Category: Dr. Mercola’s Censored Library

• At the World Economic Forum (WEF) 2023 annual meeting, countering misinformation is a key agenda

• WEF claims a “wide range of actors with access to sophisticated technology and weaponry, as well as an ever-increasing capacity to spread misinformation” are a threat

• WEF hasn’t defined the misinformation it’s targeting, but it likely includes criticism of the WEF and challenges to mainstream COVID-19 narratives

• In 2022, WEF held Sustainable Development Impact Meetings that also featured panels on “tackling disinformation”

• Among the participants were the United Nations, which noted it had partnered with Big Tech giants like Google and TikTok to censor the narrative on environmental issues and COVID-19

The World Economic Forum (WEF) rings in the New Year with its annual meeting, held in Davos, Switzerland, each January. The meeting “will convene leaders from government, business and civil society to address the state of the world and discuss priorities for the year ahead,” according to WEF.

In 2023, the theme is “cooperation in a fragmented world,” with WEF noting, “The world today is at a critical inflection point. The sheer number of ongoing crises calls for bold collective action.”

What will this bold collective action entail? A key theme being discussed at one of its sessions is countering “misinformation,”

also known as silencing and censoring any and all opposition.

WEF is an unelected global organization with self-appointed leaders. How it intends to define the misinformation it’s targeting as one of its key 2023 initiatives is unknown, but it’s dubbed the “cumulative ‘threats’ black swan events.” In a description for its Countering Threats in the Age of Black Swans session, it’s noted:

“As black swan events proliferate, threats that were once considered outliers are becoming commonplace. This is compounded by a wide range of actors with access to sophisticated technology and weaponry, as well as an ever-increasing capacity to spread misinformation. How can we begin to predict the unpredictable in mitigating and countering security threats from black swan events?”

In December 2022, WEF already started damage control for its Davos meeting, stating in a separate post that it has “weathered criticism as a gathering of elites and in recent years the Forum has been targeted by disinformation campaigns.”

As Reclaim the Net noted, this suggests the “group deems criticism of the WEF and challenging mainstream Covid-19 narratives to be misinformation.”

It’s well-known fact that the world’s elite hop into their private jets and descend upon Davos, Switzerland, the highest town in the country,

known for its luxury ski resorts, in order to attend WEF’s annual meeting, also known simply as the Davos Forum or just Davos.

To even attend the WEF annual meeting, you must be privately invited or a member of WEF, which costs $65,000 to $650,000.

The attendance badge for the meeting is extra and cost another $27,000 — in 2020 — just to get entrance to the conference.

So who’s in attendance? As comedian JP Sears put it in 2022:

“You’ll be excited to hear that the lineup of World Economic Forum’s speakers at their annual gathering of elites in Davos included such benevolent humanitarians like Xi Jinping, the leader of the Chinese Communist Party, who’s currently committing genocide, and Tony Fauci, who’s arguably involved in crimes against humanity, and Bill Gates, who’s arguably involved in crimes against humanity, and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who’s arguably currently involved in crimes against humanity. What a great line up!”

The irony of the world’s elite flying in on their private jets to discuss sustainability is an open target for criticism. In 2018, for instance, more than 1,000 private jets and helicopters similarly made their way to Davos, and in 2017, an estimated 200 private flights landed in the city each day during the event.

By 2050, it’s estimated that aviation will contribute 22% of global carbon emissions. Still, in 2019, more than 600 private planes arrived at the Davos Forum, and that doesn’t include the military planes that transported an additional 60 presidents and prime ministers.

In 2020, a “steady stream” of private planes again chauffeured the elite to Davos.

But we needn’t worry about this indulgence of the upper classes at the expense of the environment, according to WEF. “Offering little self-awareness, leaders of the WEF claim that the jet-set class promises to purchase carbon credits to offset the emissions from their planes,” Forbes noted.

This is yet another strategy of the technocratic elite to set up a new wave of colonization in the name of sustainability and “net zero” carbon emissions — but, if WEF has anything to say about it, they’ll label this as misinformation and wipe it clean off the net.

Klaus Schwab, owner and chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF), is the personification of the Great Reset — the ultimate goal of which is to do away with the democratic process and give all ownership and control to the deep state — and the technocratic elite who control it. Sears dubbed him among the most dangerous people in the world.

WEF operates via fearmongering — about disease and environmental catastrophes, for starters. When the population is controlled by fear, it welcomes authoritarian “protections” like increased censorship, surveillance and digital identity systems, introduced under the guise of safety, but which ultimately remove personal autonomy and freedom.

In fact, Schwab wrote, “One of the greatest lessons of the past five centuries in Europe and America is this: Acute crisis contributes to boosting the power of the state. It’s always been the case, and there is no reason why it should be different with the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Remember, nobody elected Schwab to any government position, but he’s behind the scenes pulling strings nonetheless.

WEF is one of the key players behind the Great Reset, with their “new normal” dictum that, by 2030, you will own nothing and be happy.

In such a scheme, the world’s resources will be owned and controlled by the technocratic elite. All items and resources are to be used by the collective, while actual ownership is restricted to an upper stratum of social class.

This isn’t a conspiracy theory; it’s part of WEF’s 2030 agenda.

Ida Auken is a member of parliament in Denmark. She’s also a graduate of WEF’s “Young Global Leaders” program,

which is essentially a five-year indoctrination into their principles, with a goal of creating world leaders who don’t answer to their people but to their bosses at WEF.

In 2016, Auken wrote a propaganda piece about how great life would be in 2030, when the elite take over everyone’s possessions and autonomy:

“Welcome to the year 2030. Welcome to my city – or should I say, “our city.” I don’t own anything. I don’t own a car. I don’t own a house. I don’t own any appliances or any clothes. It might seem odd to you, but it makes perfect sense for us in this city.

Everything you considered a product, has now become a service. We have access to transportation, accommodation, food and all the things we need in our daily lives. One by one all these things became free, so it ended up not making sense for us to own much.

… My biggest concern is all the people who do not live in our city. Those we lost on the way. Those who decided that it became too much, all this technology. Those who felt obsolete and useless when robots and AI took over big parts of our jobs. Those who got upset with the political system and turned against it. They live different kind of lives outside of the city.”

People were understandably alarmed when reading about WEF’s Orwellian plans, and now WEF is seeking to censor what it’s dubbed as misinformation surrounding its chilling “own nothing and be happy” rhetoric. As noted by Reclaim the Net:

“WEF complains that it has been targeted by ‘disinformation campaigns’ and links to another post

where its managing director, Adrian Monck, suggests that criticism of the WEF’s controversial ‘You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy’ slogan is tied to a ‘misinformation campaign.’

In addition to branding criticism of this slogan misinformation, Monck also laments ‘misinformation concerning COVID-19 and vaccines.’ Not only does Monck brand these topics misinformation but he also claims that ‘misinformation derails free speech’ and calls for ‘action to prevent lies being accepted as truth.’”

In 2022, WEF held Sustainable Development Impact Meetings that also featured panels on “tackling disinformation.” Among the participants were the United Nation’s Under-Secretary-General for global communications, Melissa Fleming, who noted that the UN had partnered with Big Tech giants like Google and TikTok to censor the narrative on environmental issues and COVID-19.

According to Fleming, the UN conducted a project called “Team Halo:”

“[W]e trained scientists around the world and some doctors on TikTok, and we had TikTok working with us. Another really key strategy we had was to deploy influencers … influencers who were really keen, who have huge followings, but really keen to help carry messages that were going to serve their communities, and they were much more trusted than the United Nations telling them something from New York City headquarters.”

WEF’s “Freedom of the Press Panel,” held in May 2022, also stressed the need for social media companies to be held accountable for algorithms that promote false information.

In August 2022, it also called for the use of AI to censor misinformation and ensure whatever it deems fits this definition never reaches the public. According to WEF:

“By uniquely combining the power of innovative technology, off-platform intelligence collection and the prowess of subject-matter experts who understand how threat actors operate, scaled detection of online abuse can reach near-perfect precision.

… By bringing human-curated, multi-language, off-platform intelligence into learning sets, AI will then be able to detect nuanced, novel abuses at scale, before they reach mainstream platforms.

Supplementing this smarter automated detection with human expertise to review edge cases and identify false positives and negatives and then feeding those findings back into training sets will allow us to create AI with human intelligence baked in … trust and safety teams can stop threats rising online before they reach users.”

The first step to breaking free from the “misinformation” dictatorship is recognizing that the manipulation is occurring. The next involves consciously opting out of it as much as possible. It’s especially important that children are protected, as they are among the most vulnerable to the onslaught of manipulation, which will have serious consequences to future generations.

It’s urgent that we all take steps to remain free, sovereign individuals, which can be as straightforward as being guided by your own critical thinking and what your heart and soul know is right, and choosing bravery over obedience.

Stay grounded in your local community and, when weeding through information in your own life, it’s important to dig deep enough to unveil what’s real, and what’s real misinformation.

>”,”action”:null,”class”:null}”>NEXT ARTICLE >>

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.

• Gates has used his staggering wealth to buy control, and he’s done it under the cloak of “charity.” A significant piece of that control is the control over population growth. Gates’ family also has a long history of supporting eugenics

• According to Gates, the global population could be lowered by 10% to 15% if we “do a really great job on new vaccines, health care [and] reproductive health services.” His theory is that as health improves, families opt to have fewer children

• In 2017, Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance — founded by the Gates Foundation in partnership with the WHO, the World Bank and vaccine manufacturers — decided to provide every child with a digital biometric identity to ensure 100% vaccine coverage

• Gates has also invested in the development and implementation of biometric identification programs tied in with digital currencies

• Ultimately, the plan is to connect everything together — our identity, finances, medical data, vaccine records and more — at which point we will be 100% enslaved

ℹ️ From Dr. Joseph Mercola

Since COVID-19 first entered the scene, exchange of ideas has basically been outlawed. By sharing my views and those from various experts throughout the pandemic on COVID treatments and the experimental COVID jabs, I became a main target of the White House, the political establishment and the global cabal.

Propaganda and pervasive censorship have been deployed to seize control over every part of your life, including your health, finances and food supply. The major media is a key player and has been instrumental in creating and fueling fear.

I am republishing this article in its original form so that you can see how the progression unfolded.

In “How Bill Gates Monopolized Global Health,” I featured Parts 1 and 2 of investigative journalist James Corbett’s report on this unelected global health czar.

Part 1 reviewed how Gates ended up in a position to monopolize global health, despite his lack of health or medical education. In Part 2, he laid out Gates’ plan to vaccinate the global population against COVID-19 (although there’s no reason to imagine the plan would remain limited to a single vaccine).

Here, in Parts 3 and 4, which you’ll find in the playlist above, Corbett dives into the motives, ideology and connections of Gates that appear to have shaped and are driving his post-COVID-19 plans for the world — plans that include an unprecedented campaign to control the global population in its totality, from cradle to grave.

As noted by Corbett, Gates has used his staggering wealth to buy control, and he’s done it under the cloak of “charity.” A significant piece of that control is the control over population growth.

Indeed, a meeting

in May 2009 between Sir Paul Nurse, then-president of Rockefeller University, Warren Buffet, David Rockefeller Jr., George Soros, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey, revolved around how these billionaires could use their wealth to curb population growth — without the input or interference of government agencies.

According to an article

in The Sunday Times, they met at the request of Gates to discuss “joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.” The article continues:

“Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, said the summit was unprecedented. ‘We only learnt about it afterwards, by accident. Normally these people are happy to talk good causes, but this is different — maybe because they don’t want to be seen as a global cabal,’ he said … Taking their cue from Gates they agreed that overpopulation was a priority …

Another guest said there was ‘nothing as crude as a vote’ but a consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat … ‘They need to be independent of government agencies, which are unable to head off the disaster we all see looming.’”

According to Gates, the global population could be lowered by 10% to 15% if we “do a really great job on new vaccines, health care [and] reproductive health services.” His theory is that “as health improves, families choose to have less children … As you improve health, within a half generation the population growth rate goes down.”

Alas, as Corbett notes,

“the idea of using vaccines as sterilization agents — even without the public’s knowledge or consent — is not conspiracy lore, but documentable fact.”

He points out an excerpt from the Rockefeller Foundation’s 1968 annual report

and five-year review, which under the heading “Problems of Population,” states that “very little work is in progress on immunological methods, such as vaccines, to reduce fertility, and much more research is required if a solution is to be found here.”

To address the problem, the Rockefeller Foundation vowed to solicit and fund “established and beginning investigators to turn their attention to aspects of research in reproductive biology that have implications for human fertility and its control.”

In 1972, the Rockefeller-funded Population Council joined forces with the World Health Organization, creating the Task Force on Vaccines for Fertility Regulation, and in 1995, the task force reported they had developed a prototype of an anti-hCG vaccine that would prevent women from carrying a baby to term.

In the early 1990s, “a series of scandals over WHO-led vaccination programs in the Third World led to allegations that tetanus vaccines in places like the Philippines

and Kenya

were being laced with hCG in order to implement population control by stealth,” Corbett says. The subsequent controversy chilled campaigns promoting population control via vaccines.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation revived the concept during its 2012 Summit on Family Planning in London, when it was announced the foundation will fund research, development and deployment of “injectable contraceptives,” aimed at the developing world.

“But the Gates were not content to stop there,” Corbett says. “In 2014 it was announced that Microchips Biotech, Inc., a company in Lexington, Massachusetts, had developed a new form of birth control: ‘a wireless implant that can be turned on and off with a remote control and that is designed to last up to 16 years.’

According to MIT Technology Review, the idea originated when Bill Gates visited Robert Langer’s MIT lab in 2012 and asked him if it would be possible to create an implantable birth control device that could be turned on or off remotely.

Langer referred Gates to the controlled release microchip technology he had invented and licensed to MicroCHIPS Biotechnology, and the Gates Foundation granted $20 million to the firm to develop the implants.

Reducing population growth has, by Gates’ own admission, been a core mission of the Gates Foundation since its inception. But in order to really understand what Gates means by ‘population control,’ we have to look beyond the concept of controlling population size. At its most fundamental level, the ‘population control’ that Gates speaks of is not birth control, but control of the population itself.”

Part 3 continues by reviewing the work of Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance, which was founded by the Gates Foundation in partnership with the WHO, the World Bank and various vaccine manufacturers.

In 2017, Gavi decided to provide every child with a digital biometric identity, which would simultaneously store the child’s vaccination records. Without such a system, a 100% immunization rate simply cannot be reached, Gavi CEO Seth Berkley stated.

Shortly thereafter, Gavi became a founding member of the ID2020 Alliance, alongside Microsoft and the Rockefeller Foundation. In 2019, Gates again collaborated with Langer to develop a novel vaccine delivery method using fluorescent microdot tags — essentially creating an invisible “tattoo” — that can then be read with a modified smartphone.

“It should be no surprise, then, that Big Pharma vaccine manufacturers — in their scramble to produce the coronavirus vaccine that, Gates assures us, is necessary to ‘go back to normal’ — have turned to a novel vaccine delivery method: a dissolvable microneedle array patch,” Corbett says.

“As in so many other aspects of the unfolding crisis, Gates’ unscientific pronouncement that we will need digital certificates to prove our immunity in the ‘new normal’ of the post-coronavirus world is now being implemented by a number of governments.”

Corbett also reviews the rapid development and implementation of biometric identification programs tied in with digital currencies. Undoubtedly, the plan is to connect everything together — your identification, personal finances, medical and vaccination records. Most likely, it will also be embedded on your body, for your own “convenience,” so you cannot lose it. Never mind the fact that everything that can be hacked at some point has been or will be.

“The ID control grid is an essential part of the digitization of the economy,” Corbett says. “And although this is being sold as an opportunity for ‘financial inclusion’ of the world’s poorest in the banking system provided by the likes of Gates and his banking and business associates, it is in fact a system for financial exclusion.

Exclusion of any person or transaction that does not have the approval of the government or the payment providers …

The different parts of this population control grid fit together like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. The vaccination drive ties into the biometric identity drive which ties into the cashless society drive.

In Gates’ vision, everyone will receive the government-mandated vaccinations, and everyone will have their biometric details recorded in nationally administered, globally integrated digital IDs.

These digital identities will be tied to all of our actions and transactions, and, if and when they are deemed illegal, they will simply be shut off by the government — or even the payment providers themselves.”

Indeed, if you think online censorship is bad, consider a world in which your online activity is tied to your biometric chip with all your finances and personal data. What easier way to silence people than to block access to their own money? I’m sure there are many other ways in which such a system could be used to control any and all individuals.

“Only the most willfully obtuse could claim to be unable to see the nightmarish implications for this type of all-seeing, all-pervasive society, where every transaction and every movement of every citizen is monitored, analyzed, and databased in real-time by the government.

And Bill Gates is one of those willfully obtuse people,” Corbett says. “This Gates-driven agenda is not about money. It is about control. Control over every aspect of our daily lives, from where we go, to who we meet, to what we buy and what we do.”

What drives a man who is rich beyond imagination to spend his life devising schemes to control the human population? Corbett asks. Surely, something other than money must be driving Gates’ insatiable lust for control. To answer that question, Corbett surveys Gates’ family history.

Both his great-grandfather, J.W. Maxwell, and his grandfather, Willard Maxwell, were bankers. Gates’ grandmother, Adele, was a prominent civic leader. His mother, Mary Maxwell Gates, served as director of several companies, including First Interstate Bancorp and KIRO-TV of Seattle. She was also a regent at the University of Washington, and served on the board of the United Way of America.

Gates’ father, William H. Gates, Sr., was a prominent lawyer who co-founded a powerful law and lobbying firm. He also served on several corporate and organizational boards, and headed up Planned Parenthood. As noted by Corbett:

“From his mother’s banking family he inherited a ‘nose for the dollar,’ as one childhood friend’s father called it. From his hard-driving legal-minded father, he learned the value of legalizing business arrangements … A ‘nose for the dollar’ and a knowledge of how to use the legal system to get what you want were not the only things to emerge from Bill Gates’ childhood, however.

His parents also encouraged discussion about the family’s charity work and the causes they held close to their heart. As Gates revealed to Bill Moyers in 2003, those causes included ‘the population issue’ which sparked a lifelong interest in ‘reproductive health’ …

The topic is particularly controversial, because ‘population control’ and ‘reproductive health’ have been used for half a century as a euphemism for eugenics, the discredited pseudoscience that holds that certain families are fit to be leaders of society by virtue of their superior genes …

As transparent as it seems to us today that this ideology was a self-serving self-justification for the ruling class, it was quickly taken up as the great social crusade of the early 20th century …

A common eugenicist argument was that the scarce resources of society should not be used to support the lower classes, as that only encouraged more of their kind. Instead, life-saving medical care and intervention should be rationed so that those resources can be best put to use elsewhere.

So-called negative eugenicists even took things further, with some, like famed playwright George Bernard Shaw, calling for people to be called before a state-appointed board to justify their existence or be put to death.”

As noted by Corbett, eugenics was shunned following the second World War thanks to the atrocious acts of the Nazi’s, yet support for it didn’t die out. Instead, the concept of eugenics simply changed into discussions about population control and reproductive health.

“It is worth questioning why this man, who openly muses about death panels and the trade-offs of providing health care to the elderly, is to be taken completely at face value in his attempts to slow population growth in the third world or to handle a coronavirus health crisis that primarily affects the elderly.

That the Gates agenda is being driven by a eugenicist ideology is suggested by multiple lines of evidence, both historical and current,” Corbett says.

Like the Maxwell/Gates family, the Rockefeller family has also been funding and promoting eugenics around the world. They even funded the Eugenics Record Office, a department of the Carnegie Institution of Washington Station for Experimental Evolution at Cold Spring Harbor New York.

As explained on the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory website,

the Eugenics Record Office “was devoted to the collection and analysis of American family genetics and traits history records.” The studies “collected information such as inborn physical, mental and temperamental properties to enable the family to trace the segregation and recombination of inborn or heritable qualities.”

William Welch, the founding director of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, sat on the Eugenics Record Office board of directors, and the Rockefellers sponsored eugenics researchers at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes in Germany, including Ernst Rüdin, who drafted Nazi Germany’s forced sterilization law.

When the American Eugenics Society closed its doors, its long-time director, Frederick Osborne, became the president of the Population Council — another Rockefeller-funded organization. In his 2009 book, “Showing Up for Life,” Gates Sr. expresses his admiration for the Rockefellers’ decades’ long commitment to and involvement in public health, including their support of vaccination programs.

“But the most salacious hints of a deeper agenda are not to be found in the Gates’ public associations, but in the associations that they have tried to hide from the public,” Corbett says. One curious and highly suspicious connection is Gates’ apparent involvement with the now-infamous sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

While Gates has denied knowing Epstein, media reports claim they met on multiple occasions, and were in discussions about co-creating a charitable fund with seed money from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and JPMorgan Chase. Corbett notes:

“According to The Times, Gates emailed his colleagues about Epstein in 2011: ‘His lifestyle is very different and kind of intriguing although it would not work for me.’

Epstein’s will even named Boris Nikolic — a Harvard-trained immunologist who served as the chief scientific advisor to both Microsoft and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and who appears in the sole publicly known photo of Epstein and Gates’ 2011 meeting at Epstein’s Manhattan mansion — as the backup executor of Epstein’s estate.

It is not difficult to see why Gates would try to distance himself from his relationship with a child sex trafficker … But, as it turns out, the attempt to suppress the Gates-Epstein story may have been an attempt to suppress the revelation of an altogether different shared interest …

The already scarcely believable Jeffrey Epstein story took another bizarre turn in August of 2019, when it was reported that Epstein ‘Hoped to Seed the Human Race With His DNA.’

As The New York Times explained, Epstein’s plan to impregnate 20 women at a time at his New Mexico ranch in order to ‘seed the human race with his DNA’ — plan he told to a number of the ‘scientific luminaries’ he kept in his orbit — put a modern gloss on a very old idea.”

One of those scientific “luminaries” was George Church, a Harvard geneticist who received funding for various projects from Epstein’s foundation, and who brought forth a proposal for a “genetics dating app.” Epstein and Gates both funded a startup company seeking to use gene editing to eliminate diseases.

“We cannot expect an answer about Bill Gates true motives to come from Gates himself. By this point the question of Bill Gates’ intentions has been buried under the combined weight of hundreds of millions of dollars of paid PR spin,” Corbett says.

“Now we must confront the question of why this man is motivated to build such a web of control — control over our public health agencies. Control over our identities. Control over our transactions. And even control over our bodies …

We must confront the possibility that this quest for control comes not from a selfless spirit of generosity that never seemed to exist before he became a multi-billionaire, but from the same drive for money, the same desire for domination and the same sense of superiority that motivated him on his way up the corporate ladder.

But if the answer to the question “Who is Bill Gates” is “Bill Gates is a eugenicist,” that tells us some important things about the world that we are living in … If Bill Gates is a eugenicist, driven by a belief in the superiority of himself and his fellow wealthy elitists, then what we are facing is not one man, or even one family, but an ideology.

This is not a trivial point. One man, whatever his wealth, can be stopped easily enough. But even if Bill Gates were to be thrown in jail tomorrow, the agenda that has already been set in motion would continue without missing a beat.

An entire infrastructure of researchers, labs, corporations, governmental agencies and public health bodies exists … driven by the belief of all those millions of people working for these various entities that they are truly working in the best interest of the people.

No, an ideology cannot be stopped by stopping one man. It can only be stopped when enough people learn the truth about this agenda and the world of total, pervasive control that is coming into view. If you have watched all four parts of this exploration on Bill Gates, then you are now one of the most informed people on the planet about the true nature of this agenda …

If you have made it this far, it is incumbent on you to help inoculate those around you against the corrupt ideology of Bill Gates and all those who seek to control the population of the world. You must help to spread this information so that others have a chance to see the bigger picture and decide for themselves whether they are willing to roll up their sleeves and accept what is coming, or not.”

Subscribe to Mercola Newsletter

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.

• There’s a new COVID variant making the rounds, and it’s said to be “the most transmissible” variant to date. The new variant, XBB.1.5, was quickly dubbed the “Kraken,” which is a moniker referring to a legendary sea beast that could not be defeated

• But there’s nothing particularly noteworthy, and certainly nothing scary, about this new variant. It’s more transmissible but causes milder disease than previous Omicron variants. Most experience only mild cold symptoms

• Behavioral scientists have long known that fear of contagion makes people both intolerant toward others and compliant with authority. As such, fear is an indispensable social engineering tool, and we know The Great Reset pushers need the pandemic to keep chugging or else their plans will get seriously hampered. Big Pharma also need people to remain in fear in order to keep sales of their useless COVID shots going

• A large Cleveland Clinic study found that, compared to the unvaccinated, workers who had received one COVID jab were 1.7 times more likely to test positive for COVID. Those with two doses were 2.63 times more likely to test positive, those with three doses had 3.1 times the risk, and those with four or more doses were 3.8 times more likely to get infected

• In the same quarter that president Biden introduced COVID jab mandates to corporate America, excess mortality was 78% for the 25 to 34 age group and 100% for the 35 to 44 age group

By now, you’ve probably heard there’s a new COVID variant making the rounds, and it’s said to be “the most transmissible” variant to date. To hit the proper emotional note where propaganda becomes effective, the new variant, XBB.1.5, was quickly dubbed the “Kraken,” which is a moniker referring to a legendary sea beast that could not be defeated. As reported by NBC Chicago:

“A highly contagious ‘recombinant’ variant composed of two different BA.2 strains, the ‘kraken’ variant has quickly become the dominant form of COVID in the U.S. and is continuing to spread nationwide. Also known as XBB.1.5, the variant quickly rose to prominence as experts say it is more contagious than many of its predecessors.

‘It went from 4% of sequences to 40% in just a few weeks,’ Dr. Ashish Jha, White House COVID czar, tweeted last week. ‘That’s a stunning increase.’ Jha said the variant is likely more immune evasive, even ‘more than other omicron variants.'”

There’s nothing particularly noteworthy, and certainly nothing scary, about this new variant. Despite the hype at the beginning of the article, NBC actually makes this plain in a later paragraph where they quote the Chicago Department of Public Health commissioner Dr. Allison Arwady:

“Arwady noted symptoms haven’t changed with the new variant, though she noted that symptoms similar to the flu are less common …  ‘COVID is showing up very much like it already has. I think, if anything, we are seeing it a little bit less likely to have the more severe symptoms,’ Arwady said.

‘Definitely people get the severe symptoms still … But more often now we are seeing people … just have cold-like symptoms, less likely to have those flu-like, really feeling very sick, the high fevers.'”

In other words, this is an entirely baseless fear campaign. The primary “novelty” about the scary-sounding Kraken is that it causes MILDER symptoms than the already mild symptoms of Omicron and its sublineages.

This is entirely logical, as XBB.1.5 is a recombination of two Omicron strains, and as Dr. Dennis Cunningham, medical director of infection control and prevention at Henry Ford Health in Detroit told NBC Chicago:

“The omicron symptoms have been pretty consistent. There’s less incidence of people losing their sense of taste and smell. In a lot of ways, it’s a bad cold, a lot of respiratory symptoms, stuffy nose, coughing, body aches and fatigue … I haven’t seen anything suggesting that this new subvariant [XBB.1.5] is clearly making people sicker.”

A runny nose was the most common symptom of the BA.2 (Omicron) subvariants that the “Kraken” is made up of. So, this is more ado about nothing. But could we expect anything less? Behavioral scientists have long known that fear of contagion make people both intolerant toward others and compliant with authority.

As such, fear is an indispensable social engineering tool, and we already know The Great Reset pushers need the pandemic to keep chugging or else their plans will get seriously hampered.

Big Pharma also needs people to remain in fear in order to keep sales of their useless COVID shots going. Ironically (although perhaps it was planned this way), the more COVID shots you get, the greater your risk for infection.

So, the shots have quite literally become the foundational drivers of the pandemic.

In the video above, posted January 4, 2023, former nurse educator John Campbell, Ph.D., reviews some of the latest evidence showing that the more mRNA COVID shots you get, the more likely you are to get infected. The study

in question was done by the Cleveland Clinic, which assessed outcomes among its 51,011 employees.

In summary, they found that, compared to the unvaccinated, workers who had received one dose were 1.7 times more likely to test positive for COVID during the three-month study.

Those with two doses were 2.63 times more likely to test positive, those with three doses had 3.1 times the risk, and those with four or more doses were 3.8 times more likely to get infected.

So, it’s not hyperbole to say that these shots are “useless.” They’re actually less than useless, seeing how they have negative effectiveness. The graph below, from the study, clearly illustrates how the risk of infection rises in tandem with each additional dose.

The bottom black line represents the background risk (the risk among the unvaccinated population), and the colored lines above it show the number of infections that occurred depending on the number of doses received.

Overall, the Cleveland Clinic study

concluded the bivalent booster shots were only 30% effective in protecting against SARS-CoV-2 infection. For reference, 89% of employees received the Pfizer jab and the rest received Moderna. No other brands were used.

Perhaps the most important detail here is that the mRNA in the bivalent boosters matched the Omicron strains in circulation, so the shots were not mismatched (as often happens with the flu vaccine). Yet, despite being perfectly matched to the strains that were actually causing the infections, the boosters were only 30% effective.

By extension, that means their effectiveness is likely to be even lower once the circulating strains change, which has already happened. By the end of December 2022, XBB.1.5 already accounted for 40.5% of all new infections, followed by BQ.1.1, responsible for 26.9% of new infections, and variant BQ.1 at 18.3%.

Considering the increased transmissibility of XBB.1.5, it’s unlikely that the now unmatched booster shots will offer much protection at all.

As noted by Campbell, at the beginning of the pandemic the World Health Organization required any qualifying “vaccine” to be at least 50% effective, yet now everyone is perfectly content to settle for boosters that are only 30% effective — and that’s in addition to increasing the risk of infection with each dose given.

What does offer protection? Natural infection. The Cleveland Clinic did find that natural immunity lessens over time, as new, more immune-evading variants become prominent, but recent natural infection offered good protection. The graph below shows the likelihood of getting infected depending on if or when you were infected with COVID previously.

Those with no previous history of COVID infection had the highest risk of infection during the study period. Day zero was September 12, 2022, which was when the bivalent booster began being offered to Cleveland Clinic employees.

Those who had previously been infected during the pre-Delta and Delta phases of the pandemic had the next-highest risk. Those with the lowest risk of infection (meaning they had the greatest protection) were those who had previously been infected during the Omicron BA.4/BA.5 wave (the most recent wave), followed by those who’d been sick during the earlier BA.1/BA.2 wave.

In related news, Sally Beck, writing for the British website The Conservative Woman (TCW), recently highlighted Edward Dowd’s work on excess deaths statistics, collated and published in the book “Cause Unknown: The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 and 2022.” Beck writes:

“Former Wall Street executive Edward Dowd … has been dissecting excess mortality statistics recorded since the COVID pandemic began three years ago. He has analyzed and reanalyzed the numbers and has concluded that excess death rates, in those aged 26-41, are closely related to the administration of COVID vaccinations.

‘From February 2021 to March 2022, millennials experienced the equivalent of a Vietnam war, with more than 60,000 excess deaths,’ he said. ‘The Vietnam war took 12 years to kill the same number of healthy young people we’ve just seen die in 12 months.’

This 12-month period covers the COVID vaccination rollout for that age group so in theory we would have expected to see a decrease in excess mortality, not an increase …

Comparisons with normal years was key. All-cause mortality remains relatively constant, and in 2017, 2018 and 2019 around 2.8 million Americans died. Figures spiked in 2020 (COVID), although less than you might imagine, but in 2021 the stats were off the charts.”

In a January 2022 press conference, Scott Davidson, CEO of the mutual life insurance company OneAmerica, shocked the world with his announcement that the death rate among working-age Americans was 40% higher during the third quarter of 2021 than prepandemic levels, and that these deaths were not due to COVID infection.

Dowd described it as “an earth-shaking statistic,” as a 10% increase would be a 1 in a 200-year event. Davidson, too, stressed the unprecedented nature of the increase, stating that “40% is just unheard of.”

From there, matters have only worsened.

“Excess mortality was 78% for the 25-34 age group and 100% for the 35-44 age group in the same quarter that Biden introduced vaccine mandates and corporate America complied.” ~ The Conservative Woman

Dowd’s research shows excess mortality among Millennials was 84% above baseline in the second half of 2021.

Teens are even dying in their sleep nowadays, and at least two such deaths have been confirmed as being due to COVID jab-induced myocarditis,

and, as reported by Conservative Woman:

“The Society of Actuaries Research Institute (SOA) published their COVID-19 mortality survey report on 17 August 2022. It represented approximately 80% of the group life US revenues.

One of their tables showed clearly that excess mortality was 78% for the 25-34 age group and 100% for the 35-44 age group in the same quarter that Biden introduced vaccine mandates and corporate America complied.

Another independent source showed the same disturbing data. The Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Centre (CRC) and the Johns Hopkins Centre for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) tracked and analyzed COVID data worldwide.

They said that 68% of the world’s population was vaccinated and 13 billion doses administered. If they had been safe and effective, how could they explain that the highest death rate occurred after mass vaccination?”

While death comes to all, the most tragic part of this trend is that it’s young and healthy people who are being prematurely killed, including high-performance athletes.

Approximately 1,650

professional and amateur athletes collapsed due to cardiac events in 2021 and 2022. Of those, 1,148

were fatal. That gives us an annual average death rate of 574 for 2021/2022. For comparison, the historical annual average has been between 28

and 29.

How can an increase in athlete deaths of nearly 1,700%

be explained? Is there another global environmental change that can account for this other than the sudden introduction and widespread uptake of experimental gene therapy? I can’t think of any.

Despite all the evidence showing the COVID shots are decimating populations around the world, Pfizer is hell-bent on keeping the booster train running. As previously reported, Pfizer quadrupled the price of its COVID jab in the wake of it being added to the U.S. childhood, adolescent and adult vaccine schedules.

Pfizer had forecasted expected revenues, and when demand for never-ending boosters started to drop off, they simply jacked up the unit price to make up the difference. The COVID shots are the company’s most profitable product to date, and it apparently doesn’t matter that they’re killing the user base. That should tell you something.

No criticism of any kind is permissible, as it might impact Pfizer’s bottom line. To protect its interests, Pfizer has even pressured social media companies to censor views on its behalf, including science-based opinions shared by actual scientists, researchers and even a former U.S. Food and Drug Administration chief. Evidence of this is found in the Twitter files released by Elon Musk. As reported by investigative journalist Alex Berenson:

“August 27, 2021, Dr. Scott Gottlieb — a Pfizer director with over 550,000 Twitter followers — saw a tweet he didn’t like, a tweet that might hurt sales of Pfizer’s mRNA vaccines.

The tweet explained correctly that natural immunity after COVID infection was superior to vaccine protection. It called on the White House to ‘follow the science’ and exempt people with natural immunity from upcoming vaccine mandates.

It came not from an ‘anti-vaxxer’ like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., but from Dr. Brett Giroir, a physician who had briefly followed Gottlieb as the head of the Food and Drug Administration. Further, the tweet actually encouraged people who did not have natural immunity to ‘Get vaccinated!’ No matter …

Gottlieb was a senior board member at Pfizer, which depended on mRNA jabs for almost half its $81 billion in sales in 2021. Pfizer paid Gottlieb $365,000 for his work that year. Gottlieb stepped in, emailing Todd O’Boyle, a top lobbyist in Twitter’s Washington office who was also Twitter’s point of contact with the White House.

The post was ‘corrosive,’ Gottlieb wrote. He worried it would ‘end up going viral and driving news coverage’ … Through Jira, an internal system Twitter used for managing complaints, O’Boyle forwarded Gottlieb’s email to the Twitter ‘Strategic Response’ team …

‘Please see this report from the former FDA commissioner,’ O’Boyle wrote — failing to mention that Gottlieb was a Pfizer board member with a financial interest in pushing mRNA shots. A Strategic Response analyst quickly found the tweet did not violate any of the company’s misinformation rules.

Yet Twitter wound up flagging Giroir’s tweet anyway, putting a misleading tag on it and preventing almost anyone from seeing it. It remains tagged even though several large studies

have confirmed the truth of Giroir’s words.”

Gottlieb also asked Twitter to remove a post by Justin Hart that said “Sticks and stones may break my bones but a viral pathogen with a child mortality rate of <>0% has cost our children nearly three years of schooling.”

That time, to their credit, Twitter’s Strategic Response Team couldn’t identify a “crime” for which they might justify its removal. Gottlieb was also a central instigator for Twitter’s banning of Berenson. According to Berenson:

“Gottlieb’s action was part of a larger conspiracy that included the Biden White House and Andrew Slavitt, working publicly and privately to pressure Twitter until it had no choice but to ban me. I will have more to say about my own case and will be suing the White House, Slavitt, Gottlieb, and Pfizer shortly.”

When confronted about his behind-the-scenes correspondence with Twitter during an interview with CNBC host Joe Kernan, Gottlieb claimed he only asked Twitter to censor certain posts because he was concerned they might result in “physical threats” against vaccine advocates. He actually welcomes “respectful debate and dialogue,” he claimed.

Yet as Berenson notes, there was no insinuation of threat in Giroir’s tweet, or Hart’s for that matter. What’s more, in his email about Giroir’s tweet to O’Boyle, the only concern he raised was that it might drive news coverage in an unwanted direction.

If we’ve learned anything these past three years, it’s that we’re in a propaganda war. It’s a war for our mind, and if the globalist cabal wins that war, all freedom will be lost too. This is why it’s so important to understand how we’re being manipulated.

Fear is a primary tool, and as demonstrated in the NBC Chicago piece quoted from at the beginning of this article, they know how to make something completely innocuous sound scary.

In this case, the mildest variant to date is simply given a scary-sounding name (the Kraken), the World Health Organization warns it’s the “most transmissible” to date, and anyone with even the minutest amount of worry about COVID will be off and running.

The fact that experts say it causes nothing more than a mild cold won’t even register at that point. Nor will data showing the “vaccine” is dramatically increasing their risk of the very thing they fear — infection — and killing loads of people to boot.

That’s what’s so crazy about it, but it just goes to show how effective this kind of fear propaganda is, and the actual danger of falling for it. Believing the propaganda — that the shots are “safe and effective” — can literally kill you. The sooner a majority of people realize this, the safer we will all be.

>”,”action”:null,”class”:null}”>NEXT ARTICLE >>

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.

• Make Sunsets, a startup company with primary offices in Mexico, claims to have released two balloons with sulfur particles in April 2022, which they hope exploded and released the particles in the stratosphere

• Without monitoring devices, the company is unsure of what happened to the balloons, but claims the sulfur they released will offset a substantial amount of warming in 2023

• The idea was inspired by weather changes after major volcanic eruptions spewed ash into the atmosphere and the weather temporarily shifted; experts call the actions of Make Sunsets “wildly premature,” noting it isn’t possible to estimate the potential consequences that could unilaterally alter the climate

• The CEO, Luke Iseman, didn’t appear to believe that transparency or governance is required when manipulating the environment, making a move he called provocative and geoengineering activism, without public engagement, scientific scrutiny or approval from government authorities or scientific agencies

• Not all experts agree on the degree to which warming has changed Earth’s climate, but as we have learned in the last three years, without honest disagreement and debate, the science community cannot contribute to policies that govern how medicine or technology is implemented to protect humanity

Since the beginning of human history, man has sought to control his environment. What started with building shelters and fences, has grown to controlling the weather. Make Sunsets, a startup company with primary offices in Mexico, claims to have released two weather balloons with sulfur particles in April 2022 in the state of Baja California, Mexico

located on the Baja California Peninsula, bordering the U.S.

The term is geoengineering, which describes manipulating the weather by either removing carbon dioxide to prevent it from trapping heat in the lower atmosphere or reflecting sunlight back into space, also called solar geoengineering. Advances in technology and an increasing understanding of meteorological processes have led scientists to discover ways to control the weather.

According to Live Science,

projects are currently in place to increase rainfall, remove carbon dioxide and prevent extreme weather events. While extreme weather varies from country to country, manipulating the weather may have unknown consequences that can precipitate the end of life as we know it on our planet.

A 2012 paper

article published in Nature concludes that from the perspective of environmental ethics, manipulating the environment through geoengineering is a poor choice. While it is a widely held belief that humans should minimize the impact they have on the planet, other options should be pursued with potentially much less risk.

Short-term manipulation of the environment began during the Vietnam War when the U.S. Army used cloud seeding to prolong the monsoon season in Vietnam, destroying roads and flooding rivers.

When this was publicized, the European Modification Convention banned weather manipulation as a military tactic.

In 2008, China used a program to control the weather during the Beijing Olympics, ensuring that rain fell before events like the opening ceremony. According to the BBC,

the technique is routinely used in China to increase rainfall in drought-stricken areas. The U.K. has a checkered history using cloud seeding when in 1952, 35 people during flooding that was linked to RAF rain-making experiments, although nothing was proven.

One startup company, Make Sunsets, and its CEO, Luke Iseman, is pushing to privatize an infant industry with little science to back the recent release of sulfur particles into the atmosphere. But, let’s back that up just a little since Iseman is not certain that the particles were actually released.

According to what he told MIT Technology Review,

the weather balloons contained a few grams of sulfur dioxide but no monitoring equipment. Iseman estimated how much helium it would take to launch the balloons into the stratosphere and then expected they would burst under pressure to release the particles.

However, without monitoring equipment on board, it’s not clear what happened to the balloons. Thus far, the company has claimed to raise $750,000 from two investors, and neither firm responded to the MIT Technology Review reporter before the article was published December 24, 2022.

Iseman claims the first two balloons launched months before Make Sunsets was incorporated in October 2022. Yet, general information about the company claims it also offers “carbon removal solutions to avoid excessive use of fossil fuels, enabling governments and companies to use geoengineering schemes for reducing environmental depletion.”

These are big claims for a fledgling company.

They may be explained by Iseman’s acknowledgment that his efforts are partly entrepreneurial and partly an act of geoengineering activism. He believes that making these moves could drive public debate and push scientific experiments and data gathering forward.

Before branching out on his own into the geoengineering space, Iseman was the director of hardware at Y Combinator, a technology startup accelerator company that participated in the launch of Airbnb, Doordash, Dropbox and Stripe.

The company claims to use reusable balloons, yet also claims it does not know what happened to the first two balloons that were launched in April 2022. They go on to claim that “we’ve already launched our first clouds, and we’ll offset a substantial amount of warming in 2023!”

despite not knowing if the first balloons launched released the payload.

In the explanation of how they know this process will work, Make Sunsets uses a simple explanation for a complex subject, writing, “We’re copying nature: the clouds you see in the sky use the same process and have been studied for years.”

The thin level of scientific information on the website that promotes a complex strategy may be better explained by Iseman’s comment, “We joke slash not joke that this is partly a company and partly a cult.”

But a better explanation may be that the company plans to monetize its efforts.

While speaking to MIT Technology Review, Iseman said, “What I want to do is create as much cooling as quickly as I responsibly can, over the rest of my life, frankly.” However, later he added that the company plans to send as much sulfur into the atmosphere in 2023 “as we can get customers to pay us” for.

The company claims that for every gram of sulfur particles they send into the stratosphere, it’s enough to offset the effect of one ton of carbon over one year. Their plan to monetize this strategy is to sell $10 cooling credits for every gram of particles.

Shuchi Talati is a scholar in residence at American University in Washington, D.C. According to MIT Technology Review, she is forming a nonprofit focused on governance and justice in solar geoengineering. Talati is critical of both the monetization efforts and the company’s scientific claims.

Based on current science, she believes that no one can represent such a specific outcome at this stage of the research. “What they’re claiming to actually accomplish with such a credit is the entirety of what’s uncertain right now about geoengineering,” she says. David Keith is one of the leading experts on solar geoengineering and is troubled by any effort to privatize the technology, including selling credits. In 2018 he expressed his fears of privatization, saying:

“… commercial development cannot produce the level of transparency and trust the world needs to make sensible decisions about deployment. A company would have an interest in overselling, an interest in concealing risks.

Solar geoengineering is not cleantech. It’s not a better battery or wind turbine. It’s a set of technologies that might allow humanity to alter the entire climate. As much as possible, it needs to be owned and controlled by transparent democratic institutions. It requires global governance.”

And, as Big Pharma has demonstrated in the past decades, commercial development without transparency leads to corruption.

It appears that Iseman doesn’t believe that transparency or governance is required. That assumption can be made based on his actions. According to MIT Technology Review,

the launches from Mexico occurred without public engagement, scientific scrutiny or approval from government authorities or scientific agencies in Mexico, the U.S. or any other country.

Researchers who have spent decades studying the technology are deeply troubled that the company has moved forward with implementation and is attempting to commercialize the industry at this early stage. Yet, some investors who have reviewed the proposals believe it’s not a serious scientific effort or a credible business.

Instead, it may be an effort to grab attention and stir up controversy, which Iseman confirmed. While he thinks this move may make him look like a James Bond villain, he believes “It’s morally wrong, in my opinion, for us not to be doing this.”

However, while Iseman appears to want to drive science forward at a faster rate, some experts believe that it could have the opposite effect. Janos Pasztor is the executive director of the Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative. He sent an email to MIT Technology Review, writing:

“The current state of science is not good enough … to either reject, or to accept, let alone implement. To go ahead with implementation at this stage is a very bad idea.”

The concept of geoengineering is simple and based on an idea that was inspired by the side effects of major volcanic eruptions. As volcanoes spew ash into the atmosphere, it can lead to temporary shifts in the climate. One notorious shift occurred in 1816, which is called “the year without a summer.”

It was more than a century later that scientists understood a volcanic eruption in the Indian Ocean one year earlier had sent large amounts of ash into the upper atmosphere that shrouded the globe and blocked the sun. It resulted in severe crop failure, food shortages and famine.

Pasztor stresses that the actions taken by Make Sunsets underscore the urgency to establish oversight and clear rules for responsible geoengineering and determine under what conditions individuals and groups can move forward.

In fact, the company’s actions have played into some long-held fears that an individual or company with no knowledge or the implications for the consequences could unilaterally alter the climate since the technology is relatively cheap and simple.

This seems to describe Iseman’s own characterization of the motives behind Make Sunsets since he believes a radical approach is necessary to spur what he perceives as a slow movement to address climate change. However, the narrative appears inconsistent.

On the one hand, Iseman states that moving ahead with these controversial actions could help drive public debate and move science forward, implying he understands that his actions are premature.

Yet, in the FAQs on the Make Sunsets website, he claims that others from academia have tried to accomplish what he is doing but were “canceled due to well-intentioned but misguided activism and patent disputes.”

He also claims to be able to offset substantial warming in 2023.

It should come as no surprise that Bill Gates is heavily involved in funding geoengineering. His first foray occurred in 2010

when he funded research that developed machines to spray seawater into the clouds with the goal of increasing the ability to reflect sunlight into space. This triggered a call for a global ban on experiments.

Since at least 2012,

Gates has funded climate scientist lobbying efforts to advance geoengineering and in 2018

he agreed to fund experiments for Harvard scientists who proposed spraying the stratosphere with calcium chloride to slow the Earth’s warming by blocking out the sun. He remains heavily invested in climate modification that not only could destabilize the climate system, but be weaponized against people by controlling rainfall and drought.

Although many environmental scientists agree global warming is occurring, it’s worth noting that not all agree on the degree to which climate change has occurred. The late Robert M Carter, a research professor at James Cook University Queensland and the University of Adelaide in South Australia, was one of those scientists.

Carter died in 2016 but penned an incisive article in 2009 in which he outlined 10 facts he believed about climate change and argued against 10 global warming myths. The data pertain to the period prior to 2009 when he wrote the article, which was republished in November 2022. Some of his assertions include:

• Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show no atmospheric warming since 1958. In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a warming of about 0.4°C over the same period. Many scientists believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect and other artifacts.

• On both annual (one year) and geological (up to 100,000 years) time scales, changes in atmospheric temperature PRECEDE changes in CO2. Carbon dioxide therefore cannot be the primary forcing agent for temperature increase (though increasing CO2 does cause a diminishingly mild positive temperature feedback).

• Climate change is a nonlinear (chaotic) process, some parts of which are only dimly or not at all understood. No deterministic computer model will ever be able to make an accurate prediction of climate 100 years into the future.

As we have learned in the past three years, without honest disagreement and debate, the science community is unable to contribute to policies that govern how medicine or technology is implemented to protect humanity. What is not needed are individuals who garner financial backing for simple solutions to complex problems without regard for the potential consequences.

>”,”action”:null,”class”:null}”>NEXT ARTICLE >>

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.

• Technocracy is an economic ideology built around totalitarian rule by unelected leaders that got its start in the 1930s, when scientists and engineers got together to solve the nation’s economic problems

• The word comes from the word “techn,” which means “skill,” and the god “Kratos,” which is the divine personification of power. A technocrat is someone who exercises power over you on the basis of their knowledge

• Evidence of technocratic rule has also become evident during the pandemic. The censoring and manipulation of medical information is part and parcel of the social engineering part of this system

• The medical technocracy has lied to us about several things, starting with the risk of death from COVID-19. Based on deaths per capita, the global average death rate for COVID-19 is 0.009%. The average person’s chance of surviving this disease is 99.991%

• Evidence that the technocratic fear propaganda is working can be seen in a recent poll, which found Millennials believe 2% of their generation will die from COVID-19

ℹ️ From Dr. Joseph Mercola

Since COVID-19 first entered the scene, exchange of ideas has basically been outlawed. By sharing my views and those from various experts throughout the pandemic on COVID treatments and the experimental COVID jabs, I became a main target of the White House, the political establishment and the global cabal.

Propaganda and pervasive censorship have been deployed to seize control over every part of your life, including your health, finances and food supply. The major media is a key player and has been instrumental in creating and fueling fear.

I am republishing this article in its original form so that you can see how the progression unfolded.

The Doctors for Disaster Preparedness

lecture above, given August 16, 2020 in Las Vegas, Nevada, features Dr. Lee Merritt, an orthopedic spinal surgeon with a medical practice in Logan, Iowa.

In her presentation, she discusses how geopolitical power can be swayed in the absence of an identifiable army or declared war. She talks about the cognitive dissonance we’re currently facing, when what we’re told no longer corresponds with known facts or logical thinking.

And she reviews how medical technocrats — the so-called medical experts and political leaders who have turned the world upside-down in response to COVID-19 — have been 100% wrong about everything they’ve been telling us.

They’ve been wrong about the initial risk assessment, testing, preventive measures, mask wearing and social distancing. They’ve conflated “cases” or positive tests with the actual illness. They’re also guilty of errors of omission — not telling us what medical doctors and scientists know to be helpful.

“I can give you the benefit of the doubt when you’re wrong about one or two things, but when you’re wrong 100% of the time, consistently, that is not by accident,” Merritt says. “They should have come up with something that was in our best interest if they really cared about us.”

Merritt credits her understanding of technocracy to reading Patrick Wood’s book, “Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation.” Wood is also the editor in chief of Technocracy News & Trends. I recently interviewed Wood. His interview is featured in “The Pressing Dangers of Technocracy.”

As explained by Wood and Merritt, technocracy is an economic ideology built around totalitarian rule by unelected leaders. It got its start in the 1930s during the height of the Great Depression, when scientists and engineers got together to solve the nation’s economic problems. At the time, it looked like capitalism and free enterprise were going to die, so they decided to invent a new economic system from scratch.

They called this system “technocracy.” The word comes from the word “techn,” which means “skill,” and the god “Kratos,” which is the divine personification of power. As explained by Merritt, a technocrat is someone who exercises power over you on the basis of their knowledge.

“Based on deaths per capita, the death rate for COVID-19 is 0.009%. That means the average person’s chance of surviving this disease is 99.991%.”

As an economic system, technocracy is resource-based. Rather than basing the economic system on pricing mechanisms such as supply and demand, the technocratic system is instead based on energy resources. In a nutshell, under this system, companies would be told what resources they’re allowed to use, when, and for what, and consumers would be told what to buy.

Former President Obama’s implementation of economic fines for those unwilling or unable to purchase health insurance could be viewed as an example of this system, in which you do not have the freedom to choose whether you want to buy a service or not. Your only choices are to purchase that which is mandated, or pay a fine.

The technocratic system also involves, indeed requires, social engineering, which relies on massive data collection and the use of artificial intelligence. Technocrats have silently and relentlessly pushed this agenda forward ever since those early days in the ‘30s, and signs of its implementation are becoming increasingly visible.

Evidence of technocratic rule has also become evident during the pandemic. The censoring and manipulation of medical information are part and parcel of the social engineering part of this system.

In her lecture, Merritt reviews several lies we’ve been told by the technocratic elite, starting with the actual risk of death. Based on deaths per capita, the death rate for COVID-19 is 0.009% (709,000 people have died from or with COVID-19 around the world, and the global population is 7.8 billion). That then means the average person’s chance of surviving this disease is 99.991%.

The area with the highest death rate, New York, has a death per capita rate of 0.17%, yet Dr. Anthony Fauci publicly lauded New York for its excellent COVID response. This is just one example that has caused cognitive dissonance, as praising the area with the highest death rate (even if low overall) as having one of the best responses simply isn’t logical.

Ironically, five of the six countries with the lowest death rates (ranging between 0.00003% and 0.006%) did very little in terms of pandemic response; they didn’t shut down or order people to stay home.

Yet, we’re told these measures are absolutely necessary, and must continue, perhaps indefinitely. This too creates massive cognitive dissonance, as it goes against all logic. If an action doesn’t result in an observable benefit, it simply doesn’t make sense to continue, let alone claim that was and is necessary.

Furthermore, instead of comforting everyone and opening the world back up when the death toll started falling, the narrative suddenly shifted focus to “cases,” meaning people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 — regardless of whether they had symptoms. More cognitive dissonance, as the primary measure of disease threat is its lethality.

As noted by Merritt, since ancient times, a “case,” medically speaking, has referred to a sick person. It never ever referred to someone who had no symptoms of illness.

Now all of a sudden, this well-established medical term, “case,” has been completely and arbitrarily redefined to mean someone who tested positive for the presence of viral RNA. “That is not epidemiology. That’s fraud,” Merritt says.

What’s more, most of the tests used have no benchmarks, meaning we don’t know what the rates of false positives and false negatives are. And, many areas are tacking on extra “cases” when someone tests positive and relays that they’ve been around other people. Again, “that’s fraud,” Merritt says.

Evidence that the technocratic propaganda is working can be seen in a recent poll by Harvard, Oxford and Universita Boconi, which found Millennials believe 2% of their generation will die from COVID-19. “That’s 10,000 times more than the reality,” Merritt says. “It’s just completely out of proportion to reality.”

Lie No. 2 is about the benefits of mask wearing. “It’s not scientifically sound, so why are we doing it?” Merritt asks. It’s “just a symbol of submission.” As noted in her slide show, “The strongest argument for mask wearing is it sounds good. The strongest argument against mask wearing is it doesn’t work at all.”

Alongside that quote is a photo of a man’s face covered in dust particles after sawing sheetrock wearing a Class II medical earloop facemask, with the caption, “Each particle of sheetrock dust is 10 microns. Coronavirus is 0.125 microns. Any questions?”

The coronavirus is nearly 100 times smaller than sheetrock dust. In other words, surgical masks cannot and do not block the coronavirus (or any other virus for that matter). Surgical mask boxes are even printed with the warning that the mask “will not provide any protection against COVID-19 or other viruses,” and “does not reduce the risk of contracting any disease or infection.”

Ditto for medical N95 respirator masks, as they only block particles larger than 0.3 microns. N95 masks are used in hospital settings to protect against tuberculosis, as the TB virus is 3 microns. You must, however, wear the correct size, it must be properly fitted to your face, and you must follow certain procedures when putting it on and removing it to prevent cross contamination.

OSHA respirators, used by construction workers and other industries, also screen down to 0.3 microns, but they are equipped with a one-way valve. So, it only screens the air coming in, not the air going out. So, you’re in no way protecting others when wearing such a mask.

Merritt also discusses a publication in PNAS, “Identifying Airborne Transmission as the Dominant Route for the Spread of COVID-19,”

in which the authors purport to support mask wearing by looking at New York City as a model. According to Merritt, she has serious concerns about this study, as it doesn’t control for the No. 1 factor that reduces infectivity, namely humidity.

The higher the humidity, the lower the infectivity rate. The paper also has “all these bizarre references,” Merritt says, “that have absolutely nothing to do with the precursors of anything you would look at to do this kind of research.”

What’s more, at least one of the authors listed, Yuan Wang, has no medical background whatsoever. He’s in the division of planetary and geological sciences at Cal Tech.

The graph showing that infectivity in New York City was reduced when mask wearing was mandated also matches the natural downslope seen in Sweden (which had no lockdown or mask mandate) as the infection ran its course. In no way does it prove that mask wearing actually prevents infection. “This is a very sophisticated made-up fraud, I think,” Merritt says.

She also reviews other publications in the medical literature showing masks do not protect against viral infections — including a May 2020 review by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention itself, which I wrote about in “WHO Admits: No Direct Evidence Masks Prevent Viral Infection.” In that review, the CDC concluded that masks did not protect against influenza in non-health care settings.

Merritt also cites studies showing there’s no difference between surgical masks and medical N95 masks. For a better understanding of the science, she recommends reading Denis Rancourt’s paper,

“Masks Don’t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Policy.” I’ve also interviewed Rancourt, who has a Ph.D. in physics, about his findings, which you can find in “Masks Likely Do Not Inhibit Viral Spread.”

The suspicion that masks are little more than suppression muzzles also gains strength by the fact that lawmakers are exempting themselves and certain categories of workers from their mask mandates.

Two examples given in Merritt’s lecture is the D.C. mask mandate, which exempts lawmakers and government employees. In Wisconsin, the Governor has exempted all politicians from the mask order. If masks truly worked, wouldn’t these workers be prime candidates for wearing masks everywhere to prevent them from getting ill and dying?

The third lie Merritt reviews is the 6-foot social distancing rule. Thirty-four minutes into the lecture, you’ll find a fascinating video from a study

published March 26, 2020, in JAMA Insights, demonstrating the particle emissions occurring when sneezing. In this study, they showed emissions can reach 23 to 27 feet (7 to 8 meters) — a far cry from the 6-foot distance we’re told will keep everyone safe.

Lie No. 4, which Merritt believes is the biggest one of all, is that lysosomotropic agents (drugs that acidify the lysosome) such as chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine don’t work. Fauci has repeatedly stated that these drugs either don’t work, that there’s insufficient evidence, or that the evidence is only anecdotal.

Yet the National Institutes of Health itself published research

in 2005 showing chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread, actually having both prophylactic and therapeutic benefits. As the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which is a part of the NIH, since 1984, Fauci should be well aware of these findings.

As for what the motive might be for suppressing the use of hydroxychloroquine, despite all the evidence showing it works quite well when used early in the course of treatment, Merritt points to a 2006 study

in the Virology Journal, titled “In Vitro Inhibition of Human Influenza A Virus Replication by Chloroquine.”

That study delivered “overwhelming proof that chloroquine inhibited influenza A,” Merritt says. Now, if an inexpensive generic drug can prevent influenza infection, then what would we need seasonal influenza vaccines for?

Another paper,

“Effects of Chloroquine on Viral Infections: An Old Drug Against Today’s Diseases?” published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases in 2003, discussed the potential of chloroquine against a range of viral diseases.

So, not only might we have an inexpensive remedy that can fight the flu, it might be useful against many other diseases as well. In short, were these drugs to be recognized for their antiviral benefits, they could disrupt the drug industry to a significant degree. Is that why they’re suppressed and vilified?

Merritt also reviews Dr. Vladimir Zelenko’s clinical experience with hydroxychloroquine, which you can read more about in “How a False Hydroxychloroquine Narrative Was Created.” Of course, the media vilified Zelenko rather than applauding his remarkable successes against COVID-19.

Even more egregiously, Merritt notes, was the fact that a Baltimore federal prosecutor actually started an investigation into Zelenko based on his statement that hydroxychloroquine is FDA approved. “It is FDA approved,” Merritt says. “You don’t go back once things are FDA approved to get reapproval for a new indication.”

Doctors have always had the ability to prescribe drugs off-label for other conditions once they’ve been approved by the FDA, which is precisely what doctors have been doing with hydroxychloroquine. But now all of a sudden, that common (and perfectly legal) practice is portrayed as controversial, unethical and/or illegal.

There’s also the clinical experience of French microbiologist and infectious disease expert Didier Raoult, founder and director of the research hospital Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection,

who reported

that a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin — administered immediately upon diagnosis — led to recovery and “virological cure” in 91.7% of patients.

Merritt also reviews the fraudulent science that has been used to suppress hydroxychloroquine use, referring to these studies as “a new level of fake papers.” In one instance the authors pulled the data set out of thin air. They made it up.

Yet these fraudulent papers were published in The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine, two of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world. It’s worth asking how that could happen. As noted by Merritt, what we’re told and what’s borne out by facts simply don’t add up.

Hydroxychloroquine costs $10 to $20 for a course of treatment, is already FDA approved, has minimal side effects and has been shown to cut the death rate by 50% when given early in the treatment of COVID-19.

Yet Fauci is pushing the use of remdesivir,

an intravenous drug for late-stage severe COVID-19 infection that costs $3,600, has been shown to cause severe side effects in 60% of patients, and doesn’t reduce the death rate. It merely reduces the recovery rate by an average of 31%, or four days.

Merritt believes the reason we’re not embracing hydroxychloroquine is because it could demolish the $69 billion vaccine industry. That alone is enough of a motive to warrant a cover-up, she notes.

The drug could also eliminate one of the most powerful leverages for geopolitical power that the technocrats have, namely biological terrorism. If we know how to treat and protect ourselves against designer viruses, their ability to keep us in line by keeping us in fear vanishes.

Last but not least, Merritt reviews lies of omission — facts that would have saved lives had they been promoted. This includes data showing that higher vitamin D levels reduce both the severity of COVID-19 infection and the mortality. So, who benefits from the suppression of data and information that can save lives and the promotion of medical lies?

According to two investigators, John Moynahan and Larry Doyle, Bill Gates negotiated a $100 billion contact tracing contract with Democratic Congressman Bobby L. Rush — who also introduced HR 6666, the COVID-19 TRACE Act — six months before the COVID-19 pandemic broke out, during an August 2019 meeting in Rwanda, East Africa.

The U.S. government has also purchased 100 million doses of a COVID-19 vaccine still under development by Pfizer and BioNTech. As noted by Merritt, we keep seeing how drug companies fund working groups on diseases, and then when the disease breaks out, those same drug companies make billions in profit.

But aside from profit, Merritt is convinced there’s another reason behind the illogical pandemic responses we’re seeing. She points out how in a few short months, we’ve been dramatically shifted from a state of freedom to a state of totalitarianism. And the way that was done was through the technocratic mechanisms of social engineering, which of course involves psychological manipulation.

Merritt reviews psychiatry professor Albert Biderman’s work on psychological manipulation and his “chart of coercion,” all of which can be clearly related to the COVID-19 response:

• Isolation techniques — Quarantines, social distancing, isolation from loved ones and solitary confinement

• Monopolization of perception — Monopolizing the 24/7 news cycle, censoring dissenting views and creating barren environments by closing bars, gyms and restaurants

• Degradation techniques — Berating, shaming people (or even physically attacking) those who refuse to wear masks or social distance, or generally choose freedom over fear

• Induced debility — Being forced to stay at home and not be able to exercise or socialize

• Threats — Threatening with the removal of your children, prolonged quarantine, closing of your business, fines for noncompliance with mask and social distancing rules, forced vaccination and so on

• Demonstrating omnipotence/omniscience — Shutting down the whole world, claiming scientific and medical authority

• Enforcing trivial demands — Examples include family members being forced to stand 6 feet apart at the bank even though they arrived together in the same car, having to wear a mask when you walk into a restaurant, even though you can remove it as soon as you sit down, or having to wear a mask when walking alone on the beach

• Occasional indulgence — Reopening some stores and restaurants but only at a certain capacity, for example. Part of the coercion plan is that indulgences are always taken away again, though, and they’re already saying we may have to shut down the world again this fall

Merritt packs a lot of information into her hour-long presentation, so I hope you take the time to view it. Aside from what I’ve already summarized above, she also reviews:

• The influence of the World Health Organization and its largest funder, Bill Gates, and his many connections to the drug and vaccine industries, digital economy and digital tracking technologies

• The curious similarities between the Gates-funded Event 201 and current world events

• The consistent failures to create coronavirus vaccines in the past, as all trials revealed the vaccines caused paradoxical immune enhancement, which made the disease more lethal. You can learn more about this in “Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Explains Well-Known Hazards of Coronavirus Vaccines”

• Fauci’s conflicts of interest

Subscribe to Mercola Newsletter

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.

• Between the documentation obtained through a recent lawsuit against the White House and the Twitter files released by Elon Musk, it’s become quite clear that every facet of the U.S. government, including its intelligence agencies, are involved in illegal and unconstitutional censorship

• We now have proof that the FBI has been acting as the key instigator and implementer of the government’s illegal censorship of Americans. The FBI has also actively interfered in multiple elections — all while inventing the narrative that foreign nations were interfering

• Twitter has worked hand in hand with the U.S. Department of Defense to aid U.S. intelligence agencies in their efforts to influence foreign governments using fake news, computerized deepfake videos and bots

• The Twitter files also reveal members of Congress have a direct line to Twitter and have had accounts suspended on their behalf and content removed at their whim

• Discovery documents from a lawsuit against the White House filed by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana show at least 67 federal employees across more than a dozen agencies are also engaged in illegal censorship activities. This includes aides to President Biden, who pressured social media companies to change their policies to fit White House demands for censorship

Between the documentation obtained through a recent lawsuit against the White House and the Twitter files released by Elon Musk, it’s become quite clear that every facet of the U.S. government, including its intelligence agencies, are involved in illegal and unconstitutional censorship.

In the video above, Fox News host Tucker Carlson interviews independent journalist Matt Taibbi, who has spent weeks sifting through the released Twitter files and reported on the contents.

Importantly, we now have proof that the FBI has been acting as the key instigator and implementer of the government’s illegal censorship of Americans’ political and medical views. The agency has also, on a regular basis and for unknown purposes, asked Twitter to reveal the location of specific Twitter users, such as actor Billy Baldwin.

What’s more, internal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) memos, emails and documents show the DHS has worked on expanding its influence over tech platforms for years, so, government censorship is not something that came about in response to the COVID crisis. Nor is the censorship limited to COVID or public health information in general.

Evidence shows the FBI has actively interfered in multiple elections — all while inventing the narrative that foreign nations were doing the interfering.

As noted by Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., these kinds of activities are “the biggest threat to our constitutional democracy today.”

As just one example, we now know the FBI plotted to quench the Hunter Biden laptop story well before the first report about it was published. In collaboration with Twitter, Facebook and the Aspen Institute, the FBI held a tabletop exercise to practice the shaping of the media’s coverage of a potential “hack and dump” operation involving Hunter Biden material.

As reported by the New York Post:

“[The] drill was put into practical use weeks later, when The Post broke the news about Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop — which was either ignored or downplayed by most mainstream news outlets and suppressed by both Twitter and Facebook.”

There’s also evidence showing the FBI has been shielding Hunter Biden and working with social media to censor bad press about him as far back as 2018.

That job was probably made easier by the fact that reportedly former FBI agents work at both Twitter and Facebook.

For example, Jim Baker spent three decades with the FBI before becoming Twitter’s head lawyer,

and Facebook employs no less than 115 “former” employees of the FBI, CIA, NSA and other intelligence agencies, most of whom now work in Facebook’s content moderation department.

Disturbingly, we now also have evidence showing that while Twitter insisted it was cracking down on covert government propaganda accounts, they only tracked down and banned foreign government-affiliated propaganda while working hand in hand with the U.S. Department of Defense to aid U.S. intelligence agencies in their efforts to influence foreign governments using fake news, computerized deepfake videos and bots.

As reported by The Intercept:

“Behind the scenes, Twitter gave approval and special protection to the U.S. military’s online psychological ops. Despite knowledge that Pentagon propaganda accounts used overt identities, Twitter did not suspend many for around two years or more. Some remain active …

In 2017 a U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) official sent Twitter a list of 52 Arab language accounts ‘we use to amplify certain messages.’ The official asked for priority service for six accounts, verification for one and ‘whitelist’ abilities for the others.”

Whitelisted accounts have a “validated” status similar to that of the blue check mark, which ensures they are promoted in searches. These accounts also don’t get shadow-banned or limited by other means. Adding insult to injury, the FBI has been using taxpayer dollars to pay Twitter for their censorship and propaganda services — more than $3.4 million between October 2019 and February 2021 alone.

The FBI has not acted alone, however. Far from it. The Twitter files reveal members of Congress have a direct line to Twitter and have had accounts suspended on their behalf and content removed at their whim. As reported by MSN:

“… Taibbi … reported that Twitter ‘received an astonishing variety of requests from officials asking for individuals they didn’t like to be banned.’ An example he shared was one sent in November 2020 by [Rep. Adam] Schiff’s office, who contacted Twitter hoping the tech giant would take action regarding ‘alleged harassment from QAnon conspiracists’ against Schiff’s staff, including aide Sean Misko.

‘Remove any and all content about Mr. Misko and other Committee staff from its service — to include quotes, retweets, and reactions to that content,’ the request to Twitter read. ‘Suspend the many accounts, including @GregRubini and @paulsperry, which have repeatedly promoted false QAnon conspiracies.'”

Other government leaders have been less clandestine in their censoring operations. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, for example, wrote an open letter to Amazon demanding they ban my book, “The Truth About COVID-19.”

Similarly, two state attorneys general, Letitia James and William Tong, publicly threatened social media companies with legal ramifications if they refused to censor the “Misinformation Dozen.” President Joe Biden also publicly called on social media platforms to ban my accounts. But it gets worse.

Discovery documents from a lawsuit against the White House

filed by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana (Eric Schmitt and Jeff Landry) show at least 67

federal employees across more than a dozen agencies are engaged in these kinds of illegal censorship activities. This includes officials from:

• The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s (CISA) Election Security and Resilience team

• Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Office of Intelligence and Analysis

• The FBI’s foreign influence taskforce

• The Justice Department’s (DOJ) national security division

• The Office of the Director of National Intelligence

• White House staff (including White House lawyer Dana Remus, deputy assistant to the president Rob Flaherty and former White House senior COVID-19 adviser Andy Slavitt)

• Health and Human Services (HHS)

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

• National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)

• The Office of the Surgeon General

• The Census Bureau

• The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

• The State Department

• The U.S. Treasury Department

• The U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Consultants from the strategic communications and marketing firm Reingold

were also hired to manage the government’s collusion with social media in this intentional effort to violate our Constitutional right to free speech.

In a January 8, 2023, op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, Jenin Younes and Aaron Kheriaty reviewed a series of emails between White House digital media director Rob Flaherty and a Facebook executive, illustrating how the White House pressured the company to censor and remove vaccine content even though Facebook itself characterized the material as “often-true content:”

“Newly released documents show that the White House has played a major role in censoring Americans on social media. Email exchanges between Rob Flaherty … and social-media executives prove the companies put COVID censorship policies in place in response to relentless, coercive pressure from the White House — not voluntarily.”

Flaherty also demanded Facebook limit the spread of viral content on WhatsApp, a private messaging app with broad reach among “immigrant communities and communities of color.” In the end, Facebook acquiesced to all of Flaherty’s demands to prevent the spread of vaccine hesitancy and control political speech. As noted by Younes and Kheriaty:

“President Biden, press secretary Jen Psaki and Surgeon General Vivek Murthy … publicly vowed to hold the platforms accountable if they didn’t heighten censorship. On July 16, 2021, a reporter asked Mr. Biden [about] his ‘message to platforms like Facebook.’

He replied, ‘They’re killing people.’ Mr. Biden later claimed he meant users, not platforms, were killing people. But the record shows Facebook itself was the target of the White House’s pressure campaign.”

Flaherty also had Google in his crosshairs, and accused YouTube of “‘funneling’ people into vaccine hesitancy,” adding that this concern was “shared at the highest (and I mean the highest) levels of the White House.”

“These emails establish a clear pattern,” Younes and Kheriaty write. “Mr. Flaherty, representing the White House, expresses anger at the companies’ failure to censor COVID-related content to his satisfaction. The companies change their policies to address his demands. As a result, thousands of Americans were silenced for questioning government approved COVID narratives.

Two of the Missouri plaintiffs, Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, are epidemiologists whom multiple social-media platforms censored at the government’s behest for expressing views that were scientifically well-founded but diverged from the government line — for instance, that children and adults with natural immunity from prior infection don’t need COVID vaccines …

The First Amendment bars government from engaging in viewpoint-based censorship. The state-action doctrine bars government from circumventing constitutional strictures by suborning private companies to accomplish forbidden ends indirectly.

Defenders of the government have fallen back on the claim that cooperation by the tech companies was voluntary, from which they conclude that the First Amendment isn’t implicated. The reasoning is dubious, but even if it were valid, the premise has now been proved false.

The Flaherty emails demonstrate that the federal government unlawfully coerced the companies in an effort to ensure that Americans would be exposed only to state-approved information about COVID-19. As a result of that unconstitutional state action, Americans were given the false impression of a scientific ‘consensus’ on critically important issues around COVID-19.”

Taken together, the revelations from the Twitter files and this lawsuit clearly demonstrate that most, if not all, aspects of the U.S. government have been secretly weaponized to undermine and circumvent the Constitutional rights of the people.

“It’s much more serious than what I thought at the beginning.” ~ Matt Taibbi

As noted by Taibbi in his Fox News interview:

“This is not a partisan story. It’s a story about the architecture of the intelligence community and law enforcement getting its hands on speech, and on the ability of people to communicate with one another through platforms like Twitter and Facebook. And they’re doing this in a very profound way — it’s much more serious than what I thought at the beginning …”

While the danger we’re in as a nation is far more dire than anyone suspected, there is some good news. A new select committee, chaired by Rep. Jim Jordan, has been launched to investigate the weaponization of government, the politicization of the FBI and the DOJ’s investigation into and harassment of parents who spoke out against COVID mandates, critical race theory and the sexualization of their children at school board meetings. As reported by The Post Millennial:

“This investigative panel will demand emails and correspondence between the Biden administration and big tech companies, and follows the massive revelations that came to light through the recent release of the Twitter files. Newly minted House Speaker Kevin McCarthy … was asked to form the committee as part of the negotiations that brought him to power …

The probe into communications between tech giants and President Biden’s aides will look for government pressure that could have resulted in censorship or harassment of conservatives — or squelching of debate on polarizing policies, including the CDC on COVID …”

While it’s likely that government personnel and agencies will try to ignore the committee’s requests for information, the committee does have subpoena power, and hopefully will not be too timid to use it.

Unfortunately, since the GOP does not control the Senate, it’s unlikely they’ll be able to pass any new laws based on the committee’s findings. That said, legislation to penalize government censorship has already been introduced, and you can help push it forward by asking your representatives to support it.

The Protecting Speech from Government Interference Act

(HR.8752), introduced by three Republican House Representatives on the House Oversight and Reform, Judiciary, and Commerce committees, including Jordan, is specifically aimed at preventing federal employees from using their positions to influence censorship decisions by tech platforms.

The bill would create restrictions to prevent federal employees from asking or encouraging private entities to censor private speech or otherwise discourage free speech, and impose penalties, including civil fines and disciplinary actions for government employees who facilitate social media censorship.

While the U.S. Constitution clearly forbids government censoring and restricting free speech, HR. 8752 could be a helpful enforcement tool — and we clearly need enforcement, seeing how more than a dozen agencies are flouting the Constitution and have done so for years. People might tend to think twice, though, when they know there’s a personal price to pay.

>”,”action”:null,”class”:null}”>NEXT ARTICLE >>

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.