Funny to watch the boss of Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Stefan Oelrich, scrambling and sweating as if he was realizing what he says only after he said it.

So yeah, they’re fine and dandy and back to killing off… I mean ‘managing the growth’ of poorer populations. If they’ve ever taken a break from it. Watch this!

Stefan Oelrich, president of Bayer’s Pharmaceuticals Division, made this statement at 2021’s World Health Summit, held in Berlin from October 24-26.
But what if I told you this is not even his greatest gaffe in that speech alone?!
Incoming, stay tuned! 😉

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
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’ve been a prisoner on the Moroccan slaveship since Covidiocracy started, under the command of King Pfizer I the Destroyer of Morocco and the rule of other people we’ll discuss later. I can’t go far without being molested by the government so I can’t report as a witness to everything, but I still can provide sources and insights you won’t find many places, and believe me, this is a really interesting and telling story.

Morocco is the most jabbed country in Africa, about 3/4 of the population had at least one shot, and I was growing depressed and desperate with these stats and the deafening silence around, as I f-ing love these people and I was hurting being a direct witness to their silent suicide.

I couldn’t understand how can they be so alive inside, individually, but dead as a community.

It was peace because the regular folk here have simple sane natural mentalities and, more so than in many ‘free-minded’ Western societies, they respect each other’s options and allow their neighbor to follow and meet his destiny. Within the framework of Quran. of course, but parallel with the legal framework and propaganda. So whatever was going on was creating big economic problems, but not social tensions and division.

This could’ve been almost a successful vaccination rollout, definitely the best in the region, on the background of an economic and health calamity. But then the rulers of the land decided to ruin their own only achievements lately and made the mistake to push the pedal to the metal with these green-passes, because they’re 200% aboard the Great Reset and all that Davos transhumanist lunacy, especially the king, as vaccines are just the gateway to digital ID’s. And this is the part where other fine gentlemen come in. More on that coming up too.

So when the ‘green’ slave passes hit, what everyone suspected became clear: the whole circus is not about health, their suffering so far was not about mitigating a crisis, quite the opposite.

And now you have what you don’t find everywhere: a more cohesive and clear-minded society, with enough protest experience, loudly standing up to the bullshit, and some frowning bystanders who are completely clueless or confused. No millennial CDC Karens here, that NPC model is not even on the market yet.

Soon, I will reveal how we got here, decades of history, I’ve only scratched the surface before, time to crack it open. Until then…

EXCLUSIVE: HOW BILL GATES AND BANKSTERS GANGED UP TO TAKE MOROCCO. AND NOW ARE RUINING IT. (May 2020 + later updates)

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
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

Yet another manifestation of the Military BioTech Complex I was telling you about, bridging Silicon Valley, Davos and China.
Their words, my research:

Immunization: an entry point for digital identity

ID2020

ID2020 Mar 28, 2018

With World Health Day around the corner on April 7th, we’d like to bring attention to the intersection of global health and digital identity, and specifically the opportunity for immunization rates to scale digital identity amongst the most hard-to-reach children.

Globally, an estimated 95% of children receive at least one dose of some vaccine. This number is staggering — no other public health intervention reaches more children and impacts more families.

Yet, despite this high initial contact rate, only 37% of children in the world’s poorest countries are fully immunized, meaning that they receive their full course of recommended vaccines. Ultimately, many children are left without comprehensive protection and vulnerable to many vaccine-preventable diseases.

Percentage of children reached with the last dose of seven vaccines recommended across all Gavi-supported countries and of three vaccines specific to certain regions (Source: Gavi 2016 Annual Progress Report http://www.gavi.org/progress-report/)

There are several reasons for low coverage rates, including the low quality of population data and reliance on outdated systems to track immunizations, but one critical challenge is the continued use of paper-based systems to record the doses that have been administered and indicate when a child needs to return for boosters. Unfortunately, the paper records kept within a clinic are often difficult to analyze and the immunization cards given to families are prone to loss and inaccuracies. Without a persistent, portable record that can be uniquely linked to the child, it’s often difficult to ascertain the care a child needs.

In November, Dr. Seth Berkley, CEO of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, wrote a piece for Nature that emphasized the pressing need to move to digital systems — specifically those to identify and track those currently missing out — to achieve 100% immunization coverage.

One of the biggest needs is for affordable, secure digital identification systems that can store a child’s medical history, and that can be accessed even in places without reliable electricity. That might seem a tall order, but it is both achievable and necessary.

This message was reinforced at this year’s World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland, where Gavi announced digital identity as the focus for its 2018 INFUSE program. INFUSE — Innovation for Uptake, Scale and Equity in Immunization — aims to identify and support innovative solutions that have the potential to modernize global health and immunization delivery. This year, Gavi is focusing its efforts on identifying opportunities for digital identity technologies to help facilitate better targeting, follow-up, and immunization service delivery for the world’s most vulnerable children.

Immunization poses a huge opportunity to scale digital identity — in many developing countries, immunization coverage greatly exceeds birth registration rates. According to best available estimates, upwards of 95% of children globally receive at least one dose of one vaccine (with 86% of children globally receiving the full three doses recommended of the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine, which is commonly used to measure immunization coverage).

When a child receives her first vaccine, she receives a paper child health card. In many developing countries, the most common form of identification is not a birth certificate, but this card. The near ubiquity of these documents presents an enormous opportunity.

Moving from easily lost or damaged paper health cards to an accessible digital form would reduce the burden associated with tracking a child’s vaccines and eliminate redundant or unnecessary paperwork. Digital child health cards can improve coverage rates and vaccine compliance by prompting parents to bring their children in for necessary subsequent doses. For health workers, digital identity technology validates a child’s past vaccines and may streamline analytics and outreach, without adding significant complexity to a health worker’s workflow. And for Gavi and its international partners, digital ID technology provides a basis for a system of verifiable proofs and accurate aggregate data that interoperates with other identity management systems, negating the need for each organization to independently identify beneficiaries.

And because immunization is conducted in infancy, providing children with a digital child health card would give them a unique, portable digital identity early in life. And as children grow, their digital child health card can be used to access secondary services, such as primary school, or ease the process of obtaining alternative credentials. Effectively the child health card becomes the first step in establishing a legal, broadly recognized identity.

In turn, having a persistent and portable health record uniquely tied to the child will help to increase full immunization coverage rates by prompting follow-up and better targeting the most hard to reach children.

In order to enable digital identity at scale, we will need to identify and leverage many entry points. Immunization service delivery presents a tremendous opportunity to provide children with a durable, portable and secure digital identity early in life, enabling access to a wider range of social services, while also improving access to the health interventions all children need and deserve.

We’re proud to partner with Gavi and excited to see the innovations proposed as part of the INFUSE Challenge. To all innovators: the deadline to apply for the program is April 10th, so please get those applications in!

INFUSE 2018 is calling for proven digital technology innovations — adapted to low-resource environments in developing countries — to help identify and register children, especially girls, who are at risk of missing out on life-saving vaccines. 

Launched at Davos in 2016, Innovation for Uptake, Scale and Equity in Immunisation (INFUSE) helps improve vaccine delivery systems by connecting high-impact, proven innovations with the countries that need them most.
It then “infuses” them with capital and expertise to help take them to scale.

GAVI

“Since 2016, ID2020 has advocated for ethical, privacy-protecting approaches to digital ID.

For the one in seven people globally who lacks a means to prove their identity, digital ID offers access to vital social services and enables them to exercise their rights as citizens and voters and participate in the modern economy. But doing digital ID right means protecting civil liberties and putting control over personal data back where it belongs…in the hands of the individual.

Every day, we rely on a variety of forms of identification to go about our lives: our driver’s license, passport, work badge and building access cards, debit and credit cards, transit passes, and more.

But technology is evolving at a blinding pace and many of the transactions that require identification are today being conducted digitally. From e-passports to digital wallets, online banking to social media accounts, these new forms of digital ID allow us to travel, conduct business, access financial and health records, stay connected, and much more.

While the move to digital ID has had many positive effects, it has been accompanied by countless challenges and setbacks, including large-scale data breaches affecting millions of people. Most of the current tools are archaic, insecure, lack appropriate privacy protections and commoditize our data. But that’s about to change and ID2020 is leading the charge.

We are businesses, nonprofits, governments and individuals…working in collaboration to ensure that the future of digital identity is, indeed, #goodID.” – ID2020.org

Gavi and Zenysis Technologies to bring data and artificial intelligence to immunisation programmes

The partnership supported by Asia’s largest internet services company Tencent will help developing countries reach more children with life-saving vaccines

Geneva, 12 March 2019 – Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and Zenysis Technologies, a Silicon Valley startup, have established a new strategic partnership that will help low-income countries harness the power of big data and artificial intelligence to improve childhood vaccination programs around the world.

Zenysis Technologies was identified by Gavi, through the INFUSE (Innovation for Uptake, Scale and Equity in Immunisation) yearly call for innovation. INFUSE aims to identify proven solutions which, when brought to scale, have the greatest potential to modernise global health and immunisation delivery.

What the team at Zenysis has built and accomplished to date is in a class of its own. 

David Wallerstein, Tencent’s Chief Exploration Officer

A two-year partnership will provide countries with the Zenysis’ software platform, analytical training and IT skills development. Countries will use the platform’s capabilities to integrate data from their fragmented information systems and help decision-makers see where children are not receiving vaccines. Advanced analytics will then help countries decide how to target their limited resources for maximum impact.

“Weak immunisation data leads to poor planning, often meaning that children, whether they live in urban slums or remote rural outposts, miss out on lifesaving vaccines. Digital transformation of immunisation data and analytics is key to making sure that all children are protected from vaccine-preventable diseases,” said Gavi CEO Dr Seth Berkley. “Our partnership with Zenysis has the potential to increase efficiency and reduce costs for developing countries but, most importantly, it could save lives.”

Since its inception three years ago, Zenysis has expanded into ten countries that now use its software to improve health programs serving over one billion people. The company’s software has been used to optimise nationwide vaccination campaigns allowing for reinvestment in other lifesaving health programs.

“Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance has helped over 70 countries vaccinate more than 700 million children in low income countries,” said Zenysis CEO, Jonathan Stambolis. “However, weak and fragmented information systems at the country level mean that millions of the world’s most vulnerable children have been left behind. We have assembled one of the strongest software engineering teams in Silicon Valley to build the software countries need to address this urgent global health challenge and our partnership with Gavi and Tencent will ensure that technology benefits the countries that need it most.”

We have assembled one of the strongest software engineering teams in Silicon Valley to build the software countries need to address this urgent global health challenge… 

Jonathan Stambolis, Zenysis CEO

The company expects to reach at least fifteen more countries in 2019. This will include Pakistan, where Zenysis will be working with government authorities and Gavi to improve vaccination coverage and equity as well as to accelerate the country’s progress towards a polio-free future. The project has the backing of one of Zenysis’ investors, internet services giant Tencent Holdings, Asia’s largest company. Tencent investment of US$ 4.5 million will be matched by the Gavi Matching Fund.

“We are very excited about the potential for artificial intelligence to transform child health on a global scale”, said David Wallerstein, Tencent’s Chief Exploration Officer.  “I look at hundreds of the fastest-growing startups every year. What the team at Zenysis has built and accomplished to date is in a class of its own. The company’s software will help governments become more effective and targeted at every step of the vaccination challenge, and move with the urgency and speed required to realise Gavi’s vision of a world free of vaccine-preventable illnesses”.

The official Memorandum of Understanding establishing this landmark partnership between Gavi and Zenysis Technologies was signed by Gavi’s CEO Dr Seth Berkley and the Zenysis CEO Jonathan Stambolis in Abu Dhabi during the Gavi Mid-Term Review high-level conference.

I think we’re done here.
But I’ll update this if anything worth noting comes along.

UPDATE DECEMBER 5, 2021

RT

CNN

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

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

ORDER

In an increasingly baby-minded world, I had to pull out the crayons again.
I feel embarrassed for the human race that I have to explain this and so many people need to see it.

These guys are funded by Bill Gates btw

Is It ‘Eugenics’ to Abort Unborn Babies with Down Syndrome?

By Alexandra DeSanctis, staff writer for National Review and a visiting fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

“On the legal blog Dorf on Lawin an article by Sherry F. Colb, a Cornell University law professor. Colb argues that, because eugenics is defined as “a movement . . . aimed at improving the genetic composition of the human race,” it is inapt to call selective abortions “eugenic,” because a woman who chooses abortion after a Down-syndrome diagnosis “understands that she is thereby doing virtually nothing to alter the human genome.”

But Colb ignores another meaning of the adjective “eugenic”: “relating to or fitted for the production of good offspring.” Though the term “eugenics” undoubtedly evokes a program of controlled, selective breeding to reshape a population, it is entirely accurate to describe as “eugenic” an individual choice to eliminate a child deemed “unfit,” even in just one instance.

Colb concludes with this argument:

What if everyone pregnant with a DS fetus terminates? What then? Do we want to live in a world in which DS people are extinct? No. There is no question but that people with DS, like people with all sorts of other challenges, enrich our world and teach us to tolerate those who differ from ourselves. It would indeed be sad if the world contained no one with DS. But just because we want a group of people in the world does not entitle us to conscript individuals to create such people in their wombs.

But of course, forbidding abortions chosen on the basis of disability cannot rightly be described as “conscripting individuals to create such people in their wombs.” When a pregnant mother receives a prenatal Down-syndrome diagnosis, she has already created a human being who might have Down syndrome (though such tests have been known to be wrong). Forbidding a woman from actively killing her unborn child based on its disability is not the same thing as conscripting her into creating that child.

That defenders of legal abortion are reduced to such arguments is telling. In the end, it doesn’t matter much whether we can rightly label certain abortions “eugenic” or whether one side of the debate has the most accurate history of racial discrimination and population control.

What matters is that, in Ohio, lawmakers have laid down a marker establishing that it is wrong and therefore that it is now illegal to end the life of an unborn human being simply because he or she is diagnosed with a chromosomal abnormality. Supporters of abortion refuse to respond to this argument, because to do so would expose the logic of all abortion, which, regardless of disabilities, grants some human beings the power to declare the lives of others not worth living.”

Gates conducted an interview with Bill Moyers on PBS to explain the rational for his charitable contributions:

MOYERS: You could have chosen any field, any subject, any issue and poured billions into it and been celebrated. How did you come to this one? To global health?

GATES: The one issue that really grabbed me as urgent were issues related to population… reproductive health.

And maybe the most interesting thing I learned is this thing that’s still surprising when I tell other people which is that, as you improve health in a society, population growth goes down.

You know I thought it was…before I learned about it, I thought it was paradoxical. Well if you improve health, aren’t you just dooming people to deal with such a lack of resources where they won’t be educated or they won’t have enough food? You know, sort of a Malthusian view of what would take place.

And the fact that health leads parents to decide, “okay, we don’t need to have as many children because the chance of having the less children being able to survive to be adults and take care of us, means we don’t have to have 7 or 8 children.” Now that was amazing.

So Gates is interested in improving health because he believes that would reduce the amount of people on the planet.  His goal is not to help people but to eliminate them.  He states that if people are healthy that they will want fewer kids but he doesn’t offer evidence to support this and frankly it doesn’t appear to make much sense. Why would a sick person who could die at anytime want to have kids if they knew there was a good possibility they wouldn’t be around to support the child?   Does Gates really believe this or is this just his cover story so not arouse any suspicions about his true motivations?  Gates also admits that he notes that he previously shared the opinion with Malthus that health should not be improved because that would encourage population growth.  If you remember Malthus wanted villages built near sewage to encourage disease.  Now he doesn’t disagree with Malthus that population growth is bad he only disagrees on how to reduce population.

I don’t believe that Gates’ actually thinks that improving health reduces population.  I think that he is using global health as a stalking horse to eliminate population.  Gates’ could donate money to provide basic healthcare to poor Africans like Doctors Without Borders, he could build hospitals, and he could help provide low cost health insurance to the millions who can’t afford it.  Bill Gates money could be spent improving access to safe drinking water and providing sanitation services.  His money is spent on any of this noble The elites of the world choose to spend the tax dollars of the American middle class on contraceptives, abortions, and vaccines.  Kenyan gynecologist Dr. Stephen Karanja observed, “USAID and other Non-Governmental organizations funded mainly by the U.S. Government have targeted our people with a ruthlessness that makes one shudder. Our health sector has collapsed. Thousands of the Kenyan people will die of malaria, whose treatment costs a few cents, in health facilities whose shelves are stocked to the roof with millions of dollars worth of pills, IUDs, Norplant, Depo-Provera, most of which are supplied with American money.”

“Many are maimed for life. The hypertension, blood clots, heart failure, liver pathology and menstrual disorders cannot be treated due to the poor health services…. Malaria is epidemic in Kenya. Mothers die from this disease every day because there is no chloroquine, when instead we have huge stockpiles of contraceptives.” – SOURCE – I used this not for authoritativeness, but for logic and because it very much speaks my mind too. And I fact-checked it.

IT WORKS BOTH WAYS, AS YOU BALANCE AND STEER IT.
SOURCE

THE AFRICAN PERSPECTIVE ON IT

Population Control is GENOCIDE

(This interview with Sister Aset was first published in Global Africa Pocket News (GAP News) Vol. 1, No. 7 Sept. 1994. It was submitted to Caribbean Times in January ’96 but never published) #14
SOURCE

What is population control?


The United Nations Population Fund would like us to believe that it is a benign process of ‘voluntary’ application of ‘family planning’ to control the ‘rate of growth’ of the world’s ‘sustainable’ population within ‘manageable’ levels in relation to the amount of ‘food’ and ‘consumable goods’ the earth can produce. That is as far from the truth as the divide between the very richest and the very poorest people on this planet.
The truth is that population control is the process by which Global Europe (whites, Caucasians, Aryans) seeks to guarantee its perpetual domination of the rest of the human race because of its own fear of annihilation. According to Dr. Frances Cress-Welsing, it is this fear based on the fact of their numerical minority status and their low level of surface melanin, which drives them to commit the most atrocious crimes against humanity, in particular, the most feared nation of all, Global Africa (Black people).


Is it true that the world is over crowded and moving towards an unsustainable population level?


No. Absolutely not. Overcrowding can be measured by one method only that is whether there are too many people to fit in the space available. The most densely populated continent area in the world is Europe, (see GAP News #7, Population Figures), but do Europeans think there are too many people in Europe? Of course not. But they believe there are too many African and Asian people in Europe. That is not overcrowding that is racism.


What about all those starving Africans? If they can’t feed themselves surely, there must be too many of them.


No, that is not the case. Those “starving Africans”, Asians and other “Third World” peoples produce most of the world’s surplus food. Most of the food they produce are luxury or raw, unprocessed goods which are sold cheaply as exports and re-imported as expensive processed foods.
The main reason though, why there appears to be not enough food to go around is not because the so-called third world cannot feed itself, it is because Global Europe, less than 25% of the world’s population uses or wastes over 80% of the worlds food goods (consumables) but produces less than 15% of it. So the “third world” make up 75% of the world’s population, produce 85% of the world’s consumables and consume less than 20% of all that is consumed. If they consumed as much as they produced, Global Europe would be dying of starvation, not Africa.


Is the African population expanding too rapidly?


Let’s look at the evidence: After being systematically depopulated for 400 years, Africa is now the least populated continent in the world with a density one-sixth of Europe’s. Africa’s death rate is more than twice that of Europe. To be level pegging, Africa’s death rate should also be one-sixth of Europe’s. When these dishonest people talk about population they make reference only to birth rate. They show that Africa’s birth rate is nearly three times that of the European rate, but forget to mention that the infant mortality rate is 5 times higher in Africa.
They never talk about density except in reference to Asia or to say that “Rwanda is the most densely populated country in Africa”. They forget to say it was a quarter the density of any country in Europe. They forget also, to tell you that in order for Africa to get to the same population density as Europe (is Europe overpopulated?) the African birth-rate has to be more than 12 times that of Europe (6 times if the death rate becomes equal) for a whole generation.
So, when they talk about “equalizing” or reducing the African birth rate, while at the same time nurturing conflict, manufacturing famine, and importing disease to increase the death rate further, you begin to get the picture. If the birth rates were made equal and everything else remained the same as they are now, each time Europe’s population doubled Africa’s population would be halved. The world’s population may become “stabilized” as they like to say it, but the percentage ratio between the nations would continue changing to their advantage. (See GAP News #5)
It is understandable then, why Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, a senior Vatican official cried that if the precepts of the UN Population Control Conference in Cairo were to be implemented the world would experience “the most disastrous massacre in history”. He should know, it was his organization, the Roman Catholic church, which sanctified the trade in African lives, resulting in the death of over 200 million people.
Some of the liars say that deaths in war time make very little difference to the population growth because after a war birth rates usually increase to compensate. Certainly, that is true when mostly male soldiers are killed. But when two thirds of the female population are murdered, like the Rwandan slaughter, it would take 4 or 5 generations to get back to where it was before the war. And that is the key. The women.
Global Europe have done everything they could to destroy our people but we are still here and still strong. They are now trying, through an apparently limitless line of African and Asian female mercenaries, posing as leaders, to co-opt us. To convince us that regardless of our particular environmental conditions, contrary to our own community’s social and economic needs, it would be in our individual interests to have fewer or no children at all.
Women have the power to determine the fertility or sterility of our nation. It is imperative that we do not allow ourselves to be misled into committing generational suicide. We carry the future of our nation in our hands. We are here because those before us gave us life. Let us give life to our children. We deserve to live.

SOURCE

FRAGMENT:

ABORTION FOR EUGENICS: CONSPIRACY OR SIMPLE CONSEQUENCE?

How one answers the question whether abortion is a tool of racial, gender, or disability eugenics depends very much on how the question is asked. Is legalized abortion a eugenicist conspiracy — a deliberate plot on the part of those favoring abortion rights to reduce the number of people of a given race, sex, or disability? Surely not. At the very least, such motivations form no part of the modern argument for abortion rights. Does unrestricted legal abortion-choice produce a disparate impact resulting in disproportionate numbers of abortions ending the lives of minority, female, and disabled fetuses? Undeniably. The aborted are disproportionately Black, female, and disabled. Is the right to abortion sometimes used, by those exercising the abortion-choice, for eugenics purposes — specifically for the purpose of aborting on the basis of race, sex, or disability? Unquestionably. Some — but not all — of the abortion–disparate impact is attributable to intentional decisions to abort based on a trait of the baby that otherwise would be born.

These are three different questions. Justice Thomas’s concurrence in Box keeps them distinct. Murray’s article, in attempting to critique Thomas, tends to smush these separate questions together in a mildly confusing way.

Begin with Justice Thomas’s Box concurrence itself. Thomas’s opinion compiles an impressive and rightly disturbing narrative of evidence that family planning and abortion advocates in the past embraced the desirability of abortion as an instrument for achieving racial eugenics and for culling persons with disabilities from the population. (There appears to be no evidence that early abortion advocates ever favored abortion for gender-eugenics purposes — aborting girls because they are girls.18×18. This is probably most simply explained by the fact that the technology for discerning the fetus’s sex before birth was not readily available until relatively recently. See, e.g., Juan Stocker & Lorraine Evens, Fetal Sex Determination by Ultrasound, 50 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY 462, 465 (1977).

Han Chinese academics in Xinjiang in recent years have blamed the high birth rate among the Uyghurs and Kazaks for fostering religious extremism and poverty. According to Zenz’s research, government and academic papers have referred to the birth rate of ethnic minorities in the region as “excessive” and have claimed that the population growth and concentration of ethnic minorities in Xinjiang “weakens national identity and identification with the Chinese Nation-Race (Zhonghua Minzu).”

Population Research Institute

I’ve been meaning to put this together for this a long time now, but we owe it to An0maly that I arrived to finish it, he tipped me over with this great brand new video, where he kills it in his own terms. I just felt I need to round it up and bring more depth and definition that he can’t possibly achieve in his format. The guy is one of the clearest minds on Internet right now.

MORE References

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

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

ORDER

For my mother, who has just buried my father, passed away from a very suspicious heart event involving some clots. She had to bury him in my absence, because the Military BioTech Complex holds us prisoners on two different continents. I had to bury myself in work to keep it together.

Work in progress, I will keep adding pieces to the Tetris until it goes away.
Please return regularly for updates, this is a very long and fascinating story that should change the worldview for most people.

This is to request that the current retention allowance [(b)(6) redaction] for Dr. Anthony S. Fauci be converted to a permanent pay adjustment in the amount [(b)(6) redaction] over his base pay of [(b)(6) redaction] in order to appropriately compensate him for the level of responsibility in his current position of Director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Health (NIH), especially as it relates to his work on biodefense research activities.”

GW BUSH

Key points

First, in the US, Military and an emerging petrochemical industry with strong roots in agriculture but expanding into health, among others. The Rockefellers were the main force driving this expansion in the US and bridging over the ocean to Germany, the most advanced country in terms of chemical industrialization.
But it was mostly Crown-controlled and Rothschild-controlled from the City of London, through their many henchmen.

After a few good collaborative experiences, the Military and Pharmafia decided they have a future together, and they bought up the Academia to help with the labs and the brains, as both industries already had a foot in the door there.

Two world wars demonstrated there’s hardly any limit to what they can achieve together.

The Cold War is then used as an excuse to develop more surveillance and population control tools. From these efforts spring1 out Silicon Valley and the Internet.

Before the end of 20th century, Big Pharma and Big Tech are fused by all means: capital, gear, agenda.

The Great Military BioTech Complex is born to be the main Operating System of the system.

9/11 is the launch of the new control grid.

Many of the following events were just test runs.

Covid is a forced upgrade of this operating system.

Weapons trade is disguised as “defense”, bioweapons trade as “biodefense”. And the latter is booming.

Transhumanism Airlines depart from Humanism and are set to land in lifeless soulless material existence.

The Military Biotech Complex Origins

After 1865, American inventiveness turned away from war and toward commerce and industry. Development of the lands of the West did promote some agencies to investigate natural resources. The Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce and Labor, and the National Park Service appeared during this period. While government research tended toward the applied end of the research spectrum, newly-created private foundations, such as the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Institute of Washington, supported much of the nation's basic scientific research.- Daniel Else, "Origins of the Military-Industrial Complex", 2017 
This is the official history, not whistleblowing. It’s redacted by a system critter to make crimes palatable to the normies. Still a good starting point

Summary

Daniel Else explored the results of his year-long inquiry into the organizational underpinnings of that military technological revolution of the 1940s and 1950s. By mining the Library’s resources, Else traced the evolving relationship between science and the federal government leading to the creation of the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) in 1941. A temporary wartime agency, OSRD mobilized the nation’s academic and industrial technological resources in support of the war effort, and in so doing profoundly altered the linkages between science and engineering, industry, and government. Else explored those wartime changes and outline their impact, still seen and felt today more than seven decades after V-J Day.

Event Date September 21, 2017

Notes-  Daniel Else was a specialist in national defense in the Congressional Research Service in the Library of Congress and the 2016 Kluge Staff Fellow at the Library’s John W. Kluge Center.

Finally in 1950, the Air Force created a larger organization, the Air Research and Development Command. The House finally passed the Senate bill that had been passed the year before, and the president signed the bill, establishing the National Science Foundation. So in that five-year gap, what we saw was the creation of a number of military, Department of Defense organizations for science and scientific research, and the final NSF bill contained no mandate for military research for the National Science Foundation. 

So, what are its legacy organizations? A number of federal agencies can trace their origins back to the OSRD. National Science Foundation, of course, the Office of Naval Research, the Army Research Development and Engineering, or, and Evaluation Command, Air Force Office of Scientific Research, DTRA, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, DARPA, of course, and in the Department of Energy, the National Nuclear Security Administration, which is the custodian of atomic stockpile. - Daniel Else, "Origins of the Military-Industrial Complex", 2017 
Some of Vannevar Bush’s greatest official honors

One of Vannevar Bush’s PhD students at MIT was Frederick Terman, who was later instrumental in the development of “Silicon Valley”.

Wikipedia
CIA’s Senate Hearing on the Heart Attack Gun and the Bioweapons Developed in Fort Derrick (1975)

MEANWHILE, IN EUROPE

AND FROM THERE TO ALL THE QUEEN’S TERRITORIES

MIT is basically MBTC’s main civilian lab
Rockefeller Medicine – James Corbett
One of the most essential videos on Internet. Source

From Dark Winter to the coming winter – how biodefense drills have altered society

DR. HEIKO SCHÖNING: THE STAGE FOR THE DARK WINTER HAS BEEN SET WITH THE ANTHRAX ATTACKS FROM 2001. There was even an Event201 for the Anthrax attacks. It was called “The Dark Winter”

The Dark Winter exercise was the collaborative effort of 4 organizations. John Hamre of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) initiated and conceived of an exercise wherein senior former officials would respond to a bioterrorist induced national security crisis. Tara O’Toole and Tom Inglesby of the Johns Hopkins Center for Civilian Biodefense Studies and Randy Larsen and Mark DeMier of Analytic Services, Inc., (ANSER) were the principal designers, authors, and controllers of Dark Winter. Sue Reingold of CSIS managed administrative and logistical arrangements. General Dennis Reimer of the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT) provided funding for Dark Winter.

DARK WINTER Official page

Deleted article, now ARCHIVED HERE

Simulations and Tabletop Exercises

Part of the: Homeland Security Archived Projects

Preparing homeland security professionals through scenario-based simulations and exercises on key issues.

Steadfast Resolve

The Steadfast Resolve exercise was planned to address the concern that poorly designed government response to the next terrorist attack could disrupt America’s economy and society as much or more than the attack itself. This concern is particularly relevant in the context of an attack that may be harmful, but not catastrophic.

In the event of a next attack, government officials will be under enormous pressure to respond swiftly, more than likely with limited information about the status of the attack or what to expect next. In today’s news cycle, the public – and the situation – will demand a swift and decisive response perhaps before exactly what is happening becomes clear. Confusion, indecision, or false starts at government’s highest levels will be magnified and may have long-lasting ramifications. Getting it wrong will be easier than getting it right. As the Hurricane Katrina experience has demonstrated, a lack of situational awareness, understanding of current plans, and an absence of effective decisionmaking tools can lead to disaster. 

Dark Winter: Bioterrorism Simulation Exercise

In the summer of 2001, a group of senior-level officials, including Gov. Frank Keating of Oklahoma, David Gergen, and James Woolsey, participated in an executive level simulation. Dark Winter simulated a U.S. National Security Council meeting at which senior officials were confronted with a smallpox attack on the United States. The exercise illustrated the issues to be addressed in the event of a bioterrorism crisis, including the challenges facing state and local governments, the role and responsiveness of the federal government, and the likely friction spots between federal- and state-level responders and responses.

Coming as it did before the September 11 terrorist attacks and the subsequent anthrax attacks, Dark Winter generated an enormous amount of interest in both the public policy community and the media. CSIS briefed Vice President Dick Cheney, then National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, then FEMA Director Joe Allbaugh, over 80 members of Congress, senior government officials and leaders, including approximately 20 ambassadors to the United States, and senior government officials from Asia, Latin America, and Europe. Besides raising public awareness of the bioterrorism threat, these briefings contributed to the Bush administration’s decision to manufacture 300 million doses of the smallpox vaccine.

Silent Vector: A Critical Energy Infrastructure Simulation Exercise

The events of September 11 and additional intelligence on al Qaeda demonstrate the potential for an attack against the infrastructure of the United States. To face this challenge, CSIS developed an executive-level simulation focusing on U.S. critical energy infrastructure. The exercise took place in October 2002 and employed a simulated National Security Council of senior policymakers with former senator Sam Nunn, now chairman of CSIS’s Board of Trustees, serving as scenario president.

Silent Vector was designed to simulate possible U.S. reaction to a credible threat of terrorist attack when there is not sufficient information for effective protection. The overall purpose of the exercise was to assist the administration and Congress in their attempts to improve the effectiveness of response during the pre-attack phase of a major terrorist incident. Silent Vector challenged current and former senior government leaders to respond to increasingly credible and specific intelligence indicating the possibility of a large-scale attack against critical energy and energy-related infrastructure on the East Coast of the United States.
 

Black Dawn: A Scenario-Based Exercise on Catastrophic Terrorism

Organized under the auspices of the Strengthening the Global Partnership project by CSIS and the Nuclear Threat Initiative, Black Dawn gathered approximately 55 current and former senior officials and experts from the European Council, the European Commission, NATO, 15 member states, and various international organizations to grapple with the challenges associated with preventing the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by terrorists.

The exercise aimed to develop a set of actionable recommendations for the EU, NATO and individual European governments to prevent terrorists from acquiring and using WMD. The exercise was designed to energize discussion and debate as various European countries and institutions entered into their policy and budget deliberations. The central question animating the exercise was this: In hindsight, what could we have done to prevent terrorists from acquiring WMD and conducting such an attack? And what more can and should we do now?

The exercise concluded with several lessons learned: the threat of WMD terrorism is real; it could happen in Europe; prevention is the best option; we can take concrete steps to significantly reduce the risk of terrorists acquiring nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons; Europe has a leadership role to play; and we need to act now.

  • Simon Chair BlogCommentaries on U.S. relations with countries in the Western Hemisphere – focusing on international political economy, trade, investment, energy, and other current events.

A “Dark Winter” for Public Health: Meet Homeland Security’s New Bioterror Czarina

by Tom Burghardt / August 24th, 2009

In the wake of the 2001 anthrax attacks, successive U.S. administrations have pumped some $57 billion across 11 federal agencies and departments into what is euphemistically called “biodefense.” Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January 2005, former U.S. Senate Majority Leader William Frist, a Bushist acolyte, baldly stated that “The greatest existential threat we have in the world today is biological” and predicted that “an inevitable bioterror attack” would come “at some time in the next 10 years.”

Later that year, Frist and former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) covertly inserted language into the 2006 Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 2863) that granted legal immunity to vaccine manufacturers, even in cases of willful misconduct. It was signed into law by President Bush.

According to Public Citizen and The New York Times, Frist and Hastert benefited financially from their actions; the pair, as well as 41 other congressmen and senators owned as much as $16 million in pharmaceutical stock. revealed that “the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) is purported to be the key author of the language additions. This trade association represents virtually all major vaccine manufacturers.”

The Senate Majority Leader’s alarmist jeremiad at Davos was seconded by Dr. Tara O’Toole who added, “This [bioterrorism] is one of the most pressing problems we have on the planet today.”

Really? Not grinding poverty, global warming or the lack of access by hundreds of millions of impoverished workers and farmers to clean water, an adequate diet, health care or relief from epidemic levels of preventable diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis or diarrhea, but “bioterrorism” as narrowly defined by securocrats and their academic accomplices.

But Dr. Victor W. Sidel, a founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) and an outspoken critic of the Bioweapons-Industrial-Complex challenged O’Toole’s hysterical paradigm.

Sidel made the point that there is a fundamental conflict between the state’s national security goals and health care providers’ professional responsibilities to patients. He wrote in 2003 that “military, intelligence, and law enforcement agencies and personnel have long histories of secrecy and deception that are contrary to the fundamental health principles of transparency and truthfulness. They may therefore be unsuitable partners for public health agencies that need to justify receiving the public’s trust.”

In this context, the choice of O’Toole as the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Undersecretary of Science and Technology is troubling to say the least. As former CEO and Director of UPMC’s Center for Biosecurity, critics charge that O’Toole’s appointment will be nothing short of a disaster.

No ordinary policy wonk with an impressive résumé and years as a government insider, O’Toole is a key player advocating for the expansion of dual-use biological weapons programs rebranded as biodefense.

Subverting the Biological Weapons Convention

The resuscitation of American bioweapons programs are facilitated by their secretive and highly-classified nature. Under cover of academic freedom or intellectual property rights, the U.S. Bioweapons-Industrial-Complex has largely been outsourced by the state to private companies and contractors at top American corporations and universities.

Efforts to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) by the inclusion of verification language into the treaty and regular inspection of suspect facilities by international experts have been shot-down since 2001 by the Bush and now, the Obama administrations. Why?

Primarily because the United States view onsite measures as a threat to the commercial proprietary information of multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies as well as to America’s reputedly “defensive” biological programs; initiatives that continue to work with nature’s most dangerous and deadly pathogens.

In fact, the problem of the dual-use nature of such research is a conundrum facing critics who challenge the break-neck expansion of concealed weapons programs. Simply put, military activities can be disguised as commercial research to develop medical countermeasures without anyone, least of all the American people, being any the wiser.

Highly-trained microbiologists deployed across a spectrum of low-key companies, trained for academic, public health, or commercial employment are part of the dual-use problem. Who’s to say whether scientists who genetically-manipulate pathogens or create Frankenstein-like chimera disease organisms (say, synthesized Marburg or Ebola virus as has already been done with poliovirus in a U.S. lab) are engaged in treaty-busting weapons research or the development of life-saving measures.

And what about the accidental, or more sinisterly, the deliberate release of some horrific new plague by a scientist who’s “gone rogue”? As researcher Edward Hammond pointed out:

British researchers pled guilty in 2001 to charges that they improperly handled a genetically engineered hybrid of the viruses causing hepatitis C and dengue fever. British authorities characterized the virus as “more lethal than HIV”. ‘Dengatitis’ was deliberately created by researchers who wanted to use fewer laboratory animals in a search for a vaccine for Hepatitis C. Under unsafe laboratory conditions, the researchers created and nearly accidentally released a new hybrid human disease whose effects, fortunately, remain unknown; but which may have displayed different symptoms than its parents and thus been difficult to diagnose, and have required a new, unknown treatment regime. (Emerging Technologies: Genetic Engineering and Biological Weapons, The Sunshine Project, Background Paper No. 12, November 2003)

A new report by the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation has charged that despite restrictions under the BWC prohibiting the development, production, stockpiling and use of weaponized disease agents such as anthrax, smallpox or plague, as well as equipment and delivery systems intended for offensive use, the rapid growth of “biodefense and research programs over the last decade” has placed “new pressure” on efforts to curb the development of banned weapons listed in the treaty.

In an interview with Global Security Newswire Gerald Epstein, a senior fellow with the hawkish Center for Security and International Studies (CSIS) told the publication, “When one is doing bioresearch and biodefense, one has to be careful to not overstep the treaty itself.”

He cited the U.S biodefense effort Project Bacchus–an investigation by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to determine whether it was possible to build a bioweapons production facility using readily available equipment–as an instance where questions were raised if the treaty had been violated.

The type of biodefense activity that is most likely to raise questions regarding treaty compliance is “threat assessment,” the process of determining what type of biological attacks are most likely to occur, he told Global Security Newswire. A dangerous biological agent could inadvertently be developed during such research, Epstein said. (Martin Matishak, “Biodefense Research Could Violate Weapons Convention, Report Warns,” Global Security Newswire, August 20, 2009)

But Pentagon bioweaponeers did more than build “a bioweapons productions facility using readily available equipment.” They built banned weapons. According to Jeanne Guillemin, author of Biological Weapons: From the Invention of State-Sponsored Programs to Contemporary Bioterrorism, the Pentagon and CIA made and tested a model of a Soviet anthrax bomb and created an antibiotic-resistant strain of anthrax.

After consulting with scientists who strongly suggested that the CIA anthrax bomb project would violate the BWC, “CIA lawyers decided the project was within the allowed realm of defensive research,” Guillemin revealed. Project Clear Vision, a joint investigation by the CIA and the Battelle Memorial Institute, under contract to the Agency, reconstructed and tested a Soviet-era anthrax bomblet in order to test its dissemination characteristics. The Agency “decided the same” for the small, fully functional bioweapons facility built under the rubric of Project Bacchus.

The third initiative, Project Jefferson, led to the development of an antibiotic-resistant strain of anthrax based on a Soviet model. After the outgoing Clinton administration hesitated to give the CIA the go-ahead for the project, the Bush regime’s National Security Council gave the Pentagon permission. “They believed” Guillemin wrote, “the Pentagon had the right to investigate genetically altered pathogens in the name of biodefense, ‘to save American lives’.”

Shortly thereafter, the Pentagon authorized the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), one of the most secretive and heavily-outsourced Defense Department branches, to re-create the deadly anthrax strain.

What the scope of these programs are today is currently unknown. We do know however, that based on available evidence the Department of Homeland Security, the Defense Department and the oxymoronic Intelligence Community, using the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) as a cover, continue to investigate the feasibility of transforming nature’s most deadly pathogens into weapons.

In close coordination, the United States government and their outsourced corporate partners are spending billions of dollars on research and simulation exercises, dubbed “disaster drills” by a compliant media, to facilitate this grisly trade.

Secrecy and Deceit

That the official bioterror narrative is a preposterous fiction and swindle as even the FBI was forced to admit during its much-maligned Amerithrax investigation, is hardly worth a second glance by corporate media beholden to the pharmaceutical industry for advertising revenue; call it business as usual here in the heimat.

As we now know, the finely-milled anthrax powder which killed five people and shut down representative government didn’t come from the Afghan-Arab database of disposable Western intelligence assets known as al Qaeda, but rather from deep within America’s own Bioweapons-Industrial-Complex, to wit, from the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) at Ft. Detrick in Maryland. But such troublesome and inconvenient truths are barely worth a mention by “respectable” media, e.g. the corporate stenographers who sold two imperialist military adventures to the American people.

Indeed, a credible case can be made that without the anthrax attacks, the fear levels gripping the country in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist events–and the subsequent clamp-down that followed, from the USA Patriot Act to the indefinite detention and torture of “terrorism” suspects, and from warrantless wiretapping to the demonization of dissent–may very well have been impossible.

It is difficult not to conclude that from the beginning of the affair, there was a clear intent on the part of the anthrax terrorist(s) to draw a straight line between 9/11 and the anthrax mailings. From there, it was but a short step to stitching-up a case for “regime change” in Iraq. The media’s role in this criminal enterprise was indispensable for what Salon’s Glenn Greenwald has called“the single greatest, unresolved media scandal of this decade.” As Greenwald points out,

During the last week of October, 2001, ABC News, led by Brian Ross, continuously trumpeted the claim as their top news story that government tests conducted on the anthrax–tests conducted at Ft. Detrick–revealed that the anthrax sent to [former Senator Tom] Daschle contained the chemical additive known as bentonite. ABC News, including Peter Jennings, repeatedly claimed that the presence of bentonite in the anthrax was compelling evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attacks, since–as ABC variously claimed–bentonite “is a trademark of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s biological weapons program” and “only one country, Iraq, has used bentonite to produce biological weapons.” (Glenn Greenwald, “Vital unresolved anthrax questions and ABC News,” Salon, August 1, 2008)

Despite ABC News’ claims that their information came from “four well-placed and separate sources,” they were fed information that was patently false; as Greenwald avers, “No tests ever found or even suggested the presence of bentonite. The claim was just concocted from the start. It just never happened.”

And as we will shortly explore below, the dubious “Dark Winter” and “Atlantic Storm” bioterror exercises designed by Dr. Tara O’Toole freely drew from the neocon’s sinister playbook, right down to the weaponized smallpox supplied to al Qaeda by Saddam.

Whether or not one buys the current permutation of the “lone nut” theory, this one alleges that Dr. Bruce Ivins, a vaccine specialist employed by USAMRIID, was the anthrax mailer; the fact is, when all is said and done the attacks, to use a much over-hyped phrase, were an inside job.

And like other “lone nuts” who have entered the parapolitical frame at their own peril, Ivins isn’t around to refute the charges.

The Alliance for Biosecurity: Insiders with a Mission and (Very) Deep Pockets

Before being pegged by the Obama administration to head DHS’s Science and Technology division where she will oversee the department’s billion dollar budget, with some 45 percent of it going towards chemical and bioweapons defense, O’Toole, as previously mentioned, was the CEO and Director of UPMC’s Center for Biosecurity, a satrapy which describes itself as “an independent organization dedicated to improving the country’s resilience to major biological threats.”

How “independent”? You make the call!

According to their web site The Alliance for Biosecurity is “a collaboration among the Center for Biosecurity and 13 pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies whose mission is to work in the public interest to improve prevention and treatment of severe infectious diseases–particularly those diseases that present global security challenges.”

Alliance partners include the usual suspects: Bavarian Nordic; Center for Biosecurity of UPMC; Cangene Corporation; DOR BioPharma, Inc.; DynPort Vaccine Company LLC, a CSC company; Elusys Therapeutics, Inc.; Emergent BioSolutions; Hematech, Inc., a subsidiary of Kyowa Kirin; Human Genome Sciences, Inc.; NanoViricides, Inc.; Pfizer Inc.; PharmAthene; Siga Technologies, Inc.; Unither Virology LLC, a subsidiary of United Therapeutics Corporation. Rounding out this rogues gallery are associate members, the spooky Battelle Medical Research and Evaluation Facility and the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute.

Among the chief activities of the Alliance is lobbying Congress for increased funding for the development of new drugs deemed “countermeasures” under the Project BioShield Act of 2004, previously described by Antifascist Calling as a particularly grotesque piece of Bushist legislative flotsam.

The Alliance avers that “the United States faces unprecedented risks to national security … by the clear and growing danger of bioterrorism or a destabilizing infectious disease pandemic,” and that “our nation’s vulnerability to biothreats is so severe” due to the fact that “most of the vaccines and medicines that will be needed to protect our citizens do not now exist.” Therefore, countermeasures needed to mitigate nebulous biothreats never spelled out once in the group’s literature “will likely require several years and several hundred million dollars each to successfully develop and produce.” (emphasis added)

An Alliance report, The State of Biosecurity in 2008 and Proposals for a Public/Private Pathway Forward, charts a course for “improving and accelerating” efforts to “develop medical countermeasures (MCMs) for the nation’s Strategic National Stockpile (SNS).”

Under the Project Bioshield Act of 2004, Congress authorized $5.6 billion over ten years “to purchase MCMs for the SNS.” Funds were allocated for the procurement of the anthrax vaccine as well as for “therapeutic antibodies for inhalational anthrax, a botulism heptavalent antitoxin, a smallpox vaccine, and several products for radiological and nuclear threats, obligating a total of about $1.9 billion of the $5.6 billion BioShield fund.”

In 2006 as I noted previously, Congress created the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). BARDA was authorized to spend some $1.07 billion over three years for MCMs, “only $201 million has been provided by Congress through FY 2008″ noted the Alliance, “approximately one-fifth of the authorized level.”

According to an “independent economic analysis” carried out by (who else!) the Alliance’s academic partner, the Center for Biosecurity, “it would require $3.4 billion in FY 2009 to support one year of advanced development.”

“Similarly” according to the organization, “the original appropriation of $5.6 billion for Project BioShield is equally insufficient to ensure that once MCMs are developed there will be funds available to procure them and maintain the stockpile.” Indeed, “this level of funding would need to be sustained for many years.” You can bet however, that Alliance lobbyists are busy as proverbial bees in pressuring Congress to fork over the dough!

The report state’s that Alliance goals necessarily entail instilling “a sense of urgency … with Congress” by hyping the “bioterror threat.” But there’s much more here than a simple cynical exercise at preparing the “public diplomacy” ground through academic and industry “message force multipliers” that will enable Congress to shower Big Pharma with a veritable tsunami of cash. A “risk-tolerant culture” should be promoted within BARDA, one that “understands the realities, risks, timelines, and costs of drug development.”

The “risks” to whom and for what purpose are not enumerated, but one can be certain that a “risk-tolerant culture” crafted by industry insiders will come at the expense of the health and safety of the American people, one that pushes potential legal liability should things head south onto the taxpaying public.

The stealth nature of Alliance recommendations are clearly spelled out when they aver that “stakeholders” should “focus more on the potential biothreats and the corresponding countermeasures, rather than the price tag” and that BARDA, ostensibly a public agency, should be packed with insiders “who have drug development and manufacturing experience.” This will lead to the development of “a culture that is focused on partnering with industry and academia.”

But the bottom line as always, is the corporatist bottom line for Alliance shareholders! How else can one interpret their statement that emerging “biothreats” are all the more dire today now that “interest of the public and private capital markets in biodefense has declined over the last 2-3 years.” What better way then, to beef-up those sagging capital markets than to install an industry-friendly individual at DHS with a documented track record of overplaying the “bioterror threat.”

Dark Winter

O’Toole was the principal designer of two “tabletop” bioterror preparedness drills, the 2001 Dark Winter exercise and the 2005 Atlantic Storm run-through; both were criticized by scientific experts as fabrications of an alleged threat of a smallpox attack mounted by al Qaeda.

Reviewing Milton Leitenberg’s 2005 report, Assessing the Biological Weapons and Bioterrorism Threat, published the U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute, protein chemist Dr. Eric Smith wrote the following:

Of note is Leitenberg’s dissection of the process of assessment as practiced through bioterrorism threat scenarios conducted by the US government and private think tanks. Exercises like Dark Winter, which modeled an “aerosolized” smallpox attack, Top Off 2 and 3, both on pneumonic plague strikes, and Atlantic Storm, an exercise that purported to show an al Qaida group manufacturing a dry powder smallpox weapon, were rigged. In the cases of Dark Winter and the Top Offs, transmission rates of disease were sexed up beyond historical averages so that “a disastrous outcome was assured” no matter any steps taken to contain outbreaks. Eight pages are reserved to pointedly condemn the Atlantic Storm exercise on a host of sins which can generally be described as a bundle of frank lies and misinformation coupled with a claimed terrorist facility for making smallpox into a weapon that even state run biological warfare operations did not possess. And once again, juiced transmission rates of disease were employed to grease theoretical calamity. The reader comes to recognize the deus ex machina–a concoction or intervention added to dictate an outcome, in these cases very bad ones–as a regular feature of the exercises. However, the results of the same assessments–the alleged lessons learned–have never been reported with much, if any, skepticism in the media. (Eric Smith, “A Vaccine for the Hype: Milton Leitenberg’s new ‘Assessing the Biological Weapons and Bioterrorism Threat,” Global Security, National Security Notes, March 31, 2006)

In criticizing “the fancy that such attacks are easy and one of the most catastrophic threats faced by the American people,” Smith denounces the alarmist scenarios of Dark Winter and Atlantic Storm’s designers–people like Dr. Tara O’Toole and the coterie of industry insiders and other well-paid “experts”–as guilty of perpetrating a massive “fraud … and a substantial one” on the American people.

While one of Atlantic Storm’s architects proclaimed “this is not science fiction” and that “the age of Bioterror is now…” Leitenberg and Smith denounce O’Toole’s spurious claims as “not the least bit plausible.”

Leitenberg wrote that “well before October-November 2001, the spectre of ‘bioterrorism’ benefitted from an extremely successful sales campaign.” Indeed, hyped-up scenarios such as Dark Winter and Atlantic Storm that place “weapons of mass destruction” in the hands of shadowy, intelligence-linked terror outfits like al Qaeda provided “inflated predictions that … were certainly not realistic. Much worse, in addition to being wrong, inflated predictions were counterproductive. They induced interest in BW in the wrong audiences.”

But the implausible nature of the scenarios deployed in national exercises hardly prohibited the Bioweapons-Industrial-Complex from concocting scarecrow-like straw men designed to sow terror amongst the American people while extracting regular infusions of cash from Congress.

Among the eight exercises analyzed by Leitenberg between 1998-2005, he found that each and every one were fraudulently designed and the threat of bioterrorism had been framed as a rationalization for “political action, the expenditure of public funds for bioterrorism prevention and response programs,” that could “not occur without it.” This is “not benign,” Leitenberg concludes.

A second consequence of sexed-up “bioterror” drills have even more ominous implications for the immediate future. Because of national security state perceptions that mitigation of catastrophic bioterrorism is of supreme importance for national survival–perceptions reinforced by academic, corporate and militarist peddlers of crisis–”the US biodefense research program appears to be drifting into violation” of the Biological Weapons Convention. This is a menacing development and has happened, I would argue precisely because the evaluation process which justifies research into biological weapons threat capabilities and scenarios, are repackaged to conceal the offensive thrust of this research as wholly defensive in nature, which it certainly is not.

How else would one explain ongoing research funded by the National Institutes of Health to study botulism toxin, “with the added qualification” Smith points out, that because the protein toxin is “unstable, therefore there will be collaboration with other researchers to stabilize it.” The NIH grant “means preparing a much more effective botulinum toxin than had been available before.”

Smith goes on to cite “another problematical breakout” offered by two scientists to study the “aerobiological” characteristics of the lethal Marburg and Ebola viruses. How this is “defensive” in nature, in keeping with research restrictions under the Biological Weapons Convention, is another instance of a backdoor move to kick-start illicit bioweapons development.

According to Smith, the study “looks to define how the organisms can be aerosolized, an instance of research into examining vulnerability in the complete absence of a verified threat.” But I would argue that showering taxpayers dollars into such dark and troubling research tributaries deploy hyped-up threats as cover for the development of illegal weapons.

When her nomination was announced in May, Rutgers University and homeland security critic Richard Ebright told Wired,

“This is a disastrous nomination. O’Toole supported every flawed decision and counterproductive policy on biodefense, biosafety, and biosecurity during the Bush Administration. O’Toole is as out of touch with reality, and as paranoiac, as former Vice President Cheney. It would be hard to think of a person less well suited for the position.”

“She was the single most extreme person, either in or out of government, advocating for a massive biodefense expansion and relaxation of provisions for safety and security,” he adds. “She makes Dr. Strangelove look sane.” (Noah Shachtman, “DHS’ New Geek Chief is a Bioterror ‘Disaster,’ Critics Charge,” Wired, May 6, 2009)

And Dr. Smith told Wired that exercises designed by O’Toole and her colleagues show her to be “the top academic/salesperson for the coming of apocalyptic bioterrorism which has never quite arrived.”

As noted above, “[She’s] most prominent for always lobbying for more money for biodefense, conducting tabletop exercises on bioterrorism for easily overawed public officials, exercises tweaked to be horrifying,” Smith told Wired.

But Smith goes even further and denounces O’Toole as an industry shill who “has never obviously appeared to examine what current terrorist capabilities have been… in favor of extrapolating how easy it would be to launch bioterror attacks if one had potentially unlimited resources and scientific know-how.” It’s a “superb appointment if you’re in the biodefense industry and interested in further opportunity and growth.”

“Alternatively” Smith avers, O’Toole’s appointment is “a disaster if threat assessment and prevention” has “some basis in reality.”

Not that any of this matters in Washington. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee led by “independent Democrat” and arch neocon Sen. Joseph Lieberman, voted to send her nomination to the full Senate July 29.

Never mind that the deadly weaponized pathogen employed in the attacks didn’t originate in some desolate Afghan cave or secret underground bunker controlled by Saddam.

And never mind that the principal cheerleaders for expanding state-funded programs are Pentagon bioweaponeers, private corporations and a shadowy nexus of biosecurity apparatchiks who stand to make a bundle under current and future federal initiatives.

Leading the charge for increased funding is the Alliance for Biosecurity, a collaborative venture between the Center for Biosecurity of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) and Big Pharma.

Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. His articles are published in many venues. He is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military “Civil Disturbance” Planning

Bioweapon manufacturing and trading is ‘biodefense’. Guess who does the bioterrorism that sells the ‘biodefense’.
Deleted article ARCHIVED HERE

 Soviet scientists reportedly used newly developed genetic engineering techniques to create vaccine-subverting and antibiotic-resistant strains of anthrax, plague, tularemia, and smallpox for attacks against military forces and civilian populations (Bozheyeva et al. 1999Alibek and Handelman 2000)

More info: BBC / GRUNGE / THE GUARDIAN
Sure
Is that US bill ‘military’ for the same reason the Defence Force is involved in this act?
SOURCE
TRUMP: WE’RE MOBILIZING THE MILITARY TO DELIVER THE CORONAVIRUS VACCINE END OF 2020
Dr Sharad S. Chauhan is a decorated Indian Police Service (IPS) officer awarded the Prime Minister’s baton and the Home Minister’s Revolver. He is also a Gold Medallist MBBS Doctor from Delhi University with a PhD in Bioterrorism. He also authored the book Biological Weapons.
SOURCE

The market is fragmented, and the degree of fragmentation will accelerate during the forecast period. Alexeter Technologies LLC, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc., Altimmune Inc., ANP Technologies Inc., Bavarian Nordic AS, Cleveland BioLabs Inc., Elusys Therapeutics Inc., Emergent BioSolutions Inc., General Dynamics Corp., and GlaxoSmithKline Plc are some of the major market participants. Although the rising prevalence of infectious disease and rapid increase in government funding in R&D will offer immense growth opportunities, to leverage the current opportunities, market vendors must strengthen their foothold in the fast-growing segments, while maintaining their positions in the slow-growing segments.

TECHNAVIO BIODEFENSSE MARKET REPORT

GERMAN & UK DEFENSE WORK ON MASSIVE “HUMAN AUGUMENTATION” PROJECT FOR CIVILIAN POPULATION

In an exclusive interview, Dr. Boyle touches upon GreatGameIndia‘s exclusive report Coronavirus Bioweapon – where we reported in detail how Chinese Biowarfare agents working at the Canadian lab in Winnipeg were involved in the smuggling of Coronavirus to Wuhan’s lab from where it is believed to have been leaked.

In this bombshell interview (full transcript below), Boyle talks about:

  • The bioweapons origins of the coronavirus
  • How the Deep State deployed anthrax on US soil to whip up publicity about biological weapons and increase funding for bioweapons labs
  • Why the WHO and CDC are both criminal organizations which are complicit in the covert development of biological weapons
  • The “death science” industry and why the US government has spent over $100 billion developing self-replicating weapons
  • Details about the Pirbright Institute and its ties to bioweapons, depopulation, vaccines and coronavirus patents. (It’s partially funded by Bill & Melinda Gates)
  • Why all BSL-3 and BSL-4 labs in the world should be banned and shut down.

Full transcript


Geopolitics and Empire: Geopolitics & Empire is joined by Dr. Francis Boyle, who is international law professor at the University of Illinois. We’ll be discussing the Wuhan coronavirus and biological warfare. He’s served as counsel to numerous governments such as Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Palestinian authority. He’s represented numerous national international bodies in the areas of human rights, war crimes and genocide, nuclear policy, and biowarfare. He’s written numerous books, one of my favorites being “Destroying Libya and World Order”, which I assigned as mandatory reading material for my own students when I taught at the Monterrey Institute of Technology.

But most important for this interview, he’s written a book called “Biowarfare and Terrorism”, and drafted the US domestic implementing legislation for the biological weapons convention, known as the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 that was approved unanimously by both houses of the US Congress and signed into law by President Bush. Thanks for joining us, Dr. Boyle.

Dr. Francis Boyle: Wow. Thank you so much for having me on and thanks for that kind introduction.

Geopolitics and Empire:  Now let’s get to what’s been on the news recently. This coronavirus in Wuhan. There have been some reports recently, there’s a really interesting website called GreatGameIndia that has been reporting on this. They’ve been talking about China, which they say has been complying with biological weapons convention in recent years.

But then there are some people in the US and experts that have been saying that in reality, China isn’t complying with the weapons convention. And I think neither, perhaps the US as well. I’m wondering if China is developing its own biosafety level four lab in Wuhan and elsewhere, as you know, as a type of deterrence. Is it a type of a biological arms race that we have going on?

You told me in an email that you suspect China was developing the coronavirus as a dual use of biowarfare weapons agent. Also, what do you make of reports that Chinese scientists have been stealing research and viruses, including the coronavirus from a Canadian bio lab this past December?

And as well, Chinese nationals have been charged with smuggling vials of biological research to China from the US with the aid of Charles Lieber who was the chair of Harvard’s chemistry department. And he also happens to be in 2011 a strategic scientist at Wuhan University. So, can you tell us what’s going on with this recent outbreak in Wuhan?

Dr. Francis Boyle: Well, that’s a lot of questions. I guess we can take them one at a time, but if you just do a very simple Google search on “Does China have a BSL-4 laboratory?”, Wuhan comes up right away. It’s at the top of the list. That’s all with the moment this type of thing happened I began to do that. So a BSL-4 is the most serious type. And basically BSL-4 labs, we have many of them here in the United States, are used to develop offensive biological warfare weapons with DNA genetic engineering.

So it does seem to me that the Wuhan BSL-4 is the source of the coronavirus. My guess is that they were researching SARS, and they weaponize it further by giving it a gain of function properties, which means it could be more lethal.

Indeed, the latest report now is it’s a 15% fatality rate, which is more than SARS at 83% infection rate. A typical gain of function travels in the air so it could reach out maybe six feet or more from someone emitting a sneeze or a cough. Likewise, this is a specially designated WHO research lab. The WHO was in on it and they knew full well what was going on there.

Yes. It’s also been reported that Chinese scientists stole coronavirus materials from the Canadian lab at Winnipeg. Winnipeg is Canada’s formal center for research, developing, testing, biological warfare weapons. It’s along the lines of Fort Detrick here in the United States of America. I have three degrees from Harvard. It would not surprise me if something was being stolen out of Harvard to turn over to China. I read that report. I don’t know what was in those vials one way or the other.

But the bottom line is I drafted the US domestic implementing legislation for the Biological Weapons Convention that was approved unanimously by both Houses in the United States Congress signed into law by President Bush Sr. that it appears the coronavirus that we’re dealing with here is an offensive biological warfare weapon that leaped out of Wuhan BSL-4. I’m not saying it was done deliberately. But there had been previous reports of problems with that lab and things leaking out of it. I’m afraid that is what we are dealing with today.

Geopolitics and Empire: We’ll be talking about the Wuhan and the coronavirus and China, but can you give us kind of like a bigger context. I know you’ve, previously, in interviews said that since 9/11, you think that the US has spent $100 billion on biological warfare research. We know the Soviet Union, if I’m not mistaken, developed anthrax as a bioweapon. And you’ve also mentioned that UK, France, Israel and China are all involved in biological warfare weapons research.

And something interesting, I believe one or two years ago a Bulgarian journalist and the Russian government shared their concern of the discovery of a US bioweapons lab in the country of Georgia. You’ve commented how in Africa, US has set up bioweapons labs to work on Ebola, which I think is illegal under international law. But they were allowed somehow to put those in Africa. Can you give us like a bigger picture? What’s going on with these different countries and what’s the purpose of this research?

Dr. Francis Boyle: All these BSL-4 labs are by United States, Europe, Russia, China, Israel are all there to research, develop, test biological warfare agents. There’s really no legitimate scientific reason to have BSL-4 labs. That figure I gave $100 billion, that was about 2015 I believe. I had crunched the numbers and came up with that figure the United States since 9/11.

To give you an idea that’s as much in constant dollars as the US spent to develop the Manhattan Project and the atom bomb. So it’s clearly all weapons related. We have well over 13,000 alleged life science scientists involved in research developed testing biological weapons here in the United States. Actually this goes back it even precedes 9/11 2001.

I have another book, The Future of International Law and American Foreign Policy, tracing that all the way back to the Reagan administration under the influence of the neocons and they got very heavily involved in research development testing of biological weapons with DNA genetic engineers. It was because of that I issued my plea in 1985 in a Congressional briefing sponsored by the Council for Responsible Genetics, I’m a lawyer for them. They’re headquartered in Cambridge, Mass. All the MIT, Harvard people are involved in that, the principal ones. And then they asked me to draft the implementing legislation.

The implementing legislation that I drafted was originally designed to stop this type of work. “Death science work”, I call it, “by the United States government”. After 9/11, 2001, it just completely accelerated. My current figure, that last figure a 100 billion. I haven’t had a chance to re-crunch the numbers because I just started classes. But you have to add in about another 5 billion per year.

Basically, this is offensive biological weapons raised by the United States government and with its assistance in Canada and Britain. And so other States, the world have responded accordingly including Russia and China. They were going to set up a whole series of BSL-4 facilities as well. And you know Wuhan was the first. It backfired on them.

Geopolitics and Empire: Would you basically consider what happened and Wuhan and just boil it down to ineptitude or incompetence on the Chinese part?

Dr. Francis Boyle: Well, it’s criminality. It does appear they stole something there from Winnipeg. This activity that they engaged in clearly violates the Biological Weapons Convention. Research development of biological weapons these days is an international crime, the use of it would be. That was criminal.

I’m not saying they deliberately inflicted this on their own people, but it leaked out of there and all these BSL-4 facilities leak. Everyone knows that who studies this. So this was a catastrophe waiting to happen. Unfortunately, it happened. The Chinese government under Xi and his comrades there have been covering this up from the get-go. The first reported case was December 1, so they’d been sitting on this until they couldn’t anymore. And everything they’re telling you is a lie. It’s propaganda.

The WHO still refuses to declare a global health emergency. It said Tedros was over there shaking hands with Xi and smiling and yanking it up. The WHO was in on it. They’ve approved many of these BSL-4 labs., they know exactly what’s going on and that is a WHO research-approved laboratory. They know what’s going on too. You can’t really believe anything the WHO is telling you about this, either they’re up to their eyeballs in it, in my opinion.

Geopolitics and Empire: I’d probably agree with you that this outbreak in Wuhan was an accidental leak from the laboratory. But just your thoughts, it’s happening at quite an opportune time because namely we’re smack in the middle of a US-China new Cold War, which is currently characterized by economic warfare such as the trade war among other forms of hybrid and technological warfare. And it seems the Wuhan outbreak will likely hit the Chinese economy hard. The Chinese are flat out dismissing any idea that the US is involved in. Like I said, it’s probably they made the mistakes in the Wuhan lab. What are your thoughts of any seemingly, this would benefit the US…

Dr. Francis Boyle: When the outbreak occurred, of course I considered that alternative too. When you have an outbreak, you’re never quite sure who or what is behind it. It certainly isn’t bats, that’s ridiculous. They made the same argument on Ebola in West Africa. I demolished that online. You can check it out. So I kept competing theories about this.

But right now, when you originally contacted me, I said I wasn’t prepared to comment because I was weighing the evidence. I’m a law professor and a lawyer,  I try to do the best I can to weigh the evidence. But right now, the Wuhan BSL-4 in my opinion is the most likely source, apply Occam’s razor, the simplest explanation. I’m not ruling out some type of sabotage. But right now, I believe that is the source here.

Geopolitics and Empire: And you mentioned WHO. I’d like to just get your thoughts on the WHO and the Big Pharma. There’s also some analysts who are downplaying this news media hype of the coronavirus. You’ve just said that it seems to be lethal, but if we go back a decade to the 2009 swine flu, which I believe didn’t have too many casualties, but I think profited greatly the pharmaceutical companies. If I recall that back in 2009, many countries purchased great stocks of the vaccines and they ended up not using anywhere from 50 to 80% of the vaccines that they purchased.

You’ve previously stated in an interview that the World Health Organization is a front for Big Pharma if I’m not mistaken. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. also agrees and he says, you know, 50% of WHO funding comes from pharmaceutical companies. And that the CDC itself is also severely compromised. What are your thoughts on the WHO? The CDC?

Dr. Francis Boyle: Can’t trust anything the WHO says because they’re all bought and paid for by Big Pharma and when they work in cahoots with the CDC, which is the United States government, they work in cahoots with Fort Detrick, so you can’t trust any of it.

However, the swine flu and yes, I agree pharma made a lot of money, but that swine flu which I looked at it, it did seem to me to be a genetically modified biological warfare weapon. It was a chimera of three different types of genetic strains that someone put it together in a cocktail. Fortunately, it was not as lethal as all of us fear. So fine. But as I said, this figure I just gave to you was Saturday from Lancet, which is a medical publication, saying it’s a 15% fatality rate and an 83% infection rate. So it’s quite serious, I think, far more serious than the swine flu.

As for big pharma, sure they’re all trying to profit off this today as we speak. There was a big article yesterday in the Wall Street Journal, all big pharma trying to peddle whatever they can over there in China even if it’s worthless and won’t help. We do know, if you read the mainstream news media they say there isn’t a vaccine.

Well, there is, it’s by the Pirbright Institute in Britain that’s tied into their biological warfare program over there. They were behind the hoof and mouth disease outbreak over there that wiped out their cattle herd and it leaked out of there. So it’s clear they’re working on a hoof and mouth biological warfare weapon, but the vaccine is there. I have the patent for it here, I haven’t had a chance to read the patent it’s about 25 pages long and my classes just resume. So eventually, I get some free time and I’ll read the patent.

You can’t patent a vaccine with the United States patent office unless the science is there. So there is a vaccine. Everyone’s lying about that, no one’s pointing this out – there’s a vaccine but instead big pharma wants to make money and the researchers say, well, it’ll take three months and we’re racing forward, you know. Everyone’s gonna make a buck off of this, that’s for sure. But there is a vaccine, I have the patent here. It’s been patented by the United States government.

So obviously, I don’t know exactly how workable it is, but it’s a vaccine. I don’t know why it isn’t out there now? Why isn’t someone saying there is a vaccine? Perhaps political leaders have already been vaccinated for all I know, I really don’t know.  But there is a vaccine, Pirbright is well known there in Britain and it’s tied into Fort Detrick and CDC is tied into Fort Detrick too. So they all know there’s a patented vaccine.

Geopolitics and Empire:  And just to get your comment on, I mean, something to related to this, which was my next question. So I think, I’m not sure if it’s that same Institute that you just mentioned that has the patent.  I read somewhere that the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation maybe funds or has some connection to that Institute that has the patent.

Dr. Francis Boyle:  I think they do. The Bill & Melinda Gates information, they fund this type of DNA genetically engineered biological warfare work. That’s correct. So you can’t trust anything they’re telling you that somehow they’re out there trying to make the world a better place.  I mean, we have Bill Gates publicly admitting that the world be a better place if there were a lot less people. So the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, they are wolves in sheep’s clothing and they are funding this type of stuff. Sure.

Geopolitics and Empire: And just your comment, there was also the report that I guess it was a consortium of companies which included the Gates foundation that back in just two or three months ago in October of 2019 they held a pandemic exercise simulating an outbreak. I mean, what are the chances specifically of a coronavirus and it was called events 201. People can find this online online and they gave a list of seven recommendations for governments and international organizations to take. I also find that kind of interesting how they had this simulation.

Dr. Francis Boyle:  That’s correct. It raises that question,  the origins of what happened here.  But right now, I’m just looking at the evidence I have and applying Occam’s razor and we know that Wuhan BSL-4 was research developing, testing, SARS as a biological warfare agent. So it could have been, they gave it this DNA genetic engineering enhanced properties gain of function which we do here in the West, in the United States all the time. We have  all sorts of research that is clearly a bio warfare research that has been  approved by the National Institutes of Health, it’s a joke. They know full well they are proving all kinds of biological warfare research and it gets funded by the United States government.

Geopolitics and Empire:  And you’ve also mentioned in the email to me that what happened in the biosafety lab level 4 in Wuhan calls into question the safety of all of these level 3and 4four labs around the world.

Dr. Francis Boyle:  They’re complete unsafe. BSL-3 and BSL-4 lab are only designed for research development testing of offense of biological warfare agents.  In my opinion, they serve no legitimate purpose at all. They should all be shut down, every one of them. Even assuming, they’re simply too dangerous. If you want, there’s an excellent  documentary called Anthrax Wars by Nadler and Coen and I’m in there.  Repeatedly at the end, I say with respect to these labs, three and four, this is a catastrophe waiting to happen. Well, I’m afraid the catastrophe is now happened. So there it is.

Geopolitics and Empire:  Yeah, I was just watching that documentary before we connected and I recommend the listeners go check that out. Do you see, in the future, any countries,  if we come to a conflict between US, EU, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, China, Russia,  I mean you name it. Do you see any of these countries actually utilizing these biological weapons?  I mean, it’s illegal under international law but we know like in the past that international law isn’t followed. Do you think that there’s a real danger of this escalating?

Dr. Francis Boyle: For sure. That’s the only reason they develop these biological weapons to eventually be used, sure.  I mean, it’s like the Manhattan project, we put all that money into developing an atom bomb and even though it was not needed to end world war II they still knew Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So, yes,  I think that’s correct.  And also these can be used covertly. Anytime you see an unexplained  sudden outbreak of a disease like this anywhere in the world, both for human beings and or animals, I always suspect the bio warfare agent is at work.  I monitor the situation like I did at Wuhan until I can reach a conclusion. Yes, they can be used as the eyes for the United States government, today they are fully prepared, armed, equipped, supplied to wage a biological warfare with anthrax.

These other more exotic things I don’t know, but they have the weapons, there are stockpiles. We have to understand if you read Seymour Martin Hersh’s book published about 1968, he won the Pulitzer prize, he had the whole offensive US biological warfare industry in there back before it was illegal and criminal. Basically after 9/11, 2001, that entire industry – offensive biological warfare industry has been reconstituted here in the United States with all these BSL-4 BSL-3 labs, well over 13,000, alleged scientists sort of like Dr. Mengele working on these things. Other countries have responded in kind like Russia, like China, France is involved, Britain’s involved. Sure.

Geopolitics and Empire: I just wanted to get your thoughts on, in the last few years there was the Russian double agent spy Sergei Skripal who had been allegedly poisoned with Novichok out in Britain and  I thought it was funny. It just so happened where he was allegedly poisoned, he was right in Porton down the British bio weapons lab, I guess the world’s first bio weapons lab that was created in 1916. I mean,  I don’t know if you have thoughts on that whole incident.

Dr. Francis Boyle: Yeah, I was right down the street from Porton Down, so applying Occam’s razor who you think might’ve been behind this and it was not a nerve agent. A nerve agent would have killed him immediately. This is Novichok. It was something else like DX or something like that. So fine. But, I would just say that I don’t think that was a coincidence, but, you know, there you go. There’s the, obviously there’s a lot of speculation on that.

Geopolitics and Empire: Something else that’s kind of interesting. You’ve written in bio warfare and terrorism in your book and there’s also Graeme Macqueen, I think your colleague who wrote the anthrax deception the case for domestic conspiracy…

Dr. Francis Boyle:  Everything you said in there. That’s correct.

Geopolitics and Empire:  I’m wondering also if this new war for biotechnological dominance, whatever you want to call it, if it can also be used kind of as a pretext for the centralization of political power and the initiation of wars like I guess it did in the 2003 Iraq war. I mean, is this another danger that we get these events like now this coronavirus and then governments will call for a centralization of greater power and taking away some of our civil liberties?

Dr. Francis Boyle:  Sure. If you look at the October, 2001 anthrax attacks here in the United States, that was clearly by elements of the United States government that was behind that. That was a super weapons grade anthrax with a trillion spores per gram and it floated in the air solely a very sophisticated biological weapons lab like Fort Detrick could produce that. And they use that anthrax attack including on Congress to brand through the USA Patriot act which basically turned the United States to a police state which is what we have now. You have to understand the Pentagon, Fort Dietrich made the dugway proving ground still has a stockpile of that super weapons grade anthrax that we saw in October of 2001 that they can use the next time they want to do something like that to further develop the American police thing. Right.

Geopolitics and Empire:  Is there anything else you feel important to mention regarding this Wuhan Coronavirus outbreak or biological warfare or any other thoughts you’d like to leave us with?

Dr. Francis Boyle:  Well, you just can’t believe anything the Chinese government, the WHO,  the CDC are telling. They’re all lies because they know what’s going on here  and so you’re going to have to figure it out as fast as you can. But in my opinion, as of this time and I’m fully prepared to consider further evidence on this, it does seem to me that this was  a DNA genetically engineered biological warfare agent leaking out of Wuhan that has gain-of-function properties which can make it more lethal.  I think they are probably doing something with SARS to make it a lot more lethal and more infectious. And so for that reason,  you have to take extreme precautions and they’re now finally admitted anyone within six feet can be infected, whereas with SARS that was about two feet. Well, that’s gaining a function right there and that should be a tip off.

So, I guess you’re gonna have to protect yourself.  Laurie Garrett had a pretty good essay in a foreign policy yesterday and she was over there covering the SARS and she has very good advice in there except that she took the SARS figure out two to three feet and said  well, you gotta stay to two to three. I think you’ve got to stay at least six feet away because this is gained function. It can flow through the air and infect and it can get you in the eyes. Any orifice, the mouth, maybe the ears, we’re not sure at this point.

Geopolitics and Empire: I’m here on the border of China in Kazakhstan and I was just reading yesterday – today that they’re no longer allowing Chinese citizens into Kazakhstan without a medical paper, a medical check to get their visas to enter Kazakhstan

Dr. Francis Boyle:  Those medical checks are worthless because this is just public relations by all the governments involved because there is a 14 day incubation period where people can still be infected. So someone could walk right through a medical inspection and passing a gate into your country and then they come down with the coronavirus.  So that’s all public relations in my opinion by governments and they know it and they’re just sending people out there with temperatures and things like that. It’s not like SARS, this is more dangerous than SARS.  As I said, I think that Wuhan lab, we know they had SARS in there that they were dealing with and I think they enhanced it at and  I’m afraid that’s what we’re dealing with. But you know, I’m keeping an open mind as to what other sources that might have and I wasn’t prepared to say anything until that Wuhan lab is right there and it’s dealing with coronavirus. So again, apply Occam’s razor. It seems to me that’s the simplest explanation here.

Geopolitics and Empire: I guess my, one of my final question would be in the months ahead, apart of what you say staying six feet away from people.  I’ve read taking high doses of vitamin C and other things like this can help you. But, if they come out as the situation develops and if it gets worse and they come out with a coronavirus vaccine,  should people take it or not? What are your thoughts?

Dr. Francis Boyle:  Well, what I would say is this. Right now, if you look at the article at the Wall Street Journal, big pharma is trying to sell all sorts of – they’re taking all their drugs off the shelf and say well let’s see if it works. Which is preposterous. Okay. The scientists are saying, well, we can get you a vaccine maybe two to three months but they’re not tested.  So what we do know, however, is that Pirbright vaccine has been patented. So all I can assume is that that might work. But I don’t think I’d be taking any of these other vaccines. No, you have no idea what’s in there. You’ll be the Guinea pig for big pharma and everyone figures they’re gonna make a lot of money here. So I’ll keep my eye open on this  and how it develop but I wouldn’t trust anything they’re trying to sell right now. They’re just pulling these things off the shelf.

If they do come up with something in two to three months, even that’s not going to be tested in accordance with normal scientific protocol. So it’s going to be a crap shoot. If it’s going to help you, indeed it might not help you because they’ll be using for this vaccines (these DNA genetic engineered vaccines) they’ll be using live coronavirus probably and sticking it in there and giving you some live coronavirus on the theory you’ll develop an immunityThat’s the way a lot of these vaccines worked out, that’s what happened with the Ebola vaccine that created the Ebola pandemic there in West Africa. They were testing out a vaccine on poor black Africans, as usual, and  this vaccine had live Ebola in it so it gave them Ebola. So again, I’d be very careful even if they do come up with these vaccines two to three months from now, very careful. Why would you want to inject the live coronavirus in you?

Geopolitics and Empire: All right. I don’t believe you have a strong online presence. How can people best follow your work? I suppose to search for interviews as well as get your books.

Dr. Francis Boyle: Well, basically I’m blackballed and blacklisted off all the mainstream news media here on purpose. As far as I can figure out, the US government gave an order that I should not be interviewed by anyone, so I’m not.  I guess you could just put my name in there under Google, Google alert, and some interviews might come up. What happened was, right after the anthrax attacks of 9/11 2001, I was giving a lecture out at Harvard m Alma Mater.  I was running a panel on biological warfare for the council for responsible genetics and it was at Harvard Divinity School and as I was going in, there was a Fox camera crew there from Boston and I said it looks to me like this has come out of the US government lab. We know they do research and testing on anthrax. Then I said the same thing there at Harvard then I gave an interview to a radio station in Washington, D C then I gave an interview on that to the BBC. So the whole world saw it and at that point I was completely cut off and I’ve been cut off  ever since. So you  probably not going to hear too many  interviews from me here. As for my book. Biowarfare & Terrorism, you can just get it at amazon.com. That picks up the story pretty much from 9/11 2001 and until it went to press and then there are interviews I’d given to an investigative reporter, Sherwood Ross and a big one I just sent you and you might want to put that on your web page. That was pretty comprehensive.

Geopolitics and Empire: Yeah,  I read that as well and I’ll include the link in the description of this interview so people can go check that out. You’re not the only academic I know and have heard of others that similar things have happened and that’s just I guess the price we pay for telling the truth. Again, for listeners, if people wanted to have a broader context and deeper understanding of what’s happening today especially with biological warfare as well as us foreign policy and international affairs, I urge you to get Dr. Francis Boyle’s books and listen to his interviews as well as his colleagues book. Graeme Macqueen, The Anthrax Deception, The Case For Domestic Conspiracy. Thank you for being with us, Dr. Boyle.

Dr. Francis Boyle: Well, thank you and again, please understand these are my current opinions.  I could change my opinion here based on more evidence. So  I’m just looking at the evidence out there as I see it and you have to understand there is so much disinformation, lies and propaganda that it’s kind of very difficult to distinguish truth from fact.  I’m doing the best job I can here.

— end interview —


Originally published (greatgameindia.com)


A message from a former US Army psyops officer
VINCE JAMES DOES A GREAT JOB EXPLORING THE COMPLEX FROM THE CIA ANGLE AND ARRIVING TO THE SAME BIG PICTRE AND ALL THE GOOD CONCLUSIONS, MUST WATCH ENTIRELY!

BONUS:

I’ve just brought to light insider information that confirms a very similar model has been pursued in USSR / Russia. I wonder if the two are eventually merging at the top, like Coca-Cola and Pepsi, seeing that Putin is a former Klaus Schwab disciple and a Davos regular.

Bottom line…

‘It’s warfare, not science’ – Dr. Nancy T. Banks – the legendary 2012 interview on vaccines & pharma

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

ORDER

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

THERE’S NO BETTER PREVENTION THAN SHARING THE KNOWLEDGE FASTER THAN THEY SHARE THEIR PROPAGANDA!

The original title of this article was URGENT! DEBUNKING THE NEXT ENGINEERED PANDEMIC: NIPAH VIRUS. I expanded the scope because in the meantime I learned they are ramping up propaganda for all three. These viruses have more things in common, as you will find out below.

You should actually begin with this earlier report:

‘OBSCENE’ PANDEMIC BONDS ISSUED IN 2017 BY WORLD BANK FOR CORONAVIRUSES, MARBURG, EBOLA. DESIGNED TO FAIL

UPDATE 7, JAN 10 2022: Dr. Robert Malone Warns Of ‘Ebola-Like Hemorrhagic Fever’ Super Virus In China Caused By Mutations Due To Mass Vaccination

UPDATE 6: NOVEMBER 9, 2021:

To further develop the ChAd3 Ebola and Marburg vaccines, Sabin has entered into a Research Collaboration Agreement with the Vaccine Research Center at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
The Sabin Vaccine Institute, a non-profit organization founded in 1993, is a leading advocate for expanding vaccine access and uptake globally, advancing vaccine research and development, and amplifying vaccine knowledge and innovation. Sabin received more than $110 million for vaccine R&D programs from public and philanthropic funding sources, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, European Commission, Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Global Health Innovative Technology Fund and the Michelson Medical Research Foundation.

SABIN VACCINE INSTITUTE, August 6, 2019

Washington DC, Oct. 21, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The Sabin Vaccine Institute (Sabin) announced that the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, has exercised the third contract option, valued at $34.5 million, under the 2019 contract to advance the development of vaccines against Ebola Sudan and Marburg viruses through Phase 2 clinical trials.  

In September 2019, BARDA awarded Sabin a development contract, valued up to $128 million, and has already provided funding of $40.5 million. This third contract option will enable continued nonclinical efficacy and safety studies, Phase 2 clinical trials in Africa, and vaccine manufacturing processes to ensure quality and safety.

In August, a case of Marburg disease was confirmed in the West African country of Guinea where the Ministry of Health officially declared an outbreak of Marburg.1 This recent case, as well as Marburg’s history of outbreaks and their potential for future devastating outbreaks, demonstrates that preventative measures are overdue to protect civilian populations, military personnel, first responders, health care workers and laboratory workers, both in the United States and abroad, against these emerging infectious diseases.

Ebola Sudan and Marburg viruses are closely related to Ebola Zaire virus, which has caused more than 2,200 deaths since 2018, leading the World Health Organization (WHO) to declare it a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. Like Ebola Zaire, Ebola Sudan and Marburg are among the world’s deadliest viruses, causing hemorrhagic fever with subsequent death in an average of 50 percent of cases.2,3

“Even as the world struggles with the COVID-19 pandemic, disease caused by Ebola Sudan and Marburg viruses continue to be a serious threat, as we have seen with the recent outbreak of Marburg in Guinea. We are grateful for BARDA’s continued support of Sabin’s efforts to advance vaccines against these deadly viruses,” said Sabin Chief Executive Officer Amy Finan. “We also thank our partners at the Vaccine Research Center of the NIH National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for their continued collaboration, and GSK for their earlier work on the candidates.” 

The two candidate vaccines, based on GSK’s proprietary ChAd3 platform, were exclusively licensed to the Sabin Vaccine Institute from GSK in 2019.

This project has been funded in whole or in part with federal funds from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response; Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, under contract number 75A50119C00055.

Learn more about Sabin’s Ebola Sudan and Marburg program.

This above is the official Sabin Inst. press release, this below isn’t:

November 4, 2021 – The U.S. CDC published a Level Three Travel Advisory for the recent Ebola outbreak in the Beni Health Zone of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

November 3, 2021 – The U.S. CDC vaccine advisory committee reviewed previous recommendation preexposure vaccination with Ervebo for adults aged ≥18 years in the U.S. population who are at highest risk for potential occupational exposure to Ebola virus species Zaire ebolavirus because they are: responding to an outbreak of Ebola Virus Disease (EVD), or work as health care personnel at federally designated Ebola treatment centers in the U.S., or work as laboratorians or other staff at biosafety level 4 facilities in the U.S.

November 2, 2021 – The WHO reported additional cases and deaths confirmed in the Ebola virus disease outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo with two new health areas affected. A total of 394 people (67 primary care providers including nine high-risk contacts, nine contacts of contacts, and 49 probable contacts) have been vaccinated including 182 contacts of contacts, 125 probable contacts, and 87 high-risk contacts.

October 29, 2021 – A Research Article – Safety and immunogenicity of 2-dose heterologous Ad26.ZEBOV, MVA-BN-Filo Ebola vaccination in healthy and HIV-infected adults: A randomized, placebo-controlled Phase II clinical trial in Africa – was published by the journal PLOS Medicine. Conclusion – The Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo combo vaccination were well tolerated and immunogenic in healthy and HIV-infected African adults. Increasing the interval between vaccinations from 28 to 56 days improved the magnitude of humoral immune responses. Antibody levels persisted to at least 1 year, and an Ad26.ZEBOV booster vaccination demonstrated the presence of vaccination-induced immune memory. These data supported the approval by the European Union for prophylaxis against EBOV disease in adults and children ≥1 year of age.

October 27, 2021 – IAVI announced an award of up to US$126 million from the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority to develop two recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus (rVSV)-vectored filovirus vaccine candidates. This award supports preclinical activities and includes options for clinical development up to and inclusive of a Phase II clinical trial of IAVI’s rVSV Sudan ebolavirus vaccine candidate (rVSVΔG-SUDV-GP). Optional work that would continue the development of IAVI’s Marburg virus vaccine candidate (rVSVΔG-MARV-GP) that is currently supported by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency of the U.S. Department of Defense could be funded at a later date.

“Vectored” means, most likely, mRNA or some other genetic / nanotech targeting technology.

October 20, 2021 – The WHO African Region reported 5 Ebola cases, and over 27,000 travelers have been screened in the DRC. Furthermore, over 116 people have been vaccinated.

October 17, 2021 – Africa News reported Ebola vaccinations started in Beni, DRC, after at least two people died due to the virus in October 2021. The WHO African Region Tweeted DRC Situation Report (17/10/21) 5 confirmed cases, three deaths, 369 contacts identified, and 308 contacts monitored.

October 13, 2021 – Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) health officials confirmed an Ebola vaccination campaign had launched in the North Kivu province where one confirmed Ebola case, plus three related suspected deaths, were recently reported. About 1,000 doses of the rVSV-ZEBOV Ebola vaccine and other medical supplies were delivered from the capital Kinshasa to Goma city in North Kivu. The DRC has more than 12,000 vaccine doses in Kinshasa that can be deployed if necessary.

October 10, 2021 – The WHO reported additional Ebola cases related to the recent DRC case of a 3-year-old boy. A cluster of three deaths (two children and their father) who were neighbors of the case. These three patients died on 14, 19, and 29 September 2021 after developing symptoms consistent with Ebola. However, none were tested for the virus. As of October 9th, a total of 148 contacts have been identified and are under follow-up by the local response team.

October 8, 2021 – A case of Ebola has been confirmed in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, five months after the end of the most recent Ebola outbreak there. The child died on October 6th. It was not immediately known if the Ebola case was related to the 2018-20 outbreak that killed more than 2,200 people in eastern Congo or the flare-up that killed six people in 2021.

September 13, 2021 – A new study based in Sierra Leone concluded the Ebola vaccine regimen from Janssen – J&J. It was found well tolerated with no safety concerns in children aged 1–17 years and induced robust humoral immune responses, suggesting the suitability of this regimen for Ebola virus disease prevention in children.

August 31, 2021 – The government of Cote d’Ivoire has informed the WHO that a second laboratory has tested samples from a patient suspected of having Ebola and has found no evidence of the virus. Around a dozen WHO experts were mobilized to support the country’s efforts, and 5,000 Ebola vaccine doses which WHO had helped Guinea procure were sent from Guinea to Cote d’Ivoire.

August 23, 2021 – The WHO African region reported Ebola booster dose vaccinations in Sierra Leone following administration of the prime dose of the Johnson & Johnson Ebola vaccine in May 2021. Frontline health workers, practitioners of traditional medicines or traditional healers, and commercial motorbike riders who received the first dose are now given their second jab to maximize their protection against the disease. 

August 17, 2021 – The WHO confirmed Cote d’Ivoire deployed 2,000 vaccine doses from Merck and around 3,000 vaccine doses manufactured by Johnson & Johnson – Janssen.

August 14, 2021 – The WHO Africa reported the Ministry of Health of Cote d’Ivoire today confirmed the country’s first case of Ebola since 1994. This came after the Institut Pasteur in Cote d’Ivoire confirmed the Ebola Virus Disease in samples collected from a patient hospitalized in Abidjan’s commercial capital after arriving from Guinea.

August 9, 2021 – The WHO confirmed ‘Marburg virus disease (MVD) is a highly virulent, epidemic-prone disease associated with high case fatality rates (CFR 24-90%). In the early course of the disease, the clinical diagnosis of MVD is difficult to distinguish from other tropical febrile illnesses because of the similarities in the clinical symptoms. Differential diagnoses to be excluded include Ebola virus disease, as well as malaria, typhoid fever, leptospirosis, rickettsial infection, and plague.’

June 15, 2021 – The Southwest National Primate Research Center at Texas Biomedical Research Institute (Texas Biomed) has been awarded more than $37 million from the U.S. National Institutes of Health to continue operations into 2026. The P51 grant, given by the NIH Office of Research Infrastructure Programs, provides essential funding to house and care for nearly 2,500 non-human primates that are part of life-science research programs at Texas Biomed and partners around the globe.

June 4, 2021 – Johnson & Johnson welcomed a new recommendation by the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization for the WHO that supports the use of the Johnson & Johnson Ebola vaccine regimen both during outbreaks for individuals at some risk of Ebola exposure and preventively, in the absence of an outbreak, for national and international first responders in neighboring areas or countries where an outbreak might spread.

June 4, 2021 – J&J confirmed about 235,000 people had received at least the first dose of the Janssen two-dose Ebola vaccine regimen.

April 10, 2021 – The government of Sierra Leone and the WHO announced Johnson & Johnson had donated about 4,500 Zabdeno and Mvabea Ebola vaccines to Sierra Leone to help prevent any Ebola outbreak. The last Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone was in 2016.

March 25, 2021 – Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine revealed health officials are monitoring 44 people who have returned from areas of Africa with active outbreaks of Ebola.

March 25, 2021 – Oregon public health officials announced they are monitoring four people who recently visited the West African countries of Guinea and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Regions in each of these countries are currently experiencing outbreaks of Ebola virus disease. The Oregon Health Authority and local public health departments have been in contact with these individuals, considered “persons under monitoring” since they arrived in the state earlier in March 2021.

March 23, 2021 – The WHO African Region Tweeted Guinea Ebola outbreak Situation Report (22/03/21) 18 cases, nine deaths, 78 contacts, 82% monitored. And 3,905 people have been vaccinated.

March 13, 2021 – After a request from the Guinean authorities, Russia is considering supplying a domestic vaccine against the Ebola virus to the African country, reported TASS.

May 13, 2020 – BARDA Provides the Sabin Vaccine Institute with an Additional $20 Million for Further Development of Ebola Sudan and Marburg Vaccines

The Sabin Vaccine Institute (Sabin) and its partner ReiThera Srl today announced that the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, has exercised the first two options, valued at $20 million, under the 2019 contract to advance the development of vaccines against Ebola Sudan and Marburg viruses through Phase 2 clinical trials. In September 2019, BARDA awarded Sabin a development contract, valued at $128 million, and provided the initial funding award of $20.5 million. This second $20 million award will enable the manufacture and release of clinical vaccine material developed by ReiThera, a specialist in the development and cGMP manufacture of adenoviral vector vaccines. The funding will also support non-clinical studies to evaluate efficacy and immune response.

UPDATE 5: NOVEMBER 7, 2021: MARBURG GOES VIRAL ON INTERNET ONLY, YET. I’m happy awareness increases, it’s crucial. I’ve addressed this virus below, but not many had the patience to go through all text, and I kind of understand them, but there’s no easier way than reading.
Here’s another angle to keep in sight when computing all this info:

UPDATE 4: OCTOBER 19 2021: THE FEARPORN CAMPAIGN TAKES SPEED AS IF THEY ARE TO RELEASE THIS SOON. IF YOU FALL FOR THEIR BRAINWASH, THEY HAVE NO REASON TO STOP.

And they’re still not running out of stupid ideas we can see through:

UPDATE 3: OCTOBER 17 2021:

TOLD YA!

Guess who has a vaccine in works for it

Oh, look who pushes the fear! Exactly who I would’ve expected:

Later update: In the meantime I’ve learned that Marburg (an Ebola relative) and Xinjiang fever, a Chinese relative of the Yellow Fever virus, are also top candidates, and that goes in line with the Fauci e-mails I highlighted below. I will be back with more details shortly. Almost certainly it will be some form of hemorrhagic fever, most likely to cover for injections side-effects on the blood stream.

UPDATE 2:

One month later, they’re starting to catch up and it’s still not too late to un-play it if this goes BOOM NOW!



By the end of last century, The Military has abandoned you and has joined Pharmafia and the super-rich elites in a plan to govern you with bioweapons and psy-ops. As I’ve said many times, Big Pharma and Big Tech are long gone, The Military BioTech Complex has been running the show for quite a while.
This is just a chapter from that book, more to come if we get some love.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW:

INDIA BLACKLISTED US CDC FOR SECRETLY FUNDING BIOWEAPONS RESEARCH IN MANIPAL – Silview.media

Government pulls up U.S. agency for work on Nipah virus – The Hindu

NIPAH IS ONE OF THREE VIRUSES MODIFIED BY WUHAN LAB AT NIAD’S REQUEST, FAUCI E-MAIL REVEAL – Silview.media

SOURCE

Canadian lab’s shipment of Ebola, Henipah viruses to China raises questions

  • Henipah and Nipah are interchangeable

Scientists at the National Microbiology Lab sent live Ebola and Henipah viruses to Beijing on an Air Canada flight March 31, and while the Public Health Agency of Canada says all federal policies were followed, there are questions about whether that shipment is part of an ongoing RCMP investigation.

Ebola and Henipah are Level 4 pathogens, meaning they’re some of the deadliest viruses in the world. They must be contained in a lab with the highest level of biosafety control, such as the one in Winnipeg. 

Two months after that shipment, on May 24, the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) referred an “administrative matter” to RCMP that resulted in the removal of two Chinese research scientists — Xiangguo Qiu and Keding Cheng — and several international students on July 5. 

Both agencies have said repeatedly that public safety has not been at risk. 

PHAC will not confirm if the March 31 shipment is part of the RCMP investigation.

Strict protocols

Several sources, who have asked to remain anonymous because they fear for their jobs, say the pathogens may have been shipped to the Chinese Academy of Sciences in a way that circumvented the lab’s operating procedures, and without a document protecting Canada’s intellectual property rights.

Researchers working at the National Microbiology Lab on cutting-edge, high-containment research are not allowed to send anything to other countries or labs without the intellectual property office negotiating and having a material transfer agreement in place, in case the material sent leads to a notable discovery.

A PHAC spokesperson did not confirm if this shipment included such an agreement.

However, Eric Morrissette said it’s “routine” for the lab to share samples of pathogens and toxins with partners in other countries to advance scientific work worldwide.

The transfers follow strict protocols, including requirements under the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act(HPTA), the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, theCanadian Biosafety Standard and the lab’s standard operating procedures, Morrisette added.

“All transfers of Risk Group 4 samples follow strict transportation requirements and are authorized by senior officials at the lab and the NML tracks and keeps electronic records of all shipments of samples in accordance with the HPTA. Agreements for the transfer of materials are determined on a case-by-case basis,” Morrisette wrote in an email statement.

“On the specific shipments to China earlier this year, we can confirm that we have all records pertaining to the shipment, and that all protocols were followed as directed by the above Acts and Standards.”

Sources say Xiangguo Qiu and her husband, Keding Cheng, were escorted from the National Microbiology Lab in Winnipeg on July 5. (Governor General’s Innovation Awards)

Xiangguo Qiu is head of the National Microbiology Lab’s Vaccine Development and Antiviral Therapies section in the Special Pathogens Program. She is responsible for the lab that works with Ebola. Her husband, Keding Cheng, is also a PHAC biologist. 

After their security clearance was revoked and they were escorted from the lab, the University of Manitoba also cut ties with them and re-assigned Qiu’s graduate students, pending the RCMP investigation. No charges have been laid.

Neither scientist has responded to requests for comment, although some of their former colleagues say Qiu is not just a world-renowned scientist who helped develop a treatment for Ebola, but also a researcher with ethics and integrity.

Case raises questions 

One question raised by this case is that of intellectual property protection, says Leah West, who practises, studies and publishes in the field of national security law and lectures at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs.

“If China was leveraging these scientists in Canada to gain access to a potentially valuable pathogen or to elements of a virus without having to license the patent  … it makes sense with the idea of China trying to gain access to valuable IP without paying for it,” she said.

Leah West says she hopes the lab and Health Canada are doing an investigation in addition to the one the RCMP is conducting. (Submitted by Leah West)

West accepts PHAC’s assertion that public safety is not an issue, even though the viruses were transported on a commercial Air Canada flight.

However, she says the fact the RCMP is involved means there’s a legitimate concern.

“You don’t send a policy breach, a bureaucratic policy breach, to the RCMP to investigate unless you believe that that policy breach has resulted in a criminal offence or could have resulted in a criminal offence. So what is the criminal offence potentially here?” West said.

She said she hopes the lab and Health Canada are also doing an internal investigation.

“I think there will need to be an inquiry into the scientists to potentially see whether or not they were compromised or any elements of their work were compromised and that China gained illegal or improper access to Canadian intellectual property … to see what China may have gained access to without knowledge, prior to this incident,” West says.

Don’t ‘jump into any conclusions too quickly’

However, the deputy director of the University of Alberta’s China Institute is urging caution when it comes to making assumptions. 

Jia Wang doesn’t dispute China has been involved in the past in espionage and intellectual property theft, but she says that country is making big investments in developing STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) scholars and then putting that into innovation.

China has its own reasons to protect intellectual property because many new ideas are coming from there, Wang says.

She’s waiting to see what comes of the RCMP investigation of the lab in Winnipeg.

“As China observers, we’d like to perhaps gently remind people not to jump into any conclusions too quickly,” she said.

“It will be good to get to the bottom of this and see what might have gone wrong and what was the oversight and how can the procedures be improved or people involved can be reminded of how to adhere to the policies better.”

Jia Wang, deputy director of the University of Alberta’s China Institute, is advising caution about making assumptions concerning the case. (Submitted by Jia Wang)

The shipment of the viruses took place at a time when relations between Canada and China have been strained over the arrest of a Huawei executive, at the request of the United States. 

In retaliation, China has detained two Canadians and is boycotting Canadian canola and pork.

Because of the strained relationship between the two countries, and this case at the lab, Chinese-Canadian researchers and academics are starting to worry they may be singled out and targeted, Wang said.

“Certain assumptions are made or their loyalty to Canada is questioned in any way. And as multicultural as we are in Canada, we don’t want to see that.”  – CBC, 2019

SOURCE

On December 19, 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced the approval of Ervebo to prevent EVD caused by Zaire ebolavirus in individuals 18 years of age and older. This report, published by the U.S. CDC on January 8, 2021, summarizes the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommendations for using the rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP Ebola vaccine (Ervebo) in the USA.

On July 1, 2020, the European Medicines Agency granted Johnson & Johnson Janssen’s Zabdeno and Mvabea Ebola vaccine therapy, a prime-boost vaccination approach for preventing infectious diseases. Janssen’s Ebola vaccine regimen is specifically designed to induce long-term immunity against the Ebola virus in adults and children aged one year and above.

CanSino Biologics’s Ad5-EBOV Ebola vaccine received approval in China in October 2017. Ad5-EBOV is an adenovirus type 5 vector-based Ebola virus disease vaccine that protects against Ebola by relying on the recombinant replication-defective human adenovirus type-5 vector immune response. In addition, Ad5-EBOV is manufactured as a lyophilized powder, highly stable, and does not require storage at ultra-low temperatures. This feature renders it viable for use in resource-limited tropical areas.

The WHO published the revised Ebola Vaccine FAQ on January 11, 2020.

In 2019, World’s deadliest viruses were ‘shipped to Wuhan ‘leak lab’ from Canada by rogue scientists linked to Chinese military’ – The Sun

Experts Say Nipah Virus Has Potential To Be Another Pandemic — With A Higher Death Toll – Yahoo

What is Henipavirus?

Henipaviruses belong to the family of paramyxoviruses. Two species have been identified to be zoonotic, causing disease in animals. These are the Hendra virus (HeV) and the Nipah virus (NiV). They produce severe and often fatal illness in humans and horses.

News-Medical.net

THAT IS TO SAY ‘NIPAH’, ‘HENIPAH’ AND ‘HENIPAVIRUS’ ARE INTERCHANGEABLE HERE

Samples from early Wuhan COVID-19 patients show the presence of genetically modified Henipah virus, an American scientist has found.

Henipah was one of the two types of viruses sent to China by Chinese-born scientists from a Canadian laboratory at the centre of a controversy over the firing of the scientists and collaboration with Chinese military researchers. It is not clear whether the virus found in the Chinese samples is related to the samples sent by the Canadian lab, which were shipped in late March 2019.

The finding was confirmed for The Epoch Times by another qualified scientist.

The evidence was first found by Dr. Steven Quay, a Seattle-based physician-scientist and former faculty member at the Stanford University School of Medicine, who looked at early COVID-19 samples uploaded by scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) shortly after China informed the World Health Organization about the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak.

Epoch Times Photo
Chinese virologist Shi Zhengli is seen inside the P4 laboratory in Wuhan, China, on Feb. 23, 2017. (Johannes Eisele/AFP via Getty Images)

The samples from the patients, who reportedly were found to have the “unknown pneumonia” in December 2019, were uploaded to the genetic sequence database, GenBank, on the website of the U.S. National Institute of Health (NIH).

Quay says that while other scientists around the world were mostly interested in examining the genome of SARS-CoV-2 in the samples uploaded by the WIV scientists, he wanted to see what else was in the samples collected from the patients.

So he collaborated with a few other scientists to analyze sequences from the samples.

“We started fishing inside for weird things,” Quay told The Epoch Times.

What they found, he says, are the results of what could likely be contamination from different experiments in the lab making their way into the samples, as well as evidence of Henipah virus.

“We found genetic manipulation of the Nipah virus, which is more lethal than Ebola.” Nipah is a type of Henipah virus.

The Epoch Times asked Joe Wang, PhD, who formerly spearheaded a vaccine development program for SARS in Canada with one of the world’s leading pharmaceutical companies, to verify the finding. Wang is currently the president of NTD Television Canada, the sister company of The Epoch Times in Canada.

After examining the evidence, Wang said he was able to replicate Quay’s findings on the Henipah virus. He explains that the genetic manipulation of the virus was likely for the purposes of vaccine development.

Winnipeg Lab

The firing of Chinese-born scientist Xiangguo Qiu and her husband, Keding Cheng, from the National Microbiology laboratory (NML) in Winnipeg has been the subject of much controversy in Canada, with opposition parties pressing the government for more details on the case, and the government refusing to release information citing national security and privacy concerns.

Qiu and Cheng along with several Chinese students were escorted out of NML, Canada’s only Level 4 lab, in July 2019, amid a police investigation. The two scientists were formally fired in January 2021.

The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), which is in charge of NML, said the termination was the result of an “administrative matter” and “possible breaches of security protocols,” but has declined to provide further details, citing security and privacy concerns.

Epoch Times Photo
House Speaker Anthony Rota admonishes Public Health Agency of Canada President Iain Stewart in the House of Commons on June 21, 2021, for failing to provide documents related to the firing of two scientists from the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg. (The Canadian Press/Sean Kilpatrick)

During her time at NML, Qiu travelled several times in an official capacity to WIV, helping train personnel on Level 4 safety. The Globe and Mail later reported that scientists at NML have been collaborating with Chinese military researchers on deadly pathogens, and that one of the Chinese military researchers worked at the high-security Winnipeg lab for a period of time.

Documents and emails released by PHAC show that the shipment of Henipah and Ebola samples was done with the permission of NML authorities.

In one of the emails sent in September 2018, David Safronetz, chief of special pathogens at PHAC, informs then-head of NML Matthew Gilmour and other lab administrators about the request from WIV for the shipment of the samples, saying “I trust the lab.”

In response, Gilmour asks about the nature of the work that will be done at the Wuhan lab, and why the lab doesn’t get the material from “other, more local labs.” He also tells Safronetz that it’s “good to know that you trust this group,” asking how NML was connected with them.

In his reply, Safronetz doesn’t specifically say what the samples will be used for in China, but notes they will only be sent once all paperwork and certification is completed. He also says the WIV is requesting the material from NML “due to collaboration” with Qiu.

He adds, “Historically, it’s also been easier to obtain material from us as opposed to US labs. I don’t think other, closer labs have the ability to ship these materials.”

Gilmour resigned from his position at NML in May 2020 and joined a UK-based bioresearch company.

MPs have asked NML management why shipment of the samples was allowed and whether they knew if China performs any Gain of Function (GoF) research at WIV. GoF research involves increasing the lethal level (virulence) or transmissibility of pathogens.

NML’s acting scientific director general Guillaume Poliquin told MPs during a parliamentary committee meeting on March 22 that the lab only sent the samples to WIV after receiving assurance that no GoF research would take place.

Conservative MP John Williamson pressed for more answers, saying the word of the state-run Chinese lab can’t be trusted as the Chinese regime “has a history of theft and lies.”

The issue of GoF research at WIV has been a point of contention in the United States between lawmakers and Dr. Anthony Fauci, NIH’s head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, whose organization has funded research (through EcoHealth Alliance) on coronaviruses at the Wuhan lab. U.S. Sen. Rand Paul says published work from WIV on coronaviruses shows the lab is conducting GoF research, a charge Fauci denies.

Epoch Times Photo
The P4 laboratory on the campus of the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China, on May 13, 2020. (Hector Retamal/AFP via Getty Images)

The Epoch Times sought comment from PHAC, including as to how the agency addressed issues of intellectual property and the development of any products such as vaccines with WIV, but didn’t hear back by time of publication.

Despite repeated requests by opposition parties for more details related to the firing of the two NML scientists, the Liberal government has refused to provide records, saying there are national security and privacy concerns.

After the House of Commons issued an order for the government to disclose the information, the government took the Speaker of the House to court to obtain confirmation from a judge that it can withhold the documents. The government later dropped its court case once Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called an election and Parliament was dissolved. – Epoch Times

LATER UPDATE: JUST LEARNED NIPAH WAS THE INSPIRATION FOR ANOTHER DRILL VERY SIMILAR TO EVENT201 – CLADE-X

NOTEWORTHY: Germany is the epicenter of this psyop, in their scenario

‘For the next pandemic, we’ll have gigantic mRNA factories in India’ – Bill Gates

The next pandemic: Nipah virus? – Bill Gates’ GAVI

SOURCE

Oh, look, a Dutch NGO on Taiwan TV pushing Nipah fearporn to WHO as early as February 2021:

SOURCE

India fighting to contain Nipah, a virus deadlier than COVID-19 – NY Post

Experimental drug by Gilead completely effective against Nipah virus infection in monkeys – NIH

ALSO IN 2019, INDIA CONDUCTS NIPAH OUTBREAK DRILLS. OFFICIALS SAY THEY HOPE FOR FULL PREPAREDNESS BY 2022:

ECO-HEALTH ALLIANCE INVOLVED AGAIN!

Remember the host?

THERE ARE SEVERAL PATENTS FOR NIPAH DRUGS AND SOME ARE mRNA GENE THERAPIES REGISTERED AS VACCINES

SOURCE
SOURCE
SOURCE

UPDATE 3: I FOUND CREDIBLE SOURCES FOR MOST OF DR. ARYANA LOVE’S EXPLOSIVE CLAIMS BELOW:

I didn’t have an in depth look at all her sources, I can’t have a final 100% verdict, but I did more than a glance and no lies detected. You can review her blog post yourself HERE.
This might be the closure to this report and the start for another.

BONUS

This is from 2014m but the story goes a way long back. And forward. Let’s not forget Putin is a Davos regular since before he became such a literal czar.

‘Contagion’ Reality Check: CDC Experts Explore Some of the Film’s Scenarios – PBS

WE ARE BEING PRIMED FOR THE DARKEST WINTER

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

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

We need to speed up our little awakening because we’re still light-years behind the reality.
This dwarfs Afghanistan and Covid is but a chapter in its playbook.
This connects all the trigger-words: 5G, Covid, Vaccines, Graphene, The Great Reset, Blockchain, The Fourth Industrial Revolution and beyond.

What Is the Internet of Bodies?

Source: The Rand Corporation (Download PDF)


A wide variety of internet-connected “smart”
devices now promise consumers and
businesses improved performance, convenience, efficiency, and fun. Within this
broader Internet of Things (IoT) lies a growing
industry of devices that monitor the human body,
collect health and other personal information, and
transmit that data over the internet. We refer to these
emerging technologies and the data they collect as
the Internet of Bodies (IoB) (see, for example, Neal,
2014; Lee, 2018), a term first applied to law and policy
in 2016 by law and engineering professor Andrea M.
Matwyshyn (Atlantic Council, 2017; Matwyshyn,
2016; Matwyshyn, 2018; Matawyshyn, 2019).
IoB devices come in many forms. Some are
already in wide use, such as wristwatch fitness
monitors or pacemakers that transmit data about
a patient’s heart directly to a cardiologist. Other
products that are under development or newly on the
market may be less familiar, such as ingestible products that collect and send information on a person’s
gut, microchip implants, brain stimulation devices,
and internet-connected toilets.
These devices have intimate access to the body
and collect vast quantities of personal biometric data.
IoB device makers promise to deliver substantial
health and other benefits but also pose serious risks,
including risks of hacking, privacy infringements,
or malfunction. Some devices, such as a reliable
artificial pancreas for diabetics, could revolutionize
the treatment of disease, while others could merely
inflate health-care costs with little positive effect on
outcomes. Access to huge torrents of live-streaming
biometric data might trigger breakthroughs in medical knowledge or behavioral understanding. It might increase health outcome disparities, where only
people with financial means have access to any of
these benefits. Or it might enable a surveillance state
of unprecedented intrusion and consequence.
There is no universally accepted definition of
the IoB.1
For the purposes of this report, we refer to
the IoB, or the IoB ecosystem, as IoB devices (defined
next, with further explanation in the passages that
follow) together with the software they contain and
the data they collect.

An IoB device is defined as a device that
• contains software or computing capabilities
• can communicate with an internet-connected
device or network
and satisfies one or both of the following:
• collects person-generated health or biometric
data
• can alter the human body’s function.
The software or computing capabilities in an
IoB device may be as simple as a few lines of code
used to configure a radio frequency identification (RFID) microchip implant, or as complex as a computer that processes artificial intelligence (AI)
and machine learning algorithms. A connection to
the internet through cellular or Wi-Fi networks is
required but need not be a direct connection. For
example, a device may be connected via Bluetooth to
a smartphone or USB device that communicates with
an internet-connected computer. Person-generated
health data (PGHD) refers to health, clinical, or
wellness data collected by technologies to be recorded
or analyzed by the user or another person. Biometric
or behavioral data refers to measurements of unique
physical or behavioral properties about a person.
Finally, an alteration to the body’s function refers
to an augmentation or modification of how the
user’s body performs, such as a change in cognitive
enhancement and memory improvement provided
by a brain-computer interface, or the ability to record
whatever the user sees through an intraocular lens
with a camera.
IoB devices generally, but not always, require a
physical connection to the body (e.g., they are worn,
ingested, implanted, or otherwise attached to or
embedded in the body, temporarily or permanently).
Many IoB devices are medical devices regulated by
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).3
Figure 1 depicts examples of technologies in the IoB
ecosystem that are either already available on the U.S.
market or are under development.
Devices that are not connected to the internet,
such as ordinary heart monitors or medical ID bracelets, are not included in the definition of IoB. Nor are implanted magnets (a niche consumer product used
by those in the so-called bodyhacker community
described in the next section) that are not connected
to smartphone applications (apps), because although
they change the body’s functionality by allowing the
user to sense electromagnetic vibrations, the devices
do not contain software. Trends in IoB technologies
and additional examples are further discussed in the
next section.
Some IoB devices may fall in and out of
our definition at different times. For example, a
Wi-Fi-connected smartphone on its own would
not be part of the IoB; however, once a health app
is installed that requires connection to the body to
track user information, such as heart rate or number
of steps taken, the phone would be considered IoB.
Our definition is meant to capture rapidly evolving
technologies that have the potential to bring about
the various risks and benefits that are discussed in
this report. We focused on analyzing existing and
emerging IoB technologies that appear to have the
potential to improve health and medical outcomes,
efficiency, and human function or performance, but
that could also endanger users’ legal, ethical, and
privacy rights or present personal or national security
risks.
For this research, we conducted an extensive
literature review and interviewed security experts,
technology developers, and IoB advocates to understand anticipated risks and benefits. We had valuable discussions with experts at BDYHAX 2019, an
annual convention for bodyhackers, in February
2019, and DEFCON 27, one of the world’s largest
hacker conferences, in August 2019. In this report,
we discuss trends in the technology landscape and
outline the benefits and risks to the user and other
stakeholders. We present the current state of governance that applies to IoB devices and the data they
collect and conclude by offering recommendations
for improved regulation to best balance those risks
and rewards.

Operation Warp Speed logo

Transhumanism, Bodyhacking, Biohacking,
and More


The IoB is related to several movements outside of formal health care focused on integrating human bodies
with technology. Next, we summarize some of these concepts,
though there is much overlap and interchangeability among them.
Transhumanism is a worldview and political movement advocating for the transcendence of humanity beyond current human capabilities.
Transhumanists want to use technology, such as
artificial organs and other techniques, to halt aging
and achieve “radical life extension” (Vita-Moore,
2018). Transhumanists may also seek to resist disease,
enhance their intelligence, or thwart fatigue through
diet, exercise, supplements, relaxation techniques, or
nootropics (substances that may improve cognitive
function).
Bodyhackers, biohackers, and cyborgs, who
enjoy experimenting with body enhancement, often
refer to themselves as grinders. They may or may not
identify as transhumanists. These terms are often
interchanged in common usage, but some do distinguish between them (Trammell, 2015). Bodyhacking
generally refers to modifying the body to enhance
one’s physical or cognitive abilities. Some bodyhacking is purely aesthetic. Hackers have implanted horns
in their heads and LED lights under their skin. Other
hacks, such as implanting RFID microchips in one’s
hand, are meant to enhance function, allowing users
to unlock doors, ride public transportation, store
emergency contact information, or make purchases
with the sweep of an arm (Baenen, 2017; Savage,
2018). One bodyhacker removed the RFID microchip from her car’s key fob and had it implanted
in her arm (Linder, 2019). A few bodyhackers have
implanted a device that is a combined wireless router
and hard drive that can be used as a node in a wireless mesh network (Oberhaus, 2019). Some bodyhacking is medical in nature, including 3D-printed
prosthetics and do-it-yourself artificial pancreases.
Still others use the term for any method of improving
health, including bodybuilding, diet, or exercise.
Biohacking generally denotes techniques that
modify the biological systems of humans or other
living organisms. This ranges from bodybuilding
and nootropics to developing cures for diseases via
self-experimentation to human genetic manipulation
through CRISPR-Cas9 techniques (Samuel, 2019;
Griffin, 2018).
Cyborgs, or cybernetic organisms, are people
who have used machines to enhance intelligence or
the senses.
Neil Harbisson, a colorblind man who can
“hear” color through an antenna implanted in his
head that plays a tune for different colors or wavelengths of light, is acknowledged as the first person to
be legally recognized by a government as a cyborg, by
being allowed to have his passport picture include his
implant (Donahue, 2017).
Because IoB is a wide-ranging field that
intersects with do-it-yourself body modification,
consumer products, and medical care, understanding
its benefits and risks is critical.

The Internet of Bodies is here. This is how it could change our lives

04 Jun 2020, Xiao Liu Fellow at the Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution, World Economic Forum

  • We’re entering the era of the “Internet of Bodies”: collecting our physical data via a range of devices that can be implanted, swallowed or worn.
  • The result is a huge amount of health-related data that could improve human wellbeing around the world, and prove crucial in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • But a number of risks and challenges must be addressed to realize the potential of this technology, from privacy issues to practical hurdles.

In the special wards of Shanghai’s Public Health Clinical Center, nurses use smart thermometers to check the temperatures of COVID-19 patients. Each person’s temperature is recorded with a sensor, reducing the risk of infection through contact, and the data is sent to an observation dashboard. An abnormal result triggers an alert to medical staff, who can then intervene promptly. The gathered data also allows medics to analyse trends over time.

The smart thermometers are designed by VivaLNK, a Silicon-Valley based startup, and are a powerful example of the many digital products and services that are revolutionizing healthcare. After the Internet of Things, which transformed the way we live, travel and work by connecting everyday objects to the Internet, it’s now time for the Internet of Bodies. This means collecting our physical data via devices that can be implanted, swallowed or simply worn, generating huge amounts of health-related information.

Some of these solutions, such as fitness trackers, are an extension of the Internet of Things. But because the Internet of Bodies centres on the human body and health, it also raises its own specific set of opportunities and challenges, from privacy issues to legal and ethical questions.

Image: McKinsey & Company

Connecting our bodies

As futuristic as the Internet of Bodies may seem, many people are already connected to it through wearable devices. The smartwatch segment alone has grown into a $13 billion market by 2018, and is projected to increase another 32% to $18 billion by 2021. Smart toothbrushes and even hairbrushes can also let people track patterns in their personal care and behaviour.

For health professionals, the Internet of Bodies opens the gate to a new era of effective monitoring and treatment.

In 2017, the U.S. Federal Drug Administration approved the first use of digital pills in the United States. Digital pills contain tiny, ingestible sensors, as well as medicine. Once swallowed, the sensor is activated in the patient’s stomach and transmits data to their smartphone or other devices.

In 2018, Kaiser Permanente, a healthcare provider in California, started a virtual rehab program for patients recovering from heart attacks. The patients shared their data with their care providers through a smartwatch, allowing for better monitoring and a closer, more continuous relationship between patient and doctor. Thanks to this innovation, the completion rate of the rehab program rose from less than 50% to 87%, accompanied by a fall in the readmission rate and programme cost.

The deluge of data collected through such technologies is advancing our understanding of how human behaviour, lifestyle and environmental conditions affect our health. It has also expanded the notion of healthcare beyond the hospital or surgery and into everyday life. This could prove crucial in fighting the coronavirus pandemic. Keeping track of symptoms could help us stop the spread of infection, and quickly detect new cases. Researchers are investigating whether data gathered from smartwatches and similar devices can be used as viral infection alerts by tracking the user’s heart rate and breathing.

At the same time, this complex and evolving technology raises new regulatory challenges.

What counts as health information?

In most countries, strict regulations exist around personal health information such as medical records and blood or tissue samples. However, these conventional regulations often fail to cover the new kind of health data generated through the Internet of Bodies, and the entities gathering and processing this data.

In the United States, the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA), which is the major law for health data regulation, applies only to medical providers, health insurers, and their business associations. Its definition of “personal health information” covers only the data held by these entities. This definition is turning out to be inadequate for the era of the Internet of Bodies. Tech companies are now also offering health-related products and services, and gathering data. Margaret Riley, a professor of health law at the University of Virginia, pointed out to me in an interview that HIPPA does not cover the masses of data from consumer wearables, for example.

Another problem is that the current regulations only look at whether the data is sensitive in itself, not whether it can be used to generate sensitive information. For example, the result of a blood test in a hospital will generally be classified as sensitive data, because it reveals private information about your personal health. But today, all sorts of seemingly non-sensitive data can also be used to draw inferences about your health, through data analytics. Glenn Cohen, a professor at Harvard Law school, told me in an interview that even data that is not about health at all, such as grocery shopping lists, can be used for such inferences. As a result, conventional regulations may fail to cover data that is sensitive and private, simply because it did not look sensitive before it was processed.

Data risks

Identifying and protecting sensitive data matters, because it can directly affect how we are treated by institutions and other people. With big data analytics, countless day-to-day actions and decisions can ultimately feed into our health profile, which may be created and maintained not just by traditional healthcare providers, but also by tech companies or other entities. Without appropriate laws and regulations, it could also be sold. At the same time, data from the Internet of Bodies can be used to make predictions and inferences that could affect a person’s or group’s access to resources such as healthcare, insurance and employment.

James Dempsey, director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, told me in an interview that this could lead to unfair treatment. He warned of potential discrimination and bias when such data is used for decisions in insurance and employment. The affected people may not even be aware of this.

One solution would be to update the regulations. Sandra Wachter and Brent Mittelstadt, two scholars at the Oxford Internet Institute, suggest that data protection law should focus more on how and why data is processed, and not just on its raw state. They argue for a so-called “right to reasonable inferences”, meaning the right to have your data used only for reasonable, socially acceptable inferences. This would involve setting standards on whether and when inferring certain information from a person’s data, including the state of their present or future health, is socially acceptable or overly invasive.

Practical problems

Apart from the concerns over privacy and sensitivity, there are also a number of practical problems in dealing with the sheer volume of data generated by the Internet of Bodies. The lack of standards around security and data processing makes it difficult to combine data from diverse sources, and use it to advance research. Different countries and institutions are trying to jointly overcome this problem. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and its Standards Association have been working with the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health, as well as universities and businesses among other stakeholders since 2016, to address the security and interoperability issue of connected health.

As the Internet of Bodies spreads into every aspect of our existence, we are facing a range of new challenges. But we also have an unprecedented chance to improve our health and well-being, and save countless lives. During the COVID-19 crisis, using this opportunity and finding solutions to the challenges is a more urgent task than ever. This relies on government agencies and legislative bodies working with the private sector and civil society to create a robust governance framework, and to include inferences in the realm of data protection. Devising technological and regulatory standards for interoperability and security would also be crucial to unleashing the power of the newly available data. The key is to collaborate across borders and sectors to fully realize the enormous benefits of this rapidly advancing technology.

Now more from the Rand Corporation

Governance of IoB devices is managed through a patchwork of state and federal agencies, nonprofit organizations, and consumer advocacy groups

  • The primary entities responsible for governance of IoB devices are the FDA and the U.S. Department of Commerce.
  • Although the FDA is making strides in cybersecurity of medical devices, many IoB devices, especially those available for consumer use, do not fall under FDA jurisdiction.
  • Federal and state officials have begun to address cybersecurity risks associated with IoB that are beyond FDA oversight, but there are few laws that mandate cybersecurity best practices.

As with IoB devices, there is no single entity that provides oversight to IoB data

  • Protection of medical information is regulated at the federal level, in part, by HIPAA.
  • The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) helps ensure data security and consumer privacy through legal actions brought by the Bureau of Consumer Protection.
  • Data brokers are largely unregulated, but some legal experts are calling for policies to protect consumers.
  • As the United States has no federal data privacy law, states have introduced a patchwork of laws and regulations that apply to residents’ personal data, some of which includes IoB-related information.
  • The lack of consistency in IoB laws among states and between the state and federal level potentially enables regulatory gaps and enforcement challenges.

Recommendations

  • The U.S. Commerce Department can put foreign IoB companies on its “Entity List,” preventing them from doing business with Americans, if those foreign companies are implicated in human rights violations.
  • As 5G, Wi-Fi 6, and satellite internet standards are rolled out, the federal government should be prepared for issues by funding studies and working with experts to develop security regulations.
  • It will be important to consider how to incentivize quicker phase-out of the legacy medical devices with poor cybersecurity that are already in wide use.
  • IoB developers must be more attentive to cybersecurity by integrating cybersecurity and privacy considerations from the beginning of product development.
  • Device makers should test software for vulnerabilities often and devise methods for users to patch software.
  • Congress should consider establishing federal data transparency and protection standards for data that are collected from the IoB.
  • The FTC could play a larger role to ensure that marketing claims about improved well-being or specific health treatment are backed by appropriate evidence.

ALSO READ: BOMBSHELL! 5G NETWORK TO WIRELESSLY POWER DEVICES. GUESS WHAT IT CAN DO TO NANOTECH (DARPA-FINANCED)

Internet of Bodies (IoB): Future of Healthcare & Medical Technology

Kashmir Observer | March 27, 2021   

By Khalid Mustafa

JAMMU and Kashmir is almost always in the news for one reason or another.  Apart from the obvious political headlines, J&K was also in the news because of covid-19.  As the world struggled with covid-19 pandemic, J&K faced a peculiar situation due to its poor health infrastructure.  Nonetheless, all sections of society did a commendable job in keeping covid  under control and preventing the loss of life as much as possible. The doctors Association in Kashmir along with the administration did  as much as possible  through their efforts.  For that we are all thankful to them. However, it is about time that we integrate our Healthcare System by upgrading it and introducing to it new technologies from the current world.

We’ve all heard of the Internet of Things, a network of products ranging from refrigerators to cars to industrial control systems that are connected to the internet. Internet of Bodies (IoB) the outcome of the Internet of Things (IoT) is broadly helping the healthcare system and every individual to live life with ease by managing the human body in terms of technology. The Internet of Bodies connects the human body to a network of internet run devices.

The use of IoB can be independent or by the health care heroes (doctors) to monitor, report and enhance the health system of the human body.  The internet of Bodies (IoB) are broadly classified into three categories or in some cases we can say three generations – Body Internal, Body External and Body embedded. The Body Internal model of IoB is the category, in which the individual or patient is interacting with the technology environment or we can say internet or our healthcare system by having an installed device inside the human body. Body External model or generation of IoB signifies the model where the device is installed external to the body for certain usage viz. Apple watches and other smart bands from various OEM’s for tracking blood pressure, heart rate etc which can later be used for proper health tracking and monitoring purposes. Last one under this classifications are Body Embedded, in which the devices are embedded under the skin by health care professionals during a number of health situations.

The Internet of Bodies is a small part or even the offspring of the Internet of Things. Much like it, there remains the challenge of data and information breach as we have already witnessed many excessive distributed denial of service (DDos) attacks and other cyber-attacks on IoTs to exploit data and gather information. The effects are even more severe and vulnerable in the case of the Internet of Bodies as the human body is involved in this schema.

The risk of these threats has taken over the discussion about the IOBs.  Thus,  this  has become a  great concern in medical technology companies. Most of the existing IoB companies just rely on end-user license agreements and privacy policies to retain rights in software and to create rights to monitor, aggregate and share users’ body data. They just need to properly enhance the security model and implement high security measures to avoid any misfortune. For the same the Government of India is already examining the personal data protection bill 2019.

The Internet has not managed to change our lifestyles in the way the internet of things will!


Views expressed in the article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the editorial stance of Kashmir Observer

  • The author is presently Manager IT & Ops In HK Group

ALSO READ: OBAMA, DARPA, GSK AND ROCKEFELLER’S $4.5B B.R.A.I.N. INITIATIVE – BETTER SIT WHEN YOU READ

And this is some old DARPA research anticipating the hive mind:

Hierarchical Identify Verify Exploit (HIVE)

Dr. Bryan Jacobs

Hierarchical Identify Verify Exploit (HIVE)

Social media, sensor feeds, and scientific studies generate large amounts of valuable data. However, understanding the relationships among this data can be challenging. Graph analytics has emerged as an approach by which analysts can efficiently examine the structure of the large networks produced from these data sources and draw conclusions from the observed patterns. By understanding the complex relationships both within and between data sources, a more complete picture of the analysis problem can be understood. With lessons learned from innovations in the expanding realm of deep neural networks, the Hierarchical Identify Verify Exploit (HIVE) program seeks to advance the arena of graph analytics.

The HIVE program is looking to build a graph analytics processor that can process streaming graphs 1000X faster and at much lower power than current processing technology. If successful, the program will enable graph analytics techniques powerful enough to solve tough challenges in cyber security, infrastructure monitoring and other areas of national interest. Graph analytic processing that currently requires racks of servers could become practical in tactical situations to support front-line decision making. What ’s more, these advanced graph analytics servers could have the power to analyze the billion- and trillion-edge graphs that will be generated by the Internet of Things, ever-expanding social networks, and future sensor networks.

In parallel with the hardware development of a HIVE processor, DARPA is working with MIT Lincoln Laboratory and Amazon Web Services (AWS) to host the HIVE Graph Challenge with the goal of developing a trillion-edge dataset. This freely available dataset will spur innovative software and hardware solutions in the broader graph analysis community that will contribute to the HIVE program.

The overall objective is to accelerate innovation in graph analytics to open new pathways for meeting the challenge of understanding an ever-increasing torrent of data. The HIVE program features two primary challenges:

  • The first is a static graph problem focused on sub-graph Isomorphism. This task is to further the ability to search a large graph in order to identify a particular subsection of that graph.
  • The second is a dynamic graph problem focused on trying to find optimal clusters of data within the graph.

Both challenges will include a small graph problem in the billions of nodes and a large graph problem in the trillions of nodes.

Transhuman Code authors discuss digital ID’s and a centralized AI-controlled society. In 2018
More info 

ALSO READ: BEFORE MRNA AND WUHAN, DARPA FUNDED THE BIRTH OF GOOGLE, FACEBOOK AND THE INTERNET ITSELF

And then I learned that IOB is an integral plan of a ‘Cognitive Warfare’ waged by the MBTC: COGNITIVE WARFARE IS SO MUCH MORE THAN PSYOPS

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
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

Can’t wait to make a video and see if YouTube bans this!

Remember “The Good Cabal” who “fortified the 2020 elections” in US, according to TIME? You think they stopped after successfully hi-jacking the US Government?
However, this group below has been described by mainstream media as “The Good Club”. Right.

Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, said the summit was unprecedented. “We only learnt about it afterwards, by accident. Normally these people are happy to talk good causes, but this is different – maybe because they don’t want to be seen as a global cabal,” he said.

  • May 26, 2009, 11:57 AM ET

Billionaires Try to Shrink World’s Population, Report Says

buffettgates0526_E_20090526111421.jpg

Last week’s meeting of the Great and the Good (or the Richest and Richer) was bound to draw criticism.

The New York meeting of billionaires Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, David Rockefeller, Eli Broad, George Soros, Ted Turner, Oprah, Michael Bloomberg and others was described by the Chronicle of Philanthropy as an informal gathering aimed at encouraging philanthropy. Just a few billionaires getting together for drinks and dinner and a friendly chat about how to promote charitable giving.

There was no agenda, we were told. And no plan for a follow-up meeting.

But in an age of fallen wealth idols, it was inevitable that a meeting of billionaire minds would draw scrutiny. Surely all that money and power in one room had to spell trouble for the rest of us.

An article in the Times of London, headlined “Billionaire Club in Bid to Curb World Population,” said the issues discussed in the top-secret meeting included health care, education and–by far the most controversial–slowing the global population growth.

“Taking their cue from Gates they agreed that overpopulation was a priority,” the article said, adding that “this could result in a challenge to some Third World politicians who believe contraception and female education weaken traditional values.”

Such a stand wouldn’t be surprising. Mssrs. Gates, Buffett and Turner have been quietly worrying about Malthusian population problems for years. Mr. Gates in February outlined a plan to try to cap the world’s population at 8.3 billion people, rather than the projected 9.3 billion at which the population is expected to peak.

But some right-leaning blogs have started attacking the billionaires as forming a kind of secret sterilization society or giant ATM to fund abortions. It fed into time-honored fears of the rich using their wealth to reshape mankind in its preferred image. Some are raising the specter of eugenics.

I am not taking a stand on population control. But from what I was personally told about the meeting–and what the Times spells out further down in its story–population control was just one of many items raised during the meeting, as each philanthropist talked about what they were working on. It wasn’t the reason for meeting and there are no real plans for a follow-up confab.

The notion that this secret gathering was aimed mostly at shrinking the world’s population just doesn’t ring true.

That said, almost all of the attendees are politically liberal. Do you think this Star Chamber of Philanthropists is something to worry about or something to be grateful for?

Oprah Winfrey’s charity challenge

Eleven of the world’s wealthiest people, including Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, met in secret a fortnight ago to discuss the future of philanthropy in light of the continued global economic crisis.

By The Telegraph UK
Last Updated: 7:41PM BST 21 May 2009

Other attendees included Oprah Winfrey, the billionaire chat show host, Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York, Ted Turner, the media mogul, and George Soros, the man who “broke the Bank of England” in 1992.

Although details of the meeting are only now emerging, it is believed the group met to brainstorm how best to bolster charitable giving in spite of the recent reduction in wealth.

Despite market conditions, the 11 attendees still share a combined fortune of $120bn (£76bn), based on the Forbes 2009 list of the world’s richest people.

The meeting was held on May 5, at the private residence of the president of Rockefeller University on New York’s exclusive Upper East Side.

It is not known if the attendees discussed working together on a charitable basis, although all present have been involved in philanthropy in some shape or form.

Mr Gates has bestowed the majority of his $37bn fortune to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, while Mr Soros last week pledged $50m to the Robin Hood Foundation.

Article deleted and retrieved with the Wayback Machine:


Wednesday May 20, 2009 
America’s Top Philanthropists Hold Private Meeting to Discuss Global Problems
By Chronicle of Philanthropy 

In a quiet meeting closed to the news media and the public, Bill Gates, David Rockefeller Sr., Oprah Winfrey, and other leading philanthropists met in New York this month to discuss ways to promote charitable giving and make their philanthropy more effective in fighting problems at home and abroad.
The unusual event, which occurred May 5 at Rockefeller University in New York, was an unprecedented gathering of the world’s wealthiest — and most generous — people. Together, the philanthropists in the room have committed a total of more than $72.5-billion to charitable causes since 1996, according to Chronicle of Philanthropy tallies.
While the meeting and its hush-hush nature has triggered intense speculation by the news media about what was discussed, Patricia Q. Stonesifer, former chief executive of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, said it was simply a gathering of people who have a common passion for helping others.
“A group of philanthropists came together to discuss their giving,” said Ms. Stonesifer, who attended the meeting. “There’s really no secret about that. It was an informal get-together and a chance to exchange ideas about what motivates them and what they have learned so far.”
“There was an enormous amount of enthusiasm and excitement around their giving and that was a very big part of what they were there for,” she added.
Among the high-profile participants were Ted Turner, Warren E. Buffett, George Soros, Peter G. Peterson, Eli Broad, and New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. (All of those philanthropists have appeared at one time on The Chronicle’s ranking of America’s most-generous donors.)Mr. Buffett, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr. Gates called together the elite group, sending a short letter of invitation to each of the guests. Mr. Rockefeller arranged the location — the private Manhattan residence of Rockefeller University’s president. (Mr. Rockefeller is an honorary member of the institution’s Board of Trustees.)
Ms. Stonesifer, who helped coordinate the meeting, said it started at 3 p.m. and lasted through dinner. Given the personalities in the room, the meeting touched upon a variety of philanthropy topics, said Ms. Stonesifer, who is currently chairwoman of the Smithsonian Institution’s Board of Regents.“
It was a wide-ranging conversation,” she said, “but they each shared what motivates their giving, their areas of focus of their work, the lessons learned, and thoughts on how we might increase giving.”
Indeed, the philanthropic interests represented on that day were rather diverse. For example, Mr. Peterson, co-founder of a private-equity firm, is focused on changing the government’s financing of social programs and other fiscal issues, while Ms. Winfrey has primarily given money to education efforts in South Africa and elsewhere.
Ms. Stonesifer — and others who attended the event — declined to say what was specifically talked about. The former Gates foundation leader did say that the attendees are not working on a major collaborative charitable project but do plan to continue to talk to one another.“
It was a really great discussion, and we agreed to continue the dialogue in the future, but there were no specific action items out of the meeting,” she said.
With such a powerful guest list, some blog writers have fixated on the meeting as the origins of some international conspiracy. But Ms. Stonesifer objected to the meeting being described as a “secret” event with mysterious intent.“
It was a private gathering. There are often opportunities for each of these individuals to discuss their giving in public — and they often do. But this really was a conversation among friends and colleagues.”
She added: “People are automatically curious about these types of things. But they were all quite matter-of-fact about why they were there. It was like a gathering that you and I have, but it was just a different group of friends and colleagues discussing what they care about.”

But you’re crazy to suspect anything malicious.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
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 gave up on our profit shares from masks, if you want to help us, please use the donation button!
We think frequent mask use, even short term use can be bad for you, but if you have no way around them, at least send a message of consciousness.
Get it here!

Establishment fact-checkers are cognitively retarded and functionally illiterate copy-paste bots who still use Google, this is how you fact-check Stu Peters:

LATER UPDATES: A glimpse into the future or the present?

Status: pending

SOURCE

Status: Published March 2021, but submitted in April 2020, which means most of the research was done before the Plandemic.

SOURCE

So the people who claim many vaccines are just saline and the people who claim they are just graphene oxide can be right at the same time.

If you are reading this, chances ae you already know of La Quinta Columna researchers and Stu Peters shows that revealed large presence of very toxic graphene in Covid injections. If you don’t, you need to research and catch up with the details, there’s no cheating on the homework anymore.

Also read: URGENT! IT’S IN MASKS TOO: SUPER-TOXIC GRAPHENE OXIDE CONFIRMED BY MANUFACTURERS

Onw of Stu’s latest deliveries featured a very documented expert and Pharma analyst who formerly worked for Pfizer and revealed the graphene is hiding in the so called PEGs, I’ll explain shortly what these are.

So I went to fact-check this, even though the whistle-blower sounded very compelling and having deep insights in the business.

My findings show that they only scratch the surface of a larger problem:
As I’ve shown before, graphene has a large spectrum of applications today, most endangering our health. But graphene oxide (GO) is especially toxic and they will pump it in us with other treatments too.

GO-based PEGs have been the new rising star of drug delivery for quite a few years before Covid and they are usually graphene based, as a several studies and invention patents prove beyond doubt. I don’t think there’s any mRNA vaccine that doesn’t use them.

They are not featured in injections inserts as separate ingredient, which they are, but as a process. Yup, they are the PEG in PEGylation.
It’s like saying Coca Cola was sweetened instead of listing several sweeteners!

Here you can download the safety Data Sheet for ALC-0135, it’s bad stuff, really corrosive!

Moderna comes with the goods too, all their invention patents for the mRNA tech contain these PEGs:

Think of an oral drug capsule. The PEG is a high-nanotech version of the capsule fabric, which can do a series of cool tricks, but its mainly roles are to protect the content and help it penetrate tissue/cells and reach specific targets.

Now think the drug insert only lists the content ingredients. not the capsule.

“Poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG), also known as poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO), is an amphiphilic polyether that is soluble both in water and most organic solvents. PEG and its derivatives are among the few polymers approved for medical uses by the FDA.

Functionalized PEG, also named activated PEG, is a family of PEG derivatives decorated with functional groups. Funtionalized PEGs are used broadly for drug PEGylation, polymer engineering, nantechnology, biotechnology, and biomedical engineering.”
This is the description given by Sinopeg, Chinese company that delivers PEGs for most Covid injection manufacturers.

From their September 2020 blog post we extract more details confirming my earlier claims:

“The coupling of PEG to protein is also called protein polyglycolization, which is essentially a drug delivery technology. The coupling of activated peg with protein molecules can improve the three-dimensional space state of proteins, resulting in changes in various biochemical properties of proteins. For example, chemical stability increased, half-life prolonged, immunogenicity and toxicity decreased or disappeared, protein solubility increased. SINOPEG is a dynamic science company dedicated to drug delivery systems (DDS). SINOPEG are specialized in the R&D of long acting biopharmaceuticals, developing and manufacturing of block copolymers, lipids for drug delivery, medical devices, bio-engineering, and other broad uses.

Up to now, the FDA has approved 20 polyglycolic drugs. In addition to monoclonal antibodies, polyglycolic drugs have become the most powerful drug development technology.
As a leading company in polyethylene glycol derivatives (PEGs), SINOPEG is capable of supplying small to large quantities of rich selection of PEG derivative products with unique molecular designs (chemical structure, molecular weights (MW)) and exceptional product quality control to serve bio-technology and pharmaceutical companies and research organizations worldwide.”

At this point, you’re probably asking when is graphene coming in. I got you covered:

SOURCE

Polyethylene Glycol-Engrafted Graphene Oxide as Biocompatible Materials for Peptide Nucleic Acid Delivery into Cells

Bioconjugate Chemistry. 2018 Feb 7.

Ahruem Baek 1Yu Mi Baek 1Hyung-Mo Kim 1Bong-Hyun Jun 1Dong-Eun Kim 1 Department of Bioscience and Biotechnology, Konkuk University Neundong-ro 120, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul 05029, Republic of Korea.

Abstract

Graphene oxide (GO) is known to strongly bind single-stranded nucleic acids with fluorescence quenching near the GO surface. However, GO exhibits weak biocompatibility characteristics, such as low dispersibility in cell culture media and significant cytotoxicity. To improve dispersibility in cell culture media and cell viability of GO, we prepared nanosized GO (nGO) constructs and modified the nGO surface using polyethylene glycol (PEG-nGO). Single-stranded peptide nucleic acid (PNA) was adsorbed onto the PEG-nGO and was readily desorbed by adding complementary RNA or under low pH conditions. PNA adsorbed on the PEG-nGO was efficiently delivered into lung cancer cells via endocytosis without affecting cell viability. Furthermore, antisense PNA delivered using PEG-nGO effectively downregulated the expression of the target gene in cancer cells. Our results suggest that PEG-nGO is a biocompatible carrier useful for PNA delivery into cells and serves as a promising gene delivery tool.

HEY, KIDS, WANNA BUY SOME LETHAL INJECTIONS AMMO? HERE’S YOUR LINK!

Similar articles


AND THEN WE FIND OUT THIS THING IS COMMONLY USED IN PCR TESTING!

SOURCE

Facilitation of Polymerase Chain Reaction with Poly(ethylene glycol)-Engrafted Graphene Oxide Analogous to a Single-Stranded-DNA Binding Protein

Applied Material Interfaces. 2016 Dec 14

Hyo Ryoung Kim 1Ahruem Baek 1Il Joon Lee 1Dong-Eun Kim 1

Abstract

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR), a versatile DNA amplification method, is a fundamental technology in modern life sciences and molecular diagnostics. After multiple rounds of PCR, however, nonspecific DNA fragments are often produced and the amplification efficiency and fidelity decrease. Here, we demonstrated that poly(ethylene glycol)-engrafted nanosized graphene oxide (PEG-nGO) can significantly improve the PCR specificity and efficiency. PEG-nGO allows the specificity to be maintained even after multiple rounds of PCR, allowing reliable amplification at low annealing temperatures. PEG-nGO decreases the nonspecific annealing of single-stranded DNA (ssDNA), such as primer dimerization and false priming, by adsorbing excess primers. Moreover, PEG-nGO interrupts the reannealing of denatured template DNA by preferentially binding to ssDNA. Thus, PEG-nGO enhances the PCR specificity by preferentially binding to ssDNA without inhibiting DNA polymerase, which is analogous to the role of ssDNA binding proteins.

Similar articles

My favorite today is this invention patent and its great background info:

Method and process to make and use cotton-tipped electrochemical immunosensor for the detection of corona virus United States Patent 11035817
SOURCE

Abstract:

A method and process to make and use cotton-tipped electrochemical immunosensor for the detection of corona viruses is described. The immunosensor were fabricated by immobilizing the virus antigens on carbon nanofiber-modified screen printed electrodes which were functionalized by diazonium electrografting and activated by EDC/NHS chemistry. The detection of virus antigens were achieved via swabbing followed by competitive assay using fixed amount of antibody in the solution. Ferro/ferricyanide redox probe was used for the detection using square wave voltammetric technique. The limits of detection for our electrochemical biosensors were 0.8 and 0.09 pg/ml for SARS-CoV-2 and MERS-CoV, respectively indicating very good sensitivity for the sensors. Both biosensors did not show significant cross reactivity with other virus antigens such as influenza A and HCoV, indicating the high selectivity of the method.

BACKGROUND

The newly identified severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the last discovered member of the corona viruses that cause serious human respiratory infections. Other types of corona viruses were previously known such as the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), SARS-CoV1, HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, HCoV HKU1 and HCoV NL63. Since its first identification in China in 2019 until present, SARS-CoV-2 has spread globally causing significant morbidity and mortality. COVID-19; the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2; was declared as pandemic by the world health organization on March 2020. Until now, there are no available vaccines or drugs proven to treat COVID 19. Therefore, the timely detection of SARS-CoV-2, is urgently needed to effectively control the rapid spread of the infection.

The testing of the virus can be achieved by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, detection of antigens, or by serological testing (the detection of the virus antibody). However, the serological tests are not reliable for the early diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection due to the relatively long delay between infection and seroconversion. Molecular diagnosis using RT-PCR is the primary used method for the detection of corona viruses. However, PCR takes relatively long time for analysis (minimum of 3 hours), and requires several steps including the collection of the specimens by swabbing, the transport of the sample into a solution and extraction of the viral RNA before amplification. Moreover, RT-PCR is relatively expensive which hindered its wide applicability for population scale diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, particularly in low and middle income countries. Thus, sensitive, rapid and accurate diagnostic methods based on the direct detection of the viral antigens without pretreatment is highly demanded to control the COVID 19 outbreak. There are four main structural antigens for corona viruses: nucleocapsid (N), spike (S), matrix (M), and envelope (E). Among them, the S and N proteins have the potential to be used as biomarkers because they can distinguish different types of corona viruses.

Several diagnostic methods are being developed for the detection of COVID 19. Biosensors have been widely used for many diagnostic applications showing fast, easy and reliable detection. Until now, only few biosensors have been developed for SARS-CoV-2 such as the graphene-based field-effect transistor (FET) biosensor reported by Seo. et al. The FET immunosensor was used for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 using spike 51 protein as biomarker. Plasmonic photothermal biosensors for SARS-CoV-2 through nucleic acid hybridization have been also developed. Half-strip lateral flow assays (LFA) for the detection of N protein was reported. However, LFA provide qualitative or semi-quantitative results and more work is still required to develop more accurate detection methods.

Electrochemical biosensors are one of the most popular types of biosensors which offer several advantages such as the low cost, capability of miniaturization, high sensitivity and selectivity. These advantages make them ideal for use as point-of-care devices for diagnostic applications. Electrochemical biosensors have been widely integrated with carbon nanostructures to fabricate highly sensitive devices. Carbon nanofiber (CNF) is one of the materials that showed excellent applications in biosensors because of its large surface area, stability and ease of functionalization.

Cotton swabs have been recently used in the fabrication of immunoassays for the detection of different pathogens. In these assays, the colorimetric detection was achieved based on visual discrimination of the color change. These assays are simple, fast and easy to perform. However, they only give qualitative or semi-quantitative results. Thus, more accurate methods are still required.

Want some graphene nano-flakes with your milk?

COMPOSITION FOR PCR CONTAINING A POLYETHYLENE GLYCOL-ENGRAFTED NANO-SIZED GRAPHENE OXIDE United States Patent Application 20180155765

BACKGROUND

1. Field of the Invention

The present invention relates to a composition for PCR including polyethylene glycol-engrafted nano-sized graphene oxide (PEG-nGO), the composition for PCR being capable of increasing the efficiency and specificity of PCR and shortening PCR time, and a PCR method using the same.

2. Discussion of Related Art

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a method of artificially amplifying DNA and is an indispensable technology in modern biotechnology and molecular biology. PCR is widely used in diagnostics, gene manipulation, biosensors, and a variety of fields. However, the specificity and efficiency of PCR may be reduced due to unintended (re)annealing of single stranded DNA (e.g., primer dimerization, incorrect primer binding, and reannealing of PCR amplicons). Nonspecific primer binding in PCR steps may result in generation of a large number of nonspecific amplicons, which can be confirmed by agarose gel electrophoresis. That is, smearing of a PCR band, which is observed in an electrophoresed agarose gel, indicates the presence of a large number of DNAs having similar sizes (i.e., nonspecific amplicons). When a DNA template is excessively amplified in PCR and the same primers are used in the second or subsequent PCR, nonspecific amplicons may be generated. To solve these problems, various PCR techniques such as nested PCR have been developed. In the first step of nested PCR, a primer set for amplifying a broad range including a target sequence on a DNA template is used, and in the second step, primer sequences for amplifying only the target sequence are generally used as an inner primer (nested primer) set.

In addition, studies have been conducted to increase the efficiency and specificity of PCR using various nanomaterials such as gold nanoparticles, carbon nanotubes, carbon nanopowder, graphene nanoflakes, cadmium telluride quantum dots, graphene quantum dots, dendrimers, and titanium dioxide. For example, graphene nanoflakes serve to improve PCR efficiency by increasing thermal conductivity of a PCR mixture, and gold nanoparticles are capable of being adsorbed to DNA and proteins to reduce amplification of nonspecific DNA products. However, these methods have a disadvantage that the specificity and efficiency of PCR may not be fundamentally solved when each nanoparticle is present. It is also controversial as to whether gold nanoparticles play a role in increasing the specificity of PCR.

Graphene oxide (GO) refers to a material having a honeycomb-like nanostructure in which carbons are arranged in a hexagonal lattice, and is prepared by oxidizing a single layer of graphite, i.e., graphene. The surface of GO may have various functional groups such as epoxy groups, hydroxyl groups, and carboxyl groups, which allow the GO to be dissolved in a water-soluble solvent. In addition, GO may bind to single-stranded nucleic acids via π stacking interaction and hydrogen bonding, but has low affinity to double-stranded nucleic acids. Based on the functions of GO, GO has been widely applied in various areas such as DNA detection, biosensors based on energy transfer through fluorescence resonance, and real-time monitoring of fluorescently labeled nucleic acids.

However, GO is not soluble in a buffer solution containing Mg2+ and a high salt concentration, such as a PCR buffer, and is adsorbed to proteins such as a DNA polymerase via non-covalent bonding. It is well known that divalent cations such as Mg2+ induce strong crosslinking between GO sheets, allowing the GO sheets to be aggregated. That is, when other salts are added to a PCR sample for buffering, GO sheets may be aggregated by divalent cations such as Mg2+. In addition, it has been reported that GO is bound to proteins to induce protein aggregation, which may distort the structures of proteins and cause the loss of function of proteins. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is known as a biocompatible polymer that reduces protein adsorption. Recently, to minimize nonspecific protein adsorption and increase the solubility of GO in a solution with a high salt concentration, nano-sized GO (nGO) was prepared, and the surface of the nGO was coated with PEG to prepare PEG-nGO (Non-Patent Document 1). In Non-Patent Document 1, it is disclosed that, when PEG-nGO interacts with a protein, a nano-bio interface may be formed due to PEGylation of the surface of GO, thereby significantly reducing adsorption of the PEG-nGO to the protein. Accordingly, PEG-nGO is attracting attention as a substance capable of interacting with proteins without impairing the structure and function of the proteins.

Therefore, the present inventors have tried to confirm the effect of PEG-nGO on the efficiency and specificity of PCR. During the denaturation step of PCR, polyethylene glycol-engrafted nano-sized graphene oxide (PEG-nGO) was capable of being adsorbed to single-stranded primers and a DNA template. Accordingly, when PEG-nGO was added to a PCR sample and PCR amplification was performed, in an initial PCR process in which an excessive amount of primers was included, primer dimerization was inhibited, and in a late PCR process in which amplified PCR products were accumulated, nonspecific reannealing between the amplified PCR products and other DNA strands was inhibited. Thus, it was confirmed that, when PCR was performed using a composition for PCR including the PEG-nGO of the present invention, the efficiency and specificity of PCR may be improved and PCR time may be shortened as compared with conventional PCR techniques. By confirming these results, the present invention was completed.

Or perhaps you want to find out about GO-based nano-biosensors:


Quantitative and Multiplexed MicroRNA Sensing in Living Cells Based on Peptide Nucleic Acid and Nano Graphene Oxide (PANGO)

If you’re curious about a Mechanism of DNA Adsorption and Desorption on Graphene Oxide, say no more!

So it shouldn’t surprise us that La Quinta Columna eventually found similar stuff in older vaccines too.

I bet there’s going to be a long line of such revelations in the near future, until they put the shackles on us.

Meanwhile, top researchers from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia find that GO induces high oxidative stress to the cells, slowly killing us:

Other studies compare graphene and carbon nanotubes to asbestos:

SOURCE

More from the study quoted above: “Furthermore, it is equally important that the material properties are reported in full in papers dealing with (eco)toxicity assessment of GBMs. Can the information that has been collected on safety of GBMs be applied to other 2D materials? We believe that some aspects might be common to all 2D materials, or even to all nanomaterials, while some “postcarbon” 2D materials will likely present with their own specific concerns. For instance, the propensity to dissolve in a biological environment with the release of ionic species that are more biologically/chemically reactive than the parental 2D material is an issue that has not been described for GBMs.(346) Moreover, Guiney et al.(347) recently commented that “with a constantly expanding library of 2D materials, the ability to predict toxicological outcomes is of critical importance” and suggested that high-throughput screening approaches may prove useful in order to elucidate cellular interactions of 2D materials. However, the issue is not so much the low throughput of current approaches as much as the inconsistent design of commonly used toxicity assays and frequent lack of material characterization. Indeed, careful characterization of both the test material and the test system is required, and a proposal was recently put forward for minimum reporting requirements in publications dealing with nanobiointeractions. Though such reporting requirements have not yet been adopted, it is important to discuss these issues in the scientific community. To conclude, the hype that inevitably follows with technological advances should be tempered by sound, science-based assessment of the potential impact on human health and the environment to ensure safe and sustainable development of new products and applications.”

And we find out the cytoxicity is widely known inside the industry, from a very interesting invention patent that I dug out and provides excellent background information, it’s a lot, but it gives us great details as to the extent of GO usage and impact on health:

Hey, kids, PEGylation is bad for you!
SOURCE

“The in vitro studies demonstrated concentration-dependent toxicity. The highest concentration (100 μg/mL) of non-PEGylated rGO had a lower toxic influence on cell viability in primary cultures of astrocytes and rat brain endothelial cells, while PEGylated rGO induced deleterious effects and cell death. We assessed hippocampal BBB integrity in vivo by evaluating astrocyte activation and the expression of the endothelial tight and adherens junctions proteins. From 1 h to 7 days post-rGO-PEG systemic injection, a notable and progressive down-regulation of protein markers of astrocytes (GFAP, connexin-43), the endothelial tight (occludin), and adherens (β-catenin) junctions and basal lamina (laminin) were observed. The formation of intracellular reactive oxygen species demonstrated by increases in the enzymatic antioxidant system in the PEGylated rGO samples was indicative of oxidative stress-mediated damage. Under the experimental conditions and design of the present study the PEGylation of rGO did not improve interaction with components of the blood-brain barrier. In contrast, the attachment of PEG to rGO induced deleterious effects in comparison with the effects caused by non-PEGylated rGO.”

Biocompatible graphene quantum dots for drug delivery and bioimaging applications – United States Patent 9642815

Abstract:

In this work we have targeted two aspects of GQDs, Size and ROS to reduce their cytotoxicity. Small size can damage cell organelles and production of ROS (reactive oxygen species) can hamper cell machinery in multiple ways. We have shown that cytotoxicity can be significantly reduced by embedding GQDs inside the PEG matrix rather than creating a thin shell around each GQD. Thin PEG shell around GQD can control ROS production but cannot circumvent the toxicity due to small size. Thus it was essential to solve both the issues. We have used a simple electrochemical method (12 h at room temperature) for synthesizing GQDs and embedded them in PEG matrix via a simple one step hydrothermal reaction (24 h at 160° C.) involving only GQDs, PEG, and deionized water. The P-GQDs formed after hydrothermal reaction show nanoparticles of diameter of ˜80-100 nm containing GQDs entrapped in PEG matrix. MTT assay showed significant 60% cells viability at a very high concentration of 5.5 mg/mL of P-GQDs compared to 10-15% viability for C-GQD and H-GQD. ROS production by P-GQDs was least compared to C-GQD and H-GQD in cell free and intracellular ROS assay suggesting involvement of ROS in cytotoxicity. In this work we have solved the issue of cytotoxicity due to ‘small size’ and ‘ROS generation’ without compromising with fluorescence properties of GQDs. P-GQDs was used for bioimaging and drug delivery in HeLa cells. In short we can obtain biocompatible P-GQDs in very short span of time with minimal use of hazardous chemicals and simple methodology.

BACKGROUND AND PRIOR ART OF THE INVENTION

A quantum dot is a semiconductor nanostructure that confines the motion of conduction band electrons, valence band holes, or excitons in all three spatial directions. Quantum dots (QDs) are traditionally chalcogenides (selenides or sulfides) of metals like cadmium or zinc (CdSe or ZnS), which range from 2 to 10 nanometers in diameter.

QDs have unique optical and electronic properties such as size-tunable light emission, narrow and symmetric emission spectra, and broad absorption spectra that enable simultaneous excitation of multiple fluorescence. Moreover, QDs are resistant to photo bleaching than organic dyes and fluorescent proteins. These properties are well suited for dynamic imaging at the single-molecule level and for multiplexed biomedical diagnostics at ultrahigh sensitivity.

However, for in vivo and clinical imaging, the potential toxicity of QDs remains a major concern. The toxic nature of cadmium-containing QDs is no longer a factor for in vitro diagnostics, since emergent use of fluorescent QDs for molecular diagnostics and pathology is an important and clinically relevant application for semiconductor QDs. (Kairdolf. B. et al., Annual Rev. of Analytical Chem. Vol. 6: 143-162.)

In prevalent practice, the use of carbon nanoparticles in synthesis of quantum dots, have emerged as a new class of quantum dot-like fluorescent nanomaterials. Carbon nanoparticles are used since their particle size can be controlled between 3-20 nm. Carbon atoms linked in hexagonal shapes, wherein each carbon atom is covalently bonded to three other carbon atoms to form graphene sheets. Graphene has the same structure of carbon atoms linked in hexagonal shapes to form carbon nanotubes, but graphene is flat rather than cylindrical.

Graphene quantum dots (GQDs) are used as fluorophores for bioimaging, owing to their physicochemical properties including tunable photoluminescence, excellent photostability, and biocompatibility. GQDs usually less than 50 nm in size have been reported to have excellent fluorescent properties. Due to luminescence stability, nanosecond lifetime, biocompatibility, low toxicity, and high water solubility, GQDs are demonstrated to be excellent probes for high contrast bioimaging and bio sensing applications.

It’s really good news that it’s become a meme topic!

References may be made to prior art documents for methods of synthesizing GQDs using electrochemical processes, hydrothermal methods and the modified Hummers process for graphene oxide synthesis and cytotoxicity assays to determine the cellular uptake of the resultant GQDs formed by these processes.

US patent publication, US 2013/0175182 provides a process for the transformation of single walled, double walled or multi walled carbon nanotubes to nanoribbons composed of few layers of graphene by a two-step electrochemical process. The process involves oxidizing dispersed carbon nanotubes (CNT) to obtain CNT oxide and further reducing it to form graphene layers.

In research publication, Chem. Commun, 2011, 6858-6860, Zhu et al, describe a method of GQD preparation wherein modified Hummers method is used for graphene oxide synthesis and hydrothermal method for GQD synthesis to obtain GQDs of particle size of 5.3 nm. At concentrations of 2.6 mg/ml, cell viability of 80% is observed.

Further Jianhua Shen et al. in New J. Chem., 2012, 36, 97-101 reported one-pot hydrothermal reaction for preparation of graphene quantum dots surface-passivated by polyethylene glycol (GQDs-PEG) and their photoelectric conversion under near-infrared light, using small graphene oxide (GO) sheets and polyethylene glycol (PEG) as starting materials.

Juan Peng et al. (Nano Lett., 2012, 12 (2), pp 844-49) describes the acid treatment and chemical exfoliation of carbon fibers, to provide GQDs in the size range of 1-4 nm. The publication provides that the GQDs derived have no toxicity at concentrations of 0.05 mg/ml. However, the cytotoxicity of GQDs at higher levels is unaccounted.

Chang Ming Li et al., (J. Mater. Chem., 2012, 8764-66) provide a method to develop graphene quantum dots (GQDs) from XC-72 carbon black by chemical oxidation, however toxicity assays confirm maximum cell viability at concentrations of 0.1 mg/ml.

The toxicity of GQDs is attributed to their size, since small sized GQDs interact with various proteins and organelles inside the cell and disrupt cellular processes. Another reason for the toxicity is their ability to generate more reactive oxygen species (ROS). Polymers, especially PEG coating has been used in the literature to decrease the toxicity of GQDs. However, even after polymer coating the cell viability at higher concentrations (>1 mg/ml) is low. Probably because even though the ROS production is lowered by the polymer shell coating, the size of the GQDs after coating still remains small (sub 50 nm) and are still in the size range that can interact with intracellular proteins and organelles.

In the following research publications, references may be made to PEGylation of carbon nanoparticles and the cell viability determined at concentrations of 1 mg/ml or lesser than that.

Bhunia et al., (Scientific Reports, 2013, 3:1473) describe carbon nanoparticles (FCN) which are polymer coated with PEG and the dosage dependent cellular toxicity of these fluorescent nanoparticles. At 1 mg/ml concentration of the FCN-PEG composition, 55-60% cell viability is observed.

Zhuang Liu et al., (J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2008, 130 (33), pp 10876-10877) describe pegylated nano-graphene oxide (NGO-PEG) of size 5-50 nm for delivery of water insoluble cancer drugs produced by Hummers method.

Omid Akhavan et al., (J. Material. Chem., 2012, Vol. 22, 20626-33) describes nontoxic concentrations of pegylated graphene nanoribbons for selective cancer cell imaging and photothermal therapy. At concentrations of 1 mg/ml of the composition. 28% cell viability was obtained.

Further Lay C L et al. (Nanotechnology. 2010 Feb. 10; 21(6):065101) reports delivery of paclitaxel by physically loading onto poly (ethylene glycol) (PEG)-graft-carbon nanotubes for potent cancer therapeutics.

Toxicity assays of GQDs synthesized by methods of the above prior arts report minimum cell viability at GQDs concentrations of 1 mg/ml, and lesser than that, thus posing limitations in cellular imaging applications. However, to realize biomedical applications of GQDs, low toxicity of the GQDS at higher concentrations is desired for cellular imaging.

With a view to provide graphene quantum dots (GQDs) with decreased cytotoxicity levels at higher concentrations i.e. greater than 1 mg/ml, the present inventors have provided a biocompatible composition of one or more graphene quantum dots (GQDs) in a nanosized polymer matrix of polyethylene glycol which is larger compared to small sized GQDs as observed in the prior art. The PEG matrix aids in reducing the reactive oxygen radicals (ROS) generated by the GQD surface while keeping the small GQDs inside the matrix; thus, also reducing their undesirable interactions with cellular proteins and organelles.

Meanwhile, these nutjobs want to use it to treat bone cancer in kids!

Or how about:

Graphene quantum dots, their composites and preparation of the same

United States Patent 9926202

Abstract:

Procedures for the synthesis of zero dimension GQDs based on exfoliation/reduction of surface passivated functionalized graphite oxide (f-GO PEG) are described. The synthesis procedures can include exfoliation/reduction f-GO PEG in presence of hydrogen gas, using focused solar radiation and under vacuum.

BACKGROUND

Graphene nanoribbons address this drawback of single layer graphene, however, more recently, focus has been on another carbon nanostructure called graphene quantum dots (GQDs) or carbon quantum dots (CQD) (also known as graphene quantum discs). GQDs show very desirable photoluminescence properties, as the size and shape of the GQDs can be tuned to have desired band gap and emission properties. Moreover, GQDs have desirable characteristics, for example, high surface area, larger diameter, better surface grafting using the π-π conjugated network or surface groups and other special physical properties due to the structure of graphene. Since most of the carbon nanomaterials including GQDs are biocompatible and nontoxic, GQDs can advantageously be used in biological applications for example, image scanning and sensing, drug delivery and cancer treatment. The photoluminescence properties of GQDs are useful for photovoltaic applications too as it has been theoretically proved that the energy gap in GQDs can be tuned by using electrostatic potentials.

The band gap of a GQD depends on its size and shape. With existing technology it is possible to cut graphene in to desirable size and shape forms. As the number of atoms increases, the energy gap in almost all the energy spectra of GQDs decreases monotonously. In the case of GQDs, along with size and shape, the edge type plays an important role in electronic, magnetic and optical properties.

THANKS FOR STAYING ON COURSE, THIS GOES DEEPER

This part of the article isn’t fully substantiated with third part peer-reviewed evidence, but with some of my own logic and observations, feel free to arbiter for yourself:

The graphene nano-ribbons mentioned above, if you payed attention, are most likely what La Quinta Columna and others noticed on their microscopes. Either that or carbon nanotubes, which are about the same thing, but in 3D.

Sinopeg claims it works with US scientists and collaborates with Chinese Academy. Just like Bill Gates, who is one of the very few foreign members of the Academia there, as I revealed last year.
It’s almost unconceivable that Gates didn’t know of these PEGs and didn’t want to protect the secret from the general public.
Sharing the manufacturing and the patents with the whole world would’ve almost certainly lead to information leaks, and that is what worried Gates more than money leaks, which are his last concern right now, I suspect.

IN CONCLUSION:

Ah, and in case you want to go even deeper into the science:

Other References:


Yu, et al., Tuning the Graphene Work Function by Electric Field Effect, Nano Letters 2009 9(10): 3430-3434.
Eswaraiah, et al., Top down method for synthesis of highly conducting graphene by exfoliation of graphite oxide using focused solar radiation, J. Mater. Chem. 2011; 21: 6800.
Mei, et al., Ultrasonication-assisted ultrafast reduction of graphene oxide by zinc powder at room temperature, Carbon 2011; 49: 5389-5397.
Peng J., et al., “Graphene Quantum Dots Derived from Carbon Fibers,” Nano Letters, vol. 12, Issue 2, pp. 844-849 (2012).
Qian L., et al., “Electroluminescence from light-emitting polymer/ZnO nanoparticle heterojunctions at sub-bandgap voltages,” Nano Today, vol. 5, Issue 5, pp. 384-389 (Jan. 2010).
Rakhi R.B., et al., “Electron field emitters based on multiwalled carbon nanotubes decorated with nanoscale metal clusters,” Journal of Nanoparticle Research, vol. 10, Issue 1, pp. 179-189 (May 15, 2007).
Reich S. and Thomsen C., “Raman spectroscopy of graphite,” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A, vol. 362, Issue 1824, pp. 2271-2288 (Nov. 15, 2004).
Schedin F., et al., “Detection of individual gas molecules adsorbed on graphene,” Nature Materials, vol. 6, Issue 9, pp. 652-655 (Sep. 2007).
Schniepp H.C., et al., “Functionalized Single Graphene Sheets Derived from Splitting Graphine Oxide,” Journal of Physical Chemistry B, vol. 110, Issue 17, pp. 8535-8539 (2006).
Shang D., et al., “Magnetic and filed emission properties of straw-like CuO nanostructures,” Applied Surface Science, vol. 255, Issue 7, pp. 4093-4096 (Jan. 15, 2009).
Shen J., et al., “Facile preparation and upconversion luminescence of graphene quantum dots,” Chemical Communications, vol. 47, Issue 9, pp. 2580-2582 (2011).
Shen J., et al., “Graphene quantum dots: emergent nanolights for bioimaging, sensors, catalysis and photovoltaic devices,” Chemical Communications, vol. 48, Issue 31, pp. 3686-3699 (2012).
Si Y. and Samulski E.T., “Exfoliated Graphene Separated by Platinum Nanoparticles,” Chemistry of Materials, vol. 20, Issue 21, pp. 6792-6797 (Oct. 15, 2008).
Singh TH.J. and Bhatt S.V., “Morphology and conductivity studies of a new solid polymer electrolyte: (PEG) xLiCIO4,” Bulletin of Materials Science, vol. 26, Issue 7, pp. 707-714 (Dec. 2003).
Soin N., et al., “Enhanced and Stable Field Emission From In Situ Nitrogen-Doped Few Layered Graphene Nanoflakes,” Journal of Physical Chemistry C, vol. 115, Issue 13, pp. 5366-5372 (Mar. 11, 2011).
Stankovich S., et al., “Graphene-based composite materials,” Nature, vol. 442, Issue 7100, pp. 282-286 (Aug. 2006).
Stoller M.D., et al., “Graphene-Based Ultracapacitors,” Nano Letters, vol. 8, Issue 10, pp. 3498-3502 (Sep. 13, 2008).
Sun X., et al., “Nano-Graphene Oxide for Cellular Imaging and Drug Delivery,” Nano Res., vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 203-212 (2008).
Sun Y-P., et al., “Quantum-Sized Carbon Dots for Bright and Colorful Photoluminescence,” Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 128, Issue 24, pp. 7756-7757 (Jun. 21, 2006).
Titelman G.I., et al., “Characteristics and microstructure of aqueous colloidal dispersions of graphite oxide,” Carbon, vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 641-649 (2005).
Tuinstra F. and Koenig J.L., “Raman Spectrum of Graphite,” The Journal of Chem. Phys., vol. 53, No. 3, pp. 1126-1130 (1970).
Tung V.C., et al., “High-throughput solution processing of large-scale grapheme,” Nature Nanotechnology, vol. 4, pp. 25-29 (Jan. 2009).
Viculis L.M., et al., “Intercalation and exfoliation routes to graphite nanoplatelets,” Journal of Mater. Chem., vol. 15, pp. 974-978 (2005).
Wang G., et al., “Facile Synthesis and Characterization of Graphene Nanosheets,” The Journal of Phys. Chem., vol. 112, No. 22, pp. 8192-8195 (2008).
Wang G., et al., “Synthesis of enhanced hydrophilic and hydrophobic graphene oxide nanosheets by a solvothermal method,” Carbon, vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 68-72 (2009).
Wang J., et al., “Cu2ZnSnS4 nanocrystals and graphene quantum dots for photovoltaics,” Nanoscale, vol. 3, Issue 8, pp. 3040-3048 (2011).
Wang J.J., et al., “Free-standing subnanometer graphite sheets,” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 85, pp. 1265-1267 (2004).
Wang X., et al., “Room-temperature all-semiconducting sub-10-nm graphene nanoribbon field-effect transistors,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 100, Issue 20, pp. 206803-1-206803-4 (May 23, 2008).
Williams G. and Kamat V.P., “Graphene-Semiconductor Nanocomposites: Excited-State Interactions between ZnO Nanoparticles and Graphene Oxide,” Langmuir, vol. 25, Issue 24, pp. 13869-13873 (2009).
Wu Z-S., et al. “Synthesis of high-quality graphene with a pre-determined number of layers,” Carbon, vol. 47, pp. 493-499 (2009).
Yamaguchi H., et al., “Field Emission From Atomically Thin Edges of Reduced Graphene Oxide,” ACS Nano, vol. 5, No. 6, pp. 4945-4952 (May 27, 2011).
Yoo E., et al., Enhanced Electrocatalytic Activity of Pt Subnanoclusters on Graphene Nanosheet Surface, Nano Lett., vol. 9, No. 6, pp. 2255-2259 (Jun. 2009).
Yoo E., et al. “Large Reversible Li Storage of Graphene Nanosheet Families for Use in Rechargeable Lithium Ion Batteries,” Nano Letters vol. 8, No. 8, pp. 2277-2282 (Aug. 2008).
Yu K., et al., “Significant improvement of field emission by depositing zinc oxide nanostructures on screen-printed carbon nanotube films,” Applied Physics Letter, vol. 88, Issue 15, pp. 153123-1-153123-3 (2006).
Zhang S., et al., “Field-emission mechanism of island-shaped graphene-BN Nanocomposite,” The Journal of Physical Chemistry C, vol. 115, Issue 19, pp. 9471-9476 (2011).
Zhang S., et al., “First-principles study of field emission properties of graphene-ZnO Nanocomposite,” Journal of Physical Chemistry C, vol. 114, No. 45, pp. 19284-19288 (2010).
Zheng W. T., et al., “Field Emission From a Composite of Graphene Sheets and Zno Nanowires,” Journal of Physical Chemistry C, vol. 113, No. 21, pp. 9164-9168 (2009).
Zhu S., et al., “Strongly green-photoluminescent graphene quantum dots for bioimaging applications,” Chemical Communications, vol. 47, Issue 24, pp. 6858-6860 (2011).
Zhu Y.W., et al., “Large-scale synthesis and field emission properties of vertically oriented CuO nanowire films,” Nanotechnology, vol. 16, Issue 1, pp. 88-92 (2005).
Zickler G.A., et al., “A reconsideration of the relationship between the crystallite size La of carbons determined by X-Ray diffraction and Raman spectroscopy,” Carbon, vol. 44, Issue 15, pp. 3239-3246 (Dec. 2006).
International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/IB2014/063909 dated Apr. 14, 2015.
“Composition of PLATINUM,” National Institute for Standards and Technology, Retrieved from the Internet URL: http://physics.nist.org/cgi-bin/Star/compos.pl?matno=078, retrieved on Feb. 12, 2016, pp. 1-1.
Allen M.J., et al., “Honeycomb Carbon: A Review of Graphene,” Chemical Reviews, vol. 110, Issue 1, pp. 132-145 (2010).
Baby T.T. and Ramaprabhu S., “Cold field emission from hydrogen exfoliated graphene composites,” Applied Physics Letters, © 2011 American Institute of Physics, vol. 98, Issue 18, pp. 183111-1-183111-3 (May 2011).
Baby, T.T. and Ramaprabhu S., “Effect of metal nanoparticles decoration on electron field emission property of graphene sheets,” Nanoscale, vol. 3, Issue 10, pp. 4170-4173 (Aug. 25, 2011).
Balandin A.A., et al., “Superior Thermal Conductivity of Single-Layer Graphene,” Nano Letters, vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 902-907 (2008).
Chae H.K., et al. “A route to high surface area, porosity and inclusion of large molecules in crystals,” Nature vol. 427, pp. 523-527 (Feb. 5, 2004).
Chen G. et al., “Atomic decoration for improving the efficiency of field electron emission of carbon nanotubes,” Journal of Physical Chemistry C, vol. 111, Issue 13, pp. 4939-4945 (Mar. 9, 2007).
Cheng H., et al., “Graphene-Quantum-Dot Assembled Nanotubes: A New Platform for Efficient Raman Enhancement,” ACS Nano, vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 2237-2244 (2012).
Chung D.D.L., “Review Graphite,” Journal of Materials Science, vol. 37, Issue 8, pp. 1475-1489, (2002).
Dervishi E. et al. “Supplementary Information—Large-Scale Graphene Production by RF-cCVD Method,” Supplementary Material (ESI) for Chemical Communications, This journal is (c) of the Royal Society of Chemistry, pp. 1-5 (2009).
Dervishi E., et al., “Large-scale graphene production by RF-cCVD method,” Chemical Communications, This journal is (c) of The Royal Society of Chemistry, pp. 4061-4063, (May 27, 2009).
Forsman W.C., et al., “Chemistry of graphite intercalation by nitric acid,” Carbon, vol. 16, Issue 4, pp. 269-271 (1978).
Gao W., et al., “New Insights into the structure and reduction of graphite oxide,” Nature Chemistry, vol. 1, Issue 5, © 2009 Macmillan Publishers Limited, pp. 1-6, (Jul. 5, 2009).
Gao W., et al., “Supplementary Information—New Insights into the structure and reduction of graphite oxide,” Nature Chemistry, vol. 1, Issue 5, © 2009 Macmillan Publishers Limited, pp. 1-20 (2009).
Geim A.K. and Novoselov K.S., “The rise of graphene,” Nature Materials, © Nature Publishing Group, vol. 6, pp. 183-191 (2007).
Gokus T. et al., “Making Graphene Luminescent by Oxygen Plasma Treatment,” ACS Nano, Copyright © 2009 American Chemical Society, vol. 3, Issue 12, pp. 3963-3968 (Nov. 19, 2009).
Gómez-Navarro C. et al., “Electronic Transport Properties of Individual Chemically Reduced Graphene Oxide Sheets,” Nano letter, Copyright © 2007 American Chemical, vol. 7, Issue 11, pp. 3499-3503 (Oct. 18, 2007).
Goswami S. et al., “Preparation of graphene-polyaniline composites by simple chemical procedure and its improved field emission properties,” Carbon, vol. 49, Issue 7, pp. 2245-2252, (Jan. 31, 2011).
Green A.A. and Hersam M.C., “Solution Phase Production of Graphene with Controlled Thickness via Density Differentiation,” Nano Letters, vol. 9, Issue 12, pp. 4031-4036 (Dec. 2009).
Huang W., et al., “Solubilization of Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes with Diamine-Terminated Oligomeric Poly (ethylene Glycol) in Different Functionalization Reactions,” Nano Letters, vol. 3, Issue 4, pp. 565-568 (2003).
Hummers, Jr., W.S. and Offerman R.E., “Preparation of Graphitic Oxide,” Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 80, Issue 6, pp. 1339-1339 (Mar. 20, 1958).
Hwang J.O. et al., “Vertical ZnO nanowires/graphene hybrids for transparent and flexible field emission,” Journal of Materials Chemistry, vol. 21, Issue 10, pp. 3432-3437 (Aug. 2, 2011).
Hwang J.O. et al., “Workfunction-Tunable, N-Doped Reduced Graphene Transparent Electrodes for High-Performance Polymer Light-Emitting Diodes,” ACS Nano, Copyright © 2011 American Chemical Society, vol. 6, Issue 1, pp. 159-167 (Dec. 13, 2011).
Jang H-S. et al., “Enhancement of field emission of SnO2 nanowires film by exposure of hydrogen gas,” Solid State Communications, vol. 140, Issues 11-12, pp. 495-499 (Dec. 2006).
Jeong H-K. et al. “Unoccupied electronic states in graphite oxides,” Chemical Physics Letters, vol. 460, Issues 4-6, pp. 499-502 (Jul. 2008).
Jeong S-H., et al., “Template-based carbon nanotubes and their application to a field emitter,” Applied Physics Letter, vol. 78, Issue 14, pp. 2052-2054 (Apr. 2001).
Kaniyankandy S., et al., “Ultrafast Charge Transfer Dynamics in Photoexcited CdTe Quantum Dot Decorated on Graphene,” Journal of Physical Chemistry C, vol. 116, No. 30, pp. 16271-16275 (2012).
Kaniyoor A., et al., “Supplementary Information—Graphene synthesis via hydrogen induced low temperature exfoliation of graphite oxide,” Journal of Materials Chemistry, Supplementary Material (ESI) for Journal of Materials Chemistry, This Journal is (c) the Roral Society of Chemistry, Issue 9, vol. 20, pp. 1-9 (2010).
Kaniyoor A., et al., “Graphene synthesis via hydrogen induced low temperature exfoliation of graphitic oxide,” Journal of Materials Chemistry, vol. 20, pp. 8467-8469 (Sep. 7, 2010).
Knibbe R., et al., “Ultrahigh Electron Emissive Carbon Nanotubes with Nano-sized RuO2 Particles Deposition,” Journal of Nanoparticle Research, vol. 9, Issue 6, pp. 1201-1204 (Dec. 2007).
Kong B-S., et al., “Electrical Conductivity of Graphene Films with a Poly(allylamine hydrochloride) Supporting Layer,” Langmuir, vol. 25, No. 18, pp. 11008-11013 (Aug. 6, 2009).
Kudin K.N., et al., “Raman Spectra of Graphite Oxide and Functionalized Graphene Sheets,” Nano Letters, vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 36-41. (2008).
Lee S.W., et al., “A Study on Field Emission Characteristics of Planar Graphene Layers Obtained from a Highly Oriented Pyrolyzed Graphite Block,” Nanoscale Research Letters, vol. 4, No. 10, pp. 1218-1221 (2009).
Li X., et al., “Chemically derived, ultrasmooth graphene nanoribbon semiconductors,” Science, vol. 319, Issue 5867, pp. 1229-1232 (Feb. 29, 2008).
Li Y., et al., “Nitrogen-Doped Graphene Quantum Dots with Oxygen-Rich Functional Groups,” Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 134, No. 1, pp. 15-18 (2012).
Lin Y-H., et al., “Atomic Layer Deposition of Zinc Oxide on Multiwalled Carbon Nanotubes for UV Photodetector Applications,” Journal of the Electrochemical Society, vol. 158, Issue 2, pp. K24-K27 (2011).
Liu J. et al., “Improved field emission property of graphene paper by plasma treatment,” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 97, No. 3, pp. 033109-1-033109-3 (2010).
Liu J., et al., “Reduction of functionalized graphite oxides by trioctylphosphine in non-polar organic solvents,” Carbon, vol. 48, Issue 8, pp. 2282-2289 (Jul. 2010).
Liu J., et al., “Ultrathin Seed-Layer for Tuning Density of ZnO Nanowire Arrays and Their Field Emission Characteristics,” Journal of Physical Chemistry C, vol. 112, No. 31, pp. 11685-11690 (Jul. 10, 2008).
Lu Z., et al., “The Field Emission Properties of Graphene Aggregates Films Deposited on Fe—Cr—Ni Alloy Substrates,” Journal of Nanomaterials, vol. 2010, pp. 1-4 (2010).
LV W., et al. “Low-Temperature Exfoliated Graphenes: Vacuum-Promoted Exfoliation and Electrochemical Energy Storage,” ACS Nano, vol. 3, Issue 11, pp. 3730-3736 (Oct. 2009).
Ma W-L., and Li S-S., “Electrically controllable energy gaps in graphene quantum dots,” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 100, Issue 16, pp. 163109-1-163109-4 (Apr. 2012).
Maiti A., et al., “Effect of adsorbates on field emission from carbon nanotubes,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 87, Issue 15, pp. 1-4 (Oct. 8, 2001).
Meng L.Y and Park S. J., “Synthesis of Graphene Nanosheets via Thermal Exfoliation of Pretreated Graphite at Low Temperature,” Advanced Materials Research, vol. 123-125, pp. 787-790 (Aug. 2010).
Murakami H., et al., “Field Emission from Well-aligned, Patterned, Carbon Nanotube Emitters,” Applied Physics Letter, vol. 76, Issue 13, pp. 1776-1778 (Mar. 2000).
Novoselov K.S., et al., “Electric Field Effect in Atomically Thin Carbon Films,” Science, vol. 306, Issue 5696, pp. 666-669 (Oct. 22, 2004).
Novoselov K.S., et al., “Two-dimensional gas of massless Dirac fermions in graphene,” Nature, vol. 438, pp. 197-200 (Nov. 10, 2005).
Pan D., et al., “Hydrothermal Route for Cutting Graphene Sheets into Blue-Luminescent Graphene Quantum Dots,” Advanced Materials, vol. 22, Issue 6, pp. 734-738 (Feb. 9, 2010).
Baby, T.T., “Carbon Nanocomposites: Synthesis and Applications in Electron Field Emission, Nanofluid and Biosensor,” A Thesis to be submitted for Award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, pp. 1-17 (Mar. 2011).

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

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

ORDER