In recent months, the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leaders, Global Shapers, and New Champions have gathered in support of the Davos mission. Who exactly are these groups and what do they represent?
While the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leaders program has become familiar to many people in recent months, equally important and influential programs such as the Global Shapers and New Champions are less well known. However, a look into these initiatives offers further insight into the plans of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the globalist politicians who support them.
According to their official site, the Young Global Leaders is an “accelerator for a dynamic community of exceptional people with the vision, courage, and influence to drive positive change in the world”. The YGL claim to have more than 1,400 members and alumni from more than 120 nations. They say their membership is made up of business innovators, entrepreneurs, technology pioneers, educators, activists, artists, journalists, and more. Since they area a creation of the WEF, they also say they “seek to drive public-private co-operation in the global public interest”.
Video Player
00:00
01:06
Unlimited Hangout investigator Johnny Vedmore recently released a must-read investigation into the YGL which definitively proves that Klaus Schwab’s mentor Henry Kissinger — wanted war criminal, former Secretary of State — was the mastermind behind the creation of the YGL initiative. The report also highlights the now obvious purpose of this and similar organizations. Vedmore writes:
“Klaus Schwab became the heir to Henry Kissinger’s most important project, the infiltration of individuals and organizations in countries around the world with the aim of creating globalist-aligned governments built within the framework of an outdated and soulless conceptualization of American imperialism.”
As Klaus Schwab himself has made perfectly clear, the role of the YGL is to “penetrate” the cabinets of national government to promote the vision of stakeholder capitalism and the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
The Young Global Leaders 2022 Gathering
Speaking in early September at the annual YGL gathering, Klaus Schwab acknowledged the role played by the WEF and YGLs.
“So I developed this concept and I became so fascinated that I decided to create the foundation and bring stakeholders together. So the idea of Davos was born,” Schwab said during the “State of the World Address”. “Since the beginning we assembled in Davos, not just business leaders or government leaders, but, probably the first big plea of people to take care of the environment was the Club of Rome exactly 50 years ago. And we gave the Club of Rome a platform to promote its ideas of “The Limits to Growth”.
Another investigation by Unlimited Hangout writer Matthew Ehret discusses the origins of the Club of Rome “landmark” 1972 report, The Limits to Growth. Ehret elaborates further on the connection between the WEF and the creation of the Club of Rome:
“Sir Alexander King and the computer model made famous in the 1972 Limits to Growth imposed a new schism between humanity’s desire to develop vs nature’s supposed desire to rest in mathematical equilibrium. This neo-Malthusian computer model was used to justify the culling of the unfit and overpopulated useless eaters and was subsequently incorporated into the third official World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting at Davos, where Aurelio Peccei was introduced by Klaus Schwab and showcased the Limits to Growth magic to thousands of supportive attendees.
This particular meeting was sponsored by Prince Bernhardt of the Netherlands, a man who had already distinguished himself among upper level managers of the empire by founding the infamous Bilderberg meetings in 1954 and, later, the World Wildlife Fund for Nature in 1961 (alongside Julian Huxley and Prince Philip Mountbatten). In addition to incorporating Club of Rome population models into cybernetics-based planning, this summit also featured the official unveiling of “the Davos Manifesto”, a document which formalized the concept of “Stakeholder Capitalism” and the fourth industrial revolution into the governing manifesto of this “Junior Bilderberger” annual summit.”
Sir Alexander King was also responsible for a follow up report released in 1991 titled “The First Global Revolution”. This controversial report includes a section called “The Common Enemy of Humanity is Man”, which contains this often-quoted section:
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and in their interactions thesephenomenadoconstituteacommonthreat which demands the solidarity of all peoples.But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely mistakingsymptomsforcauses.Allthesedangersare caused by human intervention and it is only through changedattitudesandbehaviourthattheycanbe overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.“
Some readers have interpreted this statement to mean that the Club of Rome was acknowledging they would use the idea of pollution, global warming, water shortages, and famine to unite humanity behind the idea that humanity is the problem. The Club of Rome and their supporters claim this passage is taken out of context and simply represents their leadership recognizing geopolitical issues which would soon befall humanity.
During Klaus Schwab’s speech at the YGL annual gathering he discussed the role of the WEF and explained how the organization has been able to become an influential force in the last 50 years. Schwab also discussed the importance of indoctrinating the youth into his philosophy of a “multistakeholder approach”. Schwab went on to brag about the 200 plus “collaborative platforms” started by the WEF, the Centers for the Fourth Industrial Revolution in a dozen nations, and all the other various ways the WEF has “infiltrated” the governments of the world. He also noted the five different areas the WEF platforms are focused on, namely, regional and global collaboration, nature and climate, the new Social Contract, industry transformation, and the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR).
The 4IR is another pet project of Klaus Schwab which was first announced in December 2015. To put it simply, the 4IR is the digital panopticon of the future, where digital surveillance is omnipresent and humanity uses digital technology to alter our lives. Often associated with terms like the Internet of Things, the Internet of Bodies, the Internet of Humans, and the Internet of Senses, this world will be powered by 5G and 6G technology. Of course, for Schwab and other globalists, the 4IR also lends itself towards more central planning and top-down control. The goal is a track and trace society where all transactions are logged, every person has a digital ID that can be tracked, and social malcontents are locked out of society via social credit scores.
When asked what he believes the “key challenges” facing humanity are, Schwab stated:
“When we organized our annual meeting in May this year we chose the theme “History at a Turning Point”. We are really at a turning point. And I would say, you look back, we had the post-Cold War time, which lasted until 1989 with the fall of the wall. And now we go into the post-post Cold War time. We are at the end of a very significant period and we are in the transition of a new period. And like always, a transition is difficult.”
Schwab went on to describe the different forces he believes are shaping and influencing the world of the next five to seven years. These forces include a geopolitical realignment from a unipolar world to one with multipolar or even bipolar standards. Schwab said this would lead to a “multi-ideological world” that will be unstable. He also mentioned a “geoeconomic alignment”, a rearrangement of the supply chain, and an energy transformation involving decarbonization and energy security. Schwab described the transformation as a “costly process”. Finally, Schwab said he believed the “militarization of economies” and pandemics will shape the next few years.
“We come out of a pandemic and this pandemic was very costly, not only in financial terms, but psychologically. The question about the next pandemic is not about whether or not it will come – i think it will come – but about when we will face (it),” Schwab told the YGLs. “To develop resilience, we need to develop resilience against such pandemics. Again a very costly undertaking, you see it in China, with the closing down…. we are not out of the woods yet.”
Schwab’s mention of the need to be “resilient” against pandemics is odd in relation to his mention of China, where authoritarian lockdowns have plagued the Chinese people for almost 3 years. It’s not clear if his statements are meant to be an endorsement or a suggestion of a “necessary evil” on the way to resiliency.
Interestingly, Schwab mentions China again when discussing what he sees as the positive influences on the coming years. Specifically, he believes the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution will bring about a positive change and “new capabilities”.
“Who could imagine his or her life without the internet?,” Schwab asked. “But the internet is only 20 years old. When we look at technological development I think we are at a tipping point. We are only now reaching the exponential phase of development.”
Schwab continues:
“When I had my discussion with (Chinese) Premiere Li Ko-chiang, two months ago, he mentioned that China alone now has 150 million well educated people. There is a tremendous force behind the Fourth Industrial Revolution. And this will change our lives.”
Finally, to hammer the point home, Schwab reiterates what exactly he means by the 4IR and what it will bring about.
“Let me summarize what this means. It means we will enter a period of tremendous acceleration of change, tremendous complexity and uncertainty. What I am worried most is, if you take the question, are we able to cope with change? and how do we cope with change? You see already governments not always understanding what new technologies mean, you see the effects on society with it becomes agitated because it cannot handle all the changes coming all the time.”
This statement appears to indicate an awareness that not only will this planned upheaval come with tremendous financial costs, but that it might cost so much that the people become agitated with the changes coming from the likes of the WEF.
The Global Shapers Community
The Young Global Leaders are not the only WEF program aimed at influencing the youth. The Global Shapers Community is a “network of young people driving dialogue, action and change” targeting those under 30. Founded in 2011 by Klaus Schwab, this organization focuses on “empowering young people” to play an active role in “shaping local, regional and global agendas”.
Members of the Global Shapers do this by forming “city-based hubs” where they are able to launch projects focused on advancing the goals of the WEF and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The WEF claims they have more than 15,000 Global Shapers in 500 city-based hubs in 150 countries and territories. These hubs are supported by “significant financial and in-kind contributions” from the WEF, including “staff time, technology tools and opportunities to interact and collaborate with its membership network”.
The hub leaders are invited to the Global Shapers Annual Summit in Geneva, Switzerland where they hobnob with other members, and take lessons in how to promulgate the WEF stakeholder philosophy and, whether consciously or unconsciously, The Great Reset agenda.
While the stated purpose of the Global Shapers is to “self-organize to create projects that address the needs of their community”, in reality they are unwittingly serving the goals of the Technocrats at the WEF. On the surface, the projects seem benign and even beneficial in some cases. They include disaster relief, fighting poverty, environmental initiatives, and efforts to build inclusive communities. These are projects that most people can get behind and for a young person seeking to pad their resume with community service, the Global Shapers Community sounds like a great match.
Unfortunately, the good work of these well-intentioned people from around the world is being harvested in an attempt to give the WEF and their ilk a veneer of legitimacy. These projects give the WEF something to point to when asked what exactly their organization is accomplishing. However, when looking at the 2022 Global Shapers Annual gathering, all of the topics discussed align perfectly with the aforementioned agendas of Klaus Schwab and the WEF.
Meet the New Champions
In mid-July, yet another WEF program held a gathering titled “New Champion Dialogues 2022” with the subtitle of “Navigating Uncertainty”. The “New Champions Dialogues” were a virtual gathering of business leaders, government, and civil society for “high-level dialogues and action-oriented discussions to move critical collaborations forward despite ongoing global uncertainty”.
The gathering was promoted as a virtual exchange focused on “international and domestic uncertainty and disruption”, and “extraordinary levels of entrepreneurship and resilience”, as well as climate change, economic instability, and technological innovation.
“New Champion companies are dynamic high-growth companies that are championing new business models, emerging technologies, and sustainable growth strategies in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. New Champions are mindful of their impact on society and aspire to participate in building a better future.”
The WEF says the Annual Meeting of the New Champions is different than the annual gathering in Davos because it is “aimed at engaging entrepreneurs and innovators from emerging markets”. The New Champions meeting has been held in China since 2007 and is described as a “second pillar” among the WEF’s global meetings. The last in-person meeting of the New Champions was held in Dalian, China, in July 2019, prior to COVID-19.
The 2022 virtual gathering of the New Champions continued the focus on influencing entrepreneurs and businesses to align with the WEF Great Reset agenda. By working to influence entrepreneurs and corporations to adopt the various standards promoted by the WEF (ESG, for example) they are able to work around national governments.
The titles of the panels at the July 2022 gathering make it clear that the New Champions are serving the same purpose as the WEF annual meeting, the YGLs, and the Global Shapers. Titles for panels include “Adapting to Evolving ESG Requirements”, “Averting a Worldwide Food Crisis”, and “Energizing a Sustainable Transition”. For more information on the ESG scam read my previous investigations.
Another panel focused on the Metavese was titled “Innovation for Impact: Frontiers of the Metaverse”. As I previously reported in November 2021, the Metaverse has the potential to be a digital dystopia designed to lock the public in a technocratic nightmare.
Meanwhile, the Unlocking the Power of Nature Financing furthered the WEF’s vision of a “nature-based economy” through something they call “nature financing”. This panel highlighted a recent Five-Year Plan by China focused on allocating massive financial resources to fund “ecological protection and restoration”. As with all WEF programs, I recommend taking this greenwashing language with a huge grain of salt.
Overall, like the Young Global Leaders program, the Global Shapers and New Champions represent another piece of the globalist octopus which has become quite effective at penetrating and manipulating world governments.
(NOTE: Full Lengthy Article attached, but Mercola’s site retains articles for only 48 hours, and this information is important)
California’s Misinformation Epidemic Pt. 1
I recently had the pleasure of getting to know one of my favorite pseudonymous writers on Substack who goes by ‘A Midwestern Doctor.’ This powerful essay needs as wide exposure as possible.
From The Forgotten Side of Medicine Substack, this essay brilliantly details the history, current state, and future of the criminal control of information, corruption of science, and coercion of the public in regards to vaccines. I consider it an honor to host this essay for my subscribers.
When I was younger, a friend who was a corporate executive told me about “tiger teams,” an approach industry would utilize to solve a complex problem facing them or to develop a plan for achieving a long-term strategic goal. After he vividly described the tenacity with which they attacked their problem, I realized large corporations could be expected to conduct highly strategic and Machiavellian plans over long timelines that would be difficult for anyone but the most talented observer to spot.
Since that time, I’ve also come to appreciate how most businessmen and their industries will default to reusing tools that have previously proven themselves for addressing each new problem that emerges. As a result, once you learn what each of the tools are, it becomes possible to predict each of the sequential steps a tiger team will choose to accomplish its goals.
Since I have held a long-term interest in the politics of vaccination, I have been able to witness the sequential steps that played out first in California and then throughout the nation. What I still find remarkable about these events was how each one directly enabled the subsequent event, and that in many cases, what happened subsequently had previously been promised to never come to pass.
Given everything that I have observed, I am almost certain one or more tiger teams working for the vaccine industry chose to have California be the means through which to accomplish their goal of regular mandatory vaccinations for the entire American population.
At this moment, a highly unpopular law that prevents physicians from spreading “misinformation“ by questioning any orthodox perspective on COVID-19 is awaiting the governor’s signature, and if this law passes, it will likely be disastrous for the nation as additional jurisdictions adopt it.
The purpose of this article will be to discuss exactly what brought us to the point a law like that could be on the verge of passing and the important insights that can be taken from the entire process.
The “Truth”
Throughout human history, one of the most valuable commodities has always been ownership over the “truth,” as so much power and profit results from holding a truth that aligns with your vested interests. Once larger societies formed, determining “truth,“ was always a key societal need, and excluding a few enlightened societies, the method of determining truth normally evolved as follows:
Might makes right.
Judging the preponderance of evidence.
A growing, and eventually unsustainable corruption of most “evidence.”
In many ways, forcing two opposing viewpoints to present their evidence and then having the appropriate parties determine which side presented the preponderance of evidence and thus “wins” is the best solution our species has developed for settling otherwise irreconcilable differences of opinion.
Unfortunately, as our times have shown, the natural response to having our society place a heavy weight on “evidence” is to have dishonest parties “win,” not by being on the side with the best evidence, but rather by buying out the entire evidence base and censoring the opposition — effectively creating a much more sophisticated form of “might makes right.”
In many ways, the anatomy of corruption within “science-based” medicine is quite simple and like many other things in business, continually reuses the same formulas. As a result, once you understand how corruption plays out in a few areas, it becomes feasible to understand how things will play out in many others.
I thus would argue many of the events we witnessed throughout COVID-19 (e.g. the sudden extreme censorship of scientific debate recently detailed by Pierre Kory), simply represents all of this longstanding corruption metastasizing to a degree which finally became visible to the general public.
Public Relations
Although Sigmund Freud is typically thought of as the most influential psychologist in history, his nephew Edward Bernays created an invisible industry that has had a far greater influence than Freud. To create his mark on the world, Bernays argued that the principles of psychology should be utilized not for individual psychotherapy but rather to control the population so that the irrational impulses of the masses could not derail the progress of society, and not surprisingly, the power-hungry elite fully embraced his narrative.
When you study the organizational structure of modern society, you will continually come across hierarchal pyramids being utilized that allow the top of the pyramid to exert a massive influence over the rest of society.
This is for instance why in medicine, doctors are expected to follow “guidelines” created by unaccountable committees that are typically composed of individuals being paid off by the pharmaceutical industry, and why in most cases it is nearly impossible for a patient to have any type of care provided to them without the approval of a doctor. Thus, by buying out a few committees, it becomes possible to exert a massive influence on the general public.
Public relations is essentially the science of how to create a pyramidal hierarchy throughout the media and to leverage that control so the general public can be manipulated into serving the interests of the sponsor.
We recently witnessed what I believe to be the most aggressive PR campaign in history and the collective effort to pull out every possible stop to sell the COVID-19 vaccines to the American public (ironically one of the individuals I know who became disabled from these vaccines worked in the industry and worked with a passionate zeal for over a year beforehand on the PR campaign for Moderna).
Studying the PR industry is quite depressing because it shows how much of the news is “fake,” just how manipulative much of it is, and how many foundational beliefs we hold in the culture are simply the product of a corporation’s public relations campaign. For those interested in this subject, an excellent book can be found here, a youtube documentary here, and an article here.
One of the most common tactics utilized in public relations is to take a complex subject and distill it down to a simple phrase that reframes it in terms that are favorable to the sponsor and removes the critical nuances from a debate (frequently this process is equated to weaponizing language).
Because the entire PR process is based around creating a pyramidal hierarchy that defers to the top, you can frequently observe these messages or scripted phrases that were developed by a PR firm be simultaneously disseminated on countless networks, including the “independent” ones:
Note: This behavior exists on both sides of the political spectrum; I am citing this one because it is the best montage I have come across.
“Misinformation”
During Obama’s presidency, the term “misinformation” started to come into vogue and was deployed to sink Trump’s presidential campaign (which failed as Trump managed to make the “fake news” meme every media platform was promoting stick to CNN instead of him). Before long, this steamrolled into “misinformation” being used as a justification to censor any viewpoint that challenged the status quo.
Initially, easy to disparage groups such as members of the far-right were targeted for censorship by Silicon Valley, before long liberal friends I knew who practiced holistic medical approaches (and had supported the initial censorship) were targeted, and by the time COVID-19 happened, this behavior had metastasized to the point it was nearly impossible to publicize any treatment for the disease or any potential harm from the vaccines.
Governments have continued their relentless push for censorship, best illustrated by the recent U.N. speech by New Zealand’s prime minister that declared free speech on the internet a weapon of war and called for the international community to work towards curating (censoring) all online information that questions government narratives.
Prior to Obama’s presidency, I had heard there was a push to establish a pyramidal hierarchy for all information on the internet, with a few major tech companies serving as the “gatekeepers” the public could access the information through, but until 2016, this always seemed like something that would happen in the far distant future. Recently, I learned that Sharyl Atkinson was able to identify when and where this all began:
“I first heard the term [curated] applied to controlling news and information in October 2016 when President Obama introduced the concept at an appearance at the private research university Carnegie Mellon. Obama claimed a “curating” function had become necessary.
The public at large had not been asking for any such thing. Instead, it was the invention of powerful interests that apparently felt the need to get a grip on public opinion — interests that were losing the information war online. But the concept is contrary to the nature of a free society and an open Internet. It would take some clever manipulation to convince the public to allow such “curating.”
“We’re going to have to rebuild, within this Wild, Wild West of information flow, some sort of curating function that people agree to,” said Obama. “… [T]here has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard because they just don’t have any basis in anything that’s actually happening in the world.”
As far as I know, that signaled the start of what would become a global media initiative to have third parties insert themselves as arbiters of facts, opinions, and truth in the news and online [prior to this they were viewed as a joke and fortunately still are by half of the electorate].”
Credible Sources
Most of our modern hierarchies operate on the basis of being “credible.” For example, in journalism, about a century ago during the era of Bernays, the concept of “professional journalism” was created and a standard was set that news could not be considered credible unless it was disseminated by someone who belonged to a corrupt credible news organization that served the bidding of those in power.
This article for example discusses the profound consequences of the monopolization of journalism, and how as the decades have gone by, the issue has only gotten worse and worse.
Sharyl Attkisson’s book (the source of the above quotation) describes how pervasive corruption gradually entered her industry, and how despite her clout in the network as a premier news anchor, more and more of her investigations were not permitted to air by her superiors.
In the early 2000s, Atkinson was assigned to report on the controversial military anthrax and smallpox vaccinations, and not long after, the smallpox campaign was cancelled. Now, in contrast, no criticism whatsoever is permitted of the much more dangerous COVID-19 vaccines (and now even the government is paying to incentivize this censorship).
To see how much things have shifted consider this report that was aired on the nightly news after the 1976 swine flu vaccine debacle (this vaccine was not safe and I directly know people who developed permanent complications from it that persist to this day, but at the same time, it was much safer than the COVID-19 vaccines):
Something like this could never air today.
Evidence-Based Medicine
The pyramidal hierarchy of our society requires creating faith in authoritative sources and then having each institution work in unison to promote the sanctity of those (easy to control) sources. “Professional journalism” is one such example, another is the widespread societal adherence to the CDC’s arbitrary and ineffective guidelines (best illustrated by the absurd dictates they and other Western health authorities put forward in regards to social distancing during physical intimacy).
When evidence-based medicine (EBM) started, it was sorely needed by the medical profession because many disastrous practices were unchallengeable dogmas. However, in due time, as corruption entered the process, EBM became yet another means for “[financial] might to make right” as its authority was shifted into a pyramidal hierarchy. Presently, the “authority” in EBM rests in 5 areas.
The sanctity of all data.
Conducting large randomized clinical trials.
Peer-reviewed publications in high-impact scientific journals.
Authoritative committees reviewing the previous three to produce guidelines.
Other institutions (e.g. the media and the courts) upholding the sanctity of the data and evidenced-based guidelines.
There have been major issues in each of these areas for decades as industry has steadily worked to expand its influence over EBM, but as many observers noted, these issues spun completely out of control during COVID-19. Let’s review each of them:
The sanctity of all data — The major problem with “data” is that most of it is never made available for outside analysis, which allows those who “own” the data to only present data that casts the owner in a favorable light (which essentially makes the data worthless).
The pharmaceutical industry nonetheless has been able to sustain this practice by arguing that disclosing their data would constitute a violation of proprietary trade secrets. Thus excluding the occasional instance where they are forced to open their records as part of the discovery process (e.g. in the lawsuits against the antidepressant manufacturers) that research fraud and the concealment of critically important safety data never come to light (and never has for vaccines).
Almost all of the COVID-19 vaccine data likewise was never made available to the public (although the companies have suggested it may be made available a few years from now); instead, we simply received highly curated publications in prestigious medical journals. Since the vaccines have entered the market, countless red flags on their safety and efficacy have emerged in large datasets.
On one hand, I view all of this as an immensely positive development, as in the past critical data suppression like this typically remained hidden and forgotten. On the other hand, I consider it completely unacceptable the public is being forced to take a vaccination product on the basis of data they are not even permitted to review.
Conducting large randomized clinical trials — We are reflexively conditioned by the educational system to assume a clinical trial has no value unless it is randomized and controlled. While it is true that controlling for the placebo effect through blinding somewhat improves the accuracy of a study, conducting a randomized controlled trial (RCT) is immensely expensive, and the biases introduced by those costs dwarf those obtained by controlling for the placebo effect.
A little known fact is that findings from study designs that do not rely on industry funding (i.e. retrospective observational controlled studies) reach the same conclusion, on average, to those of RCT’s. Yet the former are near systematically ignored by the high-impact journals and medical societies.
Put differently, RCT’s require industry funding, and industry funding has repeatedly been found to heavily bias trial data in favor of its sponsor. To highlight the absurdity of this, as the whistleblower Brooke Jackson showed, the RCT she supervised for the Pfizer vaccine was not even blinded because the trial site cut so many corners to produce a positive result for Pfizer.
For those who wish to know about how the industry games clinical trials, this book, this book and this book are the three best resources I have found on the subject.
Peer reviewed publications in high-impact scientific journals — In the same way we are conditioned to reflexively dismiss anything that is not a large RCT, many people will not consider a scientific trial unless it is published in a high-impact peer-reviewed journal.
This creates a setting where studies that support industry interests regardless of their deficiencies are published (e.g. pharmaceutical ghostwriting is a major source of fraud in the peer-reviewed literature), whereas articles that challenge their interests are never published. This has been a longstanding issue, and the earliest example I remember coming across was discussed in this 2001 book:
The positions of the journal sponsors also gradually enter the medical culture, and the peer-review culture frequently censors or attacks publications that do not match industry findings. One of the best examples was Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 study which ruffled so many feathers by suggesting a link between autism and vaccination that the study was retracted and a thorough example was made of him (e.g. he lost his license) to deter further research into vaccine injuries.
Many other examples also exist, such as the extreme hostility faced by researchers who publish data that is critical of other sacred cows like routine statin usage or psychiatric overmedication.
Because of the systemic biases that exist against publishing anything which challenges medical orthodoxies, it can often take years or decades for bad practices to be abandoned as no one is willing to on take the risk of publishing studies refuting them.
For example, a few of my Ph.D. friends who researched viral genomes knew within a day of the original SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequence being published that it came from a lab, yet not a single one was willing to expose themselves to the personal risk they would take from authoring a publication on that subject.
At this point, there seems to be an unwritten understanding that the introduction and conclusion of a scientific publication must match the prevailing biases of medicine. It is hence always fascinating to see just how often an article’s conclusion is not supported by the data within it (sadly few ever read those parts of the paper).
Throughout COVID-19, these problems also became much worse. To share a few memorable examples:
A large study was published in the Lancet which showed data from around the world indicated hydroxychloroquine killed COVID-19 patients who received it and was used by the WHO as justification to suspend clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine (along with governments forbidding its administration to patients).
Outside evaluators realized the data was nonsensical (leading to serious questions over how one of the best editorial boards in the world let it be published), the company that provided the data effectively admitted fraud had been conducted, and the study was retracted. Another one of the top 5 medical journals, the NEJM, also published a study utilizing Surgisphere’s fraudulent dataset.
Despite a tsunami of data showing severe harm from the COVID-19 vaccines, it has been virtually impossible for any publication on the topic to enter the peer-review literature.
As Pierre Kory has detailed throughout the last few years, numerous large clinical trials have been conducted that clearly show a benefit from ivermectin for COVID-19 and no risks associated with the therapy. Despite the evidence for ivermectin being stronger than what can be found for almost any other drug on the market, as Kory’s recent series shows, it is nearly impossible to have a study supporting ivermectin be published (unless the conclusion says the opposite).
When they are instead published as preprints they often are retracted for political reasons (retracting a preprint is absurd), and not surprisingly, ivermectin is now widely viewed by the medical community as both unsafe and ineffective.
Currently I believe that of the top five medical journals, the BMJ is the only “prestigious” medical journal still conducting itself in a manner deserving of its reputation.
Authoritative committees reviewing the previous three to produce guidelines — A common complaint from conservatives is that unelected bureaucrats are allowed to control our lives with impunity. One area where this is particularly true can be found within the committee model where “experts” are nominated to assess existing evidence and produce a consensus on what should be done.
Even though those guidelines which bypassed the legislative process should not be treated as law (as was ruled by a federal judge), in most cases they are. As you might expect, the people who make it onto these committees tend to have heavy financial conflicts of interest that inevitably result in their voting for their sponsors. Consider this paraphrased example that was shared in chapter 7 of Doctoring Data:
The National Cholesterol Education Programme (NCEP) has been tasked by the NIH to develop [legally enforceable] guidelines for treating cholesterol levels. Excluding the chair (who was by law prohibited from having financial conflicts of interest), the other 8 members on average were on the payroll of 6 statin manufacturers.
In 2004, NCEP reviewed 5 large statin trials and recommended: “Aggressive LDL lowering for high-risk patients [primary prevention] with lifestyle changes and statins.” [these recommendations in turn were adopted around the world].
In 2005 a Canadian division of the Cochrane Collaboration reviewed 5 large statin trials (3 were the same as NCEP’s, while the other 2 had also reached a positive conclusion for statin therapy). That assessment instead concluded: “Statins have not been shown to provide an overall health benefit in primary prevention trials.”
I believe that the most corrupt committee during the pandemic response was the NIH one responsible for determining the appropriate therapies for COVID-19. Some (and possibly all) of its members were appointed by Anthony Fauci, many had personal ties to Fauci and almost all of them held significant financial conflicts of interest with Gilead, remdesivir’s manufacturer.
Not surprisingly, that committee has consistently recommended against every therapy that effectively treats COVID-19 but is off-patent (and hence not profitable). Conversely, their recommendation for remdesivir is why it was the required treatment throughout the US hospital system despite the evidence for the drug being atrocious (a more detailed and referenced summary of this corruption can be found here).
In many ways, the remdesivir story is eerily similar to the early days of HIV. There, Fauci used his influence to keep a variety of effective therapies away from dying AIDS patients so that he could win approval for AZT, a dangerous drug many believe significantly worsened the prognosis of those who received it.
Other institutions (e.g. the media and the courts) upholding the sanctity of the data and evidenced-based guidelines — Many people I know used a variety of integrative therapies (e.g. intravenous vitamin C) to treat COVID-19 during the early days of the pandemic, and successfully saved many lives at the same time countless Americans were being sent to the hospitals to die (as they had no treatment for COVID-19 besides often lethal ventilators).
Yet, it was those who treated COVID-19 successfully (including a few of my friends) who were targeted by the government and either served with a cease and desist or prosecuted for “endangering” the public by utilizing unproven therapies not supported by the COVID-19 treatment guidelines.
The mass media was also fully complicit in this and never once mentioned any option for COVID-19 (other than needing to get more ventilators or vaccines), except when attacking the doctors who were providing life-saving outpatient therapies. However, while the new’s conduct was egregious, by far the biggest offender was Big Tech.
Curating Information
As I think through all the things that had to come together to enable the pandemic profiteers to destroy our economy, withhold life-saving treatments from the American public, and mandate a disastrous vaccination on the populace, I believe Obama’s push for the Silicon Valley to become the arbiter of what we were allowed to see online was by far the most consequential.
Since that time, I have observed a remarkable decline in the quality of discourse on many social media websites (as many worthwhile topics are now censored or flooded with bots — Substack is a rare exception) and it has become much more difficult to find the information I am looking for online (to the point I sometimes need to use Russia’s search engine to find it).
Throughout history, freedom of speech has always been a hotly contested subject as people tend to support it, except for viewpoints they disagree with, and frequently lack the insight to recognize why those positions are at odds with each other. Societies likewise follow cyclical trends towards and away from totalitarianism and fascist censorship.
The earliest example I know of was shared with me by a scholar who had reviewed the plays of ancient Greece and had found that as censorship (e.g. political correctness) entered the plays, it immediately preceded the fall of Greek democracy and an authoritarian government taking over. From studying countless iterations of this cycle, I now believe the following:
It must be acknowledged that any position you hold could be wrong or based on erroneous information.
It is important to defend the right of those you disagree with to speak and not hate them because they hold viewpoints you adamantly oppose.
If you refuse to defend your position in an open and fair debate, you are probably wrong.
Very strict stipulations must exist on what speech can be outlawed, and those stipulations must be agreed upon by (nearly) the entire society. Some things such as shouting “fire” in a movie theater as a prank everyone can agree on. Anything everyone cannot agree on I would argue does not meet the standard that must be met for censorship.
The government may incentivize speech it agrees with, but it cannot restrict speech it disagrees with.
Any attempt you make to censor a viewpoint you disagree with is not worth it because the censorship you helped create will inevitably be turned on you in the future.
During Obama’s presidency, two major changes emerged in Silicon Valley. The first many are aware of was an obsession (by these otherwise evil companies) with saving the world through social justice that I would argue was analogous to the well known practice of Greenwashing, where an egregious polluter conducts a token environmental initiative and through doing so successfully recasts themselves as protectors of the environment.
This social justice focus was particularly problematic as it was used to justify the censorship of anything that was not politically correct and I would argue that many of the tech employees who helped spearhead the movement are now directly experiencing the consequences of the climate they created.
Note: This focus on censorship in lieu of debating opposing (“unsafe”) viewpoints also creeped into the university system and then the culture during Obama’s presidency and I believe was a direct consequence of policies enacted by his Department of Education.
The second, much more important one was that Big Tech became a key financial supporter of the Democrat party, and to varying degrees merged with the pharmaceutical industry and biotech. Because of this, there was a seismic realignment in the priorities of the Democrat party and it began ardently supporting those industries.
It is important to recognize how these two trends dovetailed. Big Tech was able to use their “altruistic” focus on social justice to distract the public from the more sinister direction their industry was moving in by using the standard for censorship they had established in the name of creating a “safe” (politically correct) environment; while at the same time targeting threats to their partners in the pharmaceutical and biotech industry by censoring any voices suggesting dangers were associated with those products.
From watching each piece of the plan that has been rolled out throughout my career, I suspect the vision of these three industries is to transform medicine into an algorithmic practice where most medical “decisions” in patient care are made by an AI system and the human body is treated as a genomic software code that can be “solved” by programmers.
Although this approach will have the ability to overcome certain issues we presently face in medicine, it is also fundamentally incapable of addressing many of the needs of each human being who goes through the healthcare system and will likely prove disastrous to our species.
Antitrust Activity
At the time Bill Gates founded the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation he was one of the most disliked individuals in America. This was because he had leveraged the power of his operating system Windows, which was on almost every computer in America, to also monopolize the software market and prevent competitors like Netscape (an early internet browser) from being used by consumers.
From the foundation’s inception, Gates repeated the same antitrust behavior he had leveraged in the past but instead directed it toward the field of global public health. I first became aware of this behavior after I learned of the disastrous vaccination campaigns he conducted in India. For example to quote The Real Anthony Fauci:
“India’s Federal Ministry of Health suspended the [HPV vaccine] trials and appointed an expert parliamentary committee to investigate the scandal. Indian government investigators found that Gates-funded researchers at PATH committed pervasive ethical violations: pressuring vulnerable village girls into the trial, bullying illiterate parents, and forging consent forms. Gates provided health insurance for his PATH staff but not to any participants in the trials, and refused medical care to the hundreds of injured girls.”
Gates also diverted a large portion of the global health budget towards eradicating the last few remaining cases of polio by giving large numbers of the (live) oral vaccine to third world countries, in some instances 50 doses by the age of five. This was disastrous around the world, for example paralyzing approximately 491,000 children over two decades in India.
One of my friends who has worked for the WHO for decades told me that the WHO has implemented a lot of good public health measures that saved lives. Unfortunately, ever since Gates got involved, those measured have fallen to the wayside and the focus has been on monopolistic public health practices that ultimately serve to enrich a few select industries at the expense of the third-world citizens the measures are alleged to help.
Similarly, many in the global health community have stated that since Gates has so much influence over the global health budget (and the WHO), it is nearly impossible to criticize or question any policy he promotes. To further entrench this monopoly, his foundation has prioritized buying out the press (be it groups like the Cochrane Collaboration or putting over 300 million into countless media outlets around the world), so that anything that challenges his vision of public health is “misinformation.”
Much more could be said about Gates (and is aptly summarized within The Real Anthony Fauci). However, we will focus on the two most important correlates to the misinformation epidemic:
Gates made a lot of money from the pandemic. For example, on 9/4/2019, two months before COVID-19 emerged in China, he invested 55 million in the company that produced Pfizer’s vaccine. Last year that investment was worth 550 million.
It has now been admitted by the mainstream media that Gates (and the Wellcome Trust) directed the pandemic response that failed disastrously from a public health perspective (but not in money-making). One quote from that article is particularly telling:
“Leaders of three of the four organizations maintained that lifting intellectual property protections [which would prevent everyone from making money] was not needed to increase vaccine supplies – which activists believed would have helped save lives.”
In the second half of this series, we will show how this antitrust behavior and militant censorship metastasized within Silicon Valley and how increasingly draconian laws enforcing vaccine mandates for the pharmaceutical industry have been implemented by the California legislature.
ESG exists as part of the WEF’s Great Narrative leading to the WEF’s Great Reset. It is primarily used to attack the US, demolishing the world’s engine of capitalism and free market economics. It also provided the bond between Big Business and Big Government. ⁃ TN Editor
At this point, everyone knows about ESG, and everyone knows that companies and firms that embrace it are intent on pushing an environmental, social, and governance agenda, mostly on America. But the full story is very interesting and extremely disturbing.
Recently, I had the chance to hear Vivek Ramaswamy, the founder of Strive Asset Management, speak about ESG, how it came to be, how it functions, and how to combat it.
Ramaswamy said that the problems of ESG are not state or even national economic ones. They make up a transnational, trans-partisan battle for the heart and soul of democracy itself. It is not Democrats versus Republicans, Left versus Right, black versus white, or gay versus straight. Rather, the real issue at stake is democratic-republican self-governance versus monarchy. Ramaswamy said that it is not a 2022 question but a 1776 question. ESG, says Ramaswamy, is a secular religion that started when ideas such as identity and the ability to achieve in life based on race, gender, or sexual orientation rose to the fore.
According to Ramaswamy, there were two toxic ideologies of the 20th century—the first being German Nazism, and the second Soviet-style Marxism. Blend the identity politics of the first with the oppressor-oppressed philosophy of the second and you have planted the seeds of ESG. This, in turn, allows for the application of labels to those who question the new cultural norm. Those labels include, but of course are not limited to, “racist,” “misogynist,” “climate-denier,” and “bigot.” Once those labels are applied, all debate is silenced.
The current problem, said Ramaswamy, began with the 2008 financial crisis. Ramaswamy was working for a Wall Street investment firm. He said anger began to rise when banks received financial bailouts, causing people to begin to question modern American capitalism. It also served as a nursery of sorts to the Occupy Wall Street movement. This movement, running on the fumes of the old progressive ideology, demanded that money be taken from the rich and given to the poor. But the neo-progressive movement was just starting to come into its own, and this movement postulated that the real problem was not poverty or economic injustice but rather racial injustice, bigotry, misogyny, and climate change.
Ramaswamy said that Wall Street saw a way to get off the hot seat. Corporations realized that they could get activists off their backs by doing things such as putting token minorities on corporate boards and championing the combatting of climate change and its supposedly racist impact. But the corporations said that the price would be for the Left to conveniently look the other way with regards to corporate power. In addition to being left alone, these companies also expected that the movers and shakers in government and these movements would give them certain business advantages. Ramaswamy cited a move by Goldman-Sachs in which it said it would not take a company public if it did not have a sufficiently diverse board. Ramaswamy called it a cynical grand bargain or even an arranged marriage between two sides that didn’t even so much as like one another. Ramaswamy likened it to “mutual prostitution,” which resulted in the “Woke ESG Industrial Complex.” This is a far more powerful entity than Big Business or Big Government, which allowed both elements to accomplish together what they could not do on their own.
This created the chance for new asset management companies to ride in on their proverbial white horses in the wake of the ’08 financial crisis. These included companies like BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard, which would create “better capitalism.” According to Ramaswamy, these three companies, over 15 years, have acquired enough assets to manage more than $21 trillion of investment funds. This money is then used to advance a progressive agenda that would have never survived a legislative session.
Seeing Wall Street’s success, Ramaswamy said that Silicon Valley realized that it would also like a piece of the action. Even back in 2008, the tech lords knew that it was the Left that posed a threat to their burgeoning monopoly on at least a philosophical level. So the tech lords said they would use their corporate power to advance progressivism, doing things like censoring opinions and eliminating “hate speech,” as the Left defined it. In return, the Left would conveniently ignore the tech monopoly.
Seeing how well things worked out for Wall Street and Silicon Valley, much of corporate America would follow suit. Ramaswamy cited Coca-Cola speaking out against Georgia’s voting laws and forcing its employees to take diversity training, including courses on how to be “less white.” At the same time, Coke could ignore its product’s effects on American obesity. Nike could condemn “systemic racism” in America, while people overseas toiled in sweatshops for slave wages and, as Ramaswamy asserted, in conditions of slave labor to make high-end sneakers for sale in the U.S., often to people who might not be able to afford coats for their children.
Even though the two sides still loathe one another, the system, which is the merger of state and corporate power, stays in place because it continues to work so well. Ramaswamy called it the most powerful force in modern American life. Ironically, liberals allowed themselves to forget about their skepticism of big business, and it duped conservatives because the system was presented in the context of the free market. Ramaswamy said that he knows principled people on the left and the right who are deeply concerned about the issue, in part because free speech and open debate in the public square, where all voices and votes count equally, is being neutralized.
That is the “S” or social prong of ESG. Far more sinister, said Ramaswamy, is the “E” prong, or energy. Climate change has been used to envelop the social prong and make it a Trojan horse. The major asset management firms and banks have served as an arm of the government to implement climate change policies, such as the Green New Deal, which could not have passed Congress. Democrats realized that the private sector could be used to that end. Climate Czar John Kerry was able to get companies across the nation to sign a “climate pledge” to put the Green New Deal into effect without any debate or vote in the legislative branch. Ramaswamy said that the tactic has not only contributed to a generational supply/demand imbalance for global energy, but it also hasn’t even been effective. This is because we are in a global energy market, and countries like China and Russia snap up every unit of energy that ESG takes out of play in the West. So, according to Ramaswamy, on the other side of the world, carbon emissions continue unabated. On top of that, Russian and Chinese energy production is much dirtier than it is in the U.S. Methane produced by those countries is far worse than in the U.S.
Multiple U.S. states governed by Republicans are withdrawing state funds from BlackRock’s management, as they disapprove of the ESG investment policies of the world’s top asset manager, the Financial Times reports.
In recent weeks, Louisiana, South Carolina, Utah, and Arkansas have announced they would divest funds from BlackRock totaling more than $1 billion.
Last week, Louisiana State Treasurer John Schroder announced in a letter to BlackRock’s CEO Larry Fink that he would divest all Treasury funds from BlackRock. Louisiana has removed $560 million to date and will pull out a total of $794 million by year’s end, Schroder noted.
“This divestment is necessary to protect Louisiana from mandates BlackRock has called for that would cripple our critical energy sector,” said Schroder. “I refuse to spend a penny of Treasury funds with a company that will take food off tables, money out of pockets and jobs away from hardworking Louisianans.”
South Carolina will pull $200 million from BlackRock by the end of the year, State Treasurer Curtis Loftis told FT in an interview.
For months now, Republican states have said they would not do business anymore with asset managers who have ESG-aligned investment policies, which, the states say, show that those financial firms are boycotting the oil and gas industry.
Texas, the largest oil-producing state in America, is leading the campaign against this movement. The Lone Star State published in August a list of financial firms that could be banned from doing business with Texas, its state pension funds, and local governments.
Texas and other Republican-led oil and gas states see the ESG investment trend as an implicit attack on fossil fuels and a boycott of conventional energy resources, the revenues from which make up a large portion of state budgets in the oil, gas, and coal country.
In early August, the Attorney Generals of 19 states—including Texas, West Virginia, Louisiana, Montana, Oklahoma, Idaho, and Ohio—sent a letter to BlackRock’s CEO Larry Fink expressing concerns with the asset manager’s commitment to net-zero emissions across all its assets.
“Rather than being a spectator betting on the game, BlackRock appears to have put on a quarterback jersey and actively taken the field,” the attorney generals wrote.
Tiago Henriques launched a group that’s become a massive force.
Died Suddenly News
Tiago Fernando Henriques is an artifical intelligence programmer who lives in Canada. Back in the spring of 2021, he began to notice an unusually high number of his young peers experiencing serious medical issues, such as chest pain, seizures and strokes. He heard about a story from a friend about a buddy of his whose body went haywire 10 minutes after recieving the Pfizer shot. Mr. Henriques decided to go check out the situation for himself, and he took a trip out to North Sydney. The person in question was a disaster, paralyzed and not functional. After seeing him in June 2021, Mr. Henriques opened a Facebook group with the goal being support and communication from those who were injured from a Covid vaccine. The group grew organically for about a year, and had reached ~12k members at the beginning of this summer. Since then, the group has broken records for pace of growth. There currently are over 286,400 members, and it shows no signs of slowing down.
Died Suddenly News is the name of the group, and it’s heartbreaking to realize that the growth of the group is due to people all over the world suffering suddenly, due to injuries or deaths of loved ones. Mr. Henriques personally approves every post in the group before it’s published, and he has a volunteer team of 30 moderators from all over the world in all time zones. The group has turned into a valuable resource, not only for people to find emotional and practical support, but for data. Mr. Henriques’s background as an AI specialist puts him in a position to be able to methodically collect and analyze data from the stories that are pouring in of post-vaccination disaster.
Mr. Henriques noted a few important pieces of information from the data he’s collected so far:
The age of people reporting adverse events is dropping. More people of younger ages are suffering and dying.
The group has become so large that there are now reports coming in that are clustered in specific geographic locations. This allows for targeted tracing of injuries or death by geographic cluster. Mr Henriques often finds spikes in adverse events reports from specific locations 3-4 months after a vaccine drive.
For “sudden deaths” alone, there are 30-50 reports submitted per day. The total is well over 30,000 and makes up about 40% of the reports. The rest are injuries.
Notable injury reports in high numbers include breast cancer for men, turbo-cancers, eye injuries, and sudden death of young athletes.
Censorship
Mr. Henriques is very well aware of the threat of censorship that hangs like a dark cloud over conversations on FB. Multiple similar groups have been shut down, including a group started in early 2021 by Brianne Dressen, a vaccine victim from the AstraZeneca clinical trials. As the group continues to explode in membership, Mr. Henriques is busy building an independent platform for the conversation and data analysis to continue, should the worst occur. He’s gladly accepting donations from those who’d like to contribute towards this expensive but important venture, and he created a GiveSendGo that details his plan.
Mr. Henriques appeared on Steve Kirsch’s weekly show VSRF last week and had a conversation with Mr. Kirsch about the group, how it began, and what his plans are moving forward.
The People
Died Suddenly News is a powerhouse, because it’s made up of the people. Heartbreaking stories flood in by the dozens every day from all over the world, the stories are eerily similar, and many people who post include that barely anyone in their circles will acknowledge the elephant in the room. Mr. Henriques and the group he launched is forcing the conversation to be had. It’s offering relief to those who feel like they live on a different planet from those they’re surrounded by who are blissfully, and sometimes willfully unaware of the unfolding disaster. It’s really difficult to confront, and those of us who have been surrounded by this information for over two years are growing more frustrated and confused by those who manage to continue to claim ignorance.
Well, they won’t be able to much longer, and as painful as it will be, we must reach that critical tipping point where vaccine injuries are acknowledged by the mainstream. The only way out of this mess is to go through it, and do our part to help the injured, share information and stand together against the medical criminals to resist their medical tyranny. Died Suddenly News is undoubtedly a huge force in pushing closer to the tipping point, and the stories on there remind us of the people behind the numbers. These are just a tiny sample from the dozens that are pouring in per day.