW ME AWAY
•Sep 8, 2018
Here's the link to our 1 hour interview with Dr Judy - A MUST Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXTBE... Courtesy of Naturalnews.com - Mike Adams (Natural News) In one of the most shocking science videos you’ll see this year, molecular biologist Judy A. Mikovits, PhD, reveals the disturbing true story of how she was thrown in prison for blowing the whistle on deadly viral contamination of human vaccines. https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-06-0... Mikes's Video Platform - https://www.real.video
Dr Judy Mikovitz WHISTLEBLOWER Lost It All For This - VLYV Interview
•Sep 22, 2018
PLEASE SHARE - CRITICAL MESSAGE Depending on what happens with this video, I might experiment with the Title and Description if it gets Flagged and Held Down by "YouKnowWho" Tube. So if you see it in your feed again, that is why.
Dr. Darrell Wolfe: Goverment works for the Elite. They always have!
•May 11, 2020
Dr. Darrell Wolfe Ac. PhD. DNM. DHS. has 40 years of experience in natural medicine as a medical intuitive and is known as the ‘Doc of Detox’. He is a Doctor of Natural Medicine (DNM) and Doctor of Humanitarian Services (DHS), certified with the Board of Integrative Medicine*. -
Dont trust ur goverment. They are evil and their purpose is New World Order. We have to resistance together!
"Doc of Detox" Dr. Wolfe is the author of the best-selling book Healthy to 100, which is the ultimate guide to bullet-proofing your body against disease, eliminating pain, burning fat and living longer, stronger. https://www.docofdetox.com
🌟Please share this video and spread awarness!
In case youtube takes the video off - here the backup: https://www.bitchute.com/video/GDN8LfNNPfh8/
❌banned videos - https://tinyurl.com/y8oayrsr
Though some additional writings in the following video will not necessarily find widespread acceptance, it is important in the whole context and real-life evidence for PREDICTIVE PROGRAMMING.
THE 2012 OPENING CEREMONY OF THE OLYMPICS IN LONDON WAS OBVIOUSLY A CORONA VIRUS RITUAL. EYE OPENER - what else we have to expect?
Olympics censored c o vid story book - feat ODD TV mashup
•Apr 27, 2020
You can also follow me on LBRY @ https://lbry.tv/@spacecowboy:b and see both banned olympic predictive programming original videos.
Youtube has removed my last 2 videos, claiming copyright for the olympic footage, i have now removed all offending video and made a compromise using images instead to put my message across that this was a scene of the future being played out 8 years before the live event that we find ourselves in today!
Please watch to the end, it's very important and it might just save your life. How to legally decline the vaccine. (EDITORIAL NOTE: Do NOT rely on the "Oath of Hippocrates"! Doctors are NOT sworn in on that any longer, but just have to adhere to weak regulations of medical boards that have been tweaked to remove most provisions that could hold them responsible to what they are doing to you. Get them to sign this pledge:
Copyright Disclaimer Under, 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance of fair use. And Plus Federal Law allows citizens to reproduce, distribute, or exhibit portions pf copyrighted motions pictures, video tapes, or video discs under certain circumstances without authorization of the copyright holder. This infringement of copyright is called `fair use` and is allowed for purposes of criticism, news reporting, teaching and parody.
ANOTHER BACKUP: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69vHwovgcI
This video is a spacecowboy production it reached 287,880 views in 6 days on yt before they deleted it reason "hate speach" - so now i am migrating from yt to lbry this is this original content so please share far and wide, thank you ;)
Disclaimer, music by mike oldfield
Giant Images and bible quotes are from BELIVEACTS2sBLOG
I felt compelled to make a special effort to make this video concerning the c-vid 9teen h-o_a/x which shows that they predicted everything that's happening now 8 years ago at the 2012 olympics opening ceremony.
And another deja-vu - this time from Hollywood:
Chloroquine - Dead Zone - Plague
•May 4, 2020
➡️ 2003: Dead Zone - Plague.
➡️ 2020: President Trump "chloroquine may help treat coronavirus".
2003 - 2020 = 17 years
A Secret Algorithm Is Deciding Who Will Die in America
Decisions on reopening should involve public data and debate.By Cathy O'Neil - 08.
I have written extensively on the dangers that arise when authorities rely on inscrutable algorithms to make important decisions, bypassing public conversations. All too often, their statistically careless models end up costing lives and livelihoods.
Sadly, this appears to be precisely what will happen with the Trump administration’s Covid-19 model.
Arizona Governor Doug Ducey announced plans to allow businesses to start reopening this week after consulting the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s new pandemic-prediction model, which has not been released to the public. The move came as a shock because a team of university experts -- who had developed their own model on the state’s behalf -- had advised waiting until the end of May, lest the hospital system be overwhelmed.
In my book, “Weapons of Math Destruction,” I identified three properties that make a predictive algorithm particularly dangerous: It must be important, secret and destructive. FEMA’s new model has them all. If it can persuade a governor to lift stay-at-home orders in the middle of a pandemic, it’s important. As of this writing, its details remain a secret. And while what will happen in Arizona remains to be seen, it has the potential to destroy many lives by justifying bad decisions.
Such models don’t arise accidentally. They pop up when people want to avoid a difficult conversation, especially one that involves historical struggle, money and complex decisions. Illustrative examples include a model that assessed public school teachers, and the “crime risk score” algorithms that decide, among other things, who gets jailed pre-trial. Both were deeply flawed statistical embarrassments intended to bypass tricky issues, such as what makes a good teacher and who deserves incarceration. Yet governments and companies keep using black-box models, because people -- due to fear of math or lack of information –- so rarely challenge them.
If there was ever a subject that required a difficult public conversation, the response to Covid-19 is it. How many people are we willing to let die in order to keep businesses working? And which people will we let die? By creating a secret model to inform such decisions, the Trump administration is taking these questions out of the public and scientific spheres, replacing data-driven ethical debate with a pseudo-mathematical political tool. This is bad news for science, and potentially terrible news for Arizona residents.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Cathy O'Neil is a mathematician who has worked as a professor, hedge-fund analyst and data scientist. She founded ORCAA, an algorithmic auditing company, and is the author of “Weapons of Math Destruction.” She can be reached via
MUST READ and WATCH: Full-Scale Investigation Into Wuhan Lab a Must
including BACKUPS of DOCTORS IN BLACK: PlanDemic, a film about the global plan
Trump Takes Control of the FED - Leads the way for other countries to follow - says Michael Tellinger
•May 8, 2020
U.S. President Donald Trump breaks a 250-year long stranglehold of the Royal Political Elite and their central banks.
Since the 1760s and the rise of the Rothschild banking empire, the world has been held hostage by the global banking elite families, led by the Rothschilds - creating the largest organised crime syndicate on Earth - larger than all other crime syndicates combined - more brutal, more bloodthirsty and yet completely visible to all. They have abducted, tortured, bribed, extorted and murdered all their opponents to stay in control. They launched most of the wars in history, invaded countries and removed any threat with brutal force over and over again. They have more blood on their hands than all other crime syndicates combined. Many honest leaders, presidents and prime ministers have tried to free their countries from the banksters' stranglehold over this period, but so far, in over 250 years, no one has succeeded.
President Donald J Trump has quietly taken over the Federal Reserve Bank of the USA, in the last 2 weeks of March 2020 - without any fanfare or massive media exposure. In a cunning move, Trump is now in complete control of the largest Reserve Bank on Earth - without any violence or bloodshed - by simply absorbing the FED into the Treasury Department. It may take some time for this to sink in - But this is a pivotal moment in more that 250 years - will other leaders follow the USA president, or are they too fearful? At least the USA will not invade your country, as they have done before - to topple the "rogue" leadership in order to retain control of the central bank - because the USA is leading this historic break-away moment.
If only 10 countries of the world do this - take control of their central banks - and in essence rename them then Peoples Banks - we will rapidly break the Rothschild stranglehold over humanity and usher in a new era of freedom from economic slavery - prosperity and abundance for all.
In the USA the Federal Reserve is now under the control of Larry Fink, who as CEO of the worlds largest investment group BlackRock stated in January 2018 to the NYT: "Contribute to society or risk loosing our support!"
Find out more about how ONE SMALL TOWN - Can Change The World - see one of the videos here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5MKy...
Visit our website for full discovery of the UBUNTU Liberation Movement and how simple all this can be. https://www.ubuntucontributionism.org/
We are the ones we have been waiting for - Do Something.
In unity - Michael Tellinger
What does this mean?
Each intervention program to stabilize the U.S. economy will be connected to a special purpose vehicle (SPV) financed by the Fed, explains Jim Bianco.
Next, the Treasury will make an equity investment in each SPV, meaning they, not the Fed, purchase the securities and backstopping of loans and the Fed is only acting as a bank providing financing.
“The Fed hired BlackRock Inc. to purchase these securities and handle the administration of the SPVs on behalf of the owner, the Treasury,” Bianco writes.
In essence, the Treasury, not the Fed, is buying all these securities and backstopping of loans; the Fed is acting as banker and providing financing.
In other words, the federal government is nationalizing large swaths of the financial markets. The Fed is providing the money to do it. BlackRock will be doing the trades.
This scheme essentially merges the Fed and Treasury into one organization. So, meet your new Fed chairman, Donald J. Trump.
When the Fed was rightly alarmed by the current dysfunction in the fixed-income markets, they felt they needed to act. This was the correct thought. But, to get the authority to stabilize these “private” markets, central bankers needed the Treasury to agree to nationalize (own) them so they could provide the funds to do it.
In effect, the Fed is giving the Treasury access to its printing press. This means that, in the extreme, the administration would be free to use its control, not the Fed’s control, of these SPVs to instruct the Fed to print more money so it could buy securities and hand out loans in an effort to ramp financial markets higher going into the election. Why stop there?
This is revolutionary because America’s Founding Fathers granted the power to print coin to Congress and Congress only.
But this power was lost by U.S. President Woodrey Wilson and from then on the U.S. Central Bank - the Federal Reserve - was privately owned by the banksters. John F. Kennedy tried to get it back, but was assassinated.
In just these past few weeks, the Fed has cut interest rates by 150 basis points to near zero - with which Trump was pleased - and then run through its entire 2008 crisis handbook, but that wasn't enough - so now the Fed has to dance under the new whip.
And the EU?
Though Larry Fink paid a special visit to Brussels, European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen and the German Chancellor Angela Merkel seem not to have realized the Wind of Change.
PROLOGUE: The following US-centered piece is a typical example of media operations geared to scare the hell out of U.S. Americans - and drive them right into the nets, which psychopatic operatives like Bill Gates have set for them. However, it is an almost complete list and worth going over it from one's own perspective and watch every step governments are undertaking to prepare or foster for more medical-martial laws, Orwellian lockdowns and hunger-games.
Experts Knew a Pandemic Was Coming. Here’s What They’re Worried About Next.
Nine disasters we still aren’t ready for.
Illustrations by Son of Alan
By GARRETT M. GRAFF - Updated:
You might feel blindsided by the coronavirus, but warnings about a looming pandemic have been there for decades. Government briefings, science journals and even popular fiction projected the spread of a novel virus and the economic impacts it would bring, complete often with details about the specific challenges the U.S. is now facing.
It makes you wonder: What else are we missing? What other catastrophes are coming that we aren’t planning for, but that could disrupt our lives, homes, jobs or our broader society in the next few years or decades?
It’s the government’s job to think about this: Every year, the intelligence community releases the Worldwide Threat Assessment—a distillation of worrisome global trends, risks, problem spots and emerging perils. But this year, the public hearing on the assessment, usually held in January or February, was canceled, evidently because intelligence leaders, who usually testify in a rare open hearing together, were worried their comments would aggravate President Donald Trump. And the government has not yet publicly released a 2020 threat report.
What would it say? Since there’s been no public version, we’ve compiled our own here, reviewing numerous government and academic reports and speaking with more than a dozen thought leaders, including scientists, researchers and current and former national security and intelligence officials.
What follows is POLITICO Magazine’s “Domestic Threat Assessment”—a list of the most significant events that might impact the United States over the next 30 to 50 years. These are threats that seem rare, but that over a given period are almost guaranteed to occur—events that humans, and therefore political leaders, have a hard time understanding and planning for. Author Michele Wucker, a policy analyst who specializes in crises, calls them “gray rhinos,” in contrast to the unimaginable “black swan” events. Most of the megathreats the world encounters—from pandemics to financial crashes—are more like a charging rhino: They’re dangerous, but can also be seen coming far in advance.
First, some good news—there are a handful of catastrophic events bandied about online that you don’t have to worry about. The world made it through the “Mayan Apocalypse” in 2012 just fine, for instance. If you’ve never heard of the pole shift hypothesis or Planet X, don’t fret—you probably needn’t worry about either of those theories either.
And what about “supervolcanoes”—historic, world-altering volcanoes bubbling ominously under places like Yellowstone and Indonesia’s Lake Toba? Don’t worry; explosions of that scale are rare enough that they appear to occur tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years apart. “Yellowstone has such a low probability of erupting, you're better off playing Powerball,” says volcanologist Jess Phoenix. Such events will almost certainly occur at some point, but it would be indescribable bad luck to experience one in your lifetime. Ditto for the idea of a killer comet or extinction-level asteroid hitting Earth—yes, it’ll happen at some point in the future, but you probably should still contribute to your 401(k) and plan for a happy retirement.
Now for the bad: Beyond other pandemics, which appear regularly every decade or two, there are eight other major threats (and one wild card) that scientists and national security officials worry about currently that are real, identifiable and stand a chance that is more likely than not of occurring—at some scale, ranging from mild to catastrophic—in the next five to 50 years.
Here’s what’s coming for us now:
(LIkely to impact the U.S. within the next 5 yearS)
“Terrorism” today conjures images of ISIS fighters and suicide bombers. But if you ask national security officials about the top near-term terrorism threat on their radar, they almost universally point to the rising problem of white nationalist violence and the insidious way that groups that formerly existed locally have been knitting themselves together into a global web of white supremacism. In recent weeks, the State Department—for the first time—formally designated a white supremacist organization, the Russian Imperial Movement, as a terrorist organization, in part because it’s trying to train and seed adherents around the globe, inspiring them to carry out terror attacks, as it did with two Swedish men who carried out a series of bombings in Gothenburg in 2016 and 2017.
There are serious—and explicit—warnings about this coming from U.S. government and foreign officials that eerily echo the warnings that came about for al Qaeda before 9/11. Just before the world was overwhelmed by the coronavirus crisis, DHS’ assistant secretary for threat prevention and security policy, Elizabeth Neumann, told a congressional committee, “It feels like we are at the doorstep of another 9/11—maybe not something that catastrophic in terms of the visual or the numbers—but that we can see it building, and we don’t quite know how to stop it.” Racially motivated mass shootings in the United States targeting minorities and places of worship have risen markedly. The FBI has already made a series of arrests among members of U.S. white supremacist organizations who had been harassing journalists and houses of worship and discussing violent attacks, and it has now elevated such traditionally domestic terror groups to the same priority level as foreign groups like the Islamic State.
While white supremacist violence has a centuries-old history in the U.S. and overseas, the current moment particularly worries intelligence and law enforcement officials because they see violence erupting globally, empowered by social media, and lone actors referencing each other.
Whether any more organized white supremacist group has the means and opportunity to carry out a large, complex terror attack like 9/11 remains unknown, but the movement is clearly adapting the playbook used by the Islamic State in 2014 and 2015 that enabled that group to radicalize and inspire dozens of adherents and would-be jihadists to carry out attacks in its name. The U.S. already has a clear example of what even a small group of domestic terrorists can wreak: Before 9/11, the deadliest terror incident on U.S. soil was Timothy McVeigh’s bombing in Oklahoma City. And U.S. officials fear what an organized network could do. As FBI Director Chris Wray told me last month, “It’s not just the ease and the speed with which these attacks can happen, but the connectivity that the attacks generate. One unstable, disaffected actor hunkered down, alone, in his mom’s basement in one corner of the country, getting further fired up by similar people half a world away. That increases the complexity of domestic terrorism cases we have in a way that is really challenging.”
Asked at a Hewlett Foundation conference last year about what the nation’s next failure of imagination would be, former top Pentagon official Eric Rosenbach had a simple answer: An attack on the public confidence in key institutions.
If the 2016 election was the story of our democracy being blindsided by misinformation, disinformation and hack-and-dump cyberattacks, cyber experts are warning that the next new threat online will almost certainly involve attempts by adversaries to manipulate or delete data or otherwise raise public doubts about whether reported reality is real reality. “Trust and truth are the foundations of free and open societies,” says Sue Gordon, a career intelligence officer who served until last summer as the principal deputy director of national intelligence, the top career official in the intelligence community. “Our growing concern about those two things are causing chaos in open societies and leaving room for authoritarian tendencies.”
Imagine an adversary entering a system and making unnoticed, stealthy changes. For example, changing Wall Street trading records to make brokers unsure of the real price of a stock or whether they’d actually purchased it at all. Or manipulating bank records so consumers wonder whether their deposits are safe. (The newest novel by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, The Paladin, published just this week, revolves around a plot to manipulate financial markets.) The economic implications of such attacks could be paralyzing.
We’ve also seen mild versions of this in the real world: In 2013, hackers aligned with the Syrian Electronic Army compromised the Twitter account of The Associated Press and tweeted out that a bomb had exploded at the White House and injured President Barack Obama; the stock market lost more than $100 billion before the tweet was corrected.
Even more insidious for democracy are the threats that come as the country enters the election season this fall. Security experts have been warning of all manner of data manipulation attacks that could lead to ongoing or permanent questions about the accuracy of election results. While actually altering votes at scale would prove challenging, it could be comparatively easy to alter the reported vote totals on a secretary of state website or a news site, or to post images—real or fake—of hacking a single machine.
Experts like Robert Chesney and Danielle Citron have also raised alarms about "deepfakes,” doctored audio or video driven by artificial intelligence that could literally put words in people’s mouths or place them in physical locations where they never were. Simpler “dumbfakes” or “cheap fakes” have proven effective: Trump supporters have circulated both a slowed-down video of Nancy Pelosi, meant to make her appear cognitively impaired, and a sped-up video that made CNN’s Jim Acosta appear to aggressively hit a White House intern. Much more sophisticated techniques already are on public display: One entirely doctored State Farm ad during ESPN’s Chicago Bulls documentary, “The Last Dance,” featured 1998 SportsCenter anchor Kenny Mayne predicting the existence of the documentary in the future. Pete Buttigieg’s chief information security officer explained that part of the campaign’s flood-the-zone media coverage was to ensure that there was documentation of almost all of his time in public or private as a way to combat any deepfakes that might surface later.
The business, political and geopolitical mischief possible with manipulated data, audio or video is almost limitless; think manufactured video of Jeff Bezos—whose personal life has already apparently been the target of sophisticated adversaries and extortion plots—using a racial slur; grainy fake video or audio of Joe Biden admitting to assaulting Tara Reade; grainy video of Trump saying he plans to nuke Iran in one hour; or even Anthony Fauci saying that he’s doctoring the Covid death tolls. Given the persistence of conspiracy theories, and the fact that they now have a megaphone in the White House, it’s easy to imagine that certain lies, once let out of the genie’s bottle, will never fully be stopped.
(could impact the U.S. within the next 15 years)
Biosecurity—the emergency planner’s term of art—is really just a broad term for our response to biological events, which could include at least four types of troubling incidents: Natural events (like the Covid-19 pandemic), lab accidents, bioterrorism and biological warfare. Advancing technology and the expanding human population has made the risk from all four threats grow.
Increased human encroachment on wild habitats, growing urban densities and agricultural practices continue to make naturally occurring infections—like the novel coronavirus—more apt to leap from animals to humans and spread more rapidly. Despite repeated temporary crackdowns, so-called wet markets, offering fresh meat and fish, persist in China and elsewhere.
And while, contrary to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s hints, the Covid-19 virus is likely to have emerged from a Wuhan wet market rather than a lab accident, lab accidents actually have a longer and more worrisome history than many people realize. “There's a surprisingly long list of accidental releases from labs,” says Jason Matheny, who heads the Center for Security and Emerging Technology at Georgetown University and formerly led IARPA, the intelligence community’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, tasked with anticipating and countering emerging threats. He says, “An increasing amount of my anxiety budget is spent worrying about lab accidents.”
In 1979, anthrax leaked from a Soviet research facility in Sverdlovsk, killing perhaps a hundred people, after an air filter was incorrectly installed. More recently, a series of mistakes and accidents at biolabs for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, from 2009 to 2014, involved Ebola, anthrax and avian flu. “The incident summary reads like a screenplay for a disaster movie,” one biosafety expert said at the time. The National Institutes of Health has historically carried out experiments aimed at making the H5N1 influenza strain more transmissible—in an effort to understand how to combat it better—but the research was considered so high-risk that the government put a moratorium on it in 2014. That moratorium, though, has since been lifted. “A single accident there could lead to a pandemic,” Matheny says.
Advancing technology has also made it easier for rogue actors to manufacture bioweapons. A Japanese cult in 1995 released sarin gas into the Tokyo subway, killing 12 and injuring a thousand; minor errors kept them from being far deadlier. In 2001, there was the spate of anthrax letters in the weeks after 9/11, eventually traced to a disgruntled government scientist. But such events, with today’s technology, might be child’s play. New superviruses or extinct diseases could emerge from a lab whether on purpose or by accident. In 2016, two virologists synthesized an extinct strain of horsepox—99 percent similar to smallpox—with $100,000. “That’s the destructive power of a hydrogen bomb for $100,000,” Matheny says.
The Covid pandemic has made clear the potential economic or societal cost of even small-scale biological incidents; even if they don’t kill that many people, the possibility of getting sick—or worse—undermines the public’s confidence in participating in everyday life. Speaking from her home, where she’s sheltering in place from Covid, Gordon explains, “Where bioterrorism comes in, like pandemics, is the fear—can I go out anymore? Much as any threat you can’t see, it can create the kind of paralyzing, nondescript fear that makes you unwilling to do things.”
Wilder—and more dangerous—frontiers of science lie ahead. None of this begins to explore the coming challenges stemming from advances in human genomic modification or the unintended consequences or active misuse of CRISPR gene-editing technologies. “There are dramatic changes to society possible as you think about the ability to radically enhance intelligence genetically,” Matheny says. “About half of the variants of intellect appear to be heritable. That kind of eugenics would mean some pretty dramatic societal tensions.” Matheny warns that there are plausible scenarios where there’s a strong first-mover advantage for nations willing to slice and dice the DNA of the next generation. Moreover, whereas most people’s imaginations do leap to the idea of genetic magic of creating super-humans, that wouldn’t necessarily be the goal of every regime: Authoritarian states like North Korea might actually use advanced genomic tools to self-select for particularly docile traits that would preserve internal political stability.
Lastly—but hardly most mundane—there are the threats posed by traditional biological weapons programs by nation-states. While a United Nations treaty theoretically prohibits development of such weapons, the State Department issues an annual report on other nations’ compliance and even the news in the public, unclassified version is not good. The most recent 2019 report listed concerns about biological programs by all four of the U.S.’ major adversaries—Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. Matheny says he was once horrified to read that the U.N.’s annual budget for enforcing and policing the biological weapons convention was just $1 million, with four staff. He couldn’t believe it, so he checked with the U.N.—and indeed the stat was wrong: It’s actually just three staff.
The U.N. is hardly alone. Biopreparedness, unfortunately, is an area that has been uniquely neglected by the U.S. government, too. As a 2011 New York Times Magazine investigation concluded: “Today, there are more than two dozen Senate-confirmed individuals with some responsibility for biodefense. Not one person has it for a full-time job, and no one is in charge.”
Since the 2016 election attack by Russia, public attention has focused on cyberattacks. In 2018, then-Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats said, “It was in the months prior to September 2001 when, according to then-CIA Director George Tenet, the system was blinking red. And here we are nearly two decades later, and I'm here to say the warning lights are blinking red again. Today, the digital infrastructure that serves this country is literally under attack.” Ironically, this year’s biennial FEMA National Level Exercise, the government’s biggest preparedness event, was designed to drill for a widespread cyberattack by Russia but was canceled in March due to the pandemic. It included a scenario that saw the Kremlin’s hackers target U.S. electrical production and knock portions of the country’s power grid offline.
Russia in particular has been building and testing a playbook to upend modern life: It has knocked out the Ukrainian power grid, frozen the operations of multinational companies and cost them hundreds of millions in damages, and disrupted and pillaged multilateral institutions. North Korea also unleashed the WannaCry ransomware that caused global system outages—including knocking large parts of the UK’s National Health System offline—and cost billions.
The risk is getting only worse: The more wired everyday society becomes, the more reliant it is on interlocking technology systems that were never designed with security in mind.
Take satellites. The Trump administration’s much-mocked embrace of the Space Force has obscured the real calls of alarm from national security officials about the rising vulnerability of the satellite systems overhead, everything from the GPS network—which underpins gas pumps and Uber, ATMs and stock trades—to weather satellites, surveillance satellites, early warning satellites that monitor for ballistic missile launches and communication satellites. In recent years, China and Russia have been developing new anti-satellite weapons as well as competing navigation satellite networks. (The American GPS system has traditionally been used universally around the world.) “The fact that Russia and China are a minute away from their own GPS systems, now all of a sudden that protection by shared need is obliterated,” Gordon says. “The degradation of that service to the point where it’s no longer reliable—put aside the societal and economic impacts, your military deterrence is gone.”
You don’t need a bad actor to bring devastating, paralyzing results.
The increasing complexity and interconnectedness of the various networks that power everyday life increases the chances of what Jason Matheny calls a “digital flubber” incident—the possibility of an autonomous system working as intended, yet spiraling and cascading with unintended and unforeseen consequences. Think the 2010 “flash crash” on Wall Street led by algorithmic trading systems that over-responded to a falling stock market and triggered a massive, momentary sell-off—or the way that quirks in automatic listings on Amazon and bot-driven price wars can result in a used science book being offered for sale for $23,698,655.93 (plus $3.99 shipping). Similarly, the 2003 power blackout that blanketed the Northeast and Canada, affecting more than 50 million people, was triggered by a system at Ohio’s FirstEnergy misresponding to a single power line brushing against overgrown trees.
These problems are often correctable in hindsight—the Wall Street Journal noted this week that the more resilient systems and safeguards put into place after the 2010 flash crash have largely worked during the stock market’s roller-coaster ups and downs amid the Covid-19 crisis. But the unforeseen effects of similar events will almost certainly increase as the universe of so-called Internet of Things (IoT) expands and more autonomous systems are adopted in our daily lives.
There’s also the threat of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) frying the guts of the globe’s circuitry. While most serious thinkers downplay the idea that a rogue nation or terrorist group could launch a devastating EMP—a threat that’s a favorite boogeyman of Newt Gingrich and others—scientists do fear unexpected solar storms could knock out electrical systems on Earth. As a 2017 commission concluded, “NASA estimates the likelihood of such an event to be 10 [percent] to 12 percent per decade, making it very likely that Earth will be affected by a solar superstorm within a matter of decades. Such an event could black out electric grids and other life-sustaining critical infrastructures, putting at risk the lives of many millions.”
The worst-case scenario—whether brought on by a manmade cyberattack or a so-called Geomagentic Disturbance (GMD) from space—is the physical destruction of critical infrastructure, particularly power generation equipment; one government test at the Idaho National Lab in 2007, nicknamed Aurora, horrified policymakers as it demonstrated how an attacker could lead a commercial generator to self-destruct. Just as the nation (and the world) has struggled to boost manufacturing capacity for health care protective equipment, those large-scale generators that undergird the power grid require months to manufacture, and any incident that knocked out dozens or scores of generators might leave portions of the country in the black for months or longer. As a former senior government official explains, “A lot of our power grid problems have the ventilator problem—our transformers and big physical power infrastructure, we simply can't replace them. The lead time to build these things is not in months. If you don't have them, you don't have them.”
Luckily, this is one area in which the government and private industry has been dedicating meaningful resources. The federal government has been working with companies that own critical infrastructure, like utilities, to harden and insulate their systems from solar storms. “We’ve been buying down a decent amount of risk,” says Bob Kolasky, head of the Department of Homeland Security’s National Risk Management Center. “There's a lot you can do to mitigate the impact on infrastructure, and our predictive capability has increased. We could have 48 to 72 hours of warning, which if you have a mitigation plan, there are things you can do to minimize the impact.”
ONGOING CATASTROPHIC THREATS
(LIkely to impact the U.S. anytime within the next 50 years)
Nuclear weapons always end up at the top of government risk lists, but it’s easy for the public to forget. “The persistent risk of nuclear war is something that we have anxiety fatigue from,” Matheny says. “We grow tired of talking about nuclear war.”
The specific nuclear threat has morphed considerably over the past few decades. In the years after the collapse of the Soviet Union and after 9/11, officials worried about a “loose nuke,” a weapon stolen or purchased on the black market in the hands of a terror group or other rogue actors. But the U.S. government, through bipartisan initiatives like the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, helped secure and often remove entirely warehouses full of nuclear material and weapons across the former Soviet Union. Similarly, after 9/11, years of hard work by the government to dismantle, isolate and downgrade the capabilities of groups like al Qaeda and later, ISIS, have largely allowed the weapons of mass destruction threat from terrorists to wane.
“The good news in a nutshell is that efforts to secure and reduce the weapons and the materials for weapons has worked. There are many hundreds of fewer tons of material out there,” says Joseph Cirincione, head of the Ploughshares Fund, which has long monitored the nuclear threat. “The supply is down, the demand is down, that’s why you don’t see nuclear terrorism high on many lists right now.”
Ironically, he says, the biggest challenge 30 years after the end of the Cold War has once again become nation-states. “These threats have not gone away, not just loose nukes, but the threats from existing nuclear arsenals—that is highly controlled nuclear weapons,” Cirincione says. “We're at risk of unintended wars.”
Nuclear arms control scholar Jeffrey Lewis published two years ago a speculative novel, modeled on the 9/11 Commission Report, entitled, “The 2020 Commission Report on the North Korean Nuclear Attacks Against the United States,” imagining an entirely plausible scenario in which the U.S. and North Korea stumble their way into a nuclear exchange. Such a miscalculated Armageddon could also arise with Russia or China. “We tend to underestimate the risk of accidental nuclear war,” Matheny says. “Most of what I learned about nuclear weapons systems makes me more worried [about an accidental war], not less worried.”
A survey of the current nuclear landscape leaves plenty to be worried about. With little public attention, a new superpower nuclear arms race is building; the Trump administration is pouring billions of dollars into nuclear weapons and is allowing key arms-controls treaties, like the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and Open Skies, to crumble amid disputes with Russia. “They’re discontinuing the policy of previous administrations of decreasing the number of nuclear weapons out there,” Cirincione says.
Elsewhere, Iran is rapidly restarting its nuclear program, after the Trump administration walked away from the multilateral nuclear deal. Plus, there’s always the threat of instability in South Asia, where tensions between the nuclear-armed nations of India and Pakistan remain ever volatile. “Many of us have been surprised [nuclear war there] hasn't happened yet. Every war game has that conflict going nuclear,” Cirincione says. “That’s not so low probability.”
An attack by North Korea on the United States might successfully land a handful of nuclear missiles on major U.S. cities—although its missile accuracy is suspect—with a death toll likely in the hundreds of thousands, or low millions. Tens of millions or hundreds of millions might die in a full-scale nuclear exchange with China or Russia. Complicated scenarios begin to unfold if an adversary initially targets a U.S. ally; would the U.S. launch a nuclear strike, and risk one in response, if North Korea nuked South Korea or Japan? What if Iran targeted Riyadh or Jerusalem? The challenge with nuclear weapons for decades has been escalation; repeated war games show there’s not much incentive to turn “off” a nuclear war once it starts. The result of any of this would be catastrophic: “By whatever means, a nuclear explosion in a populated area is very difficult to imagine and would have so many ripple effects societally,” Gordon says.
The conclusion, backed up in the final scene of the 1983 classic, WarGames, is that the only way to not lose a nuclear war is never to have one in the first place. One move on the horizon that would lower the global nuclear threat: Democrats like Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Adam Smith have introduced bills to legislate that the U.S. will never be the first in a conflict to use nuclear weapons—a law that would curb the currently entirely unchecked power that Trump and his predecessors since Harry Truman have had to launch weapons unilaterally without provocation or even double-checking with the Defense secretary, Congress or anyone else. For now, though, roughly 1,000 U.S. nuclear weapons remain on alert, ready to fire within about five minutes of a phone call from Trump.
Just a few short months ago, even as news trickled out of China about the early spread of the novel coronavirus, climate change was dominating news headlines as historic, apocalyptic wildfires blanketed Australia. The effects of a warming climate are going to increasingly dominate global policy and affect human lives—both in the short term, as natural disasters like hurricanes and wildfires worsen, and in the longer term as climates, sea levels, and food and water supplies shift.
Experts warn that Australia’s wildfires might become the new norm, same with “superstorm” hurricanes like Sandy and Katrina. Beyond individual disasters, though, are systemic changes in ocean currents, climates and sea levels that will have profound effects on where humans can live and grow food. Sea level rise alone has the potential to drive massive global instability, resource competition and a forced tide of human migration unlike anything we’ve ever experienced. Some 600 million people live at sea level—many in already stressed, economically and resource-poor countries like Bangladesh. Projections that oceans over the coming decades will rise by as much as 6 feet or more threaten to put tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of humans into motion. As a comparison point, the Syrian refugee crisis, which has already emerged as one of the great humanitarian catastrophes of the past century and destabilized European alliances and governments as they struggled to respond, involved a comparatively small 5 million refugees.
Climate change, in short, is a recipe for a seemingly never-ending series of humanitarian disasters and geopolitical instability. That’s why warnings about the dire effects of shifting climate trends are increasingly coming from places far beyond the scientific community. Last year’s Worldwide Threat Assessment from the U.S. intelligence community said: “Global environmental and ecological degradation, as well as climate change, are likely to fuel competition for resources, economic distress, and social discontent through 2019 and beyond. Climate hazards … are intensifying, threatening infrastructure, health, and water and food security.”
Averting the worst-case scenarios of climate change appears increasingly unlikely, especially given the U.S.’s ongoing unwillingness to engage seriously on the subject globally and China’s continued, environment-be-damned growth. Scientists calculate that the world needs to decrease carbon emissions by 7 percent a year—compounding year over year—for roughly the next decade to avert the worst-case warming scenarios. What will that take? Consider this: Covid-19 has brought much of the globe’s economy to a standstill and emptied the skies of aircraft and roads of cars, and this hiatus will decrease carbon emissions in 2020 by only around 8 percent. Even the highly ambitious, much-vaunted and much-controversial “Green New Deal” is dwarfed by the reality of change necessary ahead; even a proposed $119 billion sea wall for New York City may not be enough to protect Manhattan.
What’s more, geopolitical instability and societal unrest caused by climate change will increase the risk of manmade threats—a nuclear exchange, a widespread cyberattack or a vicious new biosecurity incident. Countries and leaders desperate for dwindling resources can get rambunctious; the Syrian refugee crisis, a mild taste of what may come, has already helped fuel the rise of nationalism, racism and authoritarian regimes across Europe. It’s all too easy to begin to play out scenarios where, say, changing climates and political unrest in the Middle East fuels a crisis that leads to nuclear escalation.
After all, none of these threats exist—or would unfold—in a geopolitical vacuum, as the Covid pandemic is showing us today.
The mounting human death toll and unfolding financial calamity of the current pandemic is one thing. But the ripple effects will last for years—and given the country’s bumbled handling of the virus itself, it seems an open question whether we’re in a strong position to respond and confront what comes after it.
The global reordering of power that has been underway for the past decade—as America retrenches, China grows and Europe’s democratic unity weakens—will only accelerate as the world’s leading economies rethink their economic strategies, political alliances and confront what, at best, might be a yearslong recession.
Gordon says she’s increasingly worried that the U.S. might not meet that moment, paralyzed by partisan politics, a hide-bound bureaucracy, growing income inequality and population trends—like shrinking birthrates and a cutback on immigration—that will yield a rapidly aging population. “Our institutions are not keeping up with the turn of the Earth, and they’re being devalued in the moment,” she says. “Society requires government, yet we’re running out of the structures that make it work.“
Moreover, the country’s ongoing, disastrous response to the pandemic—by almost any measure one of the worst in the developed world—is sending a clear message to other countries that the U.S. can no longer be counted on to lead global conversations. The U.S. didn’t even show up to a massive international vaccine virtual summit this week.
The U.S., if current trends continue, might find that it finally beats the virus in a year or two—but emerges from the pandemic no longer the world leader economically, politically or morally that it’s been for the past 75 years. The world, in turn, may discover in this moment that it doesn’t need the U.S. in the way that it thought it did. That could be even more true if a Covid vaccine emerges first in China or Europe.
There are massive economic, societal and security benefits that come from being the world’s leading superpower. What happens if we’re not anymore? Imagine a U.S. that doesn’t attract top talent. What if the next great innovations happen in Europe or Asia instead of Silicon Valley? What if Chinese venture capitalists get first crack at the hottest deals in the world?
Losing political or financial power also means being forced to make tough trade-offs as the U.S. finds itself unable to invest in critical projects. “We may be forced to make economic choices post-catastrophe that expose our flank on communications, for instance,” Gordon says. “It used to be that we had so much power, it didn't matter if we left our flanks exposed. Now what happens when we're in a world where that ... gap is much smaller?”
The U.S. already finds itself in the challenging position with regard to 5G, the next phase of cellphone technologies. The U.S. is trying to discourage Western allies from adopting the advanced technology developed by China’s Huawei, but is unable to provide an alternative. What if the U.S. can’t stop its allies from using China’s digital infrastructure? What if the U.S. is forced to use it itself? “This has always been my concern with Huawei. … You're turning over control of your most critical infrastructure to an adversary who you implicitly do not trust and has demonstrated it does not deserve your trust,” says Christopher Krebs, director of the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which is in charge of protecting the nation’s critical infrastructure.
Gordon says, “Covid has proved we need institutions. And yet, our bureaucracies are proving increasingly ineffective, in part because the speed of decision-making that is required. We need to reimagine and rebuild. Who are the leaders who are going to come in and do that? My catastrophic event is the failure of bureaucracy to provide the governance our society needs, keeping true to our values.”
For emergency planners, there’s a simple maxim: “If you’re ready for an earthquake, you’re ready for a lot of different things,” Barb Graff (no relation), head of emergency management in Seattle, once told me. But for her in Seattle, it’s also a necessity: The most real threat the Pacific Northwest faces is a megathrust earthquake along what’s known as the Cascadia Subduction Zone.
California’s “Big One,” along the San Andreas Fault, gets most of the attention, but there are three other U.S. faults that cause emergency planners perhaps even more heartburn.
First, the Cascadia Subduction Zone, a fault about 700 miles off the Pacific Coast of Oregon and Washington, or what the New Yorker called in 2015, “The Really Big One.” The fault, when it goes, might unleash “only” an earthquake between 8 and 8.6 magnitude, which itself would rank as one of the most powerful and destructive quakes to ever hit the United States. But a so-called full margin rupture of the fault would prove truly catastrophic, potentially topping 9.0. Beyond the quake’s damage from the shaking, it could cause a multihundred-mile tsunami to inundate the West Coast with just 15 minutes warning. FEMA’s projections show 13,000 initial deaths from the quake and the tsunami, and upward of a million people displaced. These are hardly abstract threats; geologists say there’s a 1-in-3 chance of an 8.0 earthquake in the region in the next 50 years. “The amount of devastation is going to be unbelievable,” Oregon geologist Rob Witter said in 2009, after calculating that a full 9.0 quake has a 10 percent to 14 percent chance of occurring in the next half century. “People aren't going to be ready for this.”
Second, the New Madrid Seismic Zone—named for a Missouri town and running from Arkansas up to Illinois—has historically produced the strongest earthquakes in the lower-48 states. In the winter of 1811-1812, a series of three quakes shifted land more than 15 feet, liquified the ground and caused whole islands to disappear. In a 2019 regional exercise, known as “Shaken Fury,” local, state and federal officials drilled on how to respond to a 7.7 magnitude New Madrid earthquake. Daniel Kaniewski, a managing director at Marsh & McLennan who until February served as the No. 2 at FEMA, recalls visiting one major state emergency operations centers and discovering that officials there refused to even simulate a quake of that strength; they’d determined that the local devastation would be so great that emergency planners would have no adequate response, even in a tabletop exercise. “Just the exercise alone could so tax the system that there wouldn't be valuable lessons learned,” he recalls. “That earthquake is one that we as a nation are very vulnerable to.”
The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the New Madrid Seismic Zone has roughly a 7 percent to 10 percent chance of a catastrophic-level 8.0 quake in the next 50 years, but given the region’s lack of preparedness, weaker building codes than California, and a civilian population largely unaware, even a 6.0 earthquake—which has a 25 percent to 40 percent chance of occurring in the next half-century—might prove devastating.
“What has been so unique about Covid is the national impact—it’s the first time we’ve seen simultaneous emergency declarations in all 50 states—and the closest thing to that level is a New Madrid event. It would be a large-scale significant disruption across the heartland—a lot of your protein production, your food and agriculture, goods that get shipped via the Mississippi, or across the country on tractor-trailers,” Krebs says.
Third, and probably least known of all, is the Wasatch fault zone, stretching across Utah and Idaho, tracing the rough outline of the Salt Lake Valley, and which has been active even just in recent days; in March, it recorded a 5.7 magnitude quake. “The earthquake in Idaho and Utah was a big wake-up call,” Phoenix, the volcanologist, says. Larger earthquakes in the region might quickly prove devastating. “Wasatch is every bit as concerning as a Southern California quake, not simply because of the magnitude potential but because of the vulnerabilities present there,” Kaniewski says. “Much of the building construction in Salt Lake City is unreinforced masonry—URM—and it crumbles when a quake happens.”
As Krebs, Kaniewski and Graff all point out, any major quake isn’t just about the shaking—it’s a regional economic calamity and humanitarian crisis delivered without warning in just a minute or two. The systemic impacts are huge; the headquarters and major operations of the nation’s four trillion-dollar companies—Amazon, Microsoft, Apple and Google—exist in these high-risk quake zones, and much of the nation’s imports and exports come into ports on the West Coast that could be rendered unusable by a large quake.
Then of course there’s the most frightening scenario emergency planners could face this year: several of the above. As FEMA preps for a hurricane season made all the more complex by the Covid outbreak, it faces the entirely foreseeable (even likely) possibility of confronting three or more large-scale disasters unfolding simultaneously this summer and fall: Wildfires out West, hurricanes in the Atlantic, and Covid-19 anywhere and everywhere. Add in the always-real possibility of, say, an earthquake (Kaniewski’s maxim, informed by his years working in FEMA, is simply, “It's always earthquake season.”) a string of powerful tornadoes, or a geopolitical event like a cyberattack, as Phoenix says, “You get the exponential growth of awful.”
Matheny says one of the primary worries many forecasters have is just how little we actually know about the world around us. As science and technology advance, we’re constantly learning about new threats and pushing the boundaries of human interactions with the physical world.
It may seem easy now to dismiss scientists on the Manhattan Project who considered the theoretical possibility that the first nuclear test—the so-called TRINITY blast in New Mexico—might ignite Earth’s atmosphere (it didn’t) or those who worry that the Large Hadron Collider experiment might open a black hole on Earth (it hasn’t—so far), but there are all manner of unimaginable things that could pose an existential threat to modern society. “It’s worrisome how many catastrophic risks have been discovered only relatively recently, like supervolcanoes and space weather,” Matheny says. “There’s a lot we don’t understand.”
No one knew that the Cascadia Subduction Zone even existed half a century ago, and when scientists in the 1980s first posited it was responsible for mega-earthquakes, they were met with skepticism. Now it stands as the nation’s possible biggest natural disaster-in-waiting of all time.
The unknown is particularly challenging for policymakers and business leaders, who are often driven by short-term incentives like elections and shareholders, often causing them to be more reactive than active. “The fact that we don’t have any large-scale effort to understand existential threats to the U.S. or the world seems like a failure,” Matheny observes. “We’re already not that great at prioritizing risks that we know about; we’re even more negligent thinking about risks that we haven’t categorized that are over the horizon.”
Moreover, Gordon says, advances in science leave us exposed to structural challenges we have never even considered. “I always worried about what would happen if we discovered that DNA could be manipulated—what does that do to our legal system?” she says. “If our adversaries did something that forced us to consider whether anything DNA-wise could be trusted in our legal system, what does that do to our ability to seek justice?”
Richard Clarke, a former White House national security official during the Clinton and Bush administrations, proposed in his 2017 book, Warnings: Finding Cassandras to Stop Catastrophes, establishing a “National Warning Office” to work on imagining such risks. The closest modern-day analogue might be the Department of Homeland Security’s National Risk Management Center, part of the new Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which is trying to master and define the nation’s critical functions, understand how the U.S. economy actually works and overlay those systems with how they’d be impacted by various events, from cyberattacks to earthquakes. Last year, CISA published a list of 55 critical functions, things like generating electricity to conducting elections to transporting cargo. “We are working to get a better understanding of the infrastructure itself,” explains Krebs, CISA’s founding director. “And then you start layering the scenarios on top.”
Identifying those critical functions to keep the economy humming is especially important as every disaster seems to unveil new, unexpected and unknown interconnections between supply chains and industries. The long-term power outage in Puerto Rico that followed Hurricane Maria led to unexpected national shortages of IV bags and saline for hospitals because the nation’s main manufacturing plants were located there. The Covid crisis, similarly, is making clear how seemingly mundane business moves—like the market consolidation of the meatpacking industry—can lead to large-scale consequences in a disaster: Today, pork and beef are running short in large sections of the country.
“It’s highly likely that we’re not going to see the next thing coming, so we need to build more resilience into our society and ensure we’re adaptive to whatever comes,” Matheny says. “The fact that everything is unraveling amid what’s actually a relatively mild pandemic does not bode well.”
YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS NEXT?
Just Check Out the Gameplans
2001 (!) #DarkWinter (attack on American homeland)
2005 #AtlanticStorm (bioterrorist attack)
2018 (!) #CladeX (preparing global crisis)
2019 #Event201 (outbreak pandemic)
You're weak. And we're going to show you how weak you coward. #Q #QAnon #CoronaHoax #PoliticalPropaganda #BillGatesIsNotOurFriend #BetoORourkeIsNotOurFriend #Resist #Resistance #lies #Puppets #Event201 #CladeX #BillGatesGate #SorosGate
This tweet takes the gold award for the year, and the year isn't even over. It's absolutely amazing isn't it? The hypocrisy is outstanding! #Q #QAnons #KeepOnRockinInTheFreeWorld #NoVaccines #NoVaccine #Alphabetcommunity #Event201 #CladeX #ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZCommunity
Someone can shove that "immunity passport" so far up their ass they will need to hire multiple doctors to find it. #Q #BillGatesIsNotADoctor #BillGates33 #Event201 #CladeX #QAnons #AlanDershowitzIsNotOurFriend #NaziGermany
DeAnna Lorraine @DeAnna4Congress·
Will you line up to get your “Immunity Passport?” https://youtu.be/GkyZLFs7qlc
New Podcast! "Govern America | April 25, 2020 | Dark Winter" on
Govern America | April 25, 2020 | Dark Winter
"Dark Winter" Hosts: Darren Weeks, Vicky Davis Show website: https://governamerica.com Vicky's Websites: https://thetechnocratictyranny.com and https://channelingreality.com COMPLETE SHOW...
Important to note that the pathogen and death toll in #CladeX were fictional, but as
notes, some of the decisions that leaders around the world are grappling with for #2019nCoV are very familiar.
The growing China coronavirus outbreak spreading to other countries, including the U.S., reminds me of this drill that I wrote about: a mock pandemic that killed 150 million people. Look at the tough decisions involved. https://washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/05/30/this-mock-pandemic-killed-150-million-people-next-time-it-might-not-be-a-drill/
, pretty good scenario writers on high-level pandemic exercises:
2001 (!) #DarkWinter (attack on American homeland)
2005 #AtlanticStorm (bioterrorist attack)
2018 (!) #CladeX (preparing global crisis)
2019 #Event201 (outbreak pandemic)
The announcement for #EVENT201 was made on Jan 23, 2019. (Ofc
& partners had to prepare months before the event in Oct 18, 2019) I would go with “It’s great they had this simulation in advance” + #DarkWinter #AtlanticStorm #CladeX Exercises in 2001, 2005, 2018 #WuFlu
Tom Inglesby @T_Inglesby
Excited to announce today that @JHSPH_CHS + @wef + @gatesfoundation partnering in Oct 2019 exercise called "Event 201" that will engage leaders from global business, national governments, international orgs in response to novel pandemic #Davos2019 1/2
The announcement for #EVENT201 was made on Jan 23, 2019. (Ofc
& partners had to prepare months before the event in Oct 18, 2019) I would go with “It’s great they had this simulation in advance” + #DarkWinter #AtlanticStorm #CladeX Exercises in 2001, 2005, 2018 #WuFlu
Tom Inglesby @T_Inglesby
Excited to announce today that @JHSPH_CHS + @wef + @gatesfoundation partnering in Oct 2019 exercise called "Event 201" that will engage leaders from global business, national governments, international orgs in response to novel pandemic #Davos2019 1/2
This maybe your #CladeX
#cladex Eric Toner, MD, is the exercise team lead. https://centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/events/2018_clade_x_exercise/index.html
Eric Toner (a scientist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security) wasn't shocked when news of a mysterious coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, China surfaced in early January. Less than 3 months earlier Toner had staged a simulation of a global pandemic involving a coronavirus.
Gates Foundation CEO Steps Down and Former CDC Director - Who Was Also A #CladeX
Pandemic Exercise Participant - Dumped $9.11 Million in Shares of Merck Stock Just Before the Market Crashed Julie Gerberding has great timing - See next tweet
CDC began hiring for Quarantine Program November 15, 2019 (Gematria...
What is in store for the sleeping populace and us that are aware of the code?..they had a #plandemic which is described in #Cladex and other simulations.#lockdown study self ed #LA #NewYorkCity #NYC #Oakland #Ohio #Louisiana #UK #SA #Florida #Boston #Maine #NewJersey #NewMexico
Bill Gates on his vision for re-opening the world post #COVID19 - rights will be restored based on mass vaccination status. Mass gathering (religious, entertainment, sports?) may NEVER come back. “Germ Games like War Games”
All the way to the end to hear the disconnect.
Clade X Livestream (Archived)