by Silviu “Silview” Costinescu

This life-changing information has been sitting on UK Government’s website for over 15 months now. People find out about it from us, while their officials keep yapping 24/7 about an infection we can’t test for and a virus that’s never been properly isolated and purified in a lab as per Koch’s Postulate.
Of course, this plan is not limited to UK, it’s global.
Looks like democracy is as real as Rona, your informed consent matters and governments care.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution is not a buzzword, it’s official policy in every state controlled by the World Bank /IMF / Rothschild dynasty. It’s been so for long now. And The Great Reset gives you the map for it, in that Technocrat language that is translated to functional-illiterate sheeple as whatever they need to hear to stay obedient, while the sheeple-herders get actual live-stock management advice.

Policy paper

Regulation for the Fourth Industrial Revolution

Published 11 June 2019

Presented to Parliament
by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
by Command of Her Majesty

Excerpts selected by Silview.media, read the whole thing please!

Foreword

The world is changing faster than ever. New technology is creating new industries, changing existing ones and transforming the way things are made. We need a more agile approach to regulation, that supports innovation while protecting citizens and the environment.

We are a nation of innovators. Throughout our history we have seized the opportunities to create a better future for ourselves. In the First Industrial Revolution, British engineer Thomas Savery’s pump paved the way for industrial use of steam power. In the second, British scientist Michael Faraday’s electromagnetic rotary devices formed the basis for practical electricity use. In the third, British computer scientist Tim Berners-Lee invented the world wide web.

Technological breakthroughs in areas from artificial intelligence to biotechnologies are now heralding a Fourth Industrial Revolution, with the power to reshape almost every sector in every country. Our Industrial Strategy positions the UK to make the most of this global transformation.

Our regulatory system is second to none, as recognised by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Regulatory Policy Outlook in 2018. It protects citizens and enables business to thrive. Together with our global research prowess, world-class universities and open, competitive markets, it attracts firms to innovate and invest in the UK. As the Fourth Industrial Revolution changes the way we live and work, it is vital that our regulatory system keeps pace.

This white paper sets out our plan to maintain our world-leading regulatory system in this period of rapid technological change. We will support and stimulate new products, services and business models, with greater space for experimentation. We will uphold safeguards for people and the environment and engage the public in how innovation is regulated. And we will maintain the stable, proportionate regulatory approach the UK is rightly known for.

Our openness to technology and innovation continues as we leave the European Union.

This white paper is our plan to secure our success.

Rt Hon Greg Clark MP
Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

Championing innovation

We need to take action to maintain our world-beating regulatory system and realise the potential of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution

The Fourth Industrial Revolution is of a scale, speed and complexity that is unprecedented. It is characterised by a fusion of technologies – such as artificial intelligence, gene editing and advanced robotics – that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital and biological worlds. It will disrupt nearly every industry in every country, creating new opportunities and challenges for people, places and businesses to which we must respond.

Our modern Industrial Strategy seeks to put the UK at the crest of this global wave of technological innovation, bringing the benefits to business and consumers alike. Our foundations are strong. The UK ranks in the top 5 in the Global Innovation Index1. We are a global leader in science and research and home to 4 of the top 10 universities in the world2. We have a thriving start-up environment and are home to many of the world’s most R&D-intensive businesses. We develop and attract some of the most talented people in the world.

We want to build on our strengths in developing and deploying ideas to become the world’s most innovative economy. We want to raise our total investment in R&D to 2.4% of GDP by 2027, the biggest increase on record. We have set 4 Grand Challenges for the UK government and wider economy to seize the opportunities presented by the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

The Industrial Strategy Grand Challenges

  1. We will put the UK at the forefront of the artificial intelligence and data revolution.
  2. We will maximise the advantages for UK industry of the shift to clean growth.
  3. We will become a world leader in shaping the future of mobility.
  4. We will harness the power of innovation to help meet the needs of an ageing society.

Our regulatory system is a national asset. We are ranked 9th among 190 economies for the ease of doing business in the UK3, with the quality of our regulatory practices given the highest overall country score by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)4. We protect the natural environment and ensure the safety and employment rights of citizens. We also provide the certainty needed for businesses to thrive.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution presents challenges for regulatory systems across the globe, as they struggle to keep pace with rapid, complex technological innovation. In our Industrial Strategy, we committed to develop an agile regulatory approach that supports innovation and protects citizens and the environment. We need to act now to maintain our world-beating regulatory system in this period of transformational change.

regulations

We need to reshape our regulatory approach so that it supports and stimulates innovation that benefits citizens and the economy. At present, only 29% of businesses believe that the government’s approach to regulation facilitates innovative products and services being efficiently brought to market 9. The need for reform is urgent: 92% of businesses from a range of sectors think they will feel a negative impact if regulators don’t evolve to keep pace with disruptive change in the next 2 to 3 years10.

Other countries are rapidly reforming their regulatory environments to support future innovation, with Nesta describing these anticipatory approaches as ‘an increasingly important source of competitive advantage in the global economy’11. By taking an anticipatory approach we can give people faster access to innovations that can transform their lives and attract the ideas, talent and investment to the UK that will drive our future prosperity.

We are turning things round. The Financial Conduct Authority’s regulatory sandbox has kick-started a wave of regulator-led initiatives to support new products and services to come to market and been widely emulated across the globe. Our Regulators’ Pioneer Fund is accelerating the change, with £10 million invested in 15 projects to support technologies from autonomous shipping to virtual lawyers. We have established a partnership with the World Economic Forum to shape the global governance of technological innovation.

But we can go further. The Business Secretary has established a Ministerial Working Group on Future Regulation to drive reform across government to put us at the forefront of the industries of the future. The Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology has provided recommendations on how to enhance the regulatory oversight of technological innovation. We have identified 6 challenges we need to address:

  • we need to be on the front foot in reforming regulation in response to technological innovation
  • we need to ensure that our regulatory system is sufficiently flexible and outcomes-focused to enable innovation to thrive
  • we need to enable greater experimentation, testing and trialling of innovations under regulatory supervision
  • we need to support innovators to navigate the regulatory landscape and comply with regulation
  • we need to build dialogue with society and industry on how technological innovation should be regulated
  • we need to work with partners across the globe to reduce regulatory barriers to trade in innovative products and services

This white paper sets out our plan to tackle these 6 challenges and seize the opportunity presented by the Fourth Industrial Revolution. We want to lead the world in innovation-friendly regulation that supports the emergence of new products, services and business models for the benefit of all. The white paper will be matched later this year with papers describing how we will modernise consumer and competition regulation in response to the transformation in our economy.

Supporting the emergence of smart systems

Our energy system is changing rapidly. There is more low carbon generation, such as power from solar and wind, which produces different amounts of electricity depending on the weather. It is increasingly decentralised, with generation and batteries located in or near people’s homes and businesses.   New technologies such as electricity storage, smart heating controls and electric vehicles are emerging which can be used to help balance the electricity system. However, our regulatory system was not developed with these new technologies in mind. 

As laid out in the Smart Systems and Flexibility Plan, developed jointly with the energy regulator Ofgem, we are working to develop a best in class regulatory framework that supports these innovations. We are working with industry to reform markets, legislation, licences, codes and standards.

The drive towards a smart and flexible energy system is an important tenet of the government’s Clean Growth and Industrial Strategies. The changes promise to provide significant public benefits, from lower energy bills to cleaner air and lower carbon emissions. By 2050, a smarter and more flexible system could save the UK £17-40 billion.

Accelerating the introduction of self-driving vehicles

The Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles (CCAV) is overseeing a groundbreaking programme to prepare the UK’s regulatory framework for self-driving vehicles ahead of their introduction on UK roads. It has developed an open regulatory approach that safeguards citizens and supports the development of the technology as it evolves.

This includes the recently updated world-leading Code of Practice for testing automated vehicles. Testing any level of automated vehicles on public roads is possible, provided they comply with the law, including having a driver, in or out of the vehicle, a roadworthy vehicle, and appropriate insurance. The recent update to the Code announced that the government would introduce an application process for more advanced trials. This will facilitate the development of the technology, without the need for repeated changes to regulation.

CCAV is leading the charge in considering the wider implications of the introduction of self-driving vehicles. It has introduced legislation to insure the use of self-driving vehicles through the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018, so that victims of collisions get quick and easy access to compensation. It has asked the Law Commission of England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission to undertake a joint regulatory review to identify further legal obstacles to the widespread introduction of self-driving vehicles. This project is consulting widely and will provide a final report in 2021.

CCAV is also working with the British Standards Institution to deliver a programme of standards to help accelerate development and deployment of self-driving vehicles. The programme seeks to address public safety and reliability concerns and supports the UK’s reputation as a centre of excellence for vehicle testing, design and manufacturing.

CCAV’s programme has helped to put the UK at the forefront of this emerging industry and, with the Department for Transport, given the UK lasting influence in international debates on the regulation of automated vehicles.

Our plan

We will create an outcome-focused, flexible regulatory system that enables innovation to thrive while protecting citizens and the environment. We will match this with clarity for business through better use of regulatory guidance, codes of practice and industry standards.

We will pilot an innovation test so that the impact of legislation on innovation is considered as we:

  • develop and assess policy options
  • consult and engage on policy proposals
  • design, introduce and implement legislation
  • monitor, evaluate and review legislation

We will encourage policymakers to consider the governance of innovation in a holistic way, noting the role that alternatives to regulation can play in providing government, citizens and businesses with assurance. We will encourage policymakers to reflect on when the right time is to introduce regulation21 .

Our approach will encourage policymakers to focus on real-world outcomes, with legislation that provides flexibility for experimentation and adaptation. Prescriptive regulatory requirements would only be set out in legislation where necessary to provide important protections. Where possible, alternative approaches such as statutory guidance will set out requirements so that as technology changes the system can respond in a timely and flexible manner.

We will develop tools for policymakers to support them to consider these issues; we will also develop improved analytical methods to capture the impact of regulation on innovation. During the pilot, we will invite the Regulatory Policy Committee to scrutinise the application of the innovation test, to ensure that innovators have confidence in how government is developing significant new regulatory legislation.

Making the UK the safest place in the world to be online

The internet is a powerful force for good. Combined with new technologies such as artificial intelligence, it is changing society perhaps more than any previous technological revolution – growing the economy, making us more productive, and raising living standards.

Alongside these new opportunities come new challenges and risks. The internet can be used to spread terrorist material; it can be a tool for abuse and bullying; and it can be used to undermine civil discourse, objective news and intellectual property. As set out in our Digital Charter, we are committed to making the UK both the safest place to be online and the best place to start and grow a digital business.

In April, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Home Office published a white paper to tackle a range of both legal and illegal harms, from cyberbullying to online child sexual exploitation. In keeping with our ambition to lead the world in innovation-friendly regulation that encourages the tech sector and provides stability for businesses, the white paper sets out an outcomes-focused legislative approach that will support future technological change.

Realising the power of financial technologies

From AI to blockchain, data-driven financial technologies (FinTech) are changing the way that we bank, invest, insure and even pay for things. The UK’s FinTech sector is booming, underpinned by our world-leading financial services sector and thriving tech scene.

In 2016, the Financial Conduct Authority seized the initiative to support this emerging industry by establishing the world’s first ‘regulatory sandbox’: a safe space where firms can work with the regulator to trial innovative products, services and business models with consumers without having to meet all the usual requirements for compliance. Since its establishment, the sandbox has received more than 3 times as many applications than places available. Access to the sandbox has helped reduce the time and cost of getting innovative ideas to market (in the first year, 90% of firms progressed towards wider market launch) and improve access to finance (40% received investment during or following their sandbox tests).

FinTech firm Asset Hedge introduced a web-based platform offering forex options to assist small businesses and individuals to protect against losses incurred because of currency fluctuations. They successfully completed the sandbox programme to become a fully regulated company. Assure Hedge founder and chief executive Barry McCarthy said:

“We have effectively been given the same regulation that large banks have, so it really allows us to compete with the big players.”

It’s not just business that benefits. Consumers benefit from new products which have better safeguards built in up front, while the regulator benefits from greater insight into technological innovation. The model has been emulated by more than 20 countries across the globe and translated to sectors from health to transport.

From smart shipping to AI-powered legal services

The Regulators’ Pioneer Fund is backing the Future of Mobility and AI and Data Grand Challenges through ground breaking projects to enable technologies from smart shipping to AI-powered legal services.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority has already taken steps to facilitate innovation in the legal industry, inviting firms to develop new business models in a controlled way. The Regulators’ Pioneer Fund investment will enable the Solicitors Regulation Authority to work with the innovation foundation Nesta to accelerate ethical AI-powered innovations, with a focus on legal services for small businesses and consumers where AI and automation can have transformative impact.

Paul Philip, Chief Executive of the Solicitors Regulation Authority, said:

“Smart use of technology could help tackle the problem that far too many people struggle to access expert legal advice. It will help us further build on our work to encourage new ways of delivering legal services, benefiting both the public and small business.”

In the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the Regulators’ Pioneer Fund investment will create the Maritime Autonomy Regulation Lab (MAR Lab) to bring together industry specialists, academics and government to pioneer new regulatory approaches and make data available to the emerging smart shipping industry.

The project will inform UK legislation for a domestic framework for autonomous vessels to attract international business and support and promote testing in the UK’s territorial waters. It will also support government efforts to establish a new proactive and adaptive international regulatory framework for autonomous vessels at the International Maritime Organisation.

Supporting the revolution in life sciences

New discoveries and the application of new technologies mean we can diagnose illnesses earlier and more accurately, create new treatments and ensure existing ones are more effective.

The UK is extraordinarily well placed to play a leading role in this revolution in the life sciences, with strengths in innovation, research, healthcare and business. To support these innovations to come to market, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency’s (MHRA) Innovation Office provides a single point of access to regulatory advice on the development of innovative medicines, medical devices or manufacturing processes. The service has grown in popularity since its inception in 2013, receiving 190 enquiries in 2018.

The service helps to make regulatory information clear and accessible to those who are working on innovative research, supporting a key goal in the second Life Sciences Sector Deal to ensure the UK remains one of the best places in the world to develop life sciences projects, to protect health and improve lives.

The service has helped secure significant investments into the UK life sciences industry. John Parker, Director at AstraZeneca said:

“We genuinely believe that having easy access to MHRA in this manner provides a real competitive advantage to UK based companies”

In the Life Sciences Sector Deal, the MHRA committed to engage with industry to understand how it can further develop its offer by the end of 2019.

Our plan

Entrepreneurs and innovative firms should be able to find their way through the UK’s regulatory landscape with ease and receive timely, joined-up feedback on novel propositions.

We will consult on a digital Regulation Navigator for businesses to help them find their way through the regulatory landscape and engage with the right regulators at the right time on their proposals. We will ensure that this is integrated with action to enhance the government’s digital offer to business in areas such as tax, grants, trade and investment, and build awareness of the available offer.

Initiatives such as the Financial Conduct Authority’s regulatory sandbox have helped reduce the time and cost of bringing new products and services to market and enabled businesses to win contracts and secure access to finance. We are funding greater investment in specialist regulatory advice services for innovators through our Regulators’ Pioneer Fund, to ensure that innovators who are developing novel proposals with potential for wider economic, societal or environmental benefit are supported to do so.

Leading the public dialogue on mitochondrial replacement treatment

Mitochondria are present in almost all human cells and generate the majority of their energy supply. Unhealthy mitochondria can cause genetic disorders known as mitochondrial disease, which can have devastating effects on the families that carry them. For many patients with mitochondrial diseases, preventing the transmission of the disease to their children is a key concern.

In 2012, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority undertook a sustained engagement programme to determine public acceptability of the use of mitochondrial replacement treatment, characterised in the media as ‘3 parent babies’. The programme included a breadth of engagement tools, including workshops, a public survey, open meetings and focus groups. It invited trusted scientific figures to take part in the debate.

The regulator found that despite certain ethical concerns there was general support for permitting mitochondria replacement in the UK, so long as it is safe enough to offer in a treatment setting and is done so within a regulatory framework. Following legislation, in 2017 the UK became the first country in the world to license mitochondrial donation techniques to allow women who carry the risk of serious mitochondrial disease to avoid passing it onto their children.

Our plan

We want innovators and the public to have confidence in the UK’s regulatory regime. We will build dialogue with society and industry on how technological innovation should be regulated.

We will ask the Regulatory Horizons Council to identify priorities for greater public engagement on regulation of innovation. For example, where technologies pose complex ethical or moral considerations greater public engagement may be appropriate to shape government thinking on appropriate regulatory frameworks. Government departments and regulators will continue to lead public engagement on their policies, working with expert bodies such as the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation.

As part of its role, the Better Regulation Executive will provide support, advice and share best practice with policymakers and regulators on public engagement techniques to support appropriate regulation of technological innovation, working with partners such as Sciencewise. The Better Regulation Executive will build capability in novel and creative public engagement techniques that go beyond public consultation in this important area.

Engaging the public on regulation of drones

Drone technology is advancing rapidly with the potential to perform critical services in everyday life – from transporting urgent medical supplies to bridge inspection and repair. UK cities and regions need to consider what they want the future of drone applications to look like. PwC estimates that by 2030 drone use could increase UK GDP by £42 billion.

With support from the government’s Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, the innovation foundation Nesta funded public use analysis of drones in 5 cities for activities from inspecting burning buildings to traffic incident response. It worked with the government and the Civil Aviation Authority and convened local stakeholders to assess demand and identified the technical, economic and regulatory success factors for safe drone deployment at scale in cities.

The programme has concluded that there is demand for drones, which can fulfil socially beneficial goals. However, there are regulatory challenges that need to be solved – from how to deploy drones over long distances to what is publicly acceptable in terms of noise, privacy, safety and other issues. These issues are being considered as part of the Department for Transport’s Aviation Strategy 2050 green paper, looking at how a flexible regulatory framework can be established to support transport innovation under the Future of Mobility Grand Challenge and beyond.

.

Illustration of a city of the future. (Credit: Innovate UK).
Credit: Innovate UK

Setting global standards on smart cities

Many cities face challenges in ensuring sustainable growth, with issues ranging from provision of water and energy to management of healthcare and transport. A range of innovation is emerging to create the smart cities of the future.

The British Standards Institution has developed a ground-breaking series of standards on smart cities, in collaboration with the Future Cities Catapult. International recognition of the smart cities standards programme contributes to the UK’s reputation in advanced urban services and helps shape the global market in line with established UK good practice.

Downloaded in over 60 countries, UK smart city standards are being adopted as international standards. In China, the world’s largest smart cities market, the British Standards Institution has set up a cooperation agreement on smart cities with the Standards Administration of China to develop a common approach to smart cities between UK and Chinese cities and companies.

Conclusion

This white paper is our long-term strategy for maintaining our world-leading regulatory environment as we enter the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The Ministerial Working Group on Future Regulation will drive its delivery, supported by the Better Regulation Executive.

The white paper is a plan for the whole of government, shaping how we will regulate in areas from healthcare to transport. We want to give businesses confidence to innovate and invest in the UK and give citizens confidence in our protections.

In addressing these issues we respect the devolution settlements with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We will work with our partners in the devolved administrations and local authorities to share our innovation-enabling approach and ensure that every part of the UK benefits from the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

Summary of commitments

Facing the future

  • We will establish a Regulatory Horizons Council to identify the implications of technological innovation and advise the government on regulatory reform needed to support its rapid and safe introduction.
  • The Council will prepare a regular report on innovation across the economy, with recommendations on priorities for regulatory reform to put the UK at the forefront of the industries of the future.
  • The Ministerial Working Group on Future Regulation, chaired by the Business Secretary, will oversee the government response to the Council’s recommendations.

Focusing on outcomes

  • We will pilot an innovation test so that the impact of legislation on innovation is considered during the development of policy, introduction and implementation of legislation and its evaluation and review.
  • During the pilot, we will invite the Regulatory Policy Committee to scrutinise the application of the innovation test, to ensure that innovators have confidence in how government is developing new legislation.
  • We will promote new ways to trigger when post-implementation reviews of legislation are undertaken to ensure that legislation does not inadvertently ‘lock in’ outdated technologies or approaches.
  • We will develop tools for regulators to support them to review their guidance, codes of practice and other regulatory mechanisms to ensure that they provide flexibility for those businesses that want to innovate, while ensuring a clear route to compliance.
  • We will support business, policymakers and regulators to make effective use of standards where appropriate as a complement to legislation.
  • We will invite the Office for Product Safety and Standards, British Standards Institution, National Physical Laboratory and UK Accreditation Service to set out their vision for how the development and review of standards should evolve as we enter the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

Supporting experimentation

  • We will examine the case for expanding the Regulators’ Pioneer Fund in future to help regulators to keep pace with technological innovation and enable the emergence of new products, services and business models.
  • We will examine the case for extending the Regulators’ Pioneer Fund to local authorities in future, in order to help them support greater testing and trialling of innovations in their area.
  • We have established a Regulators’ Innovation Network to help foster a culture of experimentation across regulators and share best practice.
  • We will ask regulators to go further to evaluate the impact of their initiatives on innovation and consider whether to commence statutory reporting requirements for regulators on the impact of the economic growth duty.
  • We will survey innovators and regulators to identify data that could be shared to enable disruptors to enter markets and deliver better outcomes for all.

Improving access

  • We will consult on a digital Regulation Navigator for businesses to help them find their way through the regulatory landscape and engage with the right regulators at the right time on their proposals.
  • We have financed greater investment in specialist regulatory advice services for innovators through the Regulators’ Pioneer Fund.
  • We will scope and consult on measures to enhance co-ordination between regulators to ensure that innovations are guided smoothly through the system.
  • We will consider whether the Regulation Navigator should include functions for businesses to raise where rules or processes are inappropriately constraining innovation, so that regulators can review, clarify and potentially amend their approach.
  • We will invite regulators to develop metrics on the service that they provide to innovators.
  • We will ensure that data from specialist advice services is fed into the Regulatory Horizons Council, so that it can advise on where regulatory change or additional investment may be needed to enable innovation to thrive.

Building dialogue

  • We will ask the Regulatory Horizons Council to identify priorities for greater public engagement on regulation of innovation.
  • We will provide support, advice and share best practice with policymakers and regulators on public engagement techniques to support appropriate regulation of technological innovation.
  • We will encourage regulators to build public dialogue into experimentation initiatives (such as those financed through the Regulators’ Pioneer Fund), so that public views are considered as new products, services and business models are trialled.

Leading the world

  • We have established a partnership with the World Economic Forum Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution in San Francisco to develop regulatory approaches for new technologies.
  • We are working with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to explore the regulatory challenges of the emerging digital economy.
  • We will improve awareness of the effects of regulation on trade among government departments and regulators so that the impacts of regulatory divergence are systematically considered.
  • We will seek to include ambitious chapters on good regulatory practices and regulatory co-operation in future free trade agreements that the UK negotiates following our exit from the European Union.
  • We will continue working alongside other nations in the international and regional standards organisations, to help secure globally accepted standards for innovators to collaborate effectively in international markets.

We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

by Silviu “Silview” Costinescu_ Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

One of the most maleficent characters in Trump’s menagerie is this psychopath he named as leader of Operation Warp Speed, Moncef Slaoui, former GSK and Moderna boss having a bigger body count than the Spanish Flu. Actually Kushner picked him in Trumps name, but anyway, after we wrote extensive viral exposes on his past, a team of “specialists” brushed up his online presence and then he laid low for a while. But his silence is over and his newest interviews confirm everything we’ve wrote about him and Covid-19.

For the best understanding of this article, you have to read it as a follow up to four previous pieces that are anyway essential readings:

TRUMP’S NEW MOROCCAN “VACCINE CZAR”: WORKED FOR BILL GATES, GOOGLE, GSK. WORKED IN CHINA. TRANSHUMANIST. LOCKDOWN FANATIC

CORRUPTION UNLTD: GSK AND “TRUMP’S VACCINE CZAR”. SEX TAPES, DEAD BABIES, BRIBES AND PROSTITUTES

EXCLUSIVE: GATES, FAUCI AND SLAOUI HAVE LONG BEEN COOKING AND SELLING SCANDALOUS VACCINES TOGETHER. IT’S A CARTEL

IT’S NOT 5G AND COVID-19, IT’S DATA AND VACCINATIONS. US AND CHINA HAVE LONG USED WHO AS PLATFORM TO COLLABORATE ON THIS

“If you take the first Operation Warp Speed vaccine  you will get an unexpected surprise: micromanaged tracking by Big Tech for up to two years, who will know more about you than you know about yourself. There is no guarantee that tracking will stop after two years.” writes Technocracy News

” It should become apparent that the military/industrial complex that is running Warp Speed is functionally merged with Big Tech like Google and Oracle. And then, there is the federal government itself that is driving the entire vaccination program”, adds TN and they’re not wrong.

Moncef Slaoui, the official head of Operation Warp Speed, told the Wall Street Journal last week that all Warp Speed vaccine recipients in the US will be monitored by “incredibly precise . . . tracking systems” for up to two years and that tech giants Google and Oracle would be involved.

Another high from Slaoui’s career that looks more like a bloodbath.

Last week, a rare media interview given by the Trump administration’s “Vaccine Czar” offered a brief glimpse into the inner workings of the extremely secretive Operation Warp Speed (OWS), the Trump administration’s “public-private partnership” for delivering a Covid-19 vaccine to 300 million Americans by next January. What was revealed should deeply unsettle all Americans.

During an interview with the Wall Street Journal published last Friday, the “captain” of Operation Warp Speed, career Big Pharma executive Moncef Slaoui, confirmed that the millions of Americans who are set to receive the project’s Covid-19 vaccine will be monitored via “incredibly precise . . . tracking systems” that will “ensure that patients each get two doses of the same vaccine and to monitor them for adverse health effects.” Slaoui also noted that tech giants Google and Oracle have been contracted as part of this “tracking system” but did not specify their exact roles beyond helping to “collect and track vaccine data.”

The day before the Wall Street Journal interview was published, the New York Times published a separate interview with Slaoui where he referred to this “tracking system” as a “very active pharmacovigilance surveillance system.” During a previous interview with the journal Science in early September, Slaoui had referred to this system only as “a very active pharmacovigilance system” that would “make sure that when the vaccines are introduced that we’ll absolutely continue to assess their safety.” Slaoui has only recently tacked on the words “tracking” and “surveillance” to his description of this system during his relatively rare media interviews.

While Slaoui himself was short on specifics regarding this “pharmacovigilance surveillance system,” the few official documents from Operation Warp Speed that have been publicly released offer some details about what this system may look like and how long it is expected to “track” the vital signs and whereabouts of Americans who receive a Warp Speed vaccine.

This is basically what we meant by “It’s about data and vaccines” in our headline above. And 5G will follow Covid around because all this data needs carried by a medium and many antennas. Which, while doing their work, can also produce Covid-like symptoms, as a bonus benefit for the Covidiocracy orchestrators.

Stuff that no one mentions in Slaoui’s romanced biographies

The Last American Vagabond takes it from here into finer details in one of his latest posts, demonstrating we’re guinea pigs and this is how they will study us:

The Pharmacovigilantes

Two official OWS documents released in mid-September state that vaccine recipients—expected to include a majority of the US population—would be monitored for twenty-four months after the first dose of a Covid-19 vaccine is administered and that this would be done by a “pharmacovigilance system.”

In the OWS document entitled “From the Factory to the Frontlines,” the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Defense (DOD) stated that, because Warp Speed vaccine candidates use new unlicensed vaccine production methods that “have limited previous data on safety in humans . . . the long-term safety of these vaccines will be carefully assessed using pharmacovigilance surveillance and Phase 4 (post-licensure) clinical trials.”

It continues:

The key objective of pharmacovigilance is to determine each vaccine’s performance in real-life scenarios, to study efficacy, and to discover any infrequent and rare side effects not identified in clinical trials. OWS will also use pharmacovigilance analytics, which serves as one of the instruments for the continuous monitoring of pharmacovigilance data. Robust analytical tools will be used to leverage large amounts of data and the benefits of using such data across the value chain, including regulatory obligations.

In addition, Moncef Slaoui and OWS’s vaccine coordinator, Matt Hepburn, formerly a program manager at the Pentagon’s controversial Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), had previously published an article in the New England Journal of Medicine that stated that “because some technologies have limited previous data on safety in humans, the long-term safety of these vaccines will be carefully assessed using pharmacovigilance surveillance strategies.”

The use of pharmacovigilance on those who receive the vaccine is also mentioned in the official Warp Speed “infographic,” which states that monitoring will be done in cooperation with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Protection (CDC) and will involve “24 month post-trial monitoring for adverse effects.”

In a separate part of that same document, OWS describes one of its “four key tenets” as “traceability,” which has three goals: to “confirm which of the approved vaccines were administered regardless of location (private/public)”; to send a “reminder to return for second dose”; and to “administer the correct second dose.”

Regarding a Covid-19 vaccine requiring more than one dose, a CDC document associated with Operation Warp Speed states:

For most Covid-19 vaccine products, two doses of vaccine, separated by 21 or 28 days, will be needed. Because different Covid-19 vaccine products will not be interchangeable, a vaccine recipient’s second dose must be from the same manufacturer as their first dose. Second-dose reminders for vaccine recipients will be critical to ensure compliance with vaccine dosing intervals and achieve optimal vaccine effectiveness.

The CDC document also references a document published in August by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, associated with the Event 201 and Dark Winter simulations, as informing its Covid-19 vaccination strategy. The Johns Hopkins paper, which counts Dark Winter co-organizer Thomas Inglesby as one of its authors, argues that existing “passive reporting” systems managed by the CDC and FDA should be retooled to create “an active safety surveillance system directed by the CDC that monitors all [Covid-19] vaccine recipients—perhaps by short message service or other electronic mechanisms.”

Despite the claims in these documents that the “pharmacovigilance surveillance system” would intimately involve the FDA, top FDA officials stated in September that they were barred from attending OWS meetings and told reporters they could not explain the operation’s organization or when or with what frequency its leadership meets. The FDA officials did state, however, that they “are still allowed to interact with companies developing products for OWS,” STAT news reported.

In addition, the FDA has apparently “set up a firewall between the vast majority of staff and the initiative [Operation Warp Speed]” that appears to drastically limit the number of FDA officials with any knowledge of or involvement in Warp Speed. The FDA’s director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Janet Woodcock, is the only FDA official listed as having any direct involvement in OWS and appears to be personally managing this “firewall” at the FDA. Woodcock describes herself as a long-time advocate for the use of “big data” in the evaluation of drug and vaccine safety and has been intimately involved in FDA precursors to the coming Warp Speed “pharmacovigilance surveillance system” known as Sentinel and PRISM, both of which are discussed later in this report.

Woodcock is currently on a temporary leave of absence from her role as the director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, which allows her to focus her complete attention on overseeing aspects of Operation Warp Speed on behalf of the FDA’s Office of the Commissioner. Her temporary replacement at the FDA, Patrizia Cavazzoni, is “very aligned with Janet and where the agency is going,” according to media reports. Cavazzoni is a former executive at Pfizer, one of the companies producing a vaccine for OWS. That vaccine is set to begin testing in children as young as 12 years old.

The extreme secrecy of Operation Warp Speed has affected not only the FDA but also the CDC, as a CDC expert panel normally involved in developing the government’s vaccine distribution strategies was “stonewalled” by Matt Hepburn, OWS’s vaccine coordinator, who bluntly refused to answer several of the panel’s “pointed questions” about the highly secretive operation.

More Secret Contracts

While Moncef Slaoui and Warp Speed documents provide few details regarding what this “tracking system” would entail, Slaoui did note in his recent interview with the Wall Street Journal that tech giants Google and Oracle had been contracted to “collect and track vaccine data” as part of this system. Neither Google nor Oracle, however, has announced receipt of a contract related to Operation Warp Speed, and the DOD and HHS, similarly, have yet to announce the awarding of any Warp Speed contract to either Google or Oracle. In addition, searches on the US government’s Federal Register and on the official website for federally awarded contracts came up empty for any contract awarded to Google or Oracle that would apply to any such “pharmacovigilance” system or any other aspect of Operation Warp Speed.

Given my previous reporting on the use of a nongovernment intermediary for awarding OWS contracts to vaccine companies, it seems likely that Warp Speed contracts awarded to Google and Oracle were made using a similar mechanism. In an October 6, 2020, report for The Last American Vagabond, I noted that $6 billion in Warp Speed contracts awarded to vaccine companies were made through Advanced Technology International (ATI), a government contractor that works mainly with the military and surveillance technology companies and whose parent company has strong ties to the CIA and the 2001 Dark Winter simulation. HHS, which is supposedly overseeing Operation Warp Speed, claimed to have “no record” of at least one of those contracts. Only one Warp Speed vaccine contract, which did not involve ATI and was awarded directly by HHS’s Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, was recently obtained by KEI Online. Major parts of the contract, however, including the section on intellectual property rights, were redacted in their entirety.

If the Warp Speed contracts that have been awarded to Google and Oracle are anything like the Warp Speed contracts awarded to most of its participating vaccine companies, then those contracts grant those companies diminished federal oversight and exemptions from federal laws and regulations designed to protect taxpayer interests in the pursuit of the work stipulated in the contract. It also makes them essentially immune to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Yet, in contrast to the unacknowledged Google and Oracle contracts, vaccine companies have publicly disclosed that they received OWS contracts, just not the terms or details of those contracts. This suggests that the Google and Oracle contracts are even more secretive.

A major conflict of interest worth noting is Google’s ownership of YouTube, which recently banned on its massive multimedia platform all “misinformation” related to concerns about a future Covid-19 vaccine. With Google now formally part of Operation Warp Speed, it seems likely that any concerns about OWS’s extreme secrecy and the conflicts of interest of many of its members (particularly Moncef Slaoui and Matt Hepburn) as well as any concerns about Warp Speed vaccine safety, allocation and/or distribution may be labeled “Covid-19 vaccine misinformation” and removed from YouTube.

From the NSA to the FDA: The New PRISM

Though the nature of this coming surveillance system for Covid-19 vaccine recipients has yet to be fully detailed by Warp Speed or the tech companies the operation has contracted, OWS documents and existing infrastructure at the FDA offer a clue as to what this system could entail.

For instance, the Warp Speed document “From the Factory to the Frontlines” notes that the pharmacovigilance system will be a new system created exclusively for OWS that will be “buil[t] off of existing IT [information technology] infrastructure” and will fill any “gaps with new IT solutions.” It then notes that “the Covid-19 vaccination program requires significant enhancement of the IT that will support enhancements and data exchange that are critical for a multi-dose candidate to ensure proper administration of a potential second dose.” The document also states that all data related to the OWS vaccine distribution effort “will be reported into a common IT infrastructure that will support analysis and reporting,” adding that this “IT infrastructure will support partners with a broad range of tools for record-keeping, data on who is being vaccinated, and reminders for second doses.”

Though some Warp Speed documents hint as to the existing IT systems that will serve as the foundation for this new tracking system, arguably the most likely candidate is the FDA-managed Sentinel Initiative, which was established in 2009 during the H1N1 Swine flu pandemic. Like Operation Warp Speed itself, Sentinel is a public-private partnership and involves the FDA, private business, and academia.

According to its website, Sentinel’s “main goal is to improve how FDA evaluates the safety and performance of medical products” through big data, with an additional focus on “learning more about potential side effects.” Media reports describe Sentinel as “an electronic surveillance system that aggregates data from electronic medical records, claims and registries that voluntarily participate and allows the agency to track the safety of marketed drugs, biologics and medical devices.”

One of Sentinel’s main proponent at the FDA is Janet Woodcock, who has aggressively worked to expand the program as director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, with a focus on Sentinel’s use in “post-market effectiveness studies.” As previously mentioned, Woodcock is the only FDA official listed among the ninety or so “leaders” of OWS, most of whom are part of the US military and lack any health-care or vaccine-production experience.

Woodcock’s temporary replacement at the FDA, Patrizia Cavazzoni, is also very active in efforts to expand Sentinel. STAT news reported earlier this year that Cavazzoni previously “served on the sterling committee of I-MEDS, an FDA-industry partnership which allows drug makers to pay for use of the FDA’s real-world data system known as Sentinel to complete certain safety studies more quickly.”

Sentinel has a series of “collaborating partners” that “provide healthcare data and scientific, technical, and organizational expertise” to the initiative. These collaborating partners include intelligence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, tech giant IBM, and major US health insurance companies such as Aetna and Blue Cross Blue Shield, among many others. In addition, Sentinel’s Innovation Center, which it describes as the program’s “test bed to identify, develop, and evaluate innovative methods,” is partnered with Amazon, General Dynamics, and Microsoft. Sentinel also has a Community Building and Outreach Center, which is managed by Deloitte consulting, one of the largest consultancy firms in the world that is known for seeking to fill its ranks with former CIA officials.

The Sentinel system’s specific surveillance program aimed at monitoring vaccine effectiveness is known as the Post-licensure Rapid Immunization Safety Monitoring Program, better known as PRISM. Sentinel’s PRISM was “developed to monitor vaccine safety, but [to date] has never been used to assess vaccine effectiveness.” PRISM was initially launched alongside the Sentinel Initiative itself in 2009 “in response to the need to monitor the safety of the H1N1 influenza vaccine” after it was licensed, marketed, and administered. Yet, as previously mentioned, PRISM has yet to be used to assess the effectiveness of any vaccine while quietly expanding for nearly a decade, which implies that the stakeholders in the Sentinel Initiative have a plan to implement this “safety surveillance system” at some point.

The name PRISM may remind readers of the National Security Agency (NSA) program of the same name that became well known throughout the United States following the Edward Snowden revelations. Given this association, it is worth noting that the NSA, as well as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), are now officially part of Operation Warp Speed and appear to be playing a role in the development of Warp Speed’s “pharmacovigilance surveillance system.” The addition of the NSA and the DHS to the initiative, of course, greatly increases the involvement of US intelligence agencies in the operation, which itself is “dominated” by the military and sorely lacking in civilian public health officials.

CyberScoop first reported in early September that members of the NSA’s Cybersecurity Directorate were involved in Operation Warp Speed, with their role—as well as that of DHS—being framed mainly as offering “cybersecurity advice” to the initiative. However, the NSA and DHS are also offering “guidance” and “services” to both the other federal agencies involved in Warp Speed as well as OWS contractors, which now include Google and Oracle.

Google is well known for its cozy relationship with the NSA, including its PRISM program, and they have also backed NSA-supported legislation that would make it easier to surveil Americans without a warrant. Similarly, Oracle is a longtime NSA contractor and also has ties to the CIA dating back to its earliest days as a company, not unlike Google. Notably, Oracle and Google remain locked in a major legal battle over copyright issues that is set to be heard by the Supreme Court in the coming weeks and is expected to have major ramifications for the tech industry.


We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

by Silviu “Silview” Costinescu_ Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Many times, to find out who caused a problem you need to look who’s selling the solution.

Remember “Event 201“? It was them, the World Economic Forum (WEF), alongside the World Bank, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, mainly.
Remember “The Great Reset“? Pretty much same combo.
And now they have “The World Economic Forum COVID Action Platform”, their Covidiocracy propaganda website, where they “care”.

Davos plays host to the World Economic Forum (WEF), an annual meeting of global political and business elites (often referred to simply as “Davos”), and has one of Switzerland’s biggest ski resorts.

Officially, the WEF is a Swiss non-profit foundation, set up in 1971 to “improve the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic, and other leaders of society to shape global, regional, and industry agendas”.
Right.

Best WEF portrait I’ve read comes from UK analyst Steven Guiness, here’s a consistent chunk advancing my point:

“Event 201 consisted of fifteen ‘players‘ that represented, amongst others, airlines and medical corporations. Out of these fifteen, six are direct partners of the World Economic Forum. One is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, with the other five being Marriott International (hospitality), Henry Schein (medical distribution), Edelman (communications), NBCUniversal Media and Johnson & Johnson.

To be clear, these organisations do not all operate at the same level within the WEF. For instance, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Johnson and Johnson are ‘Strategic Partners‘, the highest stage for a participant. Only 100 global companies are Strategic Partners, and to qualify for an invitation they must all have ‘alignment with forum values‘. Not only that, but Strategic Partners ‘shape the future through extensive contribution to developing and implementing Forum projects and championing public-private dialogue.’

Next come the ‘Partners‘ which comprise of Marriott International, Henry Schein and Edelman. Partners are described by the WEF as ‘world class companies‘ who possess a ‘strong interest in developing systemic solutions to key challenges‘.

Beneath the Strategic Partners are the ‘Strategic Partner Associates‘, which is the category that NBCUniversal Media fall under. Strategic Partner Associates include some of the largest businesses in the world, who are ‘actively involved in shaping the future of industries, regions and systemic issues‘. According to the WEF, associates also believe in ‘corporate global citizenship‘.

Finally, there are the ‘Associate Partners‘. Whilst they participate in ‘forum communities‘ and have a ‘strong interest in addressing challenges affecting operations and society at large‘, none were present at Event 201.

Every major industry in the world, be it banking, agriculture, healthcare, media, retail, travel and tourism, is directly connected to the World Economic Forum through corporate membership.

What is evident is that the deeper a corporation’s ties with the WEF, the greater its ability to ‘shape‘ the group’s agenda. Which brings us to what the WEF call their Strategic Intelligence platform – the mechanism which brings all the interests that the WEF concentrate on together.

They describe the platform as ‘a dynamic system of contextual intelligence that enables users to trace relationships and interdependencies between issues, supporting more informed decision-making‘.

As for why the WEF developed Strategic Intelligence, they say it was to ‘help you (businesses) understand the global forces at play and make more informed decisions‘.

Growing the platform is an ever present goal. The WEF are always looking for new members to become part of Strategic Intelligence by joining the ‘New Champions Community‘. But they will only allow a new organisation on board if they ‘align with the values and aspirations of the World Economic Forum in general‘. A 12 month ‘New Champions Membership‘ comes in at €24,000.

In arguing for the relevance of Strategic Intelligence, the WEF ask:

How can you decipher the potential impact of rapidly unfolding changes when you’re flooded with information—some of it misleading or unreliable? How do you continuously adapt your vision and strategy within a fast-evolving global context?

In other words, Strategic Intelligence is both an antidote to ‘fake news‘ and an assembly for corporations to position themselves as global pioneers in a rapidly changing political and technological environment. That’s the image they attempt to convey at least.

We can find more involvement from global institutions via Strategic Intelligence. The platform is ‘co-curated with leading topic experts from academia, think tanks, and international organizations‘.

Co-curators‘ are perhaps the most important aspect to consider here, given that they have the ability to ‘share their expertise with the Forum’s extensive network of members, partners and constituents, as well as a growing public audience‘.

It is safe to assume then that when co-curators speak, members and partners of the World Economic Forum listen. This in part is how the WEF’s agenda takes shape.

Who are the co-curators? At present, they include Harvard university, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Imperial College London, Oxford University, Yale and the European Council on Foreign Relations.

It was the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that in March published an article titled, ‘We’re not going back to normal‘, just as Covid-19 lockdowns were being implemented world wide. Citing a report by fellow co-curator Imperial College London that endorsed the imposition of tougher social distancing measures if hospital admissions begin to spike, MIT proclaimed that ‘social distancing is here to stay for much more than a few weeks. It will upend our way of life, in some ways forever.’

As well as co-curators there are what’s known as ‘Content Partners‘, who the WEF say are ‘amplified by machine analysis of more than 1,000 articles per day from carefully selected global think tanks, research institutes and publishers‘.

Content partners include Harvard university, Cambridge university, the Rand Corporation, Chatham House (aka the Royal Institute of International Affairs), the European Council on Foreign Relations and the Brookings Institute.

Getting into specifics, the way Strategic Intelligence is structured means that the higher your position in the corporate fold, the more ‘platforms‘ you can be part of. Whereas Strategic Partners must be part of a minimum of five platforms, Associate Partners only have access to a single platform of their choice.

Here is a list of some of the platforms hosted by the World Economic Forum:

  • COVID Action Platform
  • Shaping the Future of Technology Governance: Blockchain and Distributed Ledger Technologies
  • Shaping the Future of the New Economy and Society
  • Shaping the Future of Consumption
  • Shaping the Future of Digital Economy and New Value Creation
  • Shaping the Future of Financial and Monetary Systems
  • Shaping the Future of Technology Governance: Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning
  • Shaping the Future of Trade and Global Economic Interdependence
  • Shaping the Future of Cities, Infrastructure and Urban Services
  • Shaping the Future of Energy and Materials
  • Shaping the Future of Media, Entertainment and Culture

As we will look at in a follow up article, ‘The Great Reset‘ is made up of over 50 areas of interest that are formed of both ‘Global Issues‘ and ‘Industries‘, which in turn are all part of the WEF’s Strategic Intelligence platform.

Corporate membership is essential for the World Economic Forum to spread its influence, but in the end every single member is in compliance with the agenda, objectives, projects and values of the WEF. These take precedent over all else.

Also in concurrence with the WEF are the organisation’s Board of Trustees. Three of these include the current Managing Director of the IMF, Kristalina Georgieva, European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde and former Bank of England governor Mark Carney. The Trilateral Commission are also represented amongst the trustees through Larry Fink and David Rubenstein.

To add some historical context to the WEF, the group dates back to 1971 when it was originally founded as the European Management Forum. At the time the conflict in Vietnam was raging, social protest movements were building and the United States was about to relinquish the gold standard. By 1973 when the post World War Two Bretton Woods system collapsed and the Trilateral Commission was formed, the Forum had widened its interest beyond just management to include economic and social issues. From here onwards political leaders from around the world began to receive invitations to the institution’s annual meeting in Davos.

The World Economic Forum is classified today as the ‘International Organisation for Public-Private Cooperation‘, and is the only global institution recognised as such. It is in this capacity that the forum ‘engages the foremost political, business, cultural and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas.’

Like how the Bank for International Settlements acts as a forum to bring central banks together under one umbrella, the WEF plays the same role by uniting business, government and civil society.

The WEF declare themselves as being a ‘catalyst for global initiatives‘, which is accurate considering ‘The Great Reset‘ agenda originates at the WEF level. And it is initiatives like ‘The Great Reset‘ and the ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution‘ which the WEF say are distinguished by ‘the active participation of government, business and civil society figures‘.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) narrative was developed out of the World Economic Forum back in 2016. The WEF have confidently asserted that because of 4IR, ‘over the next decade, we will witness changes tearing through the global economy with an unprecedented speed, scale and force. They will transform entire systems of production, distribution and consumption‘.

Not only that, but the world is on the verge of witnessing ‘more technological change over the next decade than we have seen in the past 50 years.’

The group now plan to use ‘The Great Reset‘ as their theme for the 2021 annual meeting in Davos as a vehicle for advancing the 4IR agenda. 4IR is marketed as a technological revolution, where advancement in all the sciences ‘will leave no aspect of global society untouched.’ “
Read even more on WEF from Steven Guiness, whose blog should be in everyone’s bookmarks.

Now let’s hear from Forbes’ pre-review of 2020’s Davos meeting, held in January:

“As world leaders descend on Davos in their private jets and chartered helicopters every January for the World Economic Forum (WEF), the global charity Oxfam likes to remind them about the state of inequality.

Their research, which builds on Forbes‘ billionaires list among other sources, shows how the richest 2,000 people hold more wealth than poorest 4.6 billion combined.

The irony is not lost at the WEF, where the guest list gets richer every year. In 2018, 12 billionaires took to the stage at the annual event in Davos. This week there are 119 billionaires in attendance according to Bloomberg. Collectively they are worth around $500 billion.

But the disparities do not end there. Here are four other statistics which show how out of touch the World Economic Forum is becoming.

Davos Billionaires Worth Nearly Half Of All Women In Africa

Oxfam’s original finding was that the 22 richest men in the world have more wealth than all of the women in Africa.Recommended For You

That’s around $1.2 trillion. Or, to put it another way, just over double the collective worth of the 119 billionaires at Davos this year.

SWITZERLAND-DAVOS-ECONOMY-MEET
Chairman Axel A. Weber (R) listens to JP Morgan Chase chief executive officer Jamie Dimon at the … [+] 2013 AFP

Over Half Think Capitalism Does More Harm Than Good

It is against this stark backdrop that public relations firm Edelman surveyed over 34,000 people. Just over half (56%) thought that capitalism was doing more harm than good. “We are living in a trust paradox,” says Richard Edelman, the CEO of Edelman.

On WEF’s agenda this year is a “better kind of capitalism,” but still many remain to be convinced the summit does not actually erode trust.

U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has banned British government ministers from attending the WEF this year, for fear of the image it brings. A government source told the Telegraph in December, “Our focus is on delivering for the people, not champagne with billionaires.”

In 2016, Johnson described the summit as “a struggle between people who want to take back control, and a small group of people who do very well out of the current system and who know Christine Lagarde.”

India Is The 7th Most Unequal Country

This is the WEF’s own research, which shows India ranks as the 7th lowest country in the world in terms of equal opportunity.

Whether or not the organisers saw the irony in hosting 19 Indian billionaires (the second largest contingent of billionaires after the U.S.) is unknown. But it might be hoped that amassing them all on a Swiss mountainside will sort out some of India’s inequality issues.

Another report published by the Forum this week said that global inequality is going to worsen as a result of rapid technological change unless governments and business leaders do something about it.

Klaus Schwab, the founder and executive chairman of the WEF said at the opening of its 50th session last week he wanted the summit to be more of a “do-shop not a talk-shop.” – Forbes

I know I’m repeating myself, but I don’t do it nearly enough:
If you want the map of the near future, consult The Great Reset, Event 201 and everything Covid-related from WEF/World Bank/IMF, and less their lemmings like WHO and Bill Gates.

These are the people who delivered this astounding article from April 2020, showing how much pre-science they had over the damage they cause to this world. Most of his science was available (at least to their specialists) anytime before the insane Covid response from our governance (most of the data and analysis is not based on new reliable information, it was too early); and yet they went ahead with the collapse. The ongoning genocide is not a collateral effect, or an error, they prove awareness of the consequences, so decimating our lives was the plan all along.
Below you have WEF’s implicite “confession” integrally.

Lockdown is the world’s biggest psychological experiment – and we will pay the price 

09 Apr 2020

By Dr Elke Van Hoof, Professor, health psychology and primary care psychology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel

  • With some 2.6 billion people around the world in some kind of lockdown, we are conducting arguably the largest psychological experiment ever;
  • This will result in a secondary epidemic of burnouts and stress-related absenteeism in the latter half of 2020;
  • Taking action now can mitigate the toxic effects of COVID-19 lockdowns.

In the mid-1990s, France was one of the first countries in the world to adopt a revolutionary approach for the aftermath of terrorist attacks and disasters. In addition to a medical field hospital or triage post, the French crisis response includes setting up a psychological field unit, a Cellule d’Urgence Médico-Psychologique or CUMPS.

Have you read?

In that second triage post, victims and witnesses who were not physically harmed receive psychological help and are checked for signs of needing further post-traumatic treatment. In those situations, the World Health Organization recommends protocols like R-TEP (Recent Traumatic Episode Protocol) and G-TEP (Group Traumatic Episode Protocol).

Since France led the way more than 20 years ago, international playbooks for disaster response increasingly call for this two-tent approach: one for the wounded and one to treat the invisible, psychological wounds of trauma.

In treating the COVID-19 pandemic, the world is scrambling to build enough tents to treat those infected with a deadly, highly contagious virus. In New York, we see literal field hospitals in the middle of Central Park.

But we’re not setting up the second tent for psychological help and we will pay the price within three to six months after the end of this unprecedented lockdown, at a time when we will need all able bodies to help the world economy recover.

The mental toll of quarantine and lockdown

Currently, an estimated 2.6 billion people – one-third of the world’s population – is living under some kind of lockdown or quarantine. This is arguably the largest psychological experiment ever conducted.

Estimated size of lockdowns around the world
Estimated size of lockdowns around the worldImage: Statista

Unfortunately, we already have a good idea of its results. In late February 2020, right before European countries mandated various forms of lockdowns, The Lancet published a review of 24 studies documenting the psychological impact of quarantine (the “restriction of movement of people who have potentially been exposed to a contagious disease”). The findings offer a glimpse of what is brewing in hundreds of millions of households around the world.

In short, and perhaps unsurprisingly, people who are quarantined are very likely to develop a wide range of symptoms of psychological stress and disorder, including low mood, insomnia, stress, anxiety, anger, irritability, emotional exhaustion, depression and post-traumatic stress symptoms. Low mood and irritability specifically stand out as being very common, the study notes.

In China, these expected mental health effects are already being reported in the first research papers about the lockdown.

In cases where parents were quarantined with children, the mental health toll became even steeper. In one study, no less than 28% of quarantined parents warranted a diagnosis of “trauma-related mental health disorder”.

Among quarantined hospital staff, almost 10% reported “high depressive symptoms” up to three years after being quarantined. Another study reporting on the long-term effects of SARS quarantine among healthcare workers found a long-term risk for alcohol abuse, self-medication and long-lasting “avoidance” behaviour. This means that years after being quarantined, some hospital workers still avoid being in close contact with patients by simply not showing up for work.

Reasons for stress abound in lockdown: there is risk of infection, fear of becoming sick or of losing loved ones, as well as the prospect of financial hardship. All these, and many more, are present in this current pandemic.

The second epidemic and setting up the second tent online

We can already see a sharp increase in absenteeism in countries in lockdown. People are afraid to catch COVID-19 on the work floor and avoid work. We will see a second wave of this in three to six months. Just when we need all able bodies to repair the economy, we can expect a sharp spike in absenteeism and burnout.

We know this from many examples, ranging from absenteeism in military units after deployment in risk areas, companies that were close to Ground Zero in 9/11 and medical professionals in regions with outbreaks of Ebola, SARS and MERS.

Right before the lockdown, we conducted a benchmark survey among a representative sample of the Belgian population. In that survey, we saw that 32% of the population could be classified as highly resilient (“green”). Only 15% of the population indicated toxic levels of stress (“red”).

How stress under lockdown is affecting Belgians
How stress under lockdown is affecting Belgians

In our most recent survey after two weeks of lockdown, the green portion has shrunk to 25% of the population. The “red” part of the population has increased by 10 percentage points to fully 25% of the population.

These are the people at high risk for long-term absenteeism from work due to illness and burnout. Even if they stay at work, research from Eurofound reports a loss of productivity of 35% for these workers.

In general, we know at-risk groups for long-term mental health issues will be the healthcare workers who are on the frontline, young people under 30 and children, the elderly and those in precarious situations, for example, owing to mental illness, disability and poverty.

All this should surprise no one; insights on the long-term damage of disasters have been accepted in the field of trauma psychology for decades.

The phases of disaster response
The phases of disaster responseImage: When disaster strikes, Beverly Raphael, 1986

But while the insights are not new, the sheer scale of these lockdowns is. This time, ground zero is not a quarantined village or town or region; a third of the global population is dealing with these intense stressors. We need to act now to mitigate the toxic effects of this lockdown.

What governments and NGOs can and should do today

There is broad consensus among academics about the psychological care following disasters and major incidents. Here are a few rules of thumb:

  • Make sure self-help interventions are in place that can address the needs of large affected populations;
  • Educate people about the expected psychological impact and reactions to trauma if they are interested in receiving it. Make sure people understand that a psychological reaction is normal;
  • Launch a specific website to address psychosocial issues;
  • Make sure that people with acute issues can find the help that they need

In Belgium, we recently launched Everyone OK, an online tool that tries to offer help to the affected population. Using existing protocols and interventions, we launched our digital self-help tool in as little as two weeks.

When it comes to offering psychological support to their populations, most countries are late to react, as they were to the novel coronavirus. Better late than never.

Source

We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

by Silviu “Silview” Costinescu_ Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

According to Bill Gates, part of his success is due to his parents – in fact, his late mother, Mary Gates, was said to be instrumental in a deal that helped propel Microsoft into the big leagues.

How to Become As Rich As Bill Gates – a strange offshoot of the Bill Gates Personal Wealth Clock by Philip Greenspun:

Lesson 1: Choose Your Grandparents Carefully

William Henry Gates III made his best decision on October 28, 1955, the night he was born. He chose J.W. Maxwell as his great-grandfather. Maxwell founded Seattle’s National City Bank in 1906. His son, James Willard Maxwell was also a banker and established a million-dollar trust fund for William (Bill) Henry Gates III.

In some of the later lessons, you will be encouraged to take entrepreneurial risks. You may find it comforting to remember that at any time you can fall back on a trust fund worth many millions of 1998 dollars.

Lesson 2: Choose Your Parents Carefully

William Henry Gates, Jr. and Mary Maxwell were among Seattle’s social and financial elite. Bill Gates, Jr. was a prominent corporate lawyer while Mary Maxwell was a board member of First Interstate Bank and Pacific Northwest Bell. She was also on the national board of United Way, along with John Opel, the chief executive officer of IBM who approved the inclusion of MS/DOS with the original IBM PC.

Remind your parents not to send you to public school. Bill Gates went to Lakeside, Seattle’s most exclusive prep school where tuition in 1967 was $5,000 (Harvard tuition that year was $1760). Typical classmates included the McCaw brothers, who sold the cellular phone licenses they obtained from the U.S. Government to AT&T for $11.5 billion in 1994. When the kids there wanted to use a computer, they got their moms to hold a rummage sale and raise $3,000 to buy time on a DEC PDP-10, the same machine used by computer science researchers at Stanford and MIT.

Read the rest of the course

Mary Gates was a respected businesswoman with many responsibilities, including her membership on the board of nonprofit organization United Way of King County. There, she met the late John Opel, then-chairman of IBM, who also was a member of the United Way board. In 1980, Microsoft was a small, five-year-old firm and Mary saw an opportunity to help her son’s fledgling company by speaking with Opel, according to The New York Times.

That’s because for the first time in IBM’s then 70-year history, the company was looking to outsource help for an endeavor the company called project “Chess.” IBM wanted to hire an outside software maker to develop an operating system for its personal computer.

Microsoft was already in the running for the project, but IBM was considering many software companies, including Digital Research, one of Microsoft’s competitors. With this knowledge, Mary used her connection and spoke with Opel about Microsoft, and afterward, Opel spoke to IBM executives about the company.

Luckily for Microsoft, IBM’s talks with Digital Research started to flounder, and when assessing options, Opel remembered Microsoft as the company “run by Bill Gates, Mary Gates’ son,” according to The Seattle Times.

A young Bill Gates
A young Bill GatesDoug Wilson | Getty Images

As a result, IBM “took a chance,” The New York Times reported, and hired Microsoft for the job. (In addition to Microsoft, IBM also contracted Digital Research and SofTech Microsystems to adapt operating systems for IBM’s personal computer.)

When Microsoft won the job, it didn’t actually have an operating system of its own. So in 1981, the company bought QDOS, an operating system created by hardware company Seattle Computer Products, and with it developed MS-DOS, the Microsoft Disk Operating System. Microsoft licensed its MS-DOS to IBM to use as the operating system for its personal computer. (In addition to Microsoft, IBM also contracted Digital Research and SofTech Microsystems to use their operating systems for IBM’s personal computer.)

Because the MS-DOS was non-exclusive to IBM, it became one of Microsoft’s most profitable products ever. The operating system was not only used in all IBM computers at the time, but also became the go-to operating system for almost every personal computer on the market.

In 1986, Microsoft went public at $21 a share, and following, Gates immediately became a multi-millionaire. As the company’s success continued, Gates became a billionaire just a year later.

Gates was CEO at Microsoft until 2000, stepped down as chairman in 2008 and left the company’s board in March to dedicate more time to his Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Microsoft currently has a market cap of $1.6 trillion.

It is interesting to note that Bill Gates, and his Microsoft colleagues, were not the pioneers of the first operating system for personal computers. Nearly ten years before Bill Gates signed the epochal deal with IBM, Gary Kildall, a computer science professor had developed his own system…the Control Program for Microcomputers.

Kildall and Gates had known each other from their years…freely sharing ideas in the Home Brew Computer Club, a group that Kildall had founded. Why IBM connected with Bill Gates, and not Kildall, is not widely known. However, one can speculate that Mary Gates’ connection to IBM‘s John Opel played an important, if not critical, role.” 

“… it was Opel who met with Bill Gates, CEO of the then-small software firm Microsoft, to discuss the possibility of using Microsoft PC-DOS OS for IBM‘s about-to-be-released PC. Opel set up the meeting at the request of Gates’ mother, Mary Maxwell Gates. The two had both served on the National United Way‘s executive committee.

As CEO, Opel was also able to resolve an ongoing antitrust lawsuit with the U.S. Justice Department, which allowed the company to grow more rapidly.” 

Here’s what Paul Graham has to say in How to Make Wealth: Millions, Not Billions:

“Certainly Bill is smart and dedicated, but Microsoft also happens to have been the beneficiary of one of the most spectacular blunders in the history of business: the licensing deal for DOS. No doubt Bill did everything he could to steer IBM into making that blunder, and he has done an excellent job of exploiting it, but if there had been one person with a brain on IBM’s side, Microsoft’s future would have been very different. Microsoft at that stage had little leverage over IBM. They were effectively a component supplier. If IBM had required an exclusive license, as they should have, Microsoft would still have signed the deal. It would still have meant a lot of money for them, and IBM could easily have gotten an operating system elsewhere.

Instead IBM ended up using all its power in the market to give Microsoft control of the PC standard. From that point, all Microsoft had to do was execute. They never had to bet the company on a bold decision. All they had to do was play hardball with licensees and copy more innovative products reasonably promptly.

If IBM hadn’t made this mistake, Microsoft would still have been a successful company, but it could not have grown so big so fast. Bill Gates would be rich, but he’d be somewhere near the bottom of the Forbes 400 with the other guys his age.

There are a lot of ways to get rich, and this essay is about only one of them. This essay is about how to make money by creating wealth and getting paid for it. There are plenty of other ways to get money, including chance, speculation, marriage, inheritance, theft, extortion, fraud, monopoly, graft, lobbying, counterfeiting, and prospecting. Most of the greatest fortunes have probably involved several of these.”

One thing caught my attention in all the counts I’ve read about this story: everyone ASSUMED that IBM made an almost fatal mistake in it’s dealings with Gates.

“In one of the most extraordinary business arrangements in modern history, Microsoft leveraged its knowledge of the Intel microprocessor environment to outmaneuver IBM and establish its operating system as the dominant operating system for the PC. In a strategy Microsoft executive Steve Ballmer called, “Riding the Bear,” Microsoft worked with IBM to the point where it was strong enough to go on its own, ultimately becoming one of the richest companies in the world by having their software on nearly every PC in the world. This would first include developing programming software for the fledgling Intel-based microcomputer industry and then in association with IBM, standardizing an operating system for the non-Apple microcomputer industry.” – Anthony J. Pennings, PhD, in”MICROSOFT AND THE IBM PC CASE STUDY: THE DEAL OF THE CENTURY“.

“The IBM PC offered a choice of three operating systems – the other two being UCSD P and CP/M 86 – and the future development of the personal computer industry might have been very different had Gary Kildall, boss of Digital Research (DR), then a much bigger company than Microsoft, had initially agreed the terms on which IBM originally wanted to contract him for DR’s CP/M.The apocryphal story that he was enjoying a day off flying his plane, is now seen to be an over simplified, or even falsified account, of the events. Even so IBM’s unexpected decision to contract an almost unheard of startup, certainly determined the fates and fortunes of his and Bill Gate’s companies.” – I-programmer

Why would eveyone assume IBM made a huge mistake when all their history, as well as Microsoft’s, proves they built their dominance on connections, intelligent strategic decisions and other people’s intellectual efforts?

SILVIEW.media

Furthermore, if Microsoft and IBM are two pockets of the same suit, and if by moving money from one pocket to another you make more money, that’s a money printer right there. What better way to make money?

An Interesting Comparison

“It’s hard to communicate to people just how large the Standard Oil trust was”, said Ron Chernow, author of “Titan, The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr.”. “Standard Oil was 20 times bigger than its nearest competitor.”

It was also one of the two largest companies in America. When it was broken up, among the 34 companies spun off were what we know today as Exxon, Mobil, Amoco, Chevron, Arco, Conoco, BP America and Cheesebrough-Ponds.

“At least four of those companies still are dominant in the oil industry and still among the largest 100 companies in the world,” Chernow said. “Rockefeller really owned the whole industry lock, stock and barrel.

“I guess the situation would be equivalent (to the Rockefeller monopoly) if Microsoft was a personal computer manufacturer and not only controlled the operating system, but controlled all of the applications and the microprocessors and all of the collateral equipment and owned all of the retail outlets at the same time.”

Ron Cernow


What goes for Gates in the above quote, also goes for IBM, especially if they are “two pockets of the same suit”.

Coincindences are just causalities we haven’t found yet.
Another coincidence in the series is IBM and Microsoft’s long history of similar problems with the anti-trust regualtions around the world, it’s almost as if the same people with the same manners ran both and separating the mainframe business (IBM) from the software business (MS) was a matter of survival.

Antitrust Cases, U.S. v. IBM, are Tried and Eventually Withdrawn

“The 1969 Case” Alleged That IBM Illegally Acquired And Maintained Its Monopoly Of General Purpose Digital Computers Through Exclusionary And Predatory Conduct Going Beyond The 1956 Decree. 

                The 1969 action alleged that “IBM had undertaken exclusionary and predatory conduct with the aim and effect of eliminating competition so that IBM could maintain its monopoly position in general purpose digital computers. (See Plaintiff’s Statement of Triable Issues (dated September 23, 1974) at 8; U.S. 1969 tab 1.) Specifically, the Government contended that from 1961 to 1969 IBM engaged in anticompetitive practices “for the purpose or with the effect of restraining or attempting to restrain actual or potential competitors from entering” the relevant markets. (Id. at 8.)1 Such practices allegedly included anticompetitive price discrimination such as giving away software services for “the purpose or with the effect of .

On May 19, 1975 the Federal Government’s antitrust suit against IBM went to trial. The complaint for the case: U.S. v. IBM .

After thousands of hours of testimony (testimony of over 950 witnesses, 87 in court, the remainder by deposition), and the submission of tens of thousands of exhibits, on January 8, 1982 the anti-trust case U.S. v. IBM was withdrawn on the grounds that the case was “without merit.”

30,000,000 pages of documents were generated in the course of this anti-trust case, according to historyofinformation.com . Of course they wouldn’t risk another one any soon.

Read: The IBM Hall of Shame: A (Semi) Complete List of Bribes, Blunders and Fraud

For Bill Gates, antitrust fight was a personal crucible

“With the U.S. antitrust case against Microsoft, Gates faced company’s gravest threat” – Patrick Thibodeau, Senior Editor, Computerworld, JUN 26, 2008

“In 1998, Bill Gates was the new John D. Rockefeller. And from the U.S. government’s perspective at the start of its antitrust trial against Microsoft in 1998, Gates was every bit as powerful as the legendary oil baron was — if not more so. The desktop operating system was seen as important to the new, tech-focused economy as oil had been to the industrial economy of the early 20th century.

…It is difficult to believe that in 1998 the U.S. government and more than 20 states were focused on Microsoft’s desktop operating system dominance. The case threatened Microsoft with a breakup and would ultimately bring Gates, then serving as Microsoft’s chairman and CEO, to the witness stand in defense of the company he is now about to leave. It was a brutal case with enormous stakes. It was a crucible, and it was personal.

The antitrust fight turned on many legal issues concerning Microsoft’s anticompetitive practices. Part of Microsoft’s defense was based on the idea that its behavior was constrained by emerging technologies. The company argued that it faced “unknown knowns,” as former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld might have put it. Microsoft 10 years ago knew that game-changing threats were certain to arrive — it just didn’t know their exact shape. Linux, Java and browsers were often cited as threats at the trial, but those were known threats; what Microsoft argued was that the unknown threats to come were just as real.

It was not an argument that Rockefeller’s Standard Oil could have raised. It was not an argument the judge bought at the time. But history may still have more to say on whether the argument had merit.

Unlike the strain Windows faces today, Microsoft’s OS was on top of the desktop world. That fact led to the antitrust fight that would roil Microsoft for years, a fight that was personified on the company’s side by its leader.

… Microsoft officials thought the government was seeking a corporate breakup. Gates’ feistiness also underscored a different worldview: that the company saw itself competing in a market that could change overnight. Gates’ now famous 1995 Internet Tidal Wave memo (download PDF) illustrated his view: “Browsing the Web, you find almost no Microsoft file formats. After 10 hours of browsing, I had not seen a single Word DOC, AVI file….”

One of the things Microsoft hoped to accomplish in this case was to convince the government that the tech industry was unlike any other. Just like IBM beore him. The company hired Richard Schmalensee, dean of the Sloan School of Management at MIT, to help make its case. A big part of his argument was that the real threats hadn’t yet arrived. It was fear of these unknown threats that served to constraint Microsoft’s apparent power.

Boies countered Schmalensee with MIT professor Franklin Fisher, who dismissed that warning about future threats. The notion that “a wolf might come out of the forest” to challenge Microsoft wasn’t serious analysis, he said. The issue, the government argued, was about the monopoly power the company had at the time.

Gates tried to explain the threat in his deposition with Boies (download PDF).

Boise: When people used the word with you “commoditize” as in the statement that Netscape was threatening or endeavoring to commoditize the operating system, what did you understand “commoditize” to mean?

Gates: That they were creating a product that would either reduce the value or eliminate demand for the Windows operating system if they continued to improve it and we didn’t keep improving our product.

The argument did not hold — at least as far as the judge was concerned. In 2000, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson order that Microsoft be broken up, Standard Oil-style (read the decision). A year later, in 2001, the U.S.government — in the interest of moving the case along — dropped that remedy and announced a settlement under which Microsoft would agree to change some of its business practices.

Before that agreement was finalized in court, Gates, after refusing to appear years earlier, took the stand. In 2002, one of the points he raised concerned the future.

In 2008, Windows — though still dominant — is facing new platform threats, and a renewed browser war is brewing, thanks to Firefox. Meanwhile, Google looms as an ever-larger threat, as Microsoft has sought — so far unsuccessfully — to scoop up an Internet search company to better fit in with a new age. And Gates, his company intact, is moving on to other endeavors, looking less like Rockefeller the oil baron and more like Rockefeller the philanthropist.” – Patrick Thibodeau, Senior Editor, Computerworld, JUN 26, 2008

Now replace “Rockefeller” with “IBM” in Thibodeau’s story and think that creating or buying a false opposition is the game of the mega-rich, fighting competition is for the poor.

So on July 1st, 2005, Microsoft Corp. and IBM announced that they have entered into an agreement to resolve antitrust issues between the two companies:

“Today’s settlement resolves claims arising from the United States v. Microsoft antitrust case in the mid-1990s, where IBM was identified in U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson’s findings of fact as having been impacted in its business by certain Microsoft practices.  Under the agreement, Microsoft will pay IBM $775 million and extend $75 million in credit towards deployment of Microsoft software at IBM.

In addition to addressing all discriminatory pricing and overcharge claims based on the findings in the U.S. antitrust case, the settlement resolves all antitrust claims, including claims related to the IBM OS/2 operating system and SmartSuite products, with the exception of claims for harm to IBM’s server hardware and server software businesses.  IBM has further agreed, subject to certain limitations, that it will not assert claims for server monetary
damages for two years and will not seek to recover damages on such claims incurred prior to June 30, 2002.  Microsoft also releases antitrust claims.

In November 2003, Microsoft and IBM entered into tolling agreements extending the statute of limitations on antitrust claims based on the U.S. antitrust case while exploring resolutions that would avoid protracted litigation.  Microsoft’s and IBM’s tolling agreement was set to expire in July and the parties engaged in settlement discussions during the last two months.

“With these antitrust issues behind us, both Microsoft and IBM can move ahead, at times cooperatively and at times competitively, to bring the best products and services to customers,” said Brad Smith, general counsel and senior vice president, Microsoft.  “Over the last few years we have been focused on resolving our disputes with other companies, and today’s announcement takes another significant step towards achieving that goal.”

“IBM is pleased that we have amicably resolved these long standing issues,” said Ed Lineen, senior vice president and general counsel, IBM.


The story that made everyone scratch their heads makes all the sense if you look at IBM not just as founder, but forever owner of Microsoft, even if not in official papers.

Gates, IBM and the Nazis connection

This chapter is, for the most part, a compilation of excerpts from “Is Bill Gates a closet liberal?” by the liberals at Salon.com, and Dean Arnold’s book exposing Gates and his population control efforts in Ethiopia and Africa

Bill Gates’ cold-cash concern for family planning could even be construed as asking for trouble. The groups that the Gates Foundation is giving money to have close ideological and organizational ties with pro-choice bastions like Planned Parenthood

Salon.com

Is it really a wonder though, that IBM made the deal with a eugenicist-supporting family? Let us not forget, that IBM is the very same company that (literally) made the punch cards for the Nazi death camp possible.

Founded in 1911 as the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (C-T-R), the company now known as International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) can be traced back even farther, to the 1880s, when Dr. Alexander Dey invented the first dial recorder. Dey’s business later became part of the foundation of C-T-R, along with Harlow Bundy’s Bundy Manufacturing Company, which produced the world’s first employee time clock.More recently, IBM has become a global information technology company focused on software, cloud computing, and consulting services. 

Investopedia

Edwin Black, in his book, IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America’s Most Powerful Corporation, quoted Leon Krzemieniecki, the only man still living, who worked in the Hollerith Department (named after Herman Hollerith, the inventor the infamous ‘electromechanical tabulating machine‘ used by the Nazis, and founder the company that later became IBM), which could be found at Auschwitz (and all Nazi camps). This is what Krzemieniecki said… “I knew they were not German machines,” recalled Krzemieniecki. “The labels were in English. The person maintaining and repairing the machines spread the diagrams out sometimes. The language of the diagrams of those machines was only in English. I asked Krzemieniecki if the machine logo plates were in German, Polish or English. He answered “English. It said Business Machines.” I asked, “Do you mean, International Business Machines?” Krzemieniecki replied, “No, Watson Business Machines.”

When Adolf Hitler came to power, many saw a menace to humanity. But IBM treated Nazi Germany as a lucrative trading partner. Quickly, its president, Thomas J. Watson, engineered a strategic business alliance between IBM and the Third Reich, beginning in the first days of the Hitler regime and continuing right through World War II.

This alliance instantly catapulted Nazi Germany into being IBM’s most important customer outside the United States. As part of that strategic alliance, IBM and the Nazis jointly designed, and IBM exclusively produced, technologic solutions that enabled Hitler to accelerate and automate key aspects of his persecution of the Jews from the initial identification and social expulsion, to the confiscation and ghettoization, to the deportation and ultimate extermination.

Nazi documents contained in the U.S. National Archives and Polish eyewitness testimony make clear that IBM’s alliance with the Third Reich went far beyond its German subsidiary. During the rape of Poland and the Polish Holocaust, which killed millions and plundered a nation, IBM technology was a key factor. The company’s custom-tailored technology was provided directly through a new special wartime Polish subsidiary reporting to IBM New York.

And that’s how the trains to Auschwitz ran on time.

Once the United States entered the war after Dec. 10, 1941, the Reich appointed Hermann Fellinger, a Nazi devoted to IBM, as enemy property custodian. He maintained the original staff and managers, keeping Watson Business Machines productive for the Reich and profitable for IBM New York. The Polish subsidiary now reported to IBM’s Geneva office and from there to New York. After the war, IBM recovered all its Polish machines and profits, which amounted to millions of dollars.

Contacted about IBM’s Polish subsidiary’s involvement in the Polish Holocaust, IBM spokesman Carol Makovich said only, “IBM does not have much information about this period.”

But 21st century silence cannot alter the historical documentation. A tangle of subsidiaries throughout Europe helped IBM reap the benefits of its partnership with Nazi Germany. ” Edwin Black, San Francisco Gate

Bill Gates Sr. administers the approximately $300 million William H. Gates III Foundation

Salon.com

As explained earlier, the public story of Bill Gates is as follows: a middle-class computer geek becomes an overnight billionaire, and one day he wakes up out of nowhere in his forties and decides to take on overpopulation.
But his handlers have kept you from the rest of the story. Bill committed another gaffe in 2006 when he gave an interview to Bill Moyers. He said the following:

“When I was growing up, my parents were always involved in various volunteer things. My dad was head of Planned Parenthood. And it was very controversial to be involved with that. And so it’s fascinating. At the dinner table, my parents are very good at sharing the things that they were doing. And almost treating us like adults, talking about that.”

No, Bill Gates didn’t just decide one day later in life to take on overpopulation. He was raised from childhood to believe overpopulation was the key problem for humanity. He was discipled by a disciple of Margaret Sanger.

 More excerpts from a Salon.com eulogy for The Gates:
<<Whatever you call it — “population control” or “family planning” — this isn’t just a billionaire fad for the Gates family.

Bill Gates: “Vaccine benefits range from health to population control” (CNN 2011)

“Bill Gates Sr. has been deeply involved in this issue for decades,” says Laurie S. Zabin, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Zabin, who served with Gates Sr. on the national board of Planned Parenthood, was instrumental in getting the Gates Foundation grant for Johns Hopkins.

But that doesn’t mean Gates Sr. is the only one who cares about overpopulation, said Zabin: Gates Jr. “has supported issues of real social concern and certainly this is one of them.”

Gates Sr. agreed: “It’s an interest he has had since he was a kid. And he has friends who are interested in supporting research into world population problems, people whom he admires — it’s just a matter of a fit between his proclivities and mine.”

A “proclivity fit” is one way to put it. Or one could surmise that Bill Gates is growing up to be the man his parents raised him to be.>>

“His parents were involved in charitable activity, and I’ve heard him talk about it quite a bit,” said Microsoft spokesman Shaw. “I think that set a strong tradition and ethic of giving back and I should say that we are only seeing the beginning of that now.”

Bill Gates, Sr. This is the only photo that can be legally reused of Bill Gates, Sr, although many exist online, as well as many reusable photos of Bill, Jr.
Bill Gates, Sr. This is the only photo that can be legally reused of Bill Gates, Sr, although many exist online, as well as many reusable photos of Bill, Jr.

We never hear about this again from Bill Gates. He provides a seven-page interview on his late father in 2015 and did not mention Planned Parenthood, although several other boards his father sat on were named. What did Bill mean exactly by “My dad was head of Planned Parenthood”? Did he mean the local chapter?

We learn from Salon that Bill Gates, Sr., was a member of the national board of directors of Planned Parenthood. Let that sink in. Such a nonprofit empire is controlled by its board of directors. They have more power than Planned Parenthood’s president, a position they appoint. This fact means that there was no person on earth with more power over the control, population control efforts, abortion operations, or Planned Parenthood assets ($2.2 billion today) than Bill Gates’s father. He shared that power with a handful of others.

What did Bill Jr. mean by “head of Planned Parenthood”? Perhaps his father was chairman of the board for a time. I could find no records to document that fact. 

But Gates Sr. did acknowledge that he and Mary Gates exerted pressure on their son to do more with all his billions.”His mother and I always pushed a little,” said Gates Sr. Like Mary Gates, Gates Sr. has long been involved in philanthropy — ever since “I first gave a nickel to the Salvation Army man,” he joked.

Salon.com

Bill Gates, Sr., as much as any person in the world, had the power and position to advance the legacy of Margaret Sanger, the woman who openly called for using birth control and sterilization to eliminate “human waste” and “create a race of thoroughbreds.” In her Birth Control Review she promoted Nazi eugenics and white supremacy. As one contributor to Sanger’s Birth Control Review wrote: “It is the lower elements of the population, the negroid aboriginal tribes and the pariahs or outcasts, who are gaining the fastest.” 

Download to read (PDF): “Margaret Sanger – Our Founder,” 100 Years Strong,” from Planned Parenthood

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood
Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood

Sanger’s same magazine published a favorable review by her lover, Havelock Ellis, of the book The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy by Lathrop Stoddard. Ellis notes that Stoddard chooses to “concern himself mainly with . . . the maintenance of White supremacy.” Ellis agrees that “by prejudice of color, we must mostly be on his side in this matter.” Ellis also shares his concern about African Americans: “the migrations of lower types, even within the white world, such as those which have worked havoc in the United States, must be rigorously curtailed.” Ellis also wrote the preface to Sanger’s 1920 book, Woman and the New Race.

“Reproductive health and family planning” is a buzz phrase that emerged out of the 1994 United Nations Cairo conference on population issues, said Dr. Gordon Perkin, president of PATH. In the past, the research topic used to be referred to as “population control” — though, said Dr. Perkin, “the words ‘population control’ are not used any more, except by people who don’t know the field.”

Salon.com

In a later Birth Control Review article, Sanger calls for giving “certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.” She also published an article by close friend and advisor Ernst Rudin, who was then serving as Hitler’s director of genetic sterilization for the Nazis. It was entitled “Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need.”  Sanger famously said: “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

How did Bill Gates’s father view Margaret Sanger? According to an official Planned Parenthood history: “Our founder, Margaret Sanger, was a woman of heroic accomplishments, and like all heroes, she was also complex and imperfect.”
And, of course, Microsoft continued the legacy by funding them.

Billionaires have always had a fond spot in their hearts for population control: Ted Turner is a big supporter, as is Warren Buffett, a Gates family friend.

Salon.com

We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

 

by Silviu “Silview” Costinescu_ Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Suffice to add that the images were sourced from mainstream media and we’ve all seen them making rounds of the Internet time and again.

BONUS


We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

by Silviu “Silview” Costinescu_ Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Never believe what we say, always research what we say.
As for CDC, if you research what they say you end up finding out they have 85% failure rates.

This is the recent CDC report, in PDF format, sourced from the CDC website.
And below is my sufficient commentary in visual form. There’s nothing else to say, the official narrative is dead and buried, at this point we’re just burning calories if we keep flogging it.

PS: #stopstealingoxygen

We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

BY Shanti Das for The Sunday Times

Companies collecting data for pubs and restaurants to help them fulfil their contact-tracing duties are harvesting confidential customer information to sell.

Legal experts have warned of a “privacy crisis” caused by a rise in companies exploiting QR barcodes to take names, addresses, telephone numbers and email details, before passing them on to marketers, credit companies and insurance brokers.

The “quick response” mobile codes have been widely adopted by the hospitality, leisure and beauty industries as an alternative to pen-and-paper visitor logs since the government ordered businesses to collect contact details to give to NHS Test and Trace if required.

Any data collected should be kept by the business for 21 days and must not be used “for any purposes other than for NHS Test and Trace”, according to government guidelines.

But some firms used by businesses to meet the new requirements have clauses in their terms and conditions stating they can use the information for reasons other than contact tracing, including sharing it with third parties. The privacy policy of one company used by a restaurant chain in London says it stores users’ data for 25 years.

Gaurav Malhotra, director of Level 5, a software development company that supplies the government, said data could end up in the hands of scammers. “If you’re suddenly getting loads of texts, your data has probably been sold on from track-and-trace systems,” he said.

One of the firms claiming to offer a privacy-compliant QR code service is Pub Track and Trace (PUBTT), an organisation based in Huddersfield charging pubs £20 a month to keep track of visitors, who are asked to provide their name, phone number and email address.

Despite its claim to be a “simple” service, its privacy policy, which users must accept, explains how personal data of people accessing its website can be used to “make suggestions and recommendations to you about goods or services that may be of interest to you” and shared with third parties including “service providers or regulatory bodies providing fraud prevention services or credit/background checks.”

It may also “collect, use, store and transfer” records of access to certain premises including “time, ID number and CCTV images”.

PUBTT, which works with pubs in England and Wales, said users agreed to its privacy policy before using the service and claimed it had not passed data to third parties. A spokesman, identified only as Adam H, said: “The data we collect is only for use of the Test and Trace service or where a user has agreed for the venue to use their information for marketing purposes.”

Ordamo, which provides track and trace services for restaurants, states that data from website visitors is “retained for 25 years”, a duration Hazel Grant, head of privacy at Fieldfisher, a law firm, said would be “very difficult to justify”. Ordamo did not respond to requests for comment.

The Information Commissioner’s Office is assessing 15 companies that “provide services to venues to collect customer logs”.


We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

by Silviu “Silview” Costinescu_ Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Just an idea and some memes

#STOPSTEALINGOXYGEN
#STOPSTEALINGOXYGEN

SHARE THE MEMES

We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

by Silviu “Silview” Costinescu_ Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

This just happened. And much more. As we’ve warned you since March, but people thought WHO can take better care of them. OK then…

It’s World Mental Health Day!
-Close to 1 billion people have a mental disorder
-Depression is a leading cause of illness & disability
-1 person dies every 40 seconds from suicide
-3 million people die every year due to harmful use of 🍻#MoveForMentalHealth: Let’s invest!

WHO

Meanwhile at CDC:

How did we end up here:

Me, March 2020:

The caring people: meh

Everyone in April:

Source

The caring people: meh

And so forth gradually building up until The Daily Telegraph and Sky News Australia ended up talking about “harrowing statistics” today:

Source

“Very sadly, more boys under the age of 18 in nine-months alone, than we’ve ever seen in Victoria over a full 12-month period have taken their life this year,”

Sky News

Per coincidence as ever, the suicide rates among Victoria’s teenagers are up over 30% this year, just like among US Army soldiers. I wonder what they had in common, right?

Army active-duty suicides are up 30% during the same time frame as COVID-19.

ABC News, October 2020

The caring people: meh

These “meh people” are the same ones who loudly and aggressively act as if they are entitled to free heaith care (mask-wearing) from their victims. How about some warm flegm instead?


We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them