newswars--2020-05-26--COVID Vaccine: What Else Could They Put in the Shot?

There has never been a greater opportunity to deploy one vaccine against so many people .
So it ’ s certainly not out of line to consider a “ dual use.
” I have already covered the devastating effects of experimental RNA/DNA vaccine technologies—both of which could be launched with a COVID vaccine .
Putting that aside for the moment , could the vaccine serve another purpose ?
In this article , I raise questions .
Questions about the potential covert use of nanotechnology in the COVID vaccine .
From lexico.com : nanotechnology : “ The branch of technology that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 100 nanometers , especially the manipulation of individual atoms and molecules.
” Are researchers interested in marrying nanotechnology and vaccines ?
Here is a quote from Frontiers in Immunology , January 24 , 2019 , “ Nanoparticle-Based Vaccines Against Respiratory Viruses ” : A new generation of vaccines based on nanoparticles has shown great potential to address most of the limitations of conventional and subunit vaccines .
This is due to recent advances in chemical and biological engineering , which allow the design of nanoparticles with a precise control over the size @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , leading to enhanced antigen presentation and strong immunogenicity .
This short review provides an overview of the advantages associated with the use of nanoparticles as vaccine delivery platforms to immunize against respiratory viruses… ” [ such as the purported COVID-19 virus ? ]
Here is another quote , also from Frontiers in Immunology , October 4 , 2018 , “ Nanoparticle Vaccines Against Infectious Diseases ” : In the last several years , the use of nanoparticle-based vaccines has received a great attention to improve vaccine efficacy , immunization strategies , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the cellular level…Nanocarriers composed of lipids , proteins , metals or polymers have already been used…This review article focuses on the applications of nanocarrier-based vaccine formulations and the strategies used for the functionalization of nanoparticles to accomplish efficient delivery of vaccines in order to induce desired host immunity against infectious diseases.
” There can be no doubt that nanotechnology is , indeed , very much involved in cutting-edge vaccine research .
Now let ’ s shift into another use of nanotech .
Here are astonishing quotes from the journal Nano Today , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nanowire probes could drive high-resolution brain-machine interfaces.
” Its authors are Chinese and American : “ …advances can enable investigations of dynamics in the brain [ through nano-sensor-implants ] and drive the development of new brain-machine interfaces with unprecedented resolution and precision.
” “ …output electrical signals of brain activity or input electrical stimuli to modulate brain activity in concert with external machines , including computer processors and prosthetics , for human enhancement… ” Aside from research into prosthetics and , perhaps , the reversal of certain paralyses , this avenue of investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brain remotely connected to machines , for the purpose of control .
ONE : Nano-sensors , implanted in the body and brain , would issue real time data-reports on body/brain functioning to ops centers .
TWO : And from those ops centers , data—including instructions—would be sent back to the nano-sensors , which would impose those instructions on the brain and body .
If this seems impossible , consider nanotech research aimed at improving the use of prosthetics .
In that field , imposing instructions on the body/brain appears to be the whole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far along the road of development is this technology ?
I can only say we are seeing the public published face of nanotech .
What lies behind it , in secret research , is a matter for estimation and speculation .
I offer one speculation : the “ promotion ” of the social agenda of collectivist thought , through nanotech .
Utilizing the Internet of Things , an attempt would be made to hook up and “ harmonize ” many , many brains with one another .
Same basic feelings , same impulses—shared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a program ?
Think Chinese government , DARPA ( the technology arm of the Pentagon ) , and numerous other international actors .
Think Rockefeller medical researchers .
Think technocracy and Brave New World .
SUPPOSE , THROUGH A COVID VACCINE , NANOTECH COULD BE INSERTED INTO BODIES AND BRAINS OF THE GLOBAL POPULATION ?
As a grand control “ experiment.
” Is that too far-out an idea ?
Here is an interesting quote from a 3/11/20 S & P Global article , “ Early-stage nanotechnology poised for ‘ inflection point ’ ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ global healthcare challenges in 2020 is the coronavirus outbreak and Moderna Inc….is on the front line of vaccine development for this new biological threat.
” “ Moderna ’ s nanoparticle-driven science uses genetic engineering to trigger cells to create proteins that prevent certain infections .
Its vaccines for Zika virus and influenza have already progressed to early clinical stages… ” If Moderna ’ s COVID vaccine is indeed using nanoparticles , I have not seen this mentioned in current press reports .
The S & P Global article states , “ One of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nanotech engineering is Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Robert Langer , who has helped found about 40 companies based on technology created and developed in his Langer Lab…Moderna Inc. , one of the companies Langer helped found… ” Does Moderna ’ s COVID vaccine use nanoparticles ?
If so , what can these particles actually do ?
These are pressing questions that need to be answered .
I offer two backgrounders I wrote several months ago .
They involve the flood of highly significant scientific research across borders .
BACKGROUNDER ONE : Behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upon a time , they called it espionage .
Then they called it “ illegal technology transfer.
” Then they casually and admiringly called it Globalism .
A cutting-edge technology , which has applications for weaponry , transportation , medicine , artificial intelligence , surveillance , mind control…is being openly shared between the US and China .
And by implication , who knows how many other nations ?
As just one example , tiny sensors would , up the road , be placed inside the human body .
These sensors would automatically monitor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real time , in the body—as a way of diagnosing diseases .
The sensors will transmit all this information , through the emerging Internet of Things—using the 5G pipeline—to medical centers—where AI corporate and government analysts will make the disease diagnoses and prescribe treatments .
Eventually , a few billion people ( patients ) would , through these sensors in their bodies , be hooked up to the 5G Internet of Things .
—HOWEVER , as I ’ ve reported many times in these pages , the standard definitions of diseases and disorders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But because the future system I ’ ve just sketched is automated , the patient is enclosed in a fake and dangerous bubble .
Among other problems , the disease treatments , the drugs and vaccines , are toxic .
What is the technology that is on the way to producing these body sensors ?
From lexico.com : nanotechnology : “ The branch of technology that deals with dimensions and tolerances of less than 100 nanometers , especially the manipulation of individual atoms and molecules.
” One of the leading nanoscience researchers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a charge of concealing his connections to China .
Major US science star busted by the feds .
Charles Lieber , now suspended by Harvard , is the University ’ s chairman of the chemistry department .
I have read two articles from a foreign news outlet headlined with the claim that Lieber stole and smuggled the “ new coronavirus ” from the US to China .
In both cases , the text of the articles mentioned nothing about such a theft .
I ’ m not writing this article about “ coronavirus.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ articles rejecting the premise of an “ epidemic ” caused by the “ virus.
” I decided to look into this situation , because Lieber does apparently have big-time connections to China .
Sharing research on his specialty , nanoscience , with China would be one more case of “ technology transfer.
” Bloomberg News , February 12 , 2020 : “ Lieber ’ s arrest on Jan. 28 came in connection with his dealings in China .
He hasn ’ t been charged with any type of economic espionage , intellectual-property theft @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s accused of lying to U.S. Department of Defense investigators about his work with the People ’ s Republic… ” “ …by targeting Lieber , the chairman of Harvard ’ s chemistry department and a veritable ivory tower blue blood , prosecutors struck at the crimson heart of the academic elite , raising fears that globalism , when it comes to doing science with China , is being criminalized.
” “ According to a government affidavit , signed by a Federal Bureau of Investigation agent named Robert Plumb , Lieber signed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ University , or WUT , in central China .
These included a contract with the state-sponsored Thousand Talents Plan—an effort by Beijing to attract mostly expatriate [ Chinese ] researchers and their know-how back home—worth a total of about $ 653,000 a year in pay [ to Lieber ] and living expenses for three years , plus $ 1.74 million [ to Lieber ] to support a new ‘ Harvard-WUT Nano Key Lab ’ in Wuhan .
The government offered no evidence that Lieber actually received those sums… Lieber also deceived Harvard about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] affidavit said.
” “ Whatever extracurricular arrangements Lieber may have had in China , his Harvard lab was a paragon of U.S.-China collaboration .
He relied on a pipeline of China ’ s brightest Ph.D. students and postdocs , often more than a dozen at a time , to produce prize-winning research on the revolutionary potential of so-called nanowires in biomedical implants .
Dozens of Lieber ’ s 100 or so former lab members from China have chosen to stay in the U.S .
Many now lead their own nanoscience labs at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tech , MIT , Stanford , University of California at Berkeley , and UCLA.
” I ’ d say that ’ s a pretty big technology-transfer WOW right there .
“ In the 1990s and 2000s , as Lieber ’ s achievements and stature were taking off , U.S. research institutions and grant makers pumped money and moral support into expanding the burgeoning collaborations between scientists in the U.S. and other countries , particularly China .
The new paradigm was globalization , China was an emerging economic power , and Lieber ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Another WOW .
Not a leak of information .
A flood .
“ A more controversial Lieber protégé is Liqiang Mai , the international dean and chair of materials science at WUT , the little-known school in Wuhan that prosecutors allege recruited Lieber to be a ‘ strategic scientist ’ in 2011 , for $ 50,000 a month .
Mai , who hasn ’ t been named in any U.S. filings against Lieber , earned a doctorate at WUT in 2004 and worked as a postdoc in Lieber ’ s lab @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mai ’ s WUT online bio….
” How big a star is Lieber ?
Wikpedia : “ Charles M. Lieber ( born 1959 ) is an American chemist and pioneer in the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology .
In 2011 , Lieber was recognized by Thomson Reuters as the leading chemist in the world for the decade 2000-2010 based on the impact of his scientific publications .
Lieber has published over 400 papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals and has edited and contributed to many books on nanoscience .
He is the principal inventor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ applications , and founded the nanotechnology company Nanosys in 2001 and Vista Therapeutics in 2007 .
He is known for his contributions to the synthesis , assembly and characterization of nanoscale materials and nanodevices , the application of nanoelectronic devices in biology , and as a mentor to numerous leaders in nanoscience .
In 2012 , Lieber was awarded Israel ’ s Wolf Prize in Chemistry.
” Chemistry and Engineering News , January 28 , 2020 : “ In addition , Lieber allegedly signed a contract that obligated Harvard to become part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ Chinese ] scientists to visit the university up to two months each year .
The [ federal ] complaint says he did not inform university officials of the agreement , which was for ‘ advanced research and development of nano wire-based lithium-ion batteries with high performance for electric vehicles ’ .
” Another “ technology transfer ” of great value .
“ …the NIH [ US National Institutes of Health , a federal agency ] asked Harvard about whether the university or Lieber failed to disclose his financial relationship with China .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least three NIH grants totaling $ 10 million since 2008 .
After interviewing Lieber , Harvard [ incorrectly , supposedly based on Lieber ’ s statements ] responded to the NIH that he [ Lieber ] had ‘ no formal association with WUT [ Wuhan Institute of Technology ] ’ and ‘ is not and has never been a participant in ’ the [ Chinese ] Thousand Talents program.
” NIH has strict regulations about its researchers disclosing their conflict-of-interest connections .
The feds obviously believe Lieber has failed to report his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become a factor in his prosecution .
Lieber was operating a robust center at Harvard : Lieber Research Group .
Its focus is nanoscience and nanotechnology .
So it ’ s natural to ask , what kind of research findings would be shared with China ?
On the Group ’ s website , there is this , right off the bat : “ We are pioneering the interface between nanoelectronics and the life sciences…sensors for real-time disease detection… ” Hence , the picture of the future I sketched at the beginning of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nanoscience .
Of course , the ominous technological innovations apply to both China and the US , and the rest of the world… The Chinese government has the clout , will , force , and intent to impose , without hesitation , every sort of possible control on its 1.4 billion citizens .
It is in the process of building many new “ smart cities.
” These centers will be models of wall-to-wall surveillance .
AI , Internet of Things , 5G , the works .
If nanoscience can achieve much more intimate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , why wouldn ’ t the Chinese government jump at the chance to deploy it ?
The rationale and the cover story are obvious : WE MUST HAVE EARLY KNOWLEDGE OF NEW VIRUS EPIDEMICS .
WE WILL DETECT THEM DIRECTLY FROM THE BODIES OF OUR PEOPLE IN REAL TIME .
BACKGROUNDER TWO : Nano-technology : one world , one brain From lexico.com : nanotechnology : “ The branch of technology that deals with dimensions and tolerances of less than 100 nanometers , especially the manipulation of individual atoms and molecules.
” The recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of nanotechnology , Charles Lieber—on charges of lying to federal authorities about his business connections to China—has exposed wide-ranging relationships among American and Chinese researchers .
These relationships include , above all , the open sharing of sensitive technologies that , once upon a time , would have been considered closely guarded state secrets .
Here are quotes from the journal Nano Today , from a 2019 paper titled : “ Nanowire probes could drive high-resolution brain-machine interfaces ” .
Its authors are Chinese and American : “ …advances can enable investigations of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sensor-implants ] and drive the development of new brain-machine interfaces with unprecedented resolution and precision.
” “ …output electrical signals of brain activity or input electrical stimuli to modulate brain activity in concert with external machines , including computer processors and prosthetics , for human enhancement… ” Aside from research into prosthetics and , perhaps , the reversal of certain paralyses , this avenue of investigation also suggests “ modulation ” of the brain , hooked to machines , for the purpose of control .
Control of basic thoughts , sensations , emotions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Things , why couldn ’ t that control eventually be extended , in order to “ harmonize ” many , many brains with one another ?
Who would be interested in such a thing ?
Think Chinese government , DARPA ( the technology arm of the Pentagon ) , and numerous other international actors .
Think Rockefeller medical researchers .
Think technocracy and Brave New World .
Over the past few decades , the flow of all sorts of ultra-sensitive scientific information , between the US and China , hasn ’ t consisted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a flood , out in the open , in labs and universities .
All part of the new share-and-care Globalist agenda .
Nanotechnology , to choose one branch of such research-exchange , has applications in weaponry , transportation , surveillance , medicine , etc .
And of course , mind control .
“ Look , I ’ m certainly willing to share my latest research on nano-brain implants .
But I need your , ahem , assurance that your government won ’ t use this for dark purposes.
” “ I understand completely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that than your government would.
” How did US-China relations get to this point ?
At one time , it appeared the two governments were involved in a cold war .
Oh , that ’ s right , President Nixon opened up China to trade , in 1972 , after 25 years of no diplomatic relations .
Nixon was the agent of David Rockefeller , who , years earlier , had rescued him from a broken career as a politician .
David Rockefeller , arch Globalist .
Here ’ s what Rockefeller blithely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nixon had worked his China miracle : “ Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution , it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration , but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose .
The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao ’ s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.
” ( “ From a China Traveler ” .
NY Times .
August 10 , 1973 . )
Millions of people dead , freedom crushed , a whole population under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but somehow that ’ s not what David Rockefeller saw , or pretended to see .
He , like other of his elite Globalist colleagues , admired the Chinese government for the capacity to control its own people , to such a high degree .
Flash forward 47 years .
Scientists from both countries are blowing each other kisses , as they collaborate on developing a technology that has the potential to gain intimate influence inside the human brain itself .
—Of course , remember , when political push comes to shove , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the friend of China .
In the case of American corporate and government big shots , hometown loyalty tends to be conditional , depending on which sources and countries are putting money on the table .
Trump wants to give the economy a shot in the arm by vaccinating EVERY American .
The misguided danger of mRNA vaccines & Trump ’ s push for vaccines at any cost

There has never been a greater opportunity to deploy one vaccine against so many people. So it’s certainly not out of line to consider a “dual use.”
I have already covered the devastating effects of experimental RNA/DNA vaccine technologies—both of which could be launched with a COVID vaccine. Putting that aside for the moment, could the vaccine serve another purpose?
In this article, I raise questions. Questions about the potential covert use of nanotechnology in the COVID vaccine.
From lexico.com: nanotechnology: “The branch of technology that deals with dimensions and tolerances of less than 100 nanometers, especially the manipulation of individual atoms and molecules.”
Are researchers interested in marrying nanotechnology and vaccines?
Here is a quote from Frontiers in Immunology, January 24, 2019, “Nanoparticle-Based Vaccines Against Respiratory Viruses”: A new generation of vaccines based on nanoparticles has shown great potential to address most of the limitations of conventional and subunit vaccines. This is due to recent advances in chemical and biological engineering, which allow the design of nanoparticles with a precise control over the size, shape, functionality and surface properties, leading to enhanced antigen presentation and strong immunogenicity. This short review provides an overview of the advantages associated with the use of nanoparticles as vaccine delivery platforms to immunize against respiratory viruses…” [such as the purported COVID-19 virus?]
Here is another quote, also from Frontiers in Immunology, October 4, 2018, “Nanoparticle Vaccines Against Infectious Diseases”: In the last several years, the use of nanoparticle-based vaccines has received a great attention to improve vaccine efficacy, immunization strategies, and targeted delivery to achieve desired immune responses at the cellular level…Nanocarriers composed of lipids, proteins, metals or polymers have already been used…This review article focuses on the applications of nanocarrier-based vaccine formulations and the strategies used for the functionalization of nanoparticles to accomplish efficient delivery of vaccines in order to induce desired host immunity against infectious diseases.”
There can be no doubt that nanotechnology is, indeed, very much involved in cutting-edge vaccine research.
Now let’s shift into another use of nanotech.
Here are astonishing quotes from the journal Nano Today, from a 2019 paper titled: “Nanowire probes could drive high-resolution brain-machine interfaces.” Its authors are Chinese and American:
“…advances can enable investigations of dynamics in the brain [through nano-sensor-implants] and drive the development of new brain-machine interfaces with unprecedented resolution and precision.”
“…output electrical signals of brain activity or input electrical stimuli to modulate brain activity in concert with external machines, including computer processors and prosthetics, for human enhancement…”
Aside from research into prosthetics and, perhaps, the reversal of certain paralyses, this avenue of investigation also suggests “modulation” of the brain remotely connected to machines, for the purpose of control.
Modulation…such as control of basic thought-impulses, sensations, emotions?
ONE: Nano-sensors, implanted in the body and brain, would issue real time data-reports on body/brain functioning to ops centers.
TWO: And from those ops centers, data—including instructions—would be sent back to the nano-sensors, which would impose those instructions on the brain and body.
If this seems impossible, consider nanotech research aimed at improving the use of prosthetics. In that field, imposing instructions on the body/brain appears to be the whole point.
The question is: how far along the road of development is this technology? I can only say we are seeing the public published face of nanotech. What lies behind it, in secret research, is a matter for estimation and speculation.
I offer one speculation: the “promotion” of the social agenda of collectivist thought, through nanotech. Utilizing the Internet of Things, an attempt would be made to hook up and “harmonize” many, many brains with one another. Same basic feelings, same impulses—shared.
Who would be interested in such a program? Think Chinese government, DARPA (the technology arm of the Pentagon), and numerous other international actors. Think Rockefeller medical researchers. Think technocracy and Brave New World.
SUPPOSE, THROUGH A COVID VACCINE, NANOTECH COULD BE INSERTED INTO BODIES AND BRAINS OF THE GLOBAL POPULATION? As a grand control “experiment.” Is that too far-out an idea?
Here is an interesting quote from a 3/11/20 S&P Global article, “Early-stage nanotechnology poised for ‘inflection point’”:
“One of the most pressing global healthcare challenges in 2020 is the coronavirus outbreak and Moderna Inc….is on the front line of vaccine development for this new biological threat.”
“Moderna’s nanoparticle-driven science uses genetic engineering to trigger cells to create proteins that prevent certain infections. Its vaccines for Zika virus and influenza have already progressed to early clinical stages…”
If Moderna’s COVID vaccine is indeed using nanoparticles, I have not seen this mentioned in current press reports.
The S&P Global article states, “One of the leaders in the field of biological nanotech engineering is Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Robert Langer, who has helped found about 40 companies based on technology created and developed in his Langer Lab…Moderna Inc., one of the companies Langer helped found…”
Does Moderna’s COVID vaccine use nanoparticles? If so, what can these particles actually do? These are pressing questions that need to be answered.
I offer two backgrounders I wrote several months ago. They involve the flood of highly significant scientific research across borders.
BACKGROUNDER ONE: Behind the explosive Charles Lieber nanotech scandal
Once upon a time, they called it espionage. Then they called it “illegal technology transfer.” Then they casually and admiringly called it Globalism.
Imagine this.
A cutting-edge technology, which has applications for weaponry, transportation, medicine, artificial intelligence, surveillance, mind control…is being openly shared between the US and China. And by implication, who knows how many other nations?
As just one example, tiny sensors would, up the road, be placed inside the human body. These sensors would automatically monitor and report thousands of changes, in real time, in the body—as a way of diagnosing diseases.
The sensors will transmit all this information, through the emerging Internet of Things—using the 5G pipeline—to medical centers—where AI corporate and government analysts will make the disease diagnoses and prescribe treatments.
Eventually, a few billion people (patients) would, through these sensors in their bodies, be hooked up to the 5G Internet of Things.
—HOWEVER, as I’ve reported many times in these pages, the standard definitions of diseases and disorders are often incorrect, or even invented. But because the future system I’ve just sketched is automated, the patient is enclosed in a fake and dangerous bubble. Among other problems, the disease treatments, the drugs and vaccines, are toxic.
What is the technology that is on the way to producing these body sensors?
Nanoscience. Nano-engineering.
From lexico.com: nanotechnology: “The branch of technology that deals with dimensions and tolerances of less than 100 nanometers, especially the manipulation of individual atoms and molecules.”
One of the leading nanoscience researchers in the world was recently arrested on a charge of concealing his connections to China.
Major US science star busted by the feds.
Charles Lieber, now suspended by Harvard, is the University’s chairman of the chemistry department.
I have read two articles from a foreign news outlet headlined with the claim that Lieber stole and smuggled the “new coronavirus” from the US to China. In both cases, the text of the articles mentioned nothing about such a theft. I’m not writing this article about “coronavirus.” I’ve been writing many articles rejecting the premise of an “epidemic” caused by the “virus.”
I decided to look into this situation, because Lieber does apparently have big-time connections to China. Sharing research on his specialty, nanoscience, with China would be one more case of “technology transfer.”
Bloomberg News, February 12, 2020: “Lieber’s arrest on Jan. 28 came in connection with his dealings in China. He hasn’t been charged with any type of economic espionage, intellectual-property theft, or export violations. Instead, he’s accused of lying to U.S. Department of Defense investigators about his work with the People’s Republic…”
“…by targeting Lieber, the chairman of Harvard’s chemistry department and a veritable ivory tower blue blood, prosecutors struck at the crimson heart of the academic elite, raising fears that globalism, when it comes to doing science with China, is being criminalized.”
“According to a government affidavit, signed by a Federal Bureau of Investigation agent named Robert Plumb, Lieber signed at least three agreements with Wuhan Technology University, or WUT, in central China. These included a contract with the state-sponsored Thousand Talents Plan—an effort by Beijing to attract mostly expatriate [Chinese] researchers and their know-how back home—worth a total of about $653,000 a year in pay [to Lieber] and living expenses for three years, plus $1.74 million [to Lieber] to support a new ‘Harvard-WUT Nano Key Lab’ in Wuhan. The government offered no evidence that Lieber actually received those sums… Lieber also deceived Harvard about his China contracts, the [federal] affidavit said.”
“Whatever extracurricular arrangements Lieber may have had in China, his Harvard lab was a paragon of U.S.-China collaboration. He relied on a pipeline of China’s brightest Ph.D. students and postdocs, often more than a dozen at a time, to produce prize-winning research on the revolutionary potential of so-called nanowires in biomedical implants. Dozens of Lieber’s 100 or so former lab members from China have chosen to stay in the U.S. Many now lead their own nanoscience labs at top universities, including Duke, Georgia Tech, MIT, Stanford, University of California at Berkeley, and UCLA.”
I’d say that’s a pretty big technology-transfer WOW right there.
“In the 1990s and 2000s, as Lieber’s achievements and stature were taking off, U.S. research institutions and grant makers pumped money and moral support into expanding the burgeoning collaborations between scientists in the U.S. and other countries, particularly China. The new paradigm was globalization, China was an emerging economic power, and Lieber’s lab became an exemplar of pan-Pacific collaboration. “
Another WOW. Not a leak of information. A flood.
“A more controversial Lieber protégé is Liqiang Mai, the international dean and chair of materials science at WUT, the little-known school in Wuhan that prosecutors allege recruited Lieber to be a ‘strategic scientist’ in 2011, for $50,000 a month. Mai, who hasn’t been named in any U.S. filings against Lieber, earned a doctorate at WUT in 2004 and worked as a postdoc in Lieber’s lab from 2008 to 2011, according to Mai’s WUT online bio….”
How big a star is Lieber? Wikpedia: “Charles M. Lieber (born 1959) is an American chemist and pioneer in the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology. In 2011, Lieber was recognized by Thomson Reuters as the leading chemist in the world for the decade 2000-2010 based on the impact of his scientific publications. Lieber has published over 400 papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals and has edited and contributed to many books on nanoscience. He is the principal inventor on over fifty issued US patents and applications, and founded the nanotechnology company Nanosys in 2001 and Vista Therapeutics in 2007. He is known for his contributions to the synthesis, assembly and characterization of nanoscale materials and nanodevices, the application of nanoelectronic devices in biology, and as a mentor to numerous leaders in nanoscience. In 2012, Lieber was awarded Israel’s Wolf Prize in Chemistry.”
Chemistry and Engineering News, January 28, 2020: “In addition, Lieber allegedly signed a contract that obligated Harvard to become part of a cooperative research program that allowed WUT [Chinese] scientists to visit the university up to two months each year. The [federal] complaint says he did not inform university officials of the agreement, which was for ‘advanced research and development of nano wire-based lithium-ion batteries with high performance for electric vehicles’.”
Another “technology transfer” of great value.
“…the NIH [US National Institutes of Health, a federal agency] asked Harvard about whether the university or Lieber failed to disclose his financial relationship with China. Lieber has been a principal investigator on at least three NIH grants totaling $10 million since 2008. After interviewing Lieber, Harvard [incorrectly, supposedly based on Lieber’s statements] responded to the NIH that he [Lieber] had ‘no formal association with WUT [Wuhan Institute of Technology]’ and ‘is not and has never been a participant in’ the [Chinese] Thousand Talents program.”
NIH has strict regulations about its researchers disclosing their conflict-of-interest connections. The feds obviously believe Lieber has failed to report his China connections to NIH. This would become a factor in his prosecution.
Lieber was operating a robust center at Harvard: Lieber Research Group. Its focus is nanoscience and nanotechnology. So it’s natural to ask, what kind of research findings would be shared with China?
On the Group’s website, there is this, right off the bat: “We are pioneering the interface between nanoelectronics and the life sciences…sensors for real-time disease detection…”
Hence, the picture of the future I sketched at the beginning of this backgrounder.
I may report further on nanoscience. Of course, the ominous technological innovations apply to both China and the US, and the rest of the world…
The Chinese government has the clout, will, force, and intent to impose, without hesitation, every sort of possible control on its 1.4 billion citizens. It is in the process of building many new “smart cities.” These centers will be models of wall-to-wall surveillance. AI, Internet of Things, 5G, the works. If nanoscience can achieve much more intimate access to people, through implanted sensors, why wouldn’t the Chinese government jump at the chance to deploy it? The rationale and the cover story are obvious: WE MUST HAVE EARLY KNOWLEDGE OF NEW VIRUS EPIDEMICS. WE WILL DETECT THEM DIRECTLY FROM THE BODIES OF OUR PEOPLE IN REAL TIME.
All hail, Globalism and technocracy.
BACKGROUNDER TWO: Nano-technology: one world, one brain
From lexico.com: nanotechnology: “The branch of technology that deals with dimensions and tolerances of less than 100 nanometers, especially the manipulation of individual atoms and molecules.”
The recent arrest of Harvard pioneer in the field of nanotechnology, Charles Lieber—on charges of lying to federal authorities about his business connections to China—has exposed wide-ranging relationships among American and Chinese researchers.
These relationships include, above all, the open sharing of sensitive technologies that, once upon a time, would have been considered closely guarded state secrets.
Here are quotes from the journal Nano Today, from a 2019 paper titled: “Nanowire probes could drive high-resolution brain-machine interfaces”. Its authors are Chinese and American:
“…advances can enable investigations of dynamics in the brain [through tiny sensor-implants] and drive the development of new brain-machine interfaces with unprecedented resolution and precision.”
“…output electrical signals of brain activity or input electrical stimuli to modulate brain activity in concert with external machines, including computer processors and prosthetics, for human enhancement…”
Aside from research into prosthetics and, perhaps, the reversal of certain paralyses, this avenue of investigation also suggests “modulation” of the brain, hooked to machines, for the purpose of control. Control of basic thoughts, sensations, emotions.
And along with the Internet of Things, why couldn’t that control eventually be extended, in order to “harmonize” many, many brains with one another?
Who would be interested in such a thing? Think Chinese government, DARPA (the technology arm of the Pentagon), and numerous other international actors. Think Rockefeller medical researchers. Think technocracy and Brave New World.
Over the past few decades, the flow of all sorts of ultra-sensitive scientific information, between the US and China, hasn’t consisted of rare leaks. It’s a flood, out in the open, in labs and universities. All part of the new share-and-care Globalist agenda.
Nanotechnology, to choose one branch of such research-exchange, has applications in weaponry, transportation, surveillance, medicine, etc. And of course, mind control.
“Look, I’m certainly willing to share my latest research on nano-brain implants. But I need your, ahem, assurance that your government won’t use this for dark purposes.”
“I understand completely. My government would no more do that than your government would.”
“All right. Then we’re good.”
“Yes. Good.”
How did US-China relations get to this point? At one time, it appeared the two governments were involved in a cold war. Oh, that’s right, President Nixon opened up China to trade, in 1972, after 25 years of no diplomatic relations. Nixon was the agent of David Rockefeller, who, years earlier, had rescued him from a broken career as a politician. David Rockefeller, arch Globalist.
Here’s what Rockefeller blithely wrote in 1973, a year after Nixon had worked his China miracle:
“Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.” (“From a China Traveler”. NY Times. August 10, 1973.)
Millions of people dead, freedom crushed, a whole population under the boot of the Communist regime, but somehow that’s not what David Rockefeller saw, or pretended to see. He, like other of his elite Globalist colleagues, admired the Chinese government for the capacity to control its own people, to such a high degree.
Flash forward 47 years. Scientists from both countries are blowing each other kisses, as they collaborate on developing a technology that has the potential to gain intimate influence inside the human brain itself.
—Of course, remember, when political push comes to shove, and it always does, China is the friend of China. In the case of American corporate and government big shots, hometown loyalty tends to be conditional, depending on which sources and countries are putting money on the table.
SOURCES:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2019.00022/full
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6180194/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1748013219306929
https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/first-in-human-early-stage-nanotechnology-poised-for-inflection-point-57506309
Trump wants to give the economy a shot in the arm by vaccinating EVERY American. The misguided danger of mRNA vaccines & Trump’s push for vaccines at any cost


newswars--2020-05-26--Verification purge? Multiple Twitter accounts lose blue checks after interviewing ‘wrongthinkers’

Twitter has purged the blue “ verification ” checks from the accounts of journalists and podcasters who posted interviews with subjects considered controversial in the ever-narrowing centrist-liberal mainstream .
Mediaite journalist August Takala was stripped of his coveted blue check just an hour after tweeting an interview with former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson , he tweeted on Friday to his 4,000-plus followers .
The following day , Wrong Opinion podcaster Josh Lekach tweeted that he , too , had had his blue check revoked after interviewing conservative provocateur ( and now congressional candidate ) Laura Loomer , who is herself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Lekach has over 18,700 followers .
What do the two commentators have in common ?
Both interviewed unapologetic thorns in the Democratic establishment ’ s side .
Attkisson , a veteran investigative reporter who now helms Full Measure on Sinclair Media , has long claimed she was surveilled extensively and illegally by the Obama administration – and she told Takala that “ many , many others ” were also likely spied upon .
“ It was only thanks to help from intelligence contacts that I even learned that government agents were spying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Otherwise , I never suspected it or would have known.
” She believed she drew the attention of the president ’ s snoops with her reporting on the botched Justice Department gun-running scheme “ Fast and Furious , ” as well as her investigation into the Benghazi embassy attack in Libya .
Perhaps most importantly – especially amid what President Donald Trump and his supporters have come to call “ Obamagate , ” the unfolding scandal surrounding Obama ’ s intelligence agencies spying on Trump campaign officials in the runup to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reopen a lawsuit against several Obama administration intelligence officials , including former US deputy attorney general Ron Rosenstein .
Having been tipped off by an anonymous whistleblower , Attkisson charges that while serving as US attorney for Maryland , Rosenstein ordered the “ unlawful surveillance and hacking ” of Attkisson ’ s computer and other devices .
Lekach , meanwhile , committed the unpardonable sin of inviting Loomer – who claims to have been banned from not only Twitter and Facebook ( which labeled her a “ dangerous individual ” last year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forbidden ) , but numerous other platforms including Paypal , Uber , Venmo , and even Chase Bank ’ s online app – onto his podcast Wrong Opinion to discuss her congressional run .
Loomer is taking on several other Republican candidates in the August primary for Florida ’ s 21st District , with the aim of knocking out Democratic incumbent Lois Frankel .
Loomer became something of a household name for her political stunts , which resemble performance art more than typical activism : running onstage in the middle of a New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shakespeare ’ s eponymous character was made to resemble Donald Trump ; handcuffing herself to the doors of Twitter ’ s headquarters to protest her deplatforming ; rushing the New York Women ’ s March to scream that the protest “ hates Jews.
” She ’ s also suing Facebook , Google , Apple , and Twitter for allegedly conspiring to silence conservative views , a lawsuit that managed to survive an initial dismissal and ended up before a DC appeals court last month .
The conservative provocateur told Lekach on the offending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on political candidates as soon as she filed to run for the Florida congressional seat .
It had previously allowed all political candidates to use its platform ; after Loomer ’ s filing , those candidates had to win their primary before they would be guaranteed usage .
Twitter has not responded to complaints from Takala or Lekach – or journalist Cassandra Fairbanks , who wrote about their plight for the Gateway Pundit on Monday and sought a comment from the platform ’ s press office .
The social media giant recently updated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the updated version references verified accounts .

Twitter has purged the blue “verification” checks from the accounts of journalists and podcasters who posted interviews with subjects considered controversial in the ever-narrowing centrist-liberal mainstream.
Mediaite journalist August Takala was stripped of his coveted blue check just an hour after tweeting an interview with former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson, he tweeted on Friday to his 4,000-plus followers. The following day, Wrong Opinion podcaster Josh Lekach tweeted that he, too, had had his blue check revoked after interviewing conservative provocateur (and now congressional candidate) Laura Loomer, who is herself banned from Twitter and several other platforms. Lekach has over 18,700 followers.
I tweeted this column about the Obama administration spying on journalists at 5:47 Thursday. Around an hour later, my verification badge magically disappeared. ????? @TwitterSupport @TwitterComms https://t.co/oyP7zJtvd8 — August Takala (@AugustTakala) May 22, 2020
What do the two commentators have in common? Both interviewed unapologetic thorns in the Democratic establishment’s side. Attkisson, a veteran investigative reporter who now helms Full Measure on Sinclair Media, has long claimed she was surveilled extensively and illegally by the Obama administration – and she told Takala that “many, many others” were also likely spied upon.
“It was only thanks to help from intelligence contacts that I even learned that government agents were spying on me,” Attkisson told Takala. “Otherwise, I never suspected it or would have known.” She believed she drew the attention of the president’s snoops with her reporting on the botched Justice Department gun-running scheme “Fast and Furious,” as well as her investigation into the Benghazi embassy attack in Libya.
Perhaps most importantly – especially amid what President Donald Trump and his supporters have come to call “Obamagate,” the unfolding scandal surrounding Obama’s intelligence agencies spying on Trump campaign officials in the runup to the 2016 election – Attkisson has filed to reopen a lawsuit against several Obama administration intelligence officials, including former US deputy attorney general Ron Rosenstein. Having been tipped off by an anonymous whistleblower, Attkisson charges that while serving as US attorney for Maryland, Rosenstein ordered the “unlawful surveillance and hacking” of Attkisson’s computer and other devices.
Lekach, meanwhile, committed the unpardonable sin of inviting Loomer – who claims to have been banned from not only Twitter and Facebook (which labeled her a “dangerous individual” last year, meaning any mention of her was forbidden), but numerous other platforms including Paypal, Uber, Venmo, and even Chase Bank’s online app – onto his podcast Wrong Opinion to discuss her congressional run. Loomer is taking on several other Republican candidates in the August primary for Florida’s 21st District, with the aim of knocking out Democratic incumbent Lois Frankel.
Loomer became something of a household name for her political stunts, which resemble performance art more than typical activism: running onstage in the middle of a New York performance of Julius Caesar in which Shakespeare’s eponymous character was made to resemble Donald Trump; handcuffing herself to the doors of Twitter’s headquarters to protest her deplatforming; rushing the New York Women’s March to scream that the protest “hates Jews.” She’s also suing Facebook, Google, Apple, and Twitter for allegedly conspiring to silence conservative views, a lawsuit that managed to survive an initial dismissal and ended up before a DC appeals court last month.
The conservative provocateur told Lekach on the offending podcast that Twitter had changed its rules on political candidates as soon as she filed to run for the Florida congressional seat. It had previously allowed all political candidates to use its platform; after Loomer’s filing, those candidates had to win their primary before they would be guaranteed usage.
Twitter has not responded to complaints from Takala or Lekach – or journalist Cassandra Fairbanks, who wrote about their plight for the Gateway Pundit on Monday and sought a comment from the platform’s press office. The social media giant recently updated its terms of service, but nothing in the updated version references verified accounts.


newswars--2020-05-26--Unexplained anomaly weakening Earth’s magnetic field is EVOLVING and SPLITTING in two, warn scientis

Unexplained anomaly weakening Earth’s magnetic field is EVOLVING and SPLITTING in two, warn scientists

The ESA has deployed its constellation of satellites to investigate unusual weaknesses in Earth ’ s magnetic field .
It appears that the strange anomaly believed to be responsible is now evolving and splitting in two .
The unexplained force , referred to as the South Atlantic Anomaly , is an area of reduced magnetic intensity that extends from South America to southwest Africa .
For now , the effects of this anomaly are restricted to technical malfunctions aboard spacecraft and orbital satellites .
However , because Earth ’ s magnetic field shields us from solar winds and cosmic radiation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our planetary defence system , along with our atmosphere , which protects us from daily asteroid bombardment .
The European Space Agency ( ESA ) used its Swarm satellite constellation to study the phenomenon earlier this month , and the latest readings from the agency ’ s Data , Innovation and Science Cluster show a second anomaly is forming off West Africa .
Researchers still don ’ t understand the risks associated with this more recent development .
Over the past 200 years , Earth ’ s magnetic field has lost around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1970 and 2020 , the minimum level of strength dropped from approximately 24,000 nanoteslas to 22,000 .
Given that the field is generated by electrical currents produced among the swirling liquid iron in the planet ’ s outer core , fluctuations are normal .
However , the initial South Atlantic Anomaly has grown and moved westward at a pace of roughly 20km ( 12 miles ) per year and scientists are yet to fully determine the cause , which makes the fact that it now appears to be splitting in two all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eastern minimum of the South Atlantic Anomaly has appeared over the last decade and , in recent years , is developing vigorously , ” says geophysicist Jürgen Matzka , of the German Research Centre for Geosciences .
“ The challenge now is to understand the processes in Earth ’ s core driving these changes.
” Indeed , the Earth ’ s magnetic field is known to flip the poles altogether every few hundred thousand years , and we are now long overdue such a flip .
This recent unexplained magnetic activity over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impending flip , but more research is needed before we can understand what ’ s really going on with our planet and its defence systems .

The ESA has deployed its constellation of satellites to investigate unusual weaknesses in Earth’s magnetic field. It appears that the strange anomaly believed to be responsible is now evolving and splitting in two.
The unexplained force, referred to as the South Atlantic Anomaly, is an area of reduced magnetic intensity that extends from South America to southwest Africa.
For now, the effects of this anomaly are restricted to technical malfunctions aboard spacecraft and orbital satellites. However, because Earth’s magnetic field shields us from solar winds and cosmic radiation, it’s a critical part of our planetary defence system, along with our atmosphere, which protects us from daily asteroid bombardment.
The European Space Agency (ESA) used its Swarm satellite constellation to study the phenomenon earlier this month, and the latest readings from the agency’s Data, Innovation and Science Cluster show a second anomaly is forming off West Africa. Researchers still don’t understand the risks associated with this more recent development.
Over the past 200 years, Earth’s magnetic field has lost around nine percent of its strength. Between 1970 and 2020, the minimum level of strength dropped from approximately 24,000 nanoteslas to 22,000.
Given that the field is generated by electrical currents produced among the swirling liquid iron in the planet’s outer core, fluctuations are normal. However, the initial South Atlantic Anomaly has grown and moved westward at a pace of roughly 20km (12 miles) per year and scientists are yet to fully determine the cause, which makes the fact that it now appears to be splitting in two all the more intriguing.
“The new, eastern minimum of the South Atlantic Anomaly has appeared over the last decade and, in recent years, is developing vigorously,” says geophysicist Jürgen Matzka, of the German Research Centre for Geosciences.
“The challenge now is to understand the processes in Earth’s core driving these changes.”
Indeed, the Earth’s magnetic field is known to flip the poles altogether every few hundred thousand years, and we are now long overdue such a flip. This recent unexplained magnetic activity over the Atlantic may be a sign of an impending flip, but more research is needed before we can understand what’s really going on with our planet and its defence systems.


newswars--2020-05-26--The Fed Is Doing “Whatever It Takes” to Prop Up the Economy. That’s a Very Bad Thing.

No sooner had the COVID-19 recession hit the US economy—with its mandatory business and school closures , travel bans , shelter-in-place orders , and a massive drop in commercial activity—than politicians , academics , journalists , and business leaders began calling for the Fed to save it .
The Fed ’ s response didn ’ t take long : a ) $ 2.3 trillion in new loans to households , businesses , markets , and state and local governments ; b ) a cut in the federal funds rate to 0–0.25 percent and a promise to keep it low indefinitely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and government-guaranteed and commercial mortgage-backed securities ; d ) short-term loans to “ primary-dealer ” financial institutions in exchange for collateral , including investment-grade debt ; e ) support for money market mutual funds ; f ) direct lending to banks , households , consumers , small firms , and corporations , also by purchasing investment-grade corporate bonds and commercial paper ; and g ) lowering banks ’ loss-absorbing capital and reserve requirements .
No one would accuse the Powell Fed of standing idly by !
These policies will do tremendous harm to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most obvious problem is that the COVID-19 recession results from policies and practices that caused a massive disruption to supply , not demand .
When public officials and health experts started urging people to stay home , even before state and local officials made it mandatory ( excepting officially designated “ essential ” workers ) , firms stopped producing and delivering many goods and services .
Politicians and pundits , understanding little about supply chains , specialized physical and human resources , capital structure , and other aspects of production , and seeing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turned to their go-to remedy : monetary and fiscal stimulus .
But printing money does not create real goods and services when workers are legally prevented from coming to work .
Policymakers claim to have learned from the 2008–09 financial crisis and subsequent recession .
Now the Fed knows how to stabilize the economy !
But what happened after the financial crisis ?
Note first that ultralow interest rates were supposed to alleviate the housing crisis by supporting home ownership .
And yet , the home ownership rate at the end of 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rate at the end of 2007 ( 68 percent ) .
Second , artificially low interest rates and the promise to keep them low , along with promises to buy investment-grade corporate bonds ( of firms in trouble ) , was supposed to help firms maintain employment levels .
The employment rate for people aged 15–64 at the end of 2007 was almost 72 percent , a level regained only at the end of 2019 .
Does monetary policy operate with a twelve-year lag ?
Third , short-term loans to “ primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ receive initial injections of liquidity from the Fed—in exchange for collateral , including investment-grade debt , was supposed to keep credit markets functioning so that banks could avoid accumulating excess reserves .
And yet excess reserves have skyrocketed from $ 1.8 billion in December 2007 to $ 2.7 trillion in August 2014 .
Nonperforming loans , another measure of bank performance , about 1 percent in the third quarter of 2007 , rose to almost 6 percent in 2010 before falling back to 1 percent in the second quarter of 2018 .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any improvements in the banking sector .
Austrian business cycle theorists have long argued that monetary expansion redistributes wealth via “ Cantillon effects , ” leads to malinvestment with an intertemporal allocation of resources not in line with consumers ’ time preferences , and ultimately generates price inflation .
Moreover , today we have the “ lower-bound ” problem : with interest rates already near zero , there is little the Fed can do to stimulate real economic activity .
And yet , easy money is as popular as ever .
Could “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the trendy theory promoted by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez among others , play a role ?
Most mainstream economists reject MMT , and Austrians have compared it to the old “ state theory of money ” decisively smashed by Carl Menger .
MMT proposals go way beyond simply monetizing the federal deficit ; indeed , its proponents envision a sort of Caudillo scenario in which the sovereign can never default ( though we have counterexamples such as Venezuela ) , in which inflation only kicks in under conditions of full employment ( again , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and in which taxes are unnecessary because the government buys goods directly , at whatever prices it wants .
In the minds of its proponents , MMT lets us have all the federal programs we want without sacrifice , through the magic of the printing press .
Although no one at the Fed is openly advocating for MMT , Chair Powell has a remarkably aggressive view of monetary policy .
He told an interviewer this week : In the last crisis , the problems were in the financial system .
So they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Here , really , the problems are in what we call the real economy , actual companies that make and sell goods and services .
And what ’ s happening to them is that many of them are closed or just not having any revenue .
And we ’ re trying to do what we can to get them through this period where they ’ re perfectly good companies that have had , you know , sound financial condition as recently as February , but now they have no business .
And they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re trying to help them get through that period .
In other words , Powell sees no difference between the objectives of monetary policy and other government programs designed to prop up firms , industries , and other favored groups .
The Fed is simply another government planning agency , not the “ independent ” monetary authority with a long-term , nonpolitical mandate of controlling inflation ( or , since the 1970s , achieving both low inflation and “ full ” employment ) .
Most critics of the Fed ’ s response to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ monetary policy to fight a real supply shock .
But there are more fundamental reasons to worry about the long-term effects of “ unconventional ” monetary policy such as quantitative easing .
Open-ended purchases of Treasurys and government-guaranteed and commercial mortgage-backed securities results in the prices of these securities being artificially high .
With government securities , purchasing long-term bonds means that the Fed pegs their yields .
This opens the door to political interference , with the government pushing the Fed to fund its deficit under the guise of promoting social welfare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to increase government spending on a variety of projects , in addition to generating price inflation and other distortions .
As pointed out by Austrian business cycle theory , inflation driven by credit expansion leads to artificially low interest rates , which incentivize entrepreneurs to overinvest in interest rate–sensitive projects whose profitability is driven by an artificially high demand and encourage banks to engage in moral hazard , investing in risky operations ( because of lower profits from “ normal ” operations ) in the expectation of future bailouts .
More generally , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the COVID-19 recession illustrate the “ ratchet effect ” described by Bob Higgs in Crisis and Leviathan .
Quantitative easing was described after the financial crisis as a once-in-a-lifetime intervention designed to forestall a collapse of the global economy .
Today , it is seen as an unremarkable , perhaps even inevitable , response to the COVID-19 crisis .
As many of us predicted at the time , open-ended purchases of mortgages and securities became simply another “ tool ” in the Fed ’ s toolbox , ready to be brought out whenever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the other “ extraordinary ” measures undertaken in the last few weeks will become part of the “ new normal ” ?
( We can certainly expect the same for fiscal policy—one writer ’ s call for a $ 10 trillion fiscal stimulus will make the next call for “ extraordinary ” stimulus seem tame by comparison . )
Private property , markets , and prices , far from applying only to “ normal ” times , are needed even more urgently during a crisis .
Likewise , the Fed ’ s extreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the COVID-19 recession .
Loose money—a bad idea when the economy is strong—is making a bad situation worse .

No sooner had the COVID-19 recession hit the US economy—with its mandatory business and school closures, travel bans, shelter-in-place orders, and a massive drop in commercial activity—than politicians, academics, journalists, and business leaders began calling for the Fed to save it.
The Fed’s response didn’t take long: a) $2.3 trillion in new loans to households, businesses, markets, and state and local governments; b) a cut in the federal funds rate to 0–0.25 percent and a promise to keep it low indefinitely; c) open-ended purchases of Treasurys and government-guaranteed and commercial mortgage-backed securities; d) short-term loans to “primary-dealer” financial institutions in exchange for collateral, including investment-grade debt; e) support for money market mutual funds; f) direct lending to banks, households, consumers, small firms, and corporations, also by purchasing investment-grade corporate bonds and commercial paper; and g) lowering banks’ loss-absorbing capital and reserve requirements. No one would accuse the Powell Fed of standing idly by!
These policies will do tremendous harm to the US economy. The first and most obvious problem is that the COVID-19 recession results from policies and practices that caused a massive disruption to supply, not demand. When public officials and health experts started urging people to stay home, even before state and local officials made it mandatory (excepting officially designated “essential” workers), firms stopped producing and delivering many goods and services. Politicians and pundits, understanding little about supply chains, specialized physical and human resources, capital structure, and other aspects of production, and seeing the world only through Keynesian lenses, turned to their go-to remedy: monetary and fiscal stimulus. But printing money does not create real goods and services when workers are legally prevented from coming to work.
Policymakers claim to have learned from the 2008–09 financial crisis and subsequent recession. Now the Fed knows how to stabilize the economy! But what happened after the financial crisis? Note first that ultralow interest rates were supposed to alleviate the housing crisis by supporting home ownership. And yet, the home ownership rate at the end of 2019 was 65 percent, even lower than the rate at the end of 2007 (68 percent).
Second, artificially low interest rates and the promise to keep them low, along with promises to buy investment-grade corporate bonds (of firms in trouble), was supposed to help firms maintain employment levels. The employment rate for people aged 15–64 at the end of 2007 was almost 72 percent, a level regained only at the end of 2019. Does monetary policy operate with a twelve-year lag?
Third, short-term loans to “primary dealers”—the large financial institutions that receive initial injections of liquidity from the Fed—in exchange for collateral, including investment-grade debt, was supposed to keep credit markets functioning so that banks could avoid accumulating excess reserves. And yet excess reserves have skyrocketed from $1.8 billion in December 2007 to $2.7 trillion in August 2014. Nonperforming loans, another measure of bank performance, about 1 percent in the third quarter of 2007, rose to almost 6 percent in 2010 before falling back to 1 percent in the second quarter of 2018. It is hard to credit monetary policy for any improvements in the banking sector.
Austrian business cycle theorists have long argued that monetary expansion redistributes wealth via “Cantillon effects,” leads to malinvestment with an intertemporal allocation of resources not in line with consumers’ time preferences, and ultimately generates price inflation. Moreover, today we have the “lower-bound” problem: with interest rates already near zero, there is little the Fed can do to stimulate real economic activity.
And yet, easy money is as popular as ever. Could “modern monetary theory” (MMT), the trendy theory promoted by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez among others, play a role? Most mainstream economists reject MMT, and Austrians have compared it to the old “state theory of money” decisively smashed by Carl Menger. MMT proposals go way beyond simply monetizing the federal deficit; indeed, its proponents envision a sort of Caudillo scenario in which the sovereign can never default (though we have counterexamples such as Venezuela), in which inflation only kicks in under conditions of full employment (again, ignoring Italy in the 1980s), and in which taxes are unnecessary because the government buys goods directly, at whatever prices it wants. In the minds of its proponents, MMT lets us have all the federal programs we want without sacrifice, through the magic of the printing press.
Although no one at the Fed is openly advocating for MMT, Chair Powell has a remarkably aggressive view of monetary policy. He told an interviewer this week:
In the last crisis, the problems were in the financial system. So they were providing support for the banking system. Here, really, the problems are in what we call the real economy, actual companies that make and sell goods and services. And what’s happening to them is that many of them are closed or just not having any revenue.
And we’re trying to do what we can to get them through this period where they’re perfectly good companies that have had, you know, sound financial condition as recently as February, but now they have no business. And they have fixed costs. So we’re trying to help them get through that period.
In other words, Powell sees no difference between the objectives of monetary policy and other government programs designed to prop up firms, industries, and other favored groups. The Fed is simply another government planning agency, not the “independent” monetary authority with a long-term, nonpolitical mandate of controlling inflation (or, since the 1970s, achieving both low inflation and “full” employment).
Most critics of the Fed’s response to COVID-19 recognize the futility of using expansionary monetary policy to fight a real supply shock. But there are more fundamental reasons to worry about the long-term effects of “unconventional” monetary policy such as quantitative easing.
Open-ended purchases of Treasurys and government-guaranteed and commercial mortgage-backed securities results in the prices of these securities being artificially high. With government securities, purchasing long-term bonds means that the Fed pegs their yields. This opens the door to political interference, with the government pushing the Fed to fund its deficit under the guise of promoting social welfare. This of course make it easier to increase government spending on a variety of projects, in addition to generating price inflation and other distortions. As pointed out by Austrian business cycle theory, inflation driven by credit expansion leads to artificially low interest rates, which incentivize entrepreneurs to overinvest in interest rate–sensitive projects whose profitability is driven by an artificially high demand and encourage banks to engage in moral hazard, investing in risky operations (because of lower profits from “normal” operations) in the expectation of future bailouts.
More generally, the Fed’s interventions to fight the COVID-19 recession illustrate the “ratchet effect” described by Bob Higgs in Crisis and Leviathan. Quantitative easing was described after the financial crisis as a once-in-a-lifetime intervention designed to forestall a collapse of the global economy. Today, it is seen as an unremarkable, perhaps even inevitable, response to the COVID-19 crisis. As many of us predicted at the time, open-ended purchases of mortgages and securities became simply another “tool” in the Fed’s toolbox, ready to be brought out whenever needed. Is there any doubt that the other “extraordinary” measures undertaken in the last few weeks will become part of the “new normal”? (We can certainly expect the same for fiscal policy—one writer’s call for a $10 trillion fiscal stimulus will make the next call for “extraordinary” stimulus seem tame by comparison.)
Private property, markets, and prices, far from applying only to “normal” times, are needed even more urgently during a crisis. Likewise, the Fed’s extreme measures are exactly the wrong response to the COVID-19 recession. Loose money—a bad idea when the economy is strong—is making a bad situation worse.