Doug Valentine's MKULTRA Files Retrieved via FOIA
Archive: Doug Valentine’s MKLULTRA Files Retrieved via FOIA
A set of files author Doug Valentine was able to pry loose from the CIA is available at: https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/MKULTRA/
Doug Valentine is the author of the five works of non-fiction: The CIA as Organized Crime (2017), The Strength of the Pack (2009), The Strength of the Wolf (2004), The Phoenix Program (1990), and The Hotel Tacloban (1984); the novel TDY (2000); and a book of poems, A Crow's Dream (2011). Also editor of the poetry anthology With Our Eyes Wide Open: Poems of the New American Century (2012).
Eight Ideal Conditions for the Flowering of Autocracy -1977
by Jerry Mander (1977)
Eight Ideal Conditions for the Flowering of Autocracy
The three fictional works I have described [Solaris, 1984 + Brave New World], when combined with those rare political writers who approach autocratic form from the point of view of technology (Jacques Ellul, Ivan Illich, Guy Debord, Herbert Marcuse), begin to yield a system of preconditions from which we can expect monolithic systems of control to emerge. These may be institutional autocracies or dictatorships. For the moment, it will be simpler to use the dictatorship model.
Imagine that like some kind of science fiction dictator you intended to rule the world. You would probably have pinned over your desk a list something like this:
1) Eliminate personal knowledge. Make it hard for people to know about themselves, how they function, what a human being is, or how a human fits into wider, natural systems. This will make it impossible for the human to separate natural from artificial, real from unreal. You provide the answers to all questions.
2) Eliminate points of comparison. Comparisons can be found in earlier societies, older language forms, and cultural artifacts, including print media. Eliminate or museumize indigenous cultures, wilderness, and nonhuman life forms. Re-create internal human experience—instincts, thoughts, and spontaneous, varied feelings—so that it will not evoke the past.
3) Separate people from each other. Reduce interpersonal communication through life-styles that emphasize separateness. When people gather together, be sure it is for a prearranged experience that occupies all their attention at once. Spectator sports are excellent, so are circuses, elections, and any spectacles in which focus is outward and interpersonal exchange is subordinated to mass experience.
4) Unify experience, especially encouraging mental experience at the expense of sensory experience. Separate people’s minds from their bodies, as in sense-deprivation experiments, thus clearing the mental channel for implantation. Idealize the mind. Sensory experience cannot be eliminated totally, so it should be driven into narrow areas. An emphasis on sex as opposed to sense may be useful because it is powerful enough to pass for the whole thing and it has a placebo effect.
5) Occupy the mind. Once people are isolated in their minds, fill the brain with prearranged experience and thought. Content is less important than the fact of the mind being filled. Free-roaming thought is to be discouraged at all costs, because it is difficult to control.
6) Encourage drug use. Recognize that total repression is impossible and so expressions of revolt must be contained on the personal level. Drugs will fill in the cracks of dissatisfaction, making people unresponsive to organized expressions of resistance.
7) Centralize knowledge and information. Having isolated people from each other and minds from bodies, eliminated points of comparison, discouraged sensory experience, and invented technologies to unify and control experience, speak. At this point whatever comes from outside will enter directly into all brains at the same time with great power and believability.
8) Redefine happiness and the meaning of life in terms of new and increasingly unrooted philosophy. Once you’ve established the prior seven conditions, this one is easy. Anything makes sense in a void. All channels are open, receptive and unquestioning. Formal mind structuring is simple. Most important, avoid naturalistic philosophies; they lead to uncontrollable awareness. The least resistible philosophies are the most arbitrary ones, those that make sense only in terms of themselves.
The Blatant Conspiracy behind Senator Robert F. Kennedy’s Assassination
Early in 1968, Clyde Tolson, F.B.I. Director J. Edgar Hoover’s deputy and bosom buddy, a key player in the assassination of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., expressed both the hope and intent of those making sure that there would never be another president by the name Kennedy, when he said about RFK that “I hope someone shoots and kills the son of a bitch.” Earlier, as reported by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in his new book, American Values: Lessons I Learned from My Family, the influential conservative Westbrook Pegler expressed this hope even more depravingly when he wished “that some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter [Robert Kennedy’s] spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow flies.”
These sick men were not alone. Senator Robert Kennedy was a marked man. And he knew it. That he was nevertheless willing to stand up to the forces of hate and violence that were killing innocents at home and abroad is a testimony to his incredible courage and love of country. To honor such a man requires that we discover and speak the truth about those who killed him. The propaganda that he was killed by a crazed young Arab needs exposure.
Nazism, COVID-19 and the destruction of modern medicine: An interview with Vera Sharav, Part One
An interview with Vera Sharav, Part One
12 October 2020
Complete Transcript: https://ratical.org/PandemicParallaxView/VeraSharav-101220-Pt1.html
Vera Sharav:
“When medicine veers away from the Hippocratic Oath that promises to respect the individual right to do no harm to the individual then you’re going to harm the community as well because the community is a bunch of individuals.”
“There are crossroads in life where you have to make choices and if you don’t someone who will make the choice for you is not going to make it for your best interest.”
“The idea of just following authority without considering, What if they’re wrong? What if it’s not in my best interest? I wouldn’t want to live in under such a regime. I know what it’s like. I know what that is and I don’t want, I would not do it again.”
At: 32:44:
Vera Sharav:
But it’s been—things have not gotten better. They’ve actually gotten worse. Because now, mother isn’t asked even when she gives birth, if they should give her baby a tetanus vaccine. And why are babies given tetanus vaccines? It makes absolutely no sense in a medical way. But if you have contracts and business to worry about then I guess it makes sense.
But these babies are being used.
Leah Wilson:
And that’s an example of the deviation from the Hippocratic Oath. That it’s no longer looking at the patient as, First Do No Harm. But there’s contracts in place that muddle up.
VS:
Yes, exactly. And especially it begins in the Public Health arena. Public Health is government. And that was what happened in Nazi Germany. All of medicine wound up being Public Health. Once you have medicine in partnership with government there is no individual care. The Hippocratic Oath goes out the window. And since you have government behind you, the doctor is not responsible for their actions. They’re working together with the state. That’s when medicine becomes weaponized. And what I’ve described is weaponized medicine. If you dictate what medicine is given to your child and you don’t have a say, that invites all kinds of really serious violations of your child and your role. Children are sometimes taken away from their parents if the parent refuses, for example with psychiatric drugs, ADHD. If you don’t agree to give your child, they’ve taken children away. That’s called child protective services. Who are they protecting? Certainly not the children.
There are many areas now where there’s been a complete incursion into private families. Who is to say where is the evidence that government knows best for what’s for your child? There is no such thing. It’s only if you give in and you obey, then you become, then you’re not meeting your responsibility to the child. Really, parents have to be willing to go to battle to protect their children.
LW:
And that’s what we’re seeing today: these legislative trends that are infantilizing adult men and women and saying the state knows best for you and for your child. And so we’re expected as parents to willingly give up our parental rights and our health care rights and give them to the state and into state mandates. I’ll ask you a hard question, admittedly because we’re all journeying this together: How do parents go to bat?
VS:
They have to organize. They have to organize. It doesn’t take the entire population to rise up. It’s enough if a certain number does. Now there is more awareness. There is more combativeness in Europe. In fact in Germany, Germany has had some very very large rallies. I mean I’m talking 50,000 rallies against mandatory vaccination.
You don’t read about it in the media. Because the media is very much part of the business empire that’s ruling that. Vaccines are an empire and now they really want to do a vaccine globally. Do you know what kind of a market that is? More than 7 billion people for a vaccine. Can you even count the kind of profits no matter what they charge for it? That’s what their goal is. That’s the whole allure of this covid-19 vaccine. It’s that market.
LW:
And we’ve seen estimates recently, that the vaccine industry is currently worth an estimated 60 billion dollars annually and then we’ve also seen estimates with the covid vaccine that it could be worth over 300 billion annually because it’s global.
VS:
Bill gates said on camera recently, since he invested in seven factories for a vaccine that’s not yet developed. He was asked well, isn’t that a lot of waste of money? And he said, What’s a few billion dollars when we’re talking trillions? Yes, That’s what it’s about. It’s trillions.
My Earth Journey - A message for International Day for Biological Diversity, 22 May 2020
“Biodiversity and small farmers are the foundation of food security,
not corporations like Monsanto which are destroying biodiversity
and pushing farmers to suicide.”
We are Earth.
We are Biodiversity.
We are Jiva.
We are Conscious.
We are Alive.
We are Free.
We are members of one interconnected Earth Family : of sovereign, autonomous, self organised, interdependent, intelligent beings.
We are Biodiversity : interconnected to other beings through food and water, through breath and air, through life, and intelligence.
Like our fellow beings, human beings are sovereign, living, intelligent, self organised, autonomous beings; mutually interdependent and sustaining.
In the living world of Biodiversity, all life is sacred, and life strives to nourish and support life. Life is the nature of the living.
The Patenting and Piracy of life — of Biodiversity, of natural processes, and nature itself (including the Minds and Bodies of Human beings) — is a violation of Spiritual Law, Ecological Law, Biodiversity Laws and Human Rights Laws. But one does not need to look at ‘theft’ through these lenses to see ‘theft’ as ‘theft’. Patenting of life is the theft of life — claiming that which is not yours to claim. Patents on life, quite simply, are the enslavement of life itself, stealing (or pirating) the nature of life.
The Mechanical Mind separates, mines and extracts
The Mechanical Mind, connected to the Money Machine of extraction, created the illusion of humans as separate from nature, and nature as dead, inert raw material to be exploited.
The ‘death of nature’ assumption is at the core of the logic of extractivism and the metaphor of mining – of land from indigenous peoples, of fertility from the soil, of water from rivers and underground aquifers, of genes from biodiversity, and knowledge from indigenous communities. Biopiracy is the mining of knowledge and biodiversity for patents and Intellectual Property Rights.
A new Biopiracy is under way — through patents on data of our bodies and minds, and mining of such data as “Human Body Activity “. We are being turned into the next raw material. Our minds and bodies are the latest colony for mining and extraction. They did say “data is the new oil”, and just as the oil industry extracted oil to fuel its war on the planet, data is already being used against the minds and bodies of people.
This is a higher level of Biopiracy, because it is an attempt at creating new tools of manipulation and control. It is an attempt to make human beings disappear in a world being engineered through the narrow blinkered mechanical mind which cannot see anything beyond its extractive machine for money making. The Mechanical Mind sees only its objective : Profit.
We stand at a precipice of extinction. Will we allow our humanity as living, conscious, intelligent autonomous beings be extinguished, by the greed machine, that does not know limits and is unable to put a break on its colonisation and destruction? Or, will we stop the machine and defend our humanity, freedom and autonomy? So many species have been driven to extinction, no longer able to survive, because the conditions necessary fir their survival were no longer available. We have a choice: do we continue protecting the conditions for our survival, or do we extract all life for ‘profit’ — leaving a dead planet in our wake, on our way to our own funeral.
For five decades I have worked on the reality of non separability, including my PhD on Non Locality and Non Separability in Quantum Theory. My passionate commitment to dedicate my life to understanding the ecological interconnectedness of biodiversity, and protection of biodiversity, started with the Chipko movement. For me, protection of biodiversity is protecting both for the integrity of life as well as the rights and needs of local communities who have been conservers and custodians of biodiversity.
I witnessed how the Mechanical Mind — of powerful men, who run the money machine — reduced forests, which were sources of water, food, fuel for local communities, to timber mines for extraction. They reduced rivers, including the sacred Ma Ganga into Cusecs of water, to be extracted for privatisation, or kilowatts of energy, to to be extracted through dams and hydroelectric power plants.
Life is not an invention. Seeds are not machines.
In 1987, when I was attending a conference on the “Laws of Life”, on the new biotechnologies, I first heard the Poison Cartel (the group of chemical companies including the erstwhile I G Farben) attempting to define living organisms, and seeds, as machines that they had invented and wanted to patent. I was aware that the seed is not a machine assembled by chemical corporations. It is the embodiment of biodiversity and nature’s urge to reproduce, renew and multiply. Genetically modified seeds are seeds pirated from farmers, and modified with genes of naturally occurring bacteria. The only “invention” is shooting genes in a lab with a gene gun or infecting a cell with Agrobacterium, a plant cancer. Corporations pirate seed and mine genes to make GMOS. Patenting Seed was ecologically, ethically, ontologically wrong. It is a wrong that must be corrected. 33 years ago, I began my journey to protect the Biodiversity the integrity and diversity of Seed, and prevent Biopiracy and patents on seeds.
Navdanya grew from this commitment to Biodiversity. The movement has reclaimed seed as a commons, and created 150 community Seed Banks. Across the world, we have inspired the Seed Freedom movement. A new consciousness has grown about Seed Sovereignty.
We have also passed laws and treaties to protect Biodiversity. The Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 witnessed the emergence of a new legal framework for the Convention on Biodiversity.
India passed her National Biodiversity Act in 2002:
“An Act to provide for conservation of biological diversity, sustainable use of its components and fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the use of biological resources, knowledge and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto”.
India has passed laws that recognise that seed is not an invention and hence not patentable.
Art 3 of the Patent Act clearly defines what are not inventions, hence excluded from patentability.
Art 3j of the Indian Patent Act excludes from patentability:
“plants and animals in whole or in any part thereof other than microorganisms; but including seeds, varieties, and species, and essentially biological processes for production or propagation of plants and animals”.
This was the article used by the Indian patent office to strike down a Monsanto patent on climate resilient seeds, as well as Monsanto’s patent claims on Bt Cotton Seed.
(Origin: The Corporate Plunder of Nature and Culture. Natraj, 2018)
India’s law titled Plant Variety Protection and Farmers Rights Act 2001 has a clause on Farmers Rights.
“a farmer shall be deemed to be entitled to save, use, sow, re-sow, exchange, share or sell his farm produce including seed of a variety protected under this Act in the same manner as he was entitled before the coming into force of this Act”
Not only did we put into law the integrity of life and Biodiversity by clearly stating that plants, animals and seeds are not an invention, we also fought and won cases to challenge patents based on Biopiracy — such USDA and WR Grace Neem (Patent No 436257), Ricetec’s Basmati (Patent No 56,63,484 ) and Monsanto’s Wheat Patent (Patent No 962578).
I have written in my book Biopiracy that Patents on Life and Patents on Seeds are the second coming of Columbus.
In 1942, Columbus was given a letters patent by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabel of Castile in Spain, to “discover and subdue some Islands and Continents in the ocean”. The continent that Columbus was looking for was India, and that is why all indigenous peoples of North America are referred to as Indians. Having returned from the “Discovery of America”, he wrote to the King and Queen about the gold, its mining, its processing, and its transport to Castile. There was not a word about the original people, not a second thought about the theft.
Theft and Piracy were central to colonisation, and still are.
In 1493, Pope Alexandar issued a Papal Bull “Inter Caetera,” to naturalise the take over of the land, territories and wealth of indigenous people, and define Colonialism as the Civilising Mission of the Church, through European Monarchs and their pirates and merchant-adventurers.
In our times, Columbus, the monarchs, the Pope, and God have all collapsed into one – the billionaires who play God through their tools and technologies, who define and shape the new “civilising missions” based on those tools and technologies of extraction and control. New religions which must be forcibly imposed on the entire world.
At the peak of the Corona Pandemic and in the midst of the Lock Down, on 26th March, Microsoft was granted a World Patent no WO 2020/060606 by WIPO — the World Intellectual Property Organisation.
Just as our Biodiversity and Indigenous knowledge were “mined” — for patenting and Biopiracy, and there was an attempt to reduce us to consumers of GMO Patented Seed, manipulated and engineered by pirating our seeds without permission and consent — there is now an attempt to mine and pirate the data from our bodies and minds, without our permission and consent. Our humanity and autonomy are being stolen. We are being reduced to “users” of the “machines” which are extracting our humanity and our information to build the next stage of the mechanical, money machine.
Patent 060606 reads
“Human Body Activity associated with a task provided to a user may be used in a mining process of a crypocurrency system. A server may provide a task to a device of a user which is communicatively coupled to the server. A sensor communicatively coupled to or comprised in the device of the user may sense body activity of the user. Body activity data may be generated based on the sensed body activity of the user. The cryptocurrency system communicatively coupled to the device of the user may verify if the body activity data satisfies one or more condition set by the cryptocurrency system and award cryptocurrency to the user whose body activity is verified“
The patent is dramatically changing the meaning of being human.
Firstly, it is redefining us as “mines’ for data — robbing us of our autonomy, our sovereignty, and control over our bodies and minds. The patent is an Intellectual Property claim over our body, and our minds. And just being connected through their “server” is giving consent.
Just as through colonialism, the colonisers assigned themselves the right to take the land, the resources, the earth of the indigenous people, extinguishing their cultures and soveregnties, and in extreme cases exterminating them, patent WO 060606 is a unilateral declaration by Microsoft of our bodies and minds as their new colonies. We are being reduced to mines of “raw material” — the data extracted from us.
The “body activity” that Microsoft wants to mine without our permission, without our consent, includes, but is not limited to :
“radiation emitted from the human body, brain activities, body fluid flow (eg blood flow)organ activity or movement, body movement, and any other activities that can be sensed and represented by images, waves, signals, texts, numbers, degrees, or any other form of information or data. Example of body radiation emitted from human body may include radiant heat of body, pulse rate, or brain wave. Brain waves may comprise, for example, but not limited to i) gamma waves, involved in learning or memory tasks ii) beta wave,s involved in logical thinking and /or conscious thought iii) alpha waves, which may be related to subconscious thoughts iv) theta waves, which may be related to thoughts involving deep and raw emotions v) delta waves, which may be involved in sleep or deep relaxation or vi) electoencephalogram (EEG) which may be measurement used to evaluate the electrical activity in the brain, such as deep concentration. Examples of the body movement include eye movement, facial movement, or any other muscular movement .”
Secondly, it is erasing our humanity — as sovereign, living beings, spiritual, conscious, intelligent beings, making our decisions and choices with wisdom and ethical values about the impacts of our actions on the natural and social world of which we are a part; and to which we are inextricably related. We are being reduced to being “users” of tasks assigned to us by the extractive digital mega machine. A “user” is a consumer without choice in the digital empire. Human creativity and consciousness disappear in the world imagined in #patent060606.
Thirdly, the patent is redefining human values, and the value of being human. Human values include ethical, ecological, spiritual values. For us, right livelihood is Dharma, the Right Action in the web of life of which we are part. Sustaining and nourishing our ecological relationships as Earth Family and our social relationships as one Humanity in our diversities, is what makes us spiritual, self organised and compassionate beings. The value of being human is measured through love and compassion, through sharing and giving. The measure and currency of life is life and love. Value is derived from “valere” -to be strong. Strength comes from our self organised autonomy and interrelationships, our spiritual, emotional, ecological resilience, which grows from deep within our being.
Patent 060606 is aimed at robbing us of our deep humanity. We are being transformed from self organised, conscious, creative, autopoetic beings, into external input “users” whose value will be assigned in cryptocurrency through algorithms, by the very machine that gave us the task in the first place.
Having extracted our “body data”, including our brain function, algorithms will assign a “target rage of valid body function.” A machine will determine the type of machine we are allowed to be.
“For example the user device may generate raw data of the sensed body activity, transmit it to a cryptocurrency system, and then the cryptocurrency system may codify the raw data… The cryptocurrency system verifies if the body activity data of user satisfies one or more conditions set by an algorithm of the cryptocurrency system… The condition may be set by simulating human body activity across all of body activities… Machine learning algorithms may be used to simulate body activities and set the conditions for valid body activities… When the body activity data transmitted from user device satisfies one or more conditions set by cryptocurrency system, cryptocurrency system awards cryptocurrency to user”
Our value as human beings will be allocated by a machine, the cryptocurrency system.
The root of “currency” is the “condition of flowing”. Life flows between living systems, between the Biodiversity that makes the Earth Family. The currency of life is life. The currency of life is food. The currency of life is water. The currency of life is breath and air. The currency of life is living knowledge. The currency of life is intelligence. The currency of life is freedom.
And since life is based on mutuality and giving, the currency of life is not a one way extraction, but a two way flow, a nourishing and giving back in love, friendship, gratitude, oneness. It is the currency of life that weaves the relationships in the Earth Family and sustains the flow of life.
The money machine reduced the meaning of “currency” to be only money. Then the money machine declared a war on cash and made cash illegal. Currency was forcibly reduced to Digital currency to reduce user control. Patent 060606 is the next step of reductionism and total control by reducing us from vibrant living beings to mines for extraction of “data” as the new oil, the new raw material, with our worth and value assigned by the extractor in “cryptocurrency”.
Our value in the Microsoft world is not as sovereign beings but as cryptocurrency assigned my the Machine. We are being reduced to their digital currency. Our reality is being destroyed to engineer us into virtual dots in the digital machine, beyond the control of humans, democracies and even national sovereign governments.
As the patent states:
“A virtual currency (also known as digital currency) is a medium of exchange implemented through the Internet generally, not tied to a specific government “flat” (printed) currency such as the US dollar or the Euro, and typically designed to allow instantaneous transactions and borderless transfer of ownership. One example of virtual currency is cryptocurrency.”
The Patent is in fact a patent to end humanity and human beings as embodying freedom and autonomy based on interconnectedness and oneness with other beings. As mines for “body data”, as “users” of structures of control, with our value assigned by algorithms in cryptocurrencies, we are extinguished as living, breathing, thinking, compassionate, sovereign beings. We are being reduced to being turned into digital cogs in the digital money machine and digital dictatorship of Microsoft.
We are not a genetic mine, nor a mine for “Data” of our “body activity”, data mined without our permission and consent. Biopiracy is a crime, no matter what the instrument of extraction and piracy, no matter which biological being is pirated and patented.
This is colonialism and piracy taken to the ultimate invasive level, with our body’s data as the new colony. This is the ultimate separatism and reductionismof the Mechanical reductionist mind.
This is not just Biopiracy of our autonomous living Body, it is engineering the disappearance of human beings, human values, human significance, human meaning. It is engineering the disappearance of living beings and their living intelligences. It is engineering an end to democracy of economies run by real beings for the real needs of living beings. It is engineering an end to sovereignties at every level and in every form. In Indian philosophy, all beings including human beings are multilayered through multiple sheaths of energy. All beings relate to other beings through these multiple energies and flows. The outer most sheath is the annakosh, the food sheath. Next is Pranakosh, the energy sheath. Then comes Manomayakosh, the mind sheath. The Vijanamayakosh, or discernment sheath. The innermost is the Anandamayakosh, the sheath of bliss.
Patent 060606 is an embodiment of the philosophy of Adharma, of an anti life, anti human imagination. And as in all ages, Dharma has to awaken when Adharma tries to rule and dominate. Our Vijanana, our knowledge, our intelligence, our discernment needs to guide us to not be trapped by the real but invisible prisons being created through “virtual” constructs.
The future of being human cannot be left to Microsoft and Patent Offices, just as we did not leave the future of Biodiversity in the hands of Monsanto and the Poison Cartel.
33 years ago, when I heard the Poison Cartel lay bare their criminal imagination, of wanting to own seeds, I took a pledge to dedicate my life to protection of our biodiversity and Seed Freedom.
On this Biodiversity Day, I pledge to dedicate the rest of my life to the protection of all life, the freedom of all beings, and Human Freedom.
_______________________________________________
TRANSCEND Member Prof. Vandana Shiva is a physicist, ecofeminist, philosopher, activist, and author of more than 20 books and 500 papers. She is the founder of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, and has campaigned for biodiversity, conservation and farmers’ rights, winning the Right Livelihood Award [Alternative Nobel Prize] in 1993. She is executive director of the Navdanya Trust.
Coronavirus Gives a Dangerous Boost to DARPA’s Darkest Agenda
by Whitney Webb, The Last American Vagabond, 4 May 2020
Technology developed by the Pentagon’s controversial research branch is getting a huge boost amid the current coronavirus crisis, with little attention going to the agency’s ulterior motives for developing said technologies, their potential for weaponization or their unintended consequences.
In January, well before the coronavirus (Covid-19) crisis would result in lockdowns, quarantines and economic devastation in the United States and beyond, the U.S. intelligence community and the Pentagon were working with the National Security Council to create still-classified plans to respond to an imminent pandemic. It has since been alleged that the intelligence and military intelligence communities knew about a likely pandemic in the United States as early as last November, and potentially even before then.
Given this foreknowledge and the numerous simulations conducted in the United States last year regarding global viral pandemic outbreaks, at least six of varying scope and size, it has often been asked – Why did the government not act or prepare if an imminent global pandemic and the shortcomings of any response to such an event were known? Though the answer to this question has frequently been written off as mere “incompetence” in mainstream media circles, it is worth entertaining the possibility that a crisis was allowed to unfold.
Why would the intelligence community or another faction of the U.S. government knowingly allow a crisis such as this to occur? The answer is clear if one looks at history, as times of crisis have often been used by the U.S. government to implement policies that would normally be rejected by the American public, ranging from censorship of the press to mass surveillance networks. Though the government response to the September 11 attacks, like the Patriot Act, may be the most accessible example to many Americans, U.S. government efforts to limit the flow of “dangerous” journalism and surveil the population go back to as early as the First World War. Many of these policies, whether the Patriot Act after 9/11 or WWI-era civilian “spy” networks, did little if anything to protect the homeland, but instead led to increased surveillance and control that persisted long after the crisis that spurred them had ended.
Using this history as a lens, it is possible to look at the current coronavirus crisis to see how the long-standing agendas of ever-expanding mass surveillance and media censorship are again getting a dramatic boost thanks to the chaos unleashed by the coronavirus pandemic. Yet, this crisis is unique because it also has given a boost to a newer yet complimentary agenda that — if fulfilled – would render most, if not all, other government efforts at controlling and subduing their populations obsolete.
DARPA Dystopia
For years, the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has remained largely out of sight and out of mind for most Americans, as their research projects are rarely covered by the mainstream media and, when they are, their projects are often praised as “bringing science fiction movies to life.” However, there have been recent events that have marred DARPA’s often positive portrayal by media outlets, which paint the agency as a beacon of scientific “progress” that has “changed the world” for the better.
For instance, in 2018, a group of European scientists accused the DARPA’s “Insect Allies” program of actually being a dystopian bioweapons program that would see insects introduce genetically modified viruses into plants to attack and devastate a targeted nation’s food supply. DARPA, of course, maintained that its intent to use these insects to genetically modify plants was instead about “protecting” the food supply. Regardless of DARPA’s assertions that it is merely a “defensive” program, it should be clear to readers that such a technology could easily be used either way, depending on the wielder.
Though DARPA’s futuristic weapons of war often get the most attention from media, the agency has long standing interests in tinkering with, not just the biology of plants, but of humans. DARPA, which is funded to the tune of approximately $3 billion a year, has various avenues through which it pursues these ambitions, with many of those now under the purview of the agency’s “Biological Technologies Office” (BTO), created in 2014. As of late, some of DARPA’s human biology and biotech projects at its BTO have been getting a massive PR boost thanks to the current coronavirus crisis, with recent reports even claiming that the agency “might have created the best hopes for stopping Covid-19.”
Most of these technologies garnering positive media coverage thanks to Covid-19 were developed several years ago. They include the DARPA-funded platforms used to produce DNA and RNA vaccines, classes of vaccine that has never been approved for human use in the U.S. and involve injecting foreign genetic material into the human body. Notably, it is this very class of vaccine, now being produced by DARPA-partnered companies, that billionaire and global health “philanthropist” Bill Gates recently asserted has him “most excited” relative to other Covid-19 vaccine candidates. Yet, key aspects regarding these vaccines and other DARPA “healthcare” initiatives have been left out of these recent positive reports, likely because they provide a window into what is arguably the agency’s darkest agenda.
“In Vivo Nanoplatforms”
In 2006, DARPA announced its Predicting Health and Disease (PHD) program, which sought to determine “whether an individual will develop an infectious disease prior to the onset of symptoms.” The PHD program planned to accomplish this by “identifying changes in the baseline state of human health through frequent surveillance” with a specific focus on “viral, upper respiratory pathogens.”
Three years later, in 2010, DARPA-funded researchers at Duke University created the foundation for this tool, which would use the genetic analysis of blood samples to determine if someone is infected with a virus before they show symptoms. Reports at the time claimed that these “preemptive diagnoses” would be transmitted to “a national, web-based influenza map” available via smartphone.
Following the creation of DARPA’s BTO in 2014, this particular program gave rise to the “In Vivo Nanoplatforms (IVN)” program. The diagnostics branch of that program, abbreviated as IVN:Dx, “investigates technologies that incorporate implantable nanoplatforms composed of bio-compatible, nontoxic materials; in vivo sensing of small and large molecules of biological interest; multiplexed detection of analytes at clinically relevant concentrations; and external interrogation of the nanoplatforms without using implanted electronics for communication.” Past reports on the program describe it as developing “classes of nanoparticles to sense and treat illness, disease, and infection on the inside. The tech involves implantable nanoparticles which sense specific molecules of biological interest.”
DARPA’s IVN program has since helped to finance and produce “soft, flexible hydrogels that are injected just beneath the skin to perform [health] monitoring and that sync to a smartphone app to give the use immediate health insights,” a product currently marketed and created by the DARPA-funded and National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded company Profusa. Profusa, which has received millions upon millions from DARPA in recent years, asserts that the information generated by their injectable biosensor would be “securely shared” and accessible to “individuals, physicians and public health practitioners.” However, the current push for a national “contact tracing” system based on citizens’ private health data is likely to expand that data sharing, conveniently fitting with DARPA’s years-old goal of creating a national, web-based database of preemptive diagnoses.
Profusa is also backed by Google, which is intimately involved in these new mass surveillance “contact tracing” initiatives, and counts former Senate majority leader William Frist among its board members. They are also partnered with the National Institutes of Health (NIH)The company also has considerable overlap with the diagnostic company Cepheid, which recently won FDA approval for its rapid coronavirus test and was previously awarded lucrative government contracts to detect anthrax in the U.S. postal system. As of this past March, Profusa again won DARPA funding to determine if their injectable biosensors can predict future pandemics, including the now widely predicted “second wave” of Covid-19, and detect those infected up to three weeks before they would otherwise show symptoms. The company expects to have its biosensors FDA licensed for this purpose by early next year, about the same time a coronavirus vaccine is expected to be available to the general public.
“Living Foundries”
Another long-standing DARPA program, now overseen by BTO, is known as “Living Foundries.” According to DARPA’s website, Living Foundries “aims to enable adaptable, scalable, and on-demand production of [synthetic] molecules by programming the fundamental metabolic processes of biological systems to generate a vast number of complex molecules that are not otherwise accessible. Through Living Foundries, DARPA is transforming synthetic biomanufacturing into a predictable engineering practice supportive of a broad range of national security objectives.”
The types of research this “Living Foundries” program supports involves the creation of “artificial life” including the creation of artificial genetic material, including artificial chromosomes, the creation of “entirely new organisms,” and using artificial genetic material to “add new capacities” to human beings (i.e. genetically modifying humans through the insertion of synthetically-created genetic material).
The latter is of particular concern (though all are honestly concerning), as DARPA also has a project called “Advanced Tools for Mammalian Genome Engineering,” which – despite having “mammalian” in the name – is focused specifically on improving “the utility of Human Artificial Chromosomes (HACs),” which DARPA describes as a “fundamental tool in the development of advanced therapeutics, vaccines, and cellular diagnostics.” Though research papers often focus on HACs as a revolutionary medical advancement, they are also frequently promoted as a means of “enhancing” humans by imbuing them with non-natural characteristics, including halting aging or improving cognition.
DARPA is known to be involved in research where these methods are used to create “super soldiers” that no longer require sleep or regular meals, among other augmented “features,” and has another program about creating “metabolically dominant” fighters. Reports on these programs also discuss the other, very disconcerting use of these same technologies, “genetic weapons” that would “subvert DNA” and “undermine people’s minds and bodies.”
Another potential application being actively investigated by DARPA is its BioDesign program, which is examining the creation of synthetic organisms that are created to be immortal and programmed with a “kill switch” allowing a synthetic, yet organic organism to be “turned off” at any time. This has led some to speculate such research could open the doors to the creation of “human replicants” used for fighting wars and other tasks, such as those that appear in the science fiction film Bladerunner.
However, these genetic “kill switches” could also be inserted into actual humans through artificial chromosomes, which – just as they have the potential to extend life – also have the potential to cut it short. Notably, it was revealed in 2017 that DARPA had invested $100 million in “gene drive” research, which is involves the use of genetic modification to wipe out entire populations, explaining why it it often referred to as a “genetic extinction” technology.
In addition, other DARPA experiments involve the use of genetically modified viruses that insert genetic material into human cells, specifically neurons in the brain, in order to “tweak” human brain chemistry. In one example, DARPA-funded research has altered human brain cells to produce two new proteins, the first allowing neural activity to be easily detected by external devices and the second allowing “magnetic nanoparticles” to “induce an image or sound in the patient’s mind.”
“Next-Generation Nonsurgical Neurotechnology”
Changing human brain chemistry and functionality at the cellular level is only one of numerous DARPA initiatives aimed at changing how human beings think and perceive reality. Since 2002, DARPA has acknowledged its efforts to create a “Brain-Machine Interface (BMI).” Though first aimed at creating “a wireless brain modem for a freely moving rat,” which would allow the animal’s movements to be remotely controlled, DARPA wasn’t shy about the eventual goal of applying such brain “enhancement” to humans in order to enable soldiers to “communicate by thought alone” or remotely control human beings (on the enemy side only, so they say) for the purposes of war.
The project, which has advanced greatly in recent years, has long raised major concerns among prominent defense scientists, some of whom warned in a 2008 report that “remote guidance or control of a human being” could quickly backfire were an adversary to gain access to the implanted technology (opening up the possibility of “hacking” a person’s brain), and they also raised concerns about the general ethical perils of such technologies. Work began in 2011 on developing “brain implants” for use in human soldiers, officially with the goal of treating neurological damage in veterans, and such implants have been tested on human volunteers in DARPA-funded experiments since at least 2015.
Concerns, like those raised by those defense scientists in 2008, have been regularly dismissed by DARPA, which has consistently claimed that its controversial research projects are tempered by their in-house “ethical experts.” However, it worth noting how DARPA’s leadership views these ethical conundrums, since they ultimately have the last word. For example, in 2015, Michael Goldblatt, then-director of DARPA’s Defense Sciences Office (DSO), which oversees most aspects of the agency’s “super soldier” program, told journalist Annie Jacobsen that he saw no difference between “having a chip in your brain that could help control your thoughts” and “a cochlear implant that helps the deaf hear.” When pressed about the unintended consequences of such technology, Goldblatt stated that “there are unintended consequences for everything.”
Thus, it is worth pointing out that, while DARPA-developed technologies – from human genetic engineering to the brain-machine interfaces – are often first promoted as something that will revolutionize and improve human health, DARPA sees the use of these technologies for such ends as being on the same footing as other dystopian and frankly nightmarish applications, like thought control. BMIs are no exception, having first been promoted as a way to “boost bodily functions of veterans with neural damage or post-traumatic stress disorder” and to allow amputees to control advanced prosthetics. While these do indeed represent major medical advances, DARPA’s leadership has made it clear that they see no distinction between the medical use of BMIs and using them to exert near total control over a human being by “guiding” their thoughts and even their movements.
Such stark admission from DARPA’s leadership makes it worth exploring the state of these current “brain-machine” interface programs as well as their explicit goals. For instance, one of the goals of DARPA’s Next-Generation Nonsurgical Neurotechnology (N3) program involves using “noninvasive or minimally invasive brain-computer interfaces” to “read and write” directly onto the brain.
According to one recent report on DARPA’s N3 program, one example of “minimally invasive” technologies would involve:
“an injection of a virus carrying light-sensitive sensors, or other chemical, biotech, or self-assembled nanobots that can reach individual neurons and control their activity independently without damaging sensitive tissue. The proposed use for these technologies isn’t yet well-specified, but as animal experiments have shown, controlling the activity of single neurons at multiple points is sufficient to program artificial memories of fear, desire, and experiences directly into the brain.”
Though the purported goal of N3 is related to creating “thought-controlled” weapons that react and fire based on a soldier’s thoughts, the fact that the technology is also bidirectional, opens up the disturbing possibility that efforts will be made to control and program a soldier’s thoughts and perceptions as opposed to the other way around. This may be more of the plan than DARPA has publicly let on, since official military documents have openly stated that the Pentagon’s ultimate goal is to essentially replace human fighters with “self-aware” interconnected robots “who” will both design and conduct operations against targets chosen by artificial-intelligence systems. This weapons system of the not-so-distant future seems to have little room for human beings, even those capable of “controlling” weapons with their minds, suggesting that futurist military planners see soldiers with BMIs as a “weapon” that would also become connected to this same AI-driven system. It is also worth pointing out that DARPA has been attempting to create an “artificial human brain” since 2013.
In addition, reports on DARPA’s BMI efforts have suggested that this bidirectional technology will be used to “cloud the perception of soldiers” by “distancing them from the emotional guilt of warfare,” a move that would set a dangerous precedent and one that would surely result in a marked jump in war crimes.
Of course, these are just the admitted, potential “military” applications of such technology. Once this technology moves from the military to the civilian sphere, as several DARPA inventions have in the past, their use for “remote guidance”, “thought control” and/or the programming of thoughts and experiences is more than likely to be misused by governments, corporations and other power-brokers in the U.S. and beyond for the purposes of control.
The entrance of BMIs into the civilian sphere isn’t very far away, as DARPA executives and researchers who have worked on the N3 and other DARPA-backed BMI programs have since been “scooped up” by Verily (a Google-GlaxoSmithKline partnership), Elon Musk’s Neuralink and Facebook’s Building 8 – all of which have been working to bring “neuro-modulation” devices and BMIs to market.
“Human Bio-reactors”, “Nanotherapeutics” and DARPA-funded gene vaccines
As detailed above, DARPA often frames the controversial technologies it develops as being developed to mainly advance medicine and healthcare. Aside from the technologies already discussed, it is important to note that DARPA has been very interested in healthcare, specifically vaccines, for sometime.
For instance, in 2010, DARPA began developing a class of vaccine that could “inoculate against unknown pathogens,” a component of its Accelerated Manufacture of Pharmaceuticals program. The vaccine would inject thousands of synthetic antibodies, such as those developed through DARPA’s “Living Foundries” program, into the human body. These synthetic antibodies or “synbodies” would then “create an immunity toolkit that can be combined in myriad ways to tackle virtually any pathogen.”
That same year, DARPA began funding efforts to create “multiagent synthetic DNA vaccines” that would be delivered into the human body via “noninvasive electroporation” and was quickly promoted in media reports as a way to quickly produce vaccines compared to traditional vaccine production methods. This category of vaccine would involve the same type of synthetic DNA that DARPA was also simultaneously researching for the purposes of both “enhancing” and “subverting” human beings at the genetic level. It was also this year, 2010, that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation also began heavily funding DNA and RNA vaccines.
DNA vaccines, which were first created in 2005, have never been approved for human use in the United States and past studies have warned that they “possess significant unpredictability and a number of inherent harmful potential hazards” and that “there is inadequate knowledge to define either the probability of unintended events or the consequences of genetic modifications.” Another long-standing issue with such vaccines is mitigating “unwanted immune reactions” that result from natural immune response to the foreign genetic material they contain.
In 2011, DARPA announced its “Rapidly Adaptable Nanotherapeutics” program, which seeks to create a “platform capable of rapidly synthesizing therapeutic nanoparticles” aimed at combatting “evolving and even genetically engineered bioweapons.” DARPA’s plan for these nanoparticles, which media reports described merely as “tiny, autonomous drug delivery systems,” was to combine them with “small interfering RNA (siRNA),” which are snippets of RNA that can target and shut down specific genes. As Wired wrote at the time: “siRNA could be reprogrammed ‘on-the-fly’ and applied to different pathogens,” allowing nanoparticles to “be loaded up with the right siRNA molecules and sent directly to cells responsible for the infection.”
The creation of this program was shortly followed by DARPA’s decision in 2013 to fund Moderna Therapeutics to the tune of $25 million to develop their synthetic RNA vaccine production platform. DARPA funded the project to “develop platform technologies that can be deployed safely and rapidly to provide the U.S. population with near-immediate protection against emerging infectious diseases and engineered biological weapons.”
Then, in 2015, DARPA’s research into vaccines involving synthetic antibodies and synthetic genetic material expanded, with them giving $45 million to the DNA vaccine company, Inovio Pharmaceuticals. This same year, DARPA-funded RNA and DNA vaccines began to be framed differently by both DARPA researchers and the media – who described the technology as transforming the human body into a “bio-reactor.”
In the years since, DARPA-backed DNA and RNA vaccine companies, including Moderna, Inovio as well as Germany’s CureVac, have been unable to get their products licensed for human use, largely due to the fact that their vaccines have failed to provide sufficient immunity in human trials. Examples of these ineffective vaccines include CureVac’s attempt at a rabies vaccine and Moderna’s efforts to create a vaccine for the Zika virus (which was funded by the U.S. government).
Several workarounds for this issue have been proposed, including vaccines where the genetic material (RNA or DNA) “self-amplifies.” However, the workaround of choice to this lack of immune response and other obstacles for DNA/RNA vaccines is the incorporation of nanotechnology into these vaccines. As a result, the use of nanoparticles as the carriers for the genetic material in these vaccines has been widely promoted and studied, as well as touted as the best way to improve their stability, increase their targeted delivery ability and enhance the immune response they provoke.
The combination of DNA or RNA vaccines with nanotechnology has already become reality thanks to the companies leading that field. For instance, the DARPA-backed DNA vaccine company Inovio Pharmaceuticals utilizes what reports refer to as “DNA nanotechnology” in their line of synthetic vaccines branded as “SynCon” by the company, which uses an undisclosed computer algorithm to design its vaccines. It is an interesting coincidence, then, that the Inovio “SynCon” vaccine for Covid-19 now appears to be ahead of the rest of the pack, with backing from Bill Gates, DARPA, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and other government agencies.
DARPA – Saving us from Covid-19?
In January, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced it would begin funding vaccine candidates for the coronavirus outbreak, long before it became a major global issue. CEPI describes itself as “a partnership of public, private, philanthropic and civil organizations that will finance and co-ordinate the development of vaccines against high priority public health threats” and was founded in 2017 by the governments of Norway and India along with the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. That month, CEPI only chose two pharmaceutical companies to receive funding for their efforts to develop a vaccine for Covid-19 – Moderna and Inovio Pharmaceuticals.
As previously mentioned, these two companies are DARPA-backed firms that frequently tout their “strategic alliance” with DARPA in press releases and on their websites. DARPA has also provided these companies with significant amounts of funding. For instance, the top funders behind Inovio Pharmaceuticals include both DARPA and the Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) and the company has received millions in dollars in grants from DARPA, including a $45 million grant to develop a vaccine for Ebola. They were also recently awarded over $8 million from the U.S. military to develop a small, portable intradermal device for delivering DNA vaccines, which was jointly developed by Inovio and the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), which also manages the “biodefense” lab at Fort Detrick.
In addition, the German company CureVac, which is also developing a CEPI-backed RNA vaccine for Covid-19, is another long-time recipient of DARPA funding. They were one of DARPA’s earliest investments in the technology, winning a $33.1 million DARPA contract to develop their “RNActive” vaccine platform in 2011.
In Moderna’s case, DARPA financed the production and development of their RNA vaccine production platform and their RNA therapy candidate for Chikungunya virus (their first for an infectious disease) was developed in direct collaboration with the agency. Since 2016, Moderna’s RNA vaccine program has received $100 million in funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The Gates Foundation has since poured millions directly into both Moderna’s and Inovio’s Covid-19 vaccine efforts.
Gates’ backing of DNA and RNA vaccines is significant, given that Gates – a billionaire with unparalleled influence and control over global healthcare policy – recently asserted that the best options for a Covid-19 vaccine are these same vaccines, despite the fact that they have never before been approved for use in humans. Yet, thanks to the emergency authorizations activated due to the current crisis, both Moderna’s and Inovio’s testing for these vaccines has skipped animal trials and gone straight to human testing. They are also set to be fast-tracked for widespread use in a matter of months. Moderna’s clinical trial in humans began in mid-March, followed by Inovio’s in the beginning of April. Thus, they are not only Gates’ favorites to be the new vaccine, but are also slated to be the first to complete clinical trials and garner emergency U.S. government approval, especially Moderna’s vaccine which is being jointly developed with the government’s NIH.
The rapid rise to prominence of Moderna’s and Inovio’s Covid-19 vaccines has resulted in several media articles praising DARPA as having provided our “best hope” for thwarting the coronavirus crisis. In addition to its backing of Moderna’s and Inovio’s own efforts, DARPA itself, specifically DARPA’s BTO, is set to have a “temporary” vaccine for Covid-19 available in a matter of weeks that will involve the production of synthetic antibodies that would ostensibly provide immunity for a few months until a longer-lasting vaccine (such as those produced by Moderna and Inovio) is available.
DARPA’s antibody treatment for Covid-19 is pursuing two routes, including the “human body as bio-reactor” approach that would involve synthetic DNA or RNA being injected in order to prompt the body to produce the necessary antibodies. Defense One notes that DARPA’s Covid-19 treatment would utilize techniques that had resulted from the agency’s investments in microfluidics (the manipulation of liquids at the sub-millimeter range), nanotechnology fabrication and “new approaches to gene sequencing.”
Persistent Concerns
While most media reports have painted these DARPA-led efforts as entirely positive, it is worth noting that concerns have been raised, though these concerns have hardly gotten the coverage they warrant. For instance, Nature recently noted some key points regarding safety issues related to the race for a Covid-19 vaccine, including the fact that all “previous coronavirus vaccines have not all proven appropriate or even safe,” with some past attempts at coronavirus vaccines having resulted in antibody dependent enhancement (ADE). ADE results in cells more rapidly taking up the virus and speeding up the virus’ replication, increasing its infectiousness and virulence.
Nature also noted that the two coronavirus vaccines for SARS that managed to pass phase 1 trials ended up, in subsequent studies, causing immune hypersensitivity in mice “resulting in severe immunopathology,” i.e. permanent defects or malfunctions in the immune system. In addition, Nature also pointed out that it is unknown how strong an immune response is needed to confer immunity for Covid-19 and coronaviruses in general, making it incredibly difficult to gauge if a vaccine is even effective.
Another issue worth noting involves concerns raised about Inovio Pharmaceuticals by investment research firm Citron Research, which compared Inovio to Theranos, the disgraced medical technology company that had initially promised to offer diagnoses for numerous diseases via a simple blood test, but was later revealed to be a sham. Citron asserted that “It’s been over 40 years since Inovio was founded, yet the company has NEVER [sic] brought a product to market, and all the while insiders have enriched themselves with hefty salaries and large stock sales.”
Citron Research went on to say that the company’s claim to have designed their Covid-19 vaccine in only 3 hours based on a computer algorithm was hard to believe, stating that “Inovio has a ‘computer algorithm’ that no one else in the world has and is arguably one of the greatest breakthroughs in vaccine discovery in the past 100 years, and yet this ‘computer algorithm’ is not mentioned once in any of its 10-K’s or 10-Q’s? Sounds like Theranos to us.” It also noted that Inovio’s partnerships with pharmaceutical companies Roche and AstraZeneca ended up failing with those two companies canceling the partnership despite claims from Inovio’s CEO that whey would “continue to thrive.”
A Not-So-Hidden Agenda
Of course, these are just concerns focused on corporate behavior and obstacles towards making a Covid-19 vaccine in general. As this report has already shown in detail, DARPA’s other experiments with the same technologies (particularly genetic engineering, synthetic chromosomes, and nanotechnology) that are being used to produce RNA and DNA vaccines for Covid-19 are arguably more concerning. This is especially true given that DARPA-backed companies that describe themselves as “strategic partners” of the agency are those manufacturing these vaccines. In addition, thanks to backing from the U.S. government and Bill Gates, among others, they are are also slated to be among the first vaccines (if not the first) approved for widespread use.
It is certainly troubling that media coverage of DARPA’s efforts and the efforts of Moderna and Inovio have thus far not included critical reporting regarding the different branches of DARPA’s research that has produced the technology involved in creating these vaccines, leaving little room for public scrutiny of their safety, efficacy and their potential for unintended effects on human genetics.
This is particularly alarming given that, over the past several weeks, efforts have been taking shape in many countries to enforce mandatory vaccinations once a Covid-19 vaccine becomes available. In some countries, it appears likely that the Covid-19 vaccine will not be made mandatory per se, but will be required for those who wish to return to any semblance of “normalcy” in terms of public gatherings, working certain jobs, leaving one’s home for longer periods of time and so on.
Would those involved in creating such a mandatory vaccine, e.g. DARPA, pass up the opportunity to utilize the same technologies involved in producing the vaccine for some of their other admitted goals? This question, of course, has no obvious answer, but the fact that the arc of DARPA’s research is aimed at the weaponization of human biology and genetics in a way that is ripe for misuse, suggests very worrying possibilities that warrant scrutiny. Indeed, if one merely looks at how the crisis has been a boon for the Orwellian plans of the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI) and the federal government’s current efforts to dramatically increase its powers amid the current crisis, it becomes increasingly difficult to give government agencies like DARPA and their corporate partners like Moderna and Inovio the benefit of the doubt.
This is especially true given that – without a major crisis such as that currently dominating world events – people would likely be unreceptive to the widespread introduction of many of the technologies DARPA has been developing, whether their push to create cyborg “super soldiers” or injectable BMIs with the capability to control one’s thoughts. Yet, amid the current crisis, many of these same technologies are being sold to the public as “healthcare,” a tactic DARPA often uses. As the panic and fear regarding the virus continues to build and as people become increasingly desperate to return to any semblance of normalcy, millions will willingly take a vaccine, regardless of any government-mandated vaccination program. Those who are fearful and desperate will not care that the vaccine may include nanotechnology or have the potential to genetically modify and re-program their very being, as they will only want the current crisis that has upended the world to stop.
In this context, the current coronavirus crisis appears to be the perfect storm that will allow DARPA’s dystopian vision to take hold and burst forth from the darkest recesses of the Pentagon into full public view. However, DARPA’s transhumanist vision for the military and for humanity presents an unprecedented threat, not just to human freedom, but an existential threat to human existence and the building blocks of biology itself.
USA Plan: Militarized Control of Population. The “National Covid-19 Testing Action Plan”
The Rockefeller Foundation has presented the “National Covid-19 Testing Action Plan”, indicating the “pragmatic steps to reopen our workplaces and our communities”. However, it is not simply a matter of health measures as it appears from the title.
The Plan – that some of the most prestigious universities have contributed to (Harvard, Yale, Johns Hopkins and others) – prefigures a real hierarchical and militarized social model.
At the top, the “Pandemic Testing Board (PTB), akin to the War Production Board that the United States created in World War II“. The Pandemic Testing Board would “consist of leaders from business, government and academia, and labor”.
This Supreme Council would have the power to decide productions and services with an authority similar to that conferred to the President of the United States in wartime by the Defense Production Act.
The plan calls for 3 million US citizens to be Covid-19 tested weekly, and the number should be raised to 30 million per week within six months. The goal is to achieve the ability to Covid-19 test 30 million people a day, which is to be realized within a year.
For each test, “a fair market reimbursement (e.g. $100) for all Covid-19 assays” is expected. Thus, billions of dollars a month of public money will be needed.
The Rockefeller Foundation and its financial partners will help create a network for the provision of credit guarantees and the signing of contracts with suppliers, that is large companies that manufacture drugs and medical equipment.
According to the Plan, the “Pandemic Control Council” is also authorized to create a “Pandemic Response Corps”: a special force (not surprisingly called “Corps” like the Marine Corps) with a staff of 100 to 300 thousand components.
They would be recruited among Peace Corps and Americorps volunteers (officially created by the US government to “help developing countries”) and among National Guard military personnel. The members of the “Pandemic Response Corps” would receive an average gross wage of $40,000 per year, a State expenditure of $4-12 billion a year is expected for it.
The “pandemic response body” would above all have the task of controlling the population with military-like techniques, through digital tracking and identification systems, in work and study places, in residential areas, in public places and when travelling. Systems of this type – the Rockefeller Foundation recalls – are made by Apple, Google and Facebook.
According to the Plan, information on individuals relating to their state of health and their activities would remain confidential “whenever possible”. However, they would all be centralized in a digital platform co-managed by the Federal State and private companies. According to data provided by the “Pandemic Control Council”, it would be decided from time to time which area should be subject to lockdown and for how long.
This, in summary, is the plan the Rockefeller Foundation wants to implement in the United States and beyond. If it were even partially implemented, there would be further concentration of economic and political power in the hands of an even narrower elite sector to the detriment of a growing majority that would be deprived of fundamental democratic rights.
The operation is carried out in the name of “Covid-19 control”, whose mortality rate has so far been less than 0.03% of the US population according to official data. In the Rockefeller Foundation Plan the virus is used as a real weapon, more dangerous than Covid-19 itself.
*
This article was originally published on Il Manifesto.
Leaked: “Deadly” Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to treat Covid 19: How the World’s Top Medical Journals, The Lancet and NEJM, Were Cynically Exploited by Big Pharma
by Elizabeth Woodworth, Global Research, June 14, 2020
Abstract and Background
A publishing scandal recently erupted around the use of the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to treat Covid 19. It is also known as quinine and chloroquine, and is on the WHO list of essential medicines.[i]
The bark of the South American quina-quina tree has been used to treat malaria for 400 years.[ii] Quinine, a generic drug costing pennies a dose, is available for purchase online. In rare cases it can cause dizziness and irregular heartbeat.[iii]
In late May, 2020, The Lancet published a four-author study claiming that HCQ used in hospitals to treat Covid-19 had been shown conclusively to be a hazard for heart death. The data allegedly covered 96,000 patients in 671 hospitals on six continents.[iv]
After the article had spent 13 days in the headlines, dogged by scientific objections, three of the authors retracted it on June 5.[v]
Meanwhile, during an expert closed-door meeting leaked May 24 in France, The Lancet and NEJM editors explained how financially powerful pharmaceutical players were “criminally” corrupting medical science to advance their interests.
*
On May 22, 2020, the time-honoured Lancet[vi]– one of the world’s two top medical journals – published the stunning claim that 671 hospitals on six continents were reporting life-threatening heart rhythms in patients taking hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for Covid-19.
The headlines that followed were breath-taking.
Although wider access to the drug had recently been urged in a petition signed by nearly 500,000 French doctors and citizens,[vii] WHO and other agencies responded to the article by immediately suspending the clinical trials that may have cleared it for use.
North American headlines did not mention that HCQ has been on the WHO list of essential drugs since the list began in 1977. Nor did they mention an investigative report on the bad press that hydroxychloroquine had been getting prior to May 22, and how financial interests had been intersecting with medicine to favour Gilead’s new, more expensive drug, Remdesivir.[viii]
The statistics behind the headlines
As a Canadian health sciences librarian who delivered statistics to a large public health agency for 25 years, I sensed almost immediately that the article had to be flawed.
Why? Because health statistics are developed for different purposes and in different contexts, causing them to exist in isolated data “stovepipes.”[ix] Many health databases, even within a single region or country, are not standardized and are thus virtually useless for comparative research.
How, I wondered, could 671 hospitals worldwide, including Asia and Africa, report comparable treatment outcomes for 96,000 Covid patients? And so quickly?
The Lancet is strong in public health and surely suspected this. Its award-winning editor-in-chief, Dr. Richard Horton, has been in his job since 1995.[x]
So how could the damning HCQ claims have been accepted? Here is what I discovered.
The honour system in medical publishing
To some extent, authors submitting articles to medical journals are on the honour system, in which cited databases are trusted by the editors, yet are available for inspection if questioned.[xi]
On May 28, an open letter from 200 scientists to the authors and The Lancet requested details of the data and an independent audit. The letter was “signed by clinicians, medical researchers, statisticians, and ethicists from across the world.”[xii]
The authors declined to supply the data, or even the hospital names. Meanwhile, investigative analysis was showing the statistics to be deeply flawed.[xiii][xiv]
If this were not enough, the lead author was found to be in a conflict of interest with HCQ’s rival drug, Remdesivir:
“Dr. Mandeep Mehra, the lead co-author is a director at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, which is credited with funding the study. Dr. Mehra and The Lancet failed to disclose that Brigham Hospital has a partnership with Gilead and is currently conducting two trials testing Remdesivir, the prime competitor of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19, the focus of the study.”[xv]
In view of the foregoing, the article was retracted by three of its authors on June 5.
How did this fraud get past The Lancet reviewers in the first place?
The answer emerges from what has remained an obscure French interview, although it has been quoted in the alternative media.[xvi]
On May 24, a closed-door Chatham House expert meeting about Covid included the editors-in-chief of The Lancet and the NEJM. Comments regarding the article were leaked to the French press by a well-known health figure, Dr. Philippe Douste-Blazy,[xvii] who felt compelled to blow the whistle.
His resulting BFM TV interview was posted to YouTube with English subtitles on May 31,[xviii] but it was not picked up by the English-speaking media.
These were The Lancet editor Dr. Richard Horton’s words, as reported by Dr. Douste-Blazy:
“If this continues, we are not going to be able to publish any more clinical research data because pharmaceutical companies are so financially powerful today, and are able to use such methodologies as to have us accept papers which are apparently methodologically perfect, but which, in reality, manage to conclude what they want to conclude.” [xix]
Doust-Blazy made his own comments on Horton’s words:
“I never thought the boss of The Lancet could say that. And the boss of the New England Journal of Medicine too. He even said it was ‘criminal’. The word was used by them.”[xx]
The final words in Doust-Blazy’s interview were:
“When there is an outbreak like Covid, in reality, there are people like us – doctors – who see mortality and suffering. And there are people who see dollars. That’s it.”[xxi]
The scientific process of building a trustworthy knowledge base is one of the foundations of our civilization. Violating this process is a crime against both truth and humanity.
Evidently the North American media does not consider this extraordinary crime to be worth reporting.
*
[i] World Health Organization. “World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines, 21st ed.”, WHO, 2019, pp. 24, 25, 53 (https://www.who.int/medicines/publications/essentialmedicines/en/).
[ii] Jane Achan, et al., “Quinine, an old anti-malarial drug in a modern world: role in the treatment of malaria,” Malaria Journal, 24 May 2011 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3121651/).
[iii] WebMD, “Quinine Sulfate” (https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-869/quinine-oral/details).
[iv] The Lancet, “RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis, by Mandeep R. Mehra et al,” Lancet, 5 June 2010 (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext).
[v] Ibid.
[vi] Famous weekly British medical journal, founded in 1823.
[vii] Lee Mclaughlan, “Covid-19 France: petition for wider chloroquine access,” 6 April 2020 (https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/Time-wasted-over-use-of-choroquine-coronavirus-drug-says-petition-by-former-French-health-minister).
[viii] Sharyl Attkisson, “Hydroxychloroquine,” Full Measure, 18 May 2020 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB-_SV-y11Y). Attkisson is a five-time Emmy Award winner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharyl_Attkisson).
[ix] See “Stovepiping,” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stovepiping) (accessed June 12, 2020).
[x] Dr. Horton’s career, professionalism, and awards are shown at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Horton_(editor)(accessed June 12, 2020).
[xi] The Lancet and NEJM editors could not be expected to comb through data from 671 hospitals to verify their accuracy – especially when submitted by four doctors.
[xii] The full-text letter and signatories appear at https://zenodo.org/record/3862789#.XuQiNmYTGhM
[xiii] Melissa Davey, “Questions raised over hydroxychloroquine study which caused WHO to halt trials for Covid-19,” The Guardian, 28 May 2020 (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/may/28/questions-raised-over-hydroxychloroquine-study-which-caused-who-to-halt-trials-for-covid-19).
[xiv] Melissa Davey et al, “Surgisphere: governments and WHO changed Covid-19 policy based on suspect data from tiny US company,” The Guardian, 3 June 2020 (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/03/covid-19-surgisphere-who-world-health-organization-hydroxychloroquine).
[xv] 1. Alliance for Human Research Protection, “The Lancet Published a Fraudulent Covid-19 Study,” 2 June 2020 (https://ahrp.org/the-lancet-published-a-fraudulent-study-editor-calls-it-department-of-error/).
- Brigham Health, “Two Remdesivir Clinical Trials Underway at Brigham and Women’s Hospital,” 30 March 2020 (https://www.brighamhealthonamission.org/2020/03/26/two-remdesivir-clinical-trials-underway-at-brigham-and-womens-hospital/).
[xvi] Vera Sharav, “Editors of The Lancetand the New England Journal of Medicine: Pharmaceutical Companies are so Financially Powerful They Pressure us to Accept Papers,” Health Impact News, 5 June 2020
[xvii] Dr. Philippe Douste-Blazy, MD, is a cardiologist, former French Health Minister; 2017 candidate for Director at WHO; and former Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_Douste-Blazy.
[xviii] “(Eng Subs) Hydroxychloroquine Lancet Study: Former France Health Minister blows the whistle,” BFM TV, 31 May 2020 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=ZYgiCALEdpE&feature=emb_logo).
[xix] Ibid.
[xx] Ibid.
[xxi] Ibid.
Lancet Editor Spills the Beans and Britain’s PM Surrenders to the Gates Vaccine Cartel
THE ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION - June 5 2020
Philippe Douste-Blazy, MD, a cardiologist and former French Health Minister who served as Under-Secretary General of the United Nations; he was a candidate in 2017 for Director of the World Health Organization.
In a videotaped interview on May 24, 2020, Dr. Douste-Blazy provided insight into how a series of negative hydroxychloroquine studies got published in prestigious medical journals. He revealed that at a recent Chatham House top secret, closed door meeting attended by experts only, the editors of both, The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine expressed their exasperation citing the pressures put on them by pharmaceutical companies. He states that each of the editors used the word “criminal” to describe the erosion of science.
He quotes Dr. Richard Horton who bemoaned the current state of science:
“If this continues, we are not going to be able to publish any more clinical research data because pharmaceutical companies are so financially powerful; they are able to pressure us to accept papers that are apparently methodologically perfect, but their conclusion is what pharmaceutical companies want.”
Dr. Douste-Blazy supports the combination treatment –hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and azithromycin (AZ) for Covid-19 recommended by Dr. Didier Raoult. In April, 2020
Dr. Douste-Blazy started a petition that has been signed by almost 500,000 French doctors and citizens urging French government officials to permit physicians to prescribe hydroxychloroquine to treat coronavirus patients early, before they require intensive care. The issue has become highly politicized; the left-leaning politicians and public health officials are adamantly against the use of HCQ, whereas those leaning toward the right politically are for the right of doctors to prescribe the drug as they see fit.
The journal SCIENCE described the response to French President Emmanuel Macron trip to Marseille to meet Dr. Raoult who prescribes the combination drug regimen and he has documented their effectiveness. However, public health officials, academic physicians and the media – all of who are financially indebted to pharmaceutical companies and their high profit marketing objectives – vehemently oppose the use of HCQ, and use every opportunity to disparage the drug by derisively referring to President Trump as its booster.
John Stone, UK Editor of Age of Autism, posted the following today.
British Prime Minister Channels Churchill As He Surrenders To Gates And The Vaccine Cartel
This is the moment of national humiliation that we somehow did not see on our television sets last night: British Prime Minister Boris Johnson surrendering to Bill Gates and the vaccine cartel, GAVI, hailed by him as the new NATO – while he speaks from a nation on its knees like Vichy France. While British news after months of wall to wall Coronavirus suddenly, mysteriously became obsessed with the 13 year old saga of Madeleine McCann almost no one saw Johnson’s insipid, but rhetorically overblown speech at the end of the global summit he hosted in London yesterday and chaired with Gates. No one knew when they were electing Johnson that they were electing Gates
No one knew when they were electing Johnson that they were electing Gates
and putting the vaccine industry at the heart of the British nation’s future. It was particularly galling to see him extol the already failed Oxford COVID vaccine as an example of British innovation. This is presumably where we were headed from the moment lockdown was announced. The meeting elicited a short mention at the end of the BBC 10 o’clock news and was not mentioned on the front pages of any of the national newspapers this morning.
If GAVI is the new NATO, and the focus of British national destiny perhaps the moment should not have been news managed out of existence. Now everything that our lives were worth has to be surrendered in an endless war against disease long ago devised by Mr Gates. In Gates’s brave new world everyone will have to have vaccines like computer patches every five minutes, and when they don’t work – if we are still standing – we will have to have another.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S0LAbObZV0
John Stone is UK Editor of Age of Autism Posted June 05, 2020
EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Robert Kennedy Jr. Destroys Big Pharma, Fauci & Pro-Vaccine Movement
[at 19:38]
My party, the Democratic Party is the worst on this issue. It’s very odd to me that they’re mandating these vaccines that are untested. How can you mandate any medication for a human being? How can you tell somebody, We are gonna force you to take a medication that you don’t want to take? We signed a treaty, the Nuremberg Charter, after World War Two because the Nazis were doing that.
58. No state party shall, even in time of emergency threatening the life of the nation, derogate from the Covenant’s guarantees of the right to life; freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and from medical or scientific experimentation without free consent; freedom from slavery or involuntary servitude; the right not to be imprisoned for contractual debt; the right not to be convicted or sentenced to a heavier penalty by virtue of retroactive criminal legislation; the right to recognition as a person before the law; and freedom of thought, conscience and religion. These rights are not derogable under any conditions even for the asserted purpose of preserving the life of the nation.
Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation of Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Annex, UN Doc E/CN.4/1984/4 (1984), p. 6
And yet we’re mandating these drugs and not only are we forcing people to take one and we know they cause injury. The Vaccine Court has paid out four billion dollars. And they are severely limited, those judgments. Even HHS admits at the Vaccine Court, fewer than 1% of injuries ever gets reported or awarded. So make that four hundred billion. We know they cause a lot of injuries. Even if they cause one injury how can you force a human being to take it against their will? It makes no sense.
The Nuremberg Code (1947)
Permissible Medical Experiments
- The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
[at 45:17]
Robert Kennedy, Jr.:
Fauci has a bias towards vaccines and he owns the vaccine. So he has the patents. He literally owns vaccine patents.
Patrick Bet-David:
Is it purely profit motivation, is [it] purely profit?
RFK, Jr.:
No. I think it’s power. And I think the same is true with Gates. Both of them actually stand to make huge amounts of money, potentially billions of dollars. I don’t believe—it’s very hard to look into another man’s brain and I try not to do that. But just looking at them I really believe that their motivation is more about power. And there is no more powerful position than being a health official because you can literally dictate. At this point, Tony Fauci has powers that no American president has ever had. He’s telling people in California: You can’t go to the beach, You can’t go in the ocean, You can’t go shop, Your kids can’t go to school, You have to stay in your house. Two days ago they were giving thousand dollar tickets to people who were swimming in the ocean and surfing. No president’s ever had that kind of power before. But today Fauci, who’s very very close partners with Gates, are telling America and what they’re saying—if you listen carefully—what they’re saying is: You all are are gonna stay in the house until we have a vaccine. It’s not gonna be safe to come out. And that is a tremendous power to tell people they have to wait and do that until you get a vaccine.
The Zyprexa Papers: Big Pharma Meets Big Diagnosis, Big Courts, and Big Psychiatric Hospitals
This book chronicles the battles on behalf of Bill Bigley, the psychiatric patient whose ordeal by Eli Lilly's product made possible the exposure of the Zyprexa Papers. Written by James B. Gottstein, Esq. and published in 2020, The Zyprexa Papers are crucial documents in the fight to hold Eli Lilly accountable for hiding harm caused by Zyprexa and their illegal marketing of it.
It was just a normal day before Dr. David Egilman called me out of the blue on November 28, 2006. The days are short that time of year in Anchorage, Alaska, and it was getting dark by mid-afternoon. Dr. Egilman told me he had been hired as an expert witness by one of the law firms representing patients who had taken Zyprexa and contracted diabetes or other metabolic problems. He wanted to know about documents relating to Zyprexa I might have. In truth, he was feeling me out to see whether I might be willing to subpoena him, so he could legally send me secret documents. These documents revealed the pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly (Lilly) had from the beginning suppressed information showing Zyprexa caused these life-threatening conditions. In addition, they showed Lilly had illegally marketed this powerful and dangerous drug for use in children and the elderly. He wanted me to then send them to Alex Berenson, a reporter for The New York Times with whom he was already working on a Zyprexa exposé.
On December 17, 2006, The New York Times began a series of front-page stories about documents obtained from Alaska lawyer Jim Gottstein, showing Eli Lilly had concealed that its top-selling drug caused diabetes and other life-shortening metabolic problems. The "Zyprexa Papers," as they came to be known, also showed Eli Lilly was illegally promoting the use of Zyprexa on children and the elderly, with particularly lethal effects. Although Mr. Gottstein believes he obtained the Zyprexa Papers legally, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn decided he had conspired to steal the documents, and Eli Lilly threatened Mr. Gottstein with criminal contempt charges. In The Zyprexa Papers, Mr. Gottstein gives a riveting first-hand account of what really happened, including new details about how a small group of psychiatric survivors spread the Zyprexa Papers on the Internet untraceably. All of this within a gripping, plain-language explanation of complex legal maneuvering and his battles on behalf of Bill Bigley, the psychiatric patient whose ordeal made possible the exposure of the Zyprexa Papers.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/26ad5/26ad5b26254707717f9c826a331e6766e402ff20" alt=""
__________________________________________
Psych Rights - Getting To The Next LevelFounded in 2002, the mission of the Law Project for Psychiatric Rights (PsychRights) is to mount a strategic litigation campaign against forced psychiatric drugging and electroshock throughout the United States akin to the successful effort of the N.A.A.C.P. in the 1950's and 1960's to end legal segregation. This includes addressing the horrendous psychiatric drugging of children in the United States, especially poor children on Medicaid and in foster care. PsychRights does not view strategic litigation as the sole means to reform the U.S. mental health system into one that is helpful rather than harmful, but that it is likely a necessary component, just as desegregation litigation was in the 1950's and 1960's.
__________________________________________
Jim Gottstein grew up in Anchorage, Alaska where his father was a prominent businessman and his mother one of the most beloved women in town. Jim was on track to go into the family grocery and real estate empire, studying for a business degree at the University of Oregon when the law found him during his required Business Law class. He didn't miss a question the entire class and realized law was a good fit. He managed to get into Harvard Law School as the only sky-diving applicant from Alaska that year.
After graduating from law school in 1978, Jim went into private practice in Anchorage with Robert M. Goldberg, primarily representing Alaska Native organizations. In 1982, he experienced a psychotic break due to sleep deprivation and was introduced first hand to the mental illness system. He was told he would be permanently mentally ill and to forget about his law career. Luckily, he escaped psychiatry and the experience led him to legal representation and other advocacy for people diagnosed with mental illness not as lucky as he. Jim opened his own law office in 1985, generally focused on business matters, and is now mostly retired from the private practice of law. In 2002, Jim founded the Law Project for Psychiatric Rights (PsychRights.org) to mount a strategic litigation campaign against forced psychiatric drugging and electroshock, and to inform the public about the counterproductive and harmful nature of the drugs and shock.
REVIEWS
“The Zyprexa Papers” is a deep dive into the Bizarro World of psychiatry, Big Pharma, and the judicial system. As Jim writes, “To me, it is crystal clear locking people up and drugging them against their will is not ‘for their own good’ but instead very harmful to them. One of my goals in writing this book is to show this truth.” Mission accomplished.
This much is well-known. The papers have been widely distributed and have opened some peoples’ eyes. Gottstein doesn’t detail the content of these papers — what every non-person knew about the capacity of these drugs to cause diabetes, metabolic syndrome, suicidality and other problems. The fascination lies in how little of this appears to be known by the psychiatrists who might lock you and me up and inflict treatment on us and how pharma takes psychiatrists for idiots.
It’s rather like how little Germans during World War II knew about what was happening in their country. And just like German functionaries drew up specifications for drainage in vehicles to transport people to concentration camps, much as they would have done for transporting animals, so also Judge Weinstein dealing with Gottstein’s actions stuck rigidly to the legal specifications without questioning what in fact was going on. And if that sounds grimly American, everything we know about what pharma gets up to comes from legal actions in the US and a handful of lawyers like Gottstein. The rest of the world has made no contribution to what we now know.
Many people coming to this book might figure that the Bigley saga plays second fiddle to what is after all called The Zyprexa Papers. A switch from the dizzying heights of New York courtroom drama to an Alaskan backwater. But Bill Bigley’s case is the beating heart of this book. The Zyprexa papers are the bait for Gottstein’s masterly portrayal of how the system treated Bill and will treat you and anyone you know who comes into contact with it.
"The Zyprexa Papers. Sounds like a thriller starring Denzel Washington and Julia Roberts. It’s not. It’s the riveting account of Alaska attorney Jim Gottstein's encounter with the pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly, a battle centered around Eli Lilly's wanton misuse of the drug Zyprexa."
"Jim Gottstein’s blockbuster new book, The Zyprexa Papers, is essential reading. It should be required reading for every well-meaning friend or family member of someone who suffers emotionally, as well as for legislators who genuinely want to weed out corruption and harm."
Moral Courage and Our Common Future—A Foreword to Plague of Corruption
By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Chairman, Children’s Health Defense
2 May 2020
“And yet, it moves!” Galileo whispered those defiant words in 1615 as he left the Roman Inquisition tribunal before which he repudiated his theory that the Earth—the immovable center of the Universe according to contemporary orthodoxy—revolves around the sun. Had he not recanted, his life would be forfeit. We like to think of Galileo’s struggles as the quaint artifact of a dark, ignorant, and tyrannical era where individuals challenged government-anointed superstitions only at grave personal risk. Dr. Judy Mikovits’ story shows that stubborn orthodoxies anointed by pharmaceutical companies and corrupt government regulators to protect power and profits remain a dominant force in science and politics.
A pioneer in the field of human retrovirology
By any standard, Dr. Judy Mikovits was among the most skilled scientists of her generation. She entered professional science from the University of Virginia with a BA degree in chemistry on June 10, 1980, as a protein chemist for the National Cancer Institute (NCI) working on a life-saving project to purify interferon. The quality of her work and her reliable flashes of genius soon propelled her to the apex of the male-dominated world of scientific research. At NCI, Mikovits began what would become a twenty-year collaboration with Dr. Frank Ruscetti, a pioneer in the field of human retrovirology. While heading up the lab of Robert Gallo in 1977, Ruscetti made scientific history by co-discovering with Bernie Poiesz the first human retrovirus, HTLV-1 (human T-cell leukemia virus). A retrovirus is a “stealth virus” that, like HIV, enters the host without alerting the immune systems.
It may then lie dormant for years without causing harm. Before killing a person, a retrovirus will usually destroy their immune system. As a result, many retroviruses cause cancer. With an escalating understanding of retrovirus behavior, the Ruscetti/ Mikovits collaboration and Mikovits’s award-winning PhD thesis from George Washington University in 1991 changed the paradigm of HIV-AIDS treatment, turning the disease from a death sentence into a manageable condition.
Integrity before personal ambition
From the outset, the most daunting obstacle to Mikovits’ career advancement was her scientific integrity. She always placed it ahead of personal ambition. Judy Mikovits never meant to wade into a public health brawl. She never considered herself a renegade or revolutionary. Judy’s relatives mainly worked in government or law enforcement. They believed in the bedrock American principles of hard work, respect for authority, and, above all, telling the truth. That backdrop made it impossible for her to abandon her high natal standards of honesty and integrity even when they became a hindrance.
After leaving NIH, she worked a stint for Upjohn—leading a project to prove the safety of the company’s blockbuster Bovine Growth Hormone. When Mikovits discovered the company’s formula could cause precancerous changes in human cell cultures, she refused direct orders from her boss to hide her discoveries. Mikovits’ revelation suggested that the ubiquitous presence of the hormone in milk could lead to breast cancer in women who drank it. Her refusal to back down precipitated her departure from Upjohn and her return to NIH and graduate school. Judy’s war on BGH eventually led to Upjohn abandoning the product.
Operation Openscript - Opening the Dialogue for Oversight on Bioethics and Bioterrorism
Watchdog on Biodefense, bioterrorism, bioethics,
http://operationopenscript.webstarts.com/
The Story of Dirty Profit, Inhumane Weapons Development,
A potent, developing resource. The following excerpts copied on 14 Jun 2020.
Lyme Disease, Mycoplasma, and Bioweapons Development Timeline
http://operationopenscript.webstarts.com/history_and_timeline.html
https://static.secure.website/wscfus/10426050/7321703/lyme-disease-mycoplasma-and-bioweapons-development-timeline.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20180228025143/http://www.operationopenscript.webstarts.com/history_and_timeline.html
Bio-Threats - Vaccines & Other Dangers
http://operationopenscript.webstarts.com/vaccines_and_other_dangers.html
Chronic Illness & Disease - 27 listed
http://operationopenscript.webstarts.com/chronic_illness_and_disease.html
Whistleblowers - 41 people listed
http://operationopenscript.webstarts.com/whistleblowers.html
Documentaries - 47 complete films all online
http://operationopenscript.webstarts.com/documentaries.html
Title 50 1520
http://operationopenscript.webstarts.com/title_50.html
WAR and NATIONAL DEFENSE. In subsection 1520 it's parameters are as follows:
Title 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
CHAPTER 32 - CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM
Sec. 1520 - Use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents by Department of Defense; accounting to Congressional committees with respect to experiments and studies; notification of local civilian officials.
...
Although this statute was officially repealed and gives the impression of being outlawed, they are still allowed to keep this going in times of War or National Emergency and since we have been under some form of war state or national emergency since the 1970's, this exception may have become the rule.
Mapping the Genome and Modern Genetics: Eugenics Repackaged for Modern Times
John P. Thomas, Health Impact News, 4 July 2015
This is part II of a series on the relationship between the eugenics movement and modern genetics. It examines whether true health and true happiness lie in the human genome. Are we really bound to the set of genes that we received from our parents? Or can we overcome what we were given? What are the factors that activate or deactivate certain genes? How can we control the expression of our genetic make-up to promote our health and the health of our children? Can we trust everything we hear about the benefits of genetic research?
Is there a dark side to genetics? Is there reason to suspect hidden motivations of certain groups who want us to be convinced that our genes, and only our genes, control every aspect of our health and well-being? Is it wise to believe that we have no other options than to suffer while scientists look for genetic cures for all that ails us?
The previous article reviewed the history of the eugenics movement and examined how it was given a facelift and transformed into what we now think of as the modern science of genetics. It discussed the eugenics program of Adolf Hitler that terminated the lives of eleven million men, women and children.
Hitler was strongly influenced by Darwin’s theory of evolution and by Americans who were promoting eugenics. He closely followed the teachings of university professors in the United States who were teaching eugenics and using the principles of Darwin’s theory of evolution to form a “superior” race of people in America. The previous article questioned whether there remains a link between the eugenics movement of the past and modern genetic science. Do they still share common goals?
The superior race that American eugenicists and Adolf Hitler envisioned was intended to be free of disability, poverty, and chronic illness. It was to be a “beautiful” race of people (as they saw it) that consisted of men and women with blond hair and blue eyes. They would be a select class of people who were physically perfect, physically fit, intellectually superior, and financially prosperous.
Modern eugenics does not seek to create a superior race, but it does have the potential for creating a superior class of people who will be distinguished by the absence of certain diseases, which they will call “health.” They will possess a certain set of traits that someone among them has determined to be “best” for humanity.
Both movements sought, and are seeking, to achieve high and lofty goals supposedly for our benefit. They promise to provide rapid restoration for all that ails us. They seek to improve the defects that exist in humankind and create a future in which disease, illness, and poverty will only exist in the memories of older generations, because genetic defects will have been corrected or eliminated. [1]
The previous article noted that the theory of Darwinian evolution and its implementation through eugenics disregards individual and personal choices concerning human reproduction, and it devalues human life itself. Darwinism and eugenics replace the love-based commitment between family members with allegiance to the state. They replace the worship of God with the worship of eugenic principles and evolutionary theory. They turn the hearts of the people away from valuing and protecting human life, and desensitize society to death. They teach people to accept the fact that the lives of some people must be sacrificed for the greater good of the “superior” ones who remain.
At the heart of the eugenics movement was a deep seated belief in the superiority of the white race, and the need for eliminating other races that they determined to be inferior. It called for the cleansing of the white race as well to eliminate all people and families who showed evidence of having defective genetic material (germplasm).
Eugenics in the United States Today: Are We on the Same Path Nazi Germany Followed?
John P. Thomas, Health Impact News, 27 Jun 2015
Creating an Elite Class of Super Humans
This is the first part of a two part series exploring the relationship between the controversial eugenics movement of the past and modern genetics. [Part II is here.] Eugenics was dedicated to cleansing and purifying humanity from “inferior” members with the hope of solving various social problems related to poverty, disability, and illness. To accomplish this, it sought to create a superior race of people and to use forced sterilization and extermination to eliminate future generations of defective human beings. Darwin’s theory of evolution was used to justify the practice of eugenics. Later, when eugenics fell from favor, modern genetics began to grow up from the ashes of the former movement.
When Adolf Hitler applied Darwin’s theory of evolution and the principles of eugenics to the goals of the German state, the result was the murder of eleven million men, women and children. These lives were sacrificed in the name of eugenics. Eugenicists were seeking to improve the conditions of life for humanity by creating a “superior” race of people.
The eugenics movement had a very dark side, which led to social control, loss of reproductive freedom, and the loss of life. Should we be concerned that modern genetic science might have a dark side as well? Will the fruit of genetic research be misused by ill-intentioned people to gain control over others as happened with eugenics in the past? Has modern genetics completely severed itself from its roots? Or, might it become the tool that will be used to try to create a master class of genetically superior human beings in America?
What are the deceptions and dangers of the modern genetics movement? Does true health and true happiness lie in the human genome? Are we really bound to the set of genes that we received from our parents, or can we overcome what we were given? What are the factors that activate or deactivate certain genes, and how can we control the expression of our genetic make-up to promote our health and the health of our children? What are the motivations of certain groups who want us to believe that genes control every aspect of our lives – that we have no other options than to suffer while genetic scientists look for genetic cures for all that ails us? Are we really more than our genes or is our genetic code all there is?
These questions and many more will be examined in these articles. Let’s begin by learning about the development of eugenics.