lewrockwell--2020-05-25--Why Didn’t the 1958 and 1918 Pandemics Destroy the Economy? Hint: It’s the Lockdowns

Media pundits and politicians are now in the habit of claiming it was the pandemic itself that has caused unemployment to skyrocket and economic growth to plummet .
The claim is that sick and dying workers , fearful consumers , and disrupted supply chains would cause economic chaos .
Some have even claimed that economic shutdowns actually help the economy , because it is claimed allowing the spread of the disease will itself destroy employment and economic growth .
Leaving aside the fact there ’ s no evidence lockdowns actually work , we can nonetheless look to past pandemics—where coercive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see immense economic damage .
Specifically , we can look to the the pandemic of 1957-58 , which was more deadly than the COVID-19 pandemic has been so far .
We can also look to the 1918-19 pandemic .
Yet , we will see that neither produced economic damage on a scale we now see as a result of the government mandated lockdowns .
This thoroughly undermines the claims that the lockdowns are only a minor factor in economic destruction , and that the virus itself is the real culprit .
Addalock - @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 17.95 Economic Reactions in 1957–58 , and in 1918–19 The CDC estimates that as of May 18 this year approximately ninety thousand Americans have died of COVID-19 .
Adjusted for population size , that comes out to a mortality rate of 272 per million .
This is ( so far ) less than half the mortality rate for the 1957–58 flu pandemic .
In that pandemic , it is estimated that as many as 116,000 Americans died .
Yet , the US population was much smaller then , totaling only 175 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a result of the “ Asian flu ” pandemic of 1957–58 was more than 660 per million .
That ’ s the equivalent of 220,000 deaths in the United States today .
Yet , Americans in 1957 did not respond by shutting down commerce , forcing people into “ lockdown , ” or driving unemployment up to Depression-era levels .
In fact , reports show that Americans took little action beyond the usual measures involved in trying to slow the spread of disease : hand washing , staying home when ill , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have been a factor in the 1958 recession , the economic effects were miniscule compared to what the US now faces from the reaction to the COVID-19 virus .
This suggests that most of the economic damage now being experienced by workers and households in the US is more a product of the policy reaction to the virus than to the virus itself .
Master Lock 265D Door ... Best Price : $ 19.28 Buy New $ 19.28 The pandemic of 1957–58 was a serious and deadly problem for many .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spread , it became clear to many scientists and other observers that there was something different and deadly about this flu .
Indeed , according to D.A .
Henderson , et al in “ Public Health and Medical Responses to the 1957–58 Influenza Pandemic , “ Humans under 65 possessed no immunity to this H2N2 strain.
” This meant that the “ highest attack rates were in school-age children through young adults up to 35 or 40 years of age.
” Total deaths due to the flu over this period range from 70,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concern , to say the least .
With younger Americans , many of them in prime working age , susceptible to the disease , one could anticipate significant costs in terms of economic growth and health .
What was the policy reaction to this ?
Henderson et al .
continue : In 1957–58 , there was concern over the availability of medical services .
But the emphasis then was on increasing medical services rather than state-enforced quarantines and “ social distancing ” measures .
Nor did a vaccine offer an easy way out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absent students and workers , but absenteeism at schools was a larger factor , with some schools even closed for short periods as a result of so many missing students .
Absenteeism did not rise to the level of causing shortages : GE Personal Security W ... Best Price : $ 8.56 Buy New $ 8.99 Overall , the economy declined by approximately 2 percent during both the first and second quarter of 1958 , but this could not all be attributed to the effects of the virus .
Unemployment at the time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during July 1958 .
Economic growth was positive again , however , by the fourth quarter of 1958 and had soared to over 9 percent growth in 1959 .
Unemployment had fallen to 5 percent by June of 1959 .
But the overall economic impact of the virus itself was hardly disastrous .
Henderson , et al conclude : The 1918–19 pandemic , which caused an astounding ten times as many deaths per million as the 1957–58 pandemic , also failed to produce economic disaster .
Although the US entered the 1918–19 pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Great War , according to economists Efraim Benmelech and Carola Frydman , Nor can the pandemic be blamed for the 1921 recession , because “ by then the decline in output had all to do with a collapse in commodity prices when post-war European production finally recovered.
” SABRE HS-DSA Wedge Doo ... Buy New $ 10.45 ( $ 10.45 / ct ) Not surprisingly , then , we find relatively mild estimates in a 2009 World Bank report estimating the economic consequences of new pandemics .
The authors concluded that moderate and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 2–5 percent .
Or , as a 2009 Reuters report summarized it : Not even a 1918-sized pandemic was expected to produce the sort of economic carnage we now see from COVID-19 .
Needless to say , the economy today appears to be in far worse shape in the wake of the 2020 pandemic than in the days following the 1957–58 outbreak , or even in 1919 .
As of April 2020 , the unemployment rate has ballooned to 14.4 percent , the highest rate recorded since the Great Depression .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a drop in GDP of more than 40 percent .
More mild estimates suggest drops of 8 to 15 percent .
If the milder predictions prove true , then the current downtown is “ only ” the worst since the Great Depression .
If the Atlanta Fed is right , then we ’ re in an unprecedented economic disaster .
The World Bank ’ s estimates of even a “ severe ” pandemic , which predicted a GDP drop of around 5 percent , don ’ t even come close to the estimates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should they ?
The World Bank report didn ’ t anticipate the global economic shutdown imposed on billions of human beings by the world ’ s regimes .
Thus , the bank ’ s estimates assumed that economic losses would be limited to absenteeism , disrupted trade and travel , and declining demand due directly to disease or fear of disease .
So why the enormous difference in economic effects ?
The answer almost certainly lies in the fact that governments in 2020—unlike in any other period in American history—engaged in widespread business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other state-mandated and state-enforced actions that led to widespread layoffs and plummeting economic output .
Defenders of government-coerced “ lockdowns ” have insisted that fear of the virus would have destroyed the economy even without lockdowns , but there is no historical precedent for this claim , and no current evidence to support it .
Although some survey data has been proffered to suggest that more than 60 percent of Americans say they plan to comply with stay-at-home orders , this merely tells us how people make plans when threatened with fines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures .
In reality , the experience of the 1957–58 pandemic—or even the 1918–19 pandemic—gives us no reason to believe that joblessness should be increasing at unprecedented rates and that GDP would collapse by catastrophic levels .
In a modern industrialized economy , that sort of economic damage is only achievable through government intervention , such as socialist coups , wars , and forced economic shutdowns in the name of combating disease .
The cost in terms of human life will be significant .
One study contends that the current economic downturn could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ despair.
” This is not shocking , however , since the fatal effects of unemployment and economic decline have been known for decades .
Defenders of lockdowns will likely continue to claim that “ we have no choice ” but to continue lockdowns for long periods of time .
At the very least , many claim that the lockdowns until now have been “ worth it.
” Yet the efficacy of lockdowns remains an open question , and has hardly been proven .
Meanwhile , the world faces the worst economic disaster experienced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to be this way .
For example , Politico this week quotes an economist who says the disease itself is the cause of the economic downturn .
“ The economic story really isn ’ t about lockdowns , and we ’ re going to make mistakes by pursuing that narrative .
It really is about the disease.
” Note : The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute .
The Best of Ryan McMaken

Media pundits and politicians are now in the habit of claiming it was the pandemic itself that has caused unemployment to skyrocket and economic growth to plummet. The claim is that sick and dying workers, fearful consumers, and disrupted supply chains would cause economic chaos. Some have even claimed that economic shutdowns actually help the economy, because it is claimed allowing the spread of the disease will itself destroy employment and economic growth.
Leaving aside the fact there’s no evidence lockdowns actually work, we can nonetheless look to past pandemics—where coercive government interventions were at most sporadic—we should see immense economic damage. Specifically, we can look to the the pandemic of 1957-58, which was more deadly than the COVID-19 pandemic has been so far. We can also look to the 1918-19 pandemic. Yet, we will see that neither produced economic damage on a scale we now see as a result of the government mandated lockdowns. This thoroughly undermines the claims that the lockdowns are only a minor factor in economic destruction, and that the virus itself is the real culprit. Addalock - (1 Piece ) ... Buy New $17.95 (as of 05:20 UTC - Details)
Economic Reactions in 1957–58, and in 1918–19
The CDC estimates that as of May 18 this year approximately ninety thousand Americans have died of COVID-19. Adjusted for population size, that comes out to a mortality rate of 272 per million.
This is (so far) less than half the mortality rate for the 1957–58 flu pandemic. In that pandemic, it is estimated that as many as 116,000 Americans died. Yet, the US population was much smaller then, totaling only 175 million. Adjusted for population size, mortality as a result of the “Asian flu” pandemic of 1957–58 was more than 660 per million.
That’s the equivalent of 220,000 deaths in the United States today.
Yet, Americans in 1957 did not respond by shutting down commerce, forcing people into “lockdown,” or driving unemployment up to Depression-era levels. In fact, reports show that Americans took little action beyond the usual measures involved in trying to slow the spread of disease: hand washing, staying home when ill, etc.
Although the virus does appear to have been a factor in the 1958 recession, the economic effects were miniscule compared to what the US now faces from the reaction to the COVID-19 virus. This suggests that most of the economic damage now being experienced by workers and households in the US is more a product of the policy reaction to the virus than to the virus itself.
Master Lock 265D Door ... Best Price: $19.28 Buy New $19.28 (as of 09:35 UTC - Details) The pandemic of 1957–58 was a serious and deadly problem for many. As cases of the Asian flu began to spread, it became clear to many scientists and other observers that there was something different and deadly about this flu. Indeed, according to D.A. Henderson, et al in “Public Health and Medical Responses to the 1957–58 Influenza Pandemic, “Humans under 65 possessed no immunity to this H2N2 strain.” This meant that the “highest attack rates were in school-age children through young adults up to 35 or 40 years of age.” Total deaths due to the flu over this period range from 70,000 to 116,000. This is cause for concern, to say the least. With younger Americans, many of them in prime working age, susceptible to the disease, one could anticipate significant costs in terms of economic growth and health.
What was the policy reaction to this? Henderson et al. continue:
The 1957–58 pandemic was such a rapidly spreading disease that it became quickly apparent to U.S. health ofﬁcials that efforts to stop or slow its spread were futile. Thus, no efforts were made to quarantine individuals or groups, and a deliberate decision was made not to cancel or postpone large meetings such as conferences, church gatherings, or athletic events for the purpose of reducing transmission. No attempt was made to limit travel or to otherwise screen travelers. Emphasis was placed on providing medical care to those who were afﬂicted and on sustaining the continued functioning of community and health services….there were no reports that major events were canceled or postponed except for high school and college football games, which were often delayed because of the number of players afﬂicted.
In 1957–58, there was concern over the availability of medical services. But the emphasis then was on increasing medical services rather than state-enforced quarantines and “social distancing” measures. Nor did a vaccine offer an easy way out:
Health officers had hopes that significant supplies of vaccine might become available in due time, and special efforts were made to speed the production of vaccine, but the quantities that became available were too late to affect the impact of the epidemic.
Schools and workplaces were affected by absent students and workers, but absenteeism at schools was a larger factor, with some schools even closed for short periods as a result of so many missing students. Absenteeism did not rise to the level of causing shortages: GE Personal Security W... Best Price: $8.56 Buy New $8.99 (as of 10:30 UTC - Details)
Available data on industrial absenteeism indicate that the rates were low and that there was no interruption of essential services or production. The overall impact on GDP was negligible and likely within the range of normal economic variation.
Overall, the economy declined by approximately 2 percent during both the first and second quarter of 1958, but this could not all be attributed to the effects of the virus. Unemployment at the time also surged, peaking at 7.5 percent during July 1958. Economic growth was positive again, however, by the fourth quarter of 1958 and had soared to over 9 percent growth in 1959. Unemployment had fallen to 5 percent by June of 1959.
But the overall economic impact of the virus itself was hardly disastrous. Henderson, et al conclude:
Despite the large numbers of cases, the 1957 outbreak did not appear to have a significant impact on the U.S. economy. For example, a Congressional Budget Office estimate found that a pandemic the scale of which occurred in 1957 would reduce real GDP by approximately 1% ‘‘but probably would not cause a recession and might not be distinguishable from the normal variation in economic activity.’’
The 1918–19 pandemic, which caused an astounding ten times as many deaths per million as the 1957–58 pandemic, also failed to produce economic disaster. Although the US entered the 1918–19 pandemic in poor economic shape thanks to the Great War, according to economists Efraim Benmelech and Carola Frydman,
The Spanish flu left almost no discernible mark on the aggregate US economy….According to some estimates, real gross national product actually grew in 1919, albeit by a modest 1% (Romer 1988). In new work, Velde (2020) shows that most indicators of aggregate economic activity suffered modestly, and those that did decline more significantly right after the influenza outbreak, like industrial output, recovered within months.
Nor can the pandemic be blamed for the 1921 recession, because “by then the decline in output had all to do with a collapse in commodity prices when post-war European production finally recovered.” SABRE HS-DSA Wedge Doo... Buy New $10.45 ($10.45 / ct) (as of 05:20 UTC - Details)
How Do Pandemics Affect Economic Growth?
Not surprisingly, then, we find relatively mild estimates in a 2009 World Bank report estimating the economic consequences of new pandemics. The authors concluded that moderate and severe pandemics would lead to GDP declines of 2–5 percent. Or, as a 2009 Reuters report summarized it:
If we get hit with something like the 1957 Asian flu, say goodbye to 2 percent of GDP. Something as bad as the 1918–19 Spanish flu would cut the world’s economic output by 4.8 percent and cost more than $3 trillion.
Not even a 1918-sized pandemic was expected to produce the sort of economic carnage we now see from COVID-19.
The Reaction in 2020
Needless to say, the economy today appears to be in far worse shape in the wake of the 2020 pandemic than in the days following the 1957–58 outbreak, or even in 1919.
As of April 2020, the unemployment rate has ballooned to 14.4 percent, the highest rate recorded since the Great Depression. The Atlanta Federal Reserve, meanwhile, forecasts a drop in GDP of more than 40 percent. More mild estimates suggest drops of 8 to 15 percent. If the milder predictions prove true, then the current downtown is “only” the worst since the Great Depression. If the Atlanta Fed is right, then we’re in an unprecedented economic disaster.
The World Bank’s estimates of even a “severe” pandemic, which predicted a GDP drop of around 5 percent, don’t even come close to the estimates for the 2020 collapse. And why should they? The World Bank report didn’t anticipate the global economic shutdown imposed on billions of human beings by the world’s regimes. Thus, the bank’s estimates assumed that economic losses would be limited to absenteeism, disrupted trade and travel, and declining demand due directly to disease or fear of disease.
So why the enormous difference in economic effects? The answer almost certainly lies in the fact that governments in 2020—unlike in any other period in American history—engaged in widespread business closures, “stay-at-home” orders, and other state-mandated and state-enforced actions that led to widespread layoffs and plummeting economic output.
Defenders of government-coerced “lockdowns” have insisted that fear of the virus would have destroyed the economy even without lockdowns, but there is no historical precedent for this claim, and no current evidence to support it. Although some survey data has been proffered to suggest that more than 60 percent of Americans say they plan to comply with stay-at-home orders, this merely tells us how people make plans when threatened with fines, police harassment, and other coercive measures.
In reality, the experience of the 1957–58 pandemic—or even the 1918–19 pandemic—gives us no reason to believe that joblessness should be increasing at unprecedented rates and that GDP would collapse by catastrophic levels. In a modern industrialized economy, that sort of economic damage is only achievable through government intervention, such as socialist coups, wars, and forced economic shutdowns in the name of combating disease.
The cost in terms of human life will be significant. One study contends that the current economic downturn could lead to seventy-five thousand “deaths of despair.” This is not shocking, however, since the fatal effects of unemployment and economic decline have been known for decades.
Defenders of lockdowns will likely continue to claim that “we have no choice” but to continue lockdowns for long periods of time. At the very least, many claim that the lockdowns until now have been “worth it.” Yet the efficacy of lockdowns remains an open question, and has hardly been proven. Meanwhile, the world faces the worst economic disaster experienced in centuries. It didn’t have to be this way.
—
For example, Politico this week quotes an economist who says the disease itself is the cause of the economic downturn. “The economic story really isn’t about lockdowns, and we’re going to make mistakes by pursuing that narrative. It really is about the disease.”
Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.
The Best of Ryan McMaken


lewrockwell--2020-05-25--The Economic Outcomes of the Coronavirus

Editor ’ s note : Last week , our founder , Doug Casey , shared why he believes the coronavirus is a “ manufactured scam ” … and how the feds will use it to avoid blame for the coming Greater Depression .
Today , as promised , we ’ re sharing part two of this Conversations With Casey .
Read on below to hear Doug ’ s thoughts on the true consequences of this pandemic… and what he considers the only solution that could restore some normalcy .
Daily Dispatch : Doug , what will be the true economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ especially does it mean for the people within the economy ?
Doug Casey : Well look , first of all , there ’ s less real wealth being created across the board because nobody is working .
And a lot of real wealth is actually being destroyed , with farmers breaking eggs , slaughtering livestock , and plowing under vegetables .
Mines and factories are shut down .
It ’ s supposed to be a consumer service economy , but services have been hit even worse .
Confiscation Ferguson , Kenneth R. Best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10.00 Real wealth is not being created and lots of wealth is being actively destroyed .
That ’ s going to reduce the amount of real wealth in the world at the same time as the amount of purchasing media ( money in circulation ) goes up .
So this is going to be inflationary in the longer run .
But it could turn into a deflation , if there are too many bankruptcies , bond defaults , a stock market collapse , and the like .
But the State fears a deflation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by printing money .
At the same time , we ’ ll see different effects in different parts of the economy .
Let ’ s say that people , since they ’ re now poorer , can ’ t afford to eat as much beef ; there will be less demand for beef .
But they still have to eat .
What are they going to eat ?
Maybe they ’ ll buy more rice and beans .
So during a boom , the price of beef goes up , and the price @ @ @ @ @ @ @ During a bust , the exact opposite happens .
That ’ s just one example .
There are similar things across the economy where that ’ s happening .
In the end , however , the Greater Depression will be highly inflationary , because the amount of purchasing media is going way , way up .
Retail prices are bound to reflect that because there ’ s less real wealth for that money to chase after .
Unlike in 2008 , not all that money will go into the stock market this time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the retail level .
You ’ ve got to remember that during the 1970s , the U.S. had what it called “ bad inflation , ” where retail prices went up and financial asset prices went down .
We ’ ve had “ good inflation ” for the last 20 years , where financial prices went up and retail prices were comparatively level .
I think we ’ re going to go back to “ bad ” inflation , with retail prices going way up .
But the key is that the average @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going down a lot .
The natives are going to get restless .
They ’ re going to get especially restless because they see the government as a cornucopia .
But the government ’ s bankrupt .
All they can do is print up money .
Let ’ s see , rough numbers – $ 2.2 trillion divided by 300 million Americans equals about $ 7,500 for every man , woman , and child .
It ’ s going to be like Argentina .
Except here , the corporations get almost all that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s also what happens in Argentina .
Fascism is wonderful for the ruling elite everywhere .
American Default : The ... Edwards , Sebastian Best Price : $ 24.00 Buy New $ 12.11 Daily Dispatch : I see .
On that subject , and maybe this is an impossible question to answer , but is it easier for the State to print money and create inflation today than it was 30 , 50 , or 100 years ago ?
And does the way that people use money today have any effect on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago , people used physical money .
They had notes or coins , and so they could see the devaluation of it .
But now people just use cards to pay .
It ’ s harder to see the devaluation of money .
Doug Casey : Sure .
It ’ s going to be much easier for them to destroy the currency now .
In those days , most people didn ’ t even have a bank account , and everybody used actual gold and silver for money .
That ’ s one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an entirely digital currency .
Perhaps they ’ ll give everyone a free smart phone to access it .
Absolutely everybody will have a digital currency account number .
The government will be in complete control .
Traditional cash is on its way out .
Quite amazing really .
The government will know what ’ s bought , what ’ s sold , and what you own .
They ’ ll be able to debit and credit your account just by a computer stroke .
A phone will amount to an ankle bracelet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The trend is very much in motion .
The world is coming to resemble a dystopian sci-fi novel much more than even a bizarre conspiracy theory .
Daily Dispatch : In that case , could you see U.S. or Western governments doing something similar to what India did a couple of years ago ?
The Indian government just cancelled a whole bunch of their notes .
If people held them after the cut-off date , they were worthless .
Doug Casey : Yes , the Modi government in India got rid of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of millions of savers , and they got away with it .
The Indians are so slavish that somebody with his life savings in rupee notes could be wiped out all of a sudden , and there ’ s not a whimper .
They should have rioted , burned down all the government buildings , and crucified the people in them .
But not a peep of protest .
Americans are better .
But not by much .
Because most of the poor in India don ’ t have bank accounts , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But they ’ re so used to being treated like stray dogs there wasn ’ t a revolution .
I guess it will be like that in the U.S. , too .
The spirit of the 21st century , its zeitgeist , is strangely placid , docile , and sheep-like .
Everywhere .
No Cash Accepted Door ... Buy New $ 12.95 Daily Dispatch : And what about the chances of another gold confiscation ?
Is that possible , or do you think gold is so irrelevant to most people now that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it ’ s a waste of time ?
So few people actually own gold .
There would be no point in confiscating it .
Doug Casey : That ’ s a good question .
I ’ d say anything can happen today .
Current events resemble science fiction .
You can make up any scenario .
It ’ s all possible .
Who guessed every city in the world would look post-apocalyptic , even a few months ago ?
The idea has been floated of a guaranteed annual income that everybody gets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve discussed that before .
It ’ s a criminal idea , as well as a total catastrophe .
But probably another thing that ’ s going to come out of this .
I ’ ve actually heard it proposed that the income tax should be abolished – which is a very good idea , incidentally , although not for the reasons they propose .
They ’ re thinking of doing so with Modern Monetary Theory .
“ Why not just print the money ?
” It makes a kind of sense , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s being created now totally overwhelms the income tax receipts anyway .
Right now , the lid is still on the pressure cooker , because the economy is locked down .
The question is , what ’ s it going to be like when the lid comes off , and people can go out , wander around , and drive around ?
And they don ’ t have jobs ?
Their jobs have disappeared , their business is out of business , and a lot of those jobs and businesses just aren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ credit card debt , student loan debt , mortgage debt , and their rent payments still exist .
Those won ’ t go away .
The debt will eventually , as the dollar is destroyed .
But then you just destroy someone else ’ s asset when you destroy a debtor ’ s liability .
That ’ s very serious .
The stuff of class warfare .
This is a real conundrum .
How do you get out of this ?
Well , as I said before , you have to abolish government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by 50 % to start , bring the troops home , abolish the Fed , etc.
, etc .
But that ’ s the last thing that ’ s going to happen .
Forget about that .
I ’ m afraid that the only thing that ’ ll work is the only thing that ’ s absolutely not going to happen .
Your Money or Your Lif ... Sheldon Richman Best Price : $ 5.99 Buy New $ 9.24 Daily Dispatch : That ’ s right .
But they will eventually want people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does that mean it ’ s vaccines all round ?
Doug Casey : Possibly .
In fact , probably .
It appears that something like 60 % of the U.S. population wants the lockdown to continue until they can be assured the virus is gone .
And that means they want to wait until the government approves a vaccine .
But it ’ s even worse than that .
When the vaccine comes out , because of what a disaster this has all been , they ’ ll undoubtedly make it obligatory .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ goofy and unnecessary vaccine .
Besides , the knock-on effects of this hysteria are just going to be catastrophic .
We ’ re already seeing the next stages of the “ surveillance state.
” Police forces are testing drones that can scan for people ’ s temperature at a distance .
In Dubai , they were doing compulsory blood tests before people could get on flights to leave the country .
So , again , anything ’ s possible .
When this is all done , you ’ ll end up having to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chip , if you want to go anywhere , to show that you ’ ve had the vaccine .
If you don ’ t show it , they won ’ t let you fly .
That ’ s the way things are going .
Anyway , I ’ ll sign off this interview the same way I did the last one .
I ’ m not going to say anything stupid and unnecessary like “ stay safe.
” I ’ m sick of people whimpering “ stay safe ” while they huddle , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing as they ’ re told during this hysteria .
But do have a good day .
Daily Dispatch : Thank you , Doug .
You too .
The Best of Doug Casey

Editor’s note: Last week, our founder, Doug Casey, shared why he believes the coronavirus is a “manufactured scam”… and how the feds will use it to avoid blame for the coming Greater Depression.
Today, as promised, we’re sharing part two of this Conversations With Casey. Read on below to hear Doug’s thoughts on the true consequences of this pandemic… and what he considers the only solution that could restore some normalcy.
Daily Dispatch: Doug, what will be the true economic outcome from the pandemic? And what especially does it mean for the people within the economy?
Doug Casey: Well look, first of all, there’s less real wealth being created across the board because nobody is working. And a lot of real wealth is actually being destroyed, with farmers breaking eggs, slaughtering livestock, and plowing under vegetables. Mines and factories are shut down. It’s supposed to be a consumer service economy, but services have been hit even worse. Confiscation Ferguson, Kenneth R. Best Price: $12.73 Buy New $10.00 (as of 05:21 UTC - Details)
Real wealth is not being created and lots of wealth is being actively destroyed.
That’s going to reduce the amount of real wealth in the world at the same time as the amount of purchasing media (money in circulation) goes up. So this is going to be inflationary in the longer run. But it could turn into a deflation, if there are too many bankruptcies, bond defaults, a stock market collapse, and the like. But the State fears a deflation and will fight it at all costs by printing money.
At the same time, we’ll see different effects in different parts of the economy.
Let’s say that people, since they’re now poorer, can’t afford to eat as much beef; there will be less demand for beef. But they still have to eat. What are they going to eat? Maybe they’ll buy more rice and beans. So during a boom, the price of beef goes up, and the price of rice and beans goes down. During a bust, the exact opposite happens.
That’s just one example. There are similar things across the economy where that’s happening. In the end, however, the Greater Depression will be highly inflationary, because the amount of purchasing media is going way, way up. Retail prices are bound to reflect that because there’s less real wealth for that money to chase after.
Unlike in 2008, not all that money will go into the stock market this time. A lot will filter down to the retail level. You’ve got to remember that during the 1970s, the U.S. had what it called “bad inflation,” where retail prices went up and financial asset prices went down.
We’ve had “good inflation” for the last 20 years, where financial prices went up and retail prices were comparatively level. I think we’re going to go back to “bad” inflation, with retail prices going way up. But the key is that the average guy’s standard of living is going down a lot. The natives are going to get restless.
They’re going to get especially restless because they see the government as a cornucopia. But the government’s bankrupt. All they can do is print up money. Let’s see, rough numbers – $2.2 trillion divided by 300 million Americans equals about $7,500 for every man, woman, and child. It’s going to be like Argentina. Except here, the corporations get almost all that money. Hmm… strike that, it’s also what happens in Argentina. Fascism is wonderful for the ruling elite everywhere. American Default: The ... Edwards, Sebastian Best Price: $24.00 Buy New $12.11 (as of 05:21 UTC - Details)
Daily Dispatch: I see. On that subject, and maybe this is an impossible question to answer, but is it easier for the State to print money and create inflation today than it was 30, 50, or 100 years ago? And does the way that people use money today have any effect on that? For instance, 100 years ago, people used physical money. They had notes or coins, and so they could see the devaluation of it. But now people just use cards to pay. It’s harder to see the devaluation of money.
Doug Casey: Sure. It’s going to be much easier for them to destroy the currency now. In those days, most people didn’t even have a bank account, and everybody used actual gold and silver for money. That’s one reason the State wants to move to an entirely digital currency. Perhaps they’ll give everyone a free smart phone to access it. Absolutely everybody will have a digital currency account number. The government will be in complete control. Traditional cash is on its way out. Quite amazing really.
The government will know what’s bought, what’s sold, and what you own. They’ll be able to debit and credit your account just by a computer stroke. A phone will amount to an ankle bracelet, the kind they give to prisoners.
The trend is very much in motion. The world is coming to resemble a dystopian sci-fi novel much more than even a bizarre conspiracy theory.
Daily Dispatch: In that case, could you see U.S. or Western governments doing something similar to what India did a couple of years ago? The Indian government just cancelled a whole bunch of their notes. If people held them after the cut-off date, they were worthless.
Doug Casey: Yes, the Modi government in India got rid of most of the currency, impoverishing tens of millions of savers, and they got away with it. The Indians are so slavish that somebody with his life savings in rupee notes could be wiped out all of a sudden, and there’s not a whimper. They should have rioted, burned down all the government buildings, and crucified the people in them. But not a peep of protest. Americans are better. But not by much.
Because most of the poor in India don’t have bank accounts, they were the ones who suffered the most. But they’re so used to being treated like stray dogs there wasn’t a revolution. I guess it will be like that in the U.S., too. The spirit of the 21st century, its zeitgeist, is strangely placid, docile, and sheep-like. Everywhere. No Cash Accepted Door ... Buy New $12.95 (as of 05:21 UTC - Details)
Daily Dispatch: And what about the chances of another gold confiscation? Is that possible, or do you think gold is so irrelevant to most people now that they wouldn’t even bother, that it’s a waste of time? So few people actually own gold. There would be no point in confiscating it.
Doug Casey: That’s a good question. I’d say anything can happen today. Current events resemble science fiction. You can make up any scenario. It’s all possible. Who guessed every city in the world would look post-apocalyptic, even a few months ago?
The idea has been floated of a guaranteed annual income that everybody gets, just for existing. I’ve discussed that before. It’s a criminal idea, as well as a total catastrophe. But probably another thing that’s going to come out of this.
I’ve actually heard it proposed that the income tax should be abolished – which is a very good idea, incidentally, although not for the reasons they propose. They’re thinking of doing so with Modern Monetary Theory. “Why not just print the money?” It makes a kind of sense, actually, because the amount that’s being created now totally overwhelms the income tax receipts anyway.
Right now, the lid is still on the pressure cooker, because the economy is locked down. The question is, what’s it going to be like when the lid comes off, and people can go out, wander around, and drive around? And they don’t have jobs? Their jobs have disappeared, their business is out of business, and a lot of those jobs and businesses just aren’t coming back.
However, their credit card debt, student loan debt, mortgage debt, and their rent payments still exist. Those won’t go away. The debt will eventually, as the dollar is destroyed. But then you just destroy someone else’s asset when you destroy a debtor’s liability. That’s very serious. The stuff of class warfare.
This is a real conundrum. How do you get out of this? Well, as I said before, you have to abolish government agencies, cut government spending and taxes by 50% to start, bring the troops home, abolish the Fed, etc., etc. But that’s the last thing that’s going to happen. Forget about that.
I’m afraid that the only thing that’ll work is the only thing that’s absolutely not going to happen. Your Money or Your Lif... Sheldon Richman Best Price: $5.99 Buy New $9.24 (as of 05:21 UTC - Details)
Daily Dispatch: That’s right. But they will eventually want people to go back to work. So does that mean it’s vaccines all round?
Doug Casey: Possibly. In fact, probably. It appears that something like 60% of the U.S. population wants the lockdown to continue until they can be assured the virus is gone. And that means they want to wait until the government approves a vaccine.
But it’s even worse than that. When the vaccine comes out, because of what a disaster this has all been, they’ll undoubtedly make it obligatory. I have no desire to take their goofy and unnecessary vaccine. Besides, the knock-on effects of this hysteria are just going to be catastrophic.
We’re already seeing the next stages of the “surveillance state.” Police forces are testing drones that can scan for people’s temperature at a distance. In Dubai, they were doing compulsory blood tests before people could get on flights to leave the country.
So, again, anything’s possible. When this is all done, you’ll end up having to carry a certificate, or an embedded chip, if you want to go anywhere, to show that you’ve had the vaccine. If you don’t show it, they won’t let you fly. That’s the way things are going.
Anyway, I’ll sign off this interview the same way I did the last one. I’m not going to say anything stupid and unnecessary like “stay safe.” I’m sick of people whimpering “stay safe” while they huddle, sheltering in place like whipped dogs, doing as they’re told during this hysteria.
But do have a good day.
Daily Dispatch: Thank you, Doug. You too.
Reprinted with permission from Casey Research.
The Best of Doug Casey


lewrockwell--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 ?
Nano Comes to Life : Ho ... Contera , Sonia Best Price : $ 12.50 Buy New $ 14.67 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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… ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many brains with one another .
Same basic feelings , same impulses—shared .
Smart Cities : Introduc ... Maximilian Palmiu00e9 Best Price : $ 22.50 Buy New $ 24.15 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up to the 5G Internet of Things .
AIDS Inc. Rappoport , Jon Best Price : $ 33.29 Buy New $ 18.89 —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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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.
” Smart Cities : Big Data ... Townsend , Anthony M. Best Price : $ 2.46 Buy New $ 12.34 I ’ d say that ’ s a pretty big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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.
” How did US-China relations get to this point ?
At one time , it appeared the two governments were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the table .
The Best of Jon Rappoport

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? Nano Comes to Life: Ho... Contera, Sonia Best Price: $12.50 Buy New $14.67 (as of 06:20 UTC - Details)
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. Smart Cities: Introduc... Maximilian Palmiu00e9 Best Price: $22.50 Buy New $24.15 (as of 06:20 UTC - Details)
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. AIDS Inc. Rappoport, Jon Best Price: $33.29 Buy New $18.89 (as of 03:34 UTC - Details)
—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.” Smart Cities: Big Data... Townsend, Anthony M. Best Price: $2.46 Buy New $12.34 (as of 06:20 UTC - Details)
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
Reprinted with permission from Jon Rappoport’s blog.
The Best of Jon Rappoport