Archives‎ > ‎

Myers Digest: Swiss voters reject Digital Id; Pfizer demands Nations put up Collateral for Lawsuits

(1) Swiss voters reject Digital Id in Referendum - precursor to ID2020(2) Farmers & civil groups boycott UN Food summit because hijacked by Bill Gates' Chemical Agriculture(3) Pfizer demands countries put up sovereign assets as collateral for vaccine injury lawsuits(4) Bill Gates the leader of the Technocracy - his Philanthropy is for Profit(1) Swiss voters reject Digital Id in Referendum - precursor to ID2020From: Samih Abdeen <>Swiss reject "electronic identification services", part of the "e-ID" program, due to concerns about data going to private entities. This is a precursor to ID2020.The bill: vote: voters reject Digital Id in Referendum identity scheme shot down by voters over data privacy concernsThe government has called for joint efforts to push ahead with digitalisation despite voters' rejection of the eID on Sunday. © Keystone/Christian BeutlerVoters in Switzerland have thrown out a law governing a proposed electronic identity system. The result is a blow for plans by parliament and the government amid fears about data protection.This content was published on March 7, 2021 - 18:16 March 7, 2021 - 18:16Urs GeiserFinal results show 64.4% of voters coming out against the planned law on Sunday. The rejection rate among the cantons ranged between 70.7% and 55.8%.At stake was the creation of the legal basis for a digital identity verification system, to be licenced and controlled by the state but provided mainly by private companies.The single access point is aimed at simplifying the use of online services offered by commercial businesses as well as contact with public institutions via e-government channels."Mistrust in private companies was dominant and helped to tip the vote," said political scientist Urs Bieri of the GfS Bern research institute on SRF public radio.Justice Minister Karin Keller-Sutter acknowledged "a certain unease" among voters. She called on parliament and critics of the failed plan to now cooperate to avoid a standstill."We have no choice and must work towards a new solution, even if it takes several attempts," she told a news conference. "It is key for Switzerland to catch up with other countries when it comes digitalisation."Daniel Graf of the referendum committee said voters had not come out against a digital identity scheme but only against the proposed solution. Green Party parliamentarian Sibel Arslan, who also opposed the law, said voters made it clear that they want an eID provided only by the government and under democratic control.People's Party parliamentarian Franz Grüter, a supporter of the failed electronic identity scheme, said he was disappointed but is confident that a solution can be found for a new proposal.Civil society groupThe law at stake was approved by parliament in 2019 but then challenged to a referendum by an alliance of civil society groups, backed by trade unions as well as left-wing and some centrist parties.The opponents argued the state should not be limited to acting as a licensing and oversight authority but that it should take full responsibility. The risk of data abuse by commercial providers would undermine the effort to make digitalisation more democratic, they say.That said, the need for some form of an eID for the business community was not contested by opponents. Switzerland is lagging behind many European countries following unsuccessful attempts over the past decades to set up a single login system for users of online services.The government, which launched the bill three years ago, had said the proposed law sets the basis for a secure online login system.During the campaign, Keller-Sutter praised the law as a compromise, sharing out the tasks between the state and the private sector.Supporters of the law also pointed out that almost no government has the IT capacity and resources to single-handedly develop an eID quickly and to the appropriate standards.A previous attempt to set up a public-private e-identity solution, known as SuisseID, failed more than ten years ago.Complex and CovidThe relative complexity of the issue at stake made it challenging for citizens to form their opinion, said Lukas Golder, co-director of the GfS Bern research institute.Doubts over the practical use of the eID and concerns about potential data abuse have been overwhelming, he said.Several political scientists also pointed out that opposition to the law was a protest vote against the government and its anti-Covid policy.Keller-Sutter said the current restrictions on public gatherings due to the pandemic had made campaigning and face-to-face meeting with voters more difficult.Public attention also appeared to focus more on the other issues up for vote on Sunday: a proposal to ban facial coverings, including the burka, and to a lesser extent, a controversial free trade deal between Switzerland and Indonesia, the world’s top producer of palm oil.(2) Farmers & civil groups boycott UN Food summit because hijacked by Bill Gates' Chemical Agricultureand set up a parallel meeting. advocate a shift from high-input chemical-intensive agriculture to low-input ecological farming and rights groups boycott food summit over big business linksFocus on agro-business rather than ecology has split groups invited to planned UN conference on hungerGlobal development is supported byBill and Melinda Gates FoundationJohn VidalThu 4 Mar 2021 23.32 AEDTAn international food summit to address growing hunger and diet-related disease is in disarray as hundreds of farmers’ and human rights groups are planning a boycott.The head of the food systems summit, due to take place in September, has made an emotional appeal for unity and the UN’s own advisers are urging a rethink of the way it is run.Called by the UN secretary general, António Guterres, the summit was welcomed for recognising that farming has been mostly ignored in climate talks. Its brief was to examine ways to reduce hunger and improve global food systems as the climate crisis intensifies and biodiversity is threatened.The UN estimates that more than 820 million people are undernourished, a jump of 60 million in five years. Nearly a quarter of all children under five are stunted and 1.9 billion adults are overweight, according to the World Health Organization.But the planned summit is already embroiled in arguments over who is to blame for the growth of hunger and disease, and whether the meeting is biased in favour of corporate, hi-tech intensive farming.The meeting got off to a controversial start when Guterres appointed Agnes Kalibata to head the event. The former Rwandan agriculture minister is president of the Gates-funded Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (Agra), which was set up in 2006 and has supported the opening up of the continent to genetically modified crops, high-yield commercial seed varieties and intensive farming.Further suspicions that big business was dominating the agenda came when the summit’s concept paper mentioned precision agriculture, data collection and genetic engineering as important for addressing food security – initiatives supported by big technology companies and philanthropists – but made no mention of ecological farming or civil society involvement.The UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Michael Fakhri, wrote to Kalibata in January saying the global food crisis was "chronic, urgent and set to intensify" but the summit appeared focused on science and technology, money and markets, and did not address "fundamental questions of inequality, accountability and governance"."It [appears] heavily skewed in favour of one type of approach to food systems, namely market-based solutions … it leaves out experimental/traditional knowledge that has the acute effect of excluding indigenous peoples and their knowledge," wrote Fakhri."The business sector has been part of the problem of food systems and has not been held accountable."Support for ecological initiatives has also come from Olivier De Schutter, former UN special rapporteur on food, and Olivia Yambi, a nutrition expert and former Unicef official.They have argued that the summit should be broadened into a more inclusive world food congress, and that initiatives such as agro-ecology, endorsed by scientists, civil society and farmers, and food sovereignty be put firmly on the agenda.This week the Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples’ Mechanism – a group of more than 500 civil society groups with more than 300 million members – said they would boycott the summit and set up a parallel meeting."We cannot jump on a train that is heading in the wrong direction. We are questioning the summit’s legitimacy. We sent a letter last year to the secretary general about our concerns. It was not answered. We sent another last month, which has also not been answered," said Sofía Monsalve Suárez, head of Fian International, a group working for the right to nutrition."The summit appears extremely biased in favour of the same actors who have been responsible for the food crisis. "In a separate initiative, 148 grassroots groups from 28 countries, which make up the People’s Coalition on Food Security, wrote to the UN to urge it to sever the "strategic partnership" with the World Economic Forum, the organisation that hosts the annual Davos economic summit for the global elite."The WEF will exploit the summit to streamline neoliberal globalisation. It will mean that global inequality and corporate monopoly would be sidetracked rather than confronted as the root cause of hunger and extreme poverty," said the coalition.Timothy Wise, senior adviser at the US-based Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, said the UN has missed a trick by not giving a wider hearing to farmer-led groups, whose initiatives are successful and important."A growing number of farmers, scientists and development experts now advocate a shift from high-input chemical-intensive agriculture to low-input ecological farming. They are supported by an array of new research documenting both the risks of continuing to follow our current practices and the potential benefits of a transition to more sustainable farming," said Wise.In a statement to the Guardian, Kalibata denied there was any preconceived ideology. "Starting my life as a refugee and a daughter of a small farmer, I have never lost my drive to ensure opportunity. Human rights and equity are at the heart of everything I work to accomplish," she said."I’ve lived through food insecurity, I’ve gone hungry. I have seen the smiles on people’s faces when their lives start to change. This is personal. I know those among the world’s most vulnerable and I am determined that this summit will not let them down."She added: "We have designed the summit to ensure every voice is heard. We do not expect everyone to agree on everything from the outset."Debate and dialogue is the only way we will make progress and we must lean into courageous conversations rather than avoid them. Those choosing not to engage are self-excluding."She was backed by Gerda Verburg, coordinator of the UN’s Scaling Up Nutrition movement, which works with more than 60 governments."We are urging civil society to come to the table. We need to step down from our strong convictions."But if you want to [talk about] agro-ecology, be my guest. We need agro-ecology. We need food sovereignty. We need sustainable intensification and we need vegetarianism. We need all the solutions."Speaking for the WEF, Sean de Cleene, a former director of Agra, said the organisation had not played a central role in planning the summit. "We were brought in relatively late in a supportive role. We have no preferential access to anyone. We are working with the UN and others," he said.  This article was amended on 9 March 2021 to clarify text relating to Agra and genetically modified crops. Also, a quote from Gerda Verburg was changed from using "you" pronouns to "we" and "our" due to a revised transcription.(3) Pfizer demands countries put up sovereign assets as collateral for vaccine injury lawsuits Bullies Nations to Put Up Collateral for LawsuitsAnalysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaMarch 08, 2021STORY AT-A-GLANCEPfizer is demanding countries put up sovereign assets, including bank reserves, military bases and embassy buildings, as collateral for expected vaccine injury lawsuits resulting from its COVID-19 inoculationArgentina and Brazil have rejected Pfizer’s demands. According to legal experts, Pfizer is abusing its powerIn the U.S., vaccine makers already enjoy full indemnity against injuries occurring from the COVID-19 vaccine under the PREP Act. If you’re injured, you’d have to file a compensation claim with the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), which is funded by U.S. taxpayersA significant problem with the CICP is that it’s administered within the Department of Health and Human Services, which is also sponsoring the COVID-19 vaccination program. This conflict of interest makes the CICP less likely to admit fault with the vaccineThe maximum CICP payout you can receive — even in cases of permanent disability or death — is $250,000 per person, and you first have to exhaust your private insurance policy before the CICP kicks inAs reported by New Delhi-based World Is One News (WION),1 Pfizer is demanding countries put up sovereign assets as collateral for expected vaccine injury lawsuits resulting from its COVID-19 inoculation. In other words, it wants governments to guarantee the company will be compensated for any expenses resulting from injury lawsuits against it.WION reports that Argentina and Brazil have rejected Pfizer’s demands. Initially, the company demanded indemnification legislation to be enacted, such as that which it enjoys in the U.S. Argentina proposed legislation that would restrict Pfizer’s financial responsibility for injuries to those resulting from negligence or malice.Pfizer rejected the proposal. It also rejected a rewritten proposal that included a clearer definition of negligence. Pfizer then demanded the Argentinian government put up sovereign assets — including its bank reserves, military bases and embassy buildings — as collateral. Argentina refused. A similar situation occurred in Brazil. Pfizer demanded Brazil:- "Waive sovereignty of its assets abroad in favor of Pfizer"- Not apply its domestic laws to the company- Not penalize Pfizer for vaccine delivery delays- Exempt Pfizer from all civil liability for side effectsBrazil rejected Pfizer’s demands, calling them "abusive." As noted by WION, Pfizer developed its vaccine with the help of government funding, and now it — a private company — is demanding governments hand over sovereign assets to ensure the company won’t lose a dime if its product injures people, even if those injuries are the result of negligent company practices, fraud or malice.Some liability protection is warranted, but certainly not for fraud, gross negligence, mismanagement, failure to follow good manufacturing practices. Companies have no right to ask for indemnity for these things. ~ Lawrence Gostlin, Law ProfessorAside from Argentina and Brazil, nine other South American countries have reportedly negotiated deals with Pfizer. It’s unclear whether they actually ended up giving up national assets in return.2Vaccine Maker Accused of Abusing Its PowerAccording to STAT News,3 "Legal experts have raised concerns that Pfizer’s demands amount to an abuse of power." Lawrence Gostin, law professor at Georgetown University and director of the World Health Organization’s Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law told STAT:4"Pharmaceutical companies shouldn’t be using their power to limit lifesaving vaccines in low- and middle-income countries. [This] seems to be exactly what they’re doing … Some liability protection is warranted, but certainly not for fraud, gross negligence, mismanagement, failure to follow good manufacturing practices. Companies have no right to ask for indemnity for these things."Mark Eccleston-Turner, a lecturer in global health law at Keele University in England, added:5"[Pfizer] is trying to eke out as much profit and minimize its risk at every juncture with this vaccine development then this vaccine rollout. Now, the vaccine development has been heavily subsidized already. So there’s very minimal risk for the manufacturer involved there."Don’t Expect Compensation if Injured by COVID-19 VaccineIn the U.S., vaccine makers already enjoy full indemnity against injuries occurring from this or any other pandemic vaccine under the PREP Act. If you’re injured, you’d have to file a compensation claim with the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP),6 which is funded by U.S. taxpayers via Congressional appropriation to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).While similar to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), which applies to nonpandemic vaccines, the CICP is even less generous when it comes to compensation. For example, while the NVICP pays some of the costs associated with any given claim, the CICP does not. This means you’ll also be responsible for attorney fees and expert witness fees.A significant problem with the CICP is that it’s administered within the DHHS, which is also sponsoring the COVID-19 vaccination program. This conflict of interest makes the CICP less than likely to find fault with the vaccine.Your only route of appeal is within the DHHS, where your case would simply be reviewed by another employee. The DHHS is also responsible for making the payment, so the DHHS effectively acts as judge, jury and defendant. As reported by Dr. Meryl Nass,7 the maximum payout you can receive — even in cases of permanent disability or death — is $250,000 per person; however, you’d have to exhaust your private insurance policy before the CICP gives you a dime.CICP will only pay the difference between what your insurance covers and the total payout amount established for your case. For permanent disability, even $250,000 won’t go far. The CICP also has a one year statute of limitations, so you have to act quickly. ...- Sources and References1 WION February 24, 20212, 3, 4, 5 STAT News February 23, 20216 CICP7 December 4, 20208 Technology Review February 5, 20219 Bioregulatory Medicine Institute December 28, 202010 Science Magazine December 21, 202011 Stat News January 10, 201712 Vaccine: X December 11, 2020; 6: 100007613 Microbes Infect. October 2020; 22(9): 405-40614, 15 Hong Kong Medical Journal 2016; 22(Suppl 4): S25-31 (PDF)16 Journal of Translational Autoimmunity 2020; 3: 10005117 Medium February 15, 202118 Microbiology & Infectious Diseases 2021; 5(1): 1-3 (PDF)19 University of California Public Comment related to consideration of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, December 8, 2020 (PDF)20, 21, 22 Bloomberg January 16, 202123 The Local February 13, 202124 Facebook Haley Nelson December 30, 202025 Facebook Tara Sekikawa December 27, 202026 Mirror December 11, 202027, 36, 42, 44, 51 Gov.UK Weekly Summary of Yellow Card Reporting February 25, 202128, 37, 43, 45, 46, 52 Principia Scientific International February 9, 202129 Facebook Karl Dunkin case January 5, 202130 RT December 26, 202031 The Defender December 21, 202032 Anaphylaxis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccine receipt (PDF)33 The New York Times February 8, 2021 (Archived)34 Newsweek February 10, 202135 The Defender January 12, 202138 Facebook, Shawn Skelton January 7, 202139 WioNews January 2, 202140 Facebook, Alanna Tonge-Jelley January 9, 202141 The Defender February 16, 202147 Daily Star December 30, 202048 RT January 4, 202149 The Defender January 7, 202150 The Vaccine Reaction January 24, 202153, 54 The Defender February 19, 202155 The Defender January 25, 202156 Annals of Internal Medicine September 2, 2020 DOI: 10.7326/M20-5352(4) Bill Gates the leader of the Technocracy - his Philanthropy is for Profit Gates Wants to Realize Global Vision in His Lifetimeby Dr. Joseph MercolaMarch 03, 2021STORY AT-A-GLANCEAfter years of building a reputation as a "ruthless tech monopolizer," Bill Gates 2.0 was launched with the creation of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. With this foundation, he reinvented and rebranded himself as one of the world’s most generous philanthropistsHowever, Gates’ brand of philanthropy creates several new problems for each one it solves and can best be described as "philanthrocapitalism"Today, Gates monopolizes or wields disproportional influence over the tech industry, global health and vaccines, agriculture and food policy (including biopiracy and fake food), weather modification and other climate technologies, surveillance, education and mediaAccording to Gates, vaccines are phenomenal profit makers, with more than a 20-to-1 returnGates is now promoting the technocratic "reset" plan, which includes an aggressive climate change agenda, yet Gates’ extensive travel by private jet makes him a top polluter"Bill Gates — What You Were Not Told," a segment of the Plandemic documentary,1 reviews the personal and professional background of the Microsoft mogul, Bill Gates. Contrary to popular myth, many see Gates as more of an opportunist than a genius inventor, and the video touches on several of the less honorable moments of his career.After years of building a reputation as a "ruthless tech monopolizer," Bill Gates 2.0 was launched with the creation of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. With this foundation, he reinvented and rebranded himself as one of the world’s most generous philanthropists.Gates’ Charity Is Not What It SeemsAlas, as noted by AGRA Watch,2 Shiva Vandana, Ph.D., and others, Gates’ brand of philanthropy creates several new problems for each one it solves and can best be described as "philanthrocapitalism." As noted in the AGRA Watch article, "Philanthrocapitalism: The Gates Foundation’s African Programs Are Not Charity," published in December 2017, advocates of philanthrocapitalism:3"… often expect financial returns or secondary benefits over the long term from their investments in social programs. Philanthropy becomes another part of the engine of profit and corporate control. The Gates Foundation's strategy for 'development' actually promotes neoliberal economic policies and corporate globalization."Indeed, over the years, Gates has ended up in a position where he monopolizes or wields disproportional influence over not only the tech industry, but also global health and vaccines, agriculture and food policy (including biopiracy and fake food), weather modification and other climate technologies,4 surveillance, education and media.Not surprisingly, he’s tied to online fact checker organizations that strangle free speech, and recently told "60 Minutes" that to combat mistrust in science, we need to find ways to "slow down the crazy stuff."5 What’s "crazy" and what’s not, however, is rarely as clear-cut as the mainstream media would like you to believe.And, like a true philanthrocapitalist, Gates’ generosity ends up benefiting himself most of all. As discussed in "Bill Gates — Most Dangerous Philanthropist in Modern History?" the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation donates billions to the very same companies and industries that the foundation owns stocks and bonds in.As Gates himself reveals in the featured video, he figured out that vaccines are phenomenal profit makers, saying they’re the best investment he’s ever made, with more than a 20-to-1 return. The one thing that allows for this is the liability shield vaccine makers have been given by the government.Gates, Global Climate CzarAs mentioned in the featured video, Gates is financing an effort to divert solar rays from the Earth’s surface in an attempt to combat global warming — an irrational approach at best, considering the potential this has to devastate global agriculture.His latest book also details his climate change recommendations, which just so happen to include urging governments to support the very companies he’s invested in and similar sleight-of-hand gestures.Bill Gates’s extensive travel by private jet likely makes him one of the world’s top carbon contributors — a veritable super emitter. ~ The NationMeanwhile, as noted by The Nation, Gates himself is a serious polluter, with a 66,000 square-foot mansion, a private jet, 242,000 acres of farmland (which makes him the largest farmland owner in the U.S.) and investments in fossil fuel-dependent industries such as airlines, heavy machinery and cars."According to a 2019 academic study6 looking at extreme carbon emissions from the jet-setting elite, Bill Gates’s extensive travel by private jet likely makes him one of the world’s top carbon contributors — a veritable super emitter," The Nation writes.7"In the list of 10 celebrities investigated — including Jennifer Lopez, Paris Hilton, and Oprah Winfrey — Gates was the source of the most emissions. ‘Affluent individuals can emit several ten thousand times the amount of greenhouse gases attributed to the global poor,’ the paper noted. ‘This raises the question as to whether celebrity climate advocacy is even desirable …’"Gates Leads the Technocratic TakeoverGates’ focus on climate change makes perfect sense once you realize that he’s part of the technocratic elite that, for decades, have been working to gobble up the world’s resources in anticipation for the Great Reset, previously known as the One World Order.Over the past year, the need for the Great Reset has been announced by government leaders around the world, the clarion call being that we need to "reset" the global economy and the way we live, work, travel and socialize in order to make the world more fair and sustainable. Addressing climate change under the banner of a global emergency is part and parcel of that PR campaign.If you’ve paid attention, you’ve probably seen the hints. During the initial lockdowns in the early part of 2020, there were a slew of articles talking about how nature and wildlife were thriving in the absence of human socialization and travel. At other times, the COVID-19 pandemic has been presented as a warning to us all as to what happens when you get out of sync with nature.No Real Food for YouGates clearly feels pressure to do his part to realize the technocratic dream. He told "60 Minutes"8 he is eager to see his various visions come to fruition within his lifetime, and he guesses he might have 20 or 30 years left. As reported by ZeroHedge:9"Gates is pushing drastic and 'fundamental' changes to the economy in order to immediately halt the release of greenhouse gasses — primarily carbon dioxide— and 'go to zero' in order to save the planet from long-prognosticated (and consistently wrong) environmental disaster. Changes we'll need to make in order to realize Gates' vision include:Allocating $35 billion per year on climate and clean energy research.Electric everything.Widespread consumption of fake meat, since cows account for '4% of all greenhouse gases.'Retooling the steel and cement industries, which Gates says account for 16% of all carbon dioxide emissions, to inject up to 30% of captured C02 into concrete, and create a different type of steel.Widespread adoption of next generation nuclear energy to supplement wind and solar.And since producing plants to make fake meat emits gases as well, Gates has backed a company which uses fungus to make sausage and yogurt, which the billionaire calls ‘pretty amazing’ … ‘The microbe was discovered in the ground in a geyser in Yellowstone National Park. Without soil or fertilizer it can be grown to produce this nutritional protein — that can then be turned into a variety of foods with a small carbon footprint.’"Indeed, Gates would like wealthy Western nations to switch entirely to synthetic lab-grown beef, and rails against legislative attempts to make sure fake meats are properly labeled as such, since that slows down public acceptance.10Gates Again Proves Feudalism Is a Failed SystemWith his land ownership, Gates clearly is in a monopoly position (yet again!) to drive agriculture and food production in whatever direction he desires, and he wants us all to eat as much fake food as possible. As noted in a long and detailed article on Gates’ philanthrocapitalist endeavors by The Defender:11"Thomas Jefferson believed that the success of America’s exemplary struggle to supplant the yoke of European feudalism with a noble experiment in self-governance depended on the perpetual control of the nation’s land base by tens of thousands of independent farmers, each with a stake in our democracy.So at best, Gates’ campaign to scarf up America’s agricultural real estate is a signal that feudalism may again be in vogue. At worst, his buying spree is a harbinger of something far more alarming — the control of global food supplies by a power-hungry megalomaniac with a Napoleon complex."The article goes on to detail Gates’ "long-term strategy of mastery over agriculture and food production globally," starting with his support of GMOs in 1994. Ever since then, Gates’ "philanthropic" approaches to hunger and food production have been built around his technology, chemical, pharmaceutical and oil industry partners, thereby ensuring that for every failed rescue venture, he gets richer nonetheless."As with Gates’ African vaccine enterprise, there was neither internal evaluation nor public accountability," The Defender writes.12 "The 2020 study ‘False Promises: The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)’ is the report card on the Gates’ cartel’s 14-year effort.The investigation concludes that the number of Africans suffering extreme hunger has increased by 30 percent in the 18 countries that Gates targeted. Rural poverty has metastasized dramatically …Under Gates’ plantation system, Africa’s rural populations have become slaves on their own land to a tyrannical serfdom of high-tech inputs, mechanization, rigid schedules, burdensome conditionalities, credits and subsidies … The only entities benefiting from Gates’ program are his international corporate partners …His investment history suggests that the climate crisis, for Gates and his cronies, is no more than an alibi for intrusive social control, ‘Great Reset’-scale surveillance, and massive science fiction geoengineering boondoggles, including his demented and terrifying vanity projects to spray the stratosphere with calcium chloride or seawater to slow warming, to deploy giant balloons to saturate our atmosphere with reflective particles to blot out the sun, or his perilous gambit of releasing millions of genetically modified mosquitoes in South Florida.When we place these nightmare schemes in context alongside the battery of experimental vaccines he forces on 161 million African children annually, it’s pretty clear that Gates regards us all as his lab rats."Gates Foundation Seeded Catastrophic COVID-19 PoliciesGates, of course, has also played a leading role in the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic. According to investigative journalist Jordan Schachtel who has a channel on Substack,13 Gates had a hand in the "criminally negligent coronavirus response policies" that killed an inordinate number of senior citizens in nursing homes in New York, California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Michigan.Schachtel points out that a common thread in these instances is that they listened to the frightfully inaccurate modeling forecasts from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), which is funded and controlled by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. He writes:14"In March and early April, politicians were informed by the modeling ‘experts’ at Gates-funded IHME that their hospitals were about to be completely overrun by coronavirus patients.Modelers from IHME claimed this massive surge would cause hospitals to run out of lifesaving equipment in a matter of days, not weeks or months. Time was of the essence, and now was the time for rapid decision making, the modelers claimed.On two separate April 1 and April 2 press conferences, Cuomo made clear that his policy decisions were based off of the IHME model … In an April 9 briefing, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer referred to the IHME model in order to project deaths and the PPE resources needed for the supposed surge. It was the same story with the government of Pennsylvania."White House Coronavirus Task Force members Drs. Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx, both of whom have substantial ties to Gates, also relied on the IHME forecast models. As noted by Schachtel:"These models, and the policy decisions that were made by relying on them, set off a chain of events that led to indefinite lockdowns, complete business closures, statewide curfews, and most infamously, the nursing home death warrants."Delete That Which No Longer ServesThe Gates Foundation also co-sponsored Event 201, a scripted tabletop exercise held mere months before the COVID-19 outbreak that ended up being remarkably prophetic.Strangely enough, in an April 2020 BBC interview, Gates denied the simulation had occurred, saying that "We didn’t simulate this, we didn’t practice, so both the health policies and economic policies, we find ourselves in uncharted territory."15 In an article for National Herald India, Norbert Häring highlights Gates’ apparent forgetfulness, stating:16"It is true that if a little less emphasis had been placed on opinion manipulation, more attention could have been paid to health and economic policy. One of the four meetings was entirely devoted to this. But health and economic policies did get discussed. Gates can hardly have forgotten that.The video on control of public opinion is the most interesting one, as it helps to put in perspective the efforts in this regard, which we are currently experiencing. One participant tells us that Bill Gates is financing work on algorithms which comb through the information on social media platforms to make sure that people can trust the information that they find there."Gates has also erased other evidence where the truth is coming back to haunt him. Case in point: Gates-funded fact checkers have vehemently denied claims that Gates ever said we’ll need digital vaccine passports, passing it off as yet another crazy conspiracy theory.But Gates did say that in a June 2020 TED Talk. Someone just edited that specific statement out of his speech after the quote started making the rounds on social media. In a December 11, 2020, article, The Defender presented the proof.17Fact checkers also dismiss claims that subdermal microchips or digital tattoos will eventually be used to track and trace us, yet as noted by The Defender, Gates did commission MIT to develop an injectable quantum dot dye system to "tattoo" medical data on your body, and has patented technology that uses implanted biosensors that monitor body and brain activity and is tied to a crypto currency system.He’s also invested tens of millions into microchip devices with remote-controlled drug-delivery systems, military contractors that track and trace pandemic infections and vaccine compliance, and has a greater than $1 billion investment in 5G video surveillance satellites and 5G antennas. When you put all of these things together, Gates’ plans start to take on a rather ominous feel.Gates Is the Most Visible Figurehead of Modern TechnocracyWhether preplanned or not, the COVID-19 pandemic is clearly being used to usher in highly controversial changes that are unmistakably totalitarian-building, including the private take-over of government through public-private partnerships.Surveillance has become the biggest for-profit industry on the planet, and your entire existence is now being targeted for profit. Among those who stand to profit the most is Gates himself.For a better understanding of what you’re giving up by going along with the mainstream narrative that we need Big Tech to save us, see my article about social psychologist and Harvard professor Shoshana Zuboff and her extraordinary book, "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism."You also won’t want to miss my interview with Patrick Wood, featured in "The Pressing Dangers of Technocracy." He paints a picture that can be hard to swallow, especially if you’re just coming around to hearing about all of this for the first time, but it’s really crucial that everyone begin to understand what we’re facing.Time is running out. To have any chance of stopping it, we must understand our trajectory, and unite to change the course Gates and others like him have set for us.- Sources and References1 Plandemic2, 3 Third World Network, Philanthrocapitalism: The Gates Foundation’s African Programs Are Not Charity4, 7 The Nation February 16, 20215, 8 CBS 60 Minutes February 14, 20216 Annals of Tourism Research November 2019; 79: 1027759 ZeroHedge February 16, 202110 Technology Review February 15, 202111, 12 The Defender February 4, 202113, 14 The Dossier February 16, 202115, 16 National Herald India May 2, 202017 The Defender December 11, 2020