If you think the headline is hyperbolic, I’m just closely paraphrasing the esteemed professor at the Tel-Aviv University, Yuval Harari.

I guess this should be the 6th instalment of the Biohacking series…

This video could also serve as trailer for these exposes:

VACCINES AS GATEWAY TO DIGITAL ID, A CONCEPT LAUNCHED IN 2016, AT DAVOS, BY GATES AND PHARMAFIA

THE INTERNET OF BODIES AKA THE BORG IS HERE, KLAUS SCHWAB SAYS (BIOHACKING P.5)

This is where we are at the time I’m putting this together”

IRS Will Soon Require Biometric Data from Taxpayers

 Western Journal  January 20, 2022

Hundreds of years after a minor increase in the duties paid on tea goaded American farmers and craftsmen to take on the greatest empire in the world, these colonials’ descendants are being told to hand over something much more personal than money.

In addition to the taxes expected to be handed over and responsibly spent by the government, the Internal Revenue Service will soon require Americans to submit biometric data to access their accounts.

Starting this summer, creating an account on the IRS website will require a photo of your government identification as well as a video for facial recognition purposes to be submitted to a third-party company.

According to CNBC, an account with the government contractor, ID.me, will not be required to pay taxes.

“The IRS emphasizes taxpayers can pay or file their taxes without submitting a selfie or other information to a third-party identity verification company,” the agency said in a statement.Trending:Update: FBI Raids COVID Testing Company Accused of Falsifyng Test Results in $124 Million Cover-Up

“Tax payments can be made from a bank account, by credit card or by other means without the use of facial recognition technology or registering for an account.”

Don’t run to thank the taxman yet — your personal biometrics must be handed over to access functions on the IRS website. Without this access, taxpayers may not be able to see their tax transcripts or check on payment agreements.

Even applying for a payment plan, creating a security PIN and viewing stimulus check status will be impossible without the personal data.

If this unsettles you, it gets worse.

The government’s need to know everything about you, down to the minor contours of your face, isn’t going away any time soon, it seems.Will you submit biometric data to the IRS?Yes No
 Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Taxpayers and others are being warned to create an account soon. The service is expected to grow and become a requirement for many other applications.

Unfortunately, a government contract and no competition do not appear to be the best incubator for a quality product. Major problems have already been reported with the system that could seriously hurt people’s finances.

Many have faced issues getting their identity verified. Some have had to wait for months while verification takes place.

While waiting for this to happen, services like unemployment payments are not provided to the person entitled to them.Related:IRS Now Acting Like the Mafia with Message Specifically for Thieves and Looters

The company asserts that there are remedies for these problems, including video calls with “trusted referees,” employees able to connect with citizens to work out issues.

Regardless of any issues, it looks like this verification system will only become a more integral part of the government and force ordinary people to go above and beyond to prove their identity.

And another sign of the now times:

Let’s roll back down the history lane

2018-2021

Exposing Idemia: The Push For National Biometric IDs In America

Idemia, the focus of this report, is not a household name, despite its reach into the private and commercial affairs of most Americans. The company’s advance of biometric data strategies, databases and scanning devices for access and entry control—“augmented identification”—are also likely unknown. However, this global company is acquainted with most American citizens, whose private information flows through its equipment, databases, and software products. That said, it is unclear whether Idemia actually stores this data long-term. One news article on TSA PreCheck, the program that speeds clearance at airport security, says the data and fingerprints of program applicants are not stored by Idemia. The company simply collects them for the program and sends them to the FBI, which destroys them or sends them back.

This report seeks to acquaint Americans and their elected representatives with Idemia and biometric ID cards—and draw attention to our organization’s concern that current or future augmented identification requirements could negatively impact individual freedom and patient access to medical services.

In addition, as we often say, “He who holds the data makes the rules.” Third parties that collect, store or have the power to access personal data on Americans without their consent also have the power to use that data to interfere in the personal lives and private choices of individuals. This report will add weight to that reality

INTRODUCING IDEMIA & BIOMETRICS

Imagine sitting at a bank applying for a credit card and waving your hand through a scanner, allowing the bank to capture a biometric scan. Or imagine being required to scan your fingerprint to use that card for payment. Picture your identification documents being stored on your mobile or digital devices and being unlocked with a biometric face scan, similar to how Face ID,

Apple’s new technology, unlocks iPhones.4 Visualize walking through an airport and having scanners capture your facial, iris, and fingerprint biometrics as you go through each phase of security or reach your gate. Pick out a rental car online and imagine using your biometric ID to unlock and operate the car instead of a key.

Idemia, which calls itself “the global leader in trusted identities,” has imagined it already. These augmented identification systems using individual biometrics for entry, access and commercial transactions are portrayed in a video found on Idemia’s website, and available on YouTube.5 The company considers itself “the world number one” in the biometric algorithm and sensor technology market.

Exposing Idemia: The Push For National Biometric IDs In America

PANdemia or IDemia?
The answer is in your face!

2018

2017

The Biometric ID Grid: A Country-by-Country Guide

Corbett • 01/31/2017 

In last week’s report on India’s demonetization disaster I began to connect the dots between demonetization, the push for a cashless society, and the biometric identification schemes that will eventually tie everyone’s fingerprints, iris scans, and other identifying details to every transaction they ever make.

Well, that game of “connect the dots” just became even easier to play.

First, it was reported last week that a key panel advising the government on its implementation of the “digital payments ecosystem” (that is being pushed and funded by USAID) is now recommending that India links its national biometric ID database directly to tax returns.

And now comes word that India is “working on a biometrics-backed payment system that will be connected to a user’s unique ID number, or Aadhaar.” (Who could have seen that coming?)

No, it doesn’t take a Nostradamus to understand where this is all heading: From the cashless society and the biometric ID grid to the cashless biometric grid. And we already know about the cashless society. Now it’s time to collect the data on the biometric ID grid.

And let’s not be naive: As I’ve demonstrated before, this is a coordinated plan to institute a worldwide biometric id system to track every human on the planet.

But given how fast and furious these new biometric databases are coming online, no one person can possibly keep track of them all. That’s why I’m calling on Corbett Report members to help assemble this information. Like last year’s open source investigation into the War on Cash, this country-by-country guide will be updated with input from the Corbett Report community. Members of the site are invited to log in and leave links to information about the biometric ID grid in their country in the comments section below.

The Biometric ID List

Afghanistan – In 2016 the US bragged about their role in helping the Afghan Ministries of Defense and Interior roll out biometric ID systems for their workers. Also in 2016 the Afghanistan Telecom Regulatory Authority revealed that they wanted to “start linking biometrics to new SIM card registrations, to improve national security.” As has been widely reported, the US military has been waging “biometric warfare” in the country as part of its invasion, occupation and (de)stabilization effort since at least 2010. The Afghanistan National Security Forces has now deployed their own Automated Biometric Information System with fingerprint, iris, and facial scan capabilities and is “compatible with the U.S. DoD ABIS and the FBI Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System.”

Australia – Australia has been issuing biometric passports since 2005 and the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) has been running biometrics collection centres for years to issue visas tied to visitors’ biometric details. But now, Australia is about to lead us into a Brave New World with a world first: The DIBP is going to introduce the first “self-processing system” for travelers at Australian airports later this year using biometric details instead of a passport. Australian schools have implemented fingerprint scans as a method of tracking attendance at schools despite a strong backlash from parents that led to similar programs being suspended in the past.

Bolivia – In 2009 Bolivia’s elections were held using an electoral voter list created by using biometric data. In 2016 the Bolivian government began a 12-month program to perform a biometric census on the country’s foreign population.

Bulgaria – Bulgaria began issuing biometric identity cards (mandatory for all citizens) in March 2010. Bulgaria also issues biometric passports and driver’s licenses containing embedded biometric data.

Brazil – Brazil began issuing biometric identity cards in 2011 with the intention of issuing cards as part of its Registro de Identidade Civil, which intends to capture the biometric details of all 150 million citizens by 2020. Also in 2011 the Brazilian Electoral Justice approved the roll out of a biometric voter registration system that requires voters to register their fingerprints in order to vote (which is mandatory).

Canada – Under NEXUS, the joint Canada-US “preferred traveler” program, iris scans are used to identify passengers. In 2015 the Canadian government expanded biometric screening, including fingerprints and digital photos, to visitors from all 151 visa-required countries.

Chile – In 2013 Chile rolled out its new national ID and passport infrastructure including an eID card which “is based on a multi-biometric system comprised of an Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) and a Facial Recognition System.” The country aims to issue all of its 18+ million citizens with a card by 2022.

China – In 2016 China debuted its first airport biometric entry system. The system takes travelers’ photos at security checkpoints within the airport, linking their faces to their boarding passes. In 2017, the Chinese government unveiled new biometric travel passes (including fingerprint scans) for mainland visitors to Taiwan.

Finland – Finland introduced biometric residence permit cards in 2012. The cards include a chip that stores a digital photograph and two fingerprints.

France – France has issued only biometric passports since 2009. The passport requires the collection of a biometric digital photo and eight fingerprints.

Germany – Germany introduced biometric passports in 2005 and biometric residence permits in 2011, both of which require a biometric digital photograph and two fingerprints to be collected and stored on an embedded chip. Germany’s identity card does require a biometric photo, but so far fingerprint collection is optional.

Greece – In compliance with the dictates of Washington, the Greek government is set to issue new biometric IDs this year. As Greek Report notes: “Failure to create the new IDs in a timely manner could lead to a suspension in the visa-free travel to the US that Greeks currently enjoy.”

India – India has been fingerprinting and iris scanning its population for years in its quest to construct the largest biometric ID database in the world. The plan to collect and store biometric details on all 1.2 billion Indian citizens is proceeding apace, and has so far registered over 1.1 billion people, including over 99% of all Indians over 18.

Israel – In 2009 the Knesset enacted the controversial Biometric Database Law to pave the way for the implementation of a national biometric ID database. Last July it was reported that the “pilot program” had come to an end and all Israeli residents would be forced to register their biometric details with the government. In December it was announced that the mandatory implementation of the database was being delayed and that fingerprints may no longer be required.

Japan – In 2007 the Japanese government began requiring fingerprints and digital photographs from all foreign travelers. Now, the government is considering implementing a biometric ID payment system which will “allow” (sic) tourists to “register their fingerprints or finger vein patterns among other personal information with the service and then deposit a set amount of money in a connected account,” from which they can make purchases while in the country.

Mexico – In 2011 the Mexican government began a program to issue biometric identification cards to all children between 4 and 17 years old. The cards contain a digital photograph, a fingerprint and an iris scan. The scheme is part of a broader National Population Register that will eventually extend to adults and contain the biometric details of the entire population of Mexico.

Netherlands – Since 2009 the Netherlands has issued biometric passports containing an embedded chip with a digital photograph and fingerprints. Four Dutch citizens challenged the legality of the practice of collecting fingerprints but it was approved by the European Court of Justice. Although only two fingerprints are stored on the passport’s chip, four fingerprints are taken and stored by the local government in a central database that is also used to pursue criminal investigations.

New Zealand – New Zealand’s Inland Revenue Department rolled out “Voice ID” in 2011 to register “customers'” voice prints and identify them in future interactions. By 2015 1.4 million of the country’s 6.1 million taxpayers had registered their voice prints with the “service.”

Saudi Arabia – In 2015 Saudi Arabia finalized its Automated Central System to collect and store the biometric details (including fingerprints) of all citizens and expatriates. Also in 2015 the country’s biometric border security system was launched.

South Korea – In 2012 the Korean government began collecting fingerprints and digital photographs of all foreign visitors (except foreign government officials/international organization representatives and their accompanying immediate family members as well as persons under 17 years of age).

Switzerland – Switzerland launched its biometric passport in 2010 after a referendum was held to approve the measure. The referendum passed with 50.14% of the vote, making it one of the closest referendums in Swiss history. The passports adopt the “international standard” of collecting two fingerprints (one from each index finger) and a digital photograph of the holder’s unsmiling face.

Ukraine – A law passed by the Yanukovych government in 2012 requires all Ukrainian citizens, regardless of age, to obtain a biometric passport.

United Kingdom – The UK under the Labour government of Tony Blair and later Gordon Brown attempted to implement a national identity register and ID card system that would have required the logging of an extensive amount of personal and biometric information in a central database. However, the program caused waves of protest and the government eventually gave in to the public outcry, scrapping the plan for the national registry and instead only implementing the biometric id scheme for foreign nationals. The UK does issue biometric passports and recent polling suggests UK adults “are now willing to embrace biometric identity for online banking.”

United States – President Trump’s new Executive Order on “terrorist” (sic) entry calls on the Department of Homeland Security to “expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for all travelers to the United States.” (This comes as no surprise to those who warned that Trump’s transition team was swarming with biometric industry workers and lobbyists.) The United States already takes digital fingerprints of all foreign tourists (except Canadians) and stores them in a database for 75 years.  The DoD has announced plans to replace Common Access Card access to information systems with biometric authentication. The US issues biometric passports and coordinates with the Canadian government on the biometric NEXUS preferred traveler program (see Canada).

2014

Biometric Security Poses Huge Privacy Risks

Scientific American. January 1, 2014

Without explicit safeguards, your personal biometric data are destined for a government database

Security through biology is an enticing idea. Since 2011, police departments across the U.S. have been scanning biometric data in the field using devices such as the Mobile Offender Recognition and Information System (MORIS), an iPhone attachment that checks fingerprints and iris scans. The fbi is currently building its Next Generation Identification database, which will contain fingerprints, palm prints, iris scans, voice data and photographs of faces. Before long, even your cell phone will be secured by information that resides in a distant biometric database.

Unfortunately, this shift to biometric-enabled security creates profound threats to commonly accepted notions of privacy and security. It makes possible privacy violations that would make the National Security Agency’s data sweeps seem superficial by comparison.

Biometrics could turn existing surveillance systems into something categorically new—something more powerful and much more invasive. Consider the so-called Domain Awareness System, a network of 3,000 surveillance cameras in New York City. Currently if someone commits a crime, cops can go back and review sections of video. Equip the system with facial-recognition technology, however, and the people behind the controls can actively track you throughout your daily life. “A person who lives and works in lower Manhattan would be under constant surveillance,” says Jennifer Lynch, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit group. Face-in-a-crowd detection is a formidable technical problem, but researchers working on projects such as the Department of Homeland Security’s Biometric Optical Surveillance System (BOSS) are making rapid progress.

In addition, once your face, iris or DNA profile becomes a digital file, that file will be difficult to protect. As the recent nsa revelations have made clear, the boundary between commercial and government data is porous at best. Biometric identifiers could also be stolen. It’s easy to replace a swiped credit card, but good luck changing the patterns on your iris. Read more from this special report:Technology and the Emerging Post-Privacy Era

These days gathering biometric data generally requires the cooperation (or coercion) of the subject: for your iris to get into a database, you have to let someone take a close-up photograph of your eyeball. That will not be the case for long. Department of Defense–funded researchers at Carnegie Mellon University are perfecting a camera that can take rapid-fire, database-quality iris scans of every person in a crowd from a distance of 10 meters.

New technologies will also make it possible to extract far more information from the biometrics we are already collecting. While most law-enforcement DNA databases contain only snippets of the genome, agencies can keep the physical DNA samples in perpetuity, raising the question of what future genetic-analysis tools will be able to discern. “Once you have somebody’s DNA, you have all sorts of very personal info,” Lynch says. “There is a lot of fear that people are going to start testing samples to look for a link between genes and propensity for crime.”

Current law is not even remotely prepared to handle these developments. The legal status of most types of biometric data is unclear. No court has addressed whether law enforcement can collect biometric data without a person’s knowledge, and case law says nothing about facial recognition….

2009

Plan to Introduce Biometric IDs Stirs Privacy Debate

Move would require establishing centralized database with biometric data on every citizen, legal resident of Israel.

Haaretz 13.03.2009

No other democracy has yet introduced biometric identity cards, which Israel recently decided to do, and the only nondemocracy to have done so is Hong Kong, according to a study by the Knesset’s research center.

One reason for this reluctance is that biometric identity cards require establishing a centralized database with biometric data on every citizen and legal resident of the country.

Biometric passports, in contrast, are becoming more common in the West. However because people can choose whether or not to obtain a passport, which is not true of ID cards, this is considered less problematic from the perspective of privacy.

The study was prepared in advance of last October’s Knesset debate on a bill to introduce biometric ID cards.

The Knesset passed it into law a few days before dissolving for the elections.

The law requires the state to take the fingerprints of both index fingers from every resident of the country, on top of the standard facial photographs.

Then interior minister Meir Sheetrit told the Knesset that current Israeli ID cards are very easily forged, and the law would make such forgeries harder.

Biometric cards would assist in “uprooting crime, foiling terror attacks and identifying victims,” he said.

He also noted that between 2003 and 2007, some 1,500 people requested a new identity card four times or more because theirs had been lost or stolen, and 12 people requested new cards more than 10 times.

Human rights groups fiercely oppose the law. “It’s not for nothing that no Western democracy has dared to institute such a dangerous database,” said attorney

Avner Pinchuk of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, adding that he feared the data would leak to the Internet.

However, the study found, a few European countries are now considering biometric IDs.

With regard to passports, the International Civil Aviation Organization has ordered all of its 190 member states to issue machine-readable IDs that include information about facial features by 2010, and 53 countries that account for some 80 percent of all passports worldwide had already done so by the end of last year.

The European Union has ordered all of its member states to introduce biometric passports that include fingerprints and facial features by this May.

The United States grants visa waivers only to countries that issue such passports.

2004

UK passport agency begins trial on biometric IDs

The UK Passport Service (UKPS) has launched its six month trial of biometric technology involving 10,000 volunteers, and at the…

Computer Weekly27 Apr 2004

The UK Passport Service (UKPS) has launched its six-month trial of biometric technology involving 10,000 volunteers, and at the same time, the UK government introduced its draft bill for biometric identity cards and a central database of all of its citizens.

ID cards will carry biometric identifiers in an embedded chip, which is then linked to a “secure national database” called the National Identity Register.

The database is expected to contain such information as name, address, date of birth, gender, immigration status and a confirmed biometric feature such as electronic fingerprint, a scan of the iris of the eye or of a full face.

The UKPS trial will test for all three biometrics traits: electronic fingerprint, a scan of the iris of the eye and a full face scan. 

“This is the first time that three different biometric technologies from three different suppliers have been integrated into one solution,” said a spokeswoman for Atos Origin, the company running the trial for the government.

The technical challenges may also account for why the trial, launched at Globe House, the London Passport Office, is three months behind the original launch date.

Atos Origin will be responsible for the delivery and installation of the equipment and software for the trial, while NEC is supplying its Automated Fingerprint Identification System.

Identix will provide the fingerprint capture and facial matching technology and Iridian Technologies is responsible for the iris recognition technology. The survey research component of the project will be undertaken by London-based market research company MORI.

memento mori

noun

me·​men·​to mo·​ri | \ mə-ˈmen-tō-ˈmȯr-ē  \plural memento mori

Definition of memento mori

a reminder of mortality

especiallyDEATH’S-HEAD

Examples of memento mori in a Sentence

Recent Examples on the Web

But the pandemic—that inescapable memento mori—serves as a frame and a catalyst rather than a subject.— Claire Messud, Harper’s Magazine , 4 Jan. 2022

Fighting Demons, his second posthumous album is a tortured but overall grateful memento mori from a talented artist who left us all too soon.— Will Dukes, Rolling Stone, 16 Dec. 2021

SOURCE

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
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

IT DOESN’T MATTER WHICH GOVERNMENT OR OTHER SOCIOPATHIC CRIME SYNDICATE HATES YOUR GUTS FOR READING OUR TYPE OF STUFF, THEY’RE PROBABLY IN SOME EPSTEIN OR MAXWELL BOOKS AND PICS.
SEE DETAILS / ORDER

Just a quick heads up as many people hurry to cry “victory!” after recent announcements from UK, France, Czech Republic and even Israel.
I can’t fully be with you due to personal issues, but I don’t want to let you fall in another trap and later disappointment either.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/france-unveil-timetable-easing-covid-restrictions-2022-01-20/

Israel: “Finance minister calls for end to Green Pass”

https://www.timesofisrael.com/as-serious-covid-cases-near-500-finance-minister-calls-for-end-to-green-pass/

But…

  • Global leaders have been looking at what 2022 might hold for the COVID-19 pandemic at The Davos Agenda.
  • Speakers addressed questions around vaccine equity, the impact on society and economics and whether it might become endemic.
  • Below are some of the key talking points.

SOURCE: WEF

We’re heading towards the third year of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has disrupted lives and livelihoods across the planet and led to at least 5.5 million deaths around the world.

As the Omicron COVID-19 variant surges in many countries – and indeed saw the deferral of an in-person meeting in Davos – the pandemic has been front of mind for many at The Davos Agenda.

So, where is the virus headed? Here’s what speakers from different sectors have said so far this week.

Tackling the COVID-19 pandemic

Xi Jinping, President of the People’s Republic of China, opened this week by reminding us of the work that’s already been done.

“The international community has fought a tenacious battle,” he said.

The global vaccination drive has played a major role in the progress we’ve made so far, with Richard Hatchett, the CEO of CEPI, reminding us of the work of COVAX.

The vaccine-sharing facility, which CEPI co-leads alongside Gavi and the World Health Organization, delivered its one billionth dose of COVID-19 vaccines over the weekend.

The pandemic has impacted every aspect of our lives, though, Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett reminded us – and that has driven the response in his country.

Endemic or pandemic?

The history of infectious diseases can tell us something about the next stages of the pandemic, Anthony Fauci, the Director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, explained.

Endemicity would mean ‘a non-disruptive presence without elimination’, he said. Similar to other cold-weather upper respiratory infections or parainfluenzas, he explained.

We’re not going to eliminate this virus, he said.

FAUCI @ WEF’S DAVOS 2022 (starts 6 min in)

Richard Hatchett said his long-term view is that we should anticipate COVID-19 will behave more like flu.

“It will continue to circulate, it will be around, people will get sick and there will be continual evolution of the virus.”

Mike Ryan, the Executive Director of the WHO’s Health Emergencies Programme, struck a cautionary tone though in the Meeting the Challenge of Vaccine Equity session.

“We won’t end the virus this year,” he said. “We may never end the virus. Pandemic viruses end up becoming part of the ecosystem. What we can end is the public health emergency.”

And, in terms of endemic versus pandemic, he was clear. “Endemic does not mean good,” he said, citing the examples of endemic malaria or endemic HIV which kill 100,000s of people. “Endemic just means it’s here forever.”

“What we need to do is get to low-levels of disease incidence, with maximum vaccination of our populations, so nobody has to die.” That’s the end of the emergency, that’s the end of the pandemic, he concluded.

….

And Svein Tore Holsether, President and Chief Executive Officer, Yara International ASA, told us that a move from shareholder to stakeholder capitalism isn’t just needed, it’s expected, he said.

And, sustainability and environmental concerns will remain paramount – particularly in light of COP26.

Our lifestyles and our throwaway culture have exacerbated the climate challenge, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said on Monday. It’s essential we move towards a circular economy, he explained.?

The next steps

The path is unlikely to be smooth though. Beyond the health challenges discussed above – vaccine equity, for example – hurdles need to be overcome in areas from trust to reform in global systems.

Sharan Burrow, General Secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation, explained more about the issue of trust.

And she wasn’t alone. Speakers at the announcement of the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship’s Social Innovators of the Year 2022 award were also clear on the issue of trust.

The global community needs to work together, even more than it has already, speakers from across sessions agreed. This is particularly important to ensure the equitable distribution of vaccines, explained President Xi Jinping.

And reform is needed, whether of global financial systems, or the means by which we can equitably produce and distribute vaccines.

And there it goes… Climate-19 in full swing, as I predicted almost 2 years ago

https://news.yahoo.com/german-leader-champions-tack-climate-135118725.html

Also have you seen this below? Well, consider their hopes for vaccination rates have bee crushed by our resistance, hence the delay and later desperation.

VACCINES MAY ACTUALLY END THE PANDEMIC BY JULY, BUT NOT AS YOU THINK

To be updated, most probably.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
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

ORDER

I didn’t mean for this website to go as basic as this, quite the opposite, but apparently there’s still a huge need for basic stuff for basic people.
And we can’t really advance much without covering the basics properly.

Study: Pfizer, GSK, Eli Lilly Topped Military Industry in Defrauding US Govt (2010)

Here’s an older meme that’s basically a sequel to the one above

Based on this testimony:

Now compare my memes against this Pfizer press release: Pfizer and BioNTech Confirm High Efficacy and No Serious Safety Concerns Through Up to Six Months Following Second Dose in Updated Topline Analysis of Landmark COVID-19 Vaccine Study

Not much else to add, besides our motto: “Don’t believe what we say, research what we say!”

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
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

ORDER

Remember when we were getting banned by their Big Tech lemmings for claiming have this capability? That was fun! 

It’s official: Gattaca is Earth, and Earth is no more. Ground-breaking news:

Published January 10, 2021, by Bloomberg TV.

More info:

Pfizer Deepens Commitment to Genetic-Drug Future

10 Jan 2022 (Bloomberg)

“Pfizer Inc. deepened its commitment to the genetic approach to disease underpinning its Covid-19 vaccine on Monday, striking deals that will give access to three smaller companies’ technology in the area.” 

Read more at: https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/pfizer-deepens-commitment-to-genetic-drug-future-with-deals

Remember this?

I rest my case.

Also worth checking these older reports:

WE WRITE NEW DNA USING RNA ONLY – STAR SCIENTIST FINANCED BY EPSTEIN, DARPA AND SCHWAB’S WYSS INST.

RNA USED TO ALTER DNA, BRAIN FUNCTIONS AND BEHAVIOR (BIOHACKING P.2)

PFIZER / BIONTECH AND BILL GATES / CHINA ARE LIKE TWO COUPLES OF SWINGERS IN A PERPETUAL ORGY


To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
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

They call it “neuro-evidence”.
Planting memories, “de-biasing” people or refusing their parental rights because the machine read bad thoughts in their mind? These options are on the table too.

If you’re still naïve enough to think these talks at Davos remain inconsequential, read this:

FOIA RELEASE: REMOTE MIND CONTROL LINKED TO DARPA’S BRAIN MAPPING. IN 2018

and

AAAND BACK TO MAGNETOGENETICS AS US ARMY ANNOUNCES FERRITIN NANOPARTICLE VACCINE AGAINST ALL SARS VARIANTS!

“WHAT IF YOUR BRAIN CONFESSES

“As neuroscientists decipher the workings of the brain, new questions will be raised about decoding memories, ascertaining intentions and defusing criminal behavior. What if neuro-evidence is invited into the courtroom? neural monitoring brain testify against you
Join an in-depth discussion that explores the possible, plausible and probable impacts of neuroscience disrupting the justice system.
This session was developed in partnership with TIME.”
Recorded at Davos 2016 WEF reunion, published by the World Economic Forum on Jan 23, 2016

Speakers:

· Nita A. Farahany, Professor, Law and Philosophy, Duke University, USA.

· Jack Gallant, Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of California, Berkeley, USA.

· Brian Knutson, Associate Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience, Stanford University, USA.

· Sam Muller, Director, Hague Institute for the Internationalisation of Law, Netherlands.

Moderated by Rana Foroohar, Assistant Managing Editor, Business and Economics, Time Magazine, USA.

Coincidentally, at the same Davos reunion…

VACCINES AS GATEWAY TO DIGITAL ID, A CONCEPT LAUNCHED IN 2016, AT DAVOS, BY GATES AND PHARMAFIA

Here’s their write-up on the topic:

“Long the preserve of stage show performers and confidence tricksters, the ability to read minds has always fascinated humans. The possibility that our inner thoughts and feelings could be accessed by another is both thrilling and terrifying.

We are already at the point where some thoughts can be identified externally. So as neuroscientists decipher the workings of the brain, new questions are being raised about decoding memories and ascertaining intentions. This has obvious implications for criminal behaviour. What if neuro-evidence is invited into the courtroom?

At the moment the technology is in its infancy and has been primarily focused on aiding communication and movement for disabled people. But the fact that scientists can already identify some words that people are thinking is an extraordinary step.

Experts in the brain decoding field acknowledge that accurate interpretations of a person’s thoughts and memories remain a long way off but there is no doubt that technology in this area is advancing steadily.

If people’s inner worlds could be accessed it would have a profound effect. Who, if anyone, would we agree to share this world with? Under what circumstances would we countenance someone’s thoughts being accessed by force?

The courtroom is always confronting new technologies in the fight against crime. Fingerprinting, so-called lie detection technology and DNA profiling were all cutting edge when first presented in evidence. All have been used countless time to convict, and indeed acquit, suspects. And brain scans are already used in evidence, in one case to successfully argue that a suspect should be spared the death penalty.

But the courtroom setting presents many potential problems when it comes to reading people’s minds. Would coaching allow a suspect to fool the technology? Would reading minds be a form of self-incrimination, something many courts allow suspects to avoid doing? And what if someone mistakenly believes they may have committed a crime?

If your brain confesses but you insist on your innocence, who can the jury trust?”

BONUS

Davos 2016 – Life in 2030: Humankind and the Machine

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
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

ORDER

I so wanted to start the year with some good news rather than more gloom and doom, like most of the data on my hard disks… And we’re damn lucky!

So yeah, Aaron Siri has just announced he won another case against the FDA, the judge correcting the previous abomination about the Pfizer data release. This is the announcement from his Substack:

INSTEAD OF FDA’S REQUESTED 500 PAGES PER MONTH, COURT ORDERS FDA TO PRODUCE PFIZER COVID-19 DATA AT RATE OF 55,000 PAGES PER MONTH!

A great win for transparency that removes a stranglehold “health” authorities have had on data independent scientists need to offer solutions and address serious issues with the vaccine program.

Aaron Siri1 hr ago267110

On behalf of a client, my firm requested that the FDA produce all the data submitted by Pfizer to license its Covid-19 vaccine.  The FDA asked the Court for permission to only be required to produce at a rate of 500 pages per month, which would have taken over 75 years to produce all the documents. 

I am pleased to report that a federal judge soundly rejected the FDA’s request and ordered the FDA to produce all the data at a clip of 55,000 pages per month!

This is a great win for transparency and removes one of the strangleholds federal “health” authorities have had on the data needed for independent scientists to offer solutions and address serious issues with the current vaccine program – issues which include waning immunity, variants evading vaccine immunity, and, as the CDC has confirmed, that the vaccines do not prevent transmission.

No person should ever be coerced to engage in an unwanted medical procedure.  And while it is bad enough the government violated this basic liberty right by mandating the Covid-19 vaccine, the government also wanted to hide the data by waiting to fully produce what it relied upon to license this product until almost every American alive today is dead.  That form of governance is destructive to liberty and antithetical to the openness required in a democratic society. 

In ordering the release of the documents in a timely manner, the Judge recognized that the release of this data is of paramount public importance and should be one of the FDA’s highest priorities.  He then aptly quoted James Madison as saying a “popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy” and John F. Kennedy as explaining that a “nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.” 

The following is the full text of the Judge’s order, a copy of which is also available here.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

PHMPT, Plaintiff v. FDA, Defendant, No. 4:21-cv-1058-P

ORDER

This case involves the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). Specifically, at issue is Plaintiff’s FOIA request seeking “[a]ll data and information for the Pfizer Vaccine enumerated in 21 C.F.R. § 601.51(e) with the exception of publicly available reports on the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System” from the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). See ECF No. 1. As has become standard, the Parties failed to agree to a mutually acceptable production schedule; instead, they submitted dueling production schedules for this Court’s consideration. Accordingly, the Court held a conference with the Parties to determine an appropriate production schedule.[1] See ECF Nos. 21, 34.

“Open government is fundamentally an American issue” – it is neither a Republican nor a Democrat issue.[2] As James Madison wrote, “[a] popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps, both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”[3] John F. Kennedy likewise recognized that “a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”[4] And, particularly appropriate in this case, John McCain (correctly) noted that “[e]xcessive administrative secrecy . . . feeds conspiracy theories and reduces the public’s confidence in the government.”[5]

Echoing these sentiments, “[t]he basic purpose of FOIA is to ensure an informed citizenry, [which is] vital to the functioning of a democratic society.” NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 242 (1977). “FOIA was [therefore] enacted to ‘pierce the veil of administrative secrecy and to open agency action to the light of public scrutiny.’” Batton v. Evers, 598 F.3d 169, 175 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Dep’t of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 361 (1976)). And “Congress has long recognized that ‘information is often useful only if it is timely’ and that, therefore ‘excessive delay by the agency in its response is often tantamount to denial.’” Open Soc’y Just. Initiative v. CIA, 399 F. Supp. 3d 161, 165 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting H.R. REP. NO. 93-876, at 6271 (1974)). When needed, a court “may use its equitable powers to require an agency to process documents according to a court-imposed timeline.” Clemente v. FBI, 71 F. Supp. 3d 262, 269 (D.D.C. 2014).

Here, the Court recognizes the “unduly burdensome” challenges that this FOIA request may present to the FDA. See generally ECF Nos. 23, 30, 34. But, as expressed at the scheduling conference, there may not be a “more important issue at the Food and Drug Administration . . . than the pandemic, the Pfizer vaccine, getting every American vaccinated, [and] making sure that the American public is assured that this was not [] rush[ed] on behalf of the United States . . . .” ECF No. 34 at 46. Accordingly, the Court concludes that this FOIA request is of paramount public importance.

“[S]tale information is of little value.” Payne Enters., Inc. v. United States, 837 F.2d 486, 494 (D.C. Cir. 1988). The Court, agreeing with this truism, therefore concludes that the expeditious completion of Plaintiff’s request is not only practicable, but necessary. See Bloomberg, L.P. v. FDA, 500 F. Supp. 2d 371, 378 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2007) (“[I]t is the compelling need for such public understanding that drives the urgency of the request.”). To that end, the Court further concludes that the production rate, as detailed below, appropriately balances the need for unprecedented urgency in processing this request with the FDA’s concerns regarding the burdens of production. See Halpern v. FBI, 181 F.3d 279, 284–85 (2nd Cir. 1991) (“[FOIA] emphasizes a preference for the fullest possible agency disclosure of such information consistent with a responsible balancing of competing concerns . . . .”).

Accordingly, having considered the Parties’ arguments, filings in support, and the applicable law, the Court ORDERS that:

1. The FDA shall produce the “more than 12,000 pages” articulated in its own proposal, see ECF No. 29 at 24, on or before January 31, 2022.

2. The FDA shall produce the remaining documents at a rate of 55,000 pages every 30 days, with the first production being due on or before March 1, 2022, until production is complete.

3. To the extent the FDA asserts any privilege, exemption, or exclusion as to any responsive record or portion thereof, FDA shall, concurrent with each production required by this Order, produce a redacted version of the record, redacting only those portions as to which privilege, exemption, or exclusion is asserted.

4. The Parties shall submit a Joint Status Report detailing the progress of the rolling production by April 1, 2022, and every 90 days thereafter.[6]

SO ORDERED on this 6th day of January, 2022.


[1] Surprisingly, the FDA did not send an agency representative to the scheduling conference.

[2] 151 CONG. REC. S1521 (daily ed. Feb. 16, 2005) (statement of Sen. John Cornyn).

[3] Letter from James Madison to W.T. Barry (August 4, 1822), in 9 WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON 103 (S. Hunt ed., 1910).

[4] John F. Kennedy, Remarks on the 20th Anniversary of the Voice of America (Feb. 26, 1962).

[5] America After 9/11: Freedom Preserved or Freedom Lost?: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 108th Cong. 302 (2003).

[6] Although the Court does not decide whether the FDA correctly denied Plaintiff’s request for expedited processing, the issue is not moot. Should the Parties seek to file motions for summary judgment, the Court will take up the issue then.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
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