Microbiologist Explains COVID Jab Effects: Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi

 

Microbiologist Explains COVID Jab Effects: Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The FDA can only grant emergency use authorization for a pandemic drug or vaccine if there’s no safe and effective preexisting treatment or alternative. Since there are several such alternatives, the FDA is legally required to revoke the emergency authorization for these shots

While the COVID injections have been characterized as being somewhere around 95% effective against SARS-CoV-2 infection, this is the relative risk reduction, which tells you very little about its usefulness. The absolute risk reduction is only around 1% for all currently available COVID shots

Antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) refers to a condition where the vaccination augments your risk of serious infection. We are now starting to see evidence that ADE is occurring in the vaccinated population

One of the most common side effects of the COVID shots is abnormal blood clotting, which can result in strokes and heart attacks

Even microclots that don’t completely block the blood vessel can have serious ramifications. You can check for presence of microclots by performing a D-dimer blood test. If your D-dimer is elevated, you have clotting somewhere in your body

*

In this interview, German microbiologist Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi sifts through the facts and fictions of the coronavirus pandemic. Together with Karina Reiss, Ph.D., he’s written two books on this subject, starting with “Corona False Alarm? Facts and Figures,” published in October 2020, followed by “Corona Unmasked: New Facts and Figures.”

The second book is currently only available in German, but you can download a free chapter of “Corona Unmasked” in English on FiveDoves.com.

Bhakdi’s Medical Credentials

Bhakdi graduated from medical school in Germany in 1970. After a year of clinical work, he joined the Max Planck Institute of Immunobiology, where he remained for four years as a post-doc.

There, he also began researching immunology. Eventually, he ended up chairing the department of medical, microbiology and hygiene at the University of Mainz, where he worked for 22 years until his retirement nine years ago. During that time, Bhakdi also worked on vaccine development, and says he’s “certainly pro-vax with regards to the vaccinations that work and that are meaningful.”

Much of his research focused on what’s called the complement system. When activated, the complement system ends up working in such a way that it destroys rather than aids your cells. Interestingly enough, SARS-CoV-2 uses this very system to its advantage, turning your immune system toward a path of self-destruction.

The same self-destructive path also appears to be activated by the COVID shots, which is part of why Bhakdi believes they are the greatest threat humanity has ever faced. “It is our duty to aggressively inform people about the dangers that they are subjecting themselves and their loved ones to by this ‘vaccination,’” he says.

How Effective Are the COVID Shots?

While the COVID injections have been characterized as being somewhere around 95% effective against SARS-CoV-2 infection, this claim is the product of statistical obfuscation. In short, they’ve conflated relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction. The absolute risk reduction is actually right around 1% for all currently available COVID shots.1

In “Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials”2 Ron Brown, Ph.D. calculates the absolute risk reduction for Pfizer’s and Moderna’s injections, based on their own clinical trial data, so that they can be compared to the relative risk reduction reported by these companies. Here’s a summary of his findings:

  • Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine BNT162b2 — Relative risk reduction: 95.1%. Absolute risk reduction: 0.7%
  • Moderna vaccine mRNA-1273 — Relative risk reduction: 94.1%. Absolute risk reduction 1.1%

In a July 1, 2021, commentary in The Lancet Microbe,3 Piero Olliaro, Els Torreele and Michel Vaillant also argue for the use of absolute risk reduction when discussing vaccine efficacy with the public. They too went through the calculations, coming up with the following:

  • Pfizer/BioNTech — Relative risk reduction: 95%. Absolute risk reduction: 0.84%
  • Moderna — Relative risk reduction: 94%. Absolute risk reduction: 1.2%
  • Gamaleya (Sputnik V) — Relative risk reduction: 91%. Absolute risk reduction: 0.93%
  • Johnson & Johnson — Relative risk reduction: 67%. Absolute risk reduction: 1.2%
  • AstraZeneca/Oxford — Relative risk reduction: 67%. Absolute risk reduction: 1.3%
What Kind of Protection Do the COVID Shots Provide?

Aside from providing insignificant protection in terms of your absolute risk reduction, it’s important to realize that they do not provide immunity. All they can do is reduce the severity of the symptoms of infection. According to Bhakdi, they fail even at this.

“They showed absolutely zero [benefit in the clinical trials],” he says. “This is the ridiculousness. People don’t understand that they’re being fooled and have been fooled all along. Let’s take the one of these Pfizer trials: 20,000 healthy people were vaccinated and another 20,000 people were not vaccinated.

And then they observed, over a period of 12 weeks or so, how many cases they found in the vaccinated group and how many cases they found the non-vaccinated. What they found was that less than 1% of the vaccinated group got COVID-19 and less than 1% in the non-vaccinated group also got COVID-19.

The difference was 0.8 to 0.1%, which is nothing, considering the fact that they were not even looking at severe cases. They were looking at people with a positive PCR test — which as we all now know is worthless — plus one symptom, which could be cough or fever.

That is not a severe case of COVID-19. Any vaccination that is going to get authorized must be shown to protect against severe illness and death, and this has definitely not been shown. So, forget authorization. It can’t be authorized, not by any normal means.

Now [the COVID injections do not have] full authorization, it’s an emergency authorization, which again is absolute bullshit, since we know the infection fatality rate of this disease or virus is not greater than that of seasonal flu. John Ioannidis has published these numbers, which have never been contested by anyone in the world and cannot be contested.

If you are under 70 years of age and have no severe preexisting illness, you can hardly die [from SARS-CoV-2 infection]. So, there is no fatality rate that can be reduced.

And for people who are elderly and have preexisting illness, as we know from Dr. Peter McCullough and his colleagues’ work, there are very good means and medicines to treat this virus so that the fatality rates go down another 70 to 80%, which means there is no ground for emergency use whatsoever.

This means the FDA should be able to be forced to retract this emergency use authorization — unless they are in league with whoever wants to do this.”

I neglected to follow-up on his comment about 40,000 people being equally divided between the injection and no injection groups in the COVID injection trials. A few months ago, they actually abandoned the non-injection arm of the trial, so no there is no control group anymore.

The justification was that the injection was too important to deny it to the control group. It’s just another sneaky way to skirt around reporting all the adverse effects occurring in the injection group.

That said, it’s worth repeating that the FDA can only grant emergency use authorization for a pandemic drug or vaccine if there’s no safe and effective preexisting treatment or alternative. Since there are several such alternatives, the FDA is legally required to revoke the emergency authorization for these shots.

Evidence of Increased Infection Risk After Injection

Presently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention claims some 95% of SARS-CoV-2 infections resulting in hospitalization are occurring among the unvaccinated. This too is a statistical fiction, as they’re using data from January through June 2021, when most of the American public were unvaccinated.

Looking at more recent data, we’re finding that the majority of severe cases and hospitalizations are actually occurring among those that received the COVID jab. Unfortunately, as noted by Bhakdi:

“It’s all manipulated. And, if someone wants to manipulate something and are in a position to then propagate it, you have no chance of analyzing it and telling people because we have no voice in this affair. When we stand up and tell people this, they just turn around and say that’s not the truth.”

Disturbingly, we’re now starting to see the first indications of antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), which many scientists were concerned about from the very beginning. India, for example, where 10% of the population has been “vaccinated,” is now seeing very severe cases of COVID-19. Bhakdi says:

“What we’re witnessing in India and probably also in Israel is the immune dependent enhancement of disease … It’s bound to happen. So, the people who are getting vaccinated now have to be fearful of the next wave of genuine infections, whether it’s [SARS-CoV-2 variants] or any other coronaviruses, because they’re all related and they will all be subject to immune dependent enhancement, obviously.”

Antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), or paradoxical immune enhancement (PIE) refers to a condition where the vaccination results in the complete opposite of what you’re looking for. Rather than protect against the infection, the vaccine augments and worsens the infection.

ADE can occur through more than one mechanism, and Bhakdi is of the opinion that the enhancement is primarily due to over-reactive killer lymphocytes and secondary complement activation, both of which cause severe damage.

Antibodies Versus Lymphocytes

Bhakdi explains:

“There are two major arms of defense against viral infection. One is the antibodies that, if they are present, may prevent the virus from entering your cells. These are so-called neutralizing antibodies, which the vaccination is supposed to [produce].

But the antibodies are not at the place that they are needed, which is on the surface of the airway epithelium. They are in the blood, but not at the surface of the epithelium where the virus arrives. The second arm of immune defense then comes into play, and these are the lymphocytes.

There are different types of lymphocytes and I will simplify matters by saying the important lymphocytes are the so-called killer lymphocytes that sense whenever a virus product is being produced in the cell. They will then destroy the cells that harbor the virus and thus the factory is closed and you get well again.

That is the mechanism for how we can survive viral infections of the lung, and this happens all the time. So, the lymphocytes, in contrast to the antibodies, recognize many, many, many parts of the proteins. So, if a virus changes a little bit, it doesn’t matter, because the waste products that are recognized by the killer lymphocytes remain very similar.

That is why all of us, and this is now known, all of us have memory lymphocytes in our lymph nodes and lymphoid organs that are trained to recognize these coronaviruses. And whether or not a mutant is there, it doesn’t really matter, because they will recognize a mutant or variant.”

According to Bhakdi, coronaviruses can only undergo point mutations, meaning only one nucleotide at a time can be changed. The influenza virus, meanwhile, can undergo more radical mutations. For example, a flu virus can completely change its spike protein by swapping spike proteins with another virus that is simultaneously present.

This sort of shift is not possible with coronaviruses. Therefore, you will never have leaps in antigenic changes either for antibodies or for T-cell killer lymphocytes. That’s why the background immunity that evolves during the lifetime of a human being is very broad and solid.

Natural Immunity Is Far Superior to Vaccine-Induced Immunity

One of the most egregious nullifications of medical scientific truth is the claim that COVID “vaccination” confers superior protection compared than the natural immunity you get after you’ve been exposed to the virus and recover. The reality is that natural immunity is infinitely more superior to the vaccine-induced protection you get from these shots, which is both narrow and temporary.

The COVID shot produces antibodies against just one of the viral proteins, the spike protein, whereas natural immunity produces antibodies against all parts of the virus, plus memory T cells. As noted by Bhakdi:

“The very fact that the World Health Organization has changed the definition of herd immunity … is such a scandal. I’m at a loss of words to describe how ridiculous I find this all, that this is being accepted by our colleagues. How can the physicians and scientists of the world bear to listen to all this nonsense?”

How the COVID Shot Causes Damage

As explained by Bhakdi, when you get a COVID shot, genetic instructions are being injected into your deltoid muscle. Muscle drains into your lymph nodes, which in turn can enter your bloodstream. There may also be direct translocation from the muscle into smaller blood vessels.

Animal data submitted by Pfizer to Japanese authorities show the mRNA appeared within the blood within one or two hours of injection. The rapidity of it suggests the nano particles are translocated from the muscle directly into the blood, bypassing the lymph nodes.

Once inside your bloodstream, the genetic instructions are delivered to the cells available, namely your endothelial cells. These are the cells that line your blood vessels. These cells then start producing spike protein, as per the mRNA instructions. As the name implies, the spike protein looks like a sharp spike protruding from the cell wall, into the bloodstream.

Since they are not supposed to be there, your killer lymphocytes rush to the area, thinking the cells are infected. The killer lymphocytes attack the cells, which causes damage to the cell wall. This damage, in turn, provokes clot formation. We’re now seeing evidence that COVID shots are causing all manner of clotting issues, from microsized clots to massive clots stretching a foot or more in length.

Of course, when a large enough clot occurs in the heart, you end up with a heart attack. In the brain, you end up with stroke. But even microclots that don’t completely block the blood vessel can have serious ramifications. You can check for presence of microclots by performing a D-dimer blood test. If your D-dimer is elevated, you have clotting somewhere in your body.

How Vaccine-Induced Antibodies Can Cause Harm

But that’s not all. The anti-spike protein antibodies can also be harmful. Bhakdi explains:

“The other thing that has now emerged is just as frightening [as the clotting problem]. One to two weeks after the first jab, you start making antibodies in large amounts.

Now, when the second jab is done, and the spike proteins starts to project from the walls of your vessels into your bloodstream, it is not only met by the killer lymphocytes, but now the antibodies are also there and the antibodies activate [the] complement [system].

That was my first field of research. The first cascade system is the clotting system. Turn it on and the blood will clot. If you turn on the complement system with the antibodies that bind to your vessel wall, then this complement system will start creating holes in the vessel wall.

And you see these patients who have bleeding in the skin. Ask, where does that come from? Well, if you go around riddling your vessels with holes, you [get bleeding]. If the holes riddle vessels of the liver, or the pancreas or the brain, then the blood will seep through the vessels into the tissues …

[The COVID injections] are in your bloodstream for at least a week, and they will seep into any organ. And when those [organ] cells then start to make the spike protein themselves, then the killer lymphocytes will also seek and destroy them [in that organ, creating more damage and subsequent clotting].

What we are witnessing is one of the most fascinating experiments that could lead to massive autoimmune disease. When this will happen, God knows. And what this will lead to, God knows.”

COVID Jab May Trigger Latent Viruses and Cancer

The COVID jabs can also decimate your lymph nodes, as your lymph nodes are full of lymphocytes and other immune cells. Some of the lymphocytes will die immediately upon contact, causing inflammation.

Cells that don’t die and take up the mRNA and start producing spike protein will be recognized as virus producers and get attacked by the complement system. It essentially creates a war between some immune cells against other immune cells. As a result of this attack, your lymph nodes swell and become painful.

This is a serious problem, as the lymphocytes in your lymph nodes are lifelong sentinels that keep latent infection such as shingles under control. When they malfunction or are destroyed, these latent viruses can activate. This is why we’re seeing reports of shingles, lupus, herpes, Epstein-Barr, tuberculosis and other infections emerge as a side effect of the shots. Of course, certain cancers can also be affected.

“As we all know, tumors are forming every day in our bodies, but those tumor cells are recognized by our lymphocytes and then they’re snuffed out,” Bhakdi says. “So, I am worried sick that the world is being goaded into taking something into the body that is going to change the whole face of medicine.”

Informed Consent Is Virtually Impossible

After giving this issue a great deal of thought, Bhakdi is convinced that the COVID injection campaign must be stopped.

“Gene-based vaccines are an absolute danger to mankind and their use at present violates the Nuremberg codex, such that everyone who is propagating their use should be put before tribunal,” Bhakdi says.

“Especially the vaccination of children is something that is so criminal that I have no words to express my horror … We are horribly worried that there’s going to be an impact on fertility. And this will be seen in years or decades from now. And this is potentially one of the greatest crimes, simply one of the greatest crimes imaginable …

As we all know, it is laid down by the Nuremberg codex that in case experiments are to be conducted in humans, this can only be performed with informed consent.

Informed consent means that the person to be vaccinated has to be informed about all the risks, the risk benefit ratios, the potential dangers and what is known about side effects. This cannot be done with children, because children are not in the position to understand it.

Therefore, they cannot give informed consent. Therefore, they cannot be vaccinated. If anyone does that, he should be set before a tribunal. If grownups have been informed and want to get the shot, that’s all right. But don’t force anyone to get the shot. It has to be by informed consent only.”

Of course, informed consent is also virtually impossible even for adults, as they’re only given one side of the story. All side effects and risks are censored virtually everywhere and discussions about them are banned. The U.S. government is even pushing to criminalize discussion about COVID injection risks.

Where Do We Go From Here?

If you’ve already gotten one or two shots, there’s nothing you can do about that. Certainly, do not get a booster, as each booster is undoubtedly going to magnify the damage.

“In the end, I predict that we’re going to see mass illnesses and deaths among people who normally would have wonderful lives ahead of them,” Bhakdi says. The question on people’s minds is, can anything be done to reverse the damage from these shots? As yet, we do not know.

However, if you have received one or more shots and develop symptoms of an infection, Bhakdi recommends treatment with hydroxychloroquine and/or ivermectin, such as the Zelenko protocol,4and the MATH+ protocols,5 which have proven their effectiveness. It’s important to realize you may actually be more prone to serious infection, not less.

Nebulized hydrogen peroxide can also be used for prevention and treatment of COVID-19, as detailed in Dr. David Brownstein’s case paper6 and Dr. Thomas Levy’s free e-book, “Rapid Virus Recovery.” Whichever treatment protocol you use, make sure you begin treatment as soon as possible, ideally at first onset of symptoms.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Notes

1 The BMJ Opinion November 26, 2020

2 Medicina 2021; 57: 199

3 The Lancet Microbe July 1, 2021; 2(7): E279-E280

4 Zelenko protocol

5 Covid19criticalcare.com

6 Science, Public Health Policy and The Law July 2020; 1: 4-22 (PDF)

Video: The Spike Protein Injection. No Such Thing as a “Delta Variant”. It’s a Fallacy

 

Video: The Spike Protein Injection. No Such Thing as a “Delta Variant”. It’s a Fallacy

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Dr. David Martin exposes the players and spike protein injection patents since 2002. Interviewed by Reiner Fuellmich

 

Watch the video below.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Mercola

Why the WHO Is a Corrupt, Unhealthy Organization: COSI' FAN TUTTE

 

Why the WHO Is a Corrupt, Unhealthy Organization

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

“TrustWHO,” a documentary film produced by Lilian Franck, reveals the clandestine influences that are controlling the World Health Organization, to the peril of public health

Bill Gates is WHO’s No. 1 funder, contributing more to WHO’s $4.84 billion biennial budget than any member-state government

Pharmaceutical companies previously influenced WHO’s 2009 pandemic declaration; experts later called swine flu a “false pandemic” that was driven by Big Pharma, which then cashed in on the health scare

WHO has strong allegiance to China, and its investigation into COVID-19’s origin was a “fake” investigation from the start

Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, WHO released a statement that it had been in discussions with Facebook to “ensure people can access authoritative information on vaccines and reduce the spread of inaccuracies”

WHO’s history clearly illustrates its allegiance to Big Pharma and other industries, including downplaying the health effects caused by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster and collaborating with opioid giant Purdue

Given the strong and ongoing evidence that WHO is heavily conflicted and controlled by industry, its usefulness as a guardian of public health needs to be seriously reevaluated

*

“TrustWHO,” a documentary film produced by Lilian Franck, reveals the clandestine influences that are controlling the World Health Organization (WHO) — and that have been since the very beginning. Founded in 1948 by 61 member states whose contributions initially financed the organization, WHO was quickly infiltrated by industry.

From Big Tobacco to the nuclear industry and pharmaceuticals, industry has historically dictated WHO’s global agenda and continues to do so in the present day, putting profits and power ahead of public health.1

Bill Gates Is WHO’s No. 1 Funder

In April 2020, Donald Trump suspended U.S. funding to WHO while the administration conducted a review into its “role in severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus.”2 This clearly propelled the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation into the WHO’s No.1 funder slot. Upon election, President Joe Biden reversed the Trump administration decision, restoring U.S. funding to WHO.3

However, Bill Gates is still the No. 1 funder, contributing more to WHO’s $4.84 billion biennial budget4 than any member-state government. As revealed in a preview copy I received of “Vax-Unvax,”5 Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s new book, which will be released in November 2021, “Gates has used his money strategically to infect the international aid agencies with his distorted self-serving priorities. The U.S. historically has been the largest direct donor to WHO.”

However, Bill Gates contributes to WHO via multiple avenues, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as well as GAVI, which was founded by the Gates Foundation in partnership with WHO, the World Bank and various vaccine manufacturers.

As of 2018, the cumulative contributions from the Gates Foundation and GAVI made Gates the unofficial top sponsor of the WHO, even before the Trump administration’s 2020 move to cut all his support to the organization. And in fact, Gates gives so much that Politico wrote a highly-critical article6 about his undue financial influence over the WHO’s operations in 2017, which Politico said was causing the agency to spend:

“… a disproportionate amount of its resources on projects with the measurable outcomes Gates prefers … His sway has NGOs and academics worried. Some health advocates fear that because the Gates Foundation’s money comes from investments in big business, it could serve as a Trojan horse for corporate interests to undermine WHO’s role in setting standards and shaping health policies.”

Plus, Gates “also routes funding to WHO through SAGE [Strategic Advisory Group of Experts] and UNICEF and Rotary International bringing his total contributions to over $1 billion,” Kennedy explains in the book, adding that these tax-deductible donations give Gates both leverage and control over international health policy, “which he largely directs to serve the profit interest of his pharma partners.”

As noted in the featured film, when it was founded, WHO could decide how to distribute its contributions. Now, 70% of its budget is tied to specific projects, countries or regions, which are dictated by the funders.7 As such, Gates’ priorities are the backbone of WHO, and it wasn’t a coincidence when he said of WHO, “Our priorities, are your priorities.”8

“Gates’ vaccine obsession has diverted WHO’s giving from poverty alleviation, nutrition, and clean water to make vaccine uptake its preeminent public health metric. And Gates is not afraid to throw his weight around,” according to Kennedy’s book. “… The sheer magnitude of his foundation’s financial contributions has made Bill Gates an unofficial — albeit unelected — leader of the WHO.”

Pharma & WHO Cashing Checks in Previous Pandemics

During the 2009 H1N1 (swine flu) pandemic, secret agreements were made between Germany, Great Britain, Italy and France with the pharmaceutical industry before the H1N1 pandemic began, which stated that they would purchase H1N1 flu vaccinations — but only if a pandemic level 6 was declared by WHO.

The “TrustWHO” documentary shows how, six weeks before the pandemic was declared, no one at WHO was worried about the virus, but the media was nonetheless exaggerating the dangers. Then, in the month leading up to the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, WHO changed the official definition of pandemic, removing the severity and high mortality criteria and leaving the definition of a pandemic as “a worldwide epidemic of a disease.”9

This switch in definition allowed WHO to declare swine flu a pandemic after only 144 people had died from the infection worldwide. In 2010, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, then head of health at the Council of Europe, accused pharmaceutical companies of influencing WHO’s pandemic declaration, calling swine flu a “false pandemic” that was driven by Big Pharma, which cashed in on the health scare.10

According to Wodarg, the swine flu pandemic was “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century.”11 In the investigation into WHO and Big Pharma’s falsification of a pandemic, an inquiry stated:12

“… in order to promote their patented drugs and vaccines against flu, pharmaceutical companies influenced scientists and official agencies responsible for public health standards to alarm governments worldwide and make them squander tight health resources for inefficient vaccines strategies, and needlessly expose millions of healthy people to the risk of an unknown amount of side effects of insufficiently tested vaccines.”

While governments ended up with stockpiles of vaccines they would never use, many of those who received the H1N1 swine flu vaccine suffered from adverse effects including Guillian-Barre syndrome, narcolepsy, cataplexy and other forms of brain damage.13

The Origins Cover-Up

WHO’s investigation into COVID-19’s origin was also a “fake” investigation from the start. China was allowed to hand pick the members of the WHO’s investigative team, which included Peter Daszak, Ph.D., who has close professional ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

The inclusion of Dazsak on this team virtually guaranteed the dismissal of the lab-origin theory, and in February 2021, WHO cleared WIV and two other biosafety level 4 laboratories in Wuhan, China, of wrongdoing, saying these labs had nothing to do with the COVID-19 outbreak.14

Only after backlash, including an open letter signed by 26 scientists demanding a full and unrestricted forensic investigation into the pandemic’s origins,15 did WHO enter damage control mode, with Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and 13 other world leaders joining the U.S. government in expressing “frustration with the level of access China granted an international mission to Wuhan.”16

A couple of noteworthy points — Gates handpicked Ghebreyesus as WHO’s director general, not because of his qualifications — Tedros has no medical degree and a background that includes accusations of human rights violations — but due to this loyalty to Gates, again according to Kennedy’s book.

Further, WHO’s allegiance to China was secured years earlier, when China secured WHO votes to ensure its candidates would become director-general. A Sunday Times investigation also revealed that WHO’s independence was severely compromised and its close ties to China allowed COVID-19 to spread in the early days of the pandemic while obfuscating the investigation into its origins. According to the Sunday Times:17

“The WHO leadership prioritized China’s economic interests over halting the spread of the virus when Covid-19 first emerged. China exerted ultimate control over the WHO investigation into the origins of Covid-19, appointing its chosen experts and negotiating a backroom deal to water down the mandate.”

WHO’s China Ties Played ‘Decisive Role’ in Pandemic

On January 28, 2020, four weeks after Taiwan had alerted WHO that a mysterious respiratory illness was spreading in China, WHO had not yet taken action and continued to praise China.

Tedros even praised China for their transparency and said the Chinese president had “shown ‘rare leadership’ and deserved ‘gratitude and respect’ for acting to contain the outbreak at the epicenter,” the Sunday Times reported. “These ‘extraordinary steps’ had prevented further spread of the virus, and this was why, he said, there were only ‘a few cases of human-to-human transmission outside China, which we are monitoring very closely.’”18

Speaking with the Sunday Times, professor Richard Ebright of Rutgers University’s Waksman Institute of Microbiology in New Jersey, said it was this close connection that ultimately steered the course of the pandemic:19

“Not only did it have a role; it has had a decisive role. It was the only motivation. There was no scientific or medical or policy justification for the stance that the WHO took in January and February 2020. That was entirely premised on maintaining satisfactory ties to the Chinese government.

So at every step of the way, the WHO promoted the position that was sought by the Chinese government … the WHO actively resisted and obstructed efforts by other nations to implement effective border controls that could have limited the spread or even contained the spread of the outbreak.

It is impossible for me to believe that the officials in Geneva, who were making those statements, believed those statements accorded with the facts that were available to them at the time the statements were made. It’s hard not to see that the direct origin of that is the support of the Chinese government for Tedros’s election as director-general …

This was a remarkably high return on [China’s] investment with the relatively small sums that were invested in supporting his election. It paid off on a grand scale for the Chinese government.”

WHO Corruption Runs Deep

Even prior to the pandemic, WHO had released a statement that it had been in discussions with Facebook to “ensure people can access authoritative information on vaccines and reduce the spread of inaccuracies.”20 At WHO’s first Global Vaccination Summit, held in Brussels in September 2019, Jason Hirsch, Facebook’s public policy manager, alluded to the censorship and media manipulation that was to come:21

“The first thing that we are doing is reducing the distribution of misinformation about vaccinations and the second thing that we are doing is increasing exposure to credible, authoritative content on vaccinations.”

Rather than putting public health first, such as pushing for safety studies into vaccination, WHO’s history clearly illustrates its allegiance to Big Pharma and other industries. WHO, for instance, has downplayed the health effects caused by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster, stating that only 50 deaths were directly caused by the incident and “a total of up to 4,000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure” from the disaster.22

WHO signed an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is “promoting peaceful use of atomic energy,” in 1959, making it subordinate to the agency in relation to ionizing radiation.

WHO’s response to the Fukushima radiation disaster in 2011 was also criticized, with evidence of a high-level coverup.23 WHO once again downplayed the risks, stating “the predicted risks are low and no observable increases in cancer rates above baseline rates are anticipated.”24

WHO also received more than $1.6 million from opioid giant Purdue from 1999 to 2010 and used industry-supported opioid data to incorporate into its official pro-opioid guidelines. According to the Alliance of Human Research Protection, WHO’s collaboration with Purdue led to expanded opioid use and global addiction.25

Due to its acceptance of private money, a review in the Journal of Integrative Medicine & Therapy went so far as to say the corruption of WHO is the “biggest threat to the world’s public health of our time,” particularly as it relates to WHO’s drug recommendations — including its “list of essential medicines” — which it believes is biased and not reliable.26

Given the strong and ongoing evidence that WHO is heavily conflicted and controlled by industry, its usefulness as a guardian of public health needs to be seriously reevaluated.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Notes

1, 7, 8 BitChute, TrustWHO

2 CNBC April 14, 2020

3, 4 KFF January 25, 2021

5 Amazon

6 Politico May 4, 2017

9 Wayback Machine, WHO Pandemic Preparedness September 2, 2009 (PDF)

10 Daily Mail January 17, 2010

11, 12, 13 The Times of Israel May 14, 2020

14 The Washington Post February 9, 2021

15 Open Letter March 4, 2021 (PDF)

16 Washington Post March 30, 2021

17, 18, 19 The Sunday Times, Archive.Today August 14, 2021

20 WHO September 4, 2019

21 Children’s Health Defense, CDC and WHO Corrupt Financial Entanglements with the Vaccine Industry

22 WHO, Chernobyl: The True Scale of the Accident September 5, 2005

23 The Ecologist March 8, 2014

24 Forbes March 18, 2013

25 Alliance for Human Research Protection January 30, 2020

26 Journal of Integrative Medicine & Therapy January 2015 Vol. 2, Issue 1

WINDOWS 11 WILL VACCINATE YOU RIGHT AWAY DURING THE INSTALLATION

 

Video: Here’s Why Bill Gates Wants Indemnity for Vaccines – Are You Willing to Take the Risk?

Why are the world’s top vaccine promoters, like Paul Offit and Peter Hotez, frantically warning us about the unique and frightening dangers inherent in developing a coronavirus vaccine?

Scientists first attempted to develop coronavirus vaccines after China’s 2002 SARS-CoV outbreak. Teams of US & foreign scientists vaccinated animals with the four most promising vaccines.

At first, the experiment seemed successful as all the animals developed a robust antibody response to coronavirus. However, when the scientists exposed the vaccinated animals to the wild virus, the results were horrifying.

Vaccinated animals suffered hyper-immune responses including inflammation throughout their bodies terminating with fatal lung infections. Researchers had seen this same “enhanced immune response” during human testing of the failed RSV vaccine tests in the 1960s. Two children died.

Offit, Hotez and even Anthony Fauci (in an unguarded moment), have warned that any new coronavirus vaccine could trigger lethal immune reactions when vaccinated people come in contact with the wild virus. Instead of proceeding with caution, Fauci has made the reckless choice to fast track vaccines, partially funded by Gates, without animal studies (that could provide early warning of runaway immune response).

Gates is so worried about the danger that he says he won’t distribute his vaccines until governments agree to indemnify him against lawsuits.

On Feb 4th 2020, when there were only 11 active CV cases in the USA, the U.S. quietly pushed through Federal regulations giving coronavirus vaccine makers full immunity from liability. Are you willing to take the risk?

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV): FDA Fast-Tracks RSV mRNA ‘Vaccine’. “Are We Creating a Public Health Disaster”

 

Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV): FDA Fast-Tracks RSV mRNA ‘Vaccine’. “Are We Creating a Public Health Disaster”

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) — a respiratory virus that causes typically mild cold-like symptoms — is emerging out of season around the world

Most children have been exposed to RSV by their second birthday and recover without incident. In rare cases, RSV can progress to pneumonia or bronchiolitis (inflammation of the small airways of the lungs)

August 3, 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted fast-track designation to Moderna for an mRNA-based injection against RSV

As with coronavirus, previous efforts to develop an RSV vaccine have met with failure as test subjects have a tendency to die or become seriously ill when exposed to the wild virus, thanks to paradoxical immune enhancement (PIE), also known as antibody dependent enhancement (ADE)

Moderna’s RSV shot uses the same lipid nanoparticle as its COVID-19 injection. The mRNA will encode for a prefusion F glycoprotein, a protein that mediates the RSV virus’ entry into your cells and is known to elicit a neutralizing antibody response

*

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) — a respiratory virus that causes typically mild cold-like symptoms — has apparently been selected as the next invisible boogey man. Most children have been exposed to RSV by their second birthday.

The fact that most children survive past the age of 2 tells you something about the risks involved. That said, in very rare cases, RSV can progress to pneumonia or bronchiolitis (inflammation of the small airways of the lungs).

RSV Emerges Out of Season Around the World

According to reports, RSV is now raging around the world, from New Zealand1 to Japan2 and the U.S.,3 where it hit so hard in June 2021 that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued an emergency alert4 for parts of the southern United States.

The CDC encouraged testing for RSV among patients who tested negative for COVID-19 but had “acute respiratory illness” symptoms. They also advised health care personnel, child care providers and staff of long-term care facilities to stay home from work if they had respiratory symptoms, even if they test negative for COVID, as they might have RSV.

In New Zealand, health officials said there were few cases of RSV in 2020 during the pandemic and, while it’s normally a winter disease, it’s now making a comeback off-season in 2021. According to Stuff.co.nz,5 the outbreak “was more than twofold greater than the historical average from 2014 to 2019 for this time of year.”

Similar reports have been published in Japan where, in early July 2021, the National Institute of Infectious Diseases warned of RSV infections outside the normal peak period. According to the Japan Times:6

“… the number of RSV patients per medical institution was 3.87 in the week ending June 27 — the highest number of cases since 2019. In 2018, the year the counting system was changed, the infection count peaked in September at 2.46, and it reached 3.45 patients per medical institution a year later.”

August 3, 2021, U.S. health officials reported that RSV had started to taper off by midsummer, but a resurgence is now seen, with a “record-breaking 563 new RSV cases” reported in the week before August 3.7

FDA Fast-Tracks mRNA Shot Against RSV

That same day, August 3, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration granted fast-track designation to Moderna for an mRNA-based injection against this common cold virus. As reported in a Moderna press release:8

“… the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted Fast Track designation for mRNA-1345, its investigational single-dose mRNA vaccine against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in adults older than 60 years of age.

‘We are pursuing an mRNA RSV vaccine to protect the most vulnerable populations — young children and older adults,’ said Stéphane Bancel, Chief Executive Officer of Moderna.

‘We are studying mRNA-1345 in these populations in an ongoing clinical trial and we look forward to sharing data when available … We have accelerated research and development of our infectious disease therapeutic area and we will continue to advance our mRNA vaccines into new areas of high unmet need.'”

Moderna’s press release correctly points out that there’s no approved vaccine available for RSV. What they don’t mention is why. The reason there’s no RSV vaccine on the market is the same reason why there has never been a coronavirus vaccine, and that is because none of them were able to pass trials.

As with coronavirus, previous efforts to develop an RSV vaccine have met with failure as test subjects have a pesky tendency to die or become seriously ill when exposed to the wild virus, thanks to paradoxical immune enhancement (PIE), also known as antibody dependent enhancement (ADE).9

RSV Shot Builds on COVID Jab

Moderna’s RSV shot uses the same lipid nanoparticle as its COVID-19 injection. The primary difference between the two shots is the coding of the mRNA. In the RSV shot, the mRNA encodes for a prefusion F glycoprotein.

Prefusion F protein is a protein that mediates the RSV virus’ entry into your cells and is known to elicit a neutralizing antibody response.10 Under normal circumstances, it’s hard to imagine an RSV vaccine built on a novel mRNA platform getting fast-tracked, but we’re no longer in normal times.

The rollout of mRNA COVID shots have, as predicted, paved the way for any number of new mRNA-based injections going straight to human trials. So, should you ever feel like your body lacks in synthetic mRNA, fear not. This is just the beginning. Those who embrace vaccine passports will surely find themselves called to the nearest vaccine center several times a year for mandatory refills.

Are We Creating a Public Health Disaster?

The decision to fast-track yet another mRNA injection fails to take into consideration the possibility that we might already be creating an avalanche of ADE-related illness from the COVID shot. Adding another injection for a respiratory virus that has historically been associated with ADE could be extremely risky.

As noted in a September 9, 2020, Nature Microbiology paper titled “Antibody-Dependent Enhancement and SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines and Therapies”:11

“Data from the study of SARS-CoV and other respiratory viruses suggest that anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies could exacerbate COVID-19 through antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). Previous respiratory syncytial virus and dengue virus vaccine studies revealed human clinical safety risks related to ADE, resulting in failed vaccine trials …

ADE can increase the severity of multiple viral infections, including other respiratory viruses such as respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and measles.

ADE in respiratory infections is included in a broader category named enhanced respiratory disease (ERD), which also includes non-antibody-based mechanisms such as cytokine cascades and cell-mediated immunopathology …

Furthermore, ADE and ERD has been reported for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV both in vitro and in vivo … ADE pathways can occur when non-neutralizing antibodies or antibodies at sub-neutralizing levels bind to viral antigens without blocking or clearing infection …

ADE has been observed in SARS, MERS and other human respiratory virus infections including RSV and measles, which suggests a real risk of ADE for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and antibody-based interventions …

Going forwards, it will be crucial to evaluate animal and clinical datasets for signs of ADE, and to balance ADE-related safety risks against intervention efficacy if clinical ADE is observed.”

In case you missed it, the authors specifically point out that ADE can worsen the severity of RSV. Theoretically then, if you get the COVID shot and end up with ADE, then contracting RSV could turn into a far more serious problem than it would otherwise.

Have COVID Policies Weakened Immune Systems?

While the COVID shot could play a role if we start seeing severe RSV in adults, it’s unlikely to be part of the equation when it comes to children, as the shot is still not authorized for children under the age of 12. More than likely, the out-of-season rise in RSV among children is related to the easing of restrictions after not being exposed to normal pathogens for extended periods of time.

During the past 18 months, as most of the world has been masked up, locked down and otherwise distanced from one another, children and adults have not been exposed to viruses and bacteria as they normally would.

On the one hand, there has been a significant reduction in the number of people reporting colds, flu and other infectious diseases. On the other hand, some health experts are questioning if this lack of exposure may have increased the risk for some to experience more illnesses as children reenter school and adults reenter the workforce.12

The two main parts of your immune system are your innate immune system, which you were born with, and your adaptive immune system, which is developed as you’re exposed to pathogens.13 A healthy immune system keeps a record of every pathogen to which it has been exposed so that it can quickly recognize it if exposed again. Your immune system is activated when you’re exposed to a protein it doesn’t recognize, called an antigen.

Since the system is so complex, there are several potential ways in which things can go wrong. If your immune system doesn’t work correctly it can result in immunodeficiency diseases, resulting in more and longer-lasting sickness.

Some health experts are concerned that children may have experienced greater harm to their immune system than adults since they have spent the better part of the last 18 months isolated from nearly every exposure.14

From what researchers are now finding, it is infants and children who may have the most detrimental response to social distancing.15 Since the beginning of 2020, doctors and hospitals have noticed a significant reduction in the number of bacterial and viral infections children have been contracting. This includes bronchiolitis, measles, varicella, RSV and pertussis.

A paper16 published in August 2021, from the Pediatric Infectious Disease Group postulated nonpharmaceutical interventions imposed during 2020 could result in larger epidemics of infectious diseases once these interventions are lifted.

Rising Number of Infants With RSV Related to Immunity Debt

Some experts are calling a rising number of RSV infections in babies a “debt of immunity” created because infants born during 2020 had a lack of exposure to normal pathogens.17 Once infants and children are introduced to these environmental pathogens en masse, it can instigate a precipitous rise in cases.

According to The Guardian,18 New Zealand reported a 99.9% reduction in flu and 98% reduction in RSV during 2020. This nearly eliminated the spike of deaths that happens during the winter months from flu and RSV. In the short-term, it may have prevented an overload of the health care system while others were being treated for COVID-19.

However, in the long run, it may have created an additional problem in infants and children. When the immune system is not challenged at an early age, it can lead to larger outbreaks, which again taxes the health care system. As of early July 2021, New Zealand had reported nearly 1,000 cases of RSV over five weeks. The usual number reported is 1,743 over 29 weeks.

Doctors are hoping this doesn’t necessarily mean there will be more RSV cases, only that they are occurring in more rapid succession early in the season. The current outbreak has stretched the resources in New Zealand and Australia, which is also experiencing a surge in cases. New Zealand’s director general of health Dr. Ashley Bloomfield commented to a reporter from The Guardian saying he was:19

“… certainly concerned about the sharp surge in RSV cases … There’s some speculation that [the current outbreak] may be partly exacerbated by the fact we didn’t have any last year and so there is a bigger pool of children who are susceptible to it.”

In Canada, Wellington-based epidemiologist Michael Baker warns that his country may also see a similar trend in cases of RSV in the next year, warning that babies who were born prematurely are most at risk.20

That said, while Canada may see a rebound in RSV infections, Baker does not think that a lack of exposure to pathogens at an early age will have “in any way impeded the development of a healthy immune system.”

Is a Fast-Tracked RSV Shot the Answer?

Considering the multitude of problems associated with the gene-based COVID shots, I’m not optimistic about the development of a fast-tracked mRNA “vaccine” against RSV. The risks are numerous. Already, we’re seeing trends that could signal that ADE is at play in older people who got the jab (but not younger people).

In the U.K., as of August 15, 2021, 68% of COVID patients admitted to hospital who were over the age of 50 had received one or two COVID injections. Mortality statistics reveal the exact same trend. In the over-50 group, 70% of COVID deaths were either partially or fully “vaccinated.”21

Could this be because older people are developing ADE and therefore suffer more serious infection when exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus? In the under-50 category, the unvaccinated make up a majority of hospitalizations and deaths in the U.K., so perhaps the shot affects different age groups differently.

Older people are also the target group of the RSV shot, and infants and young children are a target for both COVID shots and RSV shots. Time will tell what the ramifications of programming the bodies of the very young and the very old to produce more than one antigen might be. But my guess is it won’t be good.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Notes

1, 5 Stuff.co.nz July 21, 2021

2, 6 The Japan Times July 7, 2021

3 Vanderbilt University Medical Center June 23, 2021

4 CDC Emergency Alert June 10, 2021 HAN00443

7 Clinical Trials Arena August 3, 2021

8 Moderna Press Release August 3, 2021

9, 11 Nature Microbiology September 9, 2020; 5:1185-1191

10 Nature Communications May 8, 2019; 10: 2105

12, 18, 19 The Guardian, July 8, 2021

13 Informed Health, July 30, 2020

14 DW, February 8, 2021

15, 16 Infectious Diseases Now, 2021;51(5)

17 Independent, July 9, 2021

20 Global News, July 13, 2021

21 Evening Standard August 20, 2021

The Great Reset, “The Green New Deal” and Today’s Bankrupt World Economy

 

The Great Reset, “The Green New Deal” and Today’s Bankrupt World Economy

Region:
In-depth Report:

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

 

In my last article, I discussed the new Post-COVID task force which is being spearheaded by Canada’s New Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland and her fellow Oxford technocrat Mark Carney in preparation for the upcoming COP26 Summit in the UK where it is hoped a Green New Deal may be unveiled as part of a Great Global Reset.

In that location, it was made clear that Green Bonds play an important role in the financing of green energy grids which some technocrats hope will straddle the globe in order to reduce Carbon dioxide output to pre-industrial levels in an effort to reduce global climate by 1.5 degrees by 2050.

Echoing this agenda, creepy population control guru once known for his software-stealing savvy named Bill Gates stated that

“Some governments and private investors are committing the funding and the policies that will help us get to zero emissions, but we need even more to join in. And we need to act with the same sense of urgency that we have for COVID-19.”

The Devil in the Details

The problem with this reset isn’t that the orchestrators of this pending reform desire a new system of value beyond the “monetarist/anything goes” standards of free markets which have dominated our world under decades of globalization. We obviously need that since worshiping money on the unregulated markets just created a massive volatile bubble underlying a $1.5 quadrillion financial weapon of mass destruction called derivatives waiting to blow up.

The problem isn’t found in moving the nexus of economic regulation and planning back to governments which the Green New Dealers wish to guide the new world economic order. We obviously need that too, and the fact that the greatest rises in wealth and living standards historically occurred during periods when this sort of dirigiste approach was active should not be lost on anyone. If you have any doubts of this claim, then I refer you to Martin Sieff’s excellent analysis of Bismarck and the Failure of the UK’s NIS.

The problem is that the standards of value which proponents of the New Green New Deal believe we must re-align our behavior to, have the peculiar characteristic of undoing human activity entirely under the guise of “monetizing the rate of reduction” of humanity’s carbon footprints.

This may seem paradoxical at first, but I ensure you this is exactly what is being sold to the credulous masses desperately seeking something new, stable and moral to guide our society out of the oncoming storms set to befall us. In order to get a visceral image of the tragedy: imagine a sick patient being convinced by a quack doctor that they need only endeavor to a little more bloodletting in order to be healed of their ills. Or imagine that an obese patient is told that their path to health is to be found not in proper eating and exercise but rather in contracting their belt size incrementally from a 48 inches to an 8 inch waist size.

This is what a world covered in windmills, solar panels, biofuels, green financing, and decarbonization will offer us.

Windmills vs Nuclear

Where it would take approximately 17 600 acres of land covered with windmills to produce about 1200 megawatts of power, the equivalent 1200 megawatts derived from nuclear sources would take up an area no larger than several city blocks. Quantitatively identical, the qualitative factor of difference of energy flux density of either source is even more dramatic. Where nuclear power can easily power a society’s industrial and consumer needs, a windmill farm’s energy output is of such a low flux density that it cannot even make another windmill.

While I am not a fan of the misanthropic undertones of Michael Moore’s Planet of the Humans, it did successfully demonstrate the total failure of green energy fantasies in a variety of ways.

Green bonds which would be issued through a mix of private banks and national infrastructure banks under a Green New Deal reset would be tied to long term large scale green infrastructure projects that would prohibit humanity from ever actually building the sorts of mega projects we once built during the days of the actual New Deal of the 1930s (ie: Tennessee Valley Authority, hydroelectric programs) or the current New Deal of the 21st century known as China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

The Real New Deal vs the Green New Deal

The reality is that the solutions for a real New Deal reorganization of today’s bankrupt world economy are available to us and would involve many of the mechanisms which Green New Dealers like Soros, Gates, Carney etc.. are proposing with one vital difference.

Rather than lower humanity’s productive powers of labor as the Green New Deal proposes, the new system of productive credit which must be created out of the ashes of the currently collapsing order should be premised upon:

1) A respect of national sovereignty under a win-win system of cooperation and NOT a system of supranational technocratic controls under the rule of a bankers’ dictatorship. This is the foundation of the multipolar alliance that Presidents Xi and Putin have defended for years and which an America freed of the likes of Pompeo and other China-bashing neocons may yet tap into.

2) Large scale, long term infrastructure projects which uplift the standards of living of all people, as well as the cognitive powers of all people and the productive powers of labor of all people simultaneously. To illustrate what this looks like, inspect the effects of the New Silk Road across Eurasia and Africa over the past 5 years.

3) That this process has the natural effect of increasing national capital and consumer consumption per capita and per square kilometer (since higher quality lives lived longer equates to higher rates and quality of consumption both individually and nationally). A viable modern guidebook to explore this system scientifically can be found in the writings of the late American economist Lyndon LaRouche with a focus upon his 1984 book So You Wish to Learn All About Economics and short accompanying video The Power of Labor.

Taken together, these three variables would tend towards an increase of humanity’s carrying capacity conditional upon the factor of something ivory tower mathematicians and computer modellers dominant in today’s econometric and climate science worlds detest: HUMAN CREATIVE REASON.

The Role of Creative Thought in Economic Systems

Abraham Lincoln understood this fact all too well 170 years ago when he said in 1860“Man is not the only animal who labors; but he is the only one who improves his workmanship. This improvement, he effects by Discoveries, and Inventions.”

This idea was amplified by Lincoln’s leading economic advisor Henry C. Carey who said in 1872:

 “The more his power of association, the greater is the tendency toward development of his various faculties; the greater becomes his control of the forces of nature, and the more perfect his own power for self-direction; mental force thus more and more obtaining control over that which is material, the labors of the present over the accumulations of the past…”

If you haven’t noticed it, both Lincoln and Carey recognized that it is by increasing rates of discoveries of unknown organizing principles of the universe which allows our species to translate those new discoveries into greater rates of scientific and technological progress. This overcoming of our limits to growth by leaping to new technologies and resources would then establish a guiding framework for planning future investments into R & D with a focus on activities that push the frontiers of human knowledge with an emphasis on space exploration in the macrosmos and discovering the geometries of the atom (and the relationship of matter to energy) on the microcosmos.

This process embodied by Lincoln and Carey was once known far and wide as the “American System” and it isn’t a coincidence that EVERY SINGLE American president who died while in office (eight in total) were supporters of this system.

The Origins of the American System

During the crisis of 1783-1791, The newly established American republic was an agrarian economy in financial ruins with no means to pay off its debts or even the soldiers who fought for years in the revolutionary war. It was only a matter of time before the fragile new nation would come undone and be reabsorbed back into the fold of the British Empire.

The solution to this unsolvable crisis was unveiled by Washington’s former Aide de Camp and now Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton who studied the works of the great dirigiste economists like France’s Finance Minister Jean-Baptiste Colbert, and introduced a four-fold solution:

  • Consolidate all unpayable state debts into a singular federal debt secured by the issuance of new bonds. This was done via his 1790 Report on Public Credit.
  • Tie these new bonds to internal improvements like roads, canals, academies and industrial growth which would create a qualitatively new form of debt that would permit the nation to produce its way out of poverty which would lead to “the augmentation of the active or productive capital of a country”. In this sense Hamilton distinguished bad debt from good debt using the important guiding principle that the “creation of debt should always be accompanied with the means of extinguishment.” [to illustrate this more clearly: think of a farmer taking on a debt in order to feed a gambling addiction vs investing his loan into new farm supplies and a tractor.] The thrust of this conception was found in his Report on the Subject of Manufactures of 1791.
  • Guide that new national power over finance by a system of national banks subservient to the Constitution and the General Welfare (instead of a system of central banks under the British model that ensured nation states would forever be subservient to the laws of usurious finance). This was illustrated in Hamilton’s 1790 Report on a National Bank and his 1791 On the Constitutionality of a National Bank.
  • Use protective measures where necessary to block foreign dumping of cheap goods into the nation from abroad which essentially makes it more profitable to purchase industrial goods and farm products locally rather than from abroad. Hamilton also promoted federal incentives/bounties to encourage private enterprises to build things that would be in alignment with the national interests.

Throughout all of his works, Hamilton is clear that value is not located in land, gold, money, or any arbitrary value favored by followers of the British School like Adam Smith. In defending the growth of manufactures and internal improvements, Hamilton states that “To cherish and stimulate the activity of the human mind, by multiplying the objects of enterprise, is not among the least considerable of the expedients, by which the wealth of a nation may be promoted.”

The Overthrow of the American System

Although City of London-affiliated traitors in America like Aaron Burr established the speculative Bank of Manhattan which started Wall Street, killed Alexander Hamilton in 1804, and derailed many of Hamilton’s grand designs, the system was never completely destroyed despite the decades of attempts to do so. In 1824, the great German economist Frederick List came to America with the last surviving leader of 1776 Marquis Lafayette as part of an international effort to revive the sabotaged plans to create a world of sovereign republics modelled on the American experience of 1776.

While this effort failed with Lafayette’s supplication to the scheme of re-instating a French King in 1830 rather than declare himself the President (as I outlined in my recent paper on the Congress of Vienna), List studied Hamilton’s system and was the first to codify it as the American System of Political Economy (1827). This was the system which List transported to Germany by driving rail development, industrial growth, protectionism under the German Zollverein which finally blossomed under the rule of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck.

List’s system was also studied, translated and applied in Russia by many “American System economists” with the greatest being the Transport Minister and Prime Minister Sergei Witte who oversaw the trans Siberian railway’s completion and envisioned a line eventually connecting the Americas to Russia via the Bering Straits.

In America, the clash between American vs British Systems defined all major conflicts from 1836 when a drunken racist named Andrew Jackson killed the 2nd National Bank (along with thousands of Cherokee) and brought the nation under the heal of British Free Trade, speculation, and cotton plantation economics. Following the IMF’s protocols that would be imposed onto victim nations 150 years later, Jackson cancelled all internal improvements in order to “pay the debt” and deregulated the banking system which resulted in the growth of over 7000 separate currencies issued by an array of state banks rendering the economy chaotic, bankrupt and prone to mass counterfeiting.

The defenders of the American System during this period (led by Whigs such as John Quincy Adams, and Henry Clay) played a rear-guard action hoping for an opening to occur at some point. When that opening finally arrived with the victory of Whig President William Harrison in 1840 a glimmer of hope was felt. Harrison swept to power with a mandate to “revive the national bank” and enact Clay’s American System of internal improvements but sadly the new leader found himself dead in a matter of only 3 months with legislation for the 3rd national bank sitting unsigned on his desk. Over his dead body (and that of another Whig president only 10 years later), the slave power grew in influence enormously.

It wasn’t until 1861 that a new president arose who successfully avoided assassination attempts long enough to revive Hamilton’s American System during a period of existential crisis of economic bankruptcy and foreign sponsored civil war which nearly destroyed the Union in ways not that dissimilar to the situation unfolding in America today.

In my next installment, I will introduce Abraham Lincoln’s revival of Hamilton’s American System with his incredible battle against the forces of Wall Street and the City of London who did everything in their power to ensure the success of the secessionist slave power.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Matthew Ehret’s Insights.

Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , and Senior Fellow at the American University in Moscow. He is author of the‘Untold History of Canada’ book series and Clash of the Two Americas. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation . Consider helping this process by making a donation to the RTF or becoming a Patreon supporter to the Canadian Patriot Review.

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Worldwide Resistance Against “COVID Fraud” and the Killer mRNA “Vaccine”: Global Research Webinar

 

Worldwide Resistance Against “COVID Fraud” and the Killer mRNA “Vaccine”: Global Research Webinar

Dear Global Research Readers and Authors,

The Centre for Research on Globalization  (CRG) is Commemorating its Twentieth Anniversary on September 9, 2021.

The Global Research website was established on the 9th of September 2001, two days before the tragic events of September 11. Barely a few days later, Global Research had become a major news source on the New World Order and Washington’s “war on terrorism”.

We remain indebted to our authors and readers for their unbending support. Over the last twenty years, our focus has essentially been to center on the “unspoken truth”.

To commemorate our twentieth anniversary, we cordially invite our readers and authors to participate in a Webinar focussing on the current and ongoing corona crisis:

Worldwide Resistance against “Covid Fraud” and the Killer mRNA “Vaccine”

Thursday, September 9, 2021

Thursday, September 9, 2021

Dialogue and Debate:

Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, founder and Director of the CRG

Dr. Stephen Frost, renowned medical doctor, founding member of Doctors for Covid Ethics (D4CE), human rights activist and Research Associate of the CRG.

Peter Koenig, development economist, prominent geopolitical analyst, former World Bank staff and Research Associate of the CRG.

The initial debate will be followed by a broad discussion between participants and panelists.

Details: ZOOM

The meeting has been scheduled on ZOOM: Thursday, September 9, 2021

10.00 am Pacific Time (Los Angeles, Vancouver)

12.00 am CDT  (Chicago, Winnipeg, Mexico City)

13.00 noon EDT (New York, Montreal, Caracas)

18.00 pm BST (London, Lagos)

19.00 pm CET (Paris, Cape Town)

LINK TO THE MEETING:

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86101827092?pwd=Z003aVpDOXBqWUZ1aU5EMTVOMjdxZz09

ID of the meeting: 861 0182 7092

Password: 173518

If you have problems accessing the webinar contact Ariel:

Twitter: @noyola_ariel

Email: Ariel: noyolara@gmail.com 

We look forward to welcoming you.

A reminder (and update) will be sent out on the 8th of September 2021.

Lettori fissi