There are several storylines that are likely to reach a peak or a turning point around December 2021:
The Covid narrative hardly holds. And by December the body count will be so high many vaccinated people will find it hard to ignore. When vaccine survivors realize what’s up, it’s going to be extremely hard to contain social unrest without mass violence.
The Petrodollar hardly holds. Especially after the Afghanistan crisis.
The US hardly holds. The situation is very similar to USSR’s after the Afghanistan pull out, having the same money, schemes and actors attacking US, just this time they are much more experienced, equipped and infiltrated in a more feeble enemy camp. It took Soros and the Funky Bunch about two more years after Afghanistan to see USSR off the maps, he might need only about three months now. The only plus on the US side is much more awareness and preparedness among the general population, and that needs to increase rapidly. The fall of USSR and the Berlin Wall caught people there very unaware, unprepared and psychologically vulnerable and that felt. I know because I was a teenager in communist Romania at the time.
Free Internet hardly holds. Klaus Schwab is desperate to take out the last bastions of free speech left on Internet before they take him out, and his Cyberpolygon threats disguised as warnings will materialize any soon in some digital false flag.
The supply chains hardly hold. The attack is from inside this time, but nutters don’t seem to understand people react much more violently when you threaten their food than when you attack their freedom. For obvious reasons. Or maybe they do get it and already have a defense in place, more likely. Either way, if they keep at it much longer, this will blow with a big Bang.
The Epstein story has very explosive potential too, and there are many more landmines waiting to blow up that I didn’t mention here.
Dark Winter Biodefense Drill Official Trailer / Blames Irak just like Colin Powell later (2001)
The psychos running the show are, of course, readying their own preparedness for this, what they do in Australia or Canada is just exercises for containing civil disobedience, health is a pathetic attempt at excusing that totalitarianism. Of course there are much more variables and some of them have the power to turn things around to a certain degree, but the chances to avoid something really drastic this winter are nearing zero when they tell you about it since summer.
UPDATE September 3, 2021:
In the past three days I’ve hear of attacks on Covid establishments in Australia and Spain, very sketchy stuff like the reports of burning 5G towers that disappeared immediately, in sync, when the agenda shifted.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Did you even know that PCRs are used under the EUA too? I called this a ‘PCRdemic’ in a meme last year and I’ve been proven right countless times.
A blast from a past pandemic
Let’s play dumb for a moment and pretend we believe SARS-COV-2 exists outside computers and human minds.
All Covid vaccine trials have shown is infinitesimally tiny decreases in symptoms for injected fools. To detect these tiny differences, they used the largely erroneous and unreliable non-tests known as PCR. (They also ‘morphed’ some symptoms into adverse effects to get the needed numbers, but that’s another story). If you can’t defend PCR tests, you can’t defend Covid injections. And anyone with at least half a functional brain knows there’s nothing to defend, because there’s no such this as PCR Covid tests, there may be PCRs and SARS-COV-2 tests, as separate items only. So these Covid injections trials and studies are worth precisely and exactly: NOTHING. They are as null as all Covid stats, the whole Covid sham and anything based on PCRs as a diagnose tool or as a quantitative detector. All approvals based on these trials and studies are null. Up until today, officials have maintained that PCRs are “the gold-standard of Covid testing”, so it’s not wrong to extrapolate their accuracy to the whole Covidiocracy.
“According to a Johns Hopkins study, this so-called gold standard RT-PCR test can have a false negative up to 20 to 66 percent of the time in even symptomatic patients depending upon the test’s timing. False negatives can be up to 100 percent on day one of exposure (asymptomatic) and down to 20 percent on day 8 of exposure (day 3 of symptoms) and then starts going up again. Statistics tell us that the false-negative rate goes up even higher as the prevalence of disease goes up, as is the case with COVID right now. A meta-analysis from Europe actually found an average false negative of 54 percent. These numbers are actually from monitored and regulated studies where things are done more meticulously than real-world scenarios. Performing many of these tests quickly in the clinical setting because of soaring demand, with each test resulting in sampling error, pressure on labs to provide quick turnaround, and rationing of scarce reagents in labs increase this percentage even higher. Some mutations could be potentially affecting the accuracy as well.” – KevinMD “Founded in 2004 by Kevin Pho, MD, KevinMD.com is the web’s leading platform where physicians, advanced practitioners, nurses, medical students, and patients share their insight and tell their stories.“
I say flipping the coin would achieve similar results as PCRs, I dare everyone to test this. But even if its error margin was only about 8%, as Mayo Clinic claims, that’s still eight times bigger than the variations detected in Pfizer’s or Moderna’s lab humans. Fact-check this! Plenty more resources on this very website and its extensions. If self-evidence and logic are not your thing, I have two guys here who seem to agree, they’re kinda advised in this field:
Now, just to flex a bit, allow me to fact-check the fact-checker that made even NYT to retract one of their best and most honest articles since Covid, claiming as much as 90% of PCR positives may be false.
Healthfeedback.org claims ultrasensitivity in tests doesn’t matter because PCRs are not used quantitatively, just to detect presence, as they should. They admit that people who are not sick or not even infectious, people who were sick in the past (but not anymore) and people who might be sick in the future (but not yet), are considered cases, just because the tiniest viral load is detected:
Some outlets have even called these high Ct positive results “false positives”, which is inaccurate. The term “false positive” indicates that a person tested positive but does not have the disease[1]. However, the New York Times report makes it clear that a person is or has been infected if they test positive, regardless of whether the test had a high or low Ct value. This also means that it is appropriate to consider a person with a positive result and high Ct value as a COVID-19 case. Therefore, the sensitivity of the PCR test is not responsible for the high number of cases in the U.S. Simply put, case numbers are high because there are many infected people. This indicates a high level of virus transmission in the community and public health measures, such as physical distancing and lockdowns, are effective and important for reducing the number of infections and protecting the community[2,3]. Apoorva Mandavilli, the journalist who wrote the New York Times article, also stressed this point in a Twitter thread, clarifying that “people who test positive but with high CTs *were* contagious, just at an earlier time point. They are not contagious *anymore*. Doesn’t mean they were never infected, so doesn’t affect the case count.”
As they accuse NYT of using straw man arguments, fact-checkers do precisely that, as per usual. We, the independent scholars and media, were the first to cry out PCRs are not a quantitative tool, the establishment never bothered to educate, we dug out PCR inventor Kari Mullis’ teachings, as early as last summer. So we are more aware even than NYT presstitutes, vocational press-release copy-pasters, and when we accuse hypersensitivity in tests, it’s mainly about QUALITATIVE sensitivity. What happens if a tiny viral fragment detected is MISIDENTIFIED, not just misquantized, because hypersensitivity or overcycling?
WHO already admitted it, the numbers of amplification cycles influence the qualitative sensitivity, that’s why they lowered the threshold on Biden’s inauguration day: this trash was detecting anything and everything the way it was used.
What happens if the test reacts to something we all normally live with, since our virome is comprised of countless millions of varieties and we’re also full of viral debris? Don’t you get the perfect pandemic? Besides toasting bread and burping, is there anything simpler to achieve? How else would you get dozens of labs sending 100% positives like they did last year?! IMPOSSIBLE, YET OFFICIAL: 100% POSITIVE CORONAVIRUS TESTS RESULTS FROM OVER 30 LABS IN FLORIDA, ON JULY 11TH 2020
Prof. David Rasnick PhD is a reputed researcher, a friend of Kari Mullis’ and one of the first to whistleblow on the AIDS hoax. A bit of a hero to me
Now back to vaccine trials: They can’t afford lumping together past, present and potential future sick people, as PCRs do, the trials are supposed to measure present symptoms in currently ill people, past and future are beyond the scope. To these trials, the quantitative aspect is crucially relevant, because it’s different in each category. I hope it goes without saying that the correct identification of the virus is paramount, and, as the PCR inventor put it: “These things can find anything if you keep cycling”. So, top authoritative sources, logic and life experience confirm:
PCRs need to be backed by proper lab analysis, they mean nothing by themselves.
Why do you think they burn bodies without autopsy? At the coroner is where the real testing happens, so they illegally destroy murder evidence.
LATER UPDATE: TOP SHELF AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE ENDS THE DEBATE
I know, we need to enlarge our horizons, and by a lot, just to encompass how big the scam is… almost as large as the mass-mental-retardation pandemic sweeping the species with infinitely more casualties than any natural virus. I know, it may be hard to flex that much, makes anyone dizzy, but if we’re not capable of doing it quickly and at mass-level, we are going to have a mass-level extinction instead. But I also know I’d rather live to see a crowd-sourced investigation into Kari Mullis’ suspicious death just months ahead of the pandemic. It’s doable if we flex our horizon and brain more and more often.
It’s gonna be a Very Dark Winter and we need ‘flexi-brains’ to come out of it, among other skills.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
You can’t have a single product with two commercial names in the same place, at the same time. BionTech hasn’t been erased. So there are two Pfizer products: Comirnaty and Pfizer-BionTech.
Until the vial content is independently audited, we can’t know the difference between the two, because this info has been redacted from the publicly available letters. But we know for sure there is one and it’s significant enough to earn a new commercial name.
(After four updates that I had to erase to clarify and make this more readable)
“BioNTech said it was developing four vaccine candidates under a programme named BNT162 with its partner, pharma giant Pfizer… BioNTech, which awarded the rights in China to BNT162 to Shanghai Fosun Pharmaceutical under a March collaboration deal…” – Reuters
In its press release, Pfizer maintains: “The FDA-approved COMIRNATY® (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) and the EUA-authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine have the same formulation and can be used interchangeably to provide the COVID-19 vaccination series. An individual may be offered either COMIRNATY® (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) or the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2.”
In the same press release, we find out the Comirnaty concoct is scientifically identified as BNT162b2. Like the afore-mentioned program BNT162, version ‘b2’. It’s the same one as in the US EUA, so, officially, the EUA and the full approval (BLA) are awarded to the same formulation indeed, we can get that out of the way.
However, the European EUA doesn’t mention any of the formulation, so we cannot know what they used there. A German government website does mention b2, EMA (the European FDA) doesn’t anywhere, or I haven’t found it yet.
And when you think “this is it”, it’s never it: Looks like FDA itself picked b2 and knew the trial data is mixed up between formulations, had no problem with it, more so, I discovered there were even more versions used in trials, such as b3c and so forth. Don’t believe me, check page 15 in this FDA document (PDF), as pictured at the top of the article!
One question remains: Comirnaty as commercial name has long been used in EU, maybe not much in ads or mainstream media for decerebrated plebs, but in anything more technical than that. Why not in US, if they used the same formulation? Symmetrically, EU used the name, but no so sure about the b2 formulation.
And after all this, no one can be certain what formulation they actually put in the vials.
In a sane world, the Pfizer approval blunder would be the medical equivalent of the Afghanistan ‘blunder’. Forget about informed consent, safety, data… all they have is more guns. Which brings me to…
The US Government, like most others, has left legality in March 2020 and not governing. There are dozens of known old meds that can treat these respiratory problems labeled as Covid, more are screened and discovered, there was no evidence of a new virus, at least at the time when they introduced the Emergency state. So the Emergency, the government instating it and everything that started with it is illegal and an act of terrorism. So US doesn’t have a government, but a terrorist organization holding it hostage. Nothing they did after March 2020 is remotely legal, both Trump and Biden should stand in the accused box at Nuremberg 2 now. But sleepy ghosts are changing bed sides dreaming they wake up as people who still hold a little control over their lives. In fact, all this is held together solely by the gun, military superiority, and psychological abuse, legal talk is 200% off and it’s just deepening the mass-hypnosis. There is no law but the gun, if the government didn’t have a laser point on each forehead, it wouldn’t even exist at this point. It’s bare war. If you’re not ready to internalize reality, you are not ready to change it.
Going to say this again: If #FDA officials like Gruber walk away from adcomms just deciding in their own minds what they heard & not what was actually said, what's the point?
<<Two of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) top vaccine regulators will leave the agency this fall, raising questions about the Biden administration and the way it sidelined the agency.
According to an email sent by Dr. Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), to staff members Tuesday, Dr. Marion Gruber, director of the FDA’s vaccines office, will quit at the end of October, and her deputy, Dr. Philip Krause, will leave in November.
Gruber and Krause were upset about the Biden administration’s recent announcement that adults should get a COVID booster eight months after they received a second shot, people familiar with the decision told The New York Times.
Neither believed there was enough data to justify offering booster shots yet, the sources said, and both viewed the announcement, amplified by President Biden, as pressure on the FDA to quickly authorize them.
Marks said he would serve as the acting director of the vaccines office while the agency searched for its next leader.
FDA Spokeswoman Stephanie Caccomo said the agency was “confident in the expertise and ability of our staff to continue our critical public health work.”
However, a former senior FDA leader told Endpoints News, Gruber and Krause are departing because they’re frustrated the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and its advisory panel — the Advisory Committee on Immunizations and Practices (ACIP) — are involved in decisions they think should be up to the FDA.
The source said he heard Gruber and Krause were upset with Marks for not insisting those decisions be kept inside the FDA, and with the White House for getting ahead of FDA on booster shots.
“These two are the leaders for biologic [vaccine] review in the U.S.,” wrote Rick Bright, former director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, weighing in on the news. “They have a great team, but these two are the true leaders of CBER. A huge global loss if they both leave,” Bright said.
“Dr. Gruber is much more than the director,” Bright added. “She is a global leader. Visionary mastermind behind global clinical regulatory science for flu, Ebola, Mers, Zika, Sars-CoV-2, many others.”>>
Anyone who thinks she sweated harder than Trump for Pfizer’s approval, but all of a sudden had a change of mind and decided to sabotage the boosters is a baby. She’s hiding from justice.
I made this in June 2020. The Grubers are many.
I hope this helped, if anything, I’ll add it here.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
We need to speed up our little awakening because we’re still light-years behind the reality. This dwarfs Afghanistan and Covid is but a chapter in its playbook. This connects all the trigger-words: 5G, Covid, Vaccines, Graphene, The Great Reset, Blockchain, The Fourth Industrial Revolution and beyond.
A wide variety of internet-connected “smart” devices now promise consumers and businesses improved performance, convenience, efficiency, and fun. Within this broader Internet of Things (IoT) lies a growing industry of devices that monitor the human body, collect health and other personal information, and transmit that data over the internet. We refer to these emerging technologies and the data they collect as the Internet of Bodies (IoB) (see, for example, Neal, 2014; Lee, 2018), a term first applied to law and policy in 2016 by law and engineering professor Andrea M. Matwyshyn (Atlantic Council, 2017; Matwyshyn, 2016; Matwyshyn, 2018; Matawyshyn, 2019). IoB devices come in many forms. Some are already in wide use, such as wristwatch fitness monitors or pacemakers that transmit data about a patient’s heart directly to a cardiologist. Other products that are under development or newly on the market may be less familiar, such as ingestible products that collect and send information on a person’s gut, microchip implants, brain stimulation devices, and internet-connected toilets. These devices have intimate access to the body and collect vast quantities of personal biometric data. IoB device makers promise to deliver substantial health and other benefits but also pose serious risks, including risks of hacking, privacy infringements, or malfunction. Some devices, such as a reliable artificial pancreas for diabetics, could revolutionize the treatment of disease, while others could merely inflate health-care costs with little positive effect on outcomes. Access to huge torrents of live-streaming biometric data might trigger breakthroughs in medical knowledge or behavioral understanding. It might increase health outcome disparities, where only people with financial means have access to any of these benefits. Or it might enable a surveillance state of unprecedented intrusion and consequence. There is no universally accepted definition of the IoB.1 For the purposes of this report, we refer to the IoB, or the IoB ecosystem, as IoB devices (defined next, with further explanation in the passages that follow) together with the software they contain and the data they collect.
An IoB device is defined as a device that • contains software or computing capabilities • can communicate with an internet-connected device or network and satisfies one or both of the following: • collects person-generated health or biometric data • can alter the human body’s function. The software or computing capabilities in an IoB device may be as simple as a few lines of code used to configure a radio frequency identification (RFID) microchip implant, or as complex as a computer that processes artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning algorithms. A connection to the internet through cellular or Wi-Fi networks is required but need not be a direct connection. For example, a device may be connected via Bluetooth to a smartphone or USB device that communicates with an internet-connected computer. Person-generated health data (PGHD) refers to health, clinical, or wellness data collected by technologies to be recorded or analyzed by the user or another person. Biometric or behavioral data refers to measurements of unique physical or behavioral properties about a person. Finally, an alteration to the body’s function refers to an augmentation or modification of how the user’s body performs, such as a change in cognitive enhancement and memory improvement provided by a brain-computer interface, or the ability to record whatever the user sees through an intraocular lens with a camera. IoB devices generally, but not always, require a physical connection to the body (e.g., they are worn, ingested, implanted, or otherwise attached to or embedded in the body, temporarily or permanently). Many IoB devices are medical devices regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).3 Figure 1 depicts examples of technologies in the IoB ecosystem that are either already available on the U.S. market or are under development. Devices that are not connected to the internet, such as ordinary heart monitors or medical ID bracelets, are not included in the definition of IoB. Nor are implanted magnets (a niche consumer product used by those in the so-called bodyhacker community described in the next section) that are not connected to smartphone applications (apps), because although they change the body’s functionality by allowing the user to sense electromagnetic vibrations, the devices do not contain software. Trends in IoB technologies and additional examples are further discussed in the next section. Some IoB devices may fall in and out of our definition at different times. For example, a Wi-Fi-connected smartphone on its own would not be part of the IoB; however, once a health app is installed that requires connection to the body to track user information, such as heart rate or number of steps taken, the phone would be considered IoB. Our definition is meant to capture rapidly evolving technologies that have the potential to bring about the various risks and benefits that are discussed in this report. We focused on analyzing existing and emerging IoB technologies that appear to have the potential to improve health and medical outcomes, efficiency, and human function or performance, but that could also endanger users’ legal, ethical, and privacy rights or present personal or national security risks. For this research, we conducted an extensive literature review and interviewed security experts, technology developers, and IoB advocates to understand anticipated risks and benefits. We had valuable discussions with experts at BDYHAX 2019, an annual convention for bodyhackers, in February 2019, and DEFCON 27, one of the world’s largest hacker conferences, in August 2019. In this report, we discuss trends in the technology landscape and outline the benefits and risks to the user and other stakeholders. We present the current state of governance that applies to IoB devices and the data they collect and conclude by offering recommendations for improved regulation to best balance those risks and rewards.
…
Operation Warp Speed logo
Transhumanism, Bodyhacking, Biohacking, and More
The IoB is related to several movements outside of formal health care focused on integrating human bodies with technology. Next, we summarize some of these concepts, though there is much overlap and interchangeability among them. Transhumanism is a worldview and political movement advocating for the transcendence of humanity beyond current human capabilities. Transhumanists want to use technology, such as artificial organs and other techniques, to halt aging and achieve “radical life extension” (Vita-Moore, 2018). Transhumanists may also seek to resist disease, enhance their intelligence, or thwart fatigue through diet, exercise, supplements, relaxation techniques, or nootropics (substances that may improve cognitive function). Bodyhackers, biohackers, and cyborgs, who enjoy experimenting with body enhancement, often refer to themselves as grinders. They may or may not identify as transhumanists. These terms are often interchanged in common usage, but some do distinguish between them (Trammell, 2015). Bodyhacking generally refers to modifying the body to enhance one’s physical or cognitive abilities. Some bodyhacking is purely aesthetic. Hackers have implanted horns in their heads and LED lights under their skin. Other hacks, such as implanting RFID microchips in one’s hand, are meant to enhance function, allowing users to unlock doors, ride public transportation, store emergency contact information, or make purchases with the sweep of an arm (Baenen, 2017; Savage, 2018). One bodyhacker removed the RFID microchip from her car’s key fob and had it implanted in her arm (Linder, 2019). A few bodyhackers have implanted a device that is a combined wireless router and hard drive that can be used as a node in a wireless mesh network (Oberhaus, 2019). Some bodyhacking is medical in nature, including 3D-printed prosthetics and do-it-yourself artificial pancreases. Still others use the term for any method of improving health, including bodybuilding, diet, or exercise. Biohacking generally denotes techniques that modify the biological systems of humans or other living organisms. This ranges from bodybuilding and nootropics to developing cures for diseases via self-experimentation to human genetic manipulation through CRISPR-Cas9 techniques (Samuel, 2019; Griffin, 2018). Cyborgs, or cybernetic organisms, are people who have used machines to enhance intelligence or the senses. Neil Harbisson, a colorblind man who can “hear” color through an antenna implanted in his head that plays a tune for different colors or wavelengths of light, is acknowledged as the first person to be legally recognized by a government as a cyborg, by being allowed to have his passport picture include his implant (Donahue, 2017). Because IoB is a wide-ranging field that intersects with do-it-yourself body modification, consumer products, and medical care, understanding its benefits and risks is critical.
The Internet of Bodies is here. This is how it could change our lives
04 Jun 2020, Xiao Liu Fellow at the Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution, World Economic Forum
We’re entering the era of the “Internet of Bodies”: collecting our physical data via a range of devices that can be implanted, swallowed or worn.
The result is a huge amount of health-related data that could improve human wellbeing around the world, and prove crucial in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic.
But a number of risks and challenges must be addressed to realize the potential of this technology, from privacy issues to practical hurdles.
In the special wards of Shanghai’s Public Health Clinical Center, nurses use smart thermometers to check the temperatures of COVID-19 patients. Each person’s temperature is recorded with a sensor, reducing the risk of infection through contact, and the data is sent to an observation dashboard. An abnormal result triggers an alert to medical staff, who can then intervene promptly. The gathered data also allows medics to analyse trends over time.
The smart thermometers are designed by VivaLNK, a Silicon-Valley based startup, and are a powerful example of the many digital products and services that are revolutionizing healthcare. After the Internet of Things, which transformed the way we live, travel and work by connecting everyday objects to the Internet, it’s now time for the Internet of Bodies. This means collecting our physical data via devices that can be implanted, swallowed or simply worn, generating huge amounts of health-related information.
Some of these solutions, such as fitness trackers, are an extension of the Internet of Things. But because the Internet of Bodies centres on the human body and health, it also raises its own specific set of opportunities and challenges, from privacy issues to legal and ethical questions.
Image: McKinsey & Company
Connecting our bodies
As futuristic as the Internet of Bodies may seem, many people are already connected to it through wearable devices. The smartwatch segment alone has grown into a $13 billion market by 2018, and is projected to increase another 32% to $18 billion by 2021. Smart toothbrushes and even hairbrushes can also let people track patterns in their personal care and behaviour.
For health professionals, the Internet of Bodies opens the gate to a new era of effective monitoring and treatment.
In 2017, the U.S. Federal Drug Administration approved the first use of digital pills in the United States. Digital pills contain tiny, ingestible sensors, as well as medicine. Once swallowed, the sensor is activated in the patient’s stomach and transmits data to their smartphone or other devices.
In 2018, Kaiser Permanente, a healthcare provider in California, started a virtual rehab program for patients recovering from heart attacks. The patients shared their data with their care providers through a smartwatch, allowing for better monitoring and a closer, more continuous relationship between patient and doctor. Thanks to this innovation, the completion rate of the rehab program rose from less than 50% to 87%, accompanied by a fall in the readmission rate and programme cost.
The deluge of data collected through such technologies is advancing our understanding of how human behaviour, lifestyle and environmental conditions affect our health. It has also expanded the notion of healthcare beyond the hospital or surgery and into everyday life. This could prove crucial in fighting the coronavirus pandemic. Keeping track of symptoms could help us stop the spread of infection, and quickly detect new cases. Researchers are investigating whether data gathered from smartwatches and similar devices can be used as viral infection alerts by tracking the user’s heart rate and breathing.
At the same time, this complex and evolving technology raises new regulatory challenges.
What counts as health information?
In most countries, strict regulations exist around personal health information such as medical records and blood or tissue samples. However, these conventional regulations often fail to cover the new kind of health data generated through the Internet of Bodies, and the entities gathering and processing this data.
In the United States, the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA), which is the major law for health data regulation, applies only to medical providers, health insurers, and their business associations. Its definition of “personal health information” covers only the data held by these entities. This definition is turning out to be inadequate for the era of the Internet of Bodies. Tech companies are now also offering health-related products and services, and gathering data. Margaret Riley, a professor of health law at the University of Virginia, pointed out to me in an interview that HIPPA does not cover the masses of data from consumer wearables, for example.
Another problem is that the current regulations only look at whether the data is sensitive in itself, not whether it can be used to generate sensitive information. For example, the result of a blood test in a hospital will generally be classified as sensitive data, because it reveals private information about your personal health. But today, all sorts of seemingly non-sensitive data can also be used to draw inferences about your health, through data analytics. Glenn Cohen, a professor at Harvard Law school, told me in an interview that even data that is not about health at all, such as grocery shopping lists, can be used for such inferences. As a result, conventional regulations may fail to cover data that is sensitive and private, simply because it did not look sensitive before it was processed.
Data risks
Identifying and protecting sensitive data matters, because it can directly affect how we are treated by institutions and other people. With big data analytics, countless day-to-day actions and decisions can ultimately feed into our health profile, which may be created and maintained not just by traditional healthcare providers, but also by tech companies or other entities. Without appropriate laws and regulations, it could also be sold. At the same time, data from the Internet of Bodies can be used to make predictions and inferences that could affect a person’s or group’s access to resources such as healthcare, insurance and employment.
James Dempsey, director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, told me in an interview that this could lead to unfair treatment. He warned of potential discrimination and bias when such data is used for decisions in insurance and employment. The affected people may not even be aware of this.
One solution would be to update the regulations. Sandra Wachter and Brent Mittelstadt, two scholars at the Oxford Internet Institute, suggest that data protection law should focus more on how and why data is processed, and not just on its raw state. They argue for a so-called “right to reasonable inferences”, meaning the right to have your data used only for reasonable, socially acceptable inferences. This would involve setting standards on whether and when inferring certain information from a person’s data, including the state of their present or future health, is socially acceptable or overly invasive.
Practical problems
Apart from the concerns over privacy and sensitivity, there are also a number of practical problems in dealing with the sheer volume of data generated by the Internet of Bodies. The lack of standards around security and data processing makes it difficult to combine data from diverse sources, and use it to advance research. Different countries and institutions are trying to jointly overcome this problem. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and its Standards Association have been working with the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health, as well as universities and businesses among other stakeholders since 2016, to address the security and interoperability issue of connected health.
As the Internet of Bodies spreads into every aspect of our existence, we are facing a range of new challenges. But we also have an unprecedented chance to improve our health and well-being, and save countless lives. During the COVID-19 crisis, using this opportunity and finding solutions to the challenges is a more urgent task than ever. This relies on government agencies and legislative bodies working with the private sector and civil society to create a robust governance framework, and to include inferences in the realm of data protection. Devising technological and regulatory standards for interoperability and security would also be crucial to unleashing the power of the newly available data. The key is to collaborate across borders and sectors to fully realize the enormous benefits of this rapidly advancing technology.
Governance of IoB devices is managed through a patchwork of state and federal agencies, nonprofit organizations, and consumer advocacy groups
The primary entities responsible for governance of IoB devices are the FDA and the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Although the FDA is making strides in cybersecurity of medical devices, many IoB devices, especially those available for consumer use, do not fall under FDA jurisdiction.
Federal and state officials have begun to address cybersecurity risks associated with IoB that are beyond FDA oversight, but there are few laws that mandate cybersecurity best practices.
As with IoB devices, there is no single entity that provides oversight to IoB data
Protection of medical information is regulated at the federal level, in part, by HIPAA.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) helps ensure data security and consumer privacy through legal actions brought by the Bureau of Consumer Protection.
Data brokers are largely unregulated, but some legal experts are calling for policies to protect consumers.
As the United States has no federal data privacy law, states have introduced a patchwork of laws and regulations that apply to residents’ personal data, some of which includes IoB-related information.
The lack of consistency in IoB laws among states and between the state and federal level potentially enables regulatory gaps and enforcement challenges.
Recommendations
The U.S. Commerce Department can put foreign IoB companies on its “Entity List,” preventing them from doing business with Americans, if those foreign companies are implicated in human rights violations.
As 5G, Wi-Fi 6, and satellite internet standards are rolled out, the federal government should be prepared for issues by funding studies and working with experts to develop security regulations.
It will be important to consider how to incentivize quicker phase-out of the legacy medical devices with poor cybersecurity that are already in wide use.
IoB developers must be more attentive to cybersecurity by integrating cybersecurity and privacy considerations from the beginning of product development.
Device makers should test software for vulnerabilities often and devise methods for users to patch software.
Congress should consider establishing federal data transparency and protection standards for data that are collected from the IoB.
The FTC could play a larger role to ensure that marketing claims about improved well-being or specific health treatment are backed by appropriate evidence.
JAMMU and Kashmir is almost always in the news for one reason or another. Apart from the obvious political headlines, J&K was also in the news because of covid-19. As the world struggled with covid-19 pandemic, J&K faced a peculiar situation due to its poor health infrastructure. Nonetheless, all sections of society did a commendable job in keeping covid under control and preventing the loss of life as much as possible. The doctors Association in Kashmir along with the administration did as much as possible through their efforts. For that we are all thankful to them. However, it is about time that we integrate our Healthcare System by upgrading it and introducing to it new technologies from the current world.
We’ve all heard of the Internet of Things, a network of products ranging from refrigerators to cars to industrial control systems that are connected to the internet. Internet of Bodies (IoB) the outcome of the Internet of Things (IoT) is broadly helping the healthcare system and every individual to live life with ease by managing the human body in terms of technology. The Internet of Bodies connects the human body to a network of internet run devices.
The use of IoB can be independent or by the health care heroes (doctors) to monitor, report and enhance the health system of the human body. The internet of Bodies (IoB) are broadly classified into three categories or in some cases we can say three generations – Body Internal, Body External and Body embedded. The Body Internal model of IoB is the category, in which the individual or patient is interacting with the technology environment or we can say internet or our healthcare system by having an installed device inside the human body. Body External model or generation of IoB signifies the model where the device is installed external to the body for certain usage viz. Apple watches and other smart bands from various OEM’s for tracking blood pressure, heart rate etc which can later be used for proper health tracking and monitoring purposes. Last one under this classifications are Body Embedded, in which the devices are embedded under the skin by health care professionals during a number of health situations.
The Internet of Bodies is a small part or even the offspring of the Internet of Things. Much like it, there remains the challenge of data and information breach as we have already witnessed many excessive distributed denial of service (DDos) attacks and other cyber-attacks on IoTs to exploit data and gather information. The effects are even more severe and vulnerable in the case of the Internet of Bodies as the human body is involved in this schema.
The risk of these threats has taken over the discussion about the IOBs. Thus, this has become a great concern in medical technology companies. Most of the existing IoB companies just rely on end-user license agreements and privacy policies to retain rights in software and to create rights to monitor, aggregate and share users’ body data. They just need to properly enhance the security model and implement high security measures to avoid any misfortune. For the same the Government of India is already examining the personal data protection bill 2019.
The Internet has not managed to change our lifestyles in the way the internet of things will!
Views expressed in the article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the editorial stance of Kashmir Observer
The author is presently Manager IT & Ops In HK Group
Social media, sensor feeds, and scientific studies generate large amounts of valuable data. However, understanding the relationships among this data can be challenging. Graph analytics has emerged as an approach by which analysts can efficiently examine the structure of the large networks produced from these data sources and draw conclusions from the observed patterns. By understanding the complex relationships both within and between data sources, a more complete picture of the analysis problem can be understood. With lessons learned from innovations in the expanding realm of deep neural networks, the Hierarchical Identify Verify Exploit (HIVE) program seeks to advance the arena of graph analytics.
The HIVE program is looking to build a graph analytics processor that can process streaming graphs 1000X faster and at much lower power than current processing technology. If successful, the program will enable graph analytics techniques powerful enough to solve tough challenges in cyber security, infrastructure monitoring and other areas of national interest. Graph analytic processing that currently requires racks of servers could become practical in tactical situations to support front-line decision making. What ’s more, these advanced graph analytics servers could have the power to analyze the billion- and trillion-edge graphs that will be generated by the Internet of Things, ever-expanding social networks, and future sensor networks.
In parallel with the hardware development of a HIVE processor, DARPA is working with MIT Lincoln Laboratory and Amazon Web Services (AWS) to host the HIVE Graph Challenge with the goal of developing a trillion-edge dataset. This freely available dataset will spur innovative software and hardware solutions in the broader graph analysis community that will contribute to the HIVE program.
The overall objective is to accelerate innovation in graph analytics to open new pathways for meeting the challenge of understanding an ever-increasing torrent of data. The HIVE program features two primary challenges:
The first is a static graph problem focused on sub-graph Isomorphism. This task is to further the ability to search a large graph in order to identify a particular subsection of that graph.
The second is a dynamic graph problem focused on trying to find optimal clusters of data within the graph.
Both challenges will include a small graph problem in the billions of nodes and a large graph problem in the trillions of nodes.
Transhuman Code authors discuss digital ID’s and a centralized AI-controlled society. In 2018 More info
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
As US media can’t be trusted with anything, I looked up mostly Eastern sources and came up with the full story of the lowest point in US history since 9/11.
This is the story of how China snatched Afghanistan from U.S. without firing a single bullet. Watch this, then I’ll contextualize even more.
Later update: Some readers rightfully suggested I haven’t highlighted enough the Afghani natural resources and their importance. So I made a follow-up video:
Wanna-be-green US has just handed global dominance on lithium and batteries to China. Why? See below
China in South Asia: The Case of Afghanistan
13 FEBRUARY 2018, by Lindsay Hughes, Research Analyst, Indian Ocean Research Programme, Ausralia Download PDF
Key Points
In Afghanistan, China recognises several economic and strategic opportunities to advance its goals in the region and beyond.
It sees the opportunity to acquire access to much of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth.
There is also an opportunity for China to ensure the security of its own restive Xinjiang Province.
Beijing also discerns a possibility to diminish US and Indian influence in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan, thus, almost demands China’s foreign policy attention.
Summary
It is almost trite to observe in 2018 that China’s economic growth over the last twenty-five or so years has been spectacular. The Chinese Communist Party, which has managed most aspects of the economy, can justifiably take credit for that growth. It has lifted an estimated six hundred million people out of poverty and enabled many others to become millionaires and even billionaires. If the sheer enormousness of that figure is difficult to comprehend, consider this: China used more cement between 2011 and 2013 than the United States used in the entire twentieth century. In other words, in the space of those three years, China constructed more housing and infrastructure than the United States did from the 1900s through to the 1990s, including its period of greatest expansion during which it built its Interstate road networks, the Hoover Dam and most of its skyscrapers. In those three years, China used an estimated 6.6 gigatons of cement compared to the United States, which used 4.5 between 1901 and 2000.
China’s economic growth has had a major effect on its foreign policy. In order for the Chinese Communist Party to be seen by the Chinese populace as not resting on its economic laurels, in being perceived to be pursuing the Chinese dream of returning the country to its historically pre-eminent position in the international order and in keeping with the one hundred-year marathon that Pillsbury describes, China now seeks to increase its influence in the region. While its efforts in that regard in the South China Sea and among the countries of South-East Asia have been recognised and analysed in considerable depth, its efforts to do likewise to its west have not received the same degree of attention.
China is actively at work in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, attempting to stabilise those countries, and is now extending its reach into Afghanistan in order to achieve its regional goals. This paper will study some of those.
Analysis
Writing in 1975, Etzioni noted that ‘power differs according to the means employed to make [a] subject comply. These means may be physical, material or symbolic’, or what he terms coercive, remunerative and normative power. China employs these forms of power in different situations; for example, whereas in the South and East China Seas it uses coercive power more than it does the other forms, it relies more on remunerative power in Afghanistan. In other words, it buys its influence in that country.
The question that immediately flows from that observation is this: why does China seek to increase its influence in Afghanistan and Pakistan? What does it seek to achieve by doing so? The answer would appear to be economic gain. That is certainly true; China does seek economic reward by increasing its presence in these two countries. To limit that answer to mere economics would be short-sighted, however. The two countries need to be examined individually in order to better understand China’s motives.
China’s external relations policies are, like those of many other countries, an extension or outcome of its domestic situation. The Chinese Communist Party, in order to remain in power, has entered into an implicit agreement with the Chinese people that runs, more or less, along the lines of, “We will ensure that your economic circumstances are enhanced; in return, you will not question the legitimacy of our control over the country.” For economic benefits to flow, however, a country needs political stability. That is not assured in far-flung Xinjiang Province.
An estimated forty per cent of the people of Xinjiang belong to the Uyghur community; they are ethnically Turkic and mainly Muslim. They are different from the majority Han population in the rest of China (excluding Tibet) in their social structures, traditions and language, besides their religious ideology. As a consequence, the Chinese Communist Party, which does not countenance social differences it cannot fully comprehend, has sought to diminish the Islamic influence in the province. Apart from resettling Han Chinese in large numbers in Xinjiang, the Communist Party has imposed severe restrictions on the Uyghurs’ practice of their religion and their freedoms; mosques are barred from broadcasting the call to prayer; there are restrictions on the names that may be given to babies; the Muslim veil for women and beards for men are banned; the city of Karamay promulgated an ordinance that banned bearded men and women wearing burqas or hijabs from travelling on public buses; Uyghur drivers are often stopped and their identification papers and those of their passengers examined; their mobile phones are searched for content and applications that are deemed, arbitrarily in many instances, to be a threat to national security; Uyghur civil servants, students and teachers are prevented from fasting during the Ramadhan period and restaurants are forced to remain open. Schools are forced to conduct lessons in Mandarin and not Uyghur. These restrictions and often blatant violations of the rights accorded to other Chinese citizens have rankled in the Uyghur community. Arguably worst of all, the Communist authorities offer the Uyghur people cash and other incentives to intermarry with Han people, leading to a commonly-held perception in the Uyghur community that it is a blatant attempt to breed it out of existence.
The repressive measures have led to fatal attacks by Uyghur groups on Han Chinese, leading to a vicious circle of further repression and violence. Beijing is acutely aware, however, of the need to pre-empt any attacks by the Uyghurs’ co-religionists in Afghanistan or Pakistan, whether those be members of the Taliban or ordinary Muslim citizens who object to the repression of the Uyghurs, on its energy pipelines that originate in Gwadar and flow through to Xinjiang. To that end, it has sought to mitigate any perceptions of it being a repressive, authoritarian regime by seeking to develop, in the first instance, a strong economic relationship with Kabul.
It is no coincidence that China has sought to acquire mining rights in Afghanistan. As a previous FDI paper observed:
It was reported (and elsewhere, including here) in 2010, that the Pentagon believed that Afghanistan’s untapped mineral wealth could be worth around US$1 trillion. According to another report, the Afghan Government declared that figure to be around US$3 trillion but that figure is likely an exaggeration. According to the news report, a task force studying the country’s resources found that Afghanistan has significant deposits of copper, iron ore, niobium, cobalt, gold, molybdenum, silver and aluminium, as well as sources of fluorspar, beryllium and lithium, among others. While even the one trillion dollar figure may be exaggerated, the fact remains that the country does have enormous unexploited mineral wealth. Even if another country did not avail of the minerals itself (an unlikely possibility or outcome), there could be much profit to be had in partnering with still-to-be-established Afghan mining companies, by providing the technology and expertise required, for example, in the extraction of those minerals.
More specifically, it is the discovery of major lithium deposits in Afghanistan (one source provides an idea of the amounts of lithium available by referring to Afghanistan as “the Saudi Arabia of lithium”) that is of consequence. The original Pentagon report, while stating that the main minerals found were iron ore (estimated value US$421 billion) and copper (US$273 billion), was careful to note that the trillion dollar figure did not include known oil and gas reserves or the value of minerals like lithium that have not been verified to an extent that would permit a dollar figure estimation. While two Chinese firms have committed themselves to a US$4 billion investment in the vast Aynak copper mine, south of Kabul, it is the lithium deposits that are of strategic interest.
In the past few years, the demand for lithium has exploded along with the growth of lithium-ion battery technology in mobile phones, personal digital assistants, laptop computers and, more recently, electric vehicles and batteries that can be attached to solar-powered systems. China, which seeks to position itself as a major electric-powered automobile and solar panel manufacturer, could see its plans disrupted and, more importantly, at the mercy of, for instance, American firms that might come to control lithium production in Afghanistan.
The issue is especially acute for China, given the American presence in the form of its troops and “advisers” in Afghanistan.
In order to vitiate any advantage that the Americans may have in Afghanistan, China is talking not only to the Afghan Government but also to some Taliban groups. The approach appears to have been successful. While the government has cracked down on illegal mining, thus enabling Chinese mining companies to expand their operations, the Taliban has assured the Chinese firms that they need have no fear of attacks by its members and also offered to protect at least one mine and several gas projects with its members. While this has caused some discomfort in the government, which says that it has the sole right to grant mining leases and protect the ensuing operations, the Chinese companies remain secure in the knowledge that their operations can continue with minimal fear of being attacked. China appears to be reaping further dividends with its approach; an uncorroborated report has it, furthermore, that Afghanistan has recently announced that American mining companies would not be given licences to conduct operations there. This announcement comes despite reports of another major find in Afghanistan: huge deposits of potash.
Establishing a good relationship with Afghanistan also helps China to reduce American influence there. In fact, the visit by the Afghan Foreign Minister, Zalmay Rasoul, to Beijing in May 2011 saw a growing relationship between the two countries formalised just as then President Obama was preparing to reduce the number of American troops there. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu spoke of Chinese support for the Afghan Government as it struggles to end instability and crushing poverty and noted China’s appreciation of Afghanistan’s ‘assistance on major issues bearing on China’s core interests’, a reference to Chinese territorial claims, especially in Xinjiang and Tibet that border the volatile Central Asia.
That meeting was among the first of many that followed. In December 2017, China hosted a trilateral meeting with the foreign ministers of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi met with Salahuddin Rabbani and Khawaja Asif, his Afghan and Pakistani counterparts respectively. Going against its stated policy of not interfering in the internal politics of other nations and demonstrating the country’s new-found confidence in its ability to play a much larger role in international politics, Mr Wang sought to bring the two governments together to resolve their differences. While he was only partially successful, Mr Wang did elicit promises from both to continue with their dialogue. That meeting was followed only days later by a meeting between the Defence Ministers of Afghanistan and China, which ended with a statement that the two sides had worked to ‘deepen pragmatic co-operation in various fields including anti-terrorism operations, and push forward the state and military relations between the two countries’. It is interesting to note that both meetings ended with statements regarding co-operation in anti-terrorism initiatives, an indication of how nervous Beijing is about terrorism in Central Asia spilling over into Xinjiang.
China is acting to mitigate those fears. In keeping with its policy of bringing bordering countries under its influence economically and militarily in progressive stages, China is now in discussions with Afghanistan to establish a military base there. It has been reported by many sources that Beijing is in talks with Kabul to construct a military base in Afghanistan’s remote and mountainous Wakhan Corridor, where witnesses have reported seeing Chinese and Afghan troops on joint patrols. Beijing allegedly fears that exiled Uyghur members of the insurgent East Turkestan Islamic Movement use the Wakhan Corridor to cross into Xinjiang to carry out attacks there. Beijing also worries that Uyghurs who were trained by and fought for Islamic State are now fleeing Iraq and Syria and could, similarly, use the Wakhan Corridor to enter China. Beijing is correct in fearing that these various groups and factions could amalgamate, based on their ethnicity and dislike of Chinese repression, and foment further unrest in Xinjiang.
A few other Chinese objectives in Afghanistan are worth noting. First, just as it hopes to reduce American influence there, Beijing also wants to reduce Indian influence in the country. New Delhi, which has a strong relationship with Kabul, is detested by Islamabad, which works to reduce Indian influence in the region in which it seeks “strategic depth” in the event of an Indian attack. China, for its part, seeks to isolate India in South Asia in a zero-sum game for influence in that region.
Second, China would want to create an alternative route for its Belt and Road Initiative through Afghanistan, a country that it could better influence than, say, Kazakhstan, which a resurgent Russia, for all its messages of friendship with China, would not readily permit, since Moscow sees Astana as being in its own zone of influence. China recognises the risks associated with a BRI route running through Kazakhstan and would wish to avoid that. Afghanistan offers an option. An Afghanistan route also enables China direct overland access to the gas fields of Iran. That could eliminate even the comparatively minor risks associated with piping oil and gas through Pakistan, such as attacks upon the infrastructure and personnel by Balochi insurgents and even by India in a conflict with Pakistan. Islamabad undoubtedly recognises, in turn, the risks that Afghanistan poses to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor and Chinese investment in it.
Finally, by bringing Afghanistan into its zone of influence, China could create another market for its manufactured goods. At a time when it sees its exports dwindling, and in light of the Trump legislation on reduced company taxes in the United States, which has resulted in increased investment in that country’s manufacturing sector, China would want to avail itself of every market it possibly can.
To conclude, Afghanistan offers China several major economic and strategic opportunities. It requires no great deal of thought to recognise the viability of those. China would, almost unreservedly, seek to use those opportunities to further its agenda in the region and beyond.
*****
This above is still not the full picture. You also need to be aware of the following historical facts:
And in parallel with the storyline above, another one was at play:
As Israel and the US are just Rothschild enterprises and CCP a long-time partner to them, if you combine the two storylines it’s safe to safe to conclude:
The Rothschilds may not own everything and everyone but they have enough leverage to persuade anyone into an alliance. This one with the CCP has been in works for decades, they’ve incubated and supported this regime since the early days and, as it proves more fruitful than owning America lately, the human farm administration entered a longer process of reform. Biden is just the valet who delivered the keys to the new admin. And he wasn’t alone in this, he’s not the only Rothschild puppet there, see
And see that there are some agendas that each president has continued from his predecessors, sometimes against own political promises and ideology.
Afghanistan may be one of the lowest points in the US foreign policy history and a massive drama for Americans, but it’s just an episode to them, many more to follow. According to Biden, Americans have bigger worries right now:
Leave it to China to persuade them to mask and vaxx, mark my words!
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone. You can even eat some of them. CLICK HERE
Aliko Dangote Foundation The Alphawood Foundation The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Aphorism Foundation AT&T Lynne & Marc R. Benioff The Bluhm Family Charitable Foundation Blum-Kovler Foundation/Peter & Judy Kovler The Boeing Company Amy & Joshua Boger The Eli & Edythe Broad Foundation John & Jacolyn Bucksbaum Family Foundation The California Endowment Sonya & Tom Campion Marcy Carsey The Chicago Community Trust* Robert & Jane Clark Stephen Cloobeck Colleen & Bradley Bell Charitable Foundation Ron Conway Family James Crane & Whitney Wheeler Crane The Crown Family Ann & John Doerr Ray & Dagmar Dolby Family Fund The Donovan Family Exelon Corporation Fred Eychaner Tony Fernandes Fidelity Charitable (4) The Ford Foundation Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation The Gibbons Scattone Family Foundation Scott Miller & Tim Gill The Goldberg Family Foundation The John & Marcia Goldman Foundation Lisa & Douglas Goldman Fund Goldman Sachs Philanthropy Fund Kenneth C. Griffin Charitable Gift Fund Agnes Gund The Harris Family Foundation The Hauptman Family Foundation Health Care Service Corporation Mel Heifetz Michelle Yee & Reid Hoffman Barbara & Amos Hostetter Andrew Houston Hutchins Family Foundation Iger Bay Foundation Illinois Tool Works Irving Harris Foundation–Joan Harris Hamilton & Amabel James The Jewish Communal Fund The Joyce Foundation JP Initiative, LLC Kapor Center for Social Impact Masimo Foundation for Ethics, Innovation & Competition in Healthcare Jonathan & Jeannie Lavine, Trustees Jeff & Erica Lawson Ambassador Fay Hartog-Levin & Daniel Levin The Reginald F. Lewis Family Foundation, Inc. Hobson/Lucas Family Foundation John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Joe & Rika Mansueto Demond & Kia Martin Foundation McCormick Foundation Katie McGrath & J.J. Abrams Family Foundation Microsoft Corporation Scott Nathan & Laura DeBonis New York Community Trust Nike Foundation President Barack H. Obama & Mrs. Michelle Obama The Oprah Winfrey Charitable Foundation Todd Park & Amy Geng The Parker Foundation Polsky Foundation Jeanne & John Kevin Poorman through JKP Family Foundation Linda & Richard Price Family Fund Pritzker Traubert Foundation Prudential Foundation Rattner Family Foundation Rhimes Family Foundation Richard Paul & Ellen S. Richman Private Family Trust Foundation Robert & Jane Toll Foundation Victoria & John Rogers Rosenthal Family Foundation Amy & Kirk Rudy Cari & Michael J. Sacks Schlosstein Hartley Foundation Barbara Schmidt Service Station Foundation* The Share Fund II at The Tides Foundation* Beth & David Shaw Jon & Kimberly Shirley Silicon Valley Community Foundation Ian Simmons through ImpactAssets Donor Advised Fund Marilyn & Jim Simons Someland Foundation Steans Family Foundation Mrs. Marjorie Susman & Ambassador Louis B. Susman Sandra & John W. Thompson Laurie & Jeff Ubben Evan Williams & Sara Morishige W.K. Kellogg Foundation The Anne Wojcicki Foundation (YouTube CEO sister, Google owner partner and ex-wife) Kate Capshaw & Steven Spielberg’s The Wunderkinder Foundation Wayne Jordan & Quinn Delaney Mary & Jeffrey Zients Robert & Carol Wolf Family Foundation
$500,001 to $999,999
Cindy & Alan Horn Jill & Avram Glazer
$250,001 to $500,000
Ms. Patricia Passmore Alley The Atlantic Philanthropies* James & Mary Bell Mark Bergman & Susan Gibson The Brin Wojcicki Foundation (Same Google love triangle as above) Vinton Cerf & Sigrid Cerf Christine & John Bakalar Charitable Fund Tim Collins Lester, Chanel, & Javon Coney Don & Anne Edwards Charitable Fund Dr. Felice Frankel Connie & Sankey Williams The Jewish Communal Fund Nicholas & Monica Logothetis The Philip & Tammy Murphy Family Foundation Alison & Mark Pincus Kim & Nicholas Romano Dona & Sam Scott Foundation John Shulman & Alison Bernstein Shulman Silicon Valley Community Foundation Barbara Stiefel
$100,001 to $250,000
The Alter Group Michael & Ellen Alter Anne & Bruce Strohm Family Giving Fund Jay Kriz Blahnik & Ryan Kriz Blahnik+ Jedd & Dara Canty Edward & Paula Fearon FedEx Corporation Fisher Family Foundation Jason & Crystal Goldman Brett J. Hart & Dontrey Britt-Hart Ambassador Bruce Heyman & Vicki Heyman* Horowitz Family Foundation Ambassador Ronald Kirk & Mrs. Matrice Ellis-Kirk Lewis-Sebring Family Foundation, Charles Ashby Lewis & Penny Bender Sebring Lisa Stone Pritzker Family Foundation* Edward & Paula Hughes Pamela & William Hurley Karla Jurvetson Tom Kartsotis The Kresge Foundation Minow Family Foundation Thomas Nides & Virginia Moseley Gilbert Omenn & Martha Darling Ulice Payne, Jr. The Rockhaven Charitable Fund Skoll Foundation Stripe, Inc. Andrew Tobias Ranvir & Adarsh Trehan/Trehan Foundation The San Francisco 49ers Kevin Xu The University of Chicago The Rumi Foundation Aaron & Ana Zamost
$10,000 to $100,000
Jim & Wendy Abrams Rona & Jeffrey Abramson Marcie & Nick Alexos Jack Alotto Alpenglow Foundation A.L. Mailman Family Foundation Melissa Alvarado* AMC Networks* Amy & Michael Tiemann Charitable Gift Fund The Apatow-Mann Family Foundation, Inc. John Atkinson & Bonnie Atkinson Atlantic Fellows for Racial Equity at Columbia University Priya V. Balakrishnan Rye Barcott Charles Barkley Baskin Family Foundation Corinne Anne Basler Bob Baxley* Big Win Philanthropy Dr. Anita Blanchard & Martin Nesbitt John Boiler & Kari Boiler Pamela Bass-Bookey & Harry Bookey Andrew & Ellen Bradley Brayton Family Charitable Fund Douglas & Teresa Brown John & Carla Brozovich Burch Giving Fund Dwight & Antoinette Bush Calendly LLC* Casey Family Programs Beverly Castleberry Christine Chang The Cheka Fund at The Miami Foundation* Lila Cherri Chuck Lorre Family Foundation James Clark Craig Newmark Philanthropies Jesse Crowe The Patricia Crown Family Stephen & Ayesha Curry Family Foundation Beverly Dale Gilbert Omenn & Martha Darling Deutscher Evangelischer Kirchentag Michael Donaghue Jackie Brown Duncan Judith Estrin The Fine & Greenwald Foundation Paul & Mary Finnegan Franklin & Marshall College Dave Free* Eiichi Fukushima Drs. Helene D. Gayle & Stephen N. Keith Steve & Lisa Gerber Robert & Susan Glovsky Fund The Goolsbee Family Mark Gordon Barbara Grasseschi & Anthony Crabb Anastasia Greene* GRoW @ Annenberg Hamlin Kurihara Fund Harry & Jeanette Weinberg Foundation Megan Holmes Estate of Nancy Hom John Hynes Inner Loop Capital* Jack & Jill of America Foundation, Inc. Kenneth & Lisa Jackson Paul & Catherine Jefferys Fund Luci Baines Johnson Debbie Johnston Charitable Gift Fund* Heather Jones Manju Karkare & Jayant Khadilkar Kate Somerville Skincare LLC* John & Jennifer Kelly* John Lamonica Lawrence Z. & Jaqueline A. Stern Foundation Rodney & Sue Lee Jane A. Lehman & Alan G. Lehman Foundation John & Jill Levi Leslie Lewis Mr. Jeremy Liew & Ms. Ranee Lan The Lostand Foundation Susan Lubetkin Joseph Macari Marin Community Foundation Jane & Richard Mescon Weston Milliken The MJK Family Foundation Robert Rivkin & Cindy Moelis The Museum of Ice Cream on Behalf of AlunaGeorge Nancy E. Myers The National Association of Basketball Coaches Foundation The Nayar Family Foundation NBA Players Association Foundation Doris J. Newton Marti Noxon* The Oakland Athletics The Opportunity Fund Ambassador Robert & Mitsuko Orr Peter Orzsag Pamela Valinet Charitable Mary & David Peirce* Penny Norman Trust Carol & David Pensky Kathryn Petit Mr. Anh Pham The Phillips Family Hasmit Popat Lauri Altman Posner & Brian Posner* Kevin Quail Thomas & Sheila Rabaut Revada Foundation The Revlis Foundation The Friedman Family Georgina T. Russo Juan Sabater Salesforce.org Mrs. Bettylu Saltzman & Dr. Paul Saltzman Shiva Sarram & Drew Pearson* Mr. Andrew Schapiro & Ms. Tamar Newberger Margaret Schink Segal Family Foundation Eugene Sepulveda & Steven Tomlinson Mary & Charles Sethness Charitable Foundation Susan D. Shenk* Ruth Simmons Diane Meyer Simon Simply Southern* Charles Smith Hortense Snower Ken & Lissa Solomon Neil & Carla Subin* Suvoda LLC* Suggs Family Foundation Susan Sher & Neil Cohen Fund at The Chicago Community Foundation Chade-Meng Tan Pedro Torres-Mackie Craig Troyer Jeremy Tworek Under Armour, Inc* Christopher P. Valenti Charitable Fund Glen de Vries* Lester Ward Giving Account Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz* Warner/Roback Family Fund* Weinberg-Newton Family Foundation Sherrie & David Westin The Wildbasil Fund Jae Yu* Barry & Lisa Zimmermann* Bruce Carbonari*
* Donors who have made new cash contributions or formalized written commitments between April 1 – June 30, 2020. + Donors who have included the Obama Foundation in their estate plans.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
I had to pull out the colored crayons as the world is a kindergarten.
LATER UPDATE: VIDEO VERSION READY, IT GOES EVEN DEEPER…
This is your virus, one of the versions, but it has only proven to exist in form of a salad of four characters shaped as a genetic code. SOURCESOURCE
When you ask about virus Gold-Standard evidence, aka purification and isolation as per Koch’s Postulates, they give you “cultures”. That’s like saying you discovered a new species of primate but you can only show a jungle.
That letter salad was fed into a computer program which generated the formulations for injections in mere hours, as the industry bragged:
Proving the virus is bullshit had never been easier:
Now, the more you investigate other viruses, the more you have similar surprises. And that goes for 99% of what you hold true.
Especially the slavery
Don’t trust what I say, research it.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
SILVIEW.media 