Covid19: Global reports, news and updates

[onawah]

PS Do you know the largest donors to the World Health Organization (WHO)?
From email update 5/22/20 info@thetruthaboutvaccines.com

"Do you know the largest donors to the World Health Organization (WHO)?

Prior to the suspension of funding, the USA was the biggest donor to the WHO. Bill Gates (acting through both the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, another Gates organization) was the second largest financial contributor. Absent the United States, he is now the biggest one.

Given what we know about the WHO from Part 1 and part 2 of this series, how does this fact affect what may be coming down the pipeline regarding COVID-19 and the possibility of mandatory vaccines for everyday folks like you and me?

>> Read part 3 of “Who is Running the WHO?” https://thetruthaboutcancer.com/running-part-3/

And we have more CENSORSHIP to report -- it gets more unbelievable every day.

Just yesterday, Youtube REMOVED part 2 of the TTAV2020 Vaccine Roundtable! The only explanation was that it violated their guidelines.

This techno-tyrannical, lawless, communist-like censorship is becoming more and more frequent. Each and every day, we read multiple stories of the Youtube “thought police” scrubbing videos, deleting content, and violating freedoms in a manner that would make Mao Zedong proud.

So now, over the course of the past 3 weeks, we have been censored by Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and now Youtube.

Let’s beat them at their own game. We uploaded the TTAV2020 Vaccine Roundtable (part 2) to Vimeo.

>> Here is the link https://vimeo.com/user64486595/downl...520/b1b081e9f3

Please DOWNLOAD the video and then UPLOAD to your Youtube channel. Instead of deleting 1 video, let’s make the Youtube Nazis delete TEN THOUSAND uploads!

Human freedom cannot coexist without freedom of thought and speech. These companies are enemies of humanity and criminals against all who value life and liberty."
Yours in health and liberty,

Ty and Charlotte

P.S. We’ll be speaking in Charlotte this weekend at Dr. Buttar’s “Advanced Medicine Conference” - check it out. https://advancedmedicineconference.com/index

P.P.S. Charlene will be on the Michelle Malkin Show this afternoon at 5:30pm ET. There will be a roundtable discussing censorship, so you don’t want to miss it!


>> Watch on Twitter https://twitter.com/michellemalkin

>> Watch on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/user/michellemalkin

[greybeard]

Lockdown saved no lives and may have cost them, Nobel Prize winner believes


https://uk.yahoo.com/news/lockdown-s...150639428.html

More on the link


Lockdown caused more deaths than it saved, a Nobel laureate scientist said on Saturday, as he predicted the UK would emerge from Covid-19 within weeks.

Michael Levitt, a Stanford University professor who correctly predicted the initial trajectory of the pandemic, sent messages to Professor Neil Ferguson in March telling the influential government advisor he had over-estimated the potential death toll by "10 or 12 times".

The Imperial College professor's modelling, a major factor in the Government's apparent abandoning of a so-called herd-immunity policy, was part of an unnecessary "panic virus" which spread among global political leaders, Prof Levitt now tells the Telegraph.

Prof Levitt, a British-American-Israeli who shared the Nobel prize for chemistry in 2013 for the "development of multiscale models for complex chemical systems", has said for two months that the planet will beat coronavirus faster than most other experts predict.

"I think lockdown saved no lives," said the scientist, who added that the Government should have encouraged Britons to wear masks and adhere to other forms of social distancing.

"I think it may have cost lives. It will have saved a few road accident lives - things like that - but social damage - domestic abuse, divorces, alcoholism - has been extreme. And then you have those who were not treated for other conditions."

[onawah]

Livestream of historic event with Dr. Buttar, Dr. Mikovitz, Dr. Bruce Lipton & more
(Email update today from Josh del Sol info@takebackyourpower.net via d13c.emsend1.com )

"Dr. Rashid Buttar, Dr. Judy Mikovitz, Dr. Bruce Lipton, Del Bigtree, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, Ty & Charlene, Nia Peeples, and other luminaries have assembled this weekend in Charlotte for the ADVANCED MEDICINE CONFERENCE, and are livestreaming now.
At this very moment my friend Dr. Rashid Buttar is hosting the Advanced Medicine Conference this weekend in Charlotte, with many of the HEROES of our time. (Please forgive the late notice, but I figured better late than never!)

It's happening right now, in defiance of a so-called "order" from the North Carolina Governor to limit gatherings to 10 people... they are courageously and victoriously standing on their rights to assemble!

Some of our favorite courageous leaders have got together to share POWERFUL TRUTH this weekend:

Here's an update from Dr. Buttar after Day 1:

Over 250 people showed up and over a dozen vendors, despite an illegal attempt to prevent us for being able to exercise our 1st amendment right of Freedom of Speech and the Freedom to Assemble and the implied right of Freedom to Associate.

But rather than me trying to attempt to explain what happened, here is a small segment of what you may have missed. You can still get tickets and people are still buying them so feel free to do what feels right. Just click on the video image below to watch this short presentation:"

Watch yesterday's YouTube stream:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=mg3_JECnBa4

Click Here To Purchase Virtual Tickets to the 2nd Annual AMC 2020:https://www.eventbrite.com/e/amc-202...24174?aff=JOSH

BRAVE SOULS!!

[Delight]

For several months I have been trying to put information together to understand the truth of what is called "covid-19". I was worried at one time and then realized EVERY DAY that facts were not coming together. Now I am no longer worried about a "Pandemic". Some people I respect still think that the "virus" is itself the problem. Many think it is "something else" that is the problem. I don't KNOW what we should be thinking EXCEPT there is NO WAY that whatever has been causing illness is sufficient to institute the changes in society now being "accepted". It disappoints me to read from certain people that we have to go along with the model promoted. IMO they are deadly wrong. I feel very sure they are on the wrong side of history to the utter APPROVAL of those who revel in our fears and compliance.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=L1n_3WLujHk

[greybeard]

This is the hard-to-swallow truth about a future coronavirus vaccine (and yes, I'm a doctor)
[The Independent]
Eugene Gu
The Independent19 May 2020
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/hard-swall...184133232.html

When pharmaceutical company Moderna issued a press release about the promising results of its Phase I clinical trial for a coronavirus vaccine, the media and the markets went wild. The New York Times ran a story that went viral on Twitter, racking up millions of views as social media influencers and doctors alike shared it far and wide. Moderna’s stock price shot up 20 percent and several peer companies like Novavax rallied even higher at more than 30 percent.

But was it justified?

The news cycle in the era of the coronavirus pandemic feels like tidal waves of hope and fear on steroids. Perhaps that’s because with more than 36 million Americans losing their jobs and more than 90,000 losing their lives, everyone is desperately looking for the light at the end of the tunnel. Covid-19 is taking an unprecedented physical and psychological toll on the American people and so small bits of potentially good news that should be taken with a grain of salt can end up dominating the headlines. People turn molehills into mountains because we really need and want a game-changer right now. But the truth is the truth regardless of what we want or feel, especially in science and medicine.

Phase I clinical trials simply test the safety of a drug or vaccine in a small number of healthy volunteers — usually brave and naïve college students — while Phase II trials are responsible for testing its effectiveness in a larger number of subjects. Such a hyped-up and exuberant response to a Phase I trial is rare and nearly unheard of, even in the extraordinary setting of Covid-19. This is especially the case since so little information is gleaned from an investigational drug in Phase I that has many more hurdles to overcome before it successfully gets to market. In fact, 77 percent of vaccines for infectious diseases make it through Phase I, but only 33 percent make it through the entire process overall.

Moreover, upon examining Moderna’s non-peer reviewed press release, the actual data on the vaccine’s success is even more flimsy. According to the document, of the 45 patients who received the vaccine, the data on “neutralizing antibody data are available only for the first four participants in each of the 25-microgram and 100-microgram dose level cohorts.” In other words, that means that when it comes to finding out whether the vaccine elicits an antibody response that could potentially fight the coronavirus, they only had data on eight patients. That’s not enough to do any type of statistical analysis and it also brings into question the status of the other 37 patients who also received the vaccine.

Moreover, when it comes to determining whether the “neutralizing antibodies” were clinically effective against the coronavirus, the only data Moderna eluded to were from mice. Not only are there huge differences between mice and men, but history also proves that success in animal models is often not replicated in human studies. This is especially the case for Moderna’s messenger RNA vaccine, which would be the world’s first to ever reach the market if it passes clinical trials.

Many vaccines, like for influenza a.k.a flu, use an inactivated virus that is destroyed by heat or chemicals like formaldehyde so that it can elicit an immune response without infecting you. Others — like for measles, mumps, and rubella — use a live attenuated virus that is cultivated in such a way that it makes the virus weak and unable to hurt you but still able to train your immune system to fight it. Moderna’s messenger RNA vaccine, on the other hand, is completely new and revolutionary to say the least. It uses a sequence of genetic RNA material produced in a lab that, when injected into your body, must invade your cells and hijack your cells’ protein-making machinery called ribosomes to produce the viral components that subsequently train your immune system to fight the virus. In this case, Moderna’s mRNA-1273 is programmed to make your cells produce the coronavirus’ infamous spike protein that gives the virus its crown-like appearance (“corona” is crown in Latin) for which it is named.

In many ways, the vaccine almost behaves like an RNA virus itself except that it hijacks your cells to produce the parts of the virus, like the spike protein, rather than the whole virus. Some messenger RNA vaccines are even self-amplifying. That means they encode not only the protein antigen of interest to elicit an immune response but also produce their own RNA dependent RNA polymerase, so that they can force the cell to replicate more copies of it. At that point, it will be hard to convince conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers that a self-amplifying messenger RNA vaccine is not an artificially created self-replicating virus. In fact, public acceptance of this new paradigm is not something to be easily dismissed nor taken for granted. There are unique and unknown risks to messenger RNA vaccines, including the possibility that they generate strong type I interferon responses that could lead to inflammation and autoimmune conditions.

[greybeard]

Defence of Dominic Cummings is shameful, says ex-Durham police chief
Vikram Dodd Police and crime correspondent
The Guardian

The former chief constable of Durham police has launched a strident attack on Dominic Cummings and the government defending him, branding them self-privileged hypocrites who have damaged the fight against coronavirus at a time of national emergency.

Mike Barton, who stepped down as chief constable last year, said the government’s defence of Boris Johnson’s chief adviser – who travelled from London to Durham after his wife came down with Covid-19 symptoms – was causing extensive damage as police try to get the public to obey lockdown rules.

He told the Guardian: “It is clear he has broken the rules. It could not be clearer. I cannot think of a worse example of a breach of the lockdown rules. For it then to be defended by the government just beggars belief.”

Barton said the rules were clear: that anyone with symptoms of coronavirus should not leave their home.

“What is particularly sad and undermines completely the government position is they seem to be operating in a bubble of self-privilege and denial when they all should be leading by example. ‘Hypocrite’ was invented for these circumstances … Of course it is double standards.”

Barton added: “It feels like feudal times. We make the rules and it is for you, the great unwashed, to follow them.”

Related: Dominic Cummings faces growing pressure to resign from Tory MPs

It has emerged that police were unaware Cummings had travelled to his parents’ farm in Durham with his wife and son at the end of March, until his father informed them.

Robert Cummings asked a friend to contact officers because he wanted security advice. Months earlier, he got security advice in relation to his son from Durham police, but had mislaid the contact details, it is understood.

On 31 March, Robert Cummings contacted someone who he knew had details of a senior officer in the Durham force, and that senior officer arranged for Special Branch to contact Cummings’s father. During that call, advice was given by the Special Branch officer on both security and physical distancing under lockdown rules.

The Durham force is understood to have been dismayed by a Downing Street statement on Saturday which wrongly claimed police had not spoken to anyone from the Cummings family about his journey from London.

Cummings’s father was spoken to again by police earlier this month after they became aware of fresh claims on social media and media inquiries about whether the aide had again been seen in the Durham area.

Cummings Snr denied the claim, and said his son was not present at the family farm. Police accepted his word.

In a statement issued on Saturday evening, Durham police said: “On Tuesday, 31 March, our officers were made aware that Dominic Cummings had travelled from London to Durham and was present at an address in the city. At the request of Mr Cummings’ father, an officer made contact the following morning by telephone.

“During that conversation, Mr Cummings’ father confirmed that his son had travelled with his family from London to the north-east and was self-isolating in part of the property.”

In a statement issued on Friday, Durham police had said: “In line with national policing guidance, officers explained to the family the guidelines around self-isolation and reiterated the appropriate advice around essential travel.” No further action was taken.

Barton attacked the government’s defence of Cummings, including the performance by the transport secretary, Grant Shapps, at the daily Downing Street briefing on Saturday.

“The government are coming out with weasel words and sophistry,” Barton said. “For Mr Shapps to be obviously making it up as he goes long shames the government, shames him and shames us all as a country. It is blatantly stupid what they are suggesting.”

Under Barton’s leadership, the Durham force was rated as one of the best-performing in the country by official inspectors. Jo Farrell, the current chief constable, who is dealing with the Cummings allegations, was Barton’s deputy.

Barton warned of wider and serious consequences, saying: “They [ministers] have driven a coach and horses through these crucial guidelines at a time of national emergency, simply to save the skin of one of their own.

“This is not just Dominic Cummings. This is many members of the cabinet supporting someone who has clearly broken the guidelines, their guidelines, at a time of national emergency. I find it amazing they are changing the rules to save his skin.”

The former chief constable warned it would make the police’s job harder: “I feel for the thousands of officers negotiating to get people to do what they do not want to do. This makes the job of policing the lockdown harder. It gives a green light for people to do what they want.”

He warned that the Conservatives, who gained power after winning seats in Labour’s traditional northern heartlands, were damaging themselves. “They are on probation,” he said. “People who voted for them, I’m not sure they wanted to bring into power this conceited self-privilege that has been on display for the past 48 hours.”

Barton said his former force had handled the matter well. Under his leadership, Durham police pioneered alternatives to prosecutions and Barton said prosecuting or fining Cummings would have been pointless. He said: “Fining people does not bring the R rate down. What brings it down is people following the rules.”

Durham police tried to avoid punishing people for lockdown breaches. It has been one of the forces to issue the fewest fines, at about 137 between 27 March and 11 May, compared with North Yorkshire police’s 843.


https://uk.yahoo.com/news/defence-do...123502141.html

[onawah]

COVID vaccine: what else could they put in the shot?
by Jon Rappoport
May 25, 2020
https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020...t-in-the-shot/

"There has never been a greater opportunity to deploy one vaccine against so many people. So it’s certainly not out of line to consider a “dual use.”

I have already covered the devastating effects of experimental RNA/DNA vaccine technologies—both of which could be launched with a COVID vaccine. Putting that aside for the moment, could the vaccine serve another purpose?

In this article, I raise questions. Questions about the potential covert use of nanotechnology in the COVID vaccine.

From lexico.com: nanotechnology: “The branch of technology that deals with dimensions and tolerances of less than 100 nanometers, especially the manipulation of individual atoms and molecules.”

Are researchers interested in marrying nanotechnology and vaccines?

Here is a quote from Frontiers in Immunology, January 24, 2019, “Nanoparticle-Based Vaccines Against Respiratory Viruses”: A new generation of vaccines based on nanoparticles has shown great potential to address most of the limitations of conventional and subunit vaccines. This is due to recent advances in chemical and biological engineering, which allow the design of nanoparticles with a precise control over the size, shape, functionality and surface properties, leading to enhanced antigen presentation and strong immunogenicity. This short review provides an overview of the advantages associated with the use of nanoparticles as vaccine delivery platforms to immunize against respiratory viruses…” [such as the purported COVID-19 virus?]

Here is another quote, also from Frontiers in Immunology, October 4, 2018, “Nanoparticle Vaccines Against Infectious Diseases”: In the last several years, the use of nanoparticle-based vaccines has received a great attention to improve vaccine efficacy, immunization strategies, and targeted delivery to achieve desired immune responses at the cellular level…Nanocarriers composed of lipids, proteins, metals or polymers have already been used…This review article focuses on the applications of nanocarrier-based vaccine formulations and the strategies used for the functionalization of nanoparticles to accomplish efficient delivery of vaccines in order to induce desired host immunity against infectious diseases.”

There can be no doubt that nanotechnology is, indeed, very much involved in cutting-edge vaccine research.

Now let’s shift into another use of nanotech.

Here are astonishing quotes from the journal Nano Today, from a 2019 paper titled: “Nanowire probes could drive high-resolution brain-machine interfaces.” Its authors are Chinese and American:

“…advances can enable investigations of dynamics in the brain [through nano-sensor-implants] and drive the development of new brain-machine interfaces with unprecedented resolution and precision.”

“…output electrical signals of brain activity or input electrical stimuli to modulate brain activity in concert with external machines, including computer processors and prosthetics, for human enhancement…”

Aside from research into prosthetics and, perhaps, the reversal of certain paralyses, this avenue of investigation also suggests “modulation” of the brain remotely connected to machines, for the purpose of control.

Modulation…such as control of basic thought-impulses, sensations, emotions?

ONE: Nano-sensors, implanted in the body and brain, would issue real time data-reports on body/brain functioning to ops centers.

TWO: And from those ops centers, data—including instructions—would be sent back to the nano-sensors, which would impose those instructions on the brain and body.

If this seems impossible, consider nanotech research aimed at improving the use of prosthetics. In that field, imposing instructions on the body/brain appears to be the whole point.

The question is: how far along the road of development is this technology? I can only say we are seeing the public published face of nanotech. What lies behind it, in secret research, is a matter for estimation and speculation.

I offer one speculation: the “promotion” of the social agenda of collectivist thought, through nanotech. Utilizing the Internet of Things, an attempt would be made to hook up and “harmonize” many, many brains with one another. Same basic feelings, same impulses—shared.

Who would be interested in such a program? Think Chinese government, DARPA (the technology arm of the Pentagon), and numerous other international actors. Think Rockefeller medical researchers. Think technocracy and Brave New World.

SUPPOSE, THROUGH A COVID VACCINE, NANOTECH COULD BE INSERTED INTO BODIES AND BRAINS OF THE GLOBAL POPULATION? As a grand control “experiment.” Is that too far-out an idea?

Here is an interesting quote from a 3/11/20 S&P Global article, “Early-stage nanotechnology poised for ‘inflection point’”:

“One of the most pressing global healthcare challenges in 2020 is the coronavirus outbreak and Moderna Inc….is on the front line of vaccine development for this new biological threat.”

“Moderna’s nanoparticle-driven science uses genetic engineering to trigger cells to create proteins that prevent certain infections. Its vaccines for Zika virus and influenza have already progressed to early clinical stages…”

If Moderna’s COVID vaccine is indeed using nanoparticles, I have not seen this mentioned in current press reports.

The S&P Global article states, “One of the leaders in the field of biological nanotech engineering is Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Robert Langer, who has helped found about 40 companies based on technology created and developed in his Langer Lab…Moderna Inc., one of the companies Langer helped found…”

Does Moderna’s COVID vaccine use nanoparticles? If so, what can these particles actually do? These are pressing questions that need to be answered.

I offer two backgrounders I wrote several months ago. They involve the flood of highly significant scientific research across borders.

BACKGROUNDER ONE: Behind the explosive Charles Lieber nanotech scandal

Once upon a time, they called it espionage. Then they called it “illegal technology transfer.” Then they casually and admiringly called it Globalism.

Imagine this.

A cutting-edge technology, which has applications for weaponry, transportation, medicine, artificial intelligence, surveillance, mind control…is being openly shared between the US and China. And by implication, who knows how many other nations?

As just one example, tiny sensors would, up the road, be placed inside the human body. These sensors would automatically monitor and report thousands of changes, in real time, in the body—as a way of diagnosing diseases.

The sensors will transmit all this information, through the emerging Internet of Things—using the 5G pipeline—to medical centers—where AI corporate and government analysts will make the disease diagnoses and prescribe treatments.

Eventually, a few billion people (patients) would, through these sensors in their bodies, be hooked up to the 5G Internet of Things.

—HOWEVER, as I’ve reported many times in these pages, the standard definitions of diseases and disorders are often incorrect, or even invented. But because the future system I’ve just sketched is automated, the patient is enclosed in a fake and dangerous bubble. Among other problems, the disease treatments, the drugs and vaccines, are toxic.

What is the technology that is on the way to producing these body sensors?

Nanoscience. Nano-engineering.

From lexico.com: nanotechnology: “The branch of technology that deals with dimensions and tolerances of less than 100 nanometers, especially the manipulation of individual atoms and molecules.”

One of the leading nanoscience researchers in the world was recently arrested on a charge of concealing his connections to China.

Major US science star busted by the feds.

Charles Lieber, now suspended by Harvard, is the University’s chairman of the chemistry department.

I have read two articles from a foreign news outlet headlined with the claim that Lieber stole and smuggled the “new coronavirus” from the US to China. In both cases, the text of the articles mentioned nothing about such a theft. I’m not writing this article about “coronavirus.” I’ve been writing many articles rejecting the premise of an “epidemic” caused by the “virus.”

I decided to look into this situation, because Lieber does apparently have big-time connections to China. Sharing research on his specialty, nanoscience, with China would be one more case of “technology transfer.”

Bloomberg News, February 12, 2020: “Lieber’s arrest on Jan. 28 came in connection with his dealings in China. He hasn’t been charged with any type of economic espionage, intellectual-property theft, or export violations. Instead, he’s accused of lying to U.S. Department of Defense investigators about his work with the People’s Republic…”

“…by targeting Lieber, the chairman of Harvard’s chemistry department and a veritable ivory tower blue blood, prosecutors struck at the crimson heart of the academic elite, raising fears that globalism, when it comes to doing science with China, is being criminalized.”

“According to a government affidavit, signed by a Federal Bureau of Investigation agent named Robert Plumb, Lieber signed at least three agreements with Wuhan Technology University, or WUT, in central China. These included a contract with the state-sponsored Thousand Talents Plan—an effort by Beijing to attract mostly expatriate [Chinese] researchers and their know-how back home—worth a total of about $653,000 a year in pay [to Lieber] and living expenses for three years, plus $1.74 million [to Lieber] to support a new ‘Harvard-WUT Nano Key Lab’ in Wuhan. The government offered no evidence that Lieber actually received those sums… Lieber also deceived Harvard about his China contracts, the [federal] affidavit said.”

“Whatever extracurricular arrangements Lieber may have had in China, his Harvard lab was a paragon of U.S.-China collaboration. He relied on a pipeline of China’s brightest Ph.D. students and postdocs, often more than a dozen at a time, to produce prize-winning research on the revolutionary potential of so-called nanowires in biomedical implants. Dozens of Lieber’s 100 or so former lab members from China have chosen to stay in the U.S. Many now lead their own nanoscience labs at top universities, including Duke, Georgia Tech, MIT, Stanford, University of California at Berkeley, and UCLA.”

I’d say that’s a pretty big technology-transfer WOW right there.

“In the 1990s and 2000s, as Lieber’s achievements and stature were taking off, U.S. research institutions and grant makers pumped money and moral support into expanding the burgeoning collaborations between scientists in the U.S. and other countries, particularly China. The new paradigm was globalization, China was an emerging economic power, and Lieber’s lab became an exemplar of pan-Pacific collaboration. “

Another WOW. Not a leak of information. A flood.

“A more controversial Lieber protégé is Liqiang Mai, the international dean and chair of materials science at WUT, the little-known school in Wuhan that prosecutors allege recruited Lieber to be a ‘strategic scientist’ in 2011, for $50,000 a month. Mai, who hasn’t been named in any U.S. filings against Lieber, earned a doctorate at WUT in 2004 and worked as a postdoc in Lieber’s lab from 2008 to 2011, according to Mai’s WUT online bio….”

How big a star is Lieber? Wikpedia: “Charles M. Lieber (born 1959) is an American chemist and pioneer in the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology. In 2011, Lieber was recognized by Thomson Reuters as the leading chemist in the world for the decade 2000-2010 based on the impact of his scientific publications. Lieber has published over 400 papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals and has edited and contributed to many books on nanoscience. He is the principal inventor on over fifty issued US patents and applications, and founded the nanotechnology company Nanosys in 2001 and Vista Therapeutics in 2007. He is known for his contributions to the synthesis, assembly and characterization of nanoscale materials and nanodevices, the application of nanoelectronic devices in biology, and as a mentor to numerous leaders in nanoscience. In 2012, Lieber was awarded Israel’s Wolf Prize in Chemistry.”

Chemistry and Engineering News, January 28, 2020: “In addition, Lieber allegedly signed a contract that obligated Harvard to become part of a cooperative research program that allowed WUT [Chinese] scientists to visit the university up to two months each year. The [federal] complaint says he did not inform university officials of the agreement, which was for ‘advanced research and development of nano wire-based lithium-ion batteries with high performance for electric vehicles’.”

Another “technology transfer” of great value.

“…the NIH [US National Institutes of Health, a federal agency] asked Harvard about whether the university or Lieber failed to disclose his financial relationship with China. Lieber has been a principal investigator on at least three NIH grants totaling $10 million since 2008. After interviewing Lieber, Harvard [incorrectly, supposedly based on Lieber’s statements] responded to the NIH that he [Lieber] had ‘no formal association with WUT [Wuhan Institute of Technology]’ and ‘is not and has never been a participant in’ the [Chinese] Thousand Talents program.”

NIH has strict regulations about its researchers disclosing their conflict-of-interest connections. The feds obviously believe Lieber has failed to report his China connections to NIH. This would become a factor in his prosecution.

Lieber was operating a robust center at Harvard: Lieber Research Group. Its focus is nanoscience and nanotechnology. So it’s natural to ask, what kind of research findings would be shared with China?

On the Group’s website, there is this, right off the bat: “We are pioneering the interface between nanoelectronics and the life sciences…sensors for real-time disease detection…”

Hence, the picture of the future I sketched at the beginning of this backgrounder.

I may report further on nanoscience. Of course, the ominous technological innovations apply to both China and the US, and the rest of the world…

The Chinese government has the clout, will, force, and intent to impose, without hesitation, every sort of possible control on its 1.4 billion citizens. It is in the process of building many new “smart cities.” These centers will be models of wall-to-wall surveillance. AI, Internet of Things, 5G, the works. If nanoscience can achieve much more intimate access to people, through implanted sensors, why wouldn’t the Chinese government jump at the chance to deploy it? The rationale and the cover story are obvious: WE MUST HAVE EARLY KNOWLEDGE OF NEW VIRUS EPIDEMICS. WE WILL DETECT THEM DIRECTLY FROM THE BODIES OF OUR PEOPLE IN REAL TIME.

All hail, Globalism and technocracy.

BACKGROUNDER TWO: Nano-technology: one world, one brain

From lexico.com: nanotechnology: “The branch of technology that deals with dimensions and tolerances of less than 100 nanometers, especially the manipulation of individual atoms and molecules.”

The recent arrest of Harvard pioneer in the field of nanotechnology, Charles Lieber—on charges of lying to federal authorities about his business connections to China—has exposed wide-ranging relationships among American and Chinese researchers.

These relationships include, above all, the open sharing of sensitive technologies that, once upon a time, would have been considered closely guarded state secrets.

Here are quotes from the journal Nano Today, from a 2019 paper titled: “Nanowire probes could drive high-resolution brain-machine interfaces”. Its authors are Chinese and American:

“…advances can enable investigations of dynamics in the brain [through tiny sensor-implants] and drive the development of new brain-machine interfaces with unprecedented resolution and precision.”

“…output electrical signals of brain activity or input electrical stimuli to modulate brain activity in concert with external machines, including computer processors and prosthetics, for human enhancement…”

Aside from research into prosthetics and, perhaps, the reversal of certain paralyses, this avenue of investigation also suggests “modulation” of the brain, hooked to machines, for the purpose of control. Control of basic thoughts, sensations, emotions.

And along with the Internet of Things, why couldn’t that control eventually be extended, in order to “harmonize” many, many brains with one another?

Who would be interested in such a thing? Think Chinese government, DARPA (the technology arm of the Pentagon), and numerous other international actors. Think Rockefeller medical researchers. Think technocracy and Brave New World.

Over the past few decades, the flow of all sorts of ultra-sensitive scientific information, between the US and China, hasn’t consisted of rare leaks. It’s a flood, out in the open, in labs and universities. All part of the new share-and-care Globalist agenda.

Nanotechnology, to choose one branch of such research-exchange, has applications in weaponry, transportation, surveillance, medicine, etc. And of course, mind control.

“Look, I’m certainly willing to share my latest research on nano-brain implants. But I need your, ahem, assurance that your government won’t use this for dark purposes.”

“I understand completely. My government would no more do that than your government would.”

“All right. Then we’re good.”

“Yes. Good.”

How did US-China relations get to this point? At one time, it appeared the two governments were involved in a cold war. Oh, that’s right, President Nixon opened up China to trade, in 1972, after 25 years of no diplomatic relations. Nixon was the agent of David Rockefeller, who, years earlier, had rescued him from a broken career as a politician. David Rockefeller, arch Globalist.

Here’s what Rockefeller blithely wrote in 1973, a year after Nixon had worked his China miracle:

“Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.” (“From a China Traveler”. NY Times. August 10, 1973.)

Millions of people dead, freedom crushed, a whole population under the boot of the Communist regime, but somehow that’s not what David Rockefeller saw, or pretended to see. He, like other of his elite Globalist colleagues, admired the Chinese government for the capacity to control its own people, to such a high degree.

Flash forward 47 years. Scientists from both countries are blowing each other kisses, as they collaborate on developing a technology that has the potential to gain intimate influence inside the human brain itself.

—Of course, remember, when political push comes to shove, and it always does, China is the friend of China. In the case of American corporate and government big shots, hometown loyalty tends to be conditional, depending on which sources and countries are putting money on the table."

SOURCES:

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles...019.00022/full

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6180194/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...48013219306929

https://www.spglobal.com/marketintel...point-57506309

[Tintin]

Well, much of the news in the UK at the moment is centered around the flouting of the lockdown rules by Dominic Cummings, the Prime Minister's senior/chief adviser, and as Craig Murray lays out below there is of course more to this than may have met the eye in relation to Barnard Castle.

it also begs questions of supposed journalists lack of willingness to raise this - they surely must know - in interrogating (sic) Dominic Cummings in his earlier Downing Street 'Rose Garden' news conference.

From Vanessa Beeley's excellent two part investigation into the players behind the UK Government response to the Covid-19 crisis, the following:

"Both Hancock and Dominic Cummings, chief adviser to the Prime Minister, have questionable ties to Babylon Health, a prominent health tech firm implementing AI. Cummings held an undisclosed consultancy job at this healthcare venture: a firm endorsed by the government and at the top of the list to receive a National Health Service (NHS) Fund cash injection of £250 million."

According to an article in The Bureau Investigates, during 2018, Cummings “advised Babylon Health on its communications strategy and senior recruitment just months before its GP at Hand app was publicly backed by Matt Hancock.”

(article: https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/cov...nment-lockdown)

Related posts:
Thread Covid19: Cui Bono? Is there an agenda?
Post #305

His close relationship to both GSK and Babylon Healthcare in particular, and the clear conflicts of interest, should give pause, and weaponise further scrutiny as to the likely real motivation for his visit to that area of England in the first days of the 'Stay Home' message.

——————————————

Why Barnard Castle


Source: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...arnard-castle/

May 24 2020

UPDATED [May 25th]: Dominic Cummings specifically stated now in the press briefing that he had been eager to “get back to work to get vaccine deals through, move regulations aside” and that is why he drove to Barnard Castle to test his eyesight.

Now it may be entirely a coincidence that the place to which he chose to drive for his eyesight test happened to be the site of the major factory of GlaxoSmithKline. It may be an entire coincidence that two days later, on the very day Cummings actually started work back in Downing Street he has stated was “to get vaccine deals through”, GlaxoSmithKline announced an agreement to develop the vaccine.

It is however plainly not crazy to ask the question. This astonishing Twitter pile-on against Clive Lewis for retweeting my piece says something very worrying, when you consider that the large majority of those piling in are supposedly part of the “opposition” and include many journalists. A society where it is viewed as a sign of madness to look into the prospect of corruption involving a company as massively, provenly corrupt as GlaxoSmithKline and a figure as shady as Cummings, is a very unhealthy society indeed.

One red flag to me is the number of trolls claiming GlaxoSmithKline only has a small and remote office in Barnard Castle. This is not the entire site, and in a further £96 million investment two new blocks are in construction or recently finished:



So to return to my original posting:

In 2012 GlaxoSmithKline were fined $3 billion for fraud, overcharging and making false claims about medicines in the USA. In 2016, GlaxoSmithKline were fined £37.6 million in the UK for bribing companies not to produce generic copies of their out of patent drugs, thus overcharging the NHS.

Despite the fines, these frauds were still massively profitable for GlaxoSmithKline. A perfunctory search on the company brings up similar frauds and fines it perpetrated in South Africa and India. All this within the last decade. I cannot find any information that anyone was jailed, or even sacked, for these criminal activities. It is absolutely astonishing that such an habitually criminal enterprise carries on serenely in the UK. And what is particularly interesting today is that it carries on its crooked activity from its massive manufacturing and research base in Barnard Castle, County Durham.

On 12 April Dominic Cummings was seen in Castle Barnard during lockdown. Two days later, GlaxoSmithKline of Barnard Castle signed an agreement to develop and manufacture a Covid-19 vaccine with Sanofi of France.

Of course, that could be coincidence. As a child I lived in nearby Peterlee and I know families may go to Barnard Castle just for relaxation. Even when that is illegal. But GlaxoSmithKline Barnard Castle has been working 24/7 during the coronavirus crisis including the weekends. It was working.

The government’s extraordinary refusal to confirm or deny Cummings visit to Barnard Castle appears to make little sense if he just went there for a walk.

But surely if he was discussing Covid-19 vaccine business on behalf of the government, that would answer all the critics of his trip, would it not? They would want to trumpet it from the hills? I mean to believe otherwise, you would have to propound a crazed conspiracy theory. You would have to believe that criminal activity may be occurring again involving GlaxoSmithKline of the kind which might lead to fines of 37.6 million pounds for overcharging the NHS, or of three billion dollars for fraudulent medical claims in the USA. Nobody sane believes that kind of thing, do they?

UPDATED: I should never be surprised by the puerile nature of debate on the internet, but I frequently am. There appears to be organised pushback stating that this article is only speculation. Of course it is. It states a number of facts not generally known, and wonders if there is a connection. It does not claim to have proof Cummings visited GSK, let alone of what he did when there. But both GSK and Cummings are known bad actors.

The even sillier argument is that Barnard Castle is the research and manufacturing centre and not the corporate HQ and therefore no deal could have been done there. Because when a company is involved in a massive criminal conspiracy, as GSK undeniably was in the multi-billion fraud in the USA or its price-fixing to the NHS, such criminal actions obviously can only be arranged in the main London company boardroom during normal working hours with lots of people around and the maximum chance of inconvenient people finding out what is happening? That is a stupid argument.

Equally, those who claim I have uncovered a criminal conspiracy are wrong. I have not. All I have done is put together some circumstances around Cummings denied trip to Barnard Castle, that could potentially provide a more reasonable explanation for why he would take the risk of going there, and why the government would stake all politically on denying it, than a day trip for a walk for his wife’s birthday. I have not proven anything.

——————————————

Related Tweet May 25th 2020:

[Delight]

Posted by Delight (here)
For several months I have been trying to put information together to understand the truth of what is called "covid-19". I was worried at one time and then realized EVERY DAY that facts were not coming together. Now I am no longer worried about a "Pandemic". Some people I respect still think that the "virus" is itself the problem. Many think it is "something else" that is the problem. I don't KNOW what we should be thinking EXCEPT there is NO WAY that whatever has been causing illness is sufficient to institute the changes in society now being "accepted". It disappoints me to read from certain people that we have to go along with the model promoted. IMO they are deadly wrong. I feel very sure they are on the wrong side of history to the utter APPROVAL of those who revel in our fears and compliance.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=L1n_3WLujHk

this is a great compilation

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=6txiPiobpH0

[greybeard]

America has ‘absurdly overreacted’ to the COVID-19 pandemic

America needs to lift these stringent lockdown procedures in order to boost the economy and save lives according to statistical consultant William M. Briggs.

More than half the states in the US are planning to reopen businesses and lifting restrictions put in place to combat the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to official data, at least 1.34 million people have contracted the novel pathogen, resulting in 79,696 deaths.

The overwhelming majority of the deaths have occurred in densely populated states such as New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois and California.

Mr Brigg disputed these official figures, arguing the death rate doesn’t consider the victim’s significant co-morbidities.

“At first, it was dying from, you had to have this bug (COVID-19) and nothing else,” he said.

And then that was moved to dying with, which you had to have this bug among a whole range of other things that were probably going to kill you anyway”

“The people dying of this have multiple comorbidities on average, other sicknesses.”

He said it is “absurd” America has overreacted to COVID-19 “to an unprecedented degree.”

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=-47-YfkFz0s

[greybeard]

Dominic Cummings: Tory minister becomes first to resign as crisis deepens for Boris Johnson
Ross McGuinness

Yahoo News UK
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/dominic-cu...084157677.html

A government minister has resigned over Dominic Cummings’s refusal to apologise for his actions during lockdown.

Douglas Ross, the Conservative MP for Moray in Scotland, announced on Twitter that he is stepping down.

He said he had tendered his resignation as under secretary of state for Scotland.

Ross wrote: “I haven't commented publicly on the situation with Dominic Cummings as I have waited to hear the full details.

“I welcome the statement to clarify matters, but there remains aspects of the explanation which I have trouble with.

“As a result I have resigned as a government minister.”

There is anger among Tory MPs that Cummings, prime minister Boris Johnson’s senior aide, refused to say sorry for travelling 260 miles during lockdown, with many calling for him to resign.

In an extraordinary press conference on Monday in the Rose Garden of 10 Downing Street, Cummings insisted he had acted reasonably when driving his family from London to Durham while travel restrictions were in place.

In a statement announcing his decision to quit as a junior minister in the Scotland Office, Ross said: "I have constituents who didn't get to say goodbye to loved ones; families who could not mourn together; people who didn't visit sick relatives because they followed the guidance of the government.

"I cannot in good faith tell them they were all wrong and one senior adviser to the government was right."


Ross said that "while the intentions may have been well meaning", Cummings's interpretation of the rules was "not shared by the vast majority of people".

A Number 10 spokesman said Johnson “regrets” Ross’s decision to quit the government.

The spokesman said: “The prime minister would like to thank Douglas Ross for his service to government and regrets his decision to stand down as parliamentary under secretary of state for Scotland.”

Chris thinks
More and more major press releases seem to point to a change of direction from the media.
All things are now being questioned.
A few well know figures have said that lockdown was a panic reaction from the UK Government.
More in other countries like Australia and USA.
We are winning this with Truth.
Avalon is playing its part.
Chris

[greybeard]

Expert over-reaction 'destroyed the very fabric of our nation'


Coronavirus and the so-called global warming crisis share the same “fake catastrophe built on a fraudulent threat of doom” DNA, Outsiders host Rowan Dean says.

As Australia looks to reopen its economy following the introduction of COVID-19, Mr Dean said it’s clear the overzealous reaction from experts on the public purse was wrong.

“Australia's health experts, all on the public purse so in no danger of losing their own jobs told us the corona virus would kill hundreds of thousands of us unless we gave up our jobs. We trusted them. But already it looks like they were wrong,” he said.

“In just two short months, from early March to early May, the experts have crippled the prosperity of this nation and ruined countless lives because they followed the hopelessly flawed computer models and doomsday predictions and overblown schemes of the ‘expert’ elites.

“Just imagine the utter devastation they will cause if we ever, ever allow them to pursue their even more ludicrous and dangerous climate modelling and the mad net-zero emissions agenda.”

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=M2BsOu2fO5M

[mountain_jim]

https://www.zerohedge.com/health/cdc...d-19-realities

CDC Confirms Remarkably Low Death Rate - Media Chooses To Ignore COVID-19 Realities

The CDC just came out with a report that should be earth-shattering to the narrative of the political class, yet it will go into the thick pile of vital data and information about the virus that is not getting out to the public.

For the first time, the CDC has attempted to offer a real estimate of the overall death rate for COVID-19, and under its most likely scenario, the number is 0.26%.

Officials estimate a 0.4% fatality rate among those who are symptomatic and project a 35% rate of asymptomatic cases among those infected, which drops the overall infection fatality rate (IFR) to just 0.26% - almost exactly where Stanford researchers pegged it a month ago.

Until now, we have been ridiculed for thinking the death rate was that low, as opposed to the 3.4% estimate of the World Health Organization, which helped drive the panic and the lockdowns. Now the CDC is agreeing to the lower rate in plain ink.

Plus, ultimately we might find out that the IFR is even lower because numerous studies and hard counts of confined populations have shown a much higher percentage of asymptomatic cases. Simply adjusting for a 50% asymptomatic rate would drop their fatality rate to 0.2% – exactly the rate of fatality Dr. John Ionnidis of Stanford University projected.

More importantly, as I mentioned before, the overall death rate is meaningless because the numbers are so lopsided. Given that at least half of the deaths were in nursing homes, a back-of-the-envelope estimate would show that the infection fatality rate for non-nursing home residents would only be 0.1% or 1 in 1,000. And that includes people of all ages and all health statuses outside of nursing homes. Since nearly all of the deaths are those with comorbidities.

The CDC estimates the death rate from COVID-19 for those under 50 is 1 in 5,000 for those with symptoms, which would be 1 in 6,725 overall, but again, almost all those who die have specific comorbidities or underlying conditions. Those without them are more likely to die in a car accident. And schoolchildren, whose lives, mental health, and education we are destroying, are more likely to get struck by lightning.

To put this in perspective, one Twitter commentator juxtaposed the age-separated infection fatality rates in Spain to the average yearly probability of dying of anything for the same age groups, based on data from the Social Security Administration. He used Spain because we don’t have a detailed infection fatality rate estimate for each age group from any survey in the U.S. However, we know that Spain fared worse than almost every other country. This data is actually working with a top-line IFR of 1%, roughly four times what the CDC estimates for the U.S., so if anything, the corresponding numbers for the U.S. will be lower.

< more and charts and tweets included at link >

[greybeard]

Posted by mountain_jim (here)
https://www.zerohedge.com/health/cdc...d-19-realities

CDC Confirms Remarkably Low Death Rate - Media Chooses To Ignore COVID-19 Realities

The CDC just came out with a report that should be earth-shattering to the narrative of the political class, yet it will go into the thick pile of vital data and information about the virus that is not getting out to the public.

For the first time, the CDC has attempted to offer a real estimate of the overall death rate for COVID-19, and under its most likely scenario, the number is 0.26%.

Officials estimate a 0.4% fatality rate among those who are symptomatic and project a 35% rate of asymptomatic cases among those infected, which drops the overall infection fatality rate (IFR) to just 0.26% - almost exactly where Stanford researchers pegged it a month ago.

Until now, we have been ridiculed for thinking the death rate was that low, as opposed to the 3.4% estimate of the World Health Organization, which helped drive the panic and the lockdowns. Now the CDC is agreeing to the lower rate in plain ink.

Plus, ultimately we might find out that the IFR is even lower because numerous studies and hard counts of confined populations have shown a much higher percentage of asymptomatic cases. Simply adjusting for a 50% asymptomatic rate would drop their fatality rate to 0.2% – exactly the rate of fatality Dr. John Ionnidis of Stanford University projected.

More importantly, as I mentioned before, the overall death rate is meaningless because the numbers are so lopsided. Given that at least half of the deaths were in nursing homes, a back-of-the-envelope estimate would show that the infection fatality rate for non-nursing home residents would only be 0.1% or 1 in 1,000. And that includes people of all ages and all health statuses outside of nursing homes. Since nearly all of the deaths are those with comorbidities.

The CDC estimates the death rate from COVID-19 for those under 50 is 1 in 5,000 for those with symptoms, which would be 1 in 6,725 overall, but again, almost all those who die have specific comorbidities or underlying conditions. Those without them are more likely to die in a car accident. And schoolchildren, whose lives, mental health, and education we are destroying, are more likely to get struck by lightning.

To put this in perspective, one Twitter commentator juxtaposed the age-separated infection fatality rates in Spain to the average yearly probability of dying of anything for the same age groups, based on data from the Social Security Administration. He used Spain because we don’t have a detailed infection fatality rate estimate for each age group from any survey in the U.S. However, we know that Spain fared worse than almost every other country. This data is actually working with a top-line IFR of 1%, roughly four times what the CDC estimates for the U.S., so if anything, the corresponding numbers for the U.S. will be lower.

< more and charts and tweets included at link >

Mountain-Jim I appreciate the time it would have taken to extract this from the original article.
Thanks Chris

[Tintin]

Did Dominic Cummings act "Responsibly and Legally"?

Doughty Chambers - who are also involved in the Julian Assange case - have made a statement today concerning Dominic Cummings' actions. Written by Kirsty Brimelow, Q.C some pertinent legal points have been addressed and as can be seen, from a legal perspective, Mr. Cummings can be found wanting on several counts.

The statement, below:

Source: https://insights.doughtystreet.co.uk...ly-and-legally

Coronavirus has struck in different ways. As well as the devastation it has reaped in taking people's lives it has exposed an emasculated criminal justice system and political governance clamouring to justify law and guidance applying differently to those close to power from those outside.

The Laws

There are two pieces of Emergency Legislation.

The Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020/350 are the Regulations which prohibit movement. They are secondary legislation under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 and were introduced, without going through Parliament, under its emergency procedure (section 45R).

They came into force on 26 March and must be reviewed within every 21 days (Regulation 3(2)). Amendments were made on the 22 April 2020 and on 13 May 2020. There are similar laws for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The Public Health Regulations introduced the powers which prohibit leaving -or as amended on 22 April 2020 “being outside”- where a person is living without reasonable excuse. Considering the law as it was on 26 March, Regulation 6 contains a non-exhaustive list of reasonable excuses that can be advanced for breaching the prohibition. Whilst not providing a finite list, they included the need to obtain basic necessities (Reg 6 (2)(a)), exercise either alone or with other members of the person’s household (Reg 6(2)(b), to provide care or assistance,including relevant personal care to a vulnerable person, or to provide emergency assistance (Reg 6(2)(d), travel for the purposes of work where it is not reasonably possible for that person to work from the place where they are living (Reg 6 (2) (f)), and to avoid injury or illness or to escape a risk of harm (Reg 6(2)(m).

The Coronavirus Act 2020 is primary legislation. It came into force on 26 March 2020 and so was subjected to (speedy) Parliamentary scrutiny. It expires on 24 March 2022. It must be renewed every six months.

The Coronavirus Act introduces important powers relating to “potentially infectious” persons; those who are or may be infected or contaminated with coronavirus and there is a risk that the person might infect or contaminate others with coronavirus or the person has been in an infected area within the 14 days preceding that time (Schedule 21§ 2).

If the police (or immigration officer or public health officer) have reasonable grounds to believe that a person is potentially infectious they may then direct/remove that person to a place for screening and assessment; but only if it is reasonable and proportionate to do so (Schedule 21 §6-13). There are safeguards to be applied in that the officer must inform the person the reason for the direction and that it is an offence where the person without reasonable excuse fails to comply. There then are further enforcement powers at the place of screening and assessment and after the screening and assessment.

Guidance

From the end of March to date there has been repeated and amended guidance -to explain the laws- from the Government, the National Police Chiefs Council and College of Policing and the Crown Prosecution Service. In addition, NHS guidance is approved, relied upon in justification of the laws and published on the government website. The "stay home save lives", only recently changed to "stay alert", was the slogan to highlight the detail.

The guidance is clear that anyone with COVID-19 symptoms should not leave their home for 7 days from when their symptoms started and for 14 days for others in the home. There is detail underpinning why "staying at home is very important" together with advice about online shopping, distancing in the home and keeping busy with cooking, reading, online learning and watching films.

The guidance includes a consideration of being potentially infectious and living with children and advises "keep following this advice to the best of your ability, however we are aware that not all these measures will be possible. What we have seen so far is that children with Covid-19 appear to be less severely affected. It is nevertheless important to do your best to follow this guidance."

This caveat demonstrates appreciation that not all will live in large properties with more than one bathroom or kitchen; where distancing in a household is difficult if not impossible. This can be understood from the reference to there being a low risk of children catching the virus (as opposed to the elderly/those with underlying health conditions where there is different guidance).

It cannot be interpreted as meaning that people with coronavirus symptoms may leave their home and drive to another part of the country. This would be entirely contrary to the main message.

Application of the Law to Members of the Public

The Coronavirus Emergency Laws struck early with their own virus of repeated wrongful prosecutions and unlawful convictions. The first publicised conviction was in Newcastle where Marie Dinou was arrested after she was discovered on her own on a platform at Newcastle railway station. She was charged, detained in cells for two nights, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to a substantial fine. I looked at the case with journalist Fariha Karim for The Times. She had been wrongly prosecuted for “failing to provide identity or reasons for travel to police and failing to comply with requirements under the Coronavirus Act" under Schedule 21 of the Coronavirus Act 2020. There is no such offence. She also was not considered "potentially infectious".She appears to have been falsely imprisoned; there is no power of detention under Coronavirus laws. After my quick review, and the publication by the Times, the British Transport police did “fully accept that this shouldn’t have happened” and apologised. BTP Deputy Chief Constable Adrian Hanstock also said: “It is highly unusual that a case can pass through a number of controls in the criminal justice process and fail in this way”. But similar cases followed and on 2nd May 2020 the Crown Prosecution Service announced that it was reviewing all charges and prosecutions under the Coronavirus laws. Its results were published on 15th May and included the explanation "the CPS has committed to reviewing all prosecutions brought under the Coronavirus Act and Health Protection Regulations to make sure the new laws are being applied consistently and appropriately". 28% were found to have been incorrectly charged with 18 cases having been prosecuted all the way to conviction and sentence. https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/cps-...ronavirus-laws

Whilst the British Transport Police Deputy Chief Constable expressed surprise that errors (or abuse) by police weren’t caught in the lawyer and District Judge safety net, it can be no surprise to governments – current and past- which have overseen swingeing cuts to legal aid, the court service and the Crown Prosecution Service. Battering the rule of law opens the cracks through which the vulnerable fall.

Martin Hewitt, Chair of the National Police Chiefs Council has written that there have been "well publicised instances" of "overzealous" policing during the early part of the lockdown.

More than 14,000 Fixed Penalty Notices have been issued by police to members of the public.

Such has been the enthusiasm with how the Emergency Laws have been applied to the public. Against this background, it should be of concern that Mr. Cummings's travel might not even have attracted any questioning from the police in order to consider whether he had broken the law.

Did Dominic Cummings break the law and/or the guidance?

It is important to separate the law from the guidance. The law is legally binding. Guidance can be ignored but the government expects it to be followed. Those in government should be held to set an example. Otherwise, cooperation is likely to collapse.

Dominic Cummings is clear that he acted both legally and responsibly.

Dealing firstly with the legality, it is apparent that when he and his wife and child left where they were living in London to drive 260 miles to Durham they were not within any of the non-exhaustive list of "reasonable excuses" under the Regulations. This is not to say that he did not have some other "reasonable excuse" but key questions remain unaddressed.

As the Regulations were introduced under the powers of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, it should be useful to consider Mr. Hancock's opinion of the situation.

He tweeted "It was entirely right for Dom Cummings to find childcare for his toddler, when both he and his wife were getting ill."

Aside from the obvious query as how this is consistent with Mr. Hancock's "direction" to stay at home at the time Mr. Cummings was doing the opposite, the legal position is that the Regulations were introduced for “preventing, protecting against, controlling or providing a public health response to the incidence or spread of infection or contamination” (section 45C(1) of the 1984 Act).

How does the movement of potentially infectious persons around the country comply with purpose of the Regulations? Were there any stops at service stations en route? What property did Mr. Cummings move to? Was it rented? Would it be rented again? Did cleaners enter? Did he and/or his family members leave this property during the self-isolation period (in addition to the property where he was living)?

Also Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Jenny Harries said that being in a car for hours means that there is a "higher risk" of infection. If Mr. Cummings's wife was displaying signs of Covid-19, sitting next to her in a car for hours would have increased the risk of spreading COVID-19 in his household (as opposed to staying at home and following NHS guidance on distancing in the home).

And as to the potential need for someone to care for their child, it is important to consider whether there were family or friends near his home in London who were able to assist if required. They may not have been first choice but the pandemic and emergency laws passed in response to it introduced restrictions on all of us doing what we would prefer.

What is the "reasonable excuse" which created the "need" for Mr. Cummings to break the prohibition on leaving where he was living?

Explanation has been provided by Grant Shapps. In a press conference on 23 May he stated that it is up to individuals to make their own decisions and that "in times of crisis" we all "seek family ......around us". But this explanation is contrary to the law and to all guidance.

On 24 May the Prime Minister upheld Mr. Cummings's actions as following "the instincts of every father and every parent" and concluded that he acted "responsibly, legally and with integrity." "Instinct" is irrelevant to whether there is a "reasonable excuse". Primarily, it is an objective test; to be decided by the court. It is wrong in law for the Prime Minister to suggest that acting on instinct equates to lawfulness; in the same way that any excuse (that is not "reasonable") does not suffice. Obviously, reaching for "instinct" also was contrary to all guidance at the time which was directing people to suppress their instincts to travel and to go to family.

And what does this messaging now mean for all convictions and FPNs issued under these laws to date? Is it suggested that instinctive conduct should have been been considered before enforcement of the Regulations?

There remain questions to be answered as to how Mr. Cummings says that he acted legally.

Indeed, unlike all those people who have been prosecuted to date, Mr. Cummings' household actually did have COVID-19.

As to the responsibility of his actions, it is completely clear that Mr. Cummings breached government guidance which is presumed to be responsible.

Whilst the strategy of attempting to argue that Mr. Cummings' conduct was within government guidelines is insulting and distressing to those who have made terrible sacrifices by staying indoors away from family, it also clears the "we're all in this together" smokescreen to reveal a political plane where different rules apply.

Updated 25 May to include PM's press conference on 24 May.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by Tintin (here)
Well, much of the news in the UK at the moment is centered around the flouting of the lockdown rules by Dominic Cummings, the Prime Minister's senior/chief adviser, and as Craig Murray lays out below there is of course more to this than may have met the eye in relation to Barnard Castle.

it also begs questions of supposed journalists lack of willingness to raise this - they surely must know - in interrogating (sic) Dominic Cummings in his earlier Downing Street 'Rose Garden' news conference.

From Vanessa Beeley's excellent two part investigation into the players behind the UK Government response to the Covid-19 crisis, the following:

"Both Hancock and Dominic Cummings, chief adviser to the Prime Minister, have questionable ties to Babylon Health, a prominent health tech firm implementing AI. Cummings held an undisclosed consultancy job at this healthcare venture: a firm endorsed by the government and at the top of the list to receive a National Health Service (NHS) Fund cash injection of £250 million."

According to an article in The Bureau Investigates, during 2018, Cummings “advised Babylon Health on its communications strategy and senior recruitment just months before its GP at Hand app was publicly backed by Matt Hancock.”

(article: https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/cov...nment-lockdown)

Related posts:
Thread Covid19: Cui Bono? Is there an agenda?
Post #305

His close relationship to both GSK and Babylon Healthcare in particular, and the clear conflicts of interest, should give pause, and weaponise further scrutiny as to the likely real motivation for his visit to that area of England in the first days of the 'Stay Home' message.

——————————————

Why Barnard Castle


Source: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...arnard-castle/

May 24 2020

UPDATED [May 25th]: Dominic Cummings specifically stated now in the press briefing that he had been eager to “get back to work to get vaccine deals through, move regulations aside” and that is why he drove to Barnard Castle to test his eyesight.

Now it may be entirely a coincidence that the place to which he chose to drive for his eyesight test happened to be the site of the major factory of GlaxoSmithKline. It may be an entire coincidence that two days later, on the very day Cummings actually started work back in Downing Street he has stated was “to get vaccine deals through”, GlaxoSmithKline announced an agreement to develop the vaccine.

It is however plainly not crazy to ask the question. This astonishing Twitter pile-on against Clive Lewis for retweeting my piece says something very worrying, when you consider that the large majority of those piling in are supposedly part of the “opposition” and include many journalists. A society where it is viewed as a sign of madness to look into the prospect of corruption involving a company as massively, provenly corrupt as GlaxoSmithKline and a figure as shady as Cummings, is a very unhealthy society indeed.

One red flag to me is the number of trolls claiming GlaxoSmithKline only has a small and remote office in Barnard Castle. This is not the entire site, and in a further £96 million investment two new blocks are in construction or recently finished:



So to return to my original posting:

In 2012 GlaxoSmithKline were fined $3 billion for fraud, overcharging and making false claims about medicines in the USA. In 2016, GlaxoSmithKline were fined £37.6 million in the UK for bribing companies not to produce generic copies of their out of patent drugs, thus overcharging the NHS.

Despite the fines, these frauds were still massively profitable for GlaxoSmithKline. A perfunctory search on the company brings up similar frauds and fines it perpetrated in South Africa and India. All this within the last decade. I cannot find any information that anyone was jailed, or even sacked, for these criminal activities. It is absolutely astonishing that such an habitually criminal enterprise carries on serenely in the UK. And what is particularly interesting today is that it carries on its crooked activity from its massive manufacturing and research base in Barnard Castle, County Durham.

On 12 April Dominic Cummings was seen in Castle Barnard during lockdown. Two days later, GlaxoSmithKline of Barnard Castle signed an agreement to develop and manufacture a Covid-19 vaccine with Sanofi of France.

Of course, that could be coincidence. As a child I lived in nearby Peterlee and I know families may go to Barnard Castle just for relaxation. Even when that is illegal. But GlaxoSmithKline Barnard Castle has been working 24/7 during the coronavirus crisis including the weekends. It was working.

The government’s extraordinary refusal to confirm or deny Cummings visit to Barnard Castle appears to make little sense if he just went there for a walk.

But surely if he was discussing Covid-19 vaccine business on behalf of the government, that would answer all the critics of his trip, would it not? They would want to trumpet it from the hills? I mean to believe otherwise, you would have to propound a crazed conspiracy theory. You would have to believe that criminal activity may be occurring again involving GlaxoSmithKline of the kind which might lead to fines of 37.6 million pounds for overcharging the NHS, or of three billion dollars for fraudulent medical claims in the USA. Nobody sane believes that kind of thing, do they?

UPDATED: I should never be surprised by the puerile nature of debate on the internet, but I frequently am. There appears to be organised pushback stating that this article is only speculation. Of course it is. It states a number of facts not generally known, and wonders if there is a connection. It does not claim to have proof Cummings visited GSK, let alone of what he did when there. But both GSK and Cummings are known bad actors.

The even sillier argument is that Barnard Castle is the research and manufacturing centre and not the corporate HQ and therefore no deal could have been done there. Because when a company is involved in a massive criminal conspiracy, as GSK undeniably was in the multi-billion fraud in the USA or its price-fixing to the NHS, such criminal actions obviously can only be arranged in the main London company boardroom during normal working hours with lots of people around and the maximum chance of inconvenient people finding out what is happening? That is a stupid argument.

Equally, those who claim I have uncovered a criminal conspiracy are wrong. I have not. All I have done is put together some circumstances around Cummings denied trip to Barnard Castle, that could potentially provide a more reasonable explanation for why he would take the risk of going there, and why the government would stake all politically on denying it, than a day trip for a walk for his wife’s birthday. I have not proven anything.

——————————————

Related Tweet May 25th 2020:

An interesting historical addition from older English. Oh, the irony

[shaberon]

Posted by Delight (here)
For several months I have been trying to put information together to understand the truth of what is called "covid-19". I was worried at one time and then realized EVERY DAY that facts were not coming together. Now I am no longer worried about a "Pandemic". Some people I respect still think that the "virus" is itself the problem. Many think it is "something else" that is the problem. I don't KNOW what we should be thinking EXCEPT there is NO WAY that whatever has been causing illness is sufficient to institute the changes in society now being "accepted". It disappoints me to read from certain people that we have to go along with the model promoted. IMO they are deadly wrong. I feel very sure they are on the wrong side of history to the utter APPROVAL of those who revel in our fears and compliance.

Same. The statistics are not enough to be a concern, neither are the unused field hospitals being packed away. As far as I can tell, it is about flipping money to the pharmaceutical industry, while engaging in other reckless political experiments.

Here, we just opened NASCAR with a packed stadium. Sheriff said he wouldn't stand in the way. So, hmm, there a a few thousands of "don't care, won't do it" not being suppressed.

If you want to know the timeline, President Trump has commanded us to grant "full access" for the Republican National Convention in August. So, at least, here, I have the feeling whatever is being put together is going to fall apart again by then.

In the food world we have for example one store that does not require masks; they are getting all the business from the ones that do. At the same time, "remote shopping" is a major thing. You hire a delivery person. So we make a major employment sector of delivery people, who then suddenly may be without a gig when the calls quit coming in, and there won't be any new job to replace it.

I still don't know what it is like to hide at home and have someone else do your shopping.

I can kind of see a bunch of suits sitting around the Oval Office going "Let's see, if you push your Black Swan button now, can you turn it off by the Convention?"

If it goes right, the President can easily make an issue with the WHO policies and show that he put the country back to work and it's "great again".

Except it wasn't, we don't really want the old thing either, nothing has really changed.

[Luke Holiday]

https://www.anti-empire.com/this-is-...-seasonal-flu/



https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...scenarios.html
New estimates released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that COVID-19 may have an infection fatality rate as low as 0.26% [Actually CDC’s lower bound is 0.1%], a number that is double the seasonal flu but significantly lower than earlier estimates.


Determining the infection fatality rate of the illness has been a critical goal of scientists around the world since the discovery of the disease in late November. Infectious disease experts were shocked at the end of last year and into 2020 at both how quickly the disease spread and how many of those who became ill ultimately died.


In early February, modelers at Imperial College London estimated that around 1% of infections of COVID-19 would ultimately result in death. That number, which is about 10 times higher than the seasonal flu, shocked much of the world, including the U.K. government and most of the 50 U.S. state governments, into shutting down major swaths of their economies and placing many of their citizens under strict stay-at-home orders.

Those high estimates have persisted in recent months. In early March, White House adviser Anthony Fauci said the disease was “10 times more lethal than the seasonal flu.” The Trump administration would eventually go on to urge temporary severe mitigation measures across the United States, including pulling children from school, limiting gatherings to fewer than 10 people, and refraining from eating at restaurants and bars.

And it’s just 0.05% for symptomatics under 50
Numbers have dropped over time

Over the past several weeks, however, the estimates of the fatality rate have brightened considerably. Driven in part by large-scale serology tests, which have consistently indicated that the disease is far more widespread and consequently less deadly than it initially seemed, scientists have lately been revising their fatality rate assumptions down significantly.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention this week continued that trend, releasing a list of what it called “COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios.” That document laid out five different scenarios for public health experts and government officials to consider, one of which the agency called its “current best estimate” of the parameters of the viral pandemic.

That scenario states that the overall fatality rate of infections that show symptoms is around 0.4%.

Yet the CDC says it estimates that around 35% of all infectious are asymptomatic [which is a huge underestimate], meaning that the total infection fatality rate under the agency’s “best estimate” scenario is around 0.26%, or a little more than twice that of the seasonal flu.

Source: Just the News



Looks Like GB/Chris was right

Blessings Luke

[greybeard]

Whole towns could be forced into lockdown amid local flare-ups of coronavirus, government says


https://uk.yahoo.com/news/towns-plac...171735816.html

Local lockdowns will be a part of the new test and trace system set up to prevent coronavirus swelling again, the health secretary has confirmed.

Matt Hancock said that as the virus flares up in an area, authorities will be able to put that place into lockdown without the rest of the country being put under restrictions.

The test and trace system, anticipated to be started next month, will be used to try and safely ease the lockdown by allowing people to be tested and their contacts traced if they are found to be infected.

Speaking at Tuesday’s Downing Street briefing, Hancock told reporters: “Yes, we will have local lockdowns in future where there are flare-ups and we have a system we are putting in place with a combination of Public Health England and the new joint bio-security centre, along with the local directors of public health who play an absolutely crucial role in the decision-making in the system to make sure if there is a local flare-up there is a local lockdown.

“And so local lockdowns will be part of the future system that we put in place as part of the NHS test-and-trace system.”

Test and trace systems have been used to great effect in South Korea, which has proved adept at handling the pandemic.

[periol]

Posted by Luke Holiday (here)
https://www.anti-empire.com/this-is-...-seasonal-flu/



https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...scenarios.html
New estimates released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that COVID-19 may have an infection fatality rate as low as 0.26% [Actually CDC’s lower bound is 0.1%], a number that is double the seasonal flu but significantly lower than earlier estimates.

The CDC page says these are "scenarios" and the one being focused on in the anti-empire article is the "best estimate" but it's also clearly the best-case scenario. There is also a disclaimer on the CDC page: "Parameter values are based on data received by CDC prior to 4/29/2020"

On 5/1 the CDC predicted that America would pass 100,000 deaths by the end of the summer. They got that right, 100,000 people died by May 26. I've been keeping a diary, and April 29 there were just over 1 million positive cases in the USA, and just over 56,000 deaths. Those 45,000 additional deaths are going to change that infection fatality rate.

And of course none of this addresses the myriad testing issues. Some tests have false negative rates as high as 30%. Some tests may be showing false positives because of the presence of antibodies from other coronaviruses (like the common cold) - we don't know yet. And that's before you get to the all the human error in the testing process itself. So the CDC best-case scenario is based on "data" that may or may not be accurate but probably is not, and was certainly even less accurate on 4/29.

This thing is still a huge mystery. I'm not banking on that 0.26% yet.

[AutumnW]

Thanks periol,

It appears you know how to think and rightfully conclude it is still a big mystery. It's quite possible we will only be able to glean any meaningful numbers when we truly are post pandemic...if that ever happens!