Memes have been invented by Carl Sagan, with a good plan. Perhaps the achievements have now exceeded his expectations, not sure what percent of the population realizes the life-changing potential of a good meme that goes viral. But enough of you do, you saw my previous work, I heard you, I heard the traditional comedy dying under libt@rd daggers and I decided to try pushing the envelope again
THE RULES ARE SIMPLE: ANYTHING IS ALLOWED IF IT’S EITHER FUNNY OR TRUE, PREFERABLY BOTH. I ONLY DRAW A LINE AT KIDS, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.
It’s been in work for a while, you’ve probably seen some tests, now we’re open for not-business-but-whatever.
This is just the “baby-shower” for this brand new page, with a little over 50 original creations, but rest assured I’m sitting on a few hundred hard-hitting memes in all stages of development, and they only need a bit of love from the public to emerge.
It’s not disputable, since the information comes from official patent registries in the Netherlands and US. And we have all the documentation
UPDATE: Reuters took on doing damage control for this article and published a slander and smear piece on us disguised as “fact-checking”. We fact-checked their fact-checking phrase by phrase here.
As we’ve shown in previous exposes, the whole Covidiocracy is a masquerade and a simulation long prepared by The World Bank / IMF / The Rothschilds and their lemmings, with Rockefeller partnership. Our newest discoveries further these previous revelations.
A method is provided for acquiring and transmitting biometric data (e.g., vital signs) of a user, where the data is analyzed to determine whether the user is suffering from a viral infection, such as COVID-19. The method includes using a pulse oximeter to acquire at least pulse and blood oxygen saturation percentage, which is transmitted wirelessly to a smartphone. To ensure that the data is accurate, an accelerometer within the smartphone is used to measure movement of the smartphone and/or the user. Once accurate data is acquired, it is uploaded to the cloud (or host), where the data is used (alone or together with other vital signs) to determine whether the user is suffering from (or likely to suffer from) a viral infection, such as COVID-19. Depending on the specific requirements, the data, changes thereto, and/or the determination can be used to alert medical staff and take corresponding actions.
second registration: us, 2017
Detailed info below.
ONE KEY DETAIL STRUCK ME ON THESE REGISTRATIONS: Both were filed and updated years ago, but they were SCHEDULED to be made public in September 2020.
This is sufficient evidence that they knew in 2015 what’s going to happen in September 2020!
THIRD REGISTRATION: US, 2017 (ACTUALIZATION FROM 2015)
Title: System and Method for Using, Biometric, and Displaying Biometric Data United States Patent Application 20170229149 Kind Code: A1
Abstract: A method is provided for processing and displaying biometric data of a user, either alone or together (in synchronization) with other data, such as video data of the user during a time that the biometric data was acquired. The method includes storing biometric data so that it is linked to an identifier and at least one time-stamp (e.g., a start time, a sample rate, etc.), and storing video data so that it is linked to the identifier and at least one time-stamp (e.g., a start time). By storing data in this fashion, biometric data can be displayed (either in real-time or delayed) in synchronization with video data, and biometric data can be searched to identify at least one biometric event. Video corresponding to the biometric event can then be displayed, either alone or together with at least one biometric of the user during the biometric event.
Inventors: Rothschild, Richard A. (London, GB) Macklin, Dan (Stafford, GB) Slomkowski, Robin S. (Eugene, OR, US) Harnischfeger, Taska (Eugene, OR, US) Application Number: 15/495485 Publication Date: 08/10/2017 Filing Date: 04/24/2017 Export Citation: Click for automatic bibliography generation Assignee: Rothschild Richard A. Macklin Dan Slomkowski Robin S. Harnischfeger Taska International Classes: G11B27/10; G06F19/00; G06K9/00; G11B27/031; H04N5/77 View Patent Images: Download PDF 20170229149
US Patent References:
Primary Examiner: MESA, JOSE M Attorney, Agent or Firm: Fitzsimmons IP Law (Gardena, CA, US) Claims: What is claimed is:
1. A method for identifying video corresponding to a biometric event of a user, said video being displayed along with at least one biometric of said user during said biometric event, comprising: receiving a request to start a session; using at least one program running on a mobile device to assign a session number and a start time to said session; receiving video data from a camera, said video data including video of at least one of said user and said user’s surroundings during a period of time, said period of time starting at said start time; receiving biometric data from a sensor, said biometric data including a plurality of values on a biometric of said user during said period of time; using said at least one program to link at least said session number and said start time to said video data; using said at least one program to link at least said session number, said start time, and a sample rate to said biometric data, at least said session number being used to link said biometric data to said video data, and at least said sample rate and said start time being used to link individual ones of said plurality of values to individual times within said period of time; receiving said biometric event, said biometric event comprising one of a value and a range of said biometric; using said at least one program to identify a first one of said plurality of values corresponding to said biometric event; using said at least one program and at least said start time, said sample rate, and said period of time to identify a first time within said period of time corresponding to said first one of said plurality of values; and displaying on said mobile device at least said video data during said first time along with said first one of said plurality of values, wherein said first time is used to show said first one of said plurality of values in synchronization with a portion of said video data that shows at least one of said user and said user’s surroundings during said biometric event.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein said step of receiving biometric data from said sensor further comprises receiving heart rate data from a heart rate monitor.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein said steps of linking said session number to said video data and said biometric data further comprises linking an activity number to both said video data and said biometric data, wherein said activity number identifies one of a plurality of activities, said session comprises said plurality of activities, and both said session number and said activity number are used to link said biometric data to said video data.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein said step of assigning a session number to said session further comprises linking a description of said session to said session.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein said steps of receiving video data and biometric data further comprises receiving said video data and said biometric data during said period of time.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein said step of receiving video data from a camera further comprises receiving said video data from said camera after said period of time.
7. The method of claim 6, further comprising the step of analyzing said video data for an identifier identifying said session, said identifier being used by said at least one program to link said session number to said video data.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein said steps of identifying a first one of said plurality of values corresponding to said biometric event and identifying a first time corresponding to said first one of said plurality of values further comprises identifying each one of said plurality of values corresponding to said biometric event and identifying each time corresponding to said each one of said plurality of values.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein said step of displaying at least said video data during said first time further comprises displaying at least said video data during said each time corresponding to said each one of said plurality of values, wherein said each time is used to show said each one of said plurality of values in synchronization with portions of said video data that show at least one of said user and said user’s surroundings during said biometric event.
10. The method of claim 1, further comprising the steps of receiving self-realization data from said user, and linking at least said session number and at least one time to said self-realization data, wherein said self-realization data indicates how said user feels during said at least one time, and said at least one time is used to display said self-realization data in synchronization with at least one portion of said video data.
11. A system for identifying video corresponding to a biometric event of a user, said video being displayed along with at least one biometric of said user during said biometric event, comprising: at least one server in communication with a wide area network (WAN); a mobile device in communication with said at least one server via said WAN, said mobile device comprising: a display; at least one processor for downloading machine readable instructions from said at least one server; and at least one memory device for storing said machine readable instructions, said machine readable instructions being adapted to perform the steps of: receiving a request to start a session; assigning a session number and a start time to said session; receiving video data from a camera, said video data including video of at least one of said user and said user’s surroundings during a period of time; receiving biometric data from a sensor, said biometric data including a plurality of values on a biometric of said user during said period of time; linking at least said session number and said start time to said video data; linking at least said session number, said start time, and a sample rate to said biometric data, at least said session number being used to link said biometric data to said video data, and at least said sample rate and said start time being used to link individual ones of said plurality of values to individual times within said period of time; receiving said biometric event, said biometric event comprising one of a value and a range of said biometric; identifying a first one of said plurality of values corresponding to said biometric event; identifying a first time within said period of time corresponding to said first one of said plurality of values; and displaying on said display at least said video data during said first time along with said first one of said plurality of values, wherein said first time is used to show said first one of said plurality of values in synchronization with a portion of said video data that shows at least one of said user and said user’s surroundings during said biometric event.
12. The system of claim 11, wherein said step of receiving biometric data from said sensor further comprises receiving heart rate data from a heart rate monitor.
13. The system of claim 11, wherein said steps of linking said session number to said video data and said biometric data further comprises linking an activity number to both said video data and said biometric data, wherein said activity number identifies one of a plurality of activities, said session comprises said plurality of activities, and both said session number and said activity number are used to link said biometric data to said video data.
14. The system of claim 11, wherein said steps of receiving video data and biometric data further comprises receiving said video data and said biometric data during said period of time.
15. The system of claim 11, wherein said step of receiving video data from a camera further comprises receiving said video data from said camera after said period of time.
16. The system of claim 15, wherein said machine readable instructions are further adapted to perform the step of analyzing said video data for a barcode, said barcode identifying said session number and being used to link said session number to said video data.
17. The system of claim 11, wherein said steps of identifying a first one of said plurality of values corresponding to said biometric even and identifying a first time corresponding to said first one of said plurality of values further comprises identifying each one of said plurality of values corresponding to said biometric event and identifying each time corresponding to said each one of said plurality of values.
18. The system of claim 17, wherein said step of displaying at least said video data during said first time further comprises displaying at least said video data during said each time corresponding to said each one of said plurality of values, wherein said each time is used to show said each one of said plurality of values in synchronization with portions of said video data that show at least one of said user and said user’s surroundings during said biometric event.
19. The system of claim 11, wherein said machine readable instructions are further adapted to perform the steps of receiving self-realization data from said user, and linking said session number and at least one time to said self-realization data, wherein said self-realization data indicates how said user feels during said at least one time, and said at least one time is used to display said self-realization data in synchronization with at least one portion of said video data.
20. A method for displaying video in synchronization with at least one biometric of a subject, comprising: using at least one program running on a computing device to assign a session number and a start time to said session; receiving video data from at least one camera, said video data including video of at least one of said subject and said subject’s surroundings during a period of time; receiving biometric data from at least one sensor, said biometric data including a plurality of values on at least one biometric of said subject during said period of time; using said at least one program to link at least said session number and said start time to said video data; using said at least one program to link at least said session number, said start time, and at least one sample rate to said biometric data; receiving a biometric event, said biometric event comprising one of a value and a range of said at least one biometric; using said at least one program to identify individual ones of said plurality of values corresponding to said biometric event; using said at least one program and at least said start time, said at least one sample rate, and said period of time to identify individual times within said period of time corresponding to said individual ones of said plurality of values; and displaying on said computing device at least said video data and said individual ones of said plurality of values, wherein said individual times are used to show said individual ones of said plurality of values in synchronization with portions of said video data that show at least one of said subject and said subject’s surroundings during said biometric event.
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION
This application is a continuation of Ser. No. 15/293,211, filed Oct. 13, 2016, which claims priority pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §119 (e) to U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/240,783, filed Oct. 13, 2015, which applications are specifically incorporated herein, in their entirety, by reference.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to the reception and use of biometric data, and more particularly, to a system and method for displaying at least one biometric of a user along with video of the user at a time that the at least one biometric is being measured and/or received.
2. Description of Related Art
Recently, devices have been developed that are capable of measuring, sensing, or estimating in a convenient form factor at least one or more metric related to physiological characteristics, commonly referred to as biometric data. For example, devices that resemble watches have been developed which are capable of measuring an individual’s heart rate or pulse, and, using that data together with other information (e.g., the individual’s age, weight, etc.), to calculate a resultant, such as the total calories burned by the individual in a given day. Similar devices have been developed for measuring, sensing, or estimating other kinds of metrics, such as blood pressure, breathing patterns, breath composition, sleep patterns, and blood-alcohol level, to name a few. These devices are generically referred to as biometric devices or biosensor metrics devices.
While the types of biometric devices continue to grow, the way in which biometric data is used remains relatively static. For example, heart rate data is typically used to give an individual information on their pulse and calories burned. By way of another example, blood-alcohol data is typically used to give an individual information on their blood-alcohol level, and to inform the individual on whether or not they can safely or legally operate a motor vehicle. By way of yet another example, an individual’s breathing pattern (measurable for example either by loudness level in decibels, or by variations in decibel level over a time interval) may be monitored by a doctor, nurse, or medical technician to determine whether the individual suffers from sleep apnea.
While biometric data is useful in and of itself, such data would be more informative or dynamic if it could be combined with other data (e.g., video data, etc.), provided (e.g., wirelessly, over a network, etc.) to a remote device, and/or searchable (e.g., allowing certain conditions, such as an elevated heart rate, to be quickly identified) and/or cross-searchable (e.g., using biometric data to identify a video section illustrating a specific characteristic, or vice-versa). Thus, a need exists for an efficient system and method capable of achieving at least some, or indeed all, of the foregoing advantages, and capable also of merging the data generated in either automatic or manual form by the various devices, which are often using operating systems or technologies (e.g., hardware platforms, protocols, data types, etc.) that are incompatible with one another.
In certain embodiments of the present invention, the system and/or method is configured to receive, manage, and filter the quantity of information on a timely and cost-effective basis, and could also be of further value through the accurate measurement, visualization (e.g., synchronized visualization, etc.), and rapid notification of data points which are outside (or within) a defined or predefined range.
Such a system and/or method could be used by an individual (e.g., athlete, etc.) or their trainer, coach, etc., to visualize the individual during the performance of an athletic event (e.g., jogging, biking, weightlifting, playing soccer, etc.) in real-time (live) or afterwards, together with the individual’s concurrently measured biometric data (e.g., heart rate, etc.), and/or concurrently gathered “self-realization data,” or subject-generated experiential data, where the individual inputs their own subjective physical or mental states during their exercise, fitness or sports activity/training (e.g., feeling the onset of an adrenaline “rush” or endorphins in the system, feeling tired, “getting a second wind,” etc.). This would allow a person (e.g., the individual, the individual’s trainer, a third party, etc.) to monitor/observe physiological and/or subjective psychological characteristics of an individual while watching or reviewing the individual in the performance of an athletic event, or other physical activity. Such inputting of the self-realization data, ca be achieved by various methods, including automatically, time-stamped-in-the-system voice notes, short-form or abbreviation key commands on a smart phone, smart watch, enabled fitness band, or any other system-linked input method which is convenient for the individual to utilize so as not to impede (or as little as possible) the flow and practice by the individual of the activity in progress.
Such a system and/or method would also facilitate, for example, remote observation and diagnosis in telemedicine applications, where there is a need for the medical staff, or monitoring party or parent, to have clear and rapid confirmation of the identity of the patient or infant, as well as their visible physical condition, together with their concurrently generated biometric and/or self-realization data.
Furthermore, the system and/or method should also provide the subject, or monitoring party, with a way of using video indexing to efficiently and intuitively benchmark, map and evaluate the subject’s data, both against the subject’s own biometric history and/or against other subjects’ data samples, or demographic comparables, independently of whichever operating platforms or applications have been used to generate the biometric and video information. By being able to filter/search for particular events (e.g., biometric events, self-realization events, physical events, etc.), the acquired data can be reduced down or edited (e.g., to create a “highlight reel,” etc.) while maintaining synchronization between individual video segments and measured and/or gathered data (e.g., biometric data, self-realization data, GPS data, etc.). Such comprehensive indexing of the events, and with it the ability to perform structured aggregation of the related data (video and other) with (or without) data from other individuals or other relevant sources, can also be utilized to provide richer levels of information using methods of “Big Data” analysis and “Machine Learning,” and adding artificial intelligence (“AI”) for the implementation of recommendations and calls to action.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The present invention provides a system and method for using, processing, indexing, benchmarking, ranking, comparing and displaying biometric data, or a resultant thereof, either alone or together (e.g., in synchronization) with other data (e.g., video data, etc.). Preferred embodiments of the present invention operate in accordance with a computing device (e.g., a smart phone, etc.) in communication with at least one external device (e.g., a biometric device for acquiring biometric data, a video device for acquiring video data, etc.). In a first embodiment of the present invention, video data, which may include audio data, and non-video data, such as biometric data, are stored separately on the computing device and linked to other data, which allows searching and synchronization of the video and non-video data.
In one embodiment of the present invention, an application (e.g., running on the computing device, etc.) includes a plurality of modules for performing a plurality of functions. For example, the application may include a video capture module for receiving video data from an internal and/or external camera, and a biometric capture module for receiving biometric data from an internal and/or external biometric device. The client platform may also include a user interface module, allowing a user to interact with the platform, a video editing module for editing video data, a file handling module for managing data, a database and sync module for replicating data, an algorithm module for processing received data, a sharing module for sharing and/or storing data, and a central login and ID module for interfacing with third party social media websites, such as Facebook™.
These modules can be used, for example, to start a new session, receive video data for the session (i.e., via the video capture module) and receive biometric data for the session (i.e., via the biometric capture module). This data can be stored in local storage, in a local database, and/or on a remote storage device (e.g., in the company cloud or a third-party cloud service, such as Dropbox™, etc.). In a preferred embodiment, the data is stored so that it is linked to information that (i) identifies the session and (ii) enables synchronization.
For example, video data is preferably linked to at least a start time (e.g., a start time of the session) and an identifier. The identifier may be a single number uniquely identifying the session, or a plurality of numbers (e.g., a plurality of global or universal unique identifiers (GUIDs/UUIDs)), where a first number uniquely identifying the session and a second number uniquely identifies an activity within the session, allowing a session to include a plurality of activities. The identifier may also include a session name and/or a session description. Other information about the video data (e.g., video length, video source, etc.) (i.e., “video metadata”) can also be stored and linked to the video data. Biometric data is preferably linked to at least the start time (e.g., the same start time linked to the video data), the identifier (e.g., the same identifier linked to the video data), and a sample rate, which identifies the rate at which biometric data is received and/or stored.
Once the video and biometric data is stored and linked, algorithms can be used to display the data together. For example, if biometric data is stored at a sample rate of 30 samples per minute (spm), algorithms can be used to display a first biometric value (e.g., below the video data, superimposed over the video data, etc.) at the start of the video clip, a second biometric value two seconds later (two seconds into the video clip), a third biometric value two seconds later (four seconds into the video clip), etc. In alternate embodiments of the present invention, non-video data (e.g., biometric data, self-realization data, etc.) can be stored with a plurality of time-stamps (e.g., individual stamps or offsets for each stored value, or individual sample rates for each data type), which can be used together with the start time to synchronize non-video data to video data.
In one embodiment of the present invention, the biometric device may include a sensor for sensing biometric data, a display for interfacing with the user and displaying various information (e.g., biometric data, set-up data, operation data, such as start, stop, and pause, etc.), a memory for storing the sensed biometric data, a transceiver for communicating with the exemplary computing device, and a processor for operating and/or driving the transceiver, memory, sensor, and display. The exemplary computing device includes a transceiver (1) for receiving biometric data from the exemplary biometric device, a memory for storing the biometric data, a display for interfacing with the user and displaying various information (e.g., biometric data, set-up data, operation data, such as start, stop, and pause, input in-session comments or add voice notes, etc.), a keyboard (or other user input) for receiving user input data, a transceiver (2) for providing the biometric data to the host computing device via the Internet, and a processor for operating and/or driving the transceiver (1), transceiver (2), keyboard, display, and memory.
The keyboard (or other input device) in the computing device, or alternatively the keyboard (or other input device) in the biometric device, may be used to enter self-realization data, or data on how the user is feeling at a particular time. For example, if the user is feeling tired, the user may enter the “T” on the keyboard. If the user is feeling their endorphins kick in, the user may enter the “E” on the keyboard. And if the user is getting their second wind, the user may enter the “S” on the keyboard. Alternatively, to further facilitate operation during the exercise, or sporting activity, short-code key buttons such as “T,” “E,” and “S” can be preassigned, like speed-dial telephone numbers for frequently called contacts on a smart phone, etc., which can be selected manually or using voice recognition. This data (e.g., the entry or its representation) is then stored and linked to either a sample rate (like biometric data) or time-stamp data, which may be a time or an offset to the start time that each button was pressed. This would allow the self-realization data to be synchronized to the video data. It would also allow the self-realization data, like biometric data, to be searched or filtered (e.g., in order to find video corresponding to a particular event, such as when the user started to feel tired, etc.).
In an alternate embodiment of the present invention, the computing device (e.g., a smart phone, etc.) is also in communication with a host computing device via a wide area network (“WAN”), such as the Internet. This embodiment allows the computing device to download the application from the host computing device, offload at least some of the above-identified functions to the host computing device, and store data on the host computing device (e.g., allowing video data, alone or synchronized to non-video data, such as biometric data and self-realization data, to be viewed by another networked device). For example, the software operating on the computing device (e.g., the application, program, etc.) may allow the user to play the video and/or audio data, but not to synchronize the video and/or audio data to the biometric data. This may be because the host computing device is used to store data critical to synchronization (time-stamp index, metadata, biometric data, sample rate, etc.) and/or software operating on the host computing device is necessary for synchronization. By way of another example, the software operating on the computing device may allow the user to play the video and/or audio data, either alone or synchronized with the biometric data, but may not allow the computing device (or may limit the computing device’s ability) to search or otherwise extrapolate from, or process the biometric data to identify relevant portions (e.g., which may be used to create a “highlight reel” of the synchronized video/audio/biometric data) or to rank the biometric and/or video data. This may be because the host computing device is used to store data critical to search and/or to rank the biometric data (biometric data, biometric metadata, etc.), and/or software necessary for searching (or performing advanced searching of) and/or ranking (or performing advanced ranking of) the biometric data.
In one embodiment of the present invention, the video data, which may also include audio data, starts at a time “T” and continues for a duration of “n.” The video data is preferably stored in memory (locally and/or remotely) and linked to other data, such as an identifier, start time, and duration. Such data ties the video data to at least a particular session, a particular start time, and identifies the duration of the video included therein. In one embodiment of the present invention, each session can include different activities. For example, a trip to Berlin on a particular day (session) may involve a bike ride through the city (first activity) and a walk through a park (second activity). Thus, the identifier may include both a session identifier, uniquely identifying the session via a globally unique identifier (GUID), and an activity identifier, uniquely identifying the activity via a globally unique identifier (GUID), where the session/activity relationship is that of a parent/child.
In one embodiment of the present invention, the biometric data is stored in memory and linked to the identifier and a sample rate “m.” This allows the biometric data to be linked to video data upon playback. For example, if identifier is one, start time is 1:00 PM, video duration is one minute, and the sample rate is 30 spm, then the playing of the video at 2:00 PM would result in the first biometric value to be displayed (e.g., below the video, over the video, etc.) at 2:00 PM, the second biometric value to be displayed (e.g., below the video, over the video, etc.) two seconds later, and so on until the video ends at 2:01 PM. While self-realization data can be stored like biometric data (e.g., linked to a sample rate), if such data is only received periodically, it may be more advantageous to store this data linked to the identifier and a time-stamp, where “m” is either the time that the self-realization data was received or an offset between this time and the start time (e.g., ten minutes and four seconds after the start time, etc.). By storing video and non-video data separately from one another, data can be easily search and synchronized.
With respect to linking data to an identifier, which may be linked to other data (e.g., start time, sample rate, etc.), if the data is received in real-time, the data can be linked to the identifier (s) for the current session (and/or activity). However, when data is received after the fact (e.g., after a session has ended), there are several ways in which the data can be linked to a particular session and/or activity (or identifier (s) associated therewith). The data can be manually linked (e.g., by the user) or automatically linked via the application. With respect to the latter, this can be accomplished, for example, by comparing the duration of the received data (e.g., the video length) with the duration of the session and/or activity, by assuming that the received data is related to the most recent session and/or activity, or by analyzing data included within the received data. For example, in one embodiment, data included with the received data (e.g., metadata) may identify a time and/or location associated with the data, which can then be used to link the received data to the session and/or activity. In another embodiment, the computing device could display data (e.g., a barcode, such as a QR code, etc.) that identifies the session and/or activity. An external video recorder could record the identifying data (as displayed by the computing device) along with (e.g., before, after, or during) the user and/or his/her surroundings. The application could then search the video data for identifying data, and use this data to link the video data to a session and/or activity. The identifying portion of the video data could then be deleted by the application if desired.
A more complete understanding of a system and method for using, processing, and displaying biometric data, or a resultant thereof, will be afforded to those skilled in the art, as well as a realization of additional advantages and objects thereof, by a consideration of the following detailed description of the preferred embodiment. Reference will be made to the appended sheets of drawings, which will first be described briefly.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
FIG. 1 illustrates a system for using, processing, and displaying biometric data, and for synchronizing biometric data with other data (e.g., video data, audio data, etc.) in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention;
FIG. 2A illustrates a system for using, processing, and displaying biometric data, and for synchronizing biometric data with other data (e.g., video data, audio data, etc.) in accordance with another embodiment of the present invention;
FIG. 2B illustrates a system for using, processing, and displaying biometric data, and for synchronizing biometric data with other data (e.g., video data, audio data, etc.) in accordance with yet another embodiment of the present invention;
FIG. 3 illustrates an exemplary display of video data synchronized with biometric data in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention;
FIG. 4 illustrates a block diagram for using, processing, and displaying biometric data, and for synchronizing biometric data with other data (e.g., video data, audio data, etc.) in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention;
FIG. 5 illustrates a block diagram for using, processing, and displaying biometric data, and for synchronizing biometric data with other data (e.g., video data, audio data, etc.) in accordance with another embodiment of the present invention;
FIG. 6 illustrates a method for synchronizing video data with biometric data, operating the video data, and searching the biometric data, in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention;
FIG. 7 illustrates an exemplary display of video data synchronized with biometric data in accordance with another embodiment of the present invention;
FIG. 8 illustrates exemplary video data, which is preferably linked to an identifier (ID), a start time (T), and a finish time or duration (n);
FIG. 9 illustrates an exemplary identifier (ID), comprising a session identifier and an activity identifier;
FIG. 10 illustrates exemplary biometric data, which is preferably linked to an identifier (ID), a start time (T), and a sample rate (S);
FIG. 11 illustrates exemplary self-realization data, which is preferably linked to an identifier (ID) and a time (m);
FIG. 12 illustrates how sampled biometric data points can be used to extrapolate other biometric data point in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention;
FIG. 13 illustrates how sampled biometric data points can be used to extrapolate other biometric data points in accordance with another embodiment of the present invention;
FIG. 14 illustrates an example of how a start time and data related thereto (e.g., sample rate, etc.) can be used to synchronized biometric data and self-realization data to video data;
FIG. 15 depicts an exemplary “sign in” screen shot for an application that allows a user to capture at least video and biometric data of the user performing an athletic event (e.g., bike riding, etc.) and to display the video data together (or in synchronization) with the biometric data;
FIG. 16 depict an exemplary “create session” screen shot for the application depicted in FIG. 15, allowing the user to create a new session;
FIG. 17 depicts an exemplary “session name” screen shot for the application depicted in FIG. 15, allowing the user to enter a name for the session;
FIG. 18 depicts an exemplary “session description” screen shot for the application depicted in FIG. 15, allowing the user to enter a description for the session;
FIG. 19 depicts an exemplary “session started” screen shot for the application depicted in FIG. 15, showing the video and biometric data received in real-time;
FIG. 20 depicts an exemplary “review session” screen shot for the application depicted in FIG. 15, allowing the user to playback the session at a later time;
FIG. 21 depicts an exemplary “graph display option” screen shot for the application depicted in FIG. 15, allowing the user to select data (e.g., heart rate data, etc.) to be displayed along with the video data;
FIG. 22 depicts an exemplary “review session” screen shot for the application depicted in FIG. 15, where the video data is displayed together (or in synchronization) with the biometric data;
FIG. 23 depicts an exemplary “map” screen shot for the application depicted in FIG. 15, showing GPS data displayed on a Google map;
FIG. 24 depicts an exemplary “summary” screen shot for the application depicted in FIG. 15, showing a summary of the session;
FIG. 25 depicts an exemplary “biometric search” screen shot for the application depicted in FIG. 15, allowing a user to search the biometric data for particular biometric event (e.g., a particular value, a particular range, etc.);
FIG. 26 depicts an exemplary “first result” screen shot for the application depicted in FIG. 15, showing a first result for the biometric event shown in FIG. 25, together with corresponding video;
FIG. 27 depicts an exemplary “second result” screen shot for the application depicted in FIG. 15, showing a second result for the biometric event shown in FIG. 25, together with corresponding video;
FIG. 28 depicts an exemplary “session search” screen shot for the application depicted in FIG. 15, allowing a user to search for sessions that meet certain criteria; and
FIG. 29 depicts an exemplary “list” screen shot for the application depicted in FIG. 15, showing a result for the criteria shown in FIG. 28.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT
The present invention provides a system and method for using, processing, indexing, benchmarking, ranking, comparing and displaying biometric data, or a resultant thereof, either alone or together (e.g., in synchronization) with other data (e.g., video data, etc.). It should be appreciated that while the invention is described herein in terms of certain biometric data (e.g., heart rate, breathing patterns, blood-alcohol level, etc.), the invention is not so limited, and can be used in conjunction with any biometric and/or physical data, including, but not limited to oxygen levels, CO2 levels, oxygen saturation, blood pressure, blood glucose, lung function, eye pressure, body and ambient conditions (temperature, humidity, light levels, altitude, and barometric pressure), speed (walking speed, running speed), location and distance travelled, breathing rate, heart rate variance (HRV), EKG data, perspiration levels, calories consumed and/or burnt, ketones, waste discharge content and/or levels, hormone levels, blood content, saliva content, audible levels (e.g., snoring, etc.), mood levels and changes, galvanic skin response, brain waves and/or activity or other neurological measurements, sleep patterns, physical characteristics (e.g., height, weight, eye color, hair color, iris data, fingerprints, etc.) or responses (e.g., facial changes, iris (or pupal) changes, voice (or tone) changes, etc.), or any combination or resultant thereof.
As shown in FIG. 1, a biometric device 110 may be in communication with a computing device 108, such as a smart phone, which, in turn, is in communication with at least one computing device (102, 104, 106) via a wide area network (“WAN”) 100, such as the Internet. The computing devices can be of different types, such as a PC, laptop, tablet, smart phone, smart watch etc., using one or different operating systems or platforms. In one embodiment of the present invention, the biometric device 110 is configured to acquire (e.g., measure, sense, estimate, etc.) an individual’s heart rate (e.g., biometric data). The biometric data is then provided to the computing device 108, which includes a video and/or audio recorder (not shown).
In a first embodiment of the present invention, the video and/or audio data are provided along with the heart rate data to a host computing device 106 via the network 100. Because the concurrent video and/or audio data and the heart rate data are provided to the host computing device 106, a host application operating thereon (not shown) can be used to synchronize the video data, audio data, and/or heart rate data, thereby allowing a user (e.g., via the user computing devices 102, 104) to view the video data and/or listen to the audio data (either in real-time or time delayed) while viewing the biometric data. For example, as shown in FIG. 3, the host application may use a time-stamp 320, or other sequencing method using metadata, to synchronize the video data 310 with the biometric data 330, allowing a user to view, for example, an individual (e.g., patient in a hospital, baby in a crib, etc.) at a particular time 340 (e.g., 76 seconds past the start time) and biometric data associated with the individual at that particular time 340 (e.g., 76 seconds past the start time).
It should be appreciated that the host application may further be configured to perform other functions, such as search for a particular activity in video data, audio data, biometric data and/or metadata, and/or ranking video data, audio data, and/or biometric data. For example, the host application may allow the user to search for a particular biometric event, such as a heart rate that has exceeded a particular threshold or value, a heart rate that has dropped below a particular threshold or value, a particular heart rate (or range) for a minimum period of time, etc. By way of another example, the host application may rank video data, audio data, biometric data, or a plurality of synchronized clips (e.g., highlight reels) chronologically, by biometric magnitude (highest to lowest, lowest to highest, etc.), by review (best to worst, worst to best, etc.), or by views (most to least, least to most, etc.). It should further be appreciated that such functions as the ranking, searching, and analysis of data is not limited to a user’s individual session, but can be performed across any number of individual sessions of the user, as well as the session or number of sessions of multiple users. One use of this collection of all the various information (video, biometric and other) is to be able to generate sufficient data points for Big Data analysis and Machine Learning of the purposes of generating AI inferences and recommendations.
By way of example, machine learning algorithms could be used to search through video data automatically, looking for the most compelling content which would subsequently be stitched together into a short “highlight reel.” The neural network could be trained using a plurality of sports videos, along with ratings from users of their level of interest as the videos progress. The input nodes to the network could be a sample of change in intensity of pixels between frames along with the median excitement rating of the current frame. The machine learning algorithms could also be used, in conjunction with a multi-layer convolutional neural network, to automatically classify video content (e.g., what sport is in the video). Once the content is identified, either automatically or manually, algorithms can be used to compare the user’s activity to an idealized activity. For example, the system could compare a video recording of the user’s golf swing to that of a professional golfer. The system could then provide incremental tips to the user on how the user could improve their swing. Algorithms could also be used to predict fitness levels for users (e.g., if they maintain their program, giving them an incentive to continue working out), match users to other users or practitioners having similar fitness levels, and/or create routines optimized for each user.
It should also be appreciated, as shown in FIG. 2A, that the biometric data may be provided to the host computing device 106 directly, without going through the computing device 108. For example, the computing device 108 and the biometric device 110 may communicate independently with the host computing device, either directly or via the network 100. It should further be appreciated that the video data, the audio data, and/or the biometric data need not be provided to the host computing device 106 in real-time. For example, video data could be provided at a later time as long as the data can be identified, or tied to a particular session. If the video data can be identified, it can then be synchronized to other data (e.g., biometric data) received in real-time.
In one embodiment of the present invention, as shown in FIG. 2B, the system includes a computing device 200, such as a smart phone, in communication with a plurality of devices, including a host computing device 240 via a WAN (see, e.g., FIG. 1 at 100), third party devices 250 via the WAN (see, e.g., FIG. 1 at 100), and local devices 230 (e.g., via wireless or wired connections). In a preferred embodiment, the computing device 200 downloads a program or application (i.e., client platform) from the host computing device 240 (e.g., company cloud). The client platform includes a plurality of modules that are configured to perform a plurality of functions.
For example, the client platform may include a video capture module 210 for receiving video data from an internal and/or external camera, and a biometric capture module 212 for receiving biometric data from an internal and/or external biometric device. The client platform may also include a user interface module 202, allowing a user to interact with the platform, a video editing module 204 for editing video data, a file handling module 206 for managing (e.g., storing, linking, etc.) data (e.g., video data, biometric data, identification data, start time data, duration data, sample rate data, self-realization data, time-stamp data, etc.), a database and sync module 214 for replicating data (e.g., copying data stored on the computing device 200 to the host computing device 240 and/or copying user data stored on the host computing device 240 to the computing device 200), an algorithm module 216 for processing received data (e.g., synchronizing data, searching/filtering data, creating a highlight reel, etc.), a sharing module 220 for sharing and/or storing data (e.g., video data, highlight reel, etc.) relating either to a single session or multiple sessions, and a central login and ID module 218 for interfacing with third party social media websites, such as Facebook™.
With respect to FIG. 2B, the computing device 200, which may be a smart phone, a tablet, or any other computing device, may be configured to download the client platform from the host computing device 240. Once the client platform is running on the computing device 200, the platform can be used to start a new session, receive video data for the session (i.e., via the video capture module 210) and receive biometric data for the session (i.e., via the biometric capture module 212). This data can be stored in local storage, in a local database, and/or on a remote storage device (e.g., in the company cloud or a third-party cloud, such as Dropbox™, etc.). In a preferred embodiment, the data is stored so that it is linked to information that (i) identifies the session and (ii) enables synchronization.
For example, video data is preferably linked to at least a start time (e.g., a start time of the session) and an identifier. The identifier may be a single number uniquely identifying the session, or a plurality of numbers (e.g., a plurality of globally (or universally) unique identifiers (GUIDs/UUIDs), where a first number uniquely identifying the session and a second number uniquely identifies an activity within the session, allowing a session (e.g., a trip to or an itinerary in a destination, such as Berlin) to include a plurality of activities (e.g., a bike ride, a walk, etc.). By way of example only, an activity (or session) identifier may be a 128 bit identifier that has a high probability of uniqueness, such as 8bf25512-f17a-4e9e-b49a-7c3f59ec1e85). The identifier may also include a session name and/or a session description. Other information about the video data (e.g., video length, video source, etc.) (i.e., “video metadata”) can also be stored and linked to the video data. Biometric data is preferably linked to at least the start time (e.g., the same start time linked to the video data), the identifier (e.g., the same identifier linked to the video data), and a sample rate, which identifies the rate at which biometric data is received and/or stored. For example, heart rate data may be received and stored at a rate of thirty samples per minute (30 spm), i.e., once every two seconds, or some other predetermined time interval sample.
In some cases, the sample rate used by the platform may be the sample rate of the biometric device (i.e., the rate at which data is provided by the biometric device). In other cases, the sample rate used by the platform may be independent from the rate at which data is received (e.g., a fixed rate, a configurable rate, etc.). For example, if the biometric device is configured to provide biometric data at a rate of sixty samples per minute (60 spm), the platform may still store the data at a rate of 30 spm. In other words, with a sample rate of 30 spm, the platform will have stored five values after ten seconds, the first value being the second value transmitted by the biometric device, the second value being the fourth value transmitted by the biometric device, and so on. Alternatively, if the biometric device is configured to provide biometric data only when the biometric data changes, the platform may still store the data at a rate of 30 spm. In this case, the first value stored by the platform may be the first value transmitted by the biometric device, the second value stored may be the first value transmitted by the biometric device if at the time of storage no new value has been transmitted by the biometric device, the third value stored may be the second value transmitted by the biometric device if at the time of storage a new value is being transmitted by the biometric device, and so on.
Once the video and biometric data is stored and linked, algorithms can be used to display the data together. For example, if biometric data is stored at a sample rate of 30 spm, which may be fixed or configurable, algorithms (e.g., 216) can be used to display a first biometric value (e.g., below the video data, superimposed over the video data, etc.) at the start of the video clip, a second biometric value two seconds later (two seconds into the video clip), a third biometric value two seconds later (four seconds into the video clip), etc. In alternate embodiments of the present invention, non-video data (e.g., biometric data, self-realization data, etc.) can be stored with a plurality of time-stamps (e.g., individual stamps or offsets for each stored value), which can be used together with the start time to synchronize non-video data to video data.
It should be appreciated that while the client platform can be configured to function autonomously (i.e., independent of the host network device 240), in one embodiment of the present invention, certain functions of the client platform are performed by the host network device 240, and can only be performed when the computing device 200 is in communication with the host computing device 240. Such an embodiment is advantageous in that it not only offloads certain functions to the host computing device 240, but it ensures that these functions can only be performed by the host computing device 240 (e.g., requiring a user to subscribe to a cloud service in order to perform certain functions). Functions offloaded to the cloud may include functions that are necessary to display non-video data together with video data (e.g., the linking of information to video data, the linking of information to non-video data, synchronizing non-video data to video data, etc.), or may include more advanced functions, such as generating and/or sharing a “highlight reel.” In alternate embodiments, the computing device 200 is configured to perform the foregoing functions as long as certain criteria has been met. This criteria may include the computing device 200 being in communication with the host computing device 240, or the computing device 200 previously being in communication with the host computing device 240 and the period of time since the last communication being equal to or less than a predetermined amount of time. Technology known to those skilled in the art (e.g., using a keyed hash-based method authentication code (HMAC), a stored time of said last communication (allowing said computing device to determine whether said delta is less than a predetermined amount of time), etc.) can be used to ensure that this criteria is met before allowing the performance of certain functions.
Block diagrams of an exemplary computing device and an exemplary biometric device are shown in FIG. 5. In particular, the exemplary biometric device 500 includes a sensor for sensing biometric data, a display for interfacing with the user and displaying various information (e.g., biometric data, set-up data, operation data, such as start, stop, and pause, etc.), a memory for storing the sensed biometric data, a transceiver for communicating with the exemplary computing device 600, and a processor for operating and/or driving the transceiver, memory, sensor, and display. The exemplary computing device 600 includes a transceiver (1) for receiving biometric data from the exemplary biometric device 500 (e.g., using any of telemetry, any WiFi standard, DNLA, Apple AirPlay, Bluetooth, near field communication (NFC), RFID, ZigBee, Z-Wave, Thread, Cellular, a wired connection, infrared or other method of data transmission, datacasting or streaming, etc.), a memory for storing the biometric data, a display for interfacing with the user and displaying various information (e.g., biometric data, set-up data, operation data, such as start, stop, and pause, input in-session comments or add voice notes, etc.), a keyboard for receiving user input data, a transceiver (2) for providing the biometric data to the host computing device via the Internet (e.g., using any of telemetry, any WiFi standard, DNLA, Apple AirPlay, Bluetooth, near field communication (NFC), RFID, ZigBee, Z-Wave, Thread, Cellular, a wired connection, infrared or other method of data transmission, datacasting or streaming, etc.), and a processor for operating and/or driving the transceiver (1), transceiver (2), keyboard, display, and memory.
The keyboard in the computing device 600, or alternatively the keyboard in biometric device 500, may be used to enter self-realization data, or data on how the user is feeling at a particular time. For example, if the user is feeling tired, the user may hit the “T” button on the keyboard. If the user is feeling their endorphins kick in, the user may hit the “E” button on the keyboard. And if the user is getting their second wind, the user may hit the “S” button on the keyboard. This data is then stored and linked to either a sample rate (like biometric data) or time-stamp data, which may be a time or an offset to the start time that each button was pressed. This would allow the self-realization data, in the same way as the biometric data, to be synchronized to the video data. It would also allow the self-realization data, like the biometric data, to be searched or filtered (e.g., in order to find video corresponding to a particular event, such as when the user started to feel tired, etc.).
It should be appreciated that the present invention is not limited to the block diagrams shown in FIG. 5, and a biometric device and/or a computing device that includes fewer or more components is within the spirit and scope of the present invention. For example, a biometric device that does not include a display, or includes a camera and/or microphone is within the spirit and scope of the present invention, as are other data-entry devices or methods beyond a keyboard, such as a touch screen, digital pen, voice/audible recognition device, gesture recognition device, so-called “wearable,” or any other recognition device generally known to those skilled in the art. Similarly, a computing device that only includes one transceiver, further includes a camera (for capturing video) and/or microphone (for capturing audio or for performing spatial analytics through recording or measurement of sound and how it travels), or further includes a sensor (see FIG. 4) is within the spirit and scope of the present invention. It should also be appreciated that self-realization data is not limited to how a user feels, but could also include an event that the user or the application desires to memorialize. For example, the user may want to record (or time-stamp) the user biking past wildlife, or a particular architectural structure, or the application may want to record (or time-stamp) a patient pressing a “request nurse” button, or any other sensed non-biometric activity of the user.
Referring back to FIG. 1, as discussed above in conjunction with FIG. 2B, the host application (or client platform) may operate on the computing device 108. In this embodiment, the computing device 108 (e.g., a smart phone) may be configured to receive biometric data from the biometric device 110 (either in real-time, or at a later stage, with a time-stamp corresponding to the occurrence of the biometric data), and to synchronize the biometric data with the video data and/or the audio data recorded by the computing device 108 (or a camera and/or microphone operating thereon). It should be appreciated that in this embodiment of the present invention, other than the host application being run locally (e.g., on the computing device 108), the host application (or client platform) operates as previously discussed.
Again, with reference to FIG. 1, in another embodiment of the present invention, the computing device 108 further includes a sensor for sensing biometric data. In this embodiment of the present invention, the host application (or client platform) operates as previously discussed (locally on the computing device 108), and functions to at least synchronize the video, audio, and/or biometric data, and allow the synchronized data to be played or presented to a user (e.g., via a display portion, via a display device connected directly to the computing device, via a user computing device connected to the computing device (e.g., directly, via the network, etc.), etc.).
It should be appreciated that the present invention, in any embodiment, is not limited to the computing devices (number or type) shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, and may include any of a computing, sensing, digital recording, GPS or otherwise location-enabled device (for example, using WiFi Positioning Systems “WPS”, or other forms of deriving geographical location, such as through network triangulation), generally known to those skilled in the art, such as a personal computer, a server, a laptop, a tablet, a smart phone, a cellular phone, a smart watch, an activity band, a heart-rate strap, a mattress sensor, a shoe sole sensor, a digital camera, a near field sensor or sensing device, etc. It should also be appreciated that the present invention is not limited to any particular biometric device, and includes biometric devices that are configured to be worn on the wrist (e.g., like a watch), worn on the skin (e.g., like a skin patch) or scalp, or incorporated into computing devices (e.g., smart phones, etc.), either integrated in, or added to items such as bedding, wearable devices such as clothing, footwear, helmets or hats, or ear phones, or athletic equipment such as rackets, golf clubs, or bicycles, where other kinds of data, including physical performance metrics such as racket or club head speed, or pedal rotation/second, or footwear recording such things as impact zones, gait or shear, can also be measured synchronously with biometrics, and synchronized to video. Other data can also be measured synchronously with video data, including biometrics on animals (e.g., a bull’s acceleration or pivot or buck in a bull riding event, a horse’s acceleration matched to heart rate in a horse race, etc.), and physical performance metrics of inanimate objects, such a revolutions/minute (e.g., in a vehicle, such as an automobile, a motorcycle, etc.), miles/hour (or the like) (e.g., in a vehicle, such as an automobile, a motorcycle, etc., a bicycle, etc.), or G-forces (e.g., experienced by the user, an animal, and inanimate object, etc.). All of this data (collectively “non-video data,” which may include metadata, or data on non-video data) can be synchronized to video data using a sample rate and/or at least one time-stamp, as discussed above.
It should further be appreciated that the present invention need not operate in conjunction with a network, such as the Internet. For example, as shown in FIG. 2A, the biometric device 110, which may be, for example, be a wireless activity band for sensing heart rate, and the computing device 108, which may be, for example, a digital video recorder, may be connected directly to the host computing device 106 running the host application (not shown), where the host application functions as previously discussed. In this embodiment, the video, audio, and/or biometric data can be provided to the host application either (i) in real time, or (ii) at a later time, since the data is synchronized with a sample rate and/or time-stamp. This would allow, for example, at least video of an athlete, or a sportsman or woman (e.g., a football player, a soccer player, a racing driver, etc.) to be shown in action (e.g., playing football, playing soccer, motor racing, etc.) along with biometric data of the athlete in action (see, e.g., FIG. 7). By way of example only, this would allow a user to view a soccer player’s heart rate 730 as the soccer player dribbles a ball, kicks the ball, heads the ball, etc. This can be accomplished using a time stamp 720 (e.g., start time, etc.), or other sequencing method using metadata (e.g., sample rate, etc.), to synchronize the video data 710 with the biometric data 730, allowing the user to view the soccer player at a particular time 740 (e.g., 76 seconds) and biometric data associated with the athlete at that particular time 340 (e.g., 76 seconds). Similar technology can be used to display biometric data on other athletes, card players, actors, online garners, etc.
Where it is desirable to monitor or watch more than one individual from a camera view, for example, patients in a hospital ward being observed from a remote nursing station or, during a televised broadcast of a sporting event such as a football game, with multiple players on the sports field, the system can be so configured, by the subjects using Bluetooth or other wearable or NFC sensors (in some cases with their sensing capability also being location-enabled in order to identify which specific individual to track) capable of transmitting their biometrics over practicable distances, in conjunction with relays or beacons if necessary, such that the viewer can switch the selection of which of one or multiple individuals’ biometric data to track, alongside the video or broadcast, and, if wanted and where possible within the limitations of the video capture field of the camera used, also to concentrate the view of the video camera on a reduced group or on a specific individual. In an alternate embodiment of the present invention, selection of biometric data is automatically accomplished, for example, based on the individual’s location in the video frame (e.g., center of the frame), rate of movement (e.g., moving quicker than other individuals), or proximity to a sensor (e.g., being worn by the individual, embedded in the ball being carried by the individual, etc.), which may be previously activate or activated by a remote radio frequency signal. Activation of the sensor may result in biometric data of the individual being transmitted to a receiver, or may allow the receiver to identified biometric data of the individual amongst other data being transmitted (e.g., biometric data from other individuals).
In the context of fitness or sports tracking, it should be appreciated that the capturing of an individual’s activity on video is not dependent on the presence of a third party to do this, but various methods of self-videoing can be envisaged, such as a video capture device mounted on the subject’s wrist or a body harness, or on a selfie attachment or a gimbal, or fixed to an object (e.g., sports equipment such as bicycle handlebars, objects found in sporting environments such as a basketball or tennis net, a football goal post, a ceiling, etc., a drone-borne camera following the individual, a tripod, etc.). It should be further noted that such video capture devices can include more than one camera lens, such that not only the individual’s activity may be videoed, but also simultaneously a different view, such as what the individual is watching or sees in front of them (i.e., the user’s surroundings). The video capture device could also be fitted with a convex mirror lens, or have a convex mirror added as an attachment on the front of the lens, or be a full 360 degree camera, or multiple 360 cameras linked together, such that either with or without the use of specialized software known in the art, a 360 degree all-around or surround view can be generated, or a 360 global view in all axes can be generated.
In the context of augmented or virtual reality, where the individual is wearing suitably equipped augmented reality (“AR”) or virtual reality (“VR”) glasses, goggles, headset or is equipped with another type of viewing display capable of rendering AR, VR, or other synthesized or real 3D imagery, the biometric data such as heart rate from the sensor, together with other data such as, for example, work-out run or speed, from a suitably equipped sensor, such as an accelerometer capable of measuring motion and velocity, could be viewable by the individual, superimposed on their viewing field. Additionally an avatar of the individual in motion could be superimposed in front of the individual’s viewing field, such that they could monitor or improve their exercise performance, or otherwise enhance the experience of the activity by viewing themselves or their own avatar, together (e.g., synchronized) with their performance (e.g., biometric data, etc.). Optionally, the biometric data also of their avatar, or the competing avatar, could be simultaneously displayed in the viewing field. In addition (or alternatively), at least one additional training or competing avatar can be superimposed on the individual’s view, which may show the competing avatar (s) in relation to the individual (e.g., showing them superimposed in front of the individual, showing them superimposed to the side of the user, showing them behind the individual (e.g., in a rear-view-mirror portion of the display, etc.), and/or showing them in relation to the individual (e.g., as blips on a radar-screen portion of the display, etc.), etc. Competing avatar (s), either of real people such as their friends or training acquaintances, can be used to motivate the user to improve or correct their performance and/or to make their exercise routine more interesting (e.g., by allowing the individual to “compete” in the AR, VR, or Mixed Reality (“MR”) environment while exercising, or training, or virtually “gamifying” their activity through the visualization of virtual destinations or locations, imagined or real, such as historical sites, scanned or synthetically created through computer modeling).
Additionally, any multimedia sources to which the user is being exposed whilst engaging in the activity which is being tracked and recorded, should similarly be able to be recorded with the time stamp, for analysis and/or correlation of the individual’s biometric response. An example of an application of this could be in the selection of specific music tracks for when someone is carrying out a training activity, where the correlation of the individual’s past response, based, for example, on heart rate (and how well they achieved specific performance levels or objectives) to music type (e.g., the specific music track (s), a track (s) similar to the specific track (s), a track (s) recommended or selected by others who have listened to or liked the specific track (s), etc.) is used to develop a personalized algorithm, in order to optimize automated music selection to either enhance the physical effort, or to maximize recovery during and after exertion. The individual could further specify that they wished for the specific track or music type, based upon the personalized selection algorithm, to be played based upon their geographical location; an example of this would be someone who frequently or regularly uses a particular circuit for training or recreational purposes. Alternatively, tracks or types of music could be selected through recording or correlation of past biometric response in conjunction with self-realization inputting when particular tracks were being listened to.
It should be appreciated that biometric data does not need to be linked to physical movement or sporting activity, but may instead be combined with video of an individual at a fixed location (e.g., where the individual is being monitored remotely or recorded for subsequent review), for example, as shown in FIG. 3, for health reasons or a medical condition, such as in their home or in hospital, or a senior citizen in an assisted-living environment, or a sleeping infant being monitored by parents whilst in another room or location.
Alternatively, the individual might be driving past or in the proximity of a park or a shopping mall, with their location being recorded, typically by geo-stamping, or additional information being added by geo-tagging, such as the altitude or weather at the specific location, together with what the information or content is, being viewed or interacted with by the individual (e.g., a particular advertisement, a movie trailer, a dating profile, etc.) on the Internet or a smart/enabled television, or on any other networked device incorporating a screen, and their interaction with that information or content, being viewable or recorded by video, in conjunction with their biometric data, with all these sources of data being able to be synchronized for review, by virtue of each of these individual sources being time-stamped or the like (e.g., sampled, etc.). This would allow a third party (e.g., a service provider, an advertiser, a provider of advertisements, a movie production company/promoter, a poster of a dating profile, a dating site, etc.) to acquire for analysis of their response, the biometric data associated with the viewing of certain data by the viewer, where either the viewer or their profile could optionally be identifiable by the third party’s system, or where only the identity of the viewer’s interacting device is known, or can be acquired from the biometric sending party’s GPS, or otherwise location-enabled, device.
For example, an advertiser or an advertisement provider could see how people are responding to an advertisement, or a movie production company/promoter could evaluate how people are responding to a movie trailer, or a poster of a dating profile or the dating site itself, could see how people are responding to the dating profile. Alternatively, viewers of online players of an online gaming or eSports broadcast service such as twitch.tv, or of a televised or streamed online poker game, could view the active participants’ biometric data simultaneously with the primary video source as well as the participants’ visible reactions or performance. As with video/audio, this can either be synchronized in real-time, or synchronized later using the embedded time-stamp or the like (e.g., sample rate, etc.). Additionally, where facial expression analysis is being generated from the source video, for example in the context of measuring an individual’s response to advertising messages, since the video is already time-stamped (e.g., with a start time), the facial expression data can be synchronized and correlated to the physical biometric data of the individual, which has similarly been time-stamped and/or sampled,
As previously discussed, the host application may be configured to perform a plurality of functions. For example, the host application may be configured to synchronize video and/or audio data with biometric data. This would allow, for example, an individual watching a sporting event (e.g., on a TV, computer screen, etc.) to watch how each player’s biometric data changes during play of the sporting event, or also to map those biometric data changes to other players or other comparison models. Similarly, a doctor, nurse, or medical technician could record a person’s sleep habits, and watch, search or later review, the recording (e.g., on a TV, computer screen, etc.) while monitoring the person’s biometric data. The system could also use machine learning to build a profile for each patient, identifying certain characteristics of the patient (e.g., their heart rate rhythm, their breathing pattern, etc.) and notify a doctor, a nurse, or medical technician or trigger an alarm if the measured characteristics appear abnormal or irregular.
The host application could also be configured to provide biometric data to a remote user via a network, such as the Internet. For example, a biometric device (e.g., a smart phone with a blood-alcohol sensor) could be used to measure a person’s blood-alcohol level (e.g., while the person is talking to the remote user via the smart phone), and to provide the person’s blood-alcohol level to the remote user. By placing the sensor near, or incorporating it in the microphone, such a system would allow a parent to determine whether their child has been drinking alcohol by participating in a telephone or video call with their child. Different sensors known in the art could be used to sense different chemicals in the person’s breath, or detect people’s breathing patterns through analysis of sound and speed variations, allowing the monitoring party to determine whether the subject has been using alcohol or other controlled substances or to conduct breath analysis for other diagnostic reasons.
The system could also be adapted with a so-called “lab on a chip” (LOC) integrated in the device itself, or with a suitable attachment added to it, for the remote testing for example, of blood samples where the smart-phone is either used for the collection and sending of the sample to a testing laboratory for analysis, or is used to carry out the sample collection and analysis within the device itself. In either case the system is adapted such that the identity of the subject and their blood sample are cross-authenticated for the purposes of sample and analysis integrity as well as patient identity certainty, through the simultaneous recording of the time-stamped video and time and/or location (or GPS) stamping of the sample at the point of collection and/or submission of the sample. This confirmation of identity is particularly important for regulatory, record keeping and health insurance reasons in the context of telemedicine, since the individual will increasingly be performing functions which, till now, have been carried out typically on-site at the relevant facility, by qualified and regulated medical or laboratory staff, rather than by the subject using a networked device, either for upload to the central analysis facility, or for remote analysis on the device itself.
This, or the collection of other biometric data such as heart rate or blood pressure, could also be applied in situations where it is critical for safety reasons, to check, via regular remote video monitoring in real time, whether say a pilot of a plane, a truck or train driver, are in fit and sound condition to be in control of their vehicle or vessel or whether for example they are experiencing a sudden incapacity or heart attack etc. Because the monitored person is being videoed at the same time as providing time-stamped, geo-stamped and/or sampled biometric data, there is less possibility for the monitored person or a third party, to “trick”, “spoof” or bypass the system. In a patient/doctor remote consultation setting, the system could be used for secure video consults where also, from a regulatory or health insurance perspective, the consultation and its occurrence is validated through the time and/or geo stamp validation. Furthermore, where there is a requirement for a higher level of authentication, the system could further be adapted to use facial recognition or biometric algorithms, to ensure that the correct person is being monitored, or facial expression analysis could be used for behavioral pattern assessment.
The concern that a monitored party would not wish to be permanently monitored (e.g., a senior citizen not wanting to have their every move and action continuously videoed) could be mitigated by the incorporation of various additional features. In one embodiment, the video would be permanently recording in a loop system which uses a reserved memory space, recording for a predetermined time period, and then, automatically erasing the video, where n represents the selected minutes in the loop and E is the event which prevents the recorded loop of n minutes being erased, and triggers both the real time transmission of the visible state or actions of the monitored person to the monitoring party, as well as the ability to rewind, in order for the monitoring party to be able to review the physical manifestation leading up to E. The trigger mechanism for E could be, for example, the occurrence of biometric data outside the predefined range, or the notification of another anomaly such as a fall alert, activated by movement or location sensors such as a gyroscope, accelerometer or magnetometer within the health band device worn by, say the senior citizen, or on their mobile phone or other networked motion-sensing device in their proximity. The monitoring party would be able not only to view the physical state of the monitored party after E, whilst getting a simultaneous read-out of their relevant biometric data, but also to review the events and biometric data immediately leading up to the event trigger notification. Alternatively, it could be further calibrated so that although video is recorded, as before, in the n loop, no video from the n loop will actually be transmitted to a monitoring party until the occurrence of E. The advantages of this system include the respect of the privacy of the individual, where only the critical event and the time preceding the event would be available to a third party, resulting also in a desired optimization of both the necessary transmission bandwidth and the data storage requirements. It should be appreciated that the foregoing system could also be configured such that the E notification for remote senior, infant or patient monitoring is further adapted to include facial tracking and/or expression recognition features.
Privacy could be further improved for the user if their video data and biometric data are stored by themselves, on their own device, or on their own external, or own secure third-party “cloud” storage, but with the index metadata of the source material, which enables the sequencing, extrapolation, searching and general processing of the source data, remaining at a central server, such as, in the case of medical records for example, at a doctor’s office or other healthcare facility. Such a system would enable the monitoring party to have access to the video and other data at the time of consultation, but with the video etc. remaining in the possession of the subject. A further advantage of separating the hosting of the storage of the video and biometric source data from the treatment of the data, beyond enhancing the user’s privacy and their data security, is that by virtue of its storage locally with the subject, not having to upload it to the computational server results both in reduced cost and increased efficiency of storage and data bandwidth. This would be of benefit also where such kind of remote upload of tests for review by qualified medical staff at a different location from the subject are occurring in areas of lower-bandwidth network coverage. A choice can also be made to lower the frame rate of the video material, provided that this is made consistent with sampling rate to confirm the correct time stamp, as previously described.
It should be appreciated that with information being stored at the central server (or the host device), various techniques known in the art can be implemented to secure the information, and prevent unauthorized individuals or entities from accessing the information. Thus, for example, a user may be provided (or allowed to create) a user name, password, and/or any other identifying (or authenticating) information (e.g., a user biometric, a key fob, etc.), and the host device may be configured to use the identifying (or authenticating) information to grant access to the information (or a portion thereof). Similar security procedures can be implemented for third parties, such as medical providers, insurance companies, etc., to ensure that the information is only accessible by authorized individuals or entities. In certain embodiments, the authentication may allow access to all the stored data, or to only a portion of the stored data (e.g., a user authentication may allow access to personal information as well as stored video and/or biometric data, whereas a third party authentication may only allow access to stored video and/or biometric data). In other embodiments, the authentication is used to determine what services are available to an individual or entity logging into the host device, or the website. For example, visitors to the website (or non-subscribers) may only be able to synchronize video/audio data to biometric data and/or perform rudimentary searching or other processing, whereas a subscriber may be able to synchronize video/audio data to biometric data and/or perform more detailed searching or other processing (e.g., to create a highlight reel, etc.).
It should further be appreciated that while there are advantages to keeping just the index metadata at the central server in the interests of storage and data upload efficiency as well as so providing a common platform for the interoperability of the different data types and storing the video and/or audio data on the user’s own device (e.g., iCloud™, DropBox™, OneDrive™, etc.), the present invention is not so limited. Thus, in certain embodiments, where feasible, it may be beneficial to (1) store data (e.g., video, audio, biometric data, and metadata) on the user’s device (e.g., allowing the user device to operate independent of the host device), (2) store data (e.g., video, audio, biometric data, and metadata) on the central server (e.g., host device) (e.g., allowing the user to access the data from any network-enabled device), or (3) store a first portion (e.g., video and audio data) on the user’s device and store a second portion (e.g., biometric data and metadata) on the central server (e.g., host device) (e.g., allowing the user to only view the synchronized video/audio/biometric data when the user device is in communication with the host device, allowing the user to only search the biometric data (e.g., to create a “highlight reel”) or rank the biometric data (to identify and/or list data chronologically, magnitude (highest to lowest), magnitude (lowest to highest), best reviewed, worst reviewed, most viewed, least viewed, etc.) when the user device is in communication with the host device, etc.).
In another embodiment of the present invention, the functionality of the system is further (or alternatively) limited by the software operating on the user device and/or the host device. For example, the software operating on the user device may allow the user to play the video and/or audio data, but not to synchronize the video and/or audio data to the biometric data. This may be because the central server is used to store data critical to synchronization (time-stamp index, metadata, biometric data, sample rate, etc.) and/or software operating on the host device is necessary for synchronization. By way of another example, the software operating on the user device may allow the user to play the video and/or audio data, either alone or synchronized with the biometric data, but may not allow the user device (or may limit the user device’s ability) to search or otherwise extrapolate from, or process the biometric data to identify relevant portions (e.g., which may be used to create a “highlight reel” of the synchronized video/audio/biometric data) or to rank the biometric and/or video data. This may be because the central server is used to store data critical to search and/or rank the biometric data (biometric data, biometric metadata, etc.), and/or software necessary for searching (or performing advanced searching of) and/or ranking (or performing advanced ranking of) the biometric data.
In any or all of the above embodiments, the system could be further adapted to include password or other forms of authentication to enable secured access (or deny unauthorized access) to the data in either of one or both directions, such that the user requires permission to access the host, or the host to access the user’s data. Where interaction between the user and the monitoring party or host is occurring in real time such as in a secure video consult between patient and their medical practitioner or other medical staff, data could be exchanged and viewed through the establishment of a Virtual Private Network (VPN). The actual data (biometric, video, metadata index, etc.) can alternatively or further be encrypted both at the data source, for example at the individual’s storage, whether local or cloud-based, and/or at the monitoring reviewing party, for example at patient records at the medical facility, or at the host administration level.
In the context of very young infant monitoring, a critical and often unexplained problem is Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Whilst the incidences of SIDS are often unexplained, various devices attempt to prevent its occurrence. However, by combining the elements of the current system to include sensor devices in or near the baby’s crib to measure relevant biometric data including heart rate, sleep pattern, breath analyzer, and other measures such as ambient temperature, together with a recording device to capture movement, audible breathing, or lack thereof (i.e., silence) over a predefined period of time, the various parameters could be set in conjunction with the time-stamped video record, by the parent or other monitoring party, to provide a more comprehensive alert, to initiate a more timely action or intervention by the user, or indeed to decide that no action response would in fact be necessary. Additionally, in the case, for example, of a crib monitoring situation, the system could be so configured to develop from previous observation, with or without input from a monitoring party, a learning algorithm to help in discerning what is “normal,” what is false positive, or what might constitute an anomaly, and therefore a call to action.
The host application could also be configured to play video data that has been synchronized to biometric data, or search for the existence of certain biometric data. For example, as previously discussed, by video recording with sound a person sleeping, and synchronizing the recording with biometric data (e.g., sleep patterns, brain activity, snoring, breathing patterns, etc.), the biometric data can be searched to identify where certain measures such as sound levels, as measured for example in decibels, or periods of silences, exceed or drop below a threshold value, allowing the doctor, nurse, or medical technician to view the corresponding video portion without having to watch the entire video of the person sleeping.
Such a method is shown in FIG. 6, starting at step 700, where biometric data and time stamp data (e.g., start time, sample rate) is received (or linked) at step 702. Audio/video data and time stamp data (e.g., start time, etc.) is then received (or linked) at step 704. The time stamp data (from steps 702 and 704) is then used to synchronize the biometric data with the audio/video data. The user is then allowed to operate the audio/video at step 708. If the user selects play, then the audio/video is played at step 710. If the user selects search, then the user is allowed to search the biometric data at step 712. Finally, if the user selects stop, then the video is stopped at step 714.
It should be appreciated that the present invention is not limited to the steps shown in FIG. 6. For example, a method that allows a user to search for biometric data that meets at least one condition, play the corresponding portion of the video (or a portion just before the condition), and stop the video from playing after the biometric data no longer meets the at least one condition (or just after the biometric data non longer meets the condition) is within the spirit and scope of the present invention. By way of another example, if the method involves interacting between the user device and the host device to synchronize the video/audio data and the biometric data and/or search the biometric data, then the method may further involve the steps of uploading the biometric data and/or metadata to the host device (e.g., in this embodiment the video/audio data may be stored on the user device), and using the biometric data and/or metadata to create a time-stamp index for synchronization and/or to search the biometric data for relevant or meaningful data (e.g., data that exceeds a threshold, etc.). By way of yet another example, the method may not require step 706 if the audio/video data and the biometric data are played together (synchronized) in real-time, or at the time the data is being played (e.g., at step 710).
In one embodiment of the present invention, as shown in FIG. 8, the video data 800, which may also include audio data, starts at a time “T” and continues for a duration of “n.” The video data is preferably stored in memory (locally and/or remotely) and linked to other data, such as an identifier 802, start time 804, and duration 806. Such data ties the video data to at least a particular session, a particular start time, and identifies the duration of the video included therein. In one embodiment of the present invention, each session can include different activities. For example, a trip to a destination in Berlin, or following a specific itinerary on a particular day (session) may involve a bike ride through the city (first activity) and a walk through a park (second activity). Thus, as shown in FIG. 9, the identifier 802 may include both a session identifier 902, uniquely identifying the session via a globally unique identifier (GUID), and an activity identifier 904, uniquely identifying the activity via a globally unique identifier (GUID), where the session/activity relationship is that of a parent/child.
In one embodiment of the present invention, as shown in FIG. 10, the biometric data 1000 is stored in memory and linked to the identifier 802 and a sample rate “m” 1104. This allows the biometric data to be linked to video data upon playback. For example, if identifier 802 is one, start time 804 is 1:00 PM, video duration is one minute, and the sample rate 1104 is 30 spm, then the playing of the video at 2:00 PM would result in the first biometric value (biometric (1)) to be displayed (e.g., below the video, over the video, etc.) at 2:00 PM, the second biometric value (biometric (2)) to be displayed (e.g., below the video, over the video, etc.) two seconds later, and so on until the video ends at 2:01 PM. While self-realization data can be stored like biometric data (e.g., linked to a sample rate), if such data is only received periodically, it may be more advantageous to store this data 110 as shown in FIG. 11, i.e., linked to the identifier 802 and a time-stamp 1104, where “m” is either the time that the self-realization data 1100 was received or an offset between this time and the start time 804 (e.g., ten minutes and four seconds after the start time, etc.).
This can be seen, for example, in FIG. 14, where video data starts at time T, biometric data is sampled every two seconds (30 spm), and self-realization data is received at time T+3 (or three units past the start time). While the video 1402 is playing, a first biometric value 1404 is displayed at time T+1, first self-realization data 1406 is displayed at time T+2, and a second biometric value 1406 is displayed at time T+4. By storing data in this fashion, both video and non-video data can be stored separately from one another and synchronized in real-time, or at the time the video is being played. It should be appreciated that while separate storage of data may be advantageous for devices having minimal memory and/or processing power, the client platform may be configured to create new video data, or data that includes both video and non-video data displayed synchronously. Such a feature may advantageous in creating a highlight reel, which can then be shared using social media websites, such as Facebook™ or Youtube™, and played using standard playback software, such as Quicktime™. As discussed in greater detail below, a highlight reel may include various portions (or clips) of video data (e.g., when certain activity takes place, etc.) along with corresponding biometric data.
When sampled data is subsequently displayed, the client platform can be configured to display this data using certain extrapolation techniques. For example, in one embodiment of the present invention, as shown in FIG. 12, where a first biometric value 1202 is displayed at T+1, a second biometric value 1204 is displayed at T+2, and a third biometric value 1206 is displayed at T+3, biometric data can be displayed at non-sampled times using known extrapolation techniques, including linear and non-linear interpolation and all other extrapolation and/or interpolation techniques generally known to those skilled in the art. In another embodiment of the present invention, as shown in FIG. 13, the first biometric value 1202 remains on the display until the second biometric value 1204 is displayed, the second biometric value 1204 remains on the display until the third biometric value 1206 is displayed, and so on.
With respect to linking data to an identifier, which may be linked to other data (e.g., start time, sample rate, etc.), if the data is received in real-time, the data can be linked to the identifier (s) for the current session (and/or activity). However, when data is received after the fact (e.g., after a session has ended), there are several ways in which the data can be linked to a particular session and/or activity (or identifier (s) associated therewith). The data can be manually linked (e.g., by the user) or automatically linked via the application. With respect to the latter, this can be accomplished, for example, by comparing the duration of the received data (e.g., the video length) with the duration of the session and/or activity, by assuming that the received data is related to the most recent session and/or activity, or by analyzing data included within the received data. For example, in one embodiment, data included with the received data (e.g., metadata) may identify a time and/or location associated with the data, which can then be used to link the received data to the session and/or activity. In another embodiment, the computing device could display or play data (e.g., a barcode, such as a QR code, a sound, such as a repeating sequence of notes, etc.) that identifies the session and/or activity. An external video/audio recorder could record the identifying data (as displayed or played by the computing device) along with (e.g., before, after, or during) the user and/or his/her surroundings. The application could then search the video/audio data for identifying data, and use this data to link the video/audio data to a session and/or activity. The identifying portion of the video/audio data could then be deleted by the application if desired. In an alternate embodiment, a barcode (e.g., a QR code) could be printed on a physical device (e.g., a medical testing module, which may allow communication of medical data over a network (e.g., via a smart phone)) and used (as previously described) to synchronize video of the user using the device to data provided by the device. In the case of a medical testing module, the barcode printed on the module could be used to synchronize video of the testing to the test result provided by the module. In yet another embodiment, both the computing device and the external video/audio recorder are used to record video and/or audio of the user (e.g., the user stating “begin Berlin biking session,” etc.) and to use the user-provided data to link the video/audio data to a session and/or activity. For example, the computing device may be configured to link the user-provided data with a particular session and/or activity (e.g., one that is started, one that is about to start, one that just ended, etc.), and to use the user-provided data in the video/audio data to link the video/audio data to the particular session and/or activity.
In one embodiment of the present invention, the client platform (or application) is configured to operate on a smart phone or a tablet. The platform (either alone or together with software operating on the host device) may be configured to create a session, receive video and non-video data during the session, and playback video data together (synchronized) with non-video data. The platform may also allow a user to search for a session, search for certain video and/or non-video events, and/or create a highlight reel. FIGS. 15-29 show exemplary screen shots of such a platform.
For example, FIG. 15 shows an exemplary “sign in” screen 1500, allowing a user to sign into the application and have access to application-related, user-specific data, as stored on the computing device and/or the host computing device. The login may involve a user ID and password unique to the application, the company cloud, or a social service website, such as Facebook™.
Once the user is signed in, the user may be allowed to create a session via an exemplary “create session” screen 1600, as shown in FIG. 16. In creating a session, the user may be allowed to select a camera (e.g., internal to the computing device, external to the computing device (e.g., accessible via the Internet, connected to the computing device via a wired or wireless connection), etc.) that will be providing video data. Once a camera is selected, video data 1602 from the camera may be displayed on the screen. The user may also be allowed to select a biometric device (e.g., internal to the computing device, external to the computing device (e.g., accessible via the Internet, connected to the computing device via a wired or wireless connection), etc.) that will be providing biometric data. Once a biometric device is selected, biometric data 1604 from the biometric device may be displayed on the screen. The user can then start the session by clicking the “start session” button 1608. While the selection process is preferably performed before the session is started, the user may defer selection of the camera and/or biometric device until after the session is over. This allows the application to receive data that is not available in real-time, or is being provided by a device that is not yet connected to the computing device (e.g., an external camera that will be plugged into the computing device once the session is over).
It should be appreciated that in a preferred embodiment of the present invention, clicking the “start session” button 1608 not only starts a timer 1606 that indicates a current length of the session, but it triggers a start time that is stored in memory and linked to a globally unique identifier (GUID) for the session. By linking the video and biometric data to the GUID, and linking the GUID to the start time, the video and biometric data is also (by definition) linked to the start time. Other data, such as sample rate, can also be linked to the biometric data, either by linking the data to the biometric data, or linking the data to the GUID, which is in turn linked to the biometric data.
Either before the session is started, or after the session is over, the user may be allowed to enter a session name via an exemplary “session name” screen 1700, as shown in FIG. 17. Similarly, the user may also be allowed to enter a session description via an exemplary “session description” screen 1800, as shown in FIG. 18.
FIG. 19 shows an exemplary “session started” screen 1900, which is a screen that the user might see while the session is running. On this screen, the user may see the video data 1902 (if provided in real-time), the biometric data 1904 (if provided in real-time), and the current running time of the session 1906. If the user wishes to pause the session, the user can press the “pause session” button 1908, or if the user wishes to stop the session, the user can press the “stop session” button (not shown). By pressing the “stop session” button (not shown), the session is ended, and a stop time is stored in memory and linked to the session GUID. Alternatively, by pressing the “pause session” button 1908, a pause time (first pause time) is stored in memory and linked to the session GUID. Once paused, the session can then be resumed (e.g., by pressing the “resume session” button, not shown), which will result in a resume time (first resume time) to be stored in memory and linked to the session GUID. Regardless of whether a session is started and stopped (i.e., resulting in a single continuous video), or started, paused (any number of times), resumed (any number of times), and stopped (i.e., resulting in a plurality of video clips), for each start/pause time stored in memory, there should be a corresponding stop/resume time stored in memory.
Once a session has been stopped, it can be reviewed via an exemplary “review session” screen 2000, as shown in FIG. 20. In its simplest form, the review screen may playback video data linked to the session (e.g., either a single continuous video if the session does not include at least one pause/resume, multiple video clips played one after another if the session includes at least one pause/resume, or multiple video clips played together if the multiple video clips are related to one another (e.g., two videos (e.g., from different vantage points) of the user performing a particular activity, a first video of the user performing a particular activity while viewing a second video, such as a training video). If the user wants to see non-video data displayed along with the video data, the user can press the “show graph options” button 2022. By pressing this button, the user is presented with an exemplary “graph display option” screen 2100, as shown in FIG. 21. Here, the user can select data that he/she would like to see along with the video data, such as biometric data (e.g., heart rate, heart rate variance, user speed, etc.), environmental data (e.g., temperature, altitude, GPS, etc.), or self-realization data (e.g., how the user felt during the session). FIG. 22 shows an exemplary “review session” screen 2000 that includes both video data 2202 and biometric data, which may be shown in graph form 2204 or written form 2206. If more than one individual can be seen in the video, the application may be configured to show biometric data on each individual, either at one time, or as selected by the user (e.g., allowing the user to view biometric data on a first individual by selecting the first individual, allowing the user to view biometric data on a second individual by selecting the second individual, etc.).
FIG. 23 shows an exemplary “map” screen 2300, which may be used to show GPS data to the user. Alternatively, GPS data can be presented together with the video data (e.g., below the video data, over the video data, etc.). An exemplary “summary” screen 2400 of the session may also be presented to the user (see FIG. 24), displaying session information such as session name, session description, various metrics, etc.
By storing video and non-video data separately, the data can easily be searched. For example, FIG. 25 shows an exemplary “biometric search” screen 2500, where a user can search for a particular biometric value or range (i.e., a biometric event). By way of example, the user may want to jump to a point in the session where their heart rate is between 95 and 105 beats-per-minute (bpm). FIG. 26 shows an exemplary “first result” screen 2600 where the user’s heart rate is at 100.46 bmp twenty minutes and forty-two seconds into the session (see, e.g., 2608). FIG. 27 shows an exemplary “second result” screen 2700 where the user’s heart rate is at 100.48 bmp twenty-three minutes and forty-eight seconds into the session (see, e.g., 2708). It should be appreciated that other events can be searched for in a session, including video events and self-realization events.
Not only can data within a session be searched, but so too can data from multiple sessions. For example, FIG. 28 shows an exemplary “session search” screen 2800, where a user can enter particular search criteria, including session date, session length, biometric events, video event, self-realization event, etc. FIG. 29 shows an exemplary “list” screen 2900, showing sessions that meet the entered criteria.
The foregoing description of a system and method for using, processing, and displaying biometric data, or a resultant thereof, has been presented for the purposes of illustration and description. It is not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the invention to the precise forms disclosed, and many modifications and variations are possible in light of the above teachings. Those skilled in the art will appreciate that there are a number of ways to implement the foregoing features, and that the present invention it not limited to any particular way of implementing these features. The invention is solely defined by the following claims.
More revelations soon!
We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
It’s all in the meme that stands as cover for this post. We published it on some socials a bit over 24h before Trump’s latest endorsement of Covidiocracy aka The Big Reset. No, this is not gonna be one of those long intricate investigations, that’s all there is to it. I could develop a bit, but honestly, if you don’t pick it up from the meme, you won’t pick it up from the meme explanations. I’m going to leave a few more hints below, though.
When we felt most badass, someone pulled our sleeve: there’s a demi-god on the webs! We know nothing more as of now, except that he’s a very militant Trump-hater. The only question: prediction or pre-science? Either way, as spectacular as logical, it’s the details that are very striking. Ours was an anticipation based on following trends and joining dots:
We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
According to the reputed truth-gods of Fb, Gates and WHO and the other Event 201 attendees spewed Rona conspiracies in a video they made in October last year, which implies pre-science and vindicates the people calling covid a “plandem1c”
Many revere and admire the elites for their grandiose plan to enslave the whole humanity, but in fact all their plan is dumb AF from its fundamentals down to its executives, and this is just one of the many evidences. I mean you want to control the world but you can’t even automate censorship on Internet and you end up shooting yourself in the both knees relentlessly? Imagine a fanfare of clowns with megalomaniac delusions, applauded by a congregation of geese. Covidiocracy is destined to cannibalise itself, starting with its propaganda machine, see the SJW/cancel culture.
I made this post very visual and simple so fact-checkers can understand it: They targeted us but it’s their people’s video and it’s made last year. We work mainly with their sources precisely because they’re dumb and predictable and we knew we’ll have to deflect back these BS attacks when they occur. And they fell right into it as soon as they could. They’re a buncha morons with too much money and too many toys.
Basically, Facebook and a host of its “fact-checkers” such as USA Today, Factcheck.org and more, have claimed that one of our latest video uploads “repeats information identified by independent fact-checkers [themselves] as false”.
Thing is we’re not the authors of the content, we just mirrored (reuploaded) a video from Johns Hopkins, untouched, we’re just platforming these people, Facebook told us they’re good credible people :D.
So the authors of the missinformation in the video are, among others: WHO Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation World Bank World Economic Forum Johns Hopkins Lufthansa and many more
Bonus: the video has actually NOTHING, ZERO, 0 to do with the BS fact-checkers are munching there, it’s not about the man-made origins of the virus or anything like that. Remember:
It doesn’t matter what Facebook says
Silviu “Silview” Costinescu
I don’t know it but I bet factcheck.org took money from Gates to label him as a conspiracy head.
Please watch and share our Facebook upload, if not to raise awareness, at least just to piss off these douchebags!
First hour of the simulation is already on our Bitchute, Youtube, we have a BrandNewTube channel too now. All full of “conspiracies”.
At least good thing Facebook and its “independent fact-checkers” are not mere narrative-enforcers and smear-machines 😀
It all comes round now… World leaders dealt above our heads, played their games and kept the plebs in the dark using smoke-screens of technocratic lingo. The elites are resetting our lives. All about The Great Reset.
We got encores from Henry Makow for this one, which is cool, because he is one of the early truthers who helped me when information was scarce and I was hungry.
2005 WHO member countries sign the new International Health Regulations (IHR) which is basically the implementation of the Health Management chapter in The Great Reset, the tactical manual for the New World Order aka New Normal. The document envisions using drills to perfect the new system. Download IHR in PDF
2014 – The creation of The Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA), “a group of 69 countries, international organizations and non-government organizations, and private sector companies that have come together to achieve the vision of a world safe and secure from global health threats posed by infectious diseases”. It was launched by a group of 44 countries and organizations including WHO, as a five-year multilateral effort with the purpose to accelerate the implementation of IHR, particularly in developing countries. In 2017, GHSA was expanded to include non-state actors. It was also extended through 2024 with the release of the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) 2024 Framework (called “GHSA 2024”). The latter has the purpose to reach a standardized level of capacity to combat infectious diseases. All financed through the World Bank, of course. Which is controlled by the Rothschild cartel.
Rothschilds patent the first Covid-19 test kit in the Netherlands. According to Dutch Government’s website for patent registrations: “A method is provided for acquiring and transmitting biometric data (e.g., vital signs) of a user, where the data is analyzed to determine whether the user is suffering from a viral infection, such as COVID-19. The method includes using a pulse oximeter to acquire at least pulse and blood oxygen saturation percentage, which is transmitted wirelessly to a smartphone. To ensure that the data is accurate, an accelerometer within the smartphone is used to measure movement of the smartphone and/or the user. Once accurate data is acquired, it is uploaded to the cloud (or host), where the data is used (alone or together with other vital signs) to determine whether the user is suffering from (or likely to suffer from) a viral infection, such as COVID-19. Depending on the specific requirements, the data, changes thereto, and/or the determination can be used to alert medical staff and take corresponding actions.”
2017-2018 – World Bank’s website reports massive shipments of COVID-19 medical devices (tests, mainly). See our previous reports.
2019 In its first annual report, WHO and WB’s Global Preparedness Monitoring Board identifies the most urgent actions required to accelerate preparedness for health emergencies. This first report focuses on epidemics and pandemics. The document is “co-convened by the World Health Organization and the World Bank Group”. Under “Progress indicator(s) by September 2020“, the report states:
The United Nations (including WHO) conducts at least two system-wide training and simulation exercises, including one for covering the deliberate release of a lethal respiratory pathogen. WHO develops intermediate triggers to mobilize national, international and multilateral action early in outbreaks, to complement existing mechanisms for later and more advanced stages of an outbreak under the IHR (2005).
Countries, donors and multilateral institutions must be prepared for the worst.
A rapidly spreading pandemic due to a lethal respiratory pathogen (whether naturally emergent or accidentally or deliberately released) poses additional preparedness requirements. Donors and multilateral institutions must ensure adequate investment in developing innovative vaccines and therapeutics, surge manufacturing capacity, broad-spectrum antivirals and appropriate non-pharmaceutical interventions. All countries must develop a system for immediately sharing genome sequences of any new pathogen for public health purposes along with the means to share limited medical countermeasures across countries.
The United Nations must strengthen coordination mechanisms.
The Secretary General of the United Nations, with WHO and United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), must strengthen coordination in different country, health and humanitarian emergency contexts, by ensuring clear United Nations systemwide roles and responsibilities; rapidly resetting preparedness and response strategies during health emergencies; and, enhancing United Nations system leadership for preparedness, including through routine simulation exercises. WHO should introduce an approach to mobilize the wider national, regional and international community at earlier stages of an outbreak, prior to a declaration of an IHR (2005) Public Health Emergency of International Concern.
Progress indicator(s) by September 2020
• The Secretary-General of the United Nations, with the Director-General of WHO and Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs strengthens coordination and identifies clear roles and responsibilities and timely triggers for a coordinated United Nations systemwide response for health emergencies in different countries and different health and humanitarian emergency contexts. • The United Nations (including WHO) conducts at least two system-wide training and simulation exercises, including one for covering the deliberate release of a lethal respiratory pathogen. • WHO develops intermediate triggers to mobilize national, international and multilateral action early in outbreaks, to complement existing mechanisms for later and more advanced stages of an outbreak under the IHR (2005). • The Secretary General of the United Nations convenes a high-level dialogue with health, security and foreign affairs officials to determine how the world can address the threat of a lethal respiratory pathogen pandemic, as well as for managing preparedness for disease outbreaks in complex, insecure contexts.
The chances of a global pandemic are growing. While scientific and technological developments provide new tools that advance public health (including safely assessing medical countermeasures), they also allow for disease-causing microorganisms to be engineered or recreated in laboratories. A deliberate release would complicate outbreak response; in addition to the need to decide how to counter the pathogen, security measures would come into play limiting information-sharing and fomenting social divisions. Taken together, naturally occurring, accidental, or deliberate events caused by high-impact respiratory pathogens pose “global catastrophic biological risks.” (15)
The world is not prepared for a fast-moving, virulent respiratory pathogen pandemic. The 1918 global influenza pandemic sickened one third of the world population and killed as many as 50 million people – 2.8% of the total population (16,17). If a similar contagion occurred today with a population four times larger and travel times anywhere in the world less than 36 hours, 50 – 80 million people could perish (18,19). In addition to tragic levels of mortality, such a pandemic could cause panic, destabilize national security and seriously impact the global economy and trade.
Trust in institutions is eroding. Governments, scientists, the media, public health, health systems and health workers in many countries are facing a breakdown in public trust that is threatening their ability to function effectively. The situation is exacerbated by misinformation that can hinder disease control communicated quickly and widely via social media.
No, they are not worried about misinformation. They are worried about their agenda being countered by truths leaking out on social media.
In the “Progress to Date” section, we find the following snippet (page 19):
In 2017 Germany, India, Japan, Norway, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust and the World Economic Forum founded the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) to facilitate focused support for vaccine development to combat major health epidemic/pandemic threats.
On page 25, they are worried about armed resistance to their imposition of vaccines. To quote,
Challenges to poliomyelitis (polio) eradication efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan and those experienced while containing the tenth Ebola outbreak in the DRC vividly demonstrate the impact that a breakdown in citizens’ trust and social cohesion can have on health emergency response. Consequences include attacks on both national and international health-care workers and delays or stoppages in response efforts. In some countries, waning trust in public health and government officials together with cultural and religious beliefs lead to is decreasing vaccination rates and leading to the re-emergence of measles and other vaccine-preventable diseases, a phenomenon found in communities at all economic and educational levels.
Page 34 proposes making ’emergency preparedness” a precondition for receiving loans and financial support from the IMF and the World Bank. To quote,
To mitigate the severe economic impacts of a national, regional epidemic and/or a global pandemic, the IMF and the World Bank must urgently renew their efforts to integrate preparedness into economic risk and institutional assessments, such as the IMF’s next cycle of Article IV consultations with countries, and the World Bank’s next Systematic Country Diagnostics for IDA credits and grants. The funding replenishments of the IDA, Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria, the and Gavi Alliance should include explicit commitments regarding preparedness.
Now here are the wonderful people who are members of the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board. Remember Fauci? Remember the Bill Gates Foundation? Other notables include a member of the Communist Party of China.
more info and resources:
“Simulation exercises have been identified as a key voluntary instrument in the validation of core capacities under the “Implementation of the International Health Regulations: Draft 5-year draft global strategic plan to improve public health preparedness and response”, which was adopted by the seventy first World Health Assembly. Simulation exercises, along with After Action Reviews, represent the functional assessment of capacities and complement States Parties annual reporting, independent reviews, and joint external evaluations. They play a key role in identifying the strengths and gaps in the development and implementation of IHR capacities and to support countries to assess the operational capability of their national capacity for public health preparedness and response.” – WHO
Full-scale/field exercises (FSX): “A full-scale exercise simulates a real event as closely as possible and is designed to evaluate the operational capability of emergency management systems in a highly stressful environment, simulating actual response conditions. This includes the mobilization and movement of emergency personnel, equipment and resources. Ideally, the full-scale exercise should test and evaluate most functions of the emergency management plan or operational plan. Differing from the FX, a full-scale exercise typically involves multiple agencies and participants physically deployed in an exercise field location.” – WHO
Field exercises: “See full-scale exercise. A field exercise is one form of full-scale exercise, focusing on more specific capacities or series of capacities, such as procedures for Rapid Response Teams (RRT), laboratory analysis or other sample collection and transport.”- WHO
Exercises are not one-time events, but should be undertaken as part of a carefully designed exercise program which ensures a common strategic objective is addressed. A comprehensive exercise program is made up of progressively complex exercises, which build upon the previous, until they are as close to reality as possible. This ‘building-block approach’ should start with basic exercises that test specific aspects of preparedness and response, followed by progressively complex exercises requiring additional preparation time and resources.
While Covid-19 is the largest so far, these simulations have a long history.
The photo above represents “The Department of Health and Human Services’ Covid-19 operations center in Washington. The department ran an extensive exercise last year simulating a pandemic” – NY Times
“The exercise played out in four separate stages, starting in January 2019.
The events were supposedly unspooling in real time — with the worst-case scenario underway as of Aug. 13, 2019 — when, according to the script, 12,100 cases had already been reported in the United States, with the largest number in Chicago, which had 1,400.
The fictional outbreak involved a pandemic flu, which the Department of Health and Human Services says was “very different than the novel coronavirus.” The staged outbreak had started when a group of 35 tourists visiting China were infected and then flew home to Australia, Kuwait, Malaysia, Thailand, Britain and Spain, as well as to the United States, with some developing respiratory symptoms and fevers en route.
A 52-year-old man from Chicago, who was on the tour, had “low energy and a dry cough” upon his return home. His 17-year-old son on that same day went out to a large public event in Chicago, and the chain of illnesses in the United States started.
Many of the moments during the tabletop exercise are now chillingly familiar.
In the fictional pandemic, as the virus spread quickly across the United States, the C.D.C. issued guidelines for social distancing, and many employees were told to work from home.” – NY Times
About the Event 201 exercise
According to their own website, “Event 201 was a 3.5-hour pandemic tabletop exercise that simulated a series of dramatic, scenario-based facilitated discussions, confronting difficult, true-to-life dilemmas associated with response to a hypothetical, but scientifically plausible, pandemic. 15 global business, government, and public health leaders were players in the simulation exercise that highlighted unresolved real-world policy and economic issues that could be solved with sufficient political will, financial investment, and attention now and in the future.
The exercise consisted of pre-recorded news broadcasts, live “staff” briefings, and moderated discussions on specific topics. These issues were carefully designed in a compelling narrative that educated the participants and the audience.
The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, World Economic Forum, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation jointly propose these recommendations.”
In recent years, the world has seen a growing number of epidemic events, amounting to approximately 200 events annually. These events are increasing, and they are disruptive to health, economies, and society. Managing these events already strains global capacity, even absent a pandemic threat. Experts agree that it is only a matter of time before one of these epidemics becomes global—a pandemic with potentially catastrophic consequences. A severe pandemic, which becomes “Event 201,” would require reliable cooperation among several industries, national governments, and key international institutions.
Similar to the Center’s 3 previous exercises—Clade X, Dark Winter, and Atlantic Storm—Event 201 aimed to educate senior leaders at the highest level of US and international governments and leaders in global industries.
It is also a tool to inform members of the policy and preparedness communities and the general public. This is distinct from many other forms of simulation exercises that test protocols or technical policies of a specific organization. Exercises similar to Event 201 are a particularly effective way to help policymakers gain a fuller understanding of the urgent challenges they could face in a dynamic, real-world crisis.
“The next severe pandemic will not only cause great illness and loss of life but could also trigger major cascading economic and societal consequences that could contribute greatly to global impact and suffering. The Event 201 pandemic exercise, conducted on October 18, 2019, vividly demonstrated a number of these important gaps in pandemic preparedness as well as some of the elements of the solutions between the public and private sectors that will be needed to fill them. The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, World Economic Forum, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation jointly propose these recommendations.”
An invitation-only audience of nearly 130 people attended the exercises, and a livestream of the event was available to everyone. Video coverage is available here.
Eric Toner, MD, is the exercise team lead from the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. Crystal Watson, DrPH, MPH and Tara Kirk Sell, PhD, MA are co-leads from the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. Ryan Morhard, JD, is the exercise lead from the World Economic Forum, and Jeffrey French is the exercise lead for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.”
Main organisers: The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, World Economic Forum, and Bill & Melinda Gates. World Economic Forum as in the ideologists that redacted The Great Reset.
In order to create momentum for the Great Reset, UK royal Prince Charles said the imagination and will of humanity “will need to be captured” so that they can set the world on a new trajectory. This is taken from his historical but largely ignored speech at the official launch event for The Great Reset.
He further suggested that longstanding incentive structures that have adverse effects on the environments must be reorientated, and that systems and pathways will need to be redesigned to advance net zero emissions globally.
“This reset moment is an opportunity to accelerate and align our efforts to create truly global momentum. Countries, industries and businesses moving together can create efficiencies and economies of scale that will allow us to leapfrog our collective progress and accelerate our transition,” the Prince said.
Make a blog post on WordPress or anywhere you can get good live traffic reports. Set it private so that no one can find the link unless you give it to them.
Make a Facebook post with that link and boost it. Make sure there’s no other links included so the audience can’t go anywhere else
Compare the Facebook link click reports with the other traffic reports you have available for your website.
On the last test we did, Facebook reported 326 link clicks, WordPress 20, for the same timeline. This costed us almost $30 from your donations but I think it’s the best spent money on Facebook from all we ever did.
These are the people who “fact-check” us. Any number or claim ever presented by Facebook is worthless. Facebook is nothing but a Narrative Enforcement & Smear machine literally stealing money, health and life from people by faking everything it touches.
Ever felt fringe, overwhelmed by drones, marginalised? You’re just being gas-lighted by Facebook, Google and an army of trolls whose very own existence proves our reality is fabricated and rigged.
In the figure above we have Dork Suckerborg, Lord of the Echo-chambers, trying to tell us we made 7,000+ views without a single reaction or comment. As if that’s even possible. If I showed 7,000 people a blank page, at least 100 would react (mostly angrily I guess).
The “virality circuit breaker”, from our close observations, comes out to be a little program meant to lie about your interactions, as a tool to stop people from following up and engaging with each other, increasing the popularity of some posts.
The problem is the mental ret@rdation the elites promoted in the masses trickled up into their own business and now they are way too stupid to accomplish anything that’s not based on brute force. So what happens is that, especially when there’s many interconnections on a post, the lie you tell one user needs to be propagated to all the network. But the same lie doesn’t work the same for everyone. You need to customise the lie to make it plausible for everyone. And if they weren’t dead inside, they could’ve tell from the guts their AI and any machine will fail at this task, because so much human variability is uncomputable. This is how, eventually, our humanity will beat the borg. This is why they want to eliminate the differences between us and turn the collective mental into an uniform marmalade: less variability to compute and manage, less resources and costs invested, less worries. But because of the generalised mental underdevelopment, there will be billions of victims in the process of winning. And everyone basing anything on Facebook or Google numbers will be a victim of some sort too.
Let’s see another instance of gaslighting attempted on us: In the image above witness Facebook trying to BS us that no one gives a crap about our post. A few thousand people interacted with it, in fact. Some were my or my friends’ profiles. None of the numbers we seen on the reports matched the same reports sent to others, or even to ourselves, like the notification on the profile didn’t match the one on the page nor the one on the feed. The lie is too big and intricate to manage with their fake ass quantum computing The machine failed countless times at covering its tracks. We recorded tons of these failures. They figured it out some days ago but now then patches made it worse, so at times they break the notifications completely, it’s still better than you seeing the king naked.
Get involved, share this as wide as you can, let’s crash this monster and its stock market value by outing its schemes!
In a coming episode we hope to teach you similar tricks for Google, who hides it better, but it’s just as rigged. Way more complicated to prove.
We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
These links from their website are all I have for now, but it’s sufficient evidence. I found it important to let it all out ASAP, while I dig for more relevant info.
I find very interesting who the main traders are: Switzerland ($23,684,716.51K , 2,538,500 Kg), Germany ($17,464,406.19K , 7,242,210 Kg), European Union ($16,940,789.16K , 8,953,990 Kg), United States ($8,283,146.64K , 7,020,260 Kg), Ireland ($6,356,054.92K , 590,259 Kg).
China has been shipping Rona tests like there’s no tomorrow since 2018:
Brb, I hope.
UPDATE SEPT 9, 2020 I think you will find this WB document very interesting. Download PDF
“This document describes a programmatic framework responding to the global coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, the ‘COVID-19 Strategic Preparedness and Response Program (SPRP)’, which utilizes the Multiphase Programmatic Approach (MPA), to be supported under the FTCF. The proposed Program, by visibly committing substantial resources (IBRD/IDA financing for SPRP is US$6 billion), and complementing funding by countries and activities supported by other partners, would help ensure adequate resources to fund a rapid emergency response to COVID-19. In parallel, it is being submitted for approval the financing of Phase 1 of the Program for 25 Investment Project Financing operations under the SPRP for countries across the world. The 25 countries are: Afghanistan, Argentina, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Congo Democratic Republic of, Djibouti, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Haiti, India, Kenya, Kyrgyz Republic, Maldives, Mauritania, Mongolia, Pakistan, Paraguay, San Tome & Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, and Yemen (the list of country operations is in Annex I of this document and the country operations are described in their respective Project Appraisal Documents (PADs)). The PADs for the 25 country projects included in this Phase 1 package are available online.”
The Covid Circus is supposed to be about health, but it’s ran by financiers and royalties, fronted by a computer dork and a communist terrorist.
So one thing led to another and eventually we struck oil. We put in a separate article titled
Don’t want your posts reported or your profile flagged because you’re critical of Pharmafia, the establishment and their fake news? Block these profiles. Permanently updated, there’s thousands of them. The secret agents of the narrative enforcement, the real Covidiocracy army.
Among other things, I have a 25years-long career in music. Electronic, mainly. And one thing led to anoher… If you think this is a joke, you are correct. If you think this is damn serious, you are sharp.
Hello World! We’re here to take over all screens with a message of love and acceptance for the Fauci Fashion phenomenon. Too many people still prioritise brain oxygenation and freedom over Fauci Fashion and that is wrong. (We have established that oxygen fits all definitions for “drug”). Youtube is stealing our views and we were helplessly watching our counter going backwards. That is very wrong! (good thing they don’t count Rona cases with the same accuracy and intentions) Our muse and guiding lighthouse in Covidiocracy, Dr. Tony Fauci, gets diminished and that’s unacceptable!!! (almost used caps…) So enough of that! We’re asking your help to get Fauci Fashion (as seen below) into all music charts, and send out a message to everyone that we can’t be silenced. (it’s actually very doable) Fauci Fashion is here to stay and give you Maskne! (it’s like acne, but from the mask, we’ll post links later if you need) If you want to join the movement, read all our posts and follow your conscience. A developed conscience will know what to make of this, the rest won’t and they won’t matter
This is the introductory word to the work of an enthusiastic supporter, with all the help I and other supporters can provide. Can’t put it in words how grateful I am! Yes, with your support, we want to attack official charts with this tune, as a way to get our voice where only Eminems and Cardi Bs can. The track is officially registered and every official stream and download counts, just use these sources.
As a music industry insider, I have the data and the method to mathematically calculate that it’s doable. We planned this carefully and we can mobilise a few thousand involved supporters that can move millions more, that can move billions. If we put together a few of your clicks with our products, know-how and strategy, we have a good shot at it.
Media is already starting to show interest, but it’s way too early to brag, we’ve just launched the initiative.
The music track (and many more)is available for free download from our Bandcamp page, this is not a business or about sales, this is about breaking a blockade. It’s “name your price” release, feel free to insert 0 if that’s the case, I still want you to have them all when you need them, even if you can’t contribute now. We contribute what we can, when we can, IF we WANT.
And we devised a few simple and effortless ways you can get involved in our fake grassroots movement with a secret dark agenda to sabotage Covidiocracy. Because this can’t work without people like you, but can move things in the right direction with you aboard.
The short help course reads like this: It’s all about attention, we live in an attention economy now, we need a bit of yours to join ours and kickstart until this provides for itself. You can basically help us get more attention two main ways: – By streaming, sharing and downloading the F out of Fauci Fashion from these official links: https://fanlink.to/cc1 – By using the Donate button on our shadow organisation’s webpage, which is right here, see the main menu on top 🙂 These funds are meant to buy ads, hire promoters and bribe media. Of course we will use most of it like Gates and Bono’s charities: in personal interest; but the rest will achieve our goals and everyone will be happy. If you really need serious money talk: all money in the world are worthless when you have no future, like humanity under Covidiocracy. So I’m already putting everything in this work, with or without help, but it might not be enough without you. Either way, sponsoring change is the only way I can make money worth anything now.
If you want to achieve maximum impact with your resources, here’s the details you need to know: – most efficient tools you have are * official downloads from sites like Amazon or Juno, one track download equals 100 free streams. And one stream from a paid/premium account = about 5-6 free streams. They are also better reported and accounted too, there’s less accounts of fraud, while Youtube robbed us blind to our faces, turning back the counter; Bundle purchases help less than individual track purchases, for some reasons related to how the charts are calculated. * direct donations; because we have the data on how and where funds can make the best impact at a certain moment and its technically impossible to share all that knowledge and know-how. For Paypal, use the button on this website, for cards hit the Bandcamp page, download what you like and pay what you like. Unfortunately no crypto wallets available. * website embeds and social shares. All platforms love that and google favors it a lot. However, Facebook hates external links, so if it’s not a paid post, it’s best to share the Facebook page itself. Here’s a win-win trick you can do if you have a Facebook page, let’s say: Instead of donating to us, make a dope post with the video or the Spotify player and use the money to buy promotion for it. This way you drive attention to both your page and our initiative, double win!
And if you really don’t like Fauci Fashion, we understand, feel free to purchase Covidiocracy T-shirts and hats from our shop. But most of those money won’t go to us, our percentage is tiny. We don’t make any blood money on the masks, that’s manufacturer’s price.
This will most probably become like a running thread because we have interesting developments almost daily. Here are some of them
August 3rd 2020: This happened. And even more interesting than the video is what happened when we uploaded it on Facebook, see below!
We uploaded this video on our Facebook page too and guess what happened to two people (me and a friend, in fact) the second we started to share it in private messages, verbatim copy incidents: We get locked out by Facebook who was claiming the accounts got hacked and they need to re-secure them. So we went through password changing and a whole f-ing test to regain access. The hacking never actually happened, it was basically a false flag by Facebook, who have been long time shilling for China and Fauci. Most of you users must have got the news that Fakebook’s just launched the new official private message censorship policy, which is basically an AI set to ban keywords and links. Much more complicated than that, but basically that. And the new toaster wasn’t set yet to the right temperature when we started to share inconvenient content. Facebook’s pretense that two of our accounts were attacked, coincidentally and precisely when they were sharing the same video in PM’s – that’s dumb af, Suckerborg!
In other news, EDM Nations mag is with us more vigorously than China 🙂
September 13th: This escalated faster the we anticipated and we had to re-title our video to better reflect the developments:
Ever watched a heist live online? Hit the video and watch the counters.
Long story short: Our target with The People for Fauci Fashion was 10,000 Youtube views and about as many streams on Spotify first half of September. Spotify went well since Day#1, no worries there. First days we got the video some bumps in traffic, a solid few hundred views went away, we hardly documented it because we couldn’t believe our eyes we’re watching the counter going backwards. We went over the shock, took it as an accident, got some more press, tricked the Facebook robots to approve our clips and literally paid Suckerborg to distribute out video across Facebook, mobilised some supporters and got things going, with a few ups and downs. By Friday 11th we were at about 8,500 Youtube views and imaginary Champagne bottles went to the freezer before I went to bed. Saturday morning I woke up to only about 8,900 views, I raised an eyebrow, but OK. Before I finished my coffee we were down to around 7,300. Took me a while to process and react, mobilise some people etc, so first screenshot is from the afternoon at around 6,300 views. Made noise, tons more people watched the video, Sunday afternoon we’re down 100 views and about 10 likes. Regardless of what you think of our initiative, from Youtubers’ household budgets to entire industries, we all are hugely influenced by Youtube, Facebook and Twitter numbers and reports. And they are arbitrary. They insert there whatever figures they damn please. If you have doubts about that, read here how you yourself can prove Facebook is pick-pocketing users and advertisers, we learned it the hard way, and a lot more while promoting this project.
Meanwhile, reality has become even harder to distinguish from memes and parodies.
By Sunday afternoon everything turned again… #LMAO @ #Youtube: I Did a little roll call, pushed back, outed them everywhere and whatcha guess, the power is back. Not the views, though. Did everyone just die this week-end?! Youtube almost brags and rubs in our face the thick chunk of views they took from our video. Globalist scum, basically.
Monday: Same story reloaded, this time we kinda streamed it live on Facebook and other socials.
“Fauci Fashion” is part of a larger music release that has just been made available on most quality digital platforms that support electronic dance music.
Imagine a fist with five middle fingers up. Even 6 on Bandcamp or Youtube. This is the official description of Alien Pimp’s newest EP. Straight from the depths of the deepest Coronavirus mental and emotional depression, with one hand swinging the sword of comedy and with the other – the hammer of tragedy, here comes the sound of the “New Normal”. It’s angry, pissed, acid, deep, dark, ironic, silly, it’s everything punk aspired to be, but with computers and true care for the sound engineering. It doesn’t even matter if you like it, this EP is here to take a snap of history and set a stone. Alien Pimp did that before a few times, he pushed the bass music hybridization 10 years ago, and precisely 20 years ago he got featured on CNN for the pioneering internet as a medium for audio-visual collaborations. And now a new age awaits a new turn, especially in arts, you can be part of it or part of the past. And it’s pointless to even try stopping it, berating and belittling it, as it is pointless to ignore it. It is, it happened and it won’t go away, more so than the times that lead to its creation. Every track comes ‘equipped” with visual support created by the musician himself. He practices something he calls “new media” or “Silview media” (from his own name and website), it’s a fusion of formats and aesthetics shaped by the current times and technology. It blends a bit of everything, from retro-futurism to memes and tiktok. Some tracks have vertical videos designed for phones, other resemble animated gifs and so forth. In short: this is the sound o’ the times. “Don’t like it? Imagine how much I love living the times that inspired it! Like it? You know what to do…”, says Alien Pimp.
… in less than four years? Must be some breakthrough science again, maybe viruses are getting fat like Brits, or maybe they invented invisible masks now, right? No. Politics and media narratives changed. Nature works the same, masks are as lame as they ever were when it comes to virus protection. See for yourself and you will understand why this article is not up anymore.
When did they embraced dogma, yesterday or today? Why?
Below is the full, unedited article, in all its beauty. Probably the most valuable part is the references collection, as well as this little announcement hanged by the Oral Health collective at the end of the piece, just to trash it a bit later for no actual reason:
Oral Health welcomes this original article.
Why Face Masks Don’t Work: A Revealing Review
October 18, 2016 by John Hardie, BDS, MSc, PhD, FRCDC
Yesterday’s Scientific Dogma is Today’s Discarded Fable
Introduction The above quotation is ascribed to Justice Archie Campbell author of Canada’s SARS Commission Final Report. 1It is a stark reminder that scientific knowledge is constantly changing as new discoveries contradict established beliefs. For at least three decades a face mask has been deemed an essential component of the personal protective equipment worn by dental personnel. A current article, “Face Mask Performance: Are You Protected” gives the impression that masks are capable of providing an acceptable level of protection from airborne pathogens. 2Studies of recent diseases such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the Ebola Crisis combined with those of seasonal influenza and drug resistant tuberculosis have promoted a better understanding of how respiratory diseases are transmitted. Concurrently, with this appreciation, there have been a number of clinical investigations into the efficacy of protective devices such as face masks. This article will describe how the findings of such studies lead to a rethinking of the benefits of wearing a mask during the practice of dentistry. It will begin by describing new concepts relating to infection control especially personal protective equipment (PPE).
Trends in Infection Control For the past three decades there has been minimal opposition to what have become seemingly established and accepted infection control recommendations. In 2009, infection control specialist Dr. D. Diekema questioned the validity of these by asking what actual, front-line hospital-based infection control experiences were available to such authoritative organization as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 3In the same year, while commenting on guidelines for face masks, Dr. M. Rupp of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America noted that some of the practices relating to infection control that have been in place for decades, ”haven’t been subjected to the same strenuous investigation that, for instance, a new medicine might be subjected.” 4He opined that perhaps it is the relative cheapness and apparent safety of face masks that has prevented them from undergoing the extensive studies that should be required for any quality improvement device. 4More recently, Dr. R. MacIntyre, a prolific investigator of face masks, has forcefully stated that the historical reliance on theoretical assumptions for recommending PPEs should be replaced by rigorously acquired clinical data. 5She noted that most studies on face masks have been based on laboratory simulated tests which quite simply have limited clinical applicability as they cannot account for such human factors as compliance, coughing and talking. 5
Covering the nose and mouth for infection control started in the early 1900s when the German physician Carl Flugge discovered that exhaled droplets could transmit tuberculosis. 4The science regarding the aerosol transmission of infectious diseases has, for years, been based on what is now appreciated to be “very outmoded research and an overly simplistic interpretation of the data.” 6Modern studies are employing sensitive instruments and interpretative techniques to better understand the size and distribution of potentially infectious aerosol particles. 6Such knowledge is paramount to appreciating the limitations of face masks. Nevertheless, it is the historical understanding of droplet and airborne transmission that has driven the longstanding and continuing tradition of mask wearing among health professionals. In 2014, the nursing profession was implored to “stop using practice interventions that are based on tradition” but instead adopt protocols that are based on critical evaluations of the available evidence. 7
A December 2015 article in the National Post seems to ascribe to Dr. Gardam, Director of Infection Prevention and Control, Toronto University Health Network the quote, “I need to choose which stupid, arbitrary infection control rules I’m going to push.” 8In a communication with the author, Dr. Gardam explained that this was not a personal belief but that it did reflect the views of some infection control practitioners. In her 2014 article, “Germs and the Pseudoscience of Quality Improvement”, Dr. K Sibert, an anaesthetist with an interest in infection control, is of the opinion that many infection control rules are indeed arbitrary, not justified by the available evidence or subjected to controlled follow-up studies, but are devised, often under pressure, to give the appearance of doing something. 9
The above illustrate the developing concerns that many infection control measures have been adopted with minimal supporting evidence. To address this fault, the authors of a 2007 New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) article eloquently argue that all safety and quality improvement recommendations must be subjected to the same rigorous testing as would any new clinical intervention. 10Dr. R. MacIntyre, a proponent of this trend in infection control, has used her research findings to boldly state that, “it would not seem justifiable to ask healthcare workers to wear surgical masks.” 4To understand this conclusion it is necessary to appreciate the current concepts relating to airborne transmissions.
Airborne Transmissions Early studies of airborne transmissions were hampered by the fact that the investigators were not able to detect small particles (less than 5 microns) near an infectious person. 6Thus, they assumed that it was the exposure of the face, eyes and nose to large particles (greater than 5 microns) or “droplets” that transmitted the respiratory condition to a person in close proximity to the host. 6This became known as “droplet infection”, and 5 microns or greater became established as the size of large particles and the traditional belief that such particles could, in theory, be trapped by a face mask. 5The early researchers concluded that since only large particles were detected near an infectious person any small particles would be transmitted via air currents, dispersed over long distances, remain infective over time and might be inhaled by persons who never had any close contact with the host. 11This became known as “airborne transmission” against which a face mask would be of little use. 5
Through the use of highly sensitive instruments it is now appreciated that the aerosols transmitted from the respiratory tract due to coughing, sneezing, talking, exhalation and certain medical and dental procedures produce respiratory particles that range from the very small (less than 5 microns) to the very large (greater than a 100 microns) and that all of these particles are capable of being inhaled by persons close to the source. 6, 11 This means that respiratory aerosols potentially contain bacteria averaging in size from 1-10 microns and viruses ranging in size from 0.004 to 0.1 microns. 12It is also acknowledged that upon their emission large “droplets” will undergo evaporation producing a concentration of readily inhalable small particles surrounding the aerosol source. 6
The historical terms “droplet infection” and “airborne transmission” defined the routes of infection based on particle size. Current knowledge suggests that these are redundant descriptions since aerosols contain a wide distribution of particle sizes and that they ought to be replaced by the term, “aerosol transmissible.” 4, 5 Aerosol transmission has been defined as “person –to – person transmission of pathogens through air by means of inhalation of infectious particles.” 26In addition, it is appreciated that the physics associated with the production of the aerosols imparts energy to microbial suspensions facilitating their inhalation. 11
Traditionally face masks have been recommended to protect the mouth and nose from the “droplet” route of infection, presumably because they will prevent the inhalation of relatively large particles. 11Their efficacy must be re-examined in light of the fact that aerosols contain particles many times smaller than 5 microns. Prior to this examination, it is pertinent to review the defence mechanism of the respiratory tract.
Respiratory System Defences Comprehensive details on the defence mechanisms of the respiratory tract will not be discussed. Instead readers are reminded that; coughing, sneezing, nasal hairs, respiratory tract cilia, mucous producing lining cells and the phagocytic activity of alveolar macrophages provide protection against inhaled foreign bodies including fungi, bacteria and viruses. 13Indeed, the pathogen laden aerosols produced by everyday talking and eating would have the potential to cause significant disease if it were not for these effective respiratory tract defences.
These defences contradict the recently published belief that dentally produced aerosols, “enter unprotected bronchioles and alveoli.” 2A pertinent demonstration of the respiratory tract’s ability to resist disease is the finding that- compared to controls- dentists had significantly elevated levels of antibodies to influenza A and B and the respiratory syncytial virus. 14Thus, while dentists had greater than normal exposure to these aerosol transmissible pathogens, their potential to cause disease was resisted by respiratory immunologic responses. Interestingly, the wearing of masks and eye glasses did not lessen the production of antibodies, thus reducing their significance as personal protective barriers. 14Another example of the effectiveness of respiratory defences is that although exposed to more aerosol transmissible pathogens than the general population, Tokyo dentists have a significantly lower risk of dying from pneumonia and bronchitis. 15The ability of a face mask to prevent the infectious risk potentially inherent in sprays of blood and saliva reaching the wearers mouth and nose is questionable since, before the advent of mask use, dentists were no more likely to die of infectious diseases than the general population. 16
The respiratory tract has efficient defence mechanisms. Unless face masks have the ability to either enhance or lessen the need for such natural defences, their use as protection against airborne pathogens must be questioned.
Face Masks History: Cloth or cotton gauze masks have been used since the late 19th century to protect sterile fields from spit and mucous generated by the wearer. 5,17,18 A secondary function was to protect the mouth and nose of the wearer from the sprays and splashes of blood and body fluids created during surgery. 17As noted above, in the early 20th century masks were used to trap infectious “droplets” expelled by the wearer thus possibly reducing disease transmission to others. 18Since the mid-20th century until to-day, face masks have been increasingly used for entirely the opposite function: that is to prevent the wearer from inhaling respiratory pathogens. 5,20,21 Indeed, most current dental infection control recommendations insist that a face mask be worn, “as a key component of personal protection against airborne pathogens”. 2
Literature reviews have confirmed that wearing a mask during surgery has no impact whatsoever on wound infection rates during clean surgery. 22,23,24,25,26 A recent 2014 report states categorically that no clinical trials have ever shown that wearing a mask prevents contamination of surgical sites. 26With their original purpose being highly questionable it should be no surprise that the ability of face masks to act as respiratory protective devices is now the subject of intense scrutiny. 27Appreciating the reasons for this, requires an understanding of the structure, fit and filtering capacity of face masks.
Structure and Fit: Disposable face masks usually consist of three to four layers of flat non-woven mats of fine fibres separated by one or two polypropylene barrier layers which act as filters capable of trapping material greater than 1 micron in diameter. 18,24,28 Masks are placed over the nose and mouth and secured by straps usually placed behind the head and neck. 21No matter how well a mask conforms to the shape of a person’s face, it is not designed to create an air tight seal around the face. Masks will always fit fairly loosely with considerable gaps along the cheeks, around the bridge of the nose and along the bottom edge of the mask below the chin. 21These gaps do not provide adequate protection as they permit the passage of air and aerosols when the wearer inhales. 11,17 It is important to appreciate that if masks contained filters capable of trapping viruses, the peripheral gaps around the masks would continue to permit the inhalation of unfiltered air and aerosols. 11
Filtering Capacity: The filters in masks do not act as sieves by trapping particles greater than a specific size while allowing smaller particles to pass through. 18Instead the dynamics of aerosolized particles and their molecular attraction to filter fibres are such that at a certain range of sizes both large and small particles will penetrate through a face mask. 18Accordingly, it should be no surprise that a study of eight brands of face masks found that they did not filter out 20-100% of particles varying in size from 0.1 to 4.0 microns. 21Another investigation showed penetration ranges from 5-100% when masks were challenged with relatively large 1.0 micron particles. 29A further study found that masks were incapable of filtering out 80-85% of particles varying in size from 0.3 to 2.0 microns. 30A 2008 investigation identified the poor filtering performance of dental masks. 27It should be concluded from these and similar studies that the filter material of face masks does not retain or filter out viruses or other submicron particles. 11,31 When this understanding is combined with the poor fit of masks, it is readily appreciated that neither the filter performance nor the facial fit characteristics of face masks qualify them as being devices which protect against respiratory infections. 27Despite this determination the performance of masks against certain criteria has been used to justify their effectiveness.2 Accordingly, it is appropriate to review the limitations of these performance standards.
Performance Standards: Face masks are not subject to any regulations. 11The USA Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classifies face masks as Class II devices. To obtain the necessary approval to sell masks all that a manufacturer need do is satisfy the FDA that any new device is substantially the same as any mask currently available for sale. 21As ironically noted by the Occupational Health and Safety Agency for Healthcare in BC, “There is no specific requirement to prove that the existing masks are effective and there is no standard test or set of data required supporting the assertion of equivalence. Nor does the FDA conduct or sponsor testing of surgical masks.” 21Although the FDA recommends two filter efficiency tests; particulate filtration efficiency (PFE) and bacterial filtration efficiency (BFE) it does not stipulate a minimum level of filter performance for these tests. 27The PFE test is a basis for comparing the efficiency of face masks when exposed to aerosol particle sizes between 0.1 and 5.0 microns. The test does not assess the effectiveness of a mask in preventing the ingress of potentially harmful particles nor can it be used to characterize the protective nature of a mask. 32The BFE test is a measure of a mask’s ability to provide protection from large particles expelled by the wearer. It does not provide an assessment of a mask’s ability to protect the wearer. 17Although these tests are conducted under the auspices of the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) and often produce filtration efficiencies in the range of 95-98 %, they are not a measure of a masks ability to protect against respiratory pathogens. Failure to appreciate the limitations of these tests combined with a reliance on the high filtration efficiencies reported by the manufacturers has, according to Healthcare in BC, “created an environment in which health care workers think they are more protected than they actually are.” 21For dental personnel the protection sought is mainly from treatment induced aerosols.
Dental Aerosols For approximately 40 years it has been known that dental restorative and especially ultrasonic scaling procedures produce aerosols containing not only blood and saliva but potentially pathogenic organisms. 33The source of these organisms could be the oral cavities of patients and/or dental unit water lines. 34Assessing the source and pathogenicity of these organisms has proven elusive as it is extremely difficult to culture bacteria especially anaerobes and viruses from dental aerosols. 34Although there is no substantiated proof that dental aerosols are an infection control risk, it is a reasonable assumption that if pathogenic microbes are present at the treatment site they will become aerosolized and prone to inhalation by the clinician which a face mask will not prevent. As shown by the study of UK dentists, the inhalation resulted in the formation of appropriate antibodies to respiratory pathogens without overt signs and symptoms of respiratory distress. 14This occurred whether masks were or were not worn. In a 2008 article, Dr. S. Harrel, of the Baylor College of Dentistry, is of the opinion that because there is a lack of epidemiologically detectable disease from the use of ultrasonic scalers, dental aerosols appear to have a low potential for transmitting disease but should not be ignored as a risk for disease transmission. 34The most effective measures for reducing disease transmission from dental aerosols are pre-procedural rinses with mouthwashes such as chlorhexidine, large diameter high volume evacuators, and rubber dam whenever possible. 33Face masks are not useful for this purpose, and Dr. Harrel believes that dental personnel have placed too great a reliance on their efficacy. 34Perhaps this has occurred because dental regulatory agencies have failed to appreciate the increasing evidence on face mask inadequacies.
The Inadequacies Between 2004 and 2016 at least a dozen research or review articles have been published on the inadequacies of face masks. 5,6,11,17,19,20,21,25,26,27,28,31 All agree that the poor facial fit and limited filtration characteristics of face masks make them unable to prevent the wearer inhaling airborne particles. In their well-referenced 2011 article on respiratory protection for healthcare workers, Drs. Harriman and Brosseau conclude that, “facemasks will not protect against the inhalation of aerosols.” 11Following their 2015 literature review, Dr. Zhou and colleagues stated, “There is a lack of substantiated evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.” 25In the same year Dr. R. MacIntyre noted that randomized controlled trials of facemasks failed to prove their efficacy. 5In August 2016 responding to a question on the protection from facemasks the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety replied:
The filter material of surgical masks does not retain or filter out submicron particles;
Surgical masks are not designed to eliminate air leakage around the edges;
Surgical masks do not protect the wearer from inhaling small particles that can remain airborne for long periods of time. 31
In 2015, Dr. Leonie Walker, Principal Researcher of the New Zealand Nurses Organization succinctly described- within a historical context – the inadequacies of facemasks, “Health care workers have long relied heavily on surgical masks to provide protection against influenza and other infections. Yet there are no convincing scientific data that support the effectiveness of masks for respiratory protection. The masks we use are not designed for such purposes, and when tested, they have proved to vary widely in filtration capability, allowing penetration of aerosol particles ranging from four to 90%.” 35
Face masks do not satisfy the criteria for effectiveness as described by Drs. Landefeld and Shojania in their NEJM article, “The Tension between Needing to Improve Care and Knowing How to Do It. 10The authors declare that, “…recommending or mandating the widespread adoption of interventions to improve quality or safety requires rigorous testing to determine whether, how, and where the intervention is effective…” They stress the critical nature of this concept because, “…a number of widely promulgated interventions are likely to be wholly ineffective, even if they do not harm patients.” 10A significant inadequacy of face masks is that they were mandated as an intervention based on an assumption rather than on appropriate testing.
Conclusions The primary reason for mandating the wearing of face masks is to protect dental personnel from airborne pathogens. This review has established that face masks are incapable of providing such a level of protection. Unless the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, national and provincial dental associations and regulatory agencies publically admit this fact, they will be guilty of perpetuating a myth which will be a disservice to the dental profession and its patients. It would be beneficial if, as a consequence of the review, all present infection control recommendations were subjected to the same rigorous testing as any new clinical intervention. Professional associations and governing bodies must ensure the clinical efficacy of quality improvement procedures prior to them being mandated. It is heartening to know that such a trend is gaining a momentum which might reveal the inadequacies of other long held dental infection control assumptions. Surely, the hallmark of a mature profession is one which permits new evidence to trump established beliefs. In 1910, Dr. C. Chapin, a public health pioneer, summarized this idea by stating, “We should not be ashamed to change our methods; rather, we should be ashamed not to do so.” 36Until this occurs, as this review has revealed, dentists have nothing to fear by unmasking. OH
Oral Health welcomes this original article.
References 1. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care. SARS Commission-Spring of Fear: Final Report. Available at: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/public/pub/ministry_reports/campbell06/campbell06.html 2. Molinari JA, Nelson P. Face Mask Performance: Are You Protected? Oral Health, March 2016. 3. Diekema D. Controversies in Hospital Infection Prevention, October, 2009. 4. Unmasking the Surgical Mask: Does It Really Work? Medpage Today, Infectious Disease, October, 2009. 5. MacIntyre CR, Chughtai AA. Facemasks for the prevention of infection in healthcare and community settings. BMJ 2015; 350:h694. 6. Brosseau LM, Jones R. Commentary: Health workers need optimal respiratory protection for Ebola. Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy. September, 2014. 7. Clinical Habits Die Hard: Nursing Traditions Often Trump Evidence-Based Practice. Infection Control Today, April, 2014. 8. Landman K. Doctors, take off those dirty white coats. National Post, December 7, 2015. 9. Sibert K. Germs and the Pseudoscience of Quality Improvement. California Society of Anesthesiologists, December 8, 2014. 10. Auerbach AD, Landfeld CS, Shojania KG. The Tension between Needing to Improve Care and Knowing How to Do It. NEJM 2007; 357 (6):608-613. 11. Harriman KH, Brosseau LM. Controversy: Respiratory Protection for Healthcare Workers. April, 2011. Available at: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/741245_print 12. Bacteria and Viruses Issues. Water Quality Association, 2016. Available at: https://www.wqa.org/Learn-About-Water/Common-Contaminants/Bacteria-Viruses 13. Lechtzin N. Defense Mechanisms of the Respiratory System. Merck Manuals, Kenilworth, USA, 2016 14. Davies KJ, Herbert AM, Westmoreland D. Bagg J. Seroepidemiological study of respiratory virus infections among dental surgeons. Br Dent J. 1994; 176(7):262-265. 15. Shimpo H, Yokoyama E, Tsurumaki K. Causes of death and life expectancies among dentists. Int Dent J 1998; 48(6):563-570. 16. Bureau of Economic Research and Statistics, Mortality of Dentists 1961-1966. JADA 1968; 76(4):831-834. 17. Respirators and Surgical Masks: A Comparison. 3 M Occupational Health and Environment Safety Division. Oct. 2009. 18. Brosseau L. N95 Respirators and Surgical Masks. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Oct. 2009. 19. Johnson DF, Druce JD, Birch C, Grayson ML. A Quantitative Assessment of the Efficacy of Surgical and N95 Masks to Filter Influenza Virus in Patients with Acute Influenza Infection. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 49:275-277. 20. Weber A, Willeke K, Marchloni R et al. Aerosol penetration and leakage characteristics of masks used in the health care industry. Am J Inf Cont 1993; 219(4):167-173. 21. Yassi A, Bryce E. Protecting the Faces of Health Care Workers. Occupational Health and Safety Agency for Healthcare in BC, Final Report, April 2004. 22. Bahli ZM. Does Evidence Based Medicine Support The Effectiveness Of Surgical Facemasks In Preventing Postoperative Wound Infections In Elective Surgery. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2009; 21(2)166-169. 23. Lipp A, Edwards P. Disposable surgical face masks for preventing surgical wound infection in clean surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002(1) CD002929. 24. Lipp A, Edwards P. Disposable surgical face masks: a systematic review. Can Oper Room Nurs J 2005; 23(#):20-38. 25. Zhou Cd, Sivathondan P, Handa A. Unmasking the surgeons: the evidence base behind the use of facemasks in surgery. JR Soc Med 2015; 108(6):223-228. 26. Brosseau L, Jones R. Commentary: Protecting health workers from airborne MERS-CoV- learning from SARS. Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy May 2014. 27. Oberg T, Brosseau L. Surgical mask filter and fit performance. Am J Infect Control 2008; 36:276-282. 28. Lipp A. The effectiveness of surgical face masks: what the literature shows. Nursing Times 2003; 99(39):22-30. 29. Chen CC, Lehtimaki M, Willeke K. Aerosol penetration through filtering facepieces and respirator cartridges. Am Indus Hyg Assoc J 1992; 53(9):566-574. 30. Chen CC, Willeke K. Characteristics of Face Seal Leakage in Filtering Facepieces. Am Indus Hyg Assoc J 1992; 53(9):533-539. 31. Do surgical masks protect workers? OSH Answers Fact Sheets. Canadian Centre for Occupational health and Safety. Updated August 2016. 32. Standard Test Method for Determining the Initial Efficiency of Materials Used in Medical Face Masks to Penetration by Particulates Using Latex Spheres. American Society of Testing and Materials, Active Standard ASTM F2299/F2299M. 33. Harrel SK. Airborne Spread of Disease-The Implications for Dentistry. CDA J 2004; 32(11); 901-906. 34. Harrel SK. Are Ultrasonic Aerosols an Infection Control Risk? Dimensions of Dental Hygiene 2008; 6(6):20-26. 35. Robinson L. Unmasking the evidence. New Zealand Nurses Organization. May 2015. Available at: https://nznoblog.org.nz/2015/05/15/unmasking-the-evidence 36. Chapin CV. The Sources and Modes of Transmission. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1910.
The murder of American woman Dee Dee Blanchard in 2015, is one of the most famous cases of Factitious disorder imposed on another (aka Munchausen syndrome by proxy) ever, a long and devastating story of horrific child abuse, that ended with a daughter orchestrating the murder of her own mother. This mental illness is also the fuel Covidiocracy runs on.
Factitious disorder imposed on another (FDIA), also known as Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSbP), is a condition by which a caregiver creates the appearance of health problems in another person, typically their child. This may include injuring the child or altering test samples. They then present the person as being sick or injured. This occurs without a specific benefit to the caregiver.Permanent injury or death of the child may occur.
In factitious disorder imposed on another, a caregiver makes a dependent person appear mentally or physically ill in order to gain attention. To perpetuate the medical relationship, the caregiver systematically misrepresents symptoms, fabricates signs, manipulates laboratory tests, or even purposely harms the dependent (e.g. by poisoning, suffocation, infection, physical injury). Studies have shown a mortality rate of between six and ten percent, making it perhaps the most lethal form of abuse.
Most present about three medical problems in some combination of the 103 different reported symptoms. The most-frequently reported problems are apnea (26.8% of cases), anorexia or feeding problems (24.6% of cases), diarrhea (20%), seizures (17.5%), cyanosis (blue skin) (11.7%), behavior (10.4%), asthma (9.5%), allergy (9.3%), and fevers (8.6%). Other symptoms include failure to thrive, vomiting, bleeding, rash, and infections. Many of these symptoms are easy to fake because they are subjective. A parent reporting that their child had a fever in the past 24 hours is making a claim that is impossible to prove or disprove. The number and variety of presented symptoms contribute to the difficulty in reaching a proper diagnosis.
Aside from the motive (which is to gain attention or sympathy), another feature that differentiates FDIA from “typical” physical child abuse is the degree of premeditation involved. Whereas most physical abuse entails lashing out at a child in response to some behavior (e.g., crying, bedwetting, spilling food), assaults on the FDIA victim tend to be unprovoked and planned.
Also unique to this form of abuse is the role that health care providers play by actively, albeit unintentionally, enabling the abuse. By reacting to the concerns and demands of perpetrators, medical professionals are manipulated into a partnership of child maltreatment. Challenging cases that defy simple medical explanations may prompt health care providers to pursue unusual or rare diagnoses, thus allocating even more time to the child and the abuser. Even without prompting, medical professionals may be easily seduced into prescribing diagnostic tests and therapies that are at best uncomfortable and costly, and at worst potentially injurious to the child. If the health practitioner resists ordering further tests, drugs, procedures, surgeries, or specialists, the FDIA abuser makes the medical system appear negligent for refusing to help a sick child and their selfless parent. Like those with Munchausen syndrome, FDIA perpetrators are known to switch medical providers frequently until they find one that is willing to meet their level of need; this practice is known as “doctor shopping” or “hospital hopping”.
The perpetrator continues the abuse because maintaining the child in the role of patient satisfies the abuser’s needs. The cure for the victim is to separate the child completely from the abuser. When parental visits are allowed, sometimes there is a disastrous outcome for the child. Even when the child is removed, the perpetrator may then abuse another child: a sibling or other child in the family.
Factitious disorder imposed on another can have many long-term emotional effects on a child. Depending on their experience of medical interventions, a percentage of children may learn that they are most likely to receive the positive maternal attention they crave when they are playing the sick role in front of health care providers. Several case reports describe Munchausen syndrome patients suspected of themselves having been FDIA victims. Seeking personal gratification through illness can thus become a lifelong and multi-generational disorder in some cases. In stark contrast, other reports suggest survivors of FDIA develop an avoidance of medical treatment with post-traumatic responses to it. This variation possibly reflects broad statistics on survivors of child abuse in general, where around 35% of abusers were a victim of abuse in the past.
The adult caregiver who has abused the child often seems comfortable and not upset over the child’s hospitalization. While the child is hospitalized, medical professionals must monitor the caregiver’s visits to prevent an attempt to worsen the child’s condition.In addition, in many jurisdictions, medical professionals have a duty to report such abuse to legal authorities.
Munchausen syndrome by proxy is a controversial term. In the World Health Organization’s International Statistical Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10), the official diagnosis is factitious disorder (301.51 in ICD-9, F68.12 in ICD-10). Within the United States, factitious disorder imposed on another (FDIA or FDIoA) was officially recognized as a disorder in 2013, while in the United Kingdom, it is known as fabricated or induced illness by carers (FII).
In DSM-5, the diagnostic manual published by the American Psychiatric Association in 2013, this disorder is listed under 300.19 Factitious disorder. This, in turn, encompasses two types:
Factitious disorder imposed on self – (formerly Munchausen syndrome).
Factitious disorder imposed on another – (formerly Munchausen syndrome by proxy); diagnosis assigned to the perpetrator; the person affected may be assigned an abuse diagnosis (e.g. child abuse).
Warning signs of the disorder include:
A child who has one or more medical problems that do not respond to treatment or that follow an unusual course that is persistent, puzzling, and unexplained.
Physical or laboratory findings that are highly unusual, discrepant with patient’s presentation or history, or physically or clinically impossible.
A parent who appears medically knowledgeable, fascinated with medical details and hospital gossip, appears to enjoy the hospital environment, and expresses interest in the details of other patients’ problems.
A highly attentive parent who is reluctant to leave their child’s side and who themselves seem to require constant attention.
A parent who appears unusually calm in the face of serious difficulties in their child’s medical course while being highly supportive and encouraging of the physician, or one who is angry, devalues staff, and demands further intervention, more procedures, second opinions, and transfers to more sophisticated facilities.
The suspected parent may work in the health-care field themselves or profess an interest in a health-related job.
The signs and symptoms of a child’s illness may lessen or simply vanish in the parent’s absence (hospitalization and careful monitoring may be necessary to establish this causal relationship).
A family history of similar or unexplained illness or death in a sibling.
A parent with symptoms similar to their child’s own medical problems or an illness history that itself is puzzling and unusual.
A suspected emotionally distant relationship between parents; the spouse often fails to visit the patient and has little contact with physicians even when the child is hospitalized with a serious illness.
A parent who reports dramatic, negative events, such as house fires, burglaries, or car accidents, that affect them and their family while their child is undergoing treatment.
A parent who seems to have an insatiable need for adulation or who makes self-serving efforts for public acknowledgment of their abilities.
A child who inexplicably deteriorates whenever discharge is planned.
A child that looks for cueing from a parent in order to feign illness when medical personnel are present.
A child that is overly articulate regarding medical terminology and their own disease process for their age.
A child that presents to the Emergency Department with a history of repeat illness, injury, or hospitalization.
Beverley Allitt, a British nurse who murdered four children and injured a further nine in 1991 at Grantham and Kesteven Hospital, Lincolnshire, was diagnosed with Munchausen syndrome by proxy.
Wendi Michelle Scott is a Frederick, Maryland, mother who was charged with sickening her four-year-old daughter.
The book Sickened, by Julie Gregory, details her life growing up with a mother suffering from Munchausen by proxy, who took her to various doctors, coached her to act sicker than she was and to exaggerate her symptoms, and who demanded increasingly invasive procedures to diagnose Gregory’s enforced imaginary illnesses.
Lisa Hayden-Johnson of Devon was jailed for three years and three months after subjecting her son to a total of 325 medical actions – including being forced to use a wheelchair and being fed through a tube in his stomach. She claimed her son had a long list of illnesses including diabetes, food allergies, cerebral palsy, and cystic fibrosis, describing him as “the most ill child in Britain” and receiving numerous cash donations and charity gifts, including two cruises.
In the mid-1990s, Kathy Bush gained public sympathy for the plight of her daughter, Jennifer, who by the age of 8 had undergone 40 surgeries and spent over 640 days in hospitals for gastrointestinal disorders. The acclaim led to a visit with first lady Hillary Clinton, who championed the Bushs’ plight as evidence of need for medical reform. However, in 1996, Kathy Bush was arrested and charged with child abuse and Medicaid fraud, accused of sabotaging Jennifer’s medical equipment and drugs to agitate and prolong her illness. Jennifer was moved to foster care where she quickly regained her health. The prosecutors claimed Kathy was driven by Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, and she was convicted to a five-year sentence in 1999. Kathy was released after serving three years in 2005, always maintaining her innocence, and having gotten back in contact with Jennifer via correspondence.
In 2014, 26-year-old Lacey Spears was charged in Westchester County, New York, with second-degree depraved murder and first-degree manslaughter. She fed her son dangerous amounts of salt after she conducted research on the Internet about its effects. Her actions were allegedly motivated by the social media attention she gained on Facebook, Twitter, and blogs. She was convicted of second-degree murder on March 2, 2015, and sentenced to 20 years to life in prison.
Dee Dee Blanchard was a Missouri mother who was murdered by her daughter and a boyfriend in 2015 after having claimed for years that her daughter, Gypsy Rose, was sick and disabled; to the point of shaving her head, making her use a wheelchair in public, and subjecting her to unnecessary medication and surgery. Gypsy possessed no outstanding illnesses. Feldman said it is the first case he is aware of in a quarter-century of research where the victim killed the abuser. Their story was shown on HBO‘s documentary film Mommy Dead and Dearest and is featured in the first season of the Hulu anthology series, The Act.
Rapper Eminem has spoken about how his mother would frequently take him to hospitals to receive treatment for illnesses that he did not have. His song “Cleanin’ Out My Closet” includes a lyric regarding the illness, “…going through public housing systems victim of Münchausen syndrome. My whole life I was made to believe I was sick, when I wasn’t ‘til I grew up and blew up…” His mother’s illness resulted in Eminem receiving custody of his younger brother, Nathan.[
In 2013, Boston Children’s Hospital filed a 51A report to take custody of Justina Pelletier, who was 14 at the time. At 21 she was living with her parents. Her parents are suing Boston Children’s Hospital, alleging that their civil rights were violated when she was committed to a psychiatric ward and their access to her was limited. At the trial, Pelletier’s treating neurologist described how her parents encouraged her to be sick and were endangering her health. Source: Wikipedia
Munchausen syndrome by proxy is a mental illness where a caretaker (usually a mother) of a child either falsifies symptoms or causes real illness to make it appear as if the child is sick. It is an extremely rare form of child abuse and proving the case in court is even rarer, such is the case with Dee Dee and her alleged victim, daughter Gypsy Blanchard.
Dee Dee claimed that Gypsy had leukaemia, epilepsy, muscular dystrophy and that she couldn’t walk, confining the young able-bodied girl to a wheelchair whenever she had to leave the house, as well as forcing her to be fed through an unnecessary feeding tube, telling people she had the mental capacity of a seven-year-old and forcing her to take medications for illnesses Gypsy wasn’t suffering from.
Gypsy Blanchard talking with Dr. Phil while in prison
As Gypsy got older, the healthy girl began to push back against her mother and grew increasingly more independent, going on Facebook without Dee Dee’s permission and meeting people from the outside world through chatrooms. It was on the social networking site in 2012 where she met Nicholas Godejohn, the man who would stab Gypsy’s mother to death at her request.
The story of Gypsy Blanchard has been investigated in HBO documentary Mommy Dead and Dearest, and now in Gypsy’s Revenge, and by and large people’s responses have been the same: her sentence may technically fit the crime, but is it right?
Gypsy confessed to police to having Godejohn stab her mother just days after the murder, and she is currently serving 10 years in prison as a healthy young woman entirely free from any physical illnesses.
The prosecution along with the defence, both thought Gypsy was a victim of Munchausen syndrome by proxy, and followers of the case and the latest documentary might question the fairness of the punishment as a victim of child abuse.
While there is never an excuse for murder, this shocking true crime story shines a light on the complex cases of child abuse, and Munchausen syndrome by proxy.
And Now the Big Question:
Do the following fall under the description of “Munchausen syndrome by proxy”?
1. A government or other group of people exaggerating or fully faking health threats in order to get attention and a certain response from society. 2. A parent putting a Covid masks on healthy children. 3. A covidiot yelling at people who don’t wear masks.
Silviu “Silview” Costinescu
We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
We just want to signal to our readers this piece from Forbes which would seem inconceivable to print in 2020. It wasn’t often even back then to read such stuff in major mainstream media, but it wasn’t mindblowing either, hence the weak or missing backclash. Read it now, integrally, with your 2020 mind.
Originally published by Forbes on Feb 5, 2010,04:35pm EST
The World Health Organization has suddenly gone from crying “The sky is falling!” like a cackling Chicken Little to squealing like a stuck pig. The reason: charges that the agency deliberately fomented swine flu hysteria. “The world is going through a real pandemic. The description of it as a fake is wrong and irresponsible,” the agency claims on its Web site. A WHO spokesman declined to specify who or what gave this “description,” but the primary accuser is hard to ignore.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), a human rights watchdog, is publicly investigating the WHO’s motives in declaring a pandemic. Indeed, the chairman of its influential health committee, epidemiologist Wolfgang Wodarg, has declared that the “false pandemic” is “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century.”
Even within the agency, the director of the WHO Collaborating Center for Epidemiology in Munster, Germany, Dr. Ulrich Kiel, has essentially labeled the pandemic a hoax. “We are witnessing a gigantic misallocation of resources [$18 billion so far] in terms of public health,” he said.
They’re right. This wasn’t merely overcautiousness or simple misjudgment. The pandemic declaration and all the Klaxon-ringing since reflect sheer dishonesty motivated not by medical concerns but political ones.
Unquestionably, swine flu has proved to be vastly milder than ordinary seasonal flu. It kills at a third to a tenth the rate, according to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates. Data from other countries like France and Japan indicate it’s far tamer than that.
Indeed, judging by what we’ve seen in New Zealand and Australia (where the epidemics have ended), and by what we’re seeing elsewhere in the world, we’ll have considerably fewer flu deaths this season than normal. That’s because swine flu muscles aside seasonal flu, acting as a sort of inoculation against the far deadlier strain.
Did the WHO have any indicators of this mildness when it declared the pandemic in June?
Absolutely, as I wrote at the time. We were then fully 11 weeks into the outbreak and swine flu had only killed 144 people worldwide–the same number who die of seasonal flu worldwide every few hours. (An estimated 250,000 to 500,000 per year by the WHO’s own numbers.) The mildest pandemics of the 20th century killed at least a million people.
But how could the organization declare a pandemic when its own official definition required “simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.” Severity–that is, the number of deaths–is crucial, because every year flu causes “a global spread of disease.”
Easy. In May, in what it admitted was a direct response to the outbreak of swine flu the month before, WHO promulgated a new definition matched to swine flu that simply eliminated severity as a factor. You could now have a pandemic with zero deaths.
Under fire, the organization is boldly lying about the change, to which anybody with an Internet connection can attest. In a mid-January virtual conference WHO swine flu chief Keiji Fukuda stated: “Did WHO change its definition of a pandemic? The answer is no: WHO did not change its definition.” Two weeks later at a PACE conference he insisted: “Having severe deaths has never been part of the WHO definition.”
They did it; but why?
In part, it was CYA for the WHO. The agency was losing credibility over the refusal of avian flu H5N1 to go pandemic and kill as many as 150 million people worldwide, as its “flu czar” had predicted in 2005.
Around the world nations heeded the warnings and spent vast sums developing vaccines and making other preparations. So when swine flu conveniently trotted in, the WHO essentially crossed out “avian,” inserted “swine,” and WHO Director-General Margaret Chan arrogantly boasted, “The world can now reap the benefits of investments over the last five years in pandemic preparedness.”
But there’s more than bureaucratic self-interest at work here. Bizarrely enough, the WHO has also exploited its phony pandemic to push a hard left political agenda.
In a September speech WHO Director-General Chan said “ministers of health” should take advantage of the “devastating impact” swine flu will have on poorer nations to get out the message that “changes in the functioning of the global economy” are needed to “distribute wealth on the basis of” values “like community, solidarity, equity and social justice.” She further declared it should be used as a weapon against “international policies and systems that govern financial markets, economies, commerce, trade and foreign affairs.”
Chan’s dream now lies in tatters. All the WHO has done, says PACE’s Wodart, is to destroy “much of the credibility that they should have, which is invaluable to us if there’s a future scare that might turn out to be a killer on a large scale.”
Michael Fumento is director of the nonprofit Independent Journalism Project, where he specializes in health and science issues. He may be reached at email@example.com.
We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Every day I woke up hoping to find out Covidiocracy was but a nightmare, and every day I discover Humanity is more degenerated than I previously thought. What you are about to read… I couldn’t conceive presenting this to people even as a dark joke, but a reputed American ethics professor and a publication called “The Conversation” think this is feature-worthy.
Fifty years ago, Anthony Burgess wrote “A Clockwork Orange,” a futuristic novel about a vicious gang leader who undergoes a procedure that makes him incapable of violence. Stanley Kubrick’s 1971 movie version sparked a discussion in which many argued that we could never be justified in depriving someone of his free will, no matter how gruesome the violence that would thereby be prevented. No doubt any proposal to develop a morality pill would encounter the same objection.
New York Times, 2011
This was published one day prior to this article and I’m not going to comment much on it because you can’t handle it if I start, probably even I can’t. Just read what these people put out and the functional literates will be able to pull enough lessons from this. The author is Parker Crutchfield, Associate Professor of Medical Ethics, Humanities and Law, Western Michigan University. I have just one detail to highlight: The Conversation cites Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as “strategic partner”. And now the original article as of August 10th, 2020:
‘Morality pills’ may be the US’s best shot at ending the coronavirus pandemic, according to one ethicist
A psychoactive substance to make you act in everyone’s best interest?
When someone chooses not to follow public health guidelines around the coronavirus, they’re defecting from the public good. It’s the moral equivalent of the tragedy of the commons: If everyone shares the same pasture for their individual flocks, some people are going to graze their animals longer, or let them eat more than their fair share, ruining the commons in the process. Selfish and self-defeating behavior undermines the pursuit of something from which everyone can benefit.
My research in bioethics focuses on questions like how to induce those who are noncooperative to get on board with doing what’s best for the public good. To me, it seems the problem of coronavirus defectors could be solved by moral enhancement: like receiving a vaccine to beef up your immune system, people could take a substance to boost their cooperative, pro-social behavior. Could a psychoactive pill be the solution to the pandemic?
It’s a far-out proposal that’s bound to be controversial, but one I believe is worth at least considering, given the importance of social cooperation in the struggle to get COVID-19 under control.
Public goods games show scale of the problem
Evidence from experimental economics shows that defections are common to situations in which people face collective risks. Economists use public goods games to measure how people behave in various scenarios to lower collective risks such as from climate change or a pandemic and to prevent the loss of public and private goods.
The evidence from these experiments is no cause for optimism. Usually everyone loses because people won’t cooperate. This research suggests it’s not surprising people aren’t wearing masks or social distancing – lots of people defect from groups when facing a collective risk. By the same token, I’d expect that, as a group, we will fail at addressing the collective risk of COVID-19, because groups usually fail. For more than 150,000 Americans so far, this has meant losing everything there is to lose.
For those of us in the United States, these conditions are out of reach when it comes to COVID-19. You can’t know what others are contributing to the fight against the coronavirus, especially if you socially distance yourself. It’s impossible to keep a running tally of what the other 328 million people in the U.S. are doing. And communication and coordination are not feasible outside of your own small group.
Even if these factors were achievable, they still require the very cooperative behavior that’s in short supply. The scale of the pandemic is simply too great for any of this to be possible.
It seems that the U.S. is not currently equipped to cooperatively lower the risk confronting us. Many are instead pinning their hopes on the rapid development and distribution of an enhancement to the immune system – a vaccine.
But I believe society may be better off, both in the short term as well as the long, by boosting not the body’s ability to fight off disease but the brain’s ability to cooperate with others. What if researchers developed and delivered a moral enhancer rather than an immunity enhancer?
Moral enhancement is the use of substances to make you more moral. The psychoactive substances act on your ability to reason about what the right thing to do is, or your ability to be empathetic or altruistic or cooperative.
These substances interact directly with the psychological underpinnings of moral behavior; others that make you more rational could also help. Then, perhaps, the people who choose to go maskless or flout social distancing guidelines would better understand that everyone, including them, is better off when they contribute, and rationalize that the best thing to do is cooperate.
Moral enhancement as an alternative to vaccines
There are of course pitfalls to moral enhancement.
One is that the science isn’t developed enough. For example, while oxytocin may cause some people to be more pro-social, it also appears to encourage ethnocentrism, and so is probably a bad candidate for a widely distributed moral enhancement. But this doesn’t mean that a morality pill is impossible. The solution to the underdeveloped science isn’t to quit on it, but to direct resources to related research in neuroscience, psychology or one of the behavioral sciences.
Another challenge is that the defectors who need moral enhancement are also the least likely to sign up for it. As some have argued, a solution would be to make moral enhancement compulsory or administer it secretly, perhaps via the water supply. These actions require weighing other values. Does the good of covertly dosing the public with a drug that would change people’s behavior outweigh individuals’ autonomy to choose whether to participate? Does the good associated with wearing a mask outweigh an individual’s autonomy to not wear one?
The scenario in which the government forces an immunity booster upon everyone is plausible. And the military has been forcing enhancements like vaccines or “uppers” upon soldiers for a long time. The scenario in which the government forces a morality booster upon everyone is far-fetched. But a strategy like this one could be a way out of this pandemic, a future outbreak or the suffering associated with climate change. That’s why we should be thinking of it now.”
You may say to yourself this is an accident, an isolated voice, whatever… it’s not. The article was republished by a ton of mainstream media outlets, from Foreign Affairs to Yahoo! The system is backing the concept.
You thought that was bad enough?
I found out that mr. Ethics not only reckons the state should drug people into submission, he argues that it should even be done covertly!
Some theorists argue that moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory. I take this argument one step further, arguing that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration ought to be covert rather than overt. This is to say that it is morally preferable for compulsory moral bioenhancement to be administered without the recipients knowing that they are receiving the enhancement. My argument for this is that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration is a matter of public health, and for this reason should be governed by public health ethics. I argue that the covert administration of a compulsory moral bioenhancement program better conforms to public health ethics than does an overt compulsory program. In particular, a covert compulsory program promotes values such as liberty, utility, equality, and autonomy better than an overt program does. Thus, a covert compulsory moral bioenhancement program is morally preferable to an overt moral bioenhancement program.
Yes, you read correctly, this is prison in a pill, prison for the mind, and the ethics professor finds it ethical to treat all mask-opposition as convicts.
<<Ruud ter Meulen, chair in ethics in medicine and director of the centre for ethics in medicine at the University of Bristol, warned that while some drugs can improve moral behaviour, other drugs – and sometimes the same ones – can have the opposite effect.
“While Oxytocin makes you more likely to trust and co-operate with others in your social group, it reduces empathy for those outside the group,” Meulen said.
The use of deep brain stimulation, used to help those with Parkinson’s disease, has had unintended consequences, leading to cases where patients begin stealing from shops and even becoming sexually aggressive, he added.
“Basic moral behaviour is to be helpful to others, feel responsible to others, have a sense of solidarity and sense of justice,” he said. “I’m not sure that drugs can ever achieve this. But there’s no question that they can make us more likeable, more social, less aggressive, more open attitude to other people,” he said.
Meulen also suggested that moral-enhancement drugs might be used in the criminal justice system. “These drugs will be more effective in prevention and cure than prison,” he said>>, according to The Guardian.
If you have my type of ethics and morals, you’re probably very sickened and angered and it takes time for judgement to cool off and ask the practical question: If these are mainstream media reports of 2011, how long have Covidiocracy and the planetary Auschwitz been in the making though?
Long enough, answers New York Times in an 2011 issue: “Why are some people prepared to risk their lives to help a stranger when others won’t even stop to dial an emergency number? Scientists have been exploring questions like this for decades. In the 1960s and early ’70s, famous experiments by Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo suggested that most of us would, under specific circumstances, voluntarily do great harm to innocent people. During the same period, John Darley and C. Daniel Batson showed that even some seminary students on their way to give a lecture about the parable of the Good Samaritan would, if told that they were running late, walk past a stranger lying moaning beside the path. More recent research has told us a lot about what happens in the brain when people make moral decisions. But are we getting any closer to understanding what drives our moral behavior?”
But if our brain’s chemistry does affect our moral behavior, the question of whether that balance is set in a natural way or by medical intervention will make no difference in how freely we act. If there are already biochemical differences between us that can be used to predict how ethically we will act, then either such differences are compatible with free will, or they are evidence that at least as far as some of our ethical actions are concerned, none of us have ever had free will anyway. In any case, whether or not we have free will, we may soon face new choices about the ways in which we are willing to influence behavior for the better.
‘Writing in the New York Times, Peter Singer and Agata Sagan ask “Are We Ready for a ‘Morality Pill’?” I dunno. Why?’, writes WILL WILKINSON on Big Think, in January, 2012. He follows:
“The infamous Milgram and Stanford Prison experiments showed that given the right circumstances, most of us act monstrously. Indeed, given pretty mundane circumstances, most of us will act pretty callously, hustling past people in urgent need in simply to avoid the hassle. But not all of us do this. Some folks do the right thing anyway, even when it’s not easy. Singer and Sagan speculate that something special must be going on in those peoples’ brains. So maybe we can figure out what that is and put it in a pill!
If continuing brain research does in fact show biochemical differences between the brains of those who help others and the brains of those who do not, could this lead to a “morality pill” — a drug that makes us more likely to help?
The answer is: no. And I think the question invites confusion. Morality is not exhausted by helping. Anyway, help do what?
Singer is perhaps the world’s most famous utilitarian, so maybe he’s got “help people feel more pleasure and less pain” in mind. Since utilitarianism is monomaniacally focused on how people feel, it can be tempting for utilitarians to see sympathy and the drive to ease suffering as the principal moral sentiments. But utilitarianism does not actually prescribe that we should be motivated to minimize suffering and maximize happiness. It tells us to do whatever minimizes suffering and maximizes happiness. It’s possible that wanting to help and trying to help doesn’t much help in this sense.”
“Clearly, the science behind moral drugs has some credibility. It seems possible that one day we’ll live in a strange utopian or dystopian world that takes morality pills. But until that day comes, we’ll have to try being good on our own.”
The only glimpse of reason from an ethics professional I found came as late as 2017, and THAT’s an accident, as opposed to the media onslaught that has just re-started on the topic. “There’s nothing moral about a morality pill. We can’t even agree on what morality requires, so designing a morality pill is a conceptually impossible task”, writes Daniel Munro, who teaches ethics in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa.
Professor Munro shows that two different “morality pills” induced opposite reactions in test subjects. Then which one is the morality pill?
“We could have different pills—lorazepam for consequentialists, citalopram for Kantians, and something else for Aristotelians—but this would amplify, not resolve, moral disagreement. In short, if we can’t agree on what morality requires, then designing a morality pill is a conceptually impossible task.”
Munro’s impeccable demonstration won’t stop anything, though, because Covidiocracy has never been about the common or individual good, but about domination. And domination ends when submission ends.
We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Ghislaine Maxwell, George Soros, the Rockefellers, Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos… if you’re like me, almost everyone you despise is invested in Save the Children Fund. But the worst thing about this charity is the performance, not the funding.
Save the Children – the Fairfield, Connecticut-based non-profit in the US – is formally known as Save The Children Federation, Inc. and is part of the Save the Children Alliance (a group of 30 Save the Children groups throughout the world that also support Save the Children International). Established in 1932, Save the Children is a 501 (c) (3) and one of the most well-known charities in the world.
In 2017, the organization raised $760 million (including $322 million in government grants and contributions) – $108 million more than the previous year – and spent $720 million primarily on grants ($528 million), staff compensation and benefits ($103 million), fees for services ($41 million), and office-related expenses ($19 million).
The remaining $40 million (the difference between the revenue reported and the revenue spent) was retained by the organization, contributing to the increase in net fixed assets to $241 million at year end.
That means about 1/3 of the money raised are used by the Fund owners and employees.
Save the Children reported having 1,639 employees in 2017. With total compensation costs of $103 million, the average compensation package was $63,000 although 231 individuals received more than $100,000 in total compensation.
The 20 most highly compensated individuals were reported to be:
$540,883: Carolyn S Miles, President and CEO
$404,737: Carlos Carrazana, EVP and COO
$349,875: Sumeet Seam, VP and General Counsel
$338,463: Stacy Brandom, VP and CFO
$307,673: Michael Klosson, VP Policy and Humanitarian Relief
$306,082: Nancy A Taussig, VP Resource Development
$301,709: Diana K Myers, VP International Programs
$278,659: Janine L Scolpino, Associate VP, Mass Market Fund
$256,347: Gregory A Ramm, VP Humanitarian Response
$250,847: Brian White, VP Deputy General Counsel and CCO
$248,423: Robert M Clay, VP
$231,989: Daniel Stoner, AVP Education and Child Development
$227,535: Dana L Langham, Associate VP, Chief Corp Development
$213,491: Mark Shriver, SVP, US Programs (as of 8/17) plus $182,915 from a related organization
$201,460: Kenneth G Murdoch, VP IT and Building OP (end 6/17)
$195,754: William Corwin, Sr VP, US Programs (2/17-8/17)
$190,167: Phillip DiSanto, VP IT and Building OP (as of 5/17)
$161,943: Andrea Williamson, Corporate Secretary
$153,622: Debbie Pollock-Berry, VP and Chief of HR (as of 6/17)
$150,466: Susan E Ridge, VP Marketing and Communications (end 6/17)
Of the 20 most highly compensated individuals, 11 are men and 9 are women. Of the 10 most highly compensated individuals, 5 are men and 5 are women.
$1 MILLION AND ABOVE Carnival Corporation & plc / Carnival Foundation Facebook Inc. Ferrari North America, Inc. Hachette Book Group Mars Wrigley Foundation (formerly Wrigley Company Foundation) Media Storm MNI Targeted Media, Inc. P&G Penguin Random House Pfizer and the Pfizer Foundation PlowShare Group PVH Corp. Scholastic Corporation The Walt Disney Company
$100,000 TO $1 MILLION Adobe Amazon AmeriCares Apple Arconic Foundation Baby2Baby BlackRock BNY Mellon Bombas Burt’s Bees Baby Cargill CHARLES & KEITH Chevron Chobani and the Chobani Foundation Citi Foundation Colgate-Palmolive Cummins Inc. Direct Relief Dollar General Corporation ExxonMobil Flex Foundation Gabriela Hearst Inc. Godiva Chocolatier Good360 Google.org Heart to Heart International Highgate Hotels Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Lutheran World Relief Mastercard Mattel, Inc. and its American Girl division Morgan Stanley New York Life & New York Life Foundation Nike Foundation PayPal PepsiCo Foundation Sempra Energy Foundation Target The Baupost Group, LLC The Father’s Day/Mother’s Day Council, Inc. The Idol Gives Back Foundation The Microsoft Corporation The PwC Charitable Foundation, Inc. Toys “R” Us Voss Foundation Walmart Foundation Western Union Foundation
Comprised of senior leaders from Fortune 500 companies, social impact consultancies and academia, the Corporate Council functions as a strategic sounding board for Save the Children. From cause marketing to technology for development, the council helps Save the Children deepen and evolve our work with the private sector in a mutually beneficial way. We are proud to recognize the thought leadership and advisory contributions of our 2018 Corporate Council members:
Pernille Spiers-Lopez,* IKEA North America (formerly), Council Chair
Perry Yeatman, Perry Yeatman Global Partners LLC, Council Vice Chair
David Barash, GE Foundation
Sean Burke, Accenture
Sarah Colamarino, Johnson & Johnson
Andrea E. Davis, The Walt Disney Company
Mark Freedman, Dalberg
Sebastian Fries, Columbia University
Jim Goldman,* Eurazeo
Rebecca Leonard, The TJX Companies, Inc.
PJ Lewis, Mattel, Inc.
Sean Milliken, PayPal
Christine Montenegro McGrath, Mondeléz International
Paul Musser, Mastercard
Sunil Sani,* Heritage Sportswear, LLC
*Also serves on our Board of Trustees
Ann Hardeman and Combs L. Fort Foundation Bainum Family Foundation Bezos Family Foundation Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Briar Foundation Bruderhof Communities The Catalyst Foundation for Universal Education The Charles Engelhard Foundation Charles Stewart Mott Foundation Cogan Family Foundation Comic Relief USA – The Red Nose Day Fund & Hand in Hand Hurricane Relief Community Foundation of Northern Colorado Connie Hillman Family Foundation Crown Family Philanthropies Derfner Foundation Dubai Cares Educate A Child, a programme of the Education Above All Foundation The Edward W. Brown, Jr. and Margaret G. Brown Endowment for Save the Children and Region A Partnership for Children, a fund of the North Carolina Community Foundation FIA Foundation GHR Foundation The Gottesman Fund Harrington Family Foundation Hau’oli Mau Loa Foundation The Hearst Foundation, Inc. Heising-Simons Foundation Humanity United / Freedom Fund Kenneth S. Battye Charitable Trust LDS Charities MacMillan Family Foundation Margaret A. Cargill Philanthropies Margaret A. Meyer Family Foundation Margaret E. Dickins Foundation Martin F. Sticht Charitable Fund Matthew W. Jacobs & Luann Jacobs Charitable Fund New Hampshire Charitable Foundation Oak Foundation Open Society Foundations (George Soros) Owenoke Foundation Robert Wood Johnson Foundation The Rockefeller Foundation Roy A. Hunt Foundation Schultz Fund Share Our Strength SOMOS UNA VOZ South Texas Outreach Foundation STEM Next Opportunity Fund The Stone Family Foundation Wagon Mountain Foundation The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation World Impact Foundation Anonymous (9)
The Mirror organised a Disney day out for the kids at Lord and Lady Bath’s Longleat House, in Wiltshire. A great fun day in which Ghislaine Maxwell presented a cheque for 2000 UK Pounds for the Save the Children Fund. Ghislaine meets Henry Thynne, Lord Bath and his wife Virginia. 13th September 1985. (Photos by George Phillips/Mirrorpix/Getty Images)
‘Save The Children’ Receives $50 Million Grant From The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to push vaccines and birth control in Africa and Asia.
Political stunts with children’s money? Why not, we make anything look like charity. “Last week, Save the Children weighed into the controversy surrounding Madonna’s attempt to adopt a child in Malawi. Recently it created a new head of UK campaigning to enhance its profile as the country’s leading organisation for defending “children’s rights”. Its current advertising pitch is aimed at persuading the Chancellor to give £3 billion more in his Budget later this month”, writes Philip Johnston, The Telegraph columnist. He follows: “You could be forgiven for thinking that charities are forbidden from political activism by their tax-free status. Yet the Charity Commission’s own guidelines state that it “can be [a] legitimate and valuable activity”. In other words, the charity is fully entitled to campaign, and operate in the UK; but I am equally at liberty not to give it any money if it no longer does what it says on the rattling tin. Save the Children says the money for its UK venture is not coming from its regular contributors but from corporate donors. But that is beside the point.”
“Another children’s charity was rocked last night after a senior executive at Save The Children resigned over allegations of ‘inappropriate behaviour’ “, Daily Mail reports.
Chief strategist Brendan Cox denied allegations against him but left in September. The charity’s £160,000-a-year chief executive Justin Forsyth has also resigned for unconnected reasons.
Both were senior advisers to former Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Mr Cox’s wife, Jo, is a Labour MP and former aide to Mr Brown’s wife Sarah. Mrs Cox also runs the Labour Women’s Network where she is ‘equalities and discrimination’ adviser.
Mr Cox, Save The Children’s director of policy and advocacy, left in September after complaints against him by women members of staff. A well-placed source said Mr Cox strenuously denied any wrongdoing but agreed to leave his post, according to Daily Mail.
Alexia Pepper de Caires, an ex-Save The Children employee, says that sexual abuse in the charity sector is a systemic problem and that she had to storm her former employer’s boardroom to be heard, The Telegraph reported.
Ah, and also this:
After investing millions in Save the Children, Disney Chairman and CEO Bob Iger finally honored with Save the Children’s Centennial Award. He received the trophy from the hands of Oprah Winfrey, star of Epstein’s flight logs. The event was hosted by Jennifer Garner and speakers included Save the Children CEO Carolyn Miles and Disney Legend Oprah Winfrey, Disney informed on their website.
Leaked details of the inquiry, published in the Times, in which the commission accused Save the Children of “serious failures and mismanagement” of the way it dealt with the allegations in 2015, led to calls for the resignation of Kevin Watkins, the charity’s chief executive. He said “no”.
This is just a figment of the larger picture, just to say “watch you hashtag” to whoever made #Savethechildren trend on social media lately (Fakebook’s Suckerborg mainly, we know it was him)
We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Empathy and social intelligence may have played a more important role in human evolution than any other type of intelligence or instincts. Much of what we’ve achieved in millennia has been eroded over the span of the past 2-3 decades, and especially in Covidiocracy.
Chapter One: “WE ARE HARDWIRED TO BE KIND”
“Human nature is often portrayed as selfish and power hungry, but research by Dacher Keltner finds that we are hard-wired to be kind.” – University of California
Chapter Two: “the neurons that shaped civilisation”
A neuroscientist from UC San Deigo, V.S. Ramachandran, recently spoke with the Greater Good Science Center about the relationship between empathy and mirror neurons. “the neurons that shaped civilisation”:
“For example, pretend somebody pokes my left thumb with a needle. We know that the insular cortex fires cells and we experience a painful sensation. The agony of pain is probably experienced in a region called the anterior cingulate, where there are cells that respond to pain. The next stage in pain processing, we experience the agony, the painfulness, the affective quality of pain.
It turns out these anterior cingulate neurons that respond to my thumb being poked will also fire when I watch you being poked—but only a subset of them. There are non-mirror neuron pain neurons and there are mirror neuron pain neurons.
So these [mirror] neurons are probably involved in empathy for pain. If I really and truly empathize with your pain, I need to experience it myself. That’s what the mirror neurons are doing, allowing me to empathize with your pain—saying, in effect, that person is experiencing the same agony and excruciating pain as you would if somebody were to poke you with a needle directly. That’s the basis of all empathy.”
V.S. Ramachandran, UC San Deigo neuroscientist
In an interview for a Berkeley University magazine, the scientist makes an interesting note that we must remember for further reference:
Mirror neurons enable me to see you as an intentional being, with purpose and intention. In fact, we suggested nearly a decade ago that mirror neuron dysfunction may be involved in autism. People with autism, ironically sometimes they mimic constantly what you’re doing, but it’s also true that they’re bad at imitation and they don’t have empathy, they don’t have a theory of mind, they can’t infer your intentions, they don’t engage in pretend play. In pretend play, what I do is temporarily say, “I’m going to be this superhero,” so you do role play. That requires a theory of mind. So take all the properties of mirror neurons, make a list of them, and list all the things that are going wrong in autism—there’s a very good match. Not every symptom, but many of the symptoms match beautifully. And it’s controversial: There are about seven papers claiming that it’s true, using brain imaging, and maybe one or two claiming that there’s no correlation [between mirror neurons and autism].
“The importance of the face is best understood, it is suggested, from the effects of visible facial difference in people. Their experience reflects the ways in which the face may be necessary for the interpersonal relatedness underlying such ‘sharing’ mind states as empathy. It is proposed that the face evolved as a result of several evolutionary pressures but that it is well placed to assume the role of an embodied representation of the increasingly refined inner states of mind that developed as primates became more social, and required more complex social intelligence. The consequences of various forms of facial disfigurement on interpersonal relatedness and intersubjectivity are then discussed. These narratives reveal the importance of the face in the development of the self-esteem that seems a prerequisite of being able to initiate, and enter, relationships between people. Such experiences are beyond normal experience and, as such, require an extended understanding of the other: to understand facial difference requires empathy. But, in addition, it is also suggested that empathy itself is supported by, and requires, the embodied expression and communication of emotion that the face provides.”
Another study, this time coming from Italian universities, cites:
“Prefrontal virtual perturbation may have induced a less empathic responsiveness toward the emotional faces, with significant effect on the attributional functions. The suggested interpretation of these results is supported by the fact that prefrontal area includes specific processing modules for emotional information processing, and it is able to integrate input from various sources, including motivation and representations from cognitive (such as ToM) and emotional (such as emotional expressions) networks. Thus, the role of dMPFC to empathy-related response was elucidated, with possible circular effect on both monitoring ability (cue detection) and empathy responsiveness (trait empathy).”
Now imagine being unable to recognize your own mother’s face. You may know your mother’ voice, her smell, her size, and shape, but her face means nothing to you. This is face blindness, or prosopagnosia, a disorder that may be congenital or caused by brain injury. While it can occur in many people who are not autistic, it is quite common among people with autism.
Whether you call it prosopagnosia, facial agnosia, or face blindness, the disorder may be mild (inability to remember familiar faces) or severe (inability to recognize a face as being different from an object).
According to the National Institutes for Neurological Disorders and Stroke, “Prosopagnosia is not related to memory dysfunction, memory loss, impaired vision, or learning disabilities. Prosopagnosia is thought to be the result of abnormalities, damage, or impairment in the right fusiform gyrus, a fold in the brain that appears to coordinate the neural systems that control facial perception and memory. Congenital prosopagnosia appears to run in families, which makes it likely to be the result of a genetic mutation or deletion.” (Source)
While face blindness is not a “core symptom” of autism, it is not uncommon for autistic people. In some cases, face blindness may be at the root of the apparent lack of empathy or very real difficulties with non-verbal communication. How can you read a face when you can’t distinguish a face from an object, or recognize the person speaking to you?
While face blindness may be an issue for your loved one with autism, it is easy to confuse face blindness with typical autistic symptoms. For example, many children with autism fail to respond to non-verbal cues such as smiles, frowns, or other facial “language” – even though they are able to recognize the face they are looking at. Their lack of response may relate to social communication deficits rather than to prosopagnosia.
Can they recognize the face of a favorite character on television or a photograph of a relative with no auditory clues? If so, they are recognizing a face – and most likely are not suffering from face blindness.
There is no cure for face blindness. Children with face blindness can be taught some compensatory techniques such as listening for emotional meaning or using mnemonic devices to remember names without necessarily recognizing faces. Before beginning such training, however, it’s important to distinguish face-blindness from other autistic symptoms that can have similar appearances, such as difficulties with eye contact.
Other specialists argue that autists can be empathic, and by doing so they further accentuate the strong interdependence between empathy and facial recognition:
“Autism is associated with other emotional difficulties, such as recognizing another person’s emotions. Although this trait is almost universally accepted as being part of autism, there’s little scientific evidence to back up this notion.
In 2013, we tested the ability of people with alexithymia, autism, both conditions or neither to recognize emotions from facial expressions. Again, we found that alexithymia is associated with problems in emotion recognition, but autism is not5. In a 2012 study, researchers at Goldsmiths, University of London found exactly the same results when they tested emotion recognition using voices rather than faces6.
Recognizing an emotion in a face depends in part on information from the eyes and mouth. People with autism often avoid looking into other people’s eyes, which could contribute to their difficulty detecting emotions.
But again, we wanted to know: Which is driving gaze avoidance — autism or alexithymia? We showed movies to the same four groups described above and used eye-tracking technology to determine what each person was looking at in the movie.
We found that people with autism, whether with or without alexithymia, spend less time looking at faces than do people without autism. But when individuals who have autism but not alexithymia look at faces, they scan the eyes and mouth in a pattern similar to those without autism.
By contrast, people with alexithymia, regardless of their autism status, look at faces for a typical amount of time, but show altered patterns of scanning the eyes and mouth. This altered pattern might underlie their difficulties with emotion recognition” – Scientific American
Face recognition differences may reflect processing or structural differences in the brain. For example, people with prosopagnosia may have reduced connectivity between brain regions in the face processing network.
Another idea is that face recognition ability is related to other more general cognitive abilities, like memory or visual processing. Here, though, findings are mixed. Some research supports a link between face recognition and specific abilities like visual processing. But other research has discounted this idea.
Yet another possibility is that individual differences in face recognition reflect a person’s personality or their social and emotional functioning. Interestingly, face recognition ability has been linked to measures of empathy and anxiety.
Empathy reflects a person’s ability to understand and share the feelings of another person. In 2010, researchers asked volunteers to try and remember the identity of a number of faces presented one at a time. They were later presented with the same faces mixed together with new faces and were asked to state whether each face was “old” (learnt) or “new”. The performance was measured by the number of learnt faces correctly identified as being familiar. The researchers found that those who rated themselves as high in empathy performed significantly better at a face recognition memory task than those with low empathy skills.
Research has also found that people who report significantly lower levels of general anxiety have better face recognition skills than those who are have higher anxiety.
Situational anxiety may also play a role. For example, face recognition may be impaired when an eyewitness is asked to try and identify the face of a suspect viewed in a stressful situation. Read more on hoe facial recognition impacts personality from Karen Lander, Senior Lecturer in Experimental Psychology, University of Manchester, who published a very interesting article on the topic in The Conversation.
Everything above proves how much masks are robbing from us individually, but also from the very fabric of societal cohesion. This information is not new and not fringe, actually the attack on about empathy has been going on for ages and noted by many specialists and scholars, such as Psychology Today, eg.
So the science we’ve presented here can’t be unknown to our decision-makers, it can only be wilfully ignored.
We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
I still haven’t seen any evidence of a novel coronavirus being properly isolated in a lab as per Koch’s Postulate, and that’s the only official scientific homologation of a virus. But “follow the science” is what the cry, so here’s the latest in 5G science, from US’ NIH website and PubMed.
5G Technology and induction of coronavirus in skin cells
In this research, we show that 5G millimeter waves could be absorbed by dermatologic cells acting like antennas, transferred to other cells and play the main role in producing Coronaviruses in biological cells. DNA is built from charged electrons and atoms and has an inductor-like structure. This structure could be divided into linear, toroid and round inductors. Inductors interact with external electromagnetic waves, move and produce some extra waves within the cells. The shapes of these waves are similar to shapes of hexagonal and pentagonal bases of their DNA source. These waves produce some holes in liquids within the nucleus. To fill these holes, some extra hexagonal and pentagonal bases are produced. These bases could join to each other and form virus-like structures such as Coronavirus. To produce these viruses within a cell, it is necessary that the wavelength of external waves be shorter than the size of the cell. Thus 5G millimeter waves could be good candidates for applying in constructing virus-like structures such as Coronaviruses (COVID-19) within cells.
1Instytut Medycyny Pracy im. prof. J. Nofera / Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine, Łódź, Poland (Zakład Ochrony Radiologicznej / Department of Radiological Protection).
2Politechnika Wrocławska / Wrocław University of Sciences and Technology, Wrocław, Poland (Katedra Telekomunikacji i Teleinformatyki / Department of Telecommunications and Teleinformatics).
3Instytut Medycyny Pracy im. prof. J. Nofera / Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine, Łódź, Poland (Zakład Fizjologii Pracy i Ergonomii / Department of Work Physiology and Ergonomics).
4Centralny Instytut Ochrony Pracy – Państwowy Instytut Badawczy / Central Institute for Labor Protection – National Research Institute, Warsaw, Poland (Zakład Bioelektromagnetyzmu / Department of Bioelectromagnetism).
5Wojskowy Instytut Higieny i Epidemiologii / Military Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Warsaw, Poland.
6Instytut Medycyny Pracy im. prof. J. Nofera / Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine, Łódź, Poland.
There is an ongoing discussion about electromagnetic hazards in the context of the new wireless communication technology – the fifth generation (5G) standard. Concerns about safety and health hazards resulting from the influence of the electromagnetic field (EMF) emitted by the designed 5G antennas have been raised. In Poland, the level of the population’s exposure to EMF is limited to 7 V/m for frequencies above 300 MHz. This limitation results from taking into account the protective measures related not only to direct thermal hazards, but also to diversified indirect and long-term threats. Many countries have not established legal requirements in this frequency range, or they have introduced regulations based on recommendations regarding protection against direct thermal risks only (Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC). For such protection, the permissible levels of electric field intensity are 20-60 V/m (depending on the frequency). This work has been created through an interdisciplinary collaboration of engineers, biologists and doctors, who have been for many years professionally dealing with the protection of the biosphere against the negative effects of EMF. It presents the state of knowledge on the biological and health effects of the EMF emitted by mobile phone devices (including millimeter waves which are planned to be used in the 5G network). A comparison of the EU recommendations and the provisions on public protection being in force in Poland was made against this background. The results of research conducted to date on the biological effects of the EMF radiofrequency emitted by mobile telecommunication devices, operating with the frequencies up to 6 GHz, do not allow drawing any firm conclusions; however, the research evidence is strong enough for the World Health Organization to classify EMF as an environmental factor potentially carcinogenic to humans. At the moment, there is a shortage of adequate scientific data to assess the health effects of exposure to electromagnetic millimeter waves, which are planned to be used in the designed 5G devices. Nevertheless, due to the fact that there are data indicating the existence of biophysical mechanisms of the EMF influence that may lead to adverse health effects, it seems necessary to use the precautionary principle and the ALARA principle when creating environmental requirements for the construction and exploitation of the infrastructure of the planned 5G system. Med Pr. 2020;71(1):105-13.
Sick stuff from SILVIEW.media only. Covid has always been nothing but a marketing campaign, time to escalate it. It’s time “peasants” like us started cashing in on Covidiocracy! At least we’re using humor, not terror, as our main marketing tool
Or just f that and consider that…
We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
The Information was revealed in a book by a Pulitzer-awarded NYT reporter
“One of the best reporters of his generation . . . a gifted storyteller and thorough reporter.” —New York Review of Books
“A first draft of history that reminds us just how bizarre these times really are. A New York Times columnist and Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter, Stewart has assembled a gripping blow-by-blow account of President Trump’s years-long showdown with the FBI — from the first inklings of something about an email server through the release of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report on Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election . . . Encountering it all smashed between the pages of a single book is a new experience, less the stop-start jerkiness of a tweetstorm than the slow-build dread of a dramatic tragedy . . . . The events recounted in ‘Deep State’ help explain how we ended up at our latest impasse and how Trump is likely to react as it unfolds. What makes the book more than a recitation of unseemly facts is its well-rendered human drama.” — The Washington Post
About the Author
James B. Stewart is the author of Tangled Webs, Heart of a Soldier, Blind Eye, Blood Sport, and the blockbuster Den of Thieves. He is currently a columnist for TheNew York Times and a professor at Columbia University School of Journalism, and in 1988 he won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on the stock market crash and insider trading.
We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
The information comes from a 1997 New Yorker article, before Trump entered politics and Ghislaine entered her public pimp fame. This is likely the least biased source you can ever find on this topic.
“One morning last week, Donald Trump, who under routine circumstances tolerates publicity no more grudgingly than an infant tolerates a few daily feedings, sat in his office on the twenty-sixth floor of Trump Tower, his mood rather subdued. As could be expected, given the fact that his three-and-a-half-year-old marriage to Marla Maples was ending, paparazzi were staking out the exits of Trump Tower, while all weekend helicopters had been hovering over Mar-a-Lago, his private club in Palm Beach. And what would come of it? “I think the thing I’m worst at is managing the press,” he said. “The thing I’m best at is business and conceiving. The press portrays me as a wild flamethrower. In actuality, I think I’m much different from that. I think I’m totally inaccurately portrayed.”
So, though he’d agreed to a conversation at this decisive moment, it called for wariness, the usual quota of prefatory “off-the-record”s and then some. He wore a navy-blue suit, white shirt, black-onyx-and-gold links, and a crimson print necktie. Every strand of his interesting hair—its gravity-defying ducktails and dry pompadour, its telltale absence of gray—was where he wanted it to be. He was working his way through his daily gallon of Diet Coke and trying out a few diversionary maneuvers. Yes, it was true, the end of a marriage was a sad thing. Meanwhile, was I aware of what a success he’d had with the Nation’s Parade, the Veterans Day celebration he’d been very supportive of back in 1995? Well, here was a little something he wanted to show me, a nice certificate signed by both Joseph Orlando, president, and Harry Feinberg, secretary-treasurer, of the New York chapter of the 4th Armored Division Association, acknowledging Trump’s participation as an associate grand marshal. A million four hundred thousand people had turned out for the celebration, he said, handing me some press clippings. “O.K., I see this story says a half million spectators. But, trust me, I heard a million four.” Here was another clipping, from the Times, just the other day, confirming that rents on Fifth Avenue were the highest in the world. “And who owns more of Fifth Avenue than I do?” Or how about the new building across from the United Nations Secretariat, where he planned a “very luxurious hotel-condominium project, a major project.” Who would finance it? “Any one of twenty-five different groups. They all want to finance it.”
Months earlier, I’d asked Trump whom he customarily confided in during moments of tribulation. “Nobody,” he said. “It’s just not my thing”—a reply that didn’t surprise me a bit. Salesmen, and Trump is nothing if not a brilliant salesman, specialize in simulated intimacy rather than the real thing. His modus operandi had a sharp focus: fly the flag, never budge from the premise that the universe revolves around you, and, above all, stay in character. The Trump tour de force—his evolution from rough-edged rich kid with Brooklyn and Queens political-clubhouse connections to an international name-brand commodity—remains, unmistakably, the most rewarding accomplishment of his ingenious career. The patented Trump palaver, a gaseous blather of “fantastic”s and “amazing”s and “terrific”s and “incredible”s and various synonyms for “biggest,” is an indispensable ingredient of the name brand. In addition to connoting a certain quality of construction, service, and security—perhaps only Trump can explicate the meaningful distinctions between “super luxury” and “super super luxury”—his eponym subliminally suggests that a building belongs to him even after it’s been sold off as condominiums.
Everywhere inside the Trump Organization headquarters, the walls were lined with framed magazine covers, each a shot of Trump or someone who looked an awful lot like him. The profusion of these images—of a man who possessed unusual skills, though not, evidently, a gene for irony—seemed the sum of his appetite for self-reflection. His unique talent—being “Trump” or, as he often referred to himself, “the Trumpster,” looming ubiquitous by reducing himself to a persona—exempted him from introspection.
If the gossips hinted that he’d been cuckolded, they had it all wrong; untying the marital knot was based upon straightforward economics. He had a prenuptial agreement, because “if you’re a person of wealth you have to have one.” In the words of his attorney, Jay Goldberg, the agreement was “as solid as concrete.” It would reportedly pay Marla a million dollars, plus some form of child support and alimony, and the time to do a deal was sooner rather than later. A year from now, she would become entitled to a percentage of his net worth. And, as a source very close to Trump made plain, “If it goes from a fixed amount to what could be a very enormous amount—even a small percentage of two and a half billion dollars or whatever is a lot of money—we’re talking about very huge things. The numbers are much bigger than people understand.”
The long-term matrimonial odds had never been terrifically auspicious. What was Marla Maples, after all, but a tabloid cartoon of the Other Woman, an alliteration you could throw the cliché manual at: a leggy, curvaceous blond-bombshell beauty-pageant-winning actress-model-whatever? After a couple of years of deftly choreographed love spats, Donald and Marla produced a love child, whom they could not resist naming Tiffany. A few months before they went legit, Marla told a television interviewer that the contemplation of marriage tended to induce in Donald the occasional “little freak-out” or visit from the “fear monster.” Her role, she explained, was “to work with him and help him get over that fear monster.” Whenever they travelled, she said, she took along her wedding dress. (“Might as well. You’ve got to be prepared.”) The ceremony, at the Plaza Hotel, right before Christmas, 1993, drew an audience of a thousand but, judging by the heavy turnout of Atlantic City high rollers, one not deemed A-list. The Trump Taj Mahal casino commemorated the occasion by issuing a Donald-and-Marla five-dollar gambling chip.
The last time around, splitting with Ivana, he’d lost the P.R. battle from the git-go. After falling an entire news cycle behind Ivana’s spinmeisters, he never managed to catch up. In one ill-advised eruption, he told Liz Smith that his wife reminded him of his bête noire Leona Helmsley, and the columnist chided, “Shame on you, Donald! How dare you say that about the mother of your children?” His only moment of unadulterated, so to speak, gratification occurred when an acquaintance of Marla’s blabbed about his swordsmanship. The screamer “best sex i’ve ever had”—an instant classic—is widely regarded as the most libel-proof headline ever published by the Post. On the surface, the coincidence of his first marital breakup with the fact that he owed a few billion he couldn’t exactly pay back seemed extraordinarily unpropitious. In retrospect, his timing was excellent. Ivana had hoped to nullify a postnuptial agreement whose provenance could be traced to Donald’s late friend and preceptor the lawyer-fixer and humanitarian Roy Cohn. Though the agreement entitled her to fourteen million dollars plus a forty-six-room house in Connecticut, she and her counsel decided to ask for half of everything Trump owned; extrapolating from Donald’s blustery pronouncements over the years, they pegged her share at two and a half billion. In the end, she was forced to settle for the terms stipulated in the agreement because Donald, at that juncture, conveniently appeared to be broke.Advertisement
Now, of course, according to Trump, things were much different. Business was stronger than ever. And, of course, he wanted to be fair to Marla. Only a million bucks? Hey, a deal was a deal. He meant “fair” in a larger sense: “I think it’s very unfair to Marla, or, for that matter, anyone—while there are many positive things, like life style, which is at the highest level— I think it’s unfair to Marla always to be subjected to somebody who enjoys his business and does it at a very high level and does it on a big scale. There are lots of compensating balances. You live in the Mar-a-Lagos of the world, you live in the best apartment. But, I think you understand, I don’t have very much time. I just don’t have very much time. There’s nothing I can do about what I do other than stopping. And I just don’t want to stop.”
A securities analyst who has studied Trump’s peregrinations for many years believes, “Deep down, he wants to be Madonna.” In other words, to ask how the gods could have permitted Trump’s resurrection is to mistake profound superficiality for profundity, performance art for serious drama. A prime example of superficiality at its most rewarding: the Trump International Hotel & Tower, a fifty-two-story hotel-condominium conversion of the former Gulf & Western Building, on Columbus Circle, which opened last January. The Trump name on the skyscraper belies the fact that his ownership is limited to his penthouse apartment and a stake in the hotel’s restaurant and garage, which he received as part of his development fee. During the grand-opening ceremonies, however, such details seemed not to matter as he gave this assessment: “One of the great buildings anywhere in New York, anywhere in the world.”
The festivities that day included a feng-shui ritual in the lobby, a gesture of respect to the building’s high proportion of Asian buyers, who regard a Trump property as a good place to sink flight capital. An efficient schmoozer, Trump worked the room quickly—a backslap and a wink, a finger on the lapels, no more than a minute with anyone who wasn’t a police commissioner, a district attorney, or a mayoral candidate—and then he was ready to go. His executive assistant, Norma Foerderer, and two other Trump Organization executives were waiting in a car to return to the office. Before it pulled away, he experienced a tug of noblesse oblige. “Hold on, just lemme say hello to these Kinney guys,” he said, jumping out to greet a group of parking attendants. “Good job, fellas. You’re gonna be working here for years to come.” It was a quintessential Trumpian gesture, of the sort that explains his popularity among people who barely dare to dream of living in one of his creations.
Back at the office, a Times reporter, Michael Gordon, was on the line, calling from Moscow. Gordon had just interviewed a Russian artist named Zurab Tsereteli, a man with a sense of grandiosity familiar to Trump. Was it true, Gordon asked, that Tsereteli and Trump had discussed erecting on the Hudson River a statue of Christopher Columbus that was six feet taller than the Statue of Liberty?
“Yes, it’s already been made, from what I understand,” said Trump, who had met Tsereteli a couple of months earlier, in Moscow. “It’s got forty million dollars’ worth of bronze in it, and Zurab would like it to be at my West Side Yards development”—a seventy-five-acre tract called Riverside South—“and we are working toward that end.”
According to Trump, the head had arrived in America, the rest of the body was still in Moscow, and the whole thing was being donated by the Russian government. “The mayor of Moscow has written a letter to Rudy Giuliani stating that they would like to make a gift of this great work by Zurab. It would be my honor if we could work it out with the City of New York. I am absolutely favorably disposed toward it. Zurab is a very unusual guy. This man is major and legit.”
Trump hung up and said to me, “See what I do? All this bullshit. Know what? After shaking five thousand hands, I think I’ll go wash mine.”
Norma Foerderer, however, had some pressing business. A lecture agency in Canada was offering Trump a chance to give three speeches over three consecutive days, for seventy-five thousand dollars a pop. “Plus,” she said, “they provide a private jet, secretarial services, and a weekend at a ski resort.”
How did Trump feel about it?
“My attitude is if somebody’s willing to pay me two hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars to make a speech, it seems stupid not to show up. You know why I’ll do it? Because I don’t think anyone’s ever been paid that much.”
Would it be fresh material?
“It’ll be fresh to them.”
Next item: Norma had drafted a letter to Mar-a-Lago members, inviting them to a dinner featuring a speech by George Pataki and entertainment by Marvin Hamlisch. “Oh, and speaking of the Governor, I just got a call. They’re shooting a new ‘I Love New York’ video and they’d like Libby Pataki to go up and down our escalator. I said fine.”
A Mar-a-Lago entertainment booker named Jim Grau called about a Carly Simon concert. Trump switched on his speakerphone: “Is she gonna do it?”
“Well, two things have to be done, Donald. No. 1, she’d like to hear from you. And, No. 2, she’d like to turn it in some degree into a benefit for Christopher Reeve.”
“That’s not a bad idea,” said Trump. “Is Christopher Reeve gonna come? He can come down on my plane. So what do I have to do, call her?”
“I want to tell you how we got Carly on this because some of your friends are involved.”
“Jim, I don’t give a shit. Who the hell cares?”
“Please, Donald. Remember when you had your yacht up there? You had Rose Styron aboard. And her husband wrote ‘Sophie’s Choice.’ And it’s through her good offices—”
“O.K. Good. So thank ’em and maybe invite ’em.”
“Part of my problem,” Trump said to me, “is that I have to do a lot of things myself. It takes so much time. Julio Iglesias is coming to Mar-a-Lago, but I have to call Julio, I have to have lunch with Julio. I have Pavarotti coming. Pavarotti doesn’t perform for anybody. He’s the highest-paid performer in the world. A million dollars a performance. The hardest guy to get. If I call him, he’ll do it—for a huge amount less. Why? Because they like me, they respect me, I don’t know.”
During Trump’s ascendancy, in the nineteen-eighties, the essence of his performance art—an opera-buffa parody of wealth—accounted for his populist appeal as well as for the opprobrium of those who regard with distaste the spectacle of an unbridled id. Delineating his commercial aesthetic, he once told an interviewer, “I have glitzy casinos because people expect it. . . . Glitz works in Atlantic City. . . . And in my residential buildings I sometimes use flash, which is a level below glitz.” His first monument to himself, Trump Tower, on Fifth Avenue at Fifty-sixth Street, which opened its doors in 1984, possessed many genuinely impressive elements—a sixty-eight-story sawtoothed silhouette, a salmon-colored Italian-marble atrium equipped with an eighty-foot waterfall—and became an instant tourist attraction. In Atlantic City, the idea was to slather on as much ornamentation as possible, the goal being (a) to titillate with the fantasy that a Trump-like life was a lifelike life and (b) to distract from the fact that he’d lured you inside to pick your pocket.Advertisement
At times, neither glitz nor flash could disguise financial reality. A story in the Times three months ago contained a reference to his past “brush with bankruptcy,” and Trump, though gratified that the Times gave him play on the front page, took umbrage at that phrase. He “never went bankrupt,” he wrote in a letter to the editor, nor did he “ever, at any time, come close.” Having triumphed over adversity, Trump assumes the prerogative to write history.
In fact, by 1990, he was not only at risk, he was, by any rational standard, hugely in the red. Excessively friendly bankers infected with the promiscuous optimism that made the eighties so memorable and so forgettable had financed Trump’s acquisitive impulses to the tune of three billion seven hundred and fifty million dollars. The personally guaranteed portion—almost a billion—represented the value of Trump’s good will, putative creditworthiness, and capacity for shame. A debt restructuring began in the spring of 1990 and continued for several years. In the process, six hundred or seven hundred or perhaps eight hundred million of his creditors’ dollars vaporized and drifted wherever lost money goes. In America, there is no such thing as a debtors’ prison, nor is there a tidy moral to this story.
Several of Trump’s trophies—the Plaza Hotel and all three Atlantic City casinos—were subjected to “prepackaged bankruptcy,” an efficiency maneuver that is less costly than the full-blown thing. Because the New Jersey Casino Control Act requires “financial stability” for a gaming license, it seems hard to avoid the inference that Trump’s Atlantic City holdings were in serious jeopardy. Nevertheless, “blip” is the alternative “b” word he prefers, as in “So the market, as you know, turns lousy and I have this blip.”
Trump began plotting his comeback before the rest of the world—or, perhaps, even he—fully grasped the direness of his situation. In April of 1990, he announced to the Wall Street Journal a plan to sell certain assets and become the “king of cash,” a stratagem that would supposedly set the stage for a shrewd campaign of bargain hunting. That same month, he drew down the final twenty-five million dollars of an unsecured hundred-million-dollar personal line of credit from Bankers Trust. Within seven weeks, he failed to deliver a forty-three-million-dollar payment due to bondholders of the Trump Castle Casino, and he also missed a thirty-million-dollar interest payment to one of the estimated hundred and fifty banks that were concerned about his well-being. An army of bankruptcy lawyers began camping out in various boardrooms.
Making the blip go away entailed, among other sacrifices, forfeiting management control of the Plaza and handing over the titles to the Trump Shuttle (the old Eastern Airlines Boston-New York-Washington route) and a twin-towered thirty-two-story condominium building near West Palm Beach, Florida. He also said goodbye to his two-hundred-and-eighty-two-foot yacht, the Trump Princess, and to his Boeing 727. Appraisers inventoried the contents of his Trump Tower homestead. Liens were attached to just about everything but his Brioni suits. Perhaps the ultimate indignity was having to agree to a personal spending cap of four hundred and fifty thousand dollars a month.
It would have been tactically wise, to say nothing of tactful, if, as Trump’s creditors wrote off large chunks of their portfolios, he could have curbed his breathtaking propensity for self-aggrandizement. The bravado diminished somewhat for a couple of years—largely because the press stopped paying attention—but by 1993 he was proclaiming, “This year has been the most successful year I’ve had in business.” Every year since, he’s issued the same news flash. A spate of Trump-comeback articles appeared in 1996, including several timed to coincide with his fiftieth birthday.
Then, last October, Trump came into possession of what a normal person would regard as real money. For a hundred and forty-two million dollars, he sold his half interest in the Grand Hyatt Hotel, on Forty-second Street, to the Pritzker family, of Chicago, his longtime, and long-estranged, partners in the property. Most of the proceeds weren’t his to keep, but he walked away with more than twenty-five million dollars. The chief significance of the Grand Hyatt sale was that it enabled Trump to extinguish the remnants of his once monstrous personally guaranteed debt. When Forbes published its annual list of the four hundred richest Americans, he sneaked on (three hundred and seventy-third position) with an estimated net worth of four hundred and fifty million. Trump, meanwhile, had compiled his own unaudited appraisal, one he was willing to share along with the amusing caveat “I’ve never shown this to a reporter before.” According to his calculations, he was actually worth two and a quarter billion dollars—Forbes had lowballed him by eighty per cent. Still, he had officially rejoined the plutocracy, his first appearance since the blip.
Jay Goldberg, who in addition to handling Trump’s matrimonial legal matters also represented him in the Grand Hyatt deal, told me that, after it closed, his client confessed that the novelty of being unencumbered had him lying awake nights. When I asked Trump about this, he said, “Leverage is an amazing phenomenon. I love leverage. Plus, I’ve never been a huge sleeper.” Trump doesn’t drink or smoke, claims he’s never even had a cup of coffee. He functions, evidently, according to inverse logic and metabolism. What most people would find unpleasantly stimulating—owing vastly more than you should to lenders who, figuratively, at least, can carve you into small pieces—somehow engenders in him a soothing narcotic effect. That, in any event, is the impression Trump seeks to convey, though the point is now moot. Bankers, typically not the most perspicacious species on earth, from time to time get religion, and there aren’t many who will soon be lining up to thrust fresh bazillions at him.
When I met with Trump for the first time, several months ago, he set out to acquaint me with facts that, to his consternation, had remained stubbornly hidden from the public. Several times, he uttered the phrase “off the record, but you can use it.” I understood the implication—I was his tool—but failed to see the purpose. “If you have me saying these things, even though they’re true, I sound like a schmuck,” he explained. How to account, then, for the bombast of the previous two decades? Alair Townsend, a former deputy mayor in the Koch administration, once quipped, “I wouldn’t believe Donald Trump if his tongue were notarized.” In time, this bon mot became misattributed to Leona Helmsley, who was only too happy to claim authorship. Last fall, after Evander Holyfield upset Mike Tyson in a heavyweight title fight, Trump snookered the News into reporting that he’d collected twenty million bucks by betting a million on the underdog. This prompted the Post to make calls to some Las Vegas bookies, who confirmed—shockingly!—that nobody had been handling that kind of action or laying odds close to 20-1. Trump never blinked, just moved on to the next bright idea.
“I don’t think people know how big my business is,” Trump told me. “Somehow, they know Trump the celebrity. But I’m the biggest developer in New York. And I’m the biggest there is in the casino business. And that’s pretty good to be the biggest in both. So that’s a lot of stuff.” He talked about 40 Wall Street—“truly one of the most beautiful buildings in New York”—a seventy-two-story landmark that he was renovating. He said he owned the new Niketown store, tucked under Trump Tower; there was a deal to convert the Mayfair Hotel, at Sixty-fifth and Park, into “super-super-luxury apartments . . . but that’s like a small one.” He owned the land under the Ritz-Carlton, on Central Park South. (“That’s a little thing. Nobody knows that I own that. In that way, I’m not really understood.”) With CBS, he now owned the Miss U.S.A., Miss Teen U.S.A., and Miss Universe beauty pageants. He pointed to a stack of papers on his desk, closing documents for the Trump International Hotel & Tower. “Look at these contracts. I get these to sign every day. I’ve signed hundreds of these. Here’s a contract for two-point-two million dollars. It’s a building that isn’t even opened yet. It’s eighty-three per cent sold, and nobody even knows it’s there. For each contract, I need to sign twenty-two times, and if you think that’s easy . . . You know, all the buyers want my signature. I had someone else who works for me signing, and at the closings the buyers got angry. I told myself, ‘You know, these people are paying a million eight, a million seven, two million nine, four million one—for those kinds of numbers, I’ll sign the fucking contract.’ I understand. Fuck it. It’s just more work.”Advertisement
As a real-estate impresario, Trump certainly has no peer. His assertion that he is the biggest real-estate developer in New York, however, presumes an elastic definition of that term. Several active developers—among them the Rudins, the Roses, the Milsteins—have added more residential and commercial space to the Manhattan market and have historically held on to what they built. When the outer boroughs figure in the tally—and if Donald isn’t allowed to claim credit for the middle-income high-rise rental projects that generated the fortune amassed by his ninety-one-year-old father, Fred—he slips further in the rankings. But if one’s standard of comparison is simply the number of buildings that bear the developer’s name, Donald dominates the field. Trump’s vaunted art of the deal has given way to the art of “image ownership.” By appearing to exert control over assets that aren’t necessarily his—at least not in ways that his pronouncements suggest—he exercises his real talent: using his name as a form of leverage. “It’s German in derivation,” he has said. “Nobody really knows where it came from. It’s very unusual, but it just is a good name to have.”
In the Trump International Hotel & Tower makeover, his role is, in effect, that of broker-promoter rather than risktaker. In 1993, the General Electric Pension Trust, which took over the building in a foreclosure, hired the Galbreath Company, an international real-estate management firm, to recommend how to salvage its mortgage on a nearly empty skyscraper that had an annoying tendency to sway in the wind. Along came Trump, proposing a three-way joint venture. G.E. would put up all the money—two hundred and seventy-five million dollars—and Trump and Galbreath would provide expertise. The market timing proved remarkably favorable. When Trump totted up the profits and calculated that his share came to more than forty million bucks, self-restraint eluded him, and he took out advertisements announcing “The Most Successful Condominium Tower Ever Built in the United States.”
A minor specimen of his image ownership is his ballyhooed “half interest” in the Empire State Building, which he acquired in 1994. Trump’s initial investment—not a dime—matches his apparent return thus far. His partners, the illegitimate daughter and disreputable son-in-law of an even more disreputable Japanese billionaire named Hideki Yokoi, seem to have paid forty million dollars for the building, though their title, even on a sunny day, is somewhat clouded. Under the terms of leases executed in 1961, the building is operated by a partnership controlled by Peter Malkin and the estate of the late Harry Helmsley. The lessees receive almost ninety million dollars a year from the building’s tenants but are required to pay the lessors (Trump’s partners) only about a million nine hundred thousand. Trump himself doesn’t share in these proceeds, and the leases don’t expire until 2076. Only if he can devise a way to break the leases will his “ownership” acquire any value. His strategy—suing the Malkin-Helmsley group for a hundred million dollars, alleging, among other things, that they’ve violated the leases by allowing the building to become a “rodent infested” commercial slum—has proved fruitless. In February, when an armed madman on the eighty-sixth-floor observation deck killed a sightseer and wounded six others before shooting himself, it seemed a foregone conclusion that Trump, ever vigilant, would exploit the tragedy, and he did not disappoint. “Leona Helmsley should be ashamed of herself,” he told the Post.
One day, when I was in Trump’s office, he took a phone call from an investment banker, an opaque conversation that, after he hung up, I asked him to elucidate.
“Whatever complicates the world more I do,” he said.
“It’s always good to do things nice and complicated so that nobody can figure it out.”
Case in point: The widely held perception is that Trump is the sole visionary and master builder of Riverside South, the mega-development planned for the former Penn Central Yards, on the West Side. Trump began pawing at the property in 1974, obtained a formal option in 1977, allowed it to lapse in 1979, and reëntered the picture in 1984, when Chase Manhattan lent him eighty-four million dollars for land-purchase and development expenses. In the years that followed, he trotted out several elephantine proposals, diverse and invariably overly dense residential and commercial mixtures. “Zoning for me is a life process,” Trump told me. “Zoning is something I have done and ultimately always get because people appreciate what I’m asking for and they know it’s going to be the highest quality.” In fact, the consensus among the West Side neighbors who studied Trump’s designs was that they did not appreciate what he was asking for. An exotically banal hundred-and-fifty-story phallus—“The World’s Tallest Building”—provided the centerpiece of his most vilified scheme.
The oddest passage in this byzantine history began in the late eighties, when an assortment of high-minded civic groups united to oppose Trump, enlisted their own architects, and drafted a greatly scaled-back alternative plan. The civic groups hoped to persuade Chase Manhattan, which held Trump’s mortgage, to help them entice a developer who could wrest the property from their nemesis. To their dismay, and sheepish amazement, they discovered that one developer was willing to pursue their design: Trump. Over time, the so-called “civic alternative” has become, in the public mind, thanks to Trump’s drumbeating, his proposal; he has appropriated conceptual ownership.
Three years ago, a syndicate of Asian investors, led by Henry Cheng, of Hong Kong’s New World Development Company, assumed the task of arranging construction financing. This transaction altered Trump’s involvement to a glorified form of sweat equity; for a fee paid by the investment syndicate, Trump Organization staff people would collaborate with a team from New World, monitoring the construction already under way and working on designs, zoning, and planning for the phases to come. Only when New World has recovered its investment, plus interest, will Trump begin to see any real profit—twenty-five years, at least, after he first cast his covetous eye at the Penn Central rail yards. According to Trump’s unaudited net-worth statement, which identifies Riverside South as “Trump Boulevard,” he “owns 30-50% of the project, depending on performance.” This “ownership,” however, is a potential profit share rather than actual equity. Six hundred million dollars is the value Trump imputes to this highly provisional asset.
Of course, the “comeback” Trump is much the same as the Trump of the eighties; there is no “new” Trump, just as there was never a “new” Nixon. Rather, all along there have been several Trumps: the hyperbole addict who prevaricates for fun and profit; the knowledgeable builder whose associates profess awe at his attention to detail; the narcissist whose self-absorption doesn’t account for his dead-on ability to exploit other people’s weaknesses; the perpetual seventeen-year-old who lives in a zero-sum world of winners and “total losers,” loyal friends and “complete scumbags”; the insatiable publicity hound who courts the press on a daily basis and, when he doesn’t like what he reads, attacks the messengers as “human garbage”; the chairman and largest stockholder of a billion-dollar public corporation who seems unable to resist heralding overly optimistic earnings projections, which then fail to materialize, thereby eroding the value of his investment—in sum, a fellow both slippery and naïve, artfully calculating and recklessly heedless of consequences.Advertisement
Trump’s most caustic detractors in New York real-estate circles disparage him as “a casino operator in New Jersey,” as if to say, “He’s not really even one of us.” Such derision is rooted in resentment that his rescue from oblivion—his strategy for remaining the marketable real-estate commodity “Trump”—hinged upon his ability to pump cash out of Atlantic City. The Trump image is nowhere more concentrated than in Atlantic City, and it is there, of late, that the Trump alchemy—transforming other people’s money into his own wealth—has been most strenuously tested.
To bail himself out with the banks, Trump converted his casinos to public ownership, despite the fact that the constraints inherent in answering to shareholders do not come to him naturally. Inside the Trump Organization, for instance, there is talk of “the Donald factor,” the three to five dollars per share that Wall Street presumably discounts Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts by allowing for his braggadocio and unpredictability. The initial public offering, in June, 1995, raised a hundred and forty million dollars, at fourteen dollars a share. Less than a year later, a secondary offering, at thirty-one dollars per share, brought in an additional three hundred and eighty million dollars. Trump’s personal stake in the company now stands at close to forty per cent. As chairman, Donald had an excellent year in 1996, drawing a million-dollar salary, another million for miscellaneous “services,” and a bonus of five million. As a shareholder, however, he did considerably less well. A year ago, the stock traded at thirty-five dollars; it now sells for around ten.
Notwithstanding Trump’s insistence that things have never been better, Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts has to cope with several thorny liabilities, starting with a junk-bond debt load of a billion seven hundred million dollars. In 1996, the company’s losses amounted to three dollars and twenty-seven cents per share—attributable, in part, to extraordinary expenses but also to the fact that the Atlantic City gaming industry has all but stopped growing. And, most glaringly, there was the burden of the Trump Castle, which experienced a ten-per-cent revenue decline, the worst of any casino in Atlantic City.
Last October, the Castle, a heavily leveraged consistent money loser that had been wholly owned by Trump, was bought into Trump Hotels, a transaction that gave him five million eight hundred and thirty-seven thousand shares of stock. Within two weeks—helped along by a reduced earnings estimate from a leading analyst—the stock price, which had been eroding since the spring, began to slide more precipitously, triggering a shareholder lawsuit that accused Trump of self-dealing and a “gross breach of his fiduciary duties.” At which point he began looking for a partner. The deal Trump came up with called for Colony Capital, a sharp real-estate outfit from Los Angeles, to buy fifty-one per cent of the Castle for a price that seemed to vindicate the terms under which he’d unloaded it on the public company. Closer inspection revealed, however, that Colony’s capital injection would give it high-yield preferred, rather than common, stock—in other words, less an investment than a loan. Trump-l’oeil: Instead of trying to persuade the world that he owned something that wasn’t his, he was trying to convey the impression that he would part with an onerous asset that, as a practical matter, he would still be stuck with. In any event, in March the entire deal fell apart. Trump, in character, claimed that he, not Colony, had called it off.
The short-term attempt to solve the Castle’s problems is a four-million-dollar cosmetic overhaul. This so-called “re-theming” will culminate in June, when the casino acquires a new name: Trump Marina. One day this winter, I accompanied Trump when he buzzed into Atlantic City for a re-theming meeting with Nicholas Ribis, the president and chief executive officer of Trump Hotels, and several Castle executives. The discussion ranged from the size of the lettering on the outside of the building to the sparkling gray granite in the lobby to potential future renderings, including a version with an as yet unbuilt hotel tower and a permanently docked yacht to be called Miss Universe. Why the boat? “It’s just an attraction,” Trump said. “You understand, this would be part of a phase-two or phase-three expansion. It’s going to be the largest yacht in the world.”
From the re-theming meeting, we headed for the casino, and along the way Trump received warm salutations. A white-haired woman wearing a pink warmup suit and carrying a bucket of quarters said, “Mr. Trump, I just love you, darling.” He replied, “Thank you. I love you, too,” then turned to me and said, “You see, they’re good people. And I like people. You’ve gotta be nice. They’re like friends.”
The Castle had two thousand two hundred and thirty-nine slot machines, including, in a far corner, thirteen brand-new and slightly terrifying “Wheel of Fortune”-theme contraptions, which were about to be officially unveiled. On hand were representatives of International Game Technology (the machines’ manufacturer), a press entourage worthy of a military briefing in the wake of a Grenada-calibre invasion, and a couple of hundred onlookers—all drawn by the prospect of a personal appearance by Vanna White, the doyenne of “Wheel of Fortune.” Trump’s arrival generated satisfying expressions of awe from the rubberneckers, though not the spontaneous burst of applause that greeted Vanna, who had been conscripted for what was described as “the ceremonial first pull.”
When Trump spoke, he told the gathering, “This is the beginning of a new generation of machine.” Vanna pulled the crank, but the crush of reporters made it impossible to tell what was going on or even what denomination of currency had been sacrificed. The demographics of the crowd suggested that the most efficient machine would be one that permitted direct deposit of a Social Security check. After a delay that featured a digital musical cacophony, the machine spat back a few coins. Trump said, “Ladies and gentlemen, it took a little while. We hope it doesn’t take you as long. And we just want to thank you for being our friends.” And then we were out of there. “This is what we do. What can I tell you?” Trump said, as we made our way through the casino.
Vanna White was scheduled to join us for the helicopter flight back to New York, and later, as we swung over Long Island City, heading for a heliport on the East Side, Trump gave Vanna a little hug and, not for the first time, praised her star turn at the Castle. “For the opening of thirteen slot machines, I’d say we did all right today,” he said, and then they slapped high fives.
In a 1990 Playboy interview, Trump said that the yacht, the glitzy casinos, the gleaming bronze of Trump Tower were all “props for the show,” adding that “the show is ‘Trump’ and it is sold-out performances everywhere.” In 1985, the show moved to Palm Beach. For ten million dollars, Trump bought Mar-a-Lago, a hundred-and-eighteen-room Hispano-Moorish-Venetian castle built in the twenties by Marjorie Merriweather Post and E. F. Hutton, set on seventeen and a half acres extending from the ocean to Lake Worth. Ever since, his meticulous restoration and literal regilding of the property have been a work in progress. The winter of 1995-96 was Mar-a-Lago’s first full season as a commercial venture, a private club with a twenty-five-thousand-dollar initiation fee (which later rose to fifty thousand and is now quoted at seventy-five thousand). The combination of the Post-Hutton pedigree and Trump’s stewardship offered a paradigm of how an aggressively enterprising devotion to Good Taste inevitably transmutes to Bad Taste—but might nevertheless pay for itself.Advertisement
Only Trump and certain of his minions know who among Mar-a-Lago’s more than three hundred listed members has actually forked over initiation fees and who’s paid how much for the privilege. Across the years, there have been routine leaks by a mysterious unnamed spokesman within the Trump Organization to the effect that this or that member of the British Royal Family was planning to buy a pied-à-terre in Trump Tower. It therefore came as no surprise when, during early recruiting efforts at Mar-a-Lago, Trump announced that the Prince and Princess of Wales, their mutual antipathy notwithstanding, had signed up. Was there any documentation? Well, um, Chuck and Di were honorary members. Among the honorary members who have yet to pass through Mar-a-Lago’s portals are Henry Kissinger and Elizabeth Taylor.
The most direct but not exactly most serene way to travel to Mar-a-Lago, I discovered one weekend not long ago, is aboard Trump’s 727, the same aircraft he gave up during the blip and, after an almost decent interval, bought back. My fellow-passengers included Eric Javits, a lawyer and nephew of the late Senator Jacob Javits, bumming a ride; Ghislaine Maxwell, the daughter of the late publishing tycoon and inadequate swimmer Robert Maxwell, also bumming a ride; Matthew Calamari, a telephone-booth-size bodyguard who is the head of security for the entire Trump Organization; and Eric Trump, Donald’s thirteen-year-old son.
The solid-gold fixtures and hardware (sinks, seat-belt clasps, door hinges, screws), well-stocked bar and larder, queen-size bed, and bidet (easily outfitted with a leather-cushioned cover in case of sudden turbulence) implied hedonistic possibilities—the plane often ferried high rollers to Atlantic City—but I witnessed only good clean fun. We hadn’t been airborne long when Trump decided to watch a movie. He’d brought along “Michael,” a recent release, but twenty minutes after popping it into the VCR he got bored and switched to an old favorite, a Jean Claude Van Damme slugfest called “Bloodsport,” which he pronounced “an incredible, fantastic movie.” By assigning to his son the task of fast-forwarding through all the plot exposition—Trump’s goal being “to get this two-hour movie down to forty-five minutes”—he eliminated any lulls between the nose hammering, kidney tenderizing, and shin whacking. When a beefy bad guy who was about to squish a normal-sized good guy received a crippling blow to the scrotum, I laughed. “Admit it, you’re laughing!” Trump shouted. “You want to write that Donald Trump was loving this ridiculous Jean Claude Van Damme movie, but are you willing to put in there that you were loving it, too?”
A small convoy of limousines greeted us on the runway in Palm Beach, and during the ten-minute drive to Mar-a-Lago Trump waxed enthusiastic about a “spectacular, world-class” golf course he was planning to build on county-owned land directly opposite the airport. Trump, by the way, is a skilled golfer. A source extremely close to him—by which I mean off the record, but I can use it—told me that Claude Harmon, a former winner of the Masters tournament and for thirty-three years the club pro at Winged Foot, in Mamaroneck, New York, once described Donald as “the best weekend player” he’d ever seen.
The only formal event on Trump’s agenda had already got under way. Annually, the publisher of Forbes invites eleven corporate potentates to Florida, where they spend a couple of nights aboard the company yacht, the Highlander, and, during the day, adroitly palpate each other’s brains and size up each other’s short games. A supplementary group of capital-gains-tax skeptics had been invited to a Friday-night banquet in the Mar-a-Lago ballroom. Trump arrived between the roast-duck appetizer and the roasted-portabello-mushroom salad and took his seat next to Malcolm S. (Steve) Forbes, Jr., the erstwhile Presidential candidate and the chief executive of Forbes, at a table that also included les grands fromages of Hertz, Merrill Lynch, the C.I.T. Group, and Countrywide Credit Industries. At an adjacent table, Marla Maples Trump, who had just returned from Shreveport, Louisiana, where she was rehearsing her role as co-host of the Miss U.S.A. pageant, discussed global politics and the sleeping habits of three-year-old Tiffany with the corporate chiefs and chief spouses of A.T. & T., Sprint, and Office Depot. During coffee, Donald assured everyone present that they were “very special” to him, that he wanted them to think of Mar-a-Lago as home, and that they were all welcome to drop by the spa the next day for a freebie.
Tony Senecal, a former mayor of Martinsburg, West Virginia, who now doubles as Trump’s butler and Mar-a-Lago’s resident historian, told me, “Some of the restoration work that’s being done here is so subtle it’s almost not Trump-like.” Subtlety, however, is not the dominant motif. Weary from handling Trump’s legal work, Jay Goldberg used to retreat with his wife to Mar-a-Lago for a week each year. Never mind the tapestries, murals, frescoes, winged statuary, life-size portrait of Trump (titled “The Visionary”), bathtub-size flower-filled samovars, vaulted Corinthian colonnade, thirty-four-foot ceilings, blinding chandeliers, marquetry, overstuffed and gold-leaf-stamped everything else, Goldberg told me; what nudged him around the bend was a small piece of fruit.
“We were surrounded by a staff of twenty people,” he said, “including a footman. I didn’t even know what that was. I thought maybe a chiropodist. Anyway, wherever I turned there was always a bowl of fresh fruit. So there I am, in our room, and I decide to step into the bathroom to take a leak. And on the way I grab a kumquat and eat it. Well, by the time I come out of the bathroom the kumquat has been replaced.
As for the Mar-a-Lago spa, aerobic exercise is an activity Trump indulges in “as little as possible,” and he’s therefore chosen not to micromanage its daily affairs. Instead, he brought in a Texas outfit called the Greenhouse Spa, proven specialists in mud wraps, manual lymphatic drainage, reflexology, shiatsu and Hawaiian hot-rock massage, loofah polishes, sea-salt rubs, aromatherapy, acupuncture, peat baths, and Japanese steeping-tub protocol. Evidently, Trump’s philosophy of wellness is rooted in a belief that prolonged exposure to exceptionally attractive young female spa attendants will instill in the male clientele a will to live. Accordingly, he limits his role to a pocket veto of key hiring decisions. While giving me a tour of the main exercise room, where Tony Bennett, who does a couple of gigs at Mar-a-Lago each season and has been designated an “artist-in-residence,” was taking a brisk walk on a treadmill, Trump introduced me to “our resident physician, Dr. Ginger Lea Southall”—a recent chiropractic-college graduate. As Dr. Ginger, out of earshot, manipulated the sore back of a grateful member, I asked Trump where she had done her training. “I’m not sure,” he said. “Baywatch Medical School? Does that sound right? I’ll tell you the truth. Once I saw Dr. Ginger’s photograph, I didn’t really need to look at her résumé or anyone else’s. Are you asking, ‘Did we hire her because she’d trained at Mount Sinai for fifteen years?’ The answer is no. And I’ll tell you why: because by the time she’s spent fifteen years at Mount Sinai, we don’t want to look at her.”Advertisement
My visit happened to coincide with the coldest weather of the winter, and this gave me a convenient excuse, at frequent intervals, to retreat to my thousand-dollar-a-night suite and huddle under the bedcovers in fetal position. Which is where I was around ten-thirty Saturday night, when I got a call from Tony Senecal, summoning me to the ballroom. The furnishings had been altered since the Forbes banquet the previous evening. Now there was just a row of armchairs in the center of the room and a couple of low tables, an arrangement that meant Donald and Marla were getting ready for a late dinner in front of the TV. They’d already been out to a movie with Eric and Tiffany and some friends and bodyguards, and now a theatre-size screen had descended from the ceiling so that they could watch a pay-per-view telecast of a junior-welterweight-championship boxing match between Oscar de la Hoya and Miguel Angel Gonzalez.
Marla was eating something green, while Donald had ordered his favorite, meat loaf and mashed potatoes. “We have a chef who makes the greatest meat loaf in the world,” he said. “It’s so great I told him to put it on the menu. So whenever we have it, half the people order it. But then afterward, if you ask them what they ate, they always deny it.”
Trump is not only a boxing fan but an occasional promoter, and big bouts are regularly staged at his hotels in Atlantic City. Whenever he shows up in person, he drops by to wish the fighters luck beforehand and is always accorded a warm welcome, with the exception of a chilly reception not long ago from the idiosyncratic Polish head-butter and rabbit-puncher Andrew Golota. This was just before Golota went out and pounded Riddick Bowe into retirement, only to get himself disqualified for a series of low blows that would’ve been perfectly legal in “Bloodsport.”
“Golota’s a killer,” Trump said admiringly. “A stone-cold killer.”
When I asked Marla how she felt about boxing, she said, “I enjoy it a lot, just as long as nobody gets hurt.”
When a call came a while back from Aleksandr Ivanovich Lebed, the retired general, amateur boxer, and restless pretender to the Presidency of Russia, explaining that he was headed to New York and wanted to arrange a meeting, Trump was pleased but not surprised. The list of superpower leaders and geopolitical strategists with whom Trump has engaged in frank and fruitful exchanges of viewpoints includes Mikhail Gorbachev, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, former Secretary of Defense William Perry, and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff. (He’s also pals with Sylvester Stallone and Clint Eastwood, men’s men who enjoy international reputations for racking up massive body counts.) In 1987, fresh from his grandest public-relations coup—repairing in three and a half months, under budget and for no fee, the Wollman skating rink, in Central Park, a job that the city of New York had spent six years and twelve million dollars bungling—Trump contemplated how, in a larger sphere, he could advertise himself as a doer and dealmaker. One stunt involved orchestrating an “invitation” from the federal government to examine the Williamsburg Bridge, which was falling apart. Trump had no real interest in the job, but by putting on a hard hat and taking a stroll on the bridge for the cameras he stoked the fantasy that he could rebuild the city’s entire infrastructure. From there it was only a short leap to saving the planet. What if, say, a troublemaker like Muammar Qaddafi got his hands on a nuclear arsenal? Well, Trump declared, he stood ready to work with the leaders of the then Soviet Union to coördinate a formula for coping with Armageddon-minded lunatics.
The clear purpose of Lebed’s trip to America, an unofficial visit that coincided with the second Clinton Inaugural, was to add some reassuring human texture to his image as a plainspoken tough guy. Simultaneously, his domestic political prospects could be enhanced if voters back home got the message that Western capitalists felt comfortable with him. Somewhere in Lebed’s calculations was the understanding that, to the nouveau entrepreneurs of the freebooter’s paradise that is now Russia, Trump looked and smelled like very old money.
Their rendezvous was scheduled for midmorning. Having enlisted as an interpreter Inga Bogutska, a receptionist whose father, by coincidence, was a Russian general, Trump decided to greet his visitor in the lobby. When it turned out that Lebed, en route from an audience with a group of Times editors and reporters, was running late, Trump occupied himself by practicing his golf swing and surveying the female pedestrians in the atrium. Finally, Lebed arrived, a middle-aged but ageless fellow with a weathered, fleshy face and hooded eyes, wearing a gray business suit and an impassive expression. After posing for a Times photographer, they rode an elevator to the twenty-sixth floor, and along the way Trump asked, “So, how is everything in New York?”
“Well, it’s hard to give an assessment, but I think it is brilliant,” Lebed replied. He had a deep, bullfroggy voice, and his entourage of a half-dozen men included an interpreter, who rendered Inga Bogutska superfluous.
“Yes, it’s been doing very well,” Trump agreed. “New York is on a very strong up. And we’ve been reading a lot of great things about this gentleman and his country.”
Inside his office, Trump immediately began sharing with Lebed some of his treasured possessions. “This is a shoe that was given to me by Shaquille O’Neal,” he said. “Basketball. Shaquille O’Neal. Seven feet three inches, I guess. This is his sneaker, the actual sneaker. In fact, he gave this to me after a game.”
“I’ve always said,” Lebed sagely observed, “that after size 45, which I wear, then you start wearing trunks on your feet.”
“That’s true,” said Trump. He moved on to a replica of a Mike Tyson heavyweight-championship belt, followed by an Evander Holyfield glove. “He gave me this on my fiftieth birthday. And then he beat Tyson. I didn’t know who to root for. And then, again, here is Shaquille O’Neal’s shirt. Here, you might want to see this. This was part of an advertisement for Versace, the fashion designer. These are photographs of Madonna on the stairs at Mar-a-Lago, my house in Florida. And this photograph shows something that we just finished and are very proud of. It’s a big hotel called Trump International. And it’s been very successful. So we’ve had a lot of fun.”
Trump introduced Lebed to Howard Lorber, who had accompanied him a few months earlier on his journey to Moscow, where they looked at properties to which the Trump moniker might be appended. “Howard has major investments in Russia,” he told Lebed, but when Lorber itemized various ventures none seemed to ring a bell.
“See, they don’t know you,” Trump told Lorber. “With all that investment, they don’t know you. Trump they know.”
Some “poisonous people” at the Times, Lebed informed Trump, were “spreading some funny rumors that you are going to cram Moscow with casinos.”
Laughing, Trump said, “Is that right?”Advertisement
“I told them that I know you build skyscrapers in New York. High-quality skyscrapers.”
“We are actually looking at something in Moscow right now, and it would be skyscrapers and hotels, not casinos. Only quality stuff. But thank you for defending me. I’ll soon be going again to Moscow. We’re looking at the Moskva Hotel. We’re also looking at the Rossiya. That’s a very big project; I think it’s the largest hotel in the world. And we’re working with the local government, the mayor of Moscow and the mayor’s people. So far, they’ve been very responsive.”
Lebed: “You must be a very confident person. You are building straight into the center.”
Trump: “I always go into the center.”
Lebed: “I hope I’m not offending by saying this, but I think you are a litmus testing paper. You are at the end of the edge. If Trump goes to Moscow, I think America will follow. So I consider these projects of yours to be very important. And I’d like to help you as best I can in putting your projects into life. I want to create a canal or riverbed for capital flow. I want to minimize the risks and get rid of situations where the entrepreneur has to try to hide his head between his shoulders. I told the New York Times I was talking to you because you are a professional—a high-level professional—and if you invest, you invest in real stuff. Serious, high-quality projects. And you deal with serious people. And I deem you to be a very serious person. That’s why I’m meeting you.”
Trump: “Well, that’s very nice. Thank you very much. I have something for you. This is a little token of my respect. I hope you like it. This is a book called ‘The Art of the Deal,’ which a lot of people have read. And if you read this book you’ll know the art of the deal better than I do.”
The conversation turned to Lebed’s lunch arrangements and travel logistics—“It’s very tiring to meet so many people,” he confessed—and the dialogue began to feel stilted, as if Trump’s limitations as a Kremlinologist had exhausted the potential topics. There was, however, one more subject he wanted to cover.
“Now, you were a boxer, right?” he said. “We have a lot of big matches at my hotels. We just had a match between Riddick Bowe and Andrew Golota, from Poland, who won the fight but was disqualified. He’s actually a great fighter if he can ever get through a match without being disqualified. And, to me, you look tougher than Andrew Golota.”
In response, Lebed pressed an index finger to his nose, or what was left of it, and flattened it against his face.
“You do look seriously tough,” Trump continued. “Were you an Olympic boxer?”
“No, I had a rather modest career.”
“Really? The newspapers said you had a great career.”
“At a certain point, my company leader put the question straight: either you do the sports or you do the military service. And I selected the military.”
“You made the right decision,” Trump agreed, as if putting to rest any notion he might have entertained about promoting a Lebed exhibition bout in Atlantic City.
Norma Foerderer came in with a camera to snap a few shots for the Trump archives and to congratulate the general for his fancy footwork in Chechnya. Phone numbers were exchanged, and Lebed, before departing, offered Trump a benediction: “You leave on the earth a very good trace for centuries. We’re all mortal, but the things you build will stay forever. You’ve already proven wrong the assertion that the higher the attic, the more trash there is.”
When Trump returned from escorting Lebed to the elevator, I asked him his impressions.
“First of all, you wouldn’t want to play nuclear weapons with this fucker,” he said. “Does he look as tough and cold as you’ve ever seen? This is not like your average real-estate guy who’s rough and mean. This guy’s beyond that. You see it in the eyes. This guy is a killer. How about when I asked, ‘Were you a boxer?’ Whoa—that nose is a piece of rubber. But me he liked. When we went out to the elevator, he was grabbing me, holding me, he felt very good. And he liked what I do. You know what? I think I did a good job for the country today.”
The phone rang—Jesse Jackson calling about some office space Trump had promised to help the Rainbow Coalition lease at 40 Wall Street. (“Hello, Jesse. How ya doin’? You were on Rosie’s show? She’s terrific, right? Yeah, I think she is. . . . Okay-y-y, how are you?”) Trump hung up, sat forward, his eyebrows arched, smiling a smile that contained equal measures of surprise and self-satisfaction. “You gotta say, I cover the gamut. Does the kid cover the gamut? Boy, it never ends. I mean, people have no idea. Cool life. You know, it’s sort of a cool life.”
One Saturday this winter, Trump and I had an appointment at Trump Tower. After I’d waited ten minutes, the concierge directed me to the penthouse. When I emerged from the elevator, there Donald stood, wearing a black cashmere topcoat, navy suit, blue-and-white pin-striped shirt, and maroon necktie. “I thought you might like to see my apartment,” he said, and as I squinted against the glare of gilt and mirrors in the entrance corridor he added, “I don’t really do this.” That we both knew this to be a transparent fib—photo spreads of the fifty-three-room triplex and its rooftop park had appeared in several magazines, and it had been featured on “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous”—in no way undermined my enjoyment of the visual and aural assault that followed: the twenty-nine-foot-high living room with its erupting fountain and vaulted ceiling decorated with neo-Romantic frescoes; the two-story dining room with its carved ivory frieze (“I admit that the ivory’s kind of a no-no”); the onyx columns with marble capitals that had come from “a castle in Italy”; the chandelier that originally hung in “a castle in Austria”; the African blue-onyx lavatory. As we admired the view of Central Park, to the north, he said, “This is the greatest apartment ever built. There’s never been anything like it. There’s no apartment like this anywhere. It was harder to build this apartment than the rest of the building. A lot of it I did just to see if it could be done. All the very wealthy people who think they know great apartments come here and they say, ‘Donald, forget it. This is the greatest.’ ” Very few touches suggested that real people actually lived there—where was it, exactly, that Trump sat around in his boxers, eating roast-beef sandwiches, channel surfing, and scratching where it itched? Where was it that Marla threw her jogging clothes?—but no matter. “Come here, I’ll show you how life works,” he said, and we turned a couple of corners and wound up in a sitting room that had a Renoir on one wall and a view that extended beyond the Statue of Liberty. “My apartments that face the Park go for twice as much as the apartments that face south. But I consider this view to be more beautiful than that view, especially at night. As a cityscape, it can’t be beat.”Advertisement
We then drove down to 40 Wall Street, where members of a German television crew were waiting for Trump to show them around. (“This will be the finest office building anywhere in New York. Not just downtown—anywhere in New York.”) Along the way, we stopped for a light at Forty-second Street and First Avenue. The driver of a panel truck in the next lane began waving, then rolled down his window and burbled, “I never see you in person!” He was fortyish, wore a blue watch cap, and spoke with a Hispanic inflection. “But I see you a lot on TV.”
“Good,” said Trump. “Thank you. I think.”
“She’s in Louisiana, getting ready to host the Miss U.S.A. pageant. You better watch it. O.K.?”
“O.K., I promise,” said the man in the truck. “Have a nice day, Mr. Trump. And have a profitable day.”
Later, Trump said to me, “You want to know what total recognition is? I’ll tell you how you know you’ve got it. When the Nigerians on the street corners who don’t speak a word of English, who have no clue, who’re selling watches for some guy in New Jersey—when you walk by and those guys say, ‘Trump! Trump!’ That’s total recognition.”
Next, we headed north, to Mount Kisco, in Westchester County—specifically to Seven Springs, a fifty-five-room limestone-and-granite Georgian splendor completed in 1917 by Eugene Meyer, the father of Katharine Graham. If things proceeded according to plan, within a year and a half the house would become the centerpiece of the Trump Mansion at Seven Springs, a golf club where anyone willing to part with two hundred and fifty thousand dollars could tee up. As we approached, Trump made certain I paid attention to the walls lining the driveway. “Look at the quality of this granite. Because I’m like, you know, into quality. Look at the quality of that wall. Hand-carved granite, and the same with the house.” Entering a room where two men were replastering a ceiling, Trump exulted, “We’ve got the pros here! You don’t see too many plasterers anymore. I take a union plasterer from New York and bring him up here. You know why? Because he’s the best.” We canvassed the upper floors and then the basement, where Trump sized up the bowling alley as a potential spa. “This is very much Mar-a-Lago all over again,” he said. “A great building, great land, great location. Then the question is what to do with it.”
From the rear terrace, Trump mapped out some holes of the golf course: an elevated tee above a par three, across a ravine filled with laurel and dogwood; a couple of parallel par fours above the slope that led to a reservoir. Then he turned to me and said, “I bought this whole thing for seven and a half million dollars. People ask, ‘How’d you do that?’ I said, ‘I don’t know.’ Does that make sense?” Not really, nor did his next utterance: “You know, nobody’s ever seen a granite house before.”
Granite? Nobody? Never? In the history of humankind? Impressive.
A few months ago, Marla Maples Trump, with a straight face, told an interviewer about life with hubby: “He really has the desire to have me be more of the traditional wife. He definitely wants his dinner promptly served at seven. And if he’s home at six-thirty it should be ready by six-thirty.” Oh well, so much for that.
In Trump’s office the other morning, I asked whether, in light of his domestic shuffle, he planned to change his living arrangements. He smiled for the first time that day and said, “Where am I going to live? That might be the most difficult question you’ve asked so far. I want to finish the work on my apartment at Trump International. That should take a few months, maybe two, maybe six. And then I think I’ll live there for maybe six months. Let’s just say, for a period of time. The buildings always work better when I’m living there.”
What about the Trump Tower apartment? Would that sit empty?
“Well, I wouldn’t sell that. And, of course, there’s no one who would ever build an apartment like that. The penthouse at Trump International isn’t nearly as big. It’s maybe seven thousand square feet. But it’s got a living room that is the most spectacular residential room in New York. A twenty-five-foot ceiling. I’m telling you, the best room anywhere. Do you understand?”
I think I did: the only apartment with a better view than the best apartment in the world was the same apartment. Except for the one across the Park, which had the most spectacular living room in the world. No one had ever seen a granite house before. And, most important, every square inch belonged to Trump, who had aspired to and achieved the ultimate luxury, an existence unmolested by the rumbling of a soul. “Trump”—a fellow with universal recognition but with a suspicion that an interior life was an intolerable inconvenience, a creature everywhere and nowhere, uniquely capable of inhabiting it all at once, all alone. ♦Published by The New Yorker in the print edition of the May 19, 1997, issue.
We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
Isabel Sylvia Margaret Maxwell (born 16 August 1950) is a French-born entrepreneur who was the co-founder of Magellan. Maxwell is a Technology Pioneer of the World Economic Forum, and the President emerita of Commtouch. She was a Director of Israel Venture Network and built up their Social Entrepreneur program in Israel from 2004-2010. Maxwell was also Senior Adviser to Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus‘ not-for-profit microfinance organization Grameen America. In 1973, Maxwell made her first film, an adaptation of the book Jonathan Livingston Seagull. Her second film, a documentary on lesbian women, was made in 1980 while at Southern Television in the UK. Maxwell worked with Djerassi Films Inc. on collaborative projects with Dale Djerassi whom she married in 1984.
So in 2009, Isabel had her own young parasite to feed. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “parked” Alex in one of the most sensitive areas of Obama’s executive apparatus. Alex Djerassi was put in charge of the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, covering the Middle East. He worked directly on the Arab Spring, and Hillary sent Alex as the US representative to the expatriate rebel groups Friends of Libya and Friends of the Syrian People. He served there from until 2012. Together, they did arab springs and killed Ghaddafi in 2011.
UPDATE: Guess what happened right after that? Did they just say something about Libya?!
The State Department is responding to claims that officials may have covered up alleged illegal and inappropriate behavior by department personnel, while an ambassador is accused of “routinely” soliciting sexual favors. NBC’s Chuck Todd reports.
A U.S. ambassador who allegedly became the target of an internal State Department investigation after being accused of prostitution and pedophilia denied any misconduct in a statement.
“I am angered and saddened by the baseless allegations that have appeared in the press,” the ambassador said, adding that to see his time in the country where he served “smeared is devastating.
The ambassador, who has not been charged or convicted of a crime, is not being identified by NBC News.
The ambassador wrote that he lives “on a beautiful park” in the country “that you walk through to get to many locations and at no point have I ever engaged in any improper activity.”
The ambassador who came under investigation “routinely ditched his protective security detail in order to solicit sexual favors from both prostitutes and minor children,” according to documents obtained by NBC News.
The alleged misconduct took place during former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s tenure, according to the documents, which also say those activities may not have been properly looked into.
Top state department officials directed investigators to “cease the investigation” into the ambassador’s conduct, according to the memo.
A state department spokesperson would not confirm the specific investigations, but told NBC News “the notion that we would not vigorously pursue criminal misconduct in a case, in any case, is preposterous.”
Former State Department investigator Aurelia Fedenisn has said that investigators dropped the ball in the case, and that a final report published in March of this year was “watered down,” according to her attorney.
“She felt it was important that Congress get this information,” Fedenisn’s lawyer Cary Schulman told NBC News.
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that the department “would never condone” improper influence on its investigators. “Any case we would take seriously and we would investigate, and that’s exactly what we’re doing.”
A senior State Department official also disputed the notion that any investigations had been squashed, saying: “You know there’s a lot of conflated information on cases occasionally. I can tell you that not everybody walking in Central Park is out there looking for prostitutes or hook ups.”
Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Rep. Ed Royce meanwhile said that he would ask his staff to look into the allege misconduct.
“I am appalled not only at the reported misconduct itself, but at the reported interference in the investigations of the misconduct,” Royce said. “The notion that any or all of the cases contained in news reports would not be investigated thoroughly by the department is unthinkable.” – NBC News
At the time when Djerassi worked in Libya, US Ambassador was this guy:
Ambassador Gene A. Cretz is a career member of the Senior Foreign Service with the rank of Minister-Counselor. Since 2008, Ambassador Cretz has served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. From 2004 to 2007, he was the Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv. From 2003 to 2004, he was assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Damascus where he served as Deputy Chief of Mission and Charge d’Affaires. From 2001 to 2003, he was Minister-Counselor for Economic and Political Affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Egypt. Other overseas assignments include service in Beijing, New Delhi, and Islamabad. Assignments in Washington include State Department posts in the Bureau of International Organizations, the Operations Center, and in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. From 1975 to 1977, Ambassador Cretz served as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Afghanistan. – Source
“While in Libya, Cretz had a working relationship with two of Gadhafi’s sons, Saif al-Islam Muammar Gadhafi and Motasem Gadhafi, both of whom are high-ranking officials in the Libyan government.” – Times Union
Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi, son of former Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi, has made his intentions clear. He will run in the 2018 presidential elections in Libya. A spokesperson for the Gaddafi family, Basem al-Hashimi al-Soul, confirmed this to Egypt Today. (Source: “Saif al-Islam Gaddafi to run for 2018 presidential election,” Egypt Today, December 17, 2017.)
“Prince Andrew And His Dodgy Friendships With Epstein, Gaddafi’s Son & Kazakh Billionaire”
Saif, the second son of Muammar Gaddafi and once seen as the heir apparent to the Libyan dictator, was the suave, English-speaking, reformist face of the Libyan regime. However, following the revolution in 2011, he was also being accused of using lethal force on protesters, torture, enslavement and crimes against humanity. He was also allegedly friends with Prince Andrew. And though the royal family denied this as being the case, a report in Daily Mail quoted sources as saying that the Prince met Gaddafi in Libya in 2008, and privately on two other occasions. The scandal broke in 2011, just as the royal family was preparing for the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton, and there were talks that Andrew’s links to Gaddafi — and a string of other notorious Middle East tycoons — might result in him being stripped of his title and duties. – Economic Times
In 2006, the German newspaper Der Spiegel and the Spanish newspaper La Voz de Galicia reported that Saif al-Islam was romantically linked to Orly Weinerman, an Israeli actress and model, they dated from 2005-2011. At the time, Weinerman publicly denied having any contact with Saif al-Islam, but she has since admitted it, and in September 2012, she asked former British Prime Minister Tony Blair to intervene in his trial in order to spare his life.
In 2009, a party in Montenegro for his 37th birthday included well-known guests such as Oleg Deripaska, Peter Munk and Prince Albert of Monaco.
“Saif’s connections extend into the City of London and Westminster. Saif is an acquaintance of Lord Mandelson and met the former Labour minister at a Corfu villa the week before it was announced that the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, would be released from a Scottish prison. The two men met again when they were guests at Lord Rothschild’s mansion in Buckinghamshire. Rothschild’s son and heir, Nat, also a close friend of Mandelson, held a party in New York attended by Saif in 2008. Saif in turn invited Nat Rothschild to his 37th birthday party in Montenegro, where the financier is investing in a luxury resort. Prince Andrew, too, has played host to Saif at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle and the two men have also met in Tripoli. Others whom Saif classes as good friends include Tony Blair and, bizarrely, the late Austrian far-right leader, Jörg Haider.” – The Geardian, 11,27,2011
“A meeting between a dictator’s son and a senior Cabinet minister at a classic English shooting party revealed how deeply the Gaddafi regime wormed its way into the British Establishment. The weekend took place in 2009 at Waddesdon Manor, the Buckinghamshire home owned by financier Jacob, 4th Baron Rothschild. Saif al-Islam Gaddafi was a guest of financier Nat Rothschild and Lord Mandelson, the former business secretary who was virtual deputy to Gordon Brown. The peer and Saif are said to have got on well and met again at the Rothschild holiday home in Corfu, where Lord Mandelson stayed for a week and discussed the case of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, who was freed days later.
Saif is Muammar Gaddafi‘s third son and heir apparent. LSE educated, he owns a home in Hampstead with eight bedrooms, indoor pool, sauna and cinema. Last year Saif claimed Tony Blair was a “personal family friend” who had visited Libya many times, becoming an adviser to Colonel Gaddafi over the fund that manages Libya’s £65 billion oil wealth. Other key business links include Sir Mark Allen, a former MI6 officer who moved into BP, and Margaret Thatcher‘s former policy aide Lord Powell, whose companies have invested in Libyan hotels and offices.
The Gaddafi family is believed to have stashed most of its wealth in Dubai, south-east Asia and the Gulf, where banking is more secretive than in Britain. The Libyan Investment Authority owns three per cent of Pearson, which owns the Financial Times. Its property includes a retail complex in Oxford Street.” – London Evening Standard
“Thanks to Wikileaks, we also know that the authorization for the Libya war was Hillary Clinton’s achievement, which meant turning the state into an ISIS haven. Her notorious laughter when hearing about Gaddafi’s brutal death makes one realize what kind of ruthless gang of bandits that the US had as political leaders, people with no respect whatsoever for national sovereignty or international law.
This American cartel activity is now out in the open to the point that president Donald Trump openly states that Obama is the founder of ISIS, co-founded by Hillary Clinton. Which, by the way must be a great joy to many Muslims, who for years have had their religion thrown in the dirt since “Islam is barbarism, just watch ISIS”. As it turns out, ISIS is American geopolitical barbarism at its worst.
Der Spiegelreporting on the finding of the ISIS organization chart, discovered in the house of killed ISIS strategist Hadj Bakr in 2015, further showed that ISIS was not particularly occupied with Islam, but rather much more about intelligence, surveillance, and military operations, and how to infiltrate and break down Syrian civil society. The chart shows remarkable resemblance to CIA organizational charts of covert operations, hardly easy for some rugged Sunni-Baathist remnants in northern Iraq to chart out.
Furthermore, the shocking scandal on how the Obama/Clinton-backed government in Libya have detained thousands of prisoners for years and kept them without trial in Libyan jails, is currently, maybe, the world’s worst example of lack of respect for the Geneva convention and the standards of international law for the humanitarian treatment in war. Human Rights Watch has long complained about this. Sources on the ground state that as many as 35,000 Gaddafi loyalists have been incarcerated and continually detained without trial since 2011. This is happening in Tripoli, Misrata, and other places in Libya under the Western backed leadership and under Obama/Clinton’s watch. (…) The national Libyan assets never belonged to the US Obama/Clinton administration or its affiliated international cartel friends. Yet, according to sources on the ground, the US still control part of the LIA, Libyan Central Bank, and oil revenues through its liaisons with the Western backed Tripoli government, where the current Central Bank governor, Sadiq al-Kabir, the link to IMF and other Western institutions. The LIA currently consists of $67 billion investments, yet in 2011 its frozen assets were around $150 billion. Many wonder what happened to the discrepancy and hope to establish in the future who took what.” – Foreing Policy Journal 2017/02/10
Dale Djerassi is the son of Carl Djerassi, the scientist who invented the birth-control pill.
Reproduced from The Guardian. First published on Sun 4 Mar 2007 12.03 GMT
It is a question that few thought a man aiming to be America’s first black President would ever have to answer: did your family once own slaves?
But that question is now likely to be asked of Senator Barack Obama, who is bidding for the 2008 presidential nomination of the Democratic Party, in part on the appeal of his bi-racial background.
As the son of a black Kenyan father and a white Kansan mother, Obama has seemed to embody a harmonious vision of America’s multiracial society. However, recent revelations have thrown up an unexpected twist in the tale.
Obama’s ancestors on his white mother’s side appear to have been slave owners. William Reitwiesner, an amateur genealogical researcher, has published a history of Obama’s mother’s family and discovered that her ancestors have a distinctly shadowy past.
Reitwiesner traced Obama’s great-great-great-great-grandfather, George Washington Overall, and found that he owned two slaves in Kentucky: a 15-year-old girl and a 25-year-old man. He also found out that Obama’s great-great-great-great-great-grandmother, Mary Duvall, also owned a pair of slaves listed in an 1850 census record. They were a 60-year-old man and a 58-year-old woman. In fact, the Duvalls were a wealthy family whose members were descended from a major landowner, Maureen Duvall, whose estate owned at least 18 slaves in the 17th century.
The news comes at a time when Obama is engaged in a fierce battle with Senator Hillary Clinton to woo black voters in their bids to get the Democratic presidential nomination. It also comes ahead of appearances by both Clinton and Obama today in Selma, Alabama, to mark the anniversary of a famous 1965 civil rights march. This is hardly the best time to be exposed as the descendant of slave owners.
Reitwiesner has posted his research, which he warns is a ‘first draft’, on his website, wargs.com. However, the news is unlikely to be a serious political problem for Obama, despite the fact that some black commentators have accused him of not being a real black American. Nor is he likely to be alone in finding out that his white ancestors once owned the ancestors of his fellow black Americans. America, like Britain, is caught in the grip of a frenzy of genealogical research. Dozens of websites have sprung up, allowing fast and easy access to all sorts of historical records and prompting many Americans to research their family trees.
That can throw up some very surprising results. In fact, last week Obama was not even the only black politician to find out some unusual personal history. The civil rights campaigner, the Reverend Al Sharpton was stunned to discover his slave ancestors were owned by the late politician Strom Thurmond, who once ran for President on a staunchly racist segregationist platform. The pair might even be related. The news prompted Sharpton to issue a statement about his private agony at the revelation. ‘Words cannot fully describe the feelings I had when I learned the awful truth. Not only I am the descendant of slaves, but my family had to endure the particular agony of being slaves to the Thurmonds.’
Obama’s campaign team have handled the news of his family’s slaving past a bit more casually and a lot less emotionally, issuing a statement saying such a family background was ‘representative of America’. That is certainly true. Slavery was the economic bedrock of the American economy in the South before the Civil War. It would come as no surprise that anyone tracing their family roots back to the pre-war South would find that his descendants had owned slaves.
But more edifying discoveries can come from looking at the past too. Another of Obama’s ancestors, his great-great-great-grandfather, Christopher Columbus Clark, fought for the Union army in the Civil War. As a result Obama can also lay claim to relatives who risked their lives to end slavery. ‘While a relative owned slaves, another fought for the Union,’ said Obama spokesman Bill Burton in a statement. Perhaps it is just another case of Obama’s complex past showing that he can have it both ways.
The following correction was printed in the Observer’s For the record column, Sunday March 11 2007 The article above was incorrect to claim that the Rev Al Sharpton’s slave ancestors ‘were owned by the late politician Strom Thurmond, who once stood for President on a staunchly racist, segregationalist platform’. Al Sharpton’s great-grandfather, Coleman Sharpton, was a slave owned by Julia Thurmond, whose grandfather was Strom Thurmond’s great-great-grandfather.
An Obama spokesman did not dispute the information and said Obama’s ancestors “are representative of America.” – Chicago Tribune
While a relative owned slaves, another fought for the Union in the Civil War. And it is a true measure of progress that the descendant of a slave owner would come to marry a student from Kenya and produce a son who would grow up to be a candidate for president.
Barack Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton, 2007
The records could add a new dimension to questions by some who have asked whether Obama–who was raised in East Asia and Hawaii and educated at Columbia and Harvard–is attuned to the struggles of American blacks descended from West African slaves.
Gary Boyd Roberts, a senior research scholar at the New England Historic Genealogical Society, said he did not think the slave-holding history was “particularly unusual.”
“If you have a white Southern mother, or a mother from the middle states who has ancestry in the South, it doesn’t strike me that that should be very surprising,” he said. While most such families did not own slaves, many did, Roberts said.
Reitwiesner’s research identifies two other presidential candidates, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), as descendants of slave owners. Three of McCain’s great-great-grandfathers in Mississippi owned slaves, including one who owned 52 in 1860. Two ancestors of Edwards owned one slave each in Georgia in 1860.
It was unclear Thursday night whether Obama was aware of any slave-holding ancestors, but he makes no mention of them in his 1995 memoir, “Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.”
Genealogical experts who reviewed the Obama family tree at the request of the Sun would not vouch for its findings.
“You just can’t casually throw some documents together and make a sophisticated analysis,” said Tony Burroughs, author of “Black Roots: A Beginner’s Guide to Tracing the African American Family Tree” and a consultant on a New York Daily News project that found that relatives of former Sen. Strom Thurmond appear to have owned the ancestors of civil rights activist Rev. Al Sharpton. – – Chicago Tribune
We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
Before we enter the official documents, please do the following experiment: Pick any number between 10 and 1000. Write it in an online search engine, followed by “new cases”. Watch hundreds and thousands of news pieces reporting that specific number of cases in hundreds different locations, especially US. Remember that 46% of the officially reported Covid-19 fatalities in US come from New York. Compare that with the distribution in the news. If you have basic knowledge of calculus, ask yourself: How many billions people have been reported in total? What volume of work was required for all that reporting, in a time when much of the media was laid off or working from home, while the volume of events/news was never higher?
China, the first epicentre of this disease and renowned for its technological advance in this field, has tried to use this to its real advantage. Its uses seem to have included support for measures restricting the movement of populations, forecasting the evolution of disease outbreaks and research for the development of a vaccine or treatment. With regard to the latter aspect, AI has been used to speed up genome sequencing, make faster diagnoses, carry out scanner analyses or, more occasionally, handle maintenance and delivery robots (A. Chun, In a time of coronavirus, China’s investment in AI is paying off in a big way, South China Morning post, 18 March 2020).
Its contributions, which are also undeniable in terms of organising better access to scientific publications or supporting research, does not eliminate the need for clinical test phases nor does it replace human expertise entirely. The structural issues encountered by health infrastructures in this crisis situation are not due to technological solutions but to the organisation of health services, which should be able to prevent such situations occurring (Article 11 of the European Social Charter). Emergency measures using technological solutions, including AI, should also be assessed at the end of the crisis. Those that infringe on individual freedoms should not be trivialised on the pretext of a better protection of the population. The provisions of Convention 108+ should in particular continue to be applied.
The contribution of artificial intelligence to the search for a cure
The first application of AI expected in the face of a health crisis is certainly the assistance to researchers to find a vaccine able to protect caregivers and contain the pandemic. Biomedicine and research rely on a large number of techniques, among which the various applications of computer science and statistics have already been making a contribution for a long time. The use of AI is therefore part of this continuity.
The predictions of the virus structure generated by AI have already saved scientists months of experimentation. AI seems to have provided significant support in this sense, even if it is limited due to so-called “continuous” rules and infinite combinatorics for the study of protein folding. The American start-up Moderna has distinguished itself by its mastery of a biotechnology based on messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) for which the study of protein folding is essential. It has managed to significantly reduce the time required to develop a prototype vaccine testable on humans thanks to the support of bioinformatics, of which AI is an integral part.
Indeed, in the weeks following the appearance of the new coronavirus in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, nearly 2,000 research papers were published on the effects of this new virus, on possible treatments, and on the dynamics of the pandemic. This influx of scientific literature naturally reflects the eagerness of researchers to deal with this major health crisis, but it also represents a real challenge for anyone hoping to exploit it.
Microsoft Research, the National Library of Medicine and the Allen Institute for AI (AI2) therefore presented their work on 16 March 2020, which consisted of collecting and preparing more than 29,000 documents relating to the new virus and the broader family of coronaviruses, 13,000 of which were processed so that computers could read the underlying data, as well as information on authors and their affiliations. Kaggle, a Google subsidiary and platform that usually organisesdata science competitions, created challenges around 10 key questions related to the coronavirus. These questions range from risk factors and non-drug treatments to the genetic properties of the virus and vaccine development efforts. The project also involves the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (named after Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan) and Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technologies (W. Knight, Researchers Will Deploy AI to Better Understand Coronavirus, Wired, March 17, 2020).
Artificial intelligence, observer and predictor of the evolution of the pandemic
The International Research Centre for Artificial Intelligence (IRCAI) in Slovenia, under the auspices of UNESCO, has launched an “intelligent” media watch on coronavirus called Corona Virus Media Watch which provides updates on global and national news based on a selection of media with open online information. The tool, also developed with the support of the OECD and the Event Registry information extraction technology, is presented as a useful source of information for policy makers, the media and the public to observe emerging trends related to Covid-19 in their countries and around the world.
Artificial intelligence to assist healthcare personnel
For their part, two Chinese companies have developed AI-based coronavirus diagnostic software. The Beijing-based start-up Infervision has trained its software to detect lung problems using computed tomography (CT) scans. Originally used to diagnose lung cancer, the software can also detect pneumonia associated with respiratory diseases such as coronavirus. At least 34 Chinese hospitals are reported to have used this technology to help them screen 32,000 suspected cases (T. Simonite, Chinese Hospitals Deploy AI to Help Diagnose Covid-19, Wired, February 26, 2020).
The Alibaba DAMO Academy, the research arm of the Chinese company Alibaba, has also trained an AI system to recognise coronaviruses with an accuracy claimed to be 96%. According to the company, the system could process the 300 to 400 scans needed to diagnose a coronavirus in 20 to 30 seconds, whereas the same operation would usually take an experienced doctor 10 to 15 minutes. The system is said to have helped at least 26 Chinese hospitals to review more than 30,000 cases (C. Li, How DAMO Academy’s AI System Detects Coronavirus Cases, Alizila, March 10, 2020).
In South Korea, AI is reported to have helped reduce the time needed to design testing kits based on the genetic make-up of the virus to a few weeks, when it would normally take two to three months. The biotech company Seegene used its automated test development system to develop the test kit and distribute it widely. Large-scale testing is indeed crucial to overcome containment measures and this testing policy seems to have contributed to the relative control of the pandemic in this country, which has equipped 118 medical establishments with this device and tested more than 230,000 people (I. Watson, S. Jeong, J. Hollingsworth, T. Booth, How this South Korean company created coronavirus test kits in three weeks, CNN World, March 13, 2020).
Artificial intelligence as a tool for population control
Finally, attempts at misinformation have proliferated on social networks and the Internet. Whether it concerns the virus itself, the way it spreads or the means to fight its effects, many rumours have circulated (“Fake news” and disinformation about the SARS-CoV2 coronavirus, INSERM, 19 February 2020). AI is a technology already used with some effectiveness by platforms to fight against inappropriate content. UNICEF adopted a statement on 9 March 2020 on misinformation about the coronavirus in which it intends to “actively take steps to provide accurate information about the virus by working with the World Health Organization, government authorities and online partners such as Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn and TikTok, to ensure that accurate information and advice is available, as well as by taking steps to inform the public when inaccurate information appears”. The enactment of restrictive measures in Council of Europe member States to avoid fuelling public concern is also envisaged. However, the Council of Europe Committee of Experts on the Media Environment and Media Reform (MSI-REF) underlined in a statement of 21 March 2020 that “the crisis situation should not be used as a pretext to restrict public access to information. Nor should States introduce restrictions on media freedom beyond the limits allowed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights”. The Committee also highlights that “member States, together with all media actors, should strive to ensure an environment conducive to quality journalism”.
Artificial intelligence: an evaluation of its use in the aftermath of a crisis
Digital technology, including information technology and AI, are therefore proving to be important tools to help build a coordinated response to this pandemic. The multiple uses also illustrate the limits of what can currently be achieved by this very technology, which we cannot expect to compensate for structural difficulties such as those experienced by many health care institutions around the world. The search for efficiency and cost reduction in hospitals, often supported by information technology, should not reduce the quality of services or compromise universal access to care, even in exceptional circumstances.
It should be recalled that Article 11 of the European Social Charter (ratified by 34 of the 47 member States of the Council of Europe) establishes a right to health protection which commits the signatories “to take, either directly or in co-operation with public and private organisations, appropriate measures designed in particular to : 1°) to eliminate, as far as possible, the causes of ill-health; 2°) to provide consultation and education services for the improvement of health and the development of a sense of individual responsibility for health; 3°) to prevent, as far as possible, epidemic, endemic and other diseases, as well as accidents.”
Executives from Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Apple and Facebook met officials at Downing Street on Wednesday to discuss their role in the coronavirus crisis. One of the things discussed was their role in “modelling and tracking data”. In similar meetings at the White House, meanwhile, companies were asked how they could use artificial intelligence. A World Health Organization report last month said AI and big data were a key part of China’s response to the virus.
In recent years, there has been a growing debate about what role foundations should play in global health governance generally, and particularly vis-a-vis the World Health Organization (WHO). Much of this discussion revolves around today’s gargantuan philanthropy, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and its sway over the agenda and modus operandi of global health. Yet such pre-occupations are not new. The Rockefeller Foundation (RF), the unparalleled 20th century health philanthropy heavyweight, both profoundly shaped WHO and maintained long and complex relations with it, even as both institutions changed over time
According to the Rockefeller Foundation official website, John D. Rockefeller Sr.’s interest in health was in large part influenced by Frederick T. Gates, who was Rockefeller’s philanthropic advisor. Gates had a personal interest in medical research, and he believed strongly that it could be of universal benefit. In 1901, Gates persuaded Rockefeller to fund the creation of the Rockefeller Institute of Medical Research (RIMR) to research the causes, prevention and cures of disease. While financial support for the RIMR was initially disbursed in small increments, by 1928 the organization had received $65 million in Rockefeller funding.
Born in 1853 to a Baptist minister, Gates was raised with a strong dedication to his faith. After graduating from the University of Rochester in New York in 1877 and the Rochester Theological Seminary in 1880, he was ordained as a Baptist minister and spent the next eight years as pastor of the Central Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
In 1888 while working as Secretary for the American Baptist Education Society, Gates came to the attention of John D. Rockefeller (JDR). JDR was approached by Gates as part of a campaign to create a major Baptist university in the Midwest. Convinced by Gates’ arguments for such an institution, JDR became the principal benefactor of what became the University of Chicago in 1892.
JDR was impressed by Gates’ fundraising and planning skills and proposed that Gates come to manage his philanthropic and business activities.
From this position Gates established his legacy in the field of philanthropy. In 1897, inspired by the lack of medical research facilities in the U.S., Gates laid out a plan for opening an American medical research institution. This plan – his first major endeavor as Rockefeller’s philanthropic advisor – led to the creation of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research. He also played an essential role in creating and organizing the General Education Board (GEB) in 1902 and the Rockefeller Sanitary Commission (RSC) for the Eradication of Hookworm Disease in 1909.
His most notable contribution to early philanthropy, however, was his role in the establishment of the Rockefeller Foundation (RF). It was Gates’ vision of a large, professionally staffed foundation that could work for the general purpose of “the welfare of mankind” that convinced JDR to provide the resources for the new foundation. During his time on the RF Board of Trustees, Gates encouraged a focus on health initiatives (setting an agenda that prevailed for decades) and oversaw early activities of the Foundation, including the development of the International Health Division (IHD) and the China Medical Board (CMB). He served a ten-year term on the RF Board of Trustees before retiring in 1923.
Any lawsuit against the Rockefeller Foundation is a lawsuit against the ones who funded not only Mengele’s, but all the others’ grotesque Auschwitz experiments and are behind serious threats to humanity in the present.
Rockefellers funded the Nazi experiments in the concentrations camps
Jews who know the history of WWII are aware that it was IG Farben, the pharmaceutical and chemical giant, which put Hitler into office and ran the camps. And they know that the Rockefellers had half interest in IG Farben and IG Farben had half interest in the Rockefellers’ Standard Oil.
But while they know that Auschwitz was the site of hideous forced human “medical experiments,” most Jews believe that the horrors of Nazi experiments ended in Nazi Germany.
Rockefellers brought the Nazi doctors and researchers to the US
The Rockefellers and OSS (now the CIA) brought Nazi “doctors” and “researchers” to the US under a program called Operation Paperclip. Nazis were given new identities, false passports, and inserted into medical institutions, and bioweapons, aerospace, military, and spy agencies here, and also were helped to escape to and do similar work for other countries and global agencies. There is reason to believe based on the actions of those global agencies, that some also became part of the newly established UN – including WHO, UNICEF, and UNESCO.
Henry Kissinger, “Rockefeller’s best employee”, and Jewish, helped manage the program that brought Nazi murderers to the US.
“… it was Henry Kissinger’s job to seek and find such Nazi’s that might be of service to America, and Kissinger became the chief of Army Counter-Intelligence in this regard. He trained other agents to hunt down Nazi’s at the European Command Intelligence School in Oberammergau, not to be tried for war crimes necessarily, but rather to serve U.S. military rather than Russian interests.
“It was this operation that principally spirited the creation of the CIA as a cover agency for the powerful Gehlen Org, the German intelligence agency run by Reinhard Gehlen–an organization whose power superseded even the Nazi SS because of its prewar connections with German military intelligence. ….
“You may be interested to know who paid for the importation of Nazis into American central intelligence, the military, and industry? Three groups: The first was “The Sovereign Military Order of Malta” (SMOM), perhaps the most powerful reactionary segment of European aristocracy, that for almost a thousand years, starting with the crusades in the Twelfth Century, funded military operations against countries and ideas considered a threat to its power; Second was the Nazi war chest that was largely funneled through the Vatican and the Rockefeller owned Chase Manhattan Bank, whose Paris branch conducted business as usual throughout the Nazi occupation of France, and thirdly, some of us and our parents–American taxpayers. ….
“Eisenhower, you may remember, warned America that the gravest threat to world security, democracy, and even spirituality, was the growing military/industrial complex. And the Rockefellers and Kissinger played leading roles in its evil expansion.” From: CIA’s Denial of Protecting Nazis is Blatant Lie – Part 1
Among Henry Kissinger’s most influential patrons as he worked his way up the ladder of success to become Nixon’s ‘Deputy to the President for National Security,’ was Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller, the son of Standard Oil, that is Exxon, heir John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
The Rockefeller family’s involvement in the medical/industrial complex, health science research, and American politics is clearly important.
Before World War II, major administration of medical research, or financing by federal agencies, had been generally opposed by America’s scientific community. In fact, it was only during times of war that organizations like the NAS or the NRC received major funding. Both the NAS, established during the Civil War, and the NRC, set up during the First World War, were largely ignored in times of peace.
Between 1900 and 1940, private foundations and universities financed most medical research. According to Paul Starr, author of The Social Transformation of American Medicine: The rise of a sovereign profession and the making of a vast industry, ‘the most richly endowed research center, the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research was established in New York in 1902 and by 1928 had received from John D. Rockefeller $65 million in endowment funds.’ In contrast, as late as 1938, as little as $2.8 million in federal funding was budgeted for the entire U.S. Public Health Service. Therefore, it is easy to see that Rockefeller family investment in health science research predated, and far surpassed, even the federal government’s.
More than the New Deal, the Second World War created the greatest boom in federal government and private industry support for medical research. Prior to the war, American science and medicine was heavily influenced by German models. This precedent was bolstered during the 1930s when the Nazis purged Jewish scientists from German universities and biological laboratories. These changes, according to Starr, significantly altered the course of American health science and medicine. Many of Germany’s most brilliant Jewish researchers emigrated to the United States just as the movement burgeoned to privatize war related biological and medical research.
At this time, the Rockefeller led medical/industrial complex was fully poised to influence, and take advantage of, Congress’s ‘first series of measures to promote cancer research and cancer control.’ In 1937, the new federal legislation authorized the establishment of the National Cancer Institute under the National Institutes of Health, and, for the first time, ‘the Public Health Service to make grants to outside researchers.’ The Rockefellers exercised significant control over the outcomes of these grants and research efforts through the foundations they established.
Following the war, Henry Kissinger, who had become General Alexander Bolling’s German translator and principle assistant (Bolling, of course, was the ‘Godfather’ to the Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency that ran “Project Paperclip,” the secret exfiltration of approximately 2,000 high level Nazi’s, about 900 of whom were military scientists and medical researchers, including Erich Traub, Hitler’s top biological weapons developer and virus expert. Bolling also served as a high ranking member of the Inter-American Defense Board, a Washington based group that delivered Walter Emil Schreiber, Hitler’s chief medical scientist, the “Angel of Death” Joseph Mengele, and his assistant, “the butcher of Lyon,” Klaus Barbie, among others, to safe havens in South America where they worked on CIA projects.) In fact it was Henry Kissinger’s job to seek and find such Nazi’s that might be of service to America, and Kissinger became the chief of Army Counter-Intelligence in this regard. He trained other agents to hunt down Nazi’s at the European Command Intelligence School in Oberammergau, not to be tried for war crimes necessarily, but rather to serve U.S. military rather than Russian interests.
It was this operation that principally spirited the creation of the CIA as a cover agency for the powerful Gehlen Org, the German intelligence agency run by Reinhard Gehlen–an organization whose power superseded even the Nazi SS because of its prewar connections with German military intelligence.
After Hitler, Gehlen served Allen Welsh Dulles, whose “Operation Sunshine” brought Nazis into the U.S. spy service.
You may be interested to know who paid for the importation of Nazis into American central intelligence, the military, and industry? Three groups: The first was “The Sovereign Military Order of Malta” (SMOM), perhaps the most powerful reactionary segment of European aristocracy, that for almost a thousand years, starting with the crusades in the Twelfth Century, funded military operations against countries and ideas considered a threat to its power; Second was the Nazi war chest that was largely funneled through the Vatican and the Rockefeller owned Chase Manhattan Bank, whose Paris branch conducted business as usual throughout the Nazi occupation of France, and thirdly, some of us and our parents–American taxpayers.
Moreover, during this period, the Council on Foreign Relations, along with the CIA, grew in power under the leadership of Nelson Rockefeller, and in 1955, while serving as President Eisenhower’s assistant for international affairs, Rockefeller invited Kissinger to discuss national security issues at the Quantico (Virginia) Marine Base. Following their meeting, according to Walter Isaacson’s biography of Kissinger, the diplomat became Rockefeller’s ‘closest intellectual associate,’ and soon after, Kissinger authored several military proposals for Eisenhower to consider. Unimpressed, Eisenhower turned them down.
As a result, Rockefeller sent Eisenhower his resignation and then launched a Special Studies Project that explored the ‘critical choices’ America faced militarily in the coming years. Kissinger agreed to direct this new project and published a 468-page book on his findings. The treatise proposed that tactical nuclear weapons be developed and ‘a bomb shelter [be built] in every house’ in preparation for limited thermonuclear war. ‘The willingness to engage in nuclear war when necessary is part of the price of our freedom,’ Kissinger argued.
So those of you my age can recall the anxiety grade school students felt while drilling for possible nuclear attacks. You can thank Kissinger and the Rockefeller-led military-industrialists for this “price for freedom.”
Eisenhower, you may remember, warned America that the gravest threat to world security, democracy, and even spirituality, was the growing military/industrial complex. And the Rockefellers and Kissinger played leading roles in its evil expansion. Bent on creating what President Bush openly heralded as a “New World Order,” few people realize the current international alignment of economic powers is a direct result of actualizing Henry Kissinger’s contemporary manifesto–a tribute to the Sovereign Military Order of Malta–entitled “The Meaning of History.” In this Kissinger 1955 Harvard doctoral thesis he argues that the concept of peace on earth is naive. Peace must be secured by the creation of small wars around the planet on a continuing basis so as to maintain an international order of economic powers, and of course, keep the military industrialists happy. – from “Kissinger and Rockefeller Connections to American Central Intelligence and the Origins of AIDS and Ebola”, A Speech Before the Citizens Against Legal Loopholes Rally, The Capitol Mall, Washington, D.C. Labor Day Weekend, 1996, by Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz
“Jacobsen opens Operation Paperclip in November 1944, …. two American bacteriology experts pore over a cache of documents in the apartment of Dr. Eugene Haagen, a German virus expert. Within hours they find a chilling letter from Haagen to a colleague:
“Of the 100 prisoners you sent me, 18 died in transport. Only 12 are in a condition suitable for my experiments. I therefore request that you send me another 100 prisoners between 20 and 40 years of age … .”
“The letter proved that the Nazis were bent on creating biological weapons for use in warfare ….”The people carrying out this barbaric work were no minor Nazi thugs: Before the war, Haagen held a fellowship with the Rockefeller Foundation ….
A document I’ve just dug out from the RF archives shows that around the time they were salvaging Hitler’s scientists through Operation Paperclip, the Rockefellers were already deeply involved in eugenics, genetics, human reproduction too. For the near future I’m considering an article on this topic only.
How Rockefeller Foundation Shaped Modern Medicine in Communist China
This chapter comes in RF’s own words, it’s no secret, most of the truth is not hidden, it’s people running from it: The China Medical Board (CMB) was created in 1914 as one of the first operating divisions of the Rockefeller Foundation (RF). Provided with a $12 million endowment and separately incorporated as CMB, Inc. when the Foundation was reorganized in 1928, the Board’s aim was to modernize medical education and to improve the practice of medicine in China.
Doctors graduating from Peking Union Medical College, Beijing (China), 1947
China was a long-standing interest of both John D. Rockefeller, Sr. (JDR Sr.), and his son. For decades they and their fellow Baptists had supported missionary work in Asia. Beginning in the early 1900s, Frederick Gates encouraged them to devote even more attention to that region. In 1908, five years before the Foundation was created, the Rockefellers funded a commission headed by Edward D. Burton, a University of Chicago professor of theology. He and other educators traveled to China to explore the potential for philanthropic work there.
In its final report the Burton Commission argued that a Western-sponsored educational program in science and medicine for elite Chinese students could succeed, despite a difficult political climate. One of the first actions of the newly created RF was to organize a conference about China in New York in early 1914. The Foundation later dispatched two additional survey groups, the China Medical Commissions of 1914 and 1915, to gather more information about how such an educational program could operate.
Following the model established by Abraham Flexner’s survey of U.S. medical education, the 1914 Commission set out to appraise medical education in both missionary and Chinese schools. It found appallingly low standards throughout the country. The report concluded that “the country is so vast, and the resources available for dealing with the problem are so limited as yet, that the need of outside assistance is still very great.” The CMB was formed to meet those challenges, and Wallace Buttrick was named its first director.
The Foundation’s approach to Chinese medical education would inevitably follow the general patterns for reforming U.S. medical education advocated in the 1910 Flexner report and most fully embodied in the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Medical education in China would be scientifically rigorous and adhere to Western standards. And, in a decision with long-term consequences, instruction would occur in English. Consequently, the school could reach only a small, elite percentage of the population. Yet in a country of 400 million people then served by fewer than 500 well-trained doctors, such an approach stood to be criticized. Nevertheless, the CMB set out to build a medical school in China that it hoped to make the equal of Johns Hopkins.
The RF entered China with an ambitious goal: to build modern medical schools in both Peking and Shanghai. By purchasing the Union Medical College from the London Missionary Society in 1915, the Foundation took its first steps toward that goal. Over the next six years the Foundation assembled a faculty of fifty professors and upgraded and enlarged the facilities of what was soon called the Peking Union Medical College (PUMC). Particular attention was paid to the school’s architecture and campus plan. According to the RF’s 1917 Annual Report, “While the buildings will embody all the approved features of a modern medical center, the external forms have been planned in harmony with the best tradition of Chinese architecture. Thus they symbolize the purpose to make the College not something foreign to China’s best ideals and aspirations, but an organism which will become part of a developing Chinese civilization.”
PUMC opened its doors in 1919, under the de facto directorship of Roger S. Greene, resident director of CMB. The 70-acre campus would ultimately encompass more than 50 buildings, including a hospital, classrooms, laboratories, and residences. But in New York Rockefeller officials grew concerned about the mounting costs of PUMC and were soon forced to scrap their plans for Shanghai. From an initial construction estimate of $1 million in 1915, expenses ballooned to $8 million in capital expenditures by 1921. The operating budget more than doubled between its first year of operation and 1921. Nevertheless, the medical school and its new campus were deemed worth celebrating. John D. Rockefeller, Jr. (JDR Jr.) led an impressive delegation to China for the 1921 dedication ceremonies.
PUMC’s initial contributions toward the improvement of medicine in China, though consequential, were inevitably limited in scale. Its graduating classes were small, in part because its standards remained high and its curriculum at the outset was exclusively in English. Between 1924 and 1943, PUMC produced only 313 doctors, more than half of whom would continue their studies abroad through CMB fellowships. Upon their return many of these doctors ultimately became leaders in medical administration, teaching and scientific research both before and after the Chinese Revolution.
PUMC also transformed the nursing profession in China. When PUMC opened, there were fewer than 300 trained nurses in the country, many of them affiliated with various missionary organizations and most of them male. Because the Chinese had never considered nursing to be an appropriate profession for women, the task of PUMC was both to train qualified women nurses and to elevate the status of the profession. Those responsibilities fell to a twenty-eight-year-old nurse from Johns Hopkins, Anna D. Wolf. She arrived in 1919 to create a training program for nurses and to organize the hospital’s nursing staff. Recruiting her initial faculty from the best U.S. nursing schools, she devised pre-nursing and nursing curricula. Within five years she established a school capable of meeting U.S. accrediting standards.
John Grant, a professor of public health at PUMC from 1921 to 1934, sought to offer medical services beyond the campus walls. He collaborated with the city’s police in 1925 to create a public health station serving the 100,000 people living in Peking’s first ward, the neighborhood surrounding PUMC. As Grant knew, the station also provided learning opportunities for students at the university. He persuaded his faculty colleagues that PUMC students should spend a four-week rotation there.
Grant’s interest in pursuing broader public health work in rural areas found responsive allies in New York. Selskar Gunn, who had worked with the International Health Division in Eastern Europe before joining RF’s Division of the Social Sciences, traveled to China in 1931 to assess the Foundation’s work. While there he met Yan Yangchu (known to his American associates as Jimmy Yen), a pioneer in mass education and leader of the Rural Reconstruction Movement, with which Grant was already working. After several trips to China, Gunn produced a report that envisioned a coordinated program of basic education, health, and economic development.
Gunn was critical of PUMC and of RF’s and CMB’s disproportionate investment in it. By 1933 almost $37 million had been spent on an institution that would never solve China’s most pressing health problem: the severe shortage of trained medical personnel. A 1931 League of Nations Health Organization survey had concluded that China would need 50,000 physicians in order to have just one doctor per 8,000 people.
Few as they were, the cadre of professionals produced by PUMC would play important roles in shaping China’s health system. In 1946 an observer wrote to Raymond Fosdick, commenting on the small number of PUMC graduates. “Both doctors and nurses are in positions of leadership and many of them are effective in leadership…we found plenty of evidence that this small group had had an influence quite out of proportion to its size.”
But many in China had expected more. A Chinese Ministry of Education assessment of PUMC in the mid-1930s urged not only that enrollment be increased but also that more classroom instruction be in Chinese. Other recommendations soon followed: increase the courses in public health, parasitology, and bacteriology; teach Chinese medical terminology; and publish papers in both Chinese and English so that they would reach a larger audience.
Henry Houghton, who had directed PUMC during its formative years in the 1920s, returned in 1934 to address these criticisms. But by the mid-1930s relations with some departments of the Chinese government had soured. Tensions between the New York office and PUMC had led to the firing of Roger Greene, and there were continuing difficulties in transforming PUMC into a more fully Chinese institution. By 1937 Houghton and his colleagues were making substantial moves toward bilingual instruction, reducing the numbers of Western faculty, and placing Chinese professors in positions of departmental leadership. Plans for a graduate medical school were also under discussion with the Ministry of Education, but the Japanese invasion in 1937 interrupted this work.
Surviving War and Revolution
At PUMC limited teaching continued for a time even though some prominent faculty and staff fled in 1937 to southwest China to assist with war-related training and rural health programs. The school closed completely only after the U.S. declaration of war on Japan in December 1941. The Japanese occupied the grounds of PUMC, imprisoning Houghton for the war’s duration. Heroically, the nurses moved their school in its entirety to Chengdu and reopened there in 1942.
PUMC resumed limited operations in 1947, but RF staff debated the Foundation’s role as nationalist and Communists factions fought for supremacy. Could they stay above the fray and continue their work? What was the Foundation’s role likely to be as a new political order took shape? Alan Gregg saw that Communism, which in the U.S. represented a challenge to capitalism, meant something else to the Chinese. Communism in China battled a feudal order. He concluded that this “puts American aid in combating Chinese Communism into some odd attitudes and curious commitments.”
In 1947, amid the uncertainty about PUMC’s future, the Foundation made a terminal grant of $10 million to the CMB. But in 1951 the People’s Republic of China nationalized PUMC and severed ties with the RF and CMB, Inc.
Between 1915 and 1951, the RF and CMB, Inc. spent well over $50 million on medical initiatives in China, nearly $45 million of it to establish PUMC. Other missionary hospitals benefited from smaller Foundation contributions. Fellowships helped doctors and nurses to travel abroad for advanced training. Medical texts were translated, and medical libraries were built. But the greatest RF legacy was PUMC and the enduring contributions its graduates have made to China’s health system. PUMC’s buildings, dedicated in 1921, still stand in the center of Beijing. A bust of JDR Sr. greets visitors to PUMC’s auditorium. The hospital still ranks as one of China’s most advanced. Today, the Chinese Academy of Medicine operates from the campus.
The Rockefeller Foundation and the birth of WHO
The launching of WHO in 1948 coincided with and helped stimulate the disbanding of the RF’s International Health Division (IHD) and the waning of the RF’s in international health. But, as we shall see, because the RF’s influence on international health’s institutions, ideologies, practices, and personnel was so pervasive from the 1910s through the 1940s, the WHO’s early years were imbued not only with the RF’s dominant technically-oriented disease-eradication model but also with its far more subordinate forays into social medicine, an approach grounded in political, economic, and social terms as much as the biomedical. – Source
During World War II, the LNHO was denuded of resources and staff (maintaining neutrality, while its rival, Paris-based Office International d’Hygie`ne Publique, in charge of sanitary conventions and surveillance, was accused of collaborating with the Nazis).19 In 1943 the new US-sponsored and generously funded United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) largely absorbed and expanded upon the LNHO’s functions through the massive provision of medical relief, sanitary services, and supplies in war-torn countries, with a staff of almost 1400 health professionals from some 40 countries and expenditures of up to $US80 million/year. UNRRA, too, had a deep RF imprint: it was devised and planned by IHD veteran Selskar Gunn, while IHD director Wilbur Sawyer became head of UNRRA health operations following his retirement from the RF in 1944.21 Not only were the LNHO and UNRRA the immediate precursors to WHO, they acted as a pipeline for WHO’s first generation of personnel. However, the hoped-for full transfer of funds to WHO upon UNRRA’s closing in 1947 consisted of a far more modest sum under five million dollars.
The Rockefeller Foundation pushed US into WHO
The RF was also invoked in the bitter US Congressional debate over joining WHO. Fearing that the country would repeat the error of not having joined the League of Nations, respected US Surgeon-General Thomas Parran (a presumed candidate for WHO director) gave impassioned testimony at the Senate on June 17, 1947: ‘Health has been termed by [RF President] Mr Raymond Fosdick as a ‘rallying point of unity’ in international affairs. Cooperation . in the interest of health represents one of the most fruitful fields for international action. When one nation gains more of health it takes nothing away from any other nation. By learning how to work together in the interest of health, the lesson will be of value in other and more difficult fields.’ By this time the RF was busy mobilizing backstage in the context of unfolding Cold War rivalries. Rolf Struthers, Associate Director of the RF’s Medical Sciences Division, reported on his reconnaissance: ‘If U.S. insists on Parran . Russia will not join and it will not be a World Health Organization.’ This problem, together with the perception that Parran ‘does not enjoy wide support’ despite his distinction as a public health leader, led IHD Director George Strode to suggest backing Chisholm ‘because he is thoroughly honest, understanding and deeply interested,’ although questions remained about his leadership effectiveness. As late as March 12, 1948, the US Senate tabled a vote on WHO membership, leaving American public health leaders angry and embarrassed. The US finally joined WHO in July 1948 (almost three months after WHO’s April 7, 1948 ‘birthday’) following a compromise Joint Congressional resolution allowing the US to withdraw unilaterally from WHO on one year’s notice. Ironically, the USSR delegate formally proposed US acceptance intoWHO, but it would be the USSR and Soviet bloc, not the US, that would later pull out of WHO (1949e1956). With US membership settled, the RF began to judge the new organization’s first steps.
How the Rockefellers shaped the early WHO
Well into the 1950s the RF served in a retired emperor’s role, no longer the quotidian wielder of power but playing a crucial part behind the scenes in various ways. With the IHD’s impending demise, senior WHO administrators were keen that the RF’s Struthers spend a week in Geneva to get to know WHO technical staff, ‘learning both of their personalities and their fields of competence.’ Struthers found Chisholm ‘particularly anxious that the close association between the WHO and the RF’ continue, ‘both with the object of avoiding duplication of effort, and also that the RF was able to do some things which WHO could not do, and that our long experience, and objective and independent outlook were of value to the personnel of WHO. A parade of RF officers was invited to serve on WHO expert committees, intensively so in the 1950s, and more sporadically in subsequent decades. After the IHD folded, RF staff wondered whether they should sit on WHO expert panels in areas that were no longer RF priorities, but DMPH director Warren assured them that such positions were useful for maintaining contacts, for example in malariology. Several RF nurses were asked to serve on the Expert Advisory Panel on Nursing, another colleague on the yellow fever panel in 1954, and so on. The RF was also involved in joint WHO/RF seminars in the early 1950s, supporting mostly travel costs to garner the interest of scientists in such areas as sanitary engineering.
A subset of RF men also became involved in WHO work in the areas of medical education, healthcare policy, and community health and development (the first two being major foci of the RF’s new DMPH). Launched with vigour under Chisholm, this back door support for social medicine, even as WHO’s disease campaigns were proliferating, included: RF officer John Grant participating as ‘observer’ to the 1952 Expert Committee on Professional and Technical Education and various public health expert meetings through the 1950s; RF Vice President Alan Gregg serving on the Expert Panel on Medical Education in 1952; and panel membership of several leftwing social medicine experts who had been supported by the RF, such as Stampar and Sigerist. The reports produced by these panels made powerful recommendations about the need to incorporate comprehensive, community-based social welfare approaches rather than a narrow focus on clinical care. In this regard, John Maier, a DMPH staff member, noted that WHO and the RF were facing similar dilemmas. At a WHO European study conference of Undergraduate Training in Hygiene, Preventive Medicine and Social Medicine, for example, Stampar although far more politically radical than his patrons outlined the difficulties caused by a ‘separation and antagonism between preventive and curative medicine’ and suggested calling medical schools ‘schools of health. The RF’s effort to undo its longstanding compartmentalization of medicine and public health was partially linked to WHO, involving for example, RF support for several medical schools in Colombia, which in the 1960s informed WHO’s call for the teaching of community-based, preventive, social and occupational medicine as part of internationally accepted standards. In the early 1950s, Grant was at the fulcrum of RF-WHO collaborative social medicine efforts. His commissioned paper on the ‘International Planning of Organization for Medical Care,’ was presented before WHO’s Department of Advisory Services in 1951, informing the recommendations of related expert panels.77 This work emphasized the importance of regionalized health systems and village health committees. Later that year he was nominated by WHO to be a member (funded by the RF) of a three-person UN survey mission on community organization and development in India, Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), Thailand, and the Philippines. The survey, building on Grant’s prior scouting of inter-agency cooperation possibilities among WHO, UNICEF, and the US government to ‘rebuild’ Southeast Asia,78 highlighted the economic and social aspects of community programs, again stressing self-help efforts, in part as a means of fending off communism.
9 WHO’s European office was also keen to have Grant’s participation, inviting him on a study tour of Sweden, Scotland, and Belgium,80 and receiving almost $US50,000 from the RF over three years to study personnel needs under Europe’s new health and social welfare laws. Grant observed that some believed that they were so far advanced, there was little room for improvement, with Norway and Sweden serving as paradoxical ‘exceptions to this attitude.’ By the mid-1950s, RF leaders believed that the RF need no longer be represented at every WHO meeting and ‘should maintain good relations and reasonably close contact.
Soon enough, WHO invitations for RF participation were turned down. With its resources now focused elsewhere, the RF sought to rally other philanthropic players. It had already tested these waters in 1949, suggesting that WHO approach the Ford Foundation for a subsidy towards a new building, and in early 1951, the RF and the Kellogg Foundation each provided PASB with $US150,000 interest free loans to purchase a building to serve as headquarters.86 Kellogg also joined the RF in providing fellowships. The role of the RF’s flagship fellowship program was an important ongoing issue. At first, the IHD sought to retain public health fellowships ‘in significant fields which are not major interests of WHO’ because of WHO’s tendency to let member countries select fields and individuals for fellowships, which might ‘preclude senior men who may be developing newer areas. The RF also questioned WHO’s preference for fellowships to be held at non-US schools, a policy WHO justified by the large number of foreign students attending these institutions. Another problem was due to WHO’s poaching of fellows who had been trained specifically for RF projects. The RF called for mutual ‘consideration and unusual courtesies,’ meaning that WHO should ‘refrain from offering attractive employment’ to men destined for RF work. Chisholm was so alarmed by these personnel raiding accusations that he sought RF permission to use the RF fellowship directory to recruit candidates for field projects. The RF was careful not to bankroll WHO projects without participating in their design. DMPH director Warren was particularly troubled by a request that it work with WHO to support Manila’s Institute of Hygiene, declaring, ‘the only categorical statement I can make is that we will not operate through WHO or any other intermediary.’ The DMPH ultimately granted $US20,000 but only to support visiting Johns Hopkins faculty. By 1952 it was mutually decided that there would be ‘no further joint projects, but that we will maintain a relatively close liaison’ in training courses in insect control and biological testing of insecticides.94 On the other hand, the RF sought to take advantage of WHO demonstration projects to organize particular studies. Despite these changes, the RF remained on the pulse of WHO politics. Numerous Americans involved in WHO confided to RF staff about developments under Chisholm. Some were concerned with decentralized regionalization; others believed that Henry Sigerist, self-exiled from Johns Hopkins back to Switzerland, was exerting ‘undue influence’ public health on Chisholm in regards to both national health insurance and medical education reform.96 Grant, meanwhile, kept a close eye on social medicine developments and praised WHO’s increasing emphasis on program evaluation. But his critique of technical assistance in Thailand was met by defensive WHO staff intent on gaining RF understanding and approval.
In 1952, the big storm was around Norwegian Executive Board chair Karl Evang’s speech and motion on WHO’s recognition of and involvement in population studies and control of reproduction. A ‘highly emotional controversy’ ensued over the following days, with France, Belgium, Ireland, and Italy threatening to resign from WHO. Following a ‘tense debate,’ these countries, facing ‘religious political pressure,’ defeated attempts at any technical discussions: Evang’s motion was not brought to a vote but advisory birth control work in India was allowed to continue. This incident, which nearly broke WHO apart, also delineated an area for RF work that would not overlap with WHO efforts. Just a month later, John D Rockefeller III convened an invitation-only ‘Conference on Population Problems’ with top experts.He founded the Population Council shortly thereafter, separately from the RF because its own board was divided, thus partially (though not intentionally) shielding WHO from this problematic arena.
Another difficulty faced by the young WHO was financial. In both 1953 and 1954, the US paid only $US8 million of $US12 million pledged, even while the UN had asked WHO to increase its technical assistance to member countries. With a $US30 million shortfall, WHO was forced to freeze spending. One RF officer berated, ‘The WHO is just learning the wisdom of setting aside all funds for each project out of current budget.’105 RF staff also learned that WHO was fearful of the ‘empire-building aspects’ of UNICEF, which was more solidly (largely US) funded and ‘will tend to use its stronger autonomous position’ to build its own technical staff rather than rely on WHO as per the original agreement. Concerns about the urgency of US support for WHO were so great that advocates approached the RF for help from all angles. Esteemed US public health man Frank Boudreau (who rose to deputy director of the LNHO and then executive director of the Milbank Memorial Fund), chair of the National Citizens Committee for World Health, appealed to Nelson Rockefeller107 to attend the National Conference on World Health in 1953. The Committee, set up in 1951 to generate public interest and support for international health and save the United Nations from the fate of the League of Nations, already had Chisholm, Eleanor Roosevelt, the US SurgeonGeneral, and RF President Dean Rusk lined up as speakers at its conference, but the presence of a Rockefeller family member was deemed essential
The RF’s stamp on WHO was reinforced with the May 1953 election of Dr. Marcolino Candau as its director-general. Candau had been an RF fellow and had worked with Soper in IHD’s Anopheles gambiae campaign in Brazil, then briefly served as his deputy at PASB. Initially there were close interactions. Grant learned early that Chisholm would be resigning in June 1953, after a single term. Because of Soper’s continued relations with former colleagues, the RF was privy to the internal battles and ‘considerable hard feelings’ over Chisholm’s successor. With British support for a Pakistani candidate and Vatican support for an Italian, ‘through Chisholm’s intervention, and after very close voting, Candau of Brazil was nominated, and presumably will be elected.’110 Soper ‘has confidence’ that Candau would ‘bring strong leadership to WHO Secretariat.
In October 1954, new RF President Dean Rusk invited Candau for lunch and a ‘relaxed discussion’ about WHO programs and ‘what a private organization might do in the world today in the field of medical education and medical care.’ Candau suggested RF support for education, research, and training in strong regional institutions such as Mexico’s Institute of Cardiology, the Sao Paulo and Santiago schools of public health, and the new Central American Institute of Nutrition. Rusk saved the ‘Mars bars’ question for after dessert: Candau’s position on birth control. After pretending he had to leave, Candau explained that he had been instructed to keep mum on this issue, though he was well aware of the ‘population-food problem’ and that other UN agencies were accusing WHO of ‘creating more problems than it was solving.’ As such, Candau argued, birth control work was well-suited to private organizations. Once the RF became satisfied with Candau’s agenda for WHO, more routine matters resumed. Tensions over fellowships resurfaced under Candau because the RF was getting growing numbers of WHO staff applications for fellowships that had not been approved institutionally. Candau lobbied several RF men, hoping for ‘sympathetic consideration’ so that a few outstanding fellows could become key personnel for permanent WHO positions, both at headquarters and regional offices. He also wrote DMPH director Warren, promising to screen all candidates, and hoping for continued support: ‘It is fully realized that you cannot envisage continuing the granting of fellowships for an indefinite period. We are, however, most grateful for your agreeing to assist WHO in the development of its staff during these early critical years.’120 RF staff suspected Candau wanted much of WHO staff trained at RF expense and ‘is now trying to hedge a bit on his agreement in the hope that he can wangle more fellowships than you had in mind..Hence, the training program would seem to be a more or less continuous process. Warren concluded the discussion by promising: ‘As you know, we are anxious to do all we can to help you and your colleagues . develop a sound corps of well-trained people for permanent and long term work. [but] Because of limited funds, and need to train personnel closer to home, [we] will not support operating field personnel. For a few years, new RF-WHO fellowships again rose, going from 2 in 1953 to 8 in 1959, but by 1963 there was only 1, in 1964 2, and only 1 new RF fellow from WHO in 1968.123 By this time the WHA had approved major funding for fellowships,124 and the RF was no longer needed.
In 1955 another conflict brewed around WHO’s job offer to the director of an RF-funded community health centre in France. John Maier, now an assistant RF division director, wanted to draft a harsh letter to Candau about the matter but was told this was ‘inadvisable,’ and he would ‘simply have to grin and bear it.’126 Further confidential, high level discussions about the case called for informal approaches: ‘It was decided that the RF was not justified in taking such a stand.on the basis that we should not try to play God.’ Around this juncture, the RF-WHO relationship began to grow more distant. The New York meeting with Rusk led to unofficial RF approval of Candau’s indefinite posting as director-general, which lasted until 1973. Candau oversaw the establishment of WHO’s global malaria and smallpox eradication campaigns, a growing WHO bureaucracy, and a massive effort to provide public health training fellowships to over 50,000 health personnel from across the world. Ironically, or perhaps due to this connection, the late 1950s and 1960s was the period of least interaction between the RF and WHO. To be sure, Soper was a central shaper of its malaria campaign, and Paul Russell and other RF men were involved. But the growth in membership of WHO following the liberation struggles of dozens of new nations in Africa and Asia (and later, the Caribbean), accompanied by increasing bureaucratization, and the malaria effort e significantly financed by the US government (and a few others) through ‘voluntary’ contributions rather than regular member country dues, moved the RF further away from WHO’s centre stage. The RF’s period as prime advisor was over and WHO went from being swayed by the priorities and agenda of the foundation to becoming subject to powerful, far larger donors, most notably the United States, in the context of Cold War exigencies. Certain collaborations did continue. In 1958 the RF granted $US25,000 for a WHO manual of operations.129 Joint efforts, such as $US250,000 in RF support for research to combat protein malnutrition carried out in 12 countries, involved WHO in an advisory capacity, among other agencies. In 1960 the RF’s new Division of Medical and Natural Sciences joined WHO to support a rural public health centre in Kenya and a School of Nursing in Congo Republic, as well as various efforts in medical education. As in the past, numerous RF-trained and supported experts from around the world rose to prominent positions at WHO.
But the RF began to turn down WHO requests as often as it accepted them, and focused on narrowly targeted efforts such as funding a WHO bibliography on hookworm.133 For its part, WHO was also reluctant to commit to co-sponsoring RF projects. When USAID administrator Leona Baumgartner suggested in 1963 that USAID, the RF, and WHO carry out a joint study on training of ancillary health personnel and staffing needs, Candau offered support of a WHO statistician but insisted ‘WHO cannot be considered as a Sponsoring Agency.’ Meanwhile, the RF had also changed tolerance of social medicine on the margins of its main efforts dwindled with Alan Gregg’s and John Grant’s respective retirement and death and amidst the continued red-baiting of the McCarthy era. For example, since his posting by the RF to Puerto Rico in 1954 to set up a coordinated medical and public health system of research and practice,36 Grant had been keen to make WHO aware ‘that their present categorical activities must be replaced by polyvalent permanent local organizations. After four years, a possibility finally materialized only circuitously when the National Citizens Committee for the World Health Organization obtained grants from the RF, as well as the Milbank, Kellogg, and Avalon foundations and various industrial concerns, to fund key public health delegates to the 1958 WHA (held in Minneapolis) to travel to Puerto Rico to attend a series of professional sessions arranged by Grant and see the island’s ‘progressive public health and medical services.’136 But this was an anomalous episode: after 1954, the RF’s European office (a vital link to WHO) shrank by 90% and public health RF programming moved even further away from public and international health (though support for bench research on arboviruses and other tropical diseases, and some community medicine efforts, continued apace). From backstage to backdrop It is not surprising that the RF left such a deep impression on WHO, for the IHD was the most influential international health actor of the era. Before WWII, European powers were focused on their colonial networks, with inter-imperial commercial rivalries impeding strong international agencies, while the US government was testing its own international health leadership in the Americas. Thus by default and through its own protagonism, the RF was the de facto international health leader. Even after the IHD closed down shortly after WHO was founded, this was no disappearing act. The RF’s disease control ideology and approach to international health were infused into the agenda and practices of WHO. This took place both directly, through the discreet advice it purveyed and the generations of RF personnel and numerous RF fellows and grantees WHO employed and consulted, and indirectly, through the RF having shaped the international health scene via scores of in-country cooperative efforts over almost forty years and through its hand in designing and supporting major multilateral health institutions over several decades. What is remarkable is that not only was the RF’s predominant technobiological paradigm adopted by WHO, but so was its modest entre´e into social medicine, advanced by a small contingent of left-leaning longtime IHD officers. This was particularly marked during WHO’s early years, when Chisholm, himself not an RF man, opened the organization to this alternative perspective even as the RF’s main approach bore down on his administration. In those years, the RF was subtly ever present conveying both of its legacies, albeit at different scales.
How and why the RF subsequently became less visible at WHO also illuminates the constraints of shifting power blocs at WHO. The bulk of Candau’s period would mark a distancing between WHO and the RF, even as the RF’s disease control model had become fully entrenched at WHO, most visibly through the launching of the global malaria eradication campaign. On one level, this paradoxdCandau’s rise coinciding with the RF’s demise at WHO indicated that because its approach was firmly in place at WHO, the RF’s presence was superfluous. On another level, this estrangement meant that some openings to social medicine enabled by the RFeWHO relationship now faded. While RF-sponsored advocates of social medicine remained on certain expert committees, the hard line of McCarthyism wiped out many American health leftists in particular. A notable target was health systems and policy expert Milton Roemer, who left the repressive context of the United States to work at WHO in 1950, only to lose his WHO appointment in 1953 after the US government revoked his passport due to his refusal to sign a loyalty oath.137 In the late 1950s and 1960s, some social medicine advocates involved in WHO came from other quarters, including Latin America and Africa. Sidney and Emily Kark, for example, who had innovated a successful community health centre model in South Africa (in part thanks to RF officer John Grant’s backing), participated in various WHO activities. But under Candau and with heightened Cold War rivalries at WHO sparked by the return to active membership of the Soviet bloc in the mid1950s, this health internationalist tenor was marginalized at WHO, only to resurface, as we shall see in Part II, starting in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The RF became but a backdrop not only at WHO but also on the international health scene writ large. Indeed, the subtitle of a 1959 US Senate report about the US and WHO, ‘Teamwork for Mankind’s Well-Being,’130 echoed, perhaps inadvertently, the RF’s 1913 motto: ‘For the Well-Being of Mankind throughout the World.’ This 150-page document cited the RF’s link to WHO on just two pages and only in regards to interagency research collaboration, with no mention of the RF’s pivotal prior role in setting the international health agenda. The importance of the RF’s advocacy, legitimacy, and seed funding for projects diminished considerably after the US’s financial support of WHO efforts soared starting in 1956-7, in the wake of the influenza pandemic, the Soviet bloc rejoining WHO, and US recognition of the potential of the malaria eradication campaign to combat communism. As such, the RF’s organizational power was waning even as its ideological approach to international health had become solidly institutionalized within WHO.
In sum, the Rockefeller Foundation had enormous bearing on WHO, just as it did on the overall international health arena: WHO’s very configuration was unthinkable without the RF. Yet as WHO found firm ground in the 1950s and the RF abandoned its primordial international health role, there was a tacit understanding that the RF would not interfere in day-to-day operations, even as WHO leaders and champions remained conscious of the RF’s underlying influence. After the US government brashly moved onto WHO’s turf at the height of the Cold War, particularly through its role in the global malaria eradication campaign, there was a further distancing between the RF and WHO. As will be discussed in Part II, it was only in the 1970s that the relationship resumed, just when WHO began to question the RF’s disease campaign model, and, backed by the bulk of its member countries, it pursued a more community-grounded approach to primary health care amidst calls for a new antihegemonic economic order. By this time, the RF’s support for such social justice-oriented efforts was much narrowed in the context of the dominant ideological shift towards neoliberalism, and it played what many perceived as an antagonistic role in seeking to resurrect its disease control paradigm.
Backstage: the relationship between the Rockefeller Foundation and the World Health Organization, Part I: 1940se1960s by A.-E. Birn – 2013 The Royal Society for Public Health
To be continued maybe. I wish to continue this, but I don’t have the necessary security, hope and any future, so I don’t know what tomorrow brings.
Coming up: The Rockefeller – Bill Gates connection The Rockefeller – Soros connection The Rockefeller – Clinton connection The Rockefeller – Trump connection The Rockefeller – Covid-19 connection
We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
MUST SEE: One of the best documentaries I know, from the best journalist I know.
This has been revealed to me while investigating Trump’s new “Vaccine Czar” Moncef Slaoui, in his home-town Agadir, Morocco, under a coronavirus lockdown and a hunger-strike. Energy and time are scarce, I’ll be making a brief sum-up here, and for more details please read my other investigations on this site.
The scheme is simple and efficient:
Bill Gates: Money, influence and organizing
Tony Fauci (NIAID): Influence, research and power
through US Government and media with all their capabilities
Moncef Slaoui (GSK, Moderna), US’ new “Vaccine Czar”: concocts the vaccines, connects the industry
Together they control WHO and GAVI, which serve as common platforms and global marketers
The following vaccines have been elaborated and marketed by this group, mostly with disastrous effects:
“This is not the big game changer that we were hoping for,” said Dr. Martin De Smet, a malaria expert at Doctors Without Borders. “The vaccine itself remains disappointing but this is an important step forward,” he said. Still, De Smet said the vaccine could help reduce the huge burden of malaria: there are about 200 million cases and more than 500,000 deaths every year, mostly in African children.
Have you ever imagined modern history and official narratives stripped off of coincidences?
So far all my articles have been fact-based and sourced documentations of our times. This time I will enter the fact-based speculation field, but I will mind having an overwhelming majority of factual content over the theoretical speculation. Is it a fact that modern history and official narratives abund in coincidences? Is it a fact that, based on all history, statistics and personal life experiences, anyone can say at least a good chunk of these coincidences are an indicative of common scripts and arrangements?
Not a proven fact, just a hunch, it doesn’t really matter as an argument, it’s just what put in motion this train of thoughts: Watching George Floyd’s arrest, did anyone else asked himself how come the cop with his knee on Floyd didn’t seem worried about cameras for a second and kept that position for long minutes? Am I the only one who felt he was posing? Anyways…
Meet Amara Touré, a trending figure right now on the French Twitter. On may 28th, France got scandalized by his brutal arrest by Paris Police.
French alternative media, activists and Interned started flaming after this: “In the aftermath of the barbaric murder of George Floyd in the United States. Today this scene takes place in France in the 20th arrondissement, Amara Touré suffers the same violence. The French media, they condemned the United States yesterday. Today it’s at home in France, you must also condemn! ” writes revolutionpermanente.fr
The young Frenchman didn’t die, luckily. But France, Paris especially, have burned a few times because of Police brutality. It’s a sensitive issue there as much as in US, if not more. Subservient mainstream media there, as opposed to the one in US, is happy to overlook these incidents.
So you would think cops there are inclined to avoid exposure when they brutalize a black person, especially in these sensitive times. Well, does it look like it? Let’s see one more video:
I know this is standard procedure, but are these cops begging for attention or not? Because if they do, there’s a large plot going on.
Here’s some more facts: Many chapters of our history has been written by people who love to control both sides of a conflict so they can win every time. At least since they demolished French monarcy. History is a repeating cycle of construction and demolition, and many of these demolitions have been proven to be controlled. There is no way in hell there’s not going to be a backlash from the public to the system after these lockdowns. Technology can predict uprisings. Money can stage an uprising. It’s better to stage and control your own uprising than have an uncontrolled and popular one. Controlled opposition is a standard operation too, just like a knee on the neck.
And here’s the speculation and the bet I want to make with the public: Based on the facts above, it’s more than likely that stage violence will be used as an exit strategy from the Coronavirus quarantine, because that’s pretty much the only tool for the establishment to deter a fatal public backlash. And this violence needs a firestarter, someone to break the first window.
It is reasonable to consider this possibility and to monitor the coming events with it in mind. All I’m saying.
PS: I think you’d find things even more interesting if you investigated the origins of this arrest technique.
“Another of President Obama’s brazen acts as he leaves office is a “parting shot” at American gun owners by submitting the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty to the U.S. Senate for ratification. For the uninitiated, the term refers to turning around in your saddle as you ride away from a losing battle and firing one last round at your enemy. The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) was negotiated from 2006, during the Bush administration, through 2013 with the Obama administration. The original intent of the treaty was theoretically to prohibit arms transfers to regimes that abused human rights. From the very start though, gun control groups looked upon the treaty as an end run around America’s domestic reluctance to adopt their agenda — if Congress and the state legislatures wouldn’t pass gun control why not get the U.N. to make it a permanent part of its agenda or even better part of international law?” – Washington Times
On Friday, the United Nations Office at Geneva (UNOG) posted the flag of Antifa on their official Twitter account, saying that a group of human rights “experts” at the globalist organisation had expressed “profound concern over a recent statement by the U.S. Attorney-General describing Antifa and other anti-fascist activists as domestic terrorists, saying it undermines the rights to freedom of expression and of peaceful assembly in the country.”
One expert cited in the statement from the United Nations was Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, who also works as the Board Chair of the Open Society Foundations Women Program — OSF being the plaything of left-liberal billionaire activist George Soros.
UN #HumanRights experts express profound concern over a recent statement by the US Attorney-General describing #Antifa and other anti-fascist activists as domestic terrorists, saying it undermines the rights to freedom of expression and of peaceful assembly in the country. pic.twitter.com/2Pz2dMyq8k
“International human rights law protects the right to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly,” said Ní Aoláin, adding that it was “regrettable that the United States has chosen to respond to the protests in a manner that undermines these fundamental rights.”
The support from the UN for the far-left group came in response to U.S. Attorney-General William Barr’s statement that violence committed by Antifa “is domestic terrorism and will be treated accordingly”.
Though there has been no legal action taken since President Trump’s announcement that the U.S. will designate the group as a terrorist organisation, Ní Aoláin said that “the loose use of terrorism rhetoric undermines legitimate protests and dampens freedom of expression in the United States, which has been a hallmark of U.S. constitutional values, and a beacon far beyond its shores”.- Source
PS: Famous journalist George Webb’s Youtube channel has just been deleted after a series of videos where he confirmed the main thesis in this article. Here you can watch a mirror Bitchute upload of one of his latest videos.
UPDATE JULY 27th 2020:
UN marches on. After more appeals to them from George Floyd’s father this time, we finally have the first UN mingling in US’ internal affairs and wagging a finger at Trump:
‘People taking part in peaceful demonstrations across the United States, and journalists covering these protests, should not be subjected to disproportionate use of force or other violations, the UN human rights office said on Friday.
Spokesperson Elizabeth Throssell was answering a reporter’s question about the US authorities deploying federal security officers to various cities to quell demonstrations against racial injustice, sparked by the death of George Floyd, an unarmed African American man, while in police custody in Minneapolis on 25 May.
“Peaceful demonstrations that have been taking place in cities in the US, such as Portland, really must be able to continue without those participating in them – and also, the people reporting on them, the journalists – risking arbitrary arrest or detention, being subject to unnecessary, disproportionate or discriminatory use of force, or suffering other violations of their rights”, said Ms. Throssell.
Officers must be identified
Regarding reports about unidentified police officers detaining protestors, she said “that is a worry because it may place those detained outside the protection of the law, and may give rise to arbitrary detention and other human rights