offguardian--2020-05-08--We now know far more about Covid19 – the Lockdown should end

We now know far more about Covid19 – the Lockdown should end Virtually overnight our world has turned into a wasteland of closed towns , deserted streets and a few people scuttling along with masks and stricken faces .
It ’ s a place bereft of imagination , the light sucked out ; a padded cell in Psych Ward B .
The so-called new normal is anything but normal .
On March 23rd , when Boris Johnson declared a lockdown in the UK , it was a beyond surreal moment for me .
With no debate , our freedoms , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The reasons given for the lockdown were to try and save lives , slow the spread of this virus and limit the impact on the NHS .
It sounds good until you start to pose searching questions .
Confining people to their homes and a complete loss of social life comes with its own set of serious problems .
Focusing on Covid-19 means other people needing operations are postponed for months .
We had heard about other so-called Pandemics that had turned out to be nothing of the sort , Swine flu being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 ?
Johnson had seemed to be going the way of putting in some mitigation recommendations , like social distancing , hand washing and isolating of the elderly .
Then he changed his mind .
The reason were the numbers of possible deaths that could occur if a full lockdown was not implemented .
The numbers came from a Prof Neil Ferguson of Imperial College , London .
Ferguson had told the government that according to his computer model , over 500,000 people would die in the UK if they did nothing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with lesser mitigation in place , but allowing businesses to stay open as usual .
With a full lockdown , deaths would be 20,000 or less , and the impact to the NHS would be kept to a minimum .
What immediately struck me was that Ferguson ’ s computer model is just that , it ’ s an estimate based on certain data .
His projections could be totally wrong , we ’ ve all heard the expression , garbage in , garbage out .
Why on earth would Johnson decide to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theoretical computer model ?
It was also disturbing to find out that Ferguson has a lot of form for making highly exaggerated claims with his computer models .
In the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic millions of cows and other livestock were killed and burned based on his models .
But Professor Michael Thrusfield , an expert in animal diseases , said Ferguson ’ s models were ‘ not fit for purpose ’ ( 2006 ) and ‘ seriously flawed ’ ( 2012 ) .
The 2009 Swine Flu outbreak turned out to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemics in the history of medicine .
Ferguson got that one wrong as well , saying it would probably kill 65,000 people in the UK , but in fact 457 people died .
I looked for other expert opinions .
One of the world ’ s top Epidemiologists is Sweden ’ s Dr. [ Professor ] Johan Giesecke .
Sweden is one of a few countries who went with a different approach to the virus .
Giesecke and his medical team recommended that the elderly and sick should isolate themselves .
They recommended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shops and most businesses would be open as usual .
In an interview on April 16th with Freddie Sayers of Unherd TV , Giesecke explained the reasoning behind Sweden ’ s approach : Sweden has also helped us in another unforeseen way , by putting Ferguson ’ s computer model to a real-world test .
Ferguson had predicted that with lighter mitigation measures in place , the same as Sweden , the UK would see 250,000 dead .
Sweden has a population of just over 10 million , 1/6th that of the UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s death rate should be going through the roof right now , at around 35,000+ , but its 3,175 as of May 8th .
The one thing you can say about Ferguson is this , he stays true to his form .
[ A Swedish research group from the University of Upsalla actually applied the Imperial Model to Sweden , and found it predicted 40,000 deaths “ shortly after May 1st , you can read about that here .
– Ed . ]
Do we actually know how many people are dying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blasts us with the numbers of people who have died from Covid-19 , but it ’ s very misleading .
Journalist Peter Hitchens was one of the first professionals to pose serious questions about whether the lockdown was the right path , and also to question how COVID-19 deaths were being recorded .
Both in the UK and the USA , it has been openly admitted by health officials that anyone dying *with* COVID-19 , is being categorized as having died *of* it .
Its crucially important that we understand the difference .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of the deaths from COVID-19 are for patients who were already suffering with other serious illnesses .
So , if someone dies of a heart attack and they test positive for Covid-19 , that is counted as a Covid-19 death .
Let ’ s look at this in another way .
Every year in the UK people die from Flu .
The 2014/15 was one of the worst flu years , killing 44,000 people in the UK .
Once again though , the vast majority of them had other serious health issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2018 with a different strain , named ‘ Aussie ’ Flu .
This raises other important questions about the accuracy of the reported COVID-19 deaths .
Did anyone die of regular Flu during March/April 2020 ?
Or is everyone who had flu like symptoms and died , being counted as dying with COVID-19 ?
Pneumonia is more serious than flu ; once again , are all pneumonia related deaths being lumped in with COVID-19 deaths ?
This puts the Covid-19 deaths , and how dangerous it is , into a much clearer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no deadlier than a bad flu year .
This is an opinion shared by several top epidemiologists and other experts , like Dr Sucharit Bhakdi , a specialist in microbiology , who used to work at the Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz , Germany , Dr John Ioannidis Professor of Medicine , of Health Research and Policy and of Biomedical Data Science , at Stanford University School .
( see OffGuardian here and here ) Doctors in the US are also seeing this skewing of Covid related deaths .
Also , Dr. John @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pathology and NHS consultant pathologist , has written some excellent articles for The Spectator .
Dr. Lee has raised similar concerns about how we are defining the amount of people actually dying of Covid-19 .
He also questions the lack of science behind the Lockdown , saying in an interview for Spiked on April 17 , We can not even trust that the number of Covid19 deaths that are reported daily as actually having died in the previous 24-hrs .
There could be a lag of several weeks in the reporting .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one example for April 10th , it was reported that 980 people had died from Covid19 .
But in reality , there had been just 117 “ Covid19 related deaths ” , with about 90 additional deaths in Wales , Scotland and Northern Ireland , for a total of 204 .
The other 776 had died sometime between March 5th and April 8th .
Deaths and serious social issues because of the Lockdown An article in the Telegraph on April 9th by Fraser Nelson said that ministers were becoming concerned about the number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Lockdown , early estimates put it around 150,000 .
Another article referred to the massive drop in A & E patients , quote , a 29 per cent year-on-year drop in A & E use , including a 50 per cent drop in heart attack attendances .
People who are having heart attacks are either too afraid to go to A & E because they think they might catch Covid-19 , or think it ’ s overloaded with Covid-19 patients .
The list is long for seriously ill people who have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NHS on Covid-19 .
All surgeries , except life-threatening , have been postponed .
Most cancer treatments have been postponed , dialysis disrupted or put off .
Domestic abuse is up 30 % to 50 % , suicides , divorces , bankruptcies , the list is very long .
There are 100 ’ s of NHS medical centres around the UK .
Most of them are not seeing patients .
Where do the sick people go to see a doctor ?
I think the psychological damage to millions of people , forced into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only be fully understood in the next 12 to 18 months .
Freedoms stripped and unprecedented Police Powers : We now have a Police State light Literally overnight our freedoms have been removed .
You are only allowed to go out for one form of exercise a day or to buy food or prescriptions .
You are encouraged not to go to work , supposedly only key workers ( identified by the government ) are supposed to work .
For the first time in our history , every person can be randomly stopped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is considered necessary .
Sunbathing , sitting on a park bench , groups of 3 or more can be questioned and possibly fined .
Car trips longer than a few miles to go for exercise can be considered unnecessary , after all , you can simply get exercise walking around your block of flats , right ?
On Twitter there are many videos showing Police overreach .
In one video , a family with some children were sitting in a communal grass area by their block of flats .
The Police came to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The damage the Police have done to their own reputation within their communities will be felt in the coming months and years .
We are all supposed to be social distancing , staying 2 metres apart , but people can cram onto packed subway trains .
Plumbers , electricians and other contractors can come to your home and make repairs , but we can not visit family or friends who are not in our household .
It ’ s not only blatant stupidity , it also affects us emotionally , being distant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are forced to stand in queues to pick up the most menial of items at supermarkets .
Walking around a supermarket is like trying to work an obstacle course , as you dodge people to try to keep the social distancing rule .
People treat you as if you may have the Bubonic Plague and often cross the street to avoid you .
Park benches have red tape around them to stop people from sitting on them .
It ’ s virtually impossible for a virus to be spread from a park @ @ @ @ @ @ @ daily .
Viruses do not survive outside in warmer weather , but still the madness continues .
Yellow Journalism is a label for newspapers that print cheap sensationalized headlines to get more sales , instead of well researched investigative pieces , that is the hallmark of real journalism .
Leading up to the occurrence of Covid-19 and onwards , the press in the UK have strived to make Yellow Journalism their raison d ’ etre .
They have stoked up the public ’ s hysteria to manic levels with the worst gutter non-journalism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a race to the bottom of tabloid trash , each paper trying to outdo the other with hyped up headlines , while whipping the public into a frenzy .
All of them predicting a virtual armageddon , a new Black Death that will kill untold millions .
With a few exceptions , there has been no serious questioning of the governments continued path with the lockdown .
The BBC has been the absolute worst , a servile and obedient government servant that simply re-writes press releases .
If there is one small positive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at least the public now recognizes just how pitiful the mainstream media have become .
We are being manipulated with emotional blackmail .
Stay home , save lives and protect the NHS .
It ’ s an insidious mind game repeated ad nauseum to keep people quiet , compliant and unquestioning .
We started lockdown because it was an unknown virus , now we know it ’ s nothing more serious than other viruses we have endured over 100 ’ s of years ; it ’ s time to end it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an interesting statement during his interview .
When discussing the number of deaths each country will have from Covid-19 , he said , paraphrasing , let ’ s talk in a year from now and see where we are .
I ’ m pretty certain he is referring to not only the deaths from Covid-19 , but deaths from the Lockdown .
Sweden will not suffer at all in this respect .
It ’ s a tragedy when anyone dies , whether it be from ( most often with ) Covid-19 , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other reasons .
We need to get back to seeing our loved ones , get back to work so we can feed our family and many aspects of our lives .
The NHS needs to start performing much-needed surgeries and helping others who have been side-lined in the last 2 months .
Remember , the lockdown is costing lives , how many , we don ’ t know yet .
The lockdown needs to be lifted in stages , as experts have stated , but it should be started immediately and should never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on important subjects and to give an alternative viewpoint .
He can be followed on Twitter @ photopro28 or email him – Do you have a great [ email protected ]

We now know far more about Covid19 – the Lockdown should end
Gavin Phillips
This is the largest interference with personal liberty in our history”
Lord Sumption
Virtually overnight our world has turned into a wasteland of closed towns, deserted streets and a few people scuttling along with masks and stricken faces. It’s a place bereft of imagination, the light sucked out; a padded cell in Psych Ward B.
The so-called new normal is anything but normal. On March 23rd, when Boris Johnson declared a lockdown in the UK, it was a beyond surreal moment for me. With no debate, our freedoms, social life and jobs were gone.
The reasons given for the lockdown were to try and save lives, slow the spread of this virus and limit the impact on the NHS. It sounds good until you start to pose searching questions. Confining people to their homes and a complete loss of social life comes with its own set of serious problems. Focusing on Covid-19 means other people needing operations are postponed for months.
We had heard about other so-called Pandemics that had turned out to be nothing of the sort, Swine flu being one example. What was different about Covid-19? Johnson had seemed to be going the way of putting in some mitigation recommendations, like social distancing, hand washing and isolating of the elderly. Then he changed his mind.
The reason were the numbers of possible deaths that could occur if a full lockdown was not implemented. The numbers came from a Prof Neil Ferguson of Imperial College, London.
Ferguson had told the government that according to his computer model, over 500,000 people would die in the UK if they did nothing, 250,000 people would die if he continued with lesser mitigation in place, but allowing businesses to stay open as usual. With a full lockdown, deaths would be 20,000 or less, and the impact to the NHS would be kept to a minimum.
What immediately struck me was that Ferguson’s computer model is just that, it’s an estimate based on certain data. His projections could be totally wrong, we’ve all heard the expression, garbage in, garbage out. Why on earth would Johnson decide to implement such drastic measures based on a theoretical computer model?
It was also disturbing to find out that Ferguson has a lot of form for making highly exaggerated claims with his computer models.
In the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic millions of cows and other livestock were killed and burned based on his models. But Professor Michael Thrusfield, an expert in animal diseases, said Ferguson’s models were ‘not fit for purpose’ (2006) and ‘seriously flawed’ (2012).
The 2009 Swine Flu outbreak turned out to be one of the most overhyped non pandemics in the history of medicine. Ferguson got that one wrong as well, saying it would probably kill 65,000 people in the UK, but in fact 457 people died.
I looked for other expert opinions. One of the world’s top Epidemiologists is Sweden’s Dr. [Professor] Johan Giesecke. Sweden is one of a few countries who went with a different approach to the virus.
Giesecke and his medical team recommended that the elderly and sick should isolate themselves. They recommended social distancing. But restaurants, coffee shops and most businesses would be open as usual.
In an interview on April 16th with Freddie Sayers of Unherd TV, Giesecke explained the reasoning behind Sweden’s approach:
Q. Is it correct to call it herd immunity and is that the Swedish strategy? Giesecke: It’s not the strategy, but it’s a by-product of the strategy. The strategy is to protect the old and the frail, try to minimize their risk of becoming infected and taking care of them if they get infected. If you do that the way we’re doing it, you would probably get herd immunity in the end, but that’s a by-product, its not the main reason to do it. Q. What was your impression of that (Ferguson’s) paper? Giesecke: I think it’s not very good… it rests on the assumptions, and the assumptions in that article have been heavily criticised… The paper was never published scientifically, it’s not peer reviewed, which a scientific paper should be. It’s just an internal departmental report from Imperial. Q. It’s your impression that it was overly pessimistic? Giesecke:Yes, oh yes, very much so.
Sweden has also helped us in another unforeseen way, by putting Ferguson’s computer model to a real-world test. Ferguson had predicted that with lighter mitigation measures in place, the same as Sweden, the UK would see 250,000 dead. Sweden has a population of just over 10 million, 1/6th that of the UK.
So according to Ferguson, Sweden’s death rate should be going through the roof right now, at around 35,000+, but its 3,175 as of May 8th. The one thing you can say about Ferguson is this, he stays true to his form.
[A Swedish research group from the University of Upsalla actually applied the Imperial Model to Sweden, and found it predicted 40,000 deaths “shortly after May 1st, you can read about that here. – Ed.]
Do we actually know how many people are dying of Covid-19?
Every day the media blasts us with the numbers of people who have died from Covid-19, but it’s very misleading. Journalist Peter Hitchens was one of the first professionals to pose serious questions about whether the lockdown was the right path, and also to question how COVID-19 deaths were being recorded.
Both in the UK and the USA, it has been openly admitted by health officials that anyone dying *with* COVID-19, is being categorized as having died *of* it. Its crucially important that we understand the difference. The fact is that at least 90% of the deaths from COVID-19 are for patients who were already suffering with other serious illnesses. So, if someone dies of a heart attack and they test positive for Covid-19, that is counted as a Covid-19 death.
Let’s look at this in another way. Every year in the UK people die from Flu. The 2014/15 was one of the worst flu years, killing 44,000 people in the UK. Once again though, the vast majority of them had other serious health issues. We had another bad flu year in 2018 with a different strain, named ‘Aussie’ Flu.
This raises other important questions about the accuracy of the reported COVID-19 deaths. Did anyone die of regular Flu during March/April 2020? Or is everyone who had flu like symptoms and died, being counted as dying with COVID-19? Pneumonia is more serious than flu; once again, are all pneumonia related deaths being lumped in with COVID-19 deaths?
This puts the Covid-19 deaths, and how dangerous it is, into a much clearer perspective. It looks like Covid-19 is no deadlier than a bad flu year. This is an opinion shared by several top epidemiologists and other experts, like Dr Sucharit Bhakdi, a specialist in microbiology, who used to work at the Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, Dr John Ioannidis Professor of Medicine, of Health Research and Policy and of Biomedical Data Science, at Stanford University School. (see OffGuardian here and here)
Doctors in the US are also seeing this skewing of Covid related deaths.
Dr. Dan Erickson said in a recent interview:
What’s interesting to me to is, when someone dies in this country right now they’re not talking about the high blood pressure, the diabetes, the stroke. They say did they die from COVID. We’ve been to hundreds of autopsies. You don’t talk about one thing, you talk about co-morbidities… COVID was part of it, it’s not the reason they died folks.
Also, Dr. John A Lee, a retired professor of pathology and NHS consultant pathologist, has written some excellent articles for The Spectator. Dr. Lee has raised similar concerns about how we are defining the amount of people actually dying
of Covid-19.
He also questions the lack of science behind the Lockdown, saying in an interview for Spiked on April 17,
It is only an assumption that the lockdown is having a big effect on the virus spread, but this is not a known scientific fact. As far as I can see, Sweden, despite not having anywhere near as severe a lockdown as we have had, actually has a very similar curve to ours. And Sweden’s death rate per hundred thousand people is roughly half of ours at the moment.”
We cannot even trust that the number of Covid19 deaths that are reported daily as actually having died in the previous 24-hrs. There could be a lag of several weeks in the reporting.
A recent OffGuardian article covers this. In one example for April 10th, it was reported that 980 people had died from Covid19.
But in reality, there had been just 117 “Covid19 related deaths”, with about 90 additional deaths in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, for a total of 204. The other 776 had died sometime between March 5th and April 8th.
Deaths and serious social issues because of the Lockdown
An article in the Telegraph on April 9th by Fraser Nelson said that ministers were becoming concerned about the number of people who would die because of the Lockdown, early estimates put it around 150,000. Another article referred to the massive drop in A&E patients, quote, a 29 per cent year-on-year drop in A&E use, including a 50 per cent drop in heart attack attendances.
People who are having heart attacks are either too afraid to go to A&E because they think they might catch Covid-19, or think it’s overloaded with Covid-19 patients. The list is long for seriously ill people who have been side-lined by the total focus of the NHS on Covid-19.
All surgeries, except life-threatening, have been postponed. Most cancer treatments have been postponed, dialysis disrupted or put off. Domestic abuse is up 30% to 50%, suicides, divorces, bankruptcies, the list is very long.
There are 100’s of NHS medical centres around the UK. Most of them are not seeing patients. Where do the sick people go to see a doctor?
I think the psychological damage to millions of people, forced into isolation for weeks and months, will only be fully understood in the next 12 to 18 months.
Freedoms stripped and unprecedented Police Powers: We now have a Police State light
Literally overnight our freedoms have been removed. You are only allowed to go out for one form of exercise a day or to buy food or prescriptions. You are encouraged not to go to work, supposedly only key workers (identified by the government) are supposed to work.
For the first time in our history, every person can be randomly stopped by Police to see if their journey is considered necessary.
Sunbathing, sitting on a park bench, groups of 3 or more can be questioned and possibly fined. Car trips longer than a few miles to go for exercise can be considered unnecessary, after all, you can simply get exercise walking around your block of flats, right?
On Twitter there are many videos showing Police overreach. In one video, a family with some children were sitting in a communal grass area by their block of flats. The Police came to fine them for sitting in that area.
The damage the Police have done to their own reputation within their communities will be felt in the coming months and years.
Absurd rules that make no sense
We are all supposed to be social distancing, staying 2 metres apart, but people can cram onto packed subway trains. Plumbers, electricians and other contractors can come to your home and make repairs, but we cannot visit family or friends who are not in our household. It’s not only blatant stupidity, it also affects us emotionally, being distant from loved ones for months.
Now we are forced to stand in queues to pick up the most menial of items at supermarkets. Walking around a supermarket is like trying to work an obstacle course, as you dodge people to try to keep the social distancing rule. People treat you as if you may have the Bubonic Plague and often cross the street to avoid you.
Park benches have red tape around them to stop people from sitting on them. It’s virtually impossible for a virus to be spread from a park bench with sunlight and rain on it daily. Viruses do not survive outside in warmer weather, but still the madness continues.
Yellow Journalism
Yellow Journalism is a label for newspapers that print cheap sensationalized headlines to get more sales, instead of well researched investigative pieces, that is the hallmark of real journalism.
Leading up to the occurrence of Covid-19 and onwards, the press in the UK have strived to make Yellow Journalism their raison d’etre. They have stoked up the public’s hysteria to manic levels with the worst gutter non-journalism I have ever seen.
It was a race to the bottom of tabloid trash, each paper trying to outdo the other with hyped up headlines, while whipping the public into a frenzy. All of them predicting a virtual armageddon, a new Black Death that will kill untold millions.
With a few exceptions, there has been no serious questioning of the governments continued path with the lockdown. The BBC has been the absolute worst, a servile and obedient government servant that simply re-writes press releases.
If there is one small positive to come out of this appalling lockdown, at least the public now recognizes just how pitiful the mainstream media have become.
Final Thoughts
We are being manipulated with emotional blackmail. Stay home, save lives and protect the NHS. It’s an insidious mind game repeated ad nauseum to keep people quiet, compliant and unquestioning.
We started lockdown because it was an unknown virus, now we know it’s nothing more serious than other viruses we have endured over 100’s of years; it’s time to end it.
Sweden’s epidemiologist Prof Giesecke made an interesting statement during his interview. When discussing the number of deaths each country will have from Covid-19, he said, paraphrasing, let’s talk in a year from now and see where we are.
I’m pretty certain he is referring to not only the deaths from Covid-19, but deaths from the Lockdown. Sweden will not suffer at all in this respect.
It’s a tragedy when anyone dies, whether it be from (most often with) Covid-19, the flu, a heart attack and many other reasons. We need to get back to seeing our loved ones, get back to work so we can feed our family and many aspects of our lives.
The NHS needs to start performing much-needed surgeries and helping others who have been side-lined in the last 2 months. Remember, the lockdown is costing lives, how many, we don’t know yet. The lockdown needs to be lifted in stages, as experts have stated, but it should be started immediately and should never return.
Gavin is passionate about writing on important subjects and to give an alternative viewpoint. He can be followed on Twitter @photopro28 or email him – Do you have a great [email protected]


offguardian--2020-05-09--WATCH: Bill Gates’ Plan to Vaccinate the World

In January of 2010 , Bill and Melinda Gates announced a $ 10 billion pledge to usher in a decade @ @ @ @ @ from an unalloyed good , the truth is that this attempt to reorient the global @ @ @ @ @ a much bigger agenda .
An agenda that would ultimately lead to greater profits for @ @ @ @ @ control for the Gates Foundation over the field of global health , and greater power @ @ @ @ @ the course of the future for billions of people around the planet .

In January of 2010, Bill and Melinda Gates announced a $10 billion pledge to usher in a decade of vaccines. But far from an unalloyed good, the truth is that this attempt to reorient the global health economy was part of a much bigger agenda. An agenda that would ultimately lead to greater profits for big pharma companies, greater control for the Gates Foundation over the field of global health, and greater power for Bill Gates to shape the course of the future for billions of people around the planet.


offguardian--2020-05-09--Who controls the British Government response to Covid–19?

As Britain hurtles headlong towards neo-feudalist governance with heightened surveillance , micro-management of society and an uptick in fascistic policing of the draconian measures imposed to combat the “ threat ” of Covid–19 , it is perhaps time to analyse the real forces behind this “ new normal ” .
There is now serious doubt over the correlation between lockdown and saving lives .
Reality is creeping into the Covid–19 dialogue .
It is becoming apparent that people are getting sick because they are being isolated and effectively living under house arrest , condemned as “ murderers ” if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , being snitched on by neighbours for “ gathering ” more than two people together in their back gardens .
The following graph was produced by UK Column and demonstrates the lack of correlation between lockdown and “ saving lives ” : The numbers game is acting in many instances as a smokescreen .
It is impossible to rely upon “ official ” statistics , that vary wildly from one website to another : statistics that rely upon unreliable and sporadic testing procedures .
and based upon death certificates that misrepresent the actual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of pre-existing medical conditions .
Statistics , too , that were set in stone very early on in the development stages , when the perspective was limited and compressed , before a true picture could be seen .
The newly emerging statistics are now increasingly undermining initial conclusions and pointing to the futility and negative consequences of lockdown .
It is now accepted that there is a high mortality rate among the elderly in care homes in the UK and globally — among the same elderly civilians who are being “ asked ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) forms .
This amounts to signing their own death warrant , should they present any of the Covid–19 symptoms .
They will be neglected , isolated from their families when at their most vulnerable and left alone to die , even though it is possible that they have not contracted the virus .
Instead of offering proactive and positive suggestions that will enable our immune systems to combat the disease , the British Government is ensuring conditions that will suppress immune systems to dangerous levels and create the perfect environment for Covid–19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an estimated 1.4 million new benefit claims for welfare payments , “ about seven times the normal level ” .
The government has pledged to bail out “ 80 % of pay of workers who are temporarily laid off ” but I have personally spoken to self-employed individuals who find themselves falling between the cracks that qualify them for financial support and now face an indefinite period of time without income .
These measures are being imposed in a country that , since 2012 , has seen an exponential growth in child poverty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 , the number of children living in “ absolute poverty ” grew by a staggering 200,000 in a twelve-month period , to a total of 3.7 million .
How will this number be further impacted by lockdown ?
How did we arrive at this point ?
Who steered the UK Government towards this questionable and alarmist lockdown policy ?
The unexamined assumption is that conclusions were formed on the basis of sound epidemiological analysis and research by doctors and scientists who care about our welfare .
The reality is what we will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a professor at Imperial College , was responsible for the modelling of a response to Covid–19 .
His virtual model was recommended by the World Health Organisation ( WHO ) and it passed through into policy with virtually no scrutiny .
Ferguson ’ s dramatic prediction of 500,000 deaths in the UK became the foundation of Boris Johnson ’ s U-turn from herd immunity to collective quarantine .
While some understood that Ferguson later reduced his mortality calculations , he actually doubled down on his projections on Twitter , insisting that without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numbers would be even higher .
Ferguson is acting director of the Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium ( VIMC ) , which is based at Imperial College in London .
According to Ferguson ’ s biography on the website , “ much of [ his ] work is applied , informing disease control policy-making by public and global health institutions.
” The professor who derailed Johnson ’ s semblance of “ herd immunity ” strategy is no stranger to controversy and is described as having a “ patchy ” record of modelling pandemics by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michael Thrusfield of Edinburgh University , an expert in animal diseases .
Ferguson was instrumental in the modelling of the British Government ’ s response to Foot and Mouth Disease ( FMD ) in 2001 , which Thrusfield describes as “ not fit for purpose ” ( 2006 ) and “ seriously flawed ” ( 2012 ) .
Thrusfield has highlighted the limitations of Ferguson ’ s mathematical modelling methods , and applied the doubts he expressed over FMD to the current Covid–19 “ crisis ” response .
An estimated twelve million animals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s 2001 initiative .
The farming community was devastated by suicides and bankruptcies that irretrievably altered the landscape of British agriculture — forcing healthy smallholdings into agri-corporate mergers and empowering the EU central governance in the agricultural sector .
Insight : Slaughtered on Suspicion , a documentary made by UK Column in 2015 , provides a shocking insight into the suffering precipitated by Ferguson ’ s model and the “ new normal ” imposed upon Britain ’ s farming community .
The following is a statement made by one of the contributors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would die from variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease , better known as “ mad cow disease ” , increasing to 150,000 if the epidemic expanded to include sheep .
In 2005 , Ferguson claimed that up to 200 million people would be killed by bird-flu or H5N1 .
By early 2006 , the WHO had only linked 78 deaths to the virus , out of 147 reported cases .
In 2009 , Ferguson and his team at Imperial College advised the government that swine flu or H1N1 would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In the end , swine flu claimed the lives of 457 people in the UK .
Now , in 2020 , Ferguson and Imperial College have released a report which claims that half a million Britons and 2.2 million Americans may be killed by Covid–19 .
The report has still not been peer-reviewed ; despite this and Ferguson ’ s glaring record of mathematical sensationalism , the British Government has adopted the devastating socio-economic lockdown that Ferguson has proposed .
Why is the British Government so quick to follow Ferguson ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology at Imperial College .
VIMC is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and by “ GAVI , the vaccine alliance ” ( GAVI ’ s own title for itself ) .
Bill and Melinda Gates began funding Imperial College in 2006 , four years before the Gates Foundation launched the Global Health Leaders Launch Decade of Vaccines Collaboration ( GHLLDVC ) and one year after Ferguson had demonstrated his penchant for overblown projections on mortality numbers from H5N1 .
Up to the end of 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ College with a whopping $ 185 million .
That makes Gates the second-largest sponsor , beaten to the top spot on the podium by the Wellcome Trust , a British research charity which began funding Imperial College prior to Ferguson ’ s FMD débâcle and which , by the end of 2018 , had already provided Imperial with over $ 400 million in funding .
I will examine the Wellcome Trust ’ s connections in part two of this series .
The Gates Foundation established the GHLLDVC in collaboration with the WHO , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Allergy and Infectious Diseases ( NIAID ) .
The following is taken from the Gates Foundation website : The Collaboration ’ s leadership council at the time included the Director-General of the WHO , the Director of NIAID , the Director of UNICEF , the President of Gates Foundation Global Health , and the Chair of the African Malaria Alliance .
The steering committee included the Director of Immunisation , the UK Department of Health , and many other representatives from the WHO , UNICEF and associated organisations .
It is a cluster @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world health governing bodies , who claim to be neutral .
The WHO was nominated as the “ directing and coordinating authority on international health within the United Nations system ” and was set up to be responsible for “ shaping the health research agenda ” , among other tasks linked to the policy of global immunisation .
UNICEF , the “ world ’ s largest provider of vaccines for developing countries ” has on-the-ground access to children in over 150 territories and countries ( 2010 ) .
We are already seeing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behind the Ferguson model on Covid–19 , and this will become even more apparent as the connections are now made to an entire pharmaceutical complex potentially protecting its own interests over any genuine concerns for the health and welfare of global populations .
GAVI is funded and partnered by the same network that forms the GHLLDVC , with some noticeable additions : the World Bank and donor/implementing country governments .
The Gates Foundation is a primary sponsor , but is topped by the British Government , which was instrumental in creating GAVI and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sectors of British society have seen their living standards plummet , with the elderly severely neglected , a National Health Service in decline and homelessness on the increase , the British Government , via UKAID , has pledged £1.44 billion to GAVI for 2016–2020 and will be hosting the 2020 GAVI pledging conference , which is due to take place in June 2020 to [ emphasis added ] : The conference promises to bring together political leaders , civil society , public and private donors , vaccine manufacturers and governments to support GAVI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it has “ helped vaccinate almost half the world ’ s children against deadly and debilitating infectious diseases ” .
This claim will be met with praise from the pro-vaccine lobby but concerns over the efficacy and safety of these mass vaccination programmes must be taken into account , particularly when being tested in poorer , developing countries .
Global vaccination market revenue worldwide is projected to reach $ 59.2 billion by 2020 ; this number may well increase with the arrival of Covid–19 .
The British Government ’ s investment in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , again , raise the issue of conflicts of interest .
To what extent is the British Government protecting its own assets in forcing the lockdown upon its population ?
Vaccines are set to be a major source of income for the world ’ s largest pharmaceutical corporations , and the British Government is invested in that lucrative future .
The GAVI replenishment conference is to be hosted by a British Government whose lockdown policy is effectively shattering the domestic economy and is collectively punishing the most vulnerable in British society .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago , he had been considering where next to focus his philanthropy and was “ increasingly focusing on the power and potential of vaccines ” .
It was Gates ’ substantial sponsorship that launched GAVI , and ten years later Gates launched his own “ vaccine decade ” plan for the 2010s .
The Global Vaccine Action Plan ( GVAP ) 2012–2020 , endorsed by the 194 member states participating in the World Health Assembly ( 2012 ) , is led by the same members of the Gates “ vaccine decade ” consortium @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brings together governments , elected officials , health professionals , academia , manufacturers , global agencies , research and development , civil society , media and the private sector — to promote global immunisation .
This is a profit-driven corporate complex harnessing the “ humanitarian ” sector to lend credence to the claims of philanthropy , or more realistically , philanthrocapitalism .
A glance at the partner page of the GAVI website reveals that not only is GAVI heavily invested in immunisation campaigns , it is also closely connected to the Gates , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Digital Identity Alliance ) , which incorporates Accenture , Microsoft ( Gates ) , Ideo-Org and Rockefeller Foundation into the GAVI alliance , all with ties to the ID2020 initiative .
ID2020 is promoting the concept that there is a need for universal biometric verification , because “ to prove who you are is a fundamental and universal human right , ” as asserted on the ID2020 website .
An article by journalist Kurt Nimmo for Global Research dismantles the “ humanitarian ” alibi for tyranny .
Nimmo describes the potential for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mandatory biometric ID .
An April article carried by Reuters confirms the suspicion that biometric ID might soon be introduced , ostensibly to “ help verify those who already had the infection and ensure the vulnerable get the vaccine when it is launched ” .
This may sound perfectly sensible to those who are buying the government strap-lines on Covid–19 but — as Nimmo warns us — “ COVID–19 is the perfect Trojan horse for a control freak state itching to not only micromanage the lives of ordinary citizens but also ferret out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as enemies of the state.
” Prashant Yadav , senior fellow at the US-based Center for Global Development , has said [ Emphasis added ] : Such statements can easily be interpreted as the harbingers of mandatory vaccination and the inclusion of biometric ID in the “ humanitarian ” package .
Martin Armstrong of Armstrong Technologies introduces an even more sinister projection into the mix .
Armstrong talks about a digital certificate that verifies you have been vaccinated , developed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology ( MIT ) and Microsoft , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be exploited to encourage us to accept digital implants and tracking devices that will enable authorities to keep an eye on us .
Armstrong argues that just as 9/11 conditioned us to accept X-ray booths at airports , now we will be chipped alongside our dogs and cats .
At this point , it is worth remembering that UKAID is heavily involved in GAVI , and one presumes they are on board with the digital ID2020 project .
Rob Laurence , director at UK-based Innovate Identity , presented proposals for the future of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The UK Government Verify scheme was identified as a fledgling version of the future of digital ID .
Laurence describes the digital ID “ ecosystem ” that is emerging : Oliver Dowden , Minister for Implementation at the Cabinet Office ( the British Government ’ s co-ordinating department ) , will form a new Digital ID Unit to “ pave the way for the government to consume digital identities from the private sector ” .
Laurence describes 2020 as the “ now-or-never year for government and industry to collaborate ” in the creation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” .
Covid19 provides the opportunity that might just fulfil these predictions .
It is no coincidence that a British start-up — Microsoft-funded Onfido — has recently raised $ 100 million to “ boost its ID technology ” to enable the creation of “ immunity passports ” for governments “ battling coronavirus ” .
In December 2019 , researchers at MIT created a “ microneedle platform using fluorescent microparticles called quantum dots ( QD ) which can deliver vaccines and at the same time , invisibly encode vaccination history in the skin ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specially adapted smartphones .
The “ new normal ” will mean we are tracked and monitored by our own communication systems to an even greater and more intrusive extent .
The future is being modelled — but not for our benefit In part one of this two=part series , my intention has been to raise questions over who is driving the British Government response to Covid–19 .
Those who have influenced the lockdown policy have very clear conflict of interest question marks over their agenda .
The scientific clique influencing government decisions is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Big Pharma industrial network which will , undeniably , benefit from the measures being taken by the British Government — a government that is financially embedded in the same complex .
Why are the views of epidemiologists , doctors , scientists , analysts and health advisors who challenge the lockdown being ignored or censored by the media and by government ?
Why is the government not widening the circle of advisors to take into account these opposing perspectives that might bring an end to the misery that is a consequence of enforced quarantine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , here and here .
It is also worth following Swiss Propaganda Research for regular updates on emerging analysis and statistics that you will not always find in the mainstream media .
Instead , the British Government is effectively endorsing the breeding of distrust in society , the erosion of public assembly , the isolation and state-sanctioned euthanasia of the elderly , the emerging police state , snitch lines , loss of dignity and livelihoods , greater dependency upon the state for survival , depression , suicide and voluntary incarceration .
The UN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ downturn could “ kill hundreds of thousands of children in 2020 ” .
Gates , the WHO , the British Government and UNICEF are focused on global immunisation for a “ pandemic ” that is not living up to the alarmist virtual projections sponsored by Gates and the Big Pharma complex , while children really will start to die from malnutrition , neglect and a myriad of consequence of extreme poverty generated by the “ steepest downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s ” ( IMF ) .
In part two , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interests of state and private corporate sectors that should not be interfering in policies which affect the welfare of British citizens .
I will reveal how the same players are influencing the media response and ensuring that their interests are given the most powerful platforms to promote their agenda .
The questions must be asked : Who is really in charge of the Covid–19 response ?
Who benefits most ?
Who will suffer most from the long term consequences ?
And who will provide respite from those consequences when the “ pandemic ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by UK Column .
This is part one of a two-part article .
We ’ ll be running the second part tomorrow , or you can read it here already .

Vanessa Beeley
The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants”
Albert Camus
As Britain hurtles headlong towards neo-feudalist governance with heightened surveillance, micro-management of society and an uptick in fascistic policing of the draconian measures imposed to combat the “threat” of Covid–19, it is perhaps time to analyse the real forces behind this “new normal”.
There is now serious doubt over the correlation between lockdown and saving lives. Reality is creeping into the Covid–19 dialogue.
It is becoming apparent that people are getting sick because they are being isolated and effectively living under house arrest, condemned as “murderers” if they so much as think about breaking curfew, being snitched on by neighbours for “gathering” more than two people together in their back gardens.
The following graph was produced by UK Column and demonstrates the lack of correlation between lockdown and “saving lives”:
The numbers game is acting in many instances as a smokescreen. It is impossible to rely upon “official” statistics, that vary wildly from one website to another: statistics that rely upon unreliable and sporadic testing procedures. and based upon death certificates that misrepresent the actual cause of death as Covid–19, regardless of pre-existing medical conditions.
Statistics, too, that were set in stone very early on in the development stages, when the perspective was limited and compressed, before a true picture could be seen. The newly emerging statistics are now increasingly undermining initial conclusions and pointing to the futility and negative consequences of lockdown.
NEW: Barclay Brothers Telegraph claiming an estimated 7,500 killed by coronavirus in UK care homes. Boris Johnson government has not been revealing numbers to the media, claiming they couldn't calculate them. — Afshin Rattansi (@afshinrattansi) April 17, 2020
It is now accepted that there is a high mortality rate among the elderly in care homes in the UK and globally — among the same elderly civilians who are being “asked” to sign DNRs (Do Not Resuscitate) forms.
This amounts to signing their own death warrant, should they present any of the Covid–19 symptoms. They will be neglected, isolated from their families when at their most vulnerable and left alone to die, even though it is possible that they have not contracted the virus.
Isolation is a proven silent killer. The UK govt is silent about the 'expert' estimate of 150,000 deaths as a result of the lockdown, not the virus. This figure may prove as unreliable as the estimates 'modelled' by Imperial College. But isn't it time to break the silence? — John Pilger (@johnpilger) April 16, 2020
Instead of offering proactive and positive suggestions that will enable our immune systems to combat the disease, the British Government is ensuring conditions that will suppress immune systems to dangerous levels and create the perfect environment for Covid–19 to flourish.
Britain has now received an estimated 1.4 million new benefit claims for welfare payments, “about seven times the normal level”. The government has pledged to bail out “80% of pay of workers who are temporarily laid off” but I have personally spoken to self-employed individuals who find themselves falling between the cracks that qualify them for financial support and now face an indefinite period of time without income.
These measures are being imposed in a country that, since 2012, has seen an exponential growth in child poverty to potentially sub-Victorian levels.
In March 2019, the number of children living in “absolute poverty” grew by a staggering 200,000 in a twelve-month period, to a total of 3.7 million. How will this number be further impacted by lockdown?
How did we arrive at this point? Who steered the UK Government towards this questionable and alarmist lockdown policy?
The unexamined assumption is that conclusions were formed on the basis of sound epidemiological analysis and research by doctors and scientists who care about our welfare.
The reality is what we will examine in this article. Neil Ferguson, a professor at Imperial College, was responsible for the modelling of a response to Covid–19. His virtual model was recommended by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and it passed through into policy with virtually no scrutiny.
Ferguson’s dramatic prediction of 500,000 deaths in the UK became the foundation of Boris Johnson’s U-turn from herd immunity to collective quarantine.
While some understood that Ferguson later reduced his mortality calculations, he actually doubled down on his projections on Twitter, insisting that without drastic lockdown measures being taken, the numbers would be even higher.
Who is Neil Ferguson?
Ferguson is acting director of the Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium (VIMC), which is based at Imperial College in London. According to Ferguson’s biography on the website, “much of [his] work is applied, informing disease control policy-making by public and global health institutions.”
The professor who derailed Johnson’s semblance of “herd immunity” strategy is no stranger to controversy and is described as having a “patchy” record of modelling pandemics by one of his academic peers, Professor Michael Thrusfield of Edinburgh University, an expert in animal diseases.
Ferguson was instrumental in the modelling of the British Government’s response to Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) in 2001, which Thrusfield describes as “not fit for purpose” (2006) and “seriously flawed” (2012).
Thrusfield has highlighted the limitations of Ferguson’s mathematical modelling methods, and applied the doubts he expressed over FMD to the current Covid–19 “crisis” response.
An estimated twelve million animals were slaughtered as a result of Ferguson’s 2001 initiative. The farming community was devastated by suicides and bankruptcies that irretrievably altered the landscape of British agriculture — forcing healthy smallholdings into agri-corporate mergers and empowering the EU central governance in the agricultural sector.
Insight: Slaughtered on Suspicion, a documentary made by UK Column in 2015, provides a shocking insight into the suffering precipitated by Ferguson’s model and the “new normal” imposed upon Britain’s farming community. The following is a statement made by one of the contributors to the programme:
12,000,000 animals [Meat & Livestock Commission statistic] were slaughtered but that did not include lambs at foot, aborted lambs, calves or piglets. Further, tens of thousands of chickens were slaughtered in the early months — on welfare grounds, apparently. 88% of all animals slaughtered had not contracted FMD
[source: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs]. Great Orton airfield was used to slaughter sheep under the “voluntary” cull: that was anything but voluntary, and farmers not participating were ruthlessly threatened. There was only one mild case of FMD recorded from the thousands of blood tests done at Great Orton
[source: DEFRA]. There was a travelator that ran from the slaughter tent at Great Orton to the graves. This ran 16 hours a day, transporting “dead” young lambs. Slaughtermen working there told me that many of the lambs were buried alive. The man that advised Blair during this fiasco was, as many will know, Prof. Ferguson of Imperial College. He was [reportedly] sacked by DEFRA late on during the epidemic, but the damage had been done! Prof Ferguson was awarded an OBE in 2002 for his work during FMD 2001.”
[Emphasis added]
In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would die from variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, better known as “mad cow disease”, increasing to 150,000 if the epidemic expanded to include sheep.
The reality is:
Since 1990, 178 people in the United Kingdom have died from vCJD, according to the National CJD Research & Surveillance Unit at the University of Edinburgh.” [2017]
In 2005, Ferguson claimed that up to 200 million people would be killed by bird-flu or H5N1.
By early 2006, the WHO had only linked 78 deaths to the virus, out of 147 reported cases.
In 2009, Ferguson and his team at Imperial College advised the government that swine flu or H1N1 would probably kill 65,000 people in the UK.
In the end, swine flu claimed the lives of 457 people in the UK.
Now, in 2020, Ferguson and Imperial College have released a report which claims that half a million Britons and 2.2 million Americans may be killed by Covid–19.
The report has still not been peer-reviewed; despite this and Ferguson’s glaring record of mathematical sensationalism, the British Government has adopted the devastating socio-economic lockdown that Ferguson has proposed.
Why is the British Government so quick to follow Ferguson’s plan?
1. GAVI and Imperial College
The VIMC is hosted by the Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology at Imperial College. VIMC is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and by “GAVI, the vaccine alliance” (GAVI’s own title for itself).
Bill and Melinda Gates began funding Imperial College in 2006, four years before the Gates Foundation launched the Global Health Leaders Launch Decade of Vaccines Collaboration (GHLLDVC) and one year after Ferguson had demonstrated his penchant for overblown projections on mortality numbers from H5N1.
Up to the end of 2018, the Gates Foundation has sponsored Imperial College with a whopping $185 million.
That makes Gates the second-largest sponsor, beaten to the top spot on the podium by the Wellcome Trust, a British research charity which began funding Imperial College prior to Ferguson’s FMD débâcle and which, by the end of 2018, had already provided Imperial with over $400 million in funding. I will examine the Wellcome Trust’s connections in part two of this series.
The Gates Foundation established the GHLLDVC in collaboration with the WHO, UNICEF and the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). The following is taken from the Gates Foundation website:
The Global Vaccine Action Plan will enable greater coordination across all stakeholder groups – national governments, multilateral organizations, civil society, the private sector and philanthropic organizations — and will identify critical policy, resource, and other gaps that must be addressed to realize the life-saving potential of vaccines.
The Collaboration’s leadership council at the time included the Director-General of the WHO, the Director of NIAID, the Director of UNICEF, the President of Gates Foundation Global Health, and the Chair of the African Malaria Alliance.
The steering committee included the Director of Immunisation, the UK Department of Health, and many other representatives from the WHO, UNICEF and associated organisations. It is a cluster of immunisation-focused individuals controlling the policy of world health governing bodies, who claim to be neutral.
The WHO was nominated as the “directing and coordinating authority on international health within the United Nations system” and was set up to be responsible for “shaping the health research agenda”, among other tasks linked to the policy of global immunisation.
UNICEF, the “world’s largest provider of vaccines for developing countries” has on-the-ground access to children in over 150 territories and countries (2010).
We are already seeing the potential for some serious conflict of interest behind the Ferguson model on Covid–19, and this will become even more apparent as the connections are now made to an entire pharmaceutical complex potentially protecting its own interests over any genuine concerns for the health and welfare of global populations.
GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance
GAVI is funded and partnered by the same network that forms the GHLLDVC, with some noticeable additions: the World Bank and donor/implementing country governments. The Gates Foundation is a primary sponsor, but is topped by the British Government, which was instrumental in creating GAVI and is its largest donor.
While many sectors of British society have seen their living standards plummet, with the elderly severely neglected, a National Health Service in decline and homelessness on the increase, the British Government, via UKAID, has pledged £1.44 billion to GAVI for 2016–2020 and will be hosting the 2020 GAVI pledging conference, which is due to take place in June 2020 to [emphasis added]:
mobilise at least US$ 7.4 billion in additional resources to protect the next generation with vaccines, reduce disease inequality and create a healthier, safer and more prosperous world.”
The conference promises to bring together political leaders, civil society, public and private donors, vaccine manufacturers and governments to support GAVI, the vaccine alliance — which boasts that it has “helped vaccinate almost half the world’s children against deadly and debilitating infectious diseases”.
This claim will be met with praise from the pro-vaccine lobby but concerns over the efficacy and safety of these mass vaccination programmes must be taken into account, particularly when being tested in poorer, developing countries.
Global vaccination market revenue worldwide is projected to reach $59.2 billion by 2020; this number may well increase with the arrival of Covid–19.
The British Government’s investment in GAVI alongside vaccine promoter Bill Gates must, again, raise the issue of conflicts of interest. To what extent is the British Government protecting its own assets in forcing the lockdown upon its population? Vaccines are set to be a major source of income for the world’s largest pharmaceutical corporations, and the British Government is invested in that lucrative future.
The GAVI replenishment conference is to be hosted by a British Government whose lockdown policy is effectively shattering the domestic economy and is collectively punishing the most vulnerable in British society.
When Bill Gates partnered with GAVI twenty years ago, he had been considering where next to focus his philanthropy and was “increasingly focusing on the power and potential of vaccines”.
It was Gates’ substantial sponsorship that launched GAVI, and ten years later Gates launched his own “vaccine decade” plan for the 2010s.
The Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP) 2012–2020, endorsed by the 194 member states participating in the World Health Assembly (2012), is led by the same members of the Gates “vaccine decade” consortium, promoted by the WHO, and brings together governments, elected officials, health professionals, academia, manufacturers, global agencies, research and development, civil society, media and the private sector — to promote global immunisation.
This is a profit-driven corporate complex harnessing the “humanitarian” sector to lend credence to the claims of philanthropy, or more realistically, philanthrocapitalism.
2. GAVI and ID2020
A glance at the partner page of the GAVI website reveals that not only is GAVI heavily invested in immunisation campaigns, it is also closely connected to the Gates, Microsoft and Rockefeller Foundation seed-funded ID2020 project (Digital Identity Alliance), which incorporates Accenture, Microsoft (Gates), Ideo-Org and Rockefeller Foundation into the GAVI alliance, all with ties to the ID2020 initiative.
ID2020 is promoting the concept that there is a need for universal biometric verification, because “to prove who you are is a fundamental and universal human right,” as asserted on the ID2020 website.
An article by journalist Kurt Nimmo for Global Research dismantles the “humanitarian” alibi for tyranny.
OffGrid Healthcare explains:
What they really want is a fully standardized data collection and retrieval format, and cross-border sharing of identities of the entire population of the planet, in order for the stand-alone AI-powered command center to work without a hitch, and for purposes of calculating everyone’s potential contribution, and threat to the system.
Nimmo describes the potential for Covid–19 to be used as cover for mandatory biometric ID. An April article carried by Reuters confirms the suspicion that biometric ID might soon be introduced, ostensibly to “help verify those who already had the infection and ensure the vulnerable get the vaccine when it is launched”. This may sound perfectly sensible to those who are buying the government strap-lines on Covid–19 but — as Nimmo warns us — “COVID–19 is the perfect Trojan horse for a control freak state itching to not only micromanage the lives of ordinary citizens but also ferret out critics and potential adversaries and punish them as enemies of the state.”
Prashant Yadav, senior fellow at the US-based Center for Global Development, has said [Emphasis added]:
Biometric IDs can be a gamechanger. They can help governments target population segments e.g healthcare professionals or the elderly population, verify people who have received vaccination, and have a clear record.
Such statements can easily be interpreted as the harbingers of mandatory vaccination and the inclusion of biometric ID in the “humanitarian” package.
Martin Armstrong of Armstrong Technologies introduces an even more sinister projection into the mix.
Armstrong talks about a digital certificate that verifies you have been vaccinated, developed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Microsoft, which will merge with ID2020. Covid–19 will be exploited to encourage us to accept digital implants and tracking devices that will enable authorities to keep an eye on us.
Armstrong argues that just as 9/11 conditioned us to accept X-ray booths at airports, now we will be chipped alongside our dogs and cats.
At this point, it is worth remembering that UKAID is heavily involved in GAVI, and one presumes they are on board with the digital ID2020 project.
Rob Laurence, director at UK-based Innovate Identity, presented proposals for the future of digital identity back in June 2019. The UK Government Verify scheme was identified as a fledgling version of the future of digital ID.
Laurence describes the digital ID “ecosystem” that is emerging: Oliver Dowden, Minister for Implementation at the Cabinet Office (the British Government’s co-ordinating department), will form a new Digital ID Unit to “pave the way for the government to consume digital identities from the private sector”.
Laurence describes 2020 as the “now-or-never year for government and industry to collaborate” in the creation of an “interoperable digital identity market”.
Covid19 provides the opportunity that might just fulfil these predictions.
It is no coincidence that a British start-up — Microsoft-funded Onfido — has recently raised $100 million to “boost its ID technology” to enable the creation of “immunity passports” for governments “battling coronavirus”.
In December 2019, researchers at MIT created a “microneedle platform using fluorescent microparticles called quantum dots (QD) which can deliver vaccines and at the same time, invisibly encode vaccination history in the skin”: the QDs can be detected by specially adapted smartphones.
The “new normal” will mean we are tracked and monitored by our own communication systems to an even greater and more intrusive extent.
The future is being modelled — but not for our benefit
In part one of this two=part series, my intention has been to raise questions over who is driving the British Government response to Covid–19. Those who have influenced the lockdown policy have very clear conflict of interest question marks over their agenda.
The scientific clique influencing government decisions is one that is incorporated into a for-profit Big Pharma industrial network which will, undeniably, benefit from the measures being taken by the British Government — a government that is financially embedded in the same complex.
Why are the views of epidemiologists, doctors, scientists, analysts and health advisors who challenge the lockdown being ignored or censored by the media and by government? Why is the government not widening the circle of advisors to take into account these opposing perspectives that might bring an end to the misery that is a consequence of enforced quarantine?
Off-Guardian has recorded these views here, here and here. It is also worth following Swiss Propaganda Research for regular updates on emerging analysis and statistics that you will not always find in the mainstream media.
Instead, the British Government is effectively endorsing the breeding of distrust in society, the erosion of public assembly, the isolation and state-sanctioned euthanasia of the elderly, the emerging police state, snitch lines, loss of dignity and livelihoods, greater dependency upon the state for survival, depression, suicide and voluntary incarceration.
The UN has issued a warning that the economic downturn could “kill hundreds of thousands of children in 2020”.
Gates, the WHO, the British Government and UNICEF are focused on global immunisation for a “pandemic” that is not living up to the alarmist virtual projections sponsored by Gates and the Big Pharma complex, while children really will start to die from malnutrition, neglect and a myriad of consequence of extreme poverty generated by the “steepest downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s” (IMF).
In part two, I will delve deeper into the interlocking interests of state and private corporate sectors that should not be interfering in policies which affect the welfare of British citizens.
I will reveal how the same players are influencing the media response and ensuring that their interests are given the most powerful platforms to promote their agenda.
The questions must be asked: Who is really in charge of the Covid–19 response? Who benefits most? Who will suffer most from the long term consequences?
And who will provide respite from those consequences when the “pandemic” has disappeared from view?
Originally published by UK Column. This is part one of a two-part article. We’ll be running the second part tomorrow, or you can read it here already.


offguardian--2020-05-10--The hybrid war on Venezuela moves to a new stage of aggression

Let ’ s put the U.S. government on the side for a moment .
We know about its long-standing goal of regime change .
We all know that President Trump has denied any U.S. involvement in the raid .
That was to be expected but not to be believed .
We would like to focus on some of the implications of this raid that come from three sources : self-appointed president Juan Guaidó and two videos with declarations from key players .
In the early morning of May 3 , Venezuela witnessed the first attempt of a raid by speedboats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coast of Venezuela , just a few kilometers from the capital city , Caracas .
The response by the Venezuelan armed forces and the almost continuous updates about the action including photos and videos were quick .
Just a couple hours later , while the defensive operation was still underway , Venezuela ’ s Minister of Interior Nestor Reverol issued an initial statement : The suggestion that the raid – already a grave act of aggression – had such menacing consequences was not far-fetched given past attempts to overthrow the Maduro government , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Defense , Vladimir Padrino , injected inspiring words in his official communiqué : Diosdado Cabello , president of the National Constituent Assembly and vice-president of the governing party PSUV ( United Socialist Party of Venezuela ) , provided a conclusion of the initial defensive action that ended : Cabello also warned of more possible raids and launched a call to the population in general to be watchful for any suspicious or irregular activity , particularly along the Venezuelan coast .
Consequently , the following day , on May 4 , more armed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporting by fishermen in the contiguous coastal area of Aragua State .
At his point , two important facts are to be noticed : The prompt documented official reporting of events , and more importantly , the consistent concurrence on the facts from the different branches of the government , including the population , that has been qualified as a true civic-military-police success .
Full details of those facts with some analysis of the implied tactical strategies pursued by the mercenary attack can be read here and here for the May 3 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other side stories and revelations lead us to ask , what can we say about the coordination of this ongoing coup attempt , the coup plotters involved , and the expected outcome were the coup to succeed ?
Let ’ s put the U.S. government on the side for a moment .
We know about its long-standing goal of regime change .
We all know that President Trump has denied any U.S. involvement in the raid .
That was to be expected but not to be believed .
We would like to focus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raid that come from three sources : self-appointed president Juan Guaidó and two videos with declarations from key players .
In a tweet on May 3 , Guaidó dismissed the mercenary attack as a “ false flag ” by the Maduro government to hide social problems , although a day later he changed his tune in a video interview by suggesting that the “ dictatorship ” had infiltrated the armed group .
This shows that Guaidó was not aware of the upcoming incursion on Venezuela .
Further evidence that he was not part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a video where Venezuelan former National Guardsman Javier Nieto Quintero appears next to former U.S. Green Beret Jordan Goudreau .
Nieto introduces Goudreau as a “ member of the special forces of the U.S. army who also runs the Florida-based company Silvercorp USA to provide services to handlethe whole spectrum of crisis situations ” , and is reported to “ organize a military expedition aimed at ousting Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro ” .
The video announces the raid as part of a so-called armed struggle , “ Operation Gedeon ” , and is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people to join in the overthrow of the Maduro “ regime ” .
What is striking is that in the two-and-a-half-minute-long video , not once is there a reference to Guaidó as the “ legitimate interim president ” of Venezuela and that the incursion also intends to support his claim .
On the contrary , in another video Goudreau is interviewed from an undisclosed location by Miami-based Venezuelan journalist Patricia Poleo .
The main thrust of the interview revolves around a contract shown and allegedly signed by Silvercorp ’ s Jordan Goudreau , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The existence of such a contract was revealed several weeks ago but never shown before .
Goudreau claims that Guaidó breached the contract by failing to pay the convened US $ 1.5 million for his “ services ” .
That was mentioned to be the reason why “ the ‘ liberation ’ of Venezuela was not achieved.
” But surely Goudreau must have had his eyes on the larger multimillion-dollar “ reward ” promised by the Attorney General as a bounty for the capture of Nicolas Maduro and other high-ranking Venezuelan officials .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the recent mercenary armed incursion on Venezuela – that was quickly neutralised by the Venezuelan forces – do not seem to have had Guaidó in their minds in the event that their hoped-for attempted coup was a success .
In fact , the coup plotters apparently never included Guaidó in their plans .
A news item by Reuters states : Not only was Guaidó absent from any consideration for involvement in the raid , or in the future Venezuela envisioned by the coup plotters , but Guaidó was directly targeted by a disgruntled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paid for his “ work ” .
This widely distributed information was timely released by a Venezuelan journalist who is not a supporter of Maduro but a supporter of a more radical right-wing opposition .
This can only be construed as intentionally meant to harm Juan Guaidó in the eyes of all Venezuelans , and any claim he might have to leading Venezuela .
This also occurs at a time when Guaidó seems to be losing international support for failing to be a catalyst force among Venezuelans and bringing the Venezuelan Army to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo ’ s recent release of a “ Framework for a transition in Venezuela ” seems to leave Guaidó out of a potential new government , at least until new U.S.-suggested presidential elections in Venezuela .
Behind these events , we observe a deepening of the division in the right-wing opposition , but a more dangerous one that Washington will gladly use to its advantage .
The escalation in Venezuela from violent riots to armed mercenary incursions and sabotage , likely aided by the U.S. and its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hybrid War on Venezuela is moving to the next stage of aggression that might degenerate into an armed civil confrontation .
The strong and committed resistance of a united government , its Bolivarian defense forces , and a patriotic population can defuse the aggression .
However , Venezuelans and all Latin Americans in the region should be alert and concerned about the human cost .
Nino Pagliccia is Venezuelan-Canadian freelance writer and activist .
Originally published by One World Press .

Let’s put the U.S. government on the side for a moment. We know about its long-standing goal of regime change. We all know that President Trump has denied any U.S. involvement in the raid. That was to be expected but not to be believed. We would like to focus on some of the implications of this raid that come from three sources: self-appointed president Juan Guaidó and two videos with declarations from key players.
In the early morning of May 3, Venezuela witnessed the first attempt of a raid by speedboats with armed mercenary forces on the central coast of Venezuela, just a few kilometers from the capital city, Caracas. The response by the Venezuelan armed forces and the almost continuous updates about the action including photos and videos were quick.
Just a couple hours later, while the defensive operation was still underway, Venezuela’s Minister of Interior Nestor Reverol issued an initial statement:
A group of terrorist mercenaries attempted a maritime invasion, entering Venezuela with speedboats via the coast of La Guaira. Their aim was to assassinate leaders of the Bolivarian Revolution and carry out a coup.”
The suggestion that the raid – already a grave act of aggression – had such menacing consequences was not far-fetched given past attempts to overthrow the Maduro government, including attempted assassinations.
The Venezuelan Minister of Defense, Vladimir Padrino, injected inspiring words in his official communiqué:
The Bolivarian National Armed Force categorically rejects these acts of irrational violence, before which we have always been victorious in defense of the Homeland, unfailingly clinging to the Constitution.”
Diosdado Cabello, president of the National Constituent Assembly and vice-president of the governing party PSUV (United Socialist Party of Venezuela), provided a conclusion of the initial defensive action that ended:
with an unfortunate balance of eight deceased, two detained people who were there; a lot of significant weapons, in addition to vehicles that they had ready to carry out actions directly on institutions and authorities.”
Cabello also warned of more possible raids and launched a call to the population in general to be watchful for any suspicious or irregular activity, particularly along the Venezuelan coast.
Consequently, the following day, on May 4, more armed mercenaries were apprehended thanks to the quick reporting by fishermen in the contiguous coastal area of Aragua State.
At his point, two important facts are to be noticed: The prompt documented official reporting of events, and more importantly, the consistent concurrence on the facts from the different branches of the government, including the population, that has been qualified as a true civic-military-police success.
Full details of those facts with some analysis of the implied tactical strategies pursued by the mercenary attack can be read here and here for the May 3 and May 4 incidents, respectively. But other side stories and revelations lead us to ask, what can we say about the coordination of this ongoing coup attempt, the coup plotters involved, and the expected outcome were the coup to succeed?
Let’s put the U.S. government on the side for a moment. We know about its long-standing goal of regime change. We all know that President Trump has denied any U.S. involvement in the raid. That was to be expected but not to be believed.
We would like to focus on some of the implications of this raid that come from three sources: self-appointed president Juan Guaidó and two videos with declarations from key players.
In a tweet on May 3, Guaidó dismissed the mercenary attack as a “false flag” by the Maduro government to hide social problems, although a day later he changed his tune in a video interview by suggesting that the “dictatorship” had infiltrated the armed group. This shows that Guaidó was not aware of the upcoming incursion on Venezuela.
Further evidence that he was not part of the planning can be inferred from a video where Venezuelan former National Guardsman Javier Nieto Quintero appears next to former U.S. Green Beret Jordan Goudreau.
Nieto introduces Goudreau as a “member of the special forces of the U.S. army who also runs the Florida-based company Silvercorp USA to provide services to handlethe whole spectrum of crisis situations”, and is reported to “organize a military expedition aimed at ousting Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro”.
The video announces the raid as part of a so-called armed struggle, “Operation Gedeon”, and is a call to the Venezuelan military and people to join in the overthrow of the Maduro “regime”.
What is striking is that in the two-and-a-half-minute-long video, not once is there a reference to Guaidó as the “legitimate interim president” of Venezuela and that the incursion also intends to support his claim.
On the contrary, in another video Goudreau is interviewed from an undisclosed location by Miami-based Venezuelan journalist Patricia Poleo.
The main thrust of the interview revolves around a contract shown and allegedly signed by Silvercorp’s Jordan Goudreau, Juan Guaidó, and other representatives. The existence of such a contract was revealed several weeks ago but never shown before. Goudreau claims that Guaidó breached the contract by failing to pay the convened US$1.5 million for his “services”.
That was mentioned to be the reason why “the ‘liberation’ of Venezuela was not achieved.” But surely Goudreau must have had his eyes on the larger multimillion-dollar “reward” promised by the Attorney General as a bounty for the capture of Nicolas Maduro and other high-ranking Venezuelan officials.
Conclusion
The statements made by those who masterminded the recent mercenary armed incursion on Venezuela – that was quickly neutralised by the Venezuelan forces – do not seem to have had Guaidó in their minds in the event that their hoped-for attempted coup was a success.
In fact, the coup plotters apparently never included Guaidó in their plans. A news item by Reuters states:
In Washington, a source familiar with U.S. intelligence assessments described the incursion as a ‘private enterprise’ and said it was not believed to have been carried out with Guaido’s knowledge or approval.”
Not only was Guaidó absent from any consideration for involvement in the raid, or in the future Venezuela envisioned by the coup plotters, but Guaidó was directly targeted by a disgruntled foreign mercenary claiming that he was not paid for his “work”.
This widely distributed information was timely released by a Venezuelan journalist who is not a supporter of Maduro but a supporter of a more radical right-wing opposition. This can only be construed as intentionally meant to harm Juan Guaidó in the eyes of all Venezuelans, and any claim he might have to leading Venezuela.
This also occurs at a time when Guaidó seems to be losing international support for failing to be a catalyst force among Venezuelans and bringing the Venezuelan Army to a mass mutiny.
At the same time, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s recent release of a “Framework for a transition in Venezuela” seems to leave Guaidó out of a potential new government, at least until new U.S.-suggested presidential elections in Venezuela.
Behind these events, we observe a deepening of the division in the right-wing opposition, but a more dangerous one that Washington will gladly use to its advantage.
The escalation in Venezuela from violent riots to armed mercenary incursions and sabotage, likely aided by the U.S. and its proxy Colombian government, indicates that the Hybrid War on Venezuela is moving to the next stage of aggression that might degenerate into an armed civil confrontation.
The strong and committed resistance of a united government, its Bolivarian defense forces, and a patriotic population can defuse the aggression. However, Venezuelans and all Latin Americans in the region should be alert and concerned about the human cost.
Nino Pagliccia is Venezuelan-Canadian freelance writer and activist. Originally published by One World Press.