Yes, the vaccine passports too, like many other “novel ideas” brought up by the “novel” Macarenavirus, have been actually planned long ago.

DOWNLOAD PDF FROM EUROPEAN COMMISSION WEBSITE

IN OTHER NEWS

24 world leaders announce international pandemic treaty to implement Great Reset agenda

Signatories include the head of the World Health Organization, as well as the leaders of France, Germany, the U.K., and other countries.

March 31, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) –– A host of global leaders issued a call for a global pandemic treaty, purportedly in order to prevent future pandemics, distribute vaccinations, and implement a unilateral approach to global governance.

U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the head of the World Health Organisation (WHO), as well as 20 other world leaders, joined forces in penning a joint letter with the apparent intent of winning popular support for the globalist plan.

Writing in U.K. paper The Telegraph, as well as other publications such as Le Monde in France, the leaders declared their intent to “build a more robust international health architecture that will protect future generations.”

Calling COVID-19 the “biggest challenge to the global community since the 1940s,” the 24 leaders predicted that there “will be other pandemics and other major health emergencies.”

“No single government or multilateral agency can address this threat alone,” they declared. “The question is not if, but when. Together, we must be better prepared to predict, prevent, detect, assess and effectively respond to pandemics in a highly co-ordinated fashion. The Covid-19 pandemic has been a stark and painful reminder that nobody is safe until everyone is safe.”

This final phrase could indicate the influence which World Economic Forum (WEF) founder and committed globalist Klaus Schwab enjoys over the 24 leaders. Just weeks ago, Schwab declared, “As long as not everybody is vaccinated, nobody will be safe,” a statement which in itself poses an interesting question about the trust which such leaders are placing in their much praised, but dangerousexperimental injections.

The leaders re-affirmed their joint aim of global vaccination, describing it as “global public good.”

In order to achieve that “public good,” and to ensure swift roll-out of vaccines across the globe, the 24 globalists initiated their new international treaty: “[W]e believe that nations should work together towards a new international treaty for pandemic preparedness and response. Such a renewed collective commitment would be a milestone in stepping up pandemic preparedness at the highest political level.”

This treaty would be based on the principles of the WHO, drawing from the WHO’s constitution, as well as calling on “other relevant organisations key to this endeavour.” The WHO’s director-general, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, was one of the signatories of the statement.

“The main goal of this treaty would be to foster an all of government and all of society approach, strengthening national, regional and global capacities and resilience to future pandemics,” the leaders declared.

“This includes greatly enhancing international co-operation to improve, for example, alert systems, data-sharing, research and local, regional and global production and distribution of medical and public health counter-measures such as vaccines, medicines, diagnostics and personal protective equipment.”

Nor would it be centered purely on globalist vaccination agendas. Due to the leaders’ “One Health” approach, it would build on the principle of a connection between “the health of humans, animals and our planet.”

In language reminiscent of the Great Reset agendapromoted by the WEF and Klaus Schwab, the leaders mentioned that the new treaty would lead to a lack of national interests, and increased international concerns: “[S]uch a treaty should lead to more mutual accountability and shared responsibility, transparency and co-operation within the international system and with its rules and norms.”

No section of society would be exempt from becoming involved in the new treaty, whatever it may turn out to look like, with the world leaders pointing out that “we will work with heads of state and governments globally, and all stakeholders including civil society and the private sector.”

Declaring that the coronavirus, which originated in Wuhan, China, had “exploited our weaknesses and divisions,” the leaders pronounced it to be their “responsibility” to “ensure that the world learns the lessons of the Covid-19 pandemic,” and to “seize this opportunity and come together as a global community for peaceful co-operation that extends beyond this crisis.”

The proposal is due to be further discussed among national leaders at the June G7 summit in Cornwall in the U.K., where Boris Johnson will join his counterparts from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the U.S., and the E.U. Meanwhile, the 24 signatories warned that their new plan “will take time and require a sustained political, financial and societal commitment over many years.”

Speaking to BBC Radio, the WHO’s special COVID envoy Dr. David Nabarro, echoed the language employed by the 24 leaders, noting that it would be 2022 before the globalist agenda of world vaccination was complete, and thus hinted at “all sorts of problems with variants,” before that goal was complete.

The planned treaty appears to align very closely with the Great Reset goals of Klaus Schwab. The World Economic Forum’s promotion of the Reset even employs matching terminology, describing “leaders” who “find themselves at a historic crossroads.”

The societal disruption caused by the Wuhan virus presents “a unique window of opportunity to shape the recovery” for Schwab, who added that “this initiative will offer insights to help inform all those determining the future state of global relations, the direction of national economies, the priorities of societies, the nature of business models and the management of a global commons.”

Indeed, the link between the new international treaty and the Great Reset caused veteran presenter Richie Allen to write, “This is terrifying. For many years, I have been featuring writers, researchers and academics who warned us that this would happen. This is the end game.”

Such a treaty was simply about “concentrating power in the hands of a tiny elite,” explained Allen. “It’s what globalists have been working towards for decades.”

The full list of signatories is found below:

J. V. Bainimarama, prime minister of Fiji; António Luís Santos da Costa, prime minister of Portugal; Klaus Iohannis, president of Romania; Boris Johnson, prime minister of the United Kingdom; Paul Kagame, president of Rwanda; Uhuru Kenyatta, president of Kenya; Emmanuel Macron, president of France; Angela Merkel, chancellor of Germany; Charles Michel, president of the European Council; Kyriakos Mitsotakis, prime minister of Greece; Moon Jae-in, president of the Republic of Korea; Sebastián Piñera, president of Chile; Carlos Alvarado Quesada, president of Costa Rica; Edi Rama, prime minister of Albania; Cyril Ramaphosa, president of South Africa; Keith Rowley, prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago; Mark Rutte, prime minister of the Netherlands; Kais Saied, president of Tunisia; Macky Sall, president of Senegal; Pedro Sánchez, Prime Minister of Spain; Erna Solberg, prime minister of Norway; Aleksandar Vučić, president of Serbia; Joko Widodo, president of Indonesia; Volodymyr Zelensky, president of Ukraine; Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director-general of the World Health Organisation.

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

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

We gave up on our profit shares from masks, if you want to help us, please use the donation button!
We think frequent 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!

And we’re still just scratching surfaces…

ALSO READ:

REMEMBER WHEN GOOGLE’S AI LAB IN CHINA WAS A THREAT TO US’ SECURITY?

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

EPIC TIMES: BILL GATES HAS BEEN AN OFFICIAL MEMBER OF CHINESE ACADEMIA FOR YEARS. AND THERE’S MORE…

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

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

Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone.
You can even eat some of them.
CLICK HERE

Maybe one day we will beg for masks to protect ourselves from vaccines

MIT article
Our article

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

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

Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone.
You can even eat some of them.
CLICK HERE

Are the (Over)Lords Predictable or What?!

What actual African people think on this matter (say hello from me!):

WHAT AFRICAN HEADS OF STATE MAKE OF THIS:

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

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

We gave up on our profit shares from masks, if you want to help us, please use the donation button!
We think frequent 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!

It’s simple:
From the very beginning of the Covidiocracy, there were two definite choices: the official narrative or any of the others.
One way or another, the balance inclined for the official one, which has already led to more death, pain and destruction than any virus since the previous major pandemic (cull?) 100 years ago.
Any of the alternative narratives warned this is more than a risk, it’s pretty much a certain effect of the official narrative. We were right. We were ignored by the decision makers and their lemmings. That resulted in incommensurable death, pain, and loss.
The case for Nuremberg 2 has never been stronger, this is just one file.

Only that many bodies you can sweep under a fake pandemic rug.

I MYSELF WAS CLOSE TO BE ONE OF THEM.
THING IS I, LIKE MANY MANY OTHERS, STILL FIND IT MORE APPEALING THAN LIFE AMONG COVIDIOTS, WE’RE JUST STILL HOPING TO FIND A WAY TO GET THEM OFF OUR BACKS. YOU CAN COUNT THIS AS A VICTIM TESTIMONY FROM SOMEONE WHO LOST EVERYTHING HE LOVED AND DREAMED OF TO THE GREAT RESET AND ALL THE COVIDIOCRACY. NOT TO A VIRUS
– Silviu ‘Silview’ Costinescu

More “Covid Suicides” than Covid Deaths in Kids

Micha Gartz – March 17, 2021 – American Institute for Economic Research

Before Covid, an American youth died by suicide every six hoursSuicide is a major public health threat and a leading cause of death for those aged under 25 — one far bigger than Covid. And it is something that we have only made worse as we, led by politicians and ‘the science,’ deprived our youngest members of society — who constitute one-third of the US population — of educational, emotional and social development without their permission or consent for over a year. 

And why? For what?

A post I made during my one month hunger-strike last summer

We were scared. We were scared for our lives and those of people we love. And, like your average German-on-the-street in the 1930s and 40s, we believed that doing what we were told and supporting the national cause would save us and our families.

The reality is we sacrificed others without a second thought. We have sacrificed our youths’ lives and future livelihoods in a desperate attempt to save a slim minority of the elderly population who have surpassed the average US life expectancy of 78.8 years and those who were already on their way out. 

Source: Data from “NC-EST2019-SYASEXN: Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Single Year of Age and Sex for the United States: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019.” 2020 Census.

The median age — not the average, but the middle — of Covid-deaths is 80. Covid poses minimal risk to healthy individuals under 65, and is even less of a threat to youths (those aged under 25). In fact, preliminary data suggest Covid accounted for barely 1.2% of all deaths in the under-25 age group. Graphically, that’s the solid red line along the bottom of the graph below — the one you would probably miss if I didn’t draw attention to it. The distance between that and the solid pink line across the top that caught your eye? That represents the other 98.8% of deaths that had nothing to do with Covid. 

Source: Data from “Provisional COVID-19 Death Counts by Sex, Age, and Week.” CDC 2020. As data is provisional it may not include complete data for the final 8 weeks (the time period with large decline on the graph) and is subject to change.

A back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that, compared to 2018 and 2019 deaths per 100k, 2020 saw one extra death among those under age five, an additional 1.5 deaths among those aged 5 to 14, and a whopping 23 additional deaths among those aged 15 to 24. Overall, deaths per 100k in this age group jumped from 106.4 per 100k in 2019 to 131.7 per 100k during 2020. That’s an increase of 23% — and Covid only accounts for 1.2% of total deaths in ages 0–24 years.

All-Cause Deaths per 100,000 of US population under 25 years

Ages201820192020
1 – 4 Years2423.324.3
5 – 14 Years13.313.414.9
15 -24 Years70.269.792.5
Total < 25107.5106.4131.7

Source: 2018/2019 data from “Mortality in the United States, 2019,” Figure 3: Death rates for ages 1 year and over: United States, 2018 and 2019; and 2020 data drawn from “Provisional COVID-19 Death Counts by Sex, Age, and Week.” 2020 data is an estimate based on the CDC’s provisional death count – which may not include complete data for the previous 8 weeks and is subject to change.

The biggest increase in youth deaths occurred in the 15-24 age bracket — the age group most susceptible to committing suicide, and which constitutes 91% of youth suicides. Indeed, as early as July 2020 — just four months into the pandemic — CDC Director Robert Redfield remarked that 

there has been another cost that we’ve seen, particularly in high schools. We’re seeing, sadly, far greater suicides now than we are deaths from COVID. We’re seeing far greater deaths from drug overdose.

Official Narrative: Covid made him crazy, that’s why he killed himself, not becuase we’re criminally stupid and greedy.
If you’re part of this, you’re a war criminal

Although complete national suicide data for 2020 likely won’t be publicly available until 2022, Redfield’s claim is supported by the increase in calls and emails witnessed by mental illness hotlines. 

Between March and August the National Alliance on Mental Illness HelpLine reported a 65% increase in calls and emails. The Trevor Project — which targets suicide prevention among LGBTQ youth — saw double its usual call volume. The jump in helpline calls hadn’t let up by the end of 2020: in November Crisis Text Line received 180,000 calls — its highest volume ever, and an increase of 30,000 from the previous month. Over 90% of those were from people under 35. 

No lives matter to the Great Resetters and their covidiot pets

Such “deaths of despair” tend to be higher among youths, particularly for those about to graduate or enter the workforce. With economic shrinkage due to lockdowns and forced closures of universities, youths face both less economic opportunity and limited social support — which plays an important role in reporting and preventing self-harm — through social networks. “We know that participation in sports and a connection to school can have a profound protective effect,” says Pittsburgh psychiatry professor David Brent. But “the stressor that COVID represents,” says University of Oregon clinical psychology professor Nick Allen, 

takes away [the] good things [in life]. You can’t go to sporting events, you can’t see your friends, you can’t go to parties. […] we’re taking away high points in people’s lives that give them reward and meaning. […] over time, the anhedonia, the loss of pleasure, is going to drive you down a lot more.

And, “while adults have had multiple years to practice stress management and build skills around that,” says YouthLine program director, Emily Moser, “young people haven’t had that.” Many of YouthLine’s callers grieved not being able to do things they normally could — from after-school activities, to spending time with friends and missing milestones such as graduations. Many of these mental health problems and suicidal behaviour created by lockdowns, “are likely to be present for longer and peak later than the actual pandemic,” according to University of Bristol suicidology expert David J. Gunnell.

Generally suicides decrease in the immediate aftermath of short-term local or national emergencies (such as hurricanes) because, as the University of Kentucky’s director of the Suicide Prevention and Exposure Laboratory, Julie Cerel, explained, “[p]eople have [a] pull-together mentality.” However, this effect appears to disintegrate over longer periods of crisis, such as in the aftermath of financial crises. Between 2008 and 2012, in the wake of the financial crisis, suicide was the second (ages 15-19) and third leading cause of youth deaths (ages 10-14 and 20-24). 

In August 2020, FAIR Health found a 334% spike in intentional self-harm claims among 13–18 year olds in the Northeast compared to the same month in 2019. Nationally self-harm medical claim lines nearly doubled for this group in both March and April, while claim lines for overdoses as a percentage of all medical claim lines increased 95% and 119% percent respectively.

We published this in September 2020

Indeed, during the first eight months of 2020, suicides in Los Alamos (NM) tripled while Fresno (CA) numbers jumped 70% in June 2020 compared to the same month the previous year. Even the CDC acknowledges a 31% increase in the proportion of mental health-related ER visits for 12 to 17 year olds between March and October last year compared to the previous year.

Suicide is already the 10th leading cause of death in the US, with one death for every 24 attempts. Yet we continue to sacrifice the well-being of 103.3 million youths — equivalent to roughly 31.5% of the US population — out of fear for a fraction of the 4% that live past the average life expectancy of 78.8 years. 

Why are we even attempting to subject the entirety of the US population to isolation and ineffectual mask-wearing, instead of supporting voluntary focused protection for those who actually need it? And why do we continue to deny all groups the opportunity to enjoy and celebrate life when, after one year, deaths from and with Covid — number 520,000 — and are barely equivalent to 0.16% of the population?

We pulled the alarm again in October 2020.
READ

Society needs to remember that the stolen Covid generation will one day run the country. Teachers resisting returning to class should recognize that this generation currently locked-in to bedroom Zoom classes will one day care for us in our old age. And politicians should remember that this generation whose rights have so blatantly been violated will soon be able to vote.

***

If you or someone you know needs help, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: 1-800-273-8255

“As above, so below”. The clip above is the same as the one below.
IF WE KNEW, THEY KNEW, AND THEY SHOWED IT. THE DEATHS WERE ALLOWED, WHICH IS SAME THING AS COMMITING THEM.

Nazism, COVID-19 and the destruction of modern medicine: An interview with Holocaust survivor Vera Sharav, Part One
We tried to turn this into a T-shirt, but Zazzle won’t allow it. Surprise. Not.

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

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

We gave up on our profit shares from masks, if you want to help us, please use the donation button!
We think frequent 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!

We demand covidiots to cease all communications with people and social distance 666 feet

Here.
It’s self-explanatory.
You can take it seriously or jokingly, either way it’s ok, but one way is wiser than the other.
Thank you!

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

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

“In the early nineties, pioneering steps were taken in the use of mRNA as a therapeutic tool for vaccination. In the following decades, an improved understanding of the mRNA pharmacology, together with novel insights in immunology have positioned mRNA-based technologies as next-generation vaccines.”

Three decades of messenger RNA vaccine development

Like teenagers the world over, Nobel Prize-winning scientist Ralph Steinman had absolutely no idea what he wanted to do when he grew up.

In a 2009 essay, the Canadian-born immunologist and cell biologist described his early school career as unfocused, only landing on an interest in biology and medicine while taking “almost every other course” at McGill University in Montreal while on scholarship as an undergraduate.

This latent interest eventually led him to Harvard Medical School, where he earned his M.D. (also on scholarship), and an internship and residency at Massachusetts General Hospital. In 1970, the young Steinman joined the Laboratory of Cellular Physiology and Immunology at Rockefeller University in New York City as a postdoctoral fellow under cell biologist and immunologist Zanvil A. Cohn. Steinman wanted to know what triggers the body’s immune system to kick into gear to initiate a response, a question few scientists at the time were asking.

Just three years later, while working with cells from the spleens of mice, Steinman and Cohn made the discovery that would shape Steinman’s future: the identification and role of a particular type of white blood cell that sets into motion and controls the body’s immune system. They termed these cells dendritic cells, after the branching, tree-like shape the cells can form.

By identifying this chief component that initiates and regulates an immune response, Steinman had discovered why, when, and how the body’s immune system reacts the way that it does, especially in the face of foreign pathogens. He’d discovered what amounted to the boss cell that kicks off immune reactions and tells other cells what to do and what not to do. Dendritic cells also play a role in autoimmune diseases, inflammation, allergies, and transplant rejections.

This discovery would revolutionize immunotherapy and eventually launch the new field of dendritic cell biology. But at the time, Steinman’s discovery was generally disregarded. Dendritic cells were considered little more than an obscure anomaly by much of the scientific community. To top it off, the cells were difficult to isolate, and low in frequency and abundance to boot. It would take more than 20 years and Steinman’s development of a new method to generate large numbers of dendritic cells for experimental use for the scientific community to finally verify and accept his theories.

His chances for surviving another year were estimated at less than five percent.

Steinman was especially interested in clinical applications for dendritic cells, dedicating much of his career toward the development of new medical therapies and treatments based on his research. His discovery led to the first therapeutic cancer vaccine in 1973, a dendritic cell-based immunotherapy for the treatment of prostate cancer. Other potential immunotherapies that have resulted include cancer and transplantation treatments and vaccines for HIV, malaria, tuberculosis, and the Epstein-Barr virus, some of which have reached clinical trials.

Steinman’s desire to see his research put into practical medical application cannot be overstated. Despite his gentle, almost grandfatherly way of speaking, he often expressed frustration at the slow speed at which experimental therapies escaped the confines of the lab and its theoretical animal and data models to reach actual patients. This impatience took on a new sense of urgency in 2007 when Steinman was diagnosed with Stage 4 (advanced) pancreatic cancer. By the time of his diagnosis, the cancer had already advanced beyond the pancreas and spread to Steinman’s lymph nodes. His chances for surviving another year were estimated at less than five percent.

So, Steinman went to work. In response to his illness, he designed and coordinated a single-case medical study with himself as the sole subject.

In addition to undergoing conventional surgery and chemotherapy, Steinman reached out to the international network of researchers in industry and academia he’d built over his decades-long career. Banding together for this common cause, he and his colleagues developed a variety of personalized cancer treatments, many based on his design and research, including vaccines developed from Steinman’s own tumor cells.

“With ten million persons afflicted each year, no one is entirely immune to cancer and its devastating effects on individuals and families. But recent advances in the development of cancer vaccines—either as therapeutic agents or as preventative measures—are hopeful indicators of progress in this field. This volume comprises invited chapters from world-renowned researchers and clinicians that shed light on recent steps forward in immunotherapeutic and preventive approaches for future cancer vaccines.” – Blackwell Publishing

A close-up look at a dendritic cell, the boss cell that kicks off immune reactions and tells other cells what to do and what not to do.

Despite his general impatience with the speed of the traditional scientific process, Steinman insisted on conducting his personal trial according to established protocols, filing mounds of paperwork with official channels and seeking appropriate permissions for untested therapies just like any other trial. Although his personalized experiment was not controlled, he wanted it well-organized and well-documented so his treatment attempts might not only find a cure for himself but also gather knowledge that could be used to benefit others.

This adherence to protocol, however, became a source of frustration for some of Steinman’s colleagues. Steinman, for example, refused combined therapies that failed to get regulatory approval, even though he and many of his colleagues felt the combined approach had a higher likelihood of success. He also initially refused to undergo multiple treatments at once because doing so would confuse the data being collected. With time of the essence, colleagues had to argue with Steinman to get him to prioritize the possibility of his health and longevity over proper protocol and clean experimental results. All told, Steinman underwent as many as eight experimental therapies, in addition to surgery and chemotherapy, to combat his disease.

Four and a half years after his cancer diagnosis, he died just three days before the Nobel Prize announcement

During his long career, he received numerous awards and honors, including the prestigious Lasker Award (sometimes referred to as the American Nobel) in 2007. While in the midst of his illness and self-experimentation, he was also nominated for the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his discovery of the dendritic cell and subsequent contributions to immunology research and medicine.

Steinman joked often about surviving long enough to witness the awards announcement, and as late as a week before, the possibility seemed likely. But on September 30, 2011, four and a half years after his cancer diagnosis, he died just three days before the Nobel Prize announcement. He was 68 years old.

Nobel Prize rules generally prohibit the awarding of a prize posthumously, but given the unusual circumstances and unfortunate timing of events, the Nobel Committee ruled to allow the honor to stand. Steinman shares the prize with American immunologist Bruce A. Beutler and French biologist Jules A. Hoffman, also for their work in the area of immunity research.

Although no one can be sure of the efficacy of the dendritic cell-based immunotherapies Steinman underwent or which one(s) might have helped, the Nobel Laureate lived more than four times longer than expected. His decades of work have contributed to clinical therapies for cancer and infectious diseases that will benefit patients for generations to come. And despite those early years of unfocused study, even his self-experimentation laid the groundwork for future treatments, including an immunotherapy against pancreatic cancer based on data gathered during Steinman’s final experiment. – Folks Magazine

Ralph M. Steinman’s research while affiliated with The Rockefeller University and other places

Ralph Steinman died days before it was announced that he was to share the Nobel Prize for Medicine. His work had been part of an unorthodox experiment to save his life, wrote Politico journalist Brett Norman, quoted by BBC, 2011.

When Ralph Steinman learned he had pancreatic cancer, the dogged immunologist put his life’s work to the test.

He launched a life-and-death experiment in the most personal of personalised medicine.

By unlucky coincidence, he had been diagnosed with a disease that might benefit from the therapies he had spent his life researching.

Usually, medical research proceeds at a glacial, thorough pace: cell studies lead to studies in small animals which lead to studies in larger animals, which eventually lead to small, highly-selective clinical trials in humans. But Steinman didn’t have that kind of time.

He did, however, have access to world class facilities, cutting-edge technology, and some of the world’s most brilliant medical minds, thanks to his position as a researcher at Rockefeller University.

So Steinman decided to make his own body the ultimate experiment.

He had removed a piece of the tumour that would eventually kill him. He then trained his immune cells to track down any hint of the tumour that might have escaped the surgery, like putting hounds on a scent.

On Friday, four-and-a-half years after he was diagnosed with a disease that kills the vast majority of its victims in less than one, that experiment came to an end.

Steinman died at the end of a week in which he continued his work in the lab. It was a testament to the undying optimism of the scientific enterprise, to the unrelenting man, and to the limits of both.

An open secret

I joined Rockefeller as a science writer to chronicle the work of its researchers – Steinman included – about halfway through one of his experiments on himself.

His experiment was an open secret on campus, registered with the hospital and aided by a long-time friend and staff physician. The sense of hope was palpable, bound up in respect for the man but also something broader.

Could the painstakingly incremental research that seemed to have so much potential on lab animals this once grant a reprieve from certain death?

Of course everyone was rooting for him, and I had a special interest. Toward the end of 1999, my father had a stomach complaint. Over a few months, the initial diagnosis of an ulcer morphed into a death sentence: inoperable, metastatic cancer of the pancreas.

Pancreatic cancer is often known as the “silent killer” because it usually doesn’t produce truly scary symptoms until it has spread beyond repair. After chemotherapy, my dad bounced back for a few months, but the cancer inevitably did, too. He died at home in the early fall of 2000.

Could Steinman beat it?

I hoped so. The work had promise.

“In the last few years of his life, Dr. Ralph Steinman made himself into an extraordinary human lab experiment, testing a series of unproven therapies – including some he helped to create – as he waged a very personal battle with pancreatic cancer.”

– Reuters

‘Skeptical’ science

In 1973, along with his mentor, Zanvil Cohn, Steinman published the discovery of a new class of cell in the immune system – the dendritic cell. Like many new discoveries, his faced a deeply sceptical reception.

The experiments couldn’t be immediately reproduced, but Steinman was convinced of his discovery. He fought for a decade before immunologists began to broadly recognise the central importance of those cells to their field.

In the past 20 years, the study of dendritic cells has spread to hundreds of labs all over the world. Researchers are exploring how they might be harnessed to fight cancer, HIV and transplant rejection, among other major medical problems.

Dendritic cells are the “sentinel cells” of the mammalian immune system. Named after the Greek word for tree, they develop distinctive probing branches when activated, sweeping their environment in search of unwelcome things – like bacteria, viruses, tumours.

When dendritic cells encounter something they don’t like, they take a physical marker of the invader, called an antigen, and present it to B and T cells, the defenders of the body’ s immune system. Those cells then adapt weapons to identify and destroy the interlopers.

Steinman bet that if he could train his dendritic cells to recognise and tag his cancer, they would be able to convince the T and B cells to do the rest.

Dream deferred

There was no good reason to expect that Steinman could fashion a cure for one of the world’s most vicious cancers in time to save his own life. But it was easy to think it was at least possible. The made-for-Hollywood story of the renegade scientist who fights the establishment to prove his discovery, and then uses it to cure himself, was powerful enough to compel hope.

Unfortunately, the dendritic cell-based treatments didn’t work – at least not well enough.

Training Steinman’s dendritic cells to the tumour did generate a “vigorous immune response to mesothelin, a tumour specific antigen,” said Dr. Sarah Schlesigner, a longtime colleague of Steinman’s who ran the trial.

In other words, while there were significant side effects, the therapy seemed to enable him to work much longer than he otherwise would have. Month after month, he remained at the University, continuing his work.

He survived much longer than expected, and continued his research until the end.

Over time, it wasn’t enough.

At least, not enough to save him.

But the research he pioneered continues – and the scientists who continue his work have an extraordinary example to follow. – BBC, 2011

Also read: RNA Used to Alter DNA, Brain Functions and Behavior (Biohacking p.2)

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

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

Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone.
You can even eat some of them.
CLICK HERE

Whatever happened to Rule #0 in true journalism: “verify every statement from three or more independent sources”?! Mainstream media is just commentary and unverified press releases. This research below gets as close to the requirements as it can in this heavily censored and gate-kept environment. But it also aligns with everything we’ve already published on this matter (quite a lot) unlike Fauci’s words align with themselves.
You may have heard already some of this news as it goes viral, but it’s our original combo that puts to rest the entire official pandemic narrative.

Judicial Watch has just uncovered correspondences from Dr. Anthony Fauci outlining his focus on being in compliance with the Chinese Communist Party and their demands on the USA for COVID restrictions. And two more bombshells align.

“These new emails show WHO and Fauci’s NIH special accommodations to Chinese communist efforts to control information about COVID-19,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

From the press release Judicial Watch has put out on Monday :

Judicial Watch announced today that it and the Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF) received 301 pages of emails and other records of Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. H. Clifford Lane from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services showing that National Institutes of Health (NIH) officials tailored confidentiality forms to China’s terms and that the World Health Organization (WHO) conducted an unreleased, “strictly confidential” COVID-19 epidemiological analysis in January 2020.

Additionally, the emails reveal an independent journalist in China pointing out the inconsistent COVID numbers in China to NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ Deputy Director for Clinical Research and Special Projects Cliff Lane.

The emails were obtained in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by Judicial Watch on behalf of the DCNF (Daily Caller News Foundation v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services(No. 1:20-cv-01149)).

The lawsuit was filed after HHS failed to respond to the DCNF’s April 1, 2020, FOIA request seeking:

  • Communications between Dr. Fauci and Deputy Director Lane and World Health Organization officials concerning the novel coronavirus.
  • Communications of Dr. Fauci and Deputy Director Lane concerning WHO, WHO official Bruce Aylward, WHO Director General Tedros Anhanom, and China.

The new emails include a conversation about confidentiality forms on February 14-15, 2020, between Lane and WHO Technical Officer Mansuk Daniel Han. Han writes: “The forms this time are tailored to China’s terms so we cannot use the ones from before.”

A WHO briefing package sent on February 13, 2020, to NIH officials traveling to China as part of the COVID response ask that the officials wait to share information until they have an agreement with China: “IMPORTANT: Please treat this as sensitive and not for public communications until we have agreed communications with China.”  

In an email dated January 20, 2020, a WHO official discusses the epidemiological analysis they conducted of COVID-19 earlier that month and states that it is “strictly confidential,” is “only for,” the Strategic and Technical Advisory Group for Infection Hazards (STAG-IH), and “should not be further disseminated.”

In an email dated March 4, 2020, from Chinese journalist Zeng Jia to Lane, a reporter for Caixin Media, points out to Fauci deputy Cliff Lane that the number of cases reported in the WHO Joint China Mission’s report are inconsistent with the number reported by the Wuhan Public Health Committee:

It says on Page 6 [in the WHO report] that there was at least one clinically diagnosed case of coronavirus on December 2th, 2019, in Wuhan; and from Jan 11th to 17th there were new clinically diagnosed and confirmed cases every day in Wuhan, which is not consistent with Wuhan Public Health Committee’s numbers.

In an email dated February 15, 2020, Gauden Galea, head of the WHO office in China, informs the joint mission members traveling to China that all of their activities in China would be arranged by the Chinese Government’s National Health Commission.

“These emails set the tone early on in the coronavirus outbreak. It’s clear that the WHO allowed China to control the information flow from the start. True transparency is crucial,” said Ethan Barton, editor-in chief for the Daily Caller News Foundation.  

“These new emails show WHO and Fauci’s NIH special accommodations to Chinese communist efforts to control information about COVID-19,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

This is the latest information obtained in Judicial Watch and the DCNF’s ongoing investigation into Fauci’s and NIH’s response to the coronavirus pandemic. Judicial Watch and the DCNF previously uncovered emails showing a WHO entity pushing for a press release, approved by Dr. Fauci, “especially” supporting China’s COVID-19 response.  

And this comes just 10 days after Taiwan News unearthed another bombshell we’ve just learned about:

TAIPEI (Taiwan News, 2021/01/18 00:31) — Video taken just days before the start of the coronavirus pandemic shows a current World Health Organization (WHO) inspector discuss the testing of modified coronaviruses on human cells and humanized mice in the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), just weeks before the first cases of COVID-19 were announced in the city of Wuhan itself.

In a video that was originally taken on Dec. 9, 2019, three weeks before the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission announced an outbreak of a new form of pneumonia, virologist Vincent Racaniello interviewed British zoologist and president of EcoHealth Alliance Peter Daszak about his work at the nonprofit to protect the world from the emergence of new diseases and predict pandemics. Since 2014, Daszak’s organization has received millions of dollars of funding from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), which it has funneled to the WIV to carry out research on bat coronaviruses.

In the first phase of research, which took place from 2014 to 2019, Daszak coordinated with Shi Zhengli, (石正麗), also known as “Bat Woman,” at the WIV on investigating and cataloging bat coronaviruses across China. EcoHealth Alliance received US$3.7 million in funding from the NIH for this research and 10 percent was channeled to the WIV, reported NPR.

The second, more dangerous phase, which started in 2019, involved gain-of-function (GoF) research on coronaviruses and chimeras in humanized mice from the lab of Ralph S. Baric of the University of North Carolina. Funding for the program was withdrawn by the NIH under the Trump administration on April 27 amid the pandemic.

At the 28:10 mark of the podcast interview, Daszak states that researchers found that SARS likely originated from bats and then set out to find more SARS-related coronaviruses, eventually finding over 100. He observed that some coronaviruses can “get into human cells in the lab,” and others can cause SARS disease in “humanized mouse models.”

He ominously warned that such coronaviruses are “untreatable with therapeutic monoclonals [antibodies] and you can’t vaccinate against them with a vaccine.” Ironically, he claims that his team’s goal was trying to find the next “spillover event” that could cause the next pandemic, mere weeks before cases of COVID-19 were beginning to be reported in Wuhan.

When Racaniello asks what can be done to deal with coronavirus given that there is no vaccine or therapeutic for them, Daszak at the 29:54 mark appears to reveal that the goal of the GoF experiments was to develop a pan-coronavirus vaccine for many different types of coronaviruses.

Based on his response, it is evident that just before the start of the pandemic, the WIV was modifying coronaviruses in the lab. “You can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily.” What he then mentioned has become the telltale trait of SARS-CoV-2, its spike protein: “Spike protein drives a lot of what happens with the coronavirus, zoonotic risk.”

Daszak mentions the WIV’s collaboration with Baric: “and we work with Ralph Baric at UNC [University of North Carolina] to do this.” As has been suggested by proponents that SARS-CoV-2 is a chimera made in a lab, he speaks of inserting the spike protein “into a backbone of another virus” and then doing “some work in the lab.”

Providing evidence of the creation of chimeras for the sake of a vaccine, he states “Now, the logical progression for vaccines is, if you are going to develop a vaccine for SARS, people are going to use pandemic SARS, but let’s try to insert these other related diseases and get a better vaccine.”

Based on Daszak’s statements, it appears that just before the start of the pandemic, the WIV was using GoF experiments with chimeras in an attempt to create a vaccine. These experiments appeared to have included infecting mice genetically modified to express the human ACE2 protein with these chimeras.

In a presentation titled “Assessing Coronavirus Threats,” which was delivered four years before the pandemic in 2015, Daszak points out that experiments involving humanized mice have the highest degree of risk. Demonstrating his close ties with the WIV, he also listed the lab as a collaborator at the end of the presentation. – Taiwan News

WHO inspector caught on camera revealing coronavirus manipulation in Wuhan before pandemic
(Assessing Coronavirus threats, Peter Daszak image)

Controversially, Daszak has been included among a team of experts from the WHO that has finally been allowed by Beijing to investigate the origin of the outbreak of COVID-19, over a year after it started. Scientists such as Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University in New Jersey, are condemning Daszak’s participation due to conflicts of interest “that unequivocally disqualify him from being part of an investigation of the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic,” reported the Daily Mail.

“Peter Daszak’s organisation channelled cash to Wuhan scientists at the centre of growing concerns over a cover-up – and also collaborated on the sort of cutting-edge experiments on coronaviruses banned for several years in the United States for fear of sparking a pandemic.

The Wuhan Institute of Virology has been carrying out this risky research on bat viruses since 2015, including the collection of new coronaviruses and hugely controversial ‘gain of function’ experiments that increase their ability to infect humans.Peter Daszak¿s organisation channelled cash to Wuhan scientists at the centre of growing concerns over a cover-up

Peter Daszak’s organisation channelled cash to Wuhan scientists at the centre of growing concerns over a cover-up

Many leading scientists argue that deliberately creating new and infectious microbes poses a huge danger of starting a pandemic from an accidental release, especially as leaks from laboratories have often occurred.

Despite his close ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology – and the way he has orchestrated efforts to stifle claims that the pandemic might not have happened naturally – Dr Daszak was invited by the World Health Organisation to join its team of ten international experts investigating the outbreak.

The prominent scientist, who runs a conservation charity originally founded by the famous naturalist and best-selling author Gerald Durrell, is also leading an investigatory panel on the pandemic’s origins set up by The Lancet medical journal

‘Peter Daszak has conflicts of interest that unequivocally disqualify him from being part of an investigation of the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic,’ said Richard Ebright, bio-security expert and professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University in New Jersey.

‘He was the contractor responsible for funding of high-risk research on Sars-related bat coronaviruses at Wuhan Institute of Virology and a collaborator on this research.’

Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance, has seen his career take him from researching rare land snails at Kingston University to his new key role investigating the eruption of the most destructive pandemic for a century.

The pugnacious scientist, originally from Manchester, spent much of the past year trying to counter claims of a possible laboratory leak while defending his friend Shi Zhengli, the Wuhan scientist known as Batwoman for her virus-hunting trips in caves.

‘Ignore the conspiracy theories: scientists know Covid-19 wasn’t created in a lab,’ ran the headline to one typical article he wrote in The Guardian.

But other scientists say there is no firm evidence at this stage to back Daszak’s insistence that Covid-19 crossed from animals to humans via natural transmission. Many point to the simple yet startling coincidence that Wuhan is home to Asia’s main research centre on bat coronaviruses as well as the place where the pandemic erupted.

Emails released through freedom of information requests have shown Daszak recruited some of the world’s top scientists to counter claims of a possible lab leak with publication of a landmark collective letter to The Lancet early last year. He drafted their statement attacking ‘conspiracy theories suggesting that Covid-19 does not have a natural origin’ and then persuaded 26 other prominent scientists to back it. He suggested the letter should not be identifiable as ‘coming from any one organisation or person’.

The signatories include six of the 12-strong Lancet team investigating the cause of the outbreak.

Yet it has emerged that Daszak had previously issued warnings over the dangers of sparking a global pandemic from a laboratory incident – and said the risks were greater with the sort of virus manipulation research being carried out in Wuhan.

In October 2015, he co-authored an article in the journal Nature on ‘spillover and pandemic properties of viruses’ that identified the risk from ‘virus exposure in laboratory settings’ and from ‘wild animals housed in laboratories’.

Seven months earlier, Daszak was a key speaker at a high-powered seminar on reducing risk from emerging infectious diseases hosted by the prestigious National Academies of Science in Washington. 

Among materials prepared for the meeting was a 13-page document by Daszak entitled ‘Assessing coronavirus threats’ that included a page examining ‘spillover potential’ from ‘genetic and experimental studies’.

This identified steps that increased dangers from such research – rising from lower risk sampling of viruses through to the highest risk from experiments on infecting isolated cells and on so-called ‘humanised mice’ – animals created for labs with human genes, cells or tissues in their bodies.

Yet on January 2 – three days after news broke outside China of a new respiratory disease in Wuhan – Daszak boasted on Twitter of isolating Sars coronaviruses ‘that bind to human cells in the lab’.

He added that other scientists have shown ‘some of these have pandemic potential, able to infect humanised mice’.

Another tweet two months earlier talked about ‘great progress’ with Sars-related coronaviruses from bats through identifying new strains, finding ones that bind to human cells and ‘using recombinant viruses/humanised mice to see Sars-like signs and showing some don’t respond to vaccines’.

Daszak also told a podcast that bat coronaviruses could be manipulated in a lab ‘pretty easily’, explaining how their spike proteins – which bind to human receptors in cells – drive the risk of transmission from animals to humans.” – Daily Mail

We gave up on our profit shares from masks, if you want to help us, please use the donation button!
We think frequent 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!

In light of the WHO’s trip to Wuhan, a researcher who goes by the pseudonym Billy Bostickson and his colleagues at DRASTIC (Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19) have created a petition demanding that the international investigation team answer 50 key questions about the outbreak in Wuhan. Among the questions is a request to access to the facility’s database and laboratory records, which are supposed to go back 20 years and include a look at its safety procedures, safety audit reports, and safety incident reports.

And it gets even more explosive when we put all these in line with Daily Caller’s discovery that Daszak and his WHO commission boss have a long history of sucking China’s heels:

The chairman of a blue-ribbon commission working with the United Nations and the World Health Organization to investigate the origins of the coronavirus pandemic has a history of praising and working with China while criticizing the U.S. government.

Jeffrey Sachs, a Columbia economist, formed the Lancet COVID-19 Commission, affiliated with the prominent British medical journal of the same name, in July 2020 to investigate the virus’s origins.

Commission member Peter Daszak, a zoologist who is on the Lancet commission, served as the only American on a WHO team that recently visited Wuhan, China, to investigate the spread of the virus.

Daszak has been accused of having conflicts of interest due to millions of dollars of grants he has received from the U.S. government for research with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which some U.S. officials have said may have been the initial, accidental source for the coronavirus.

Daszak, Sachs and the Chinese government have all vehemently disputed the so-called lab leak theory.

Also: Google has stakes in the Astrazeneca Covid jab

Sachs has also come under some scrutiny in the past for his praise of Chinese government initiatives and his appearances on China state-controlled media outlets criticizing the Trump administration.Does the COVID commission chief have a history of praising China?Yes No  Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

In June 2020, Sachs accused the U.S. government of “trying to create a new cold war” with China.

“The U.S. is a force for division, not for cooperation,” he told the BBC in a June 21, 2020, interview.

In December 2018, he called the U.S. government “today’s greatest threat to the international rule of law” and “global peace” after the U.S. asked Canada to arrest an executive with the Chinese tech firm Huawei.

And in an interview last month, Sachs deflected questions about China’s human rights abuses against Muslim Uighurs, saying that there are “huge human rights abuses committed by the U.S. on so many fronts.”

He also accused former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo of “stirring the pot to raise tensions” after the diplomat criticized Chinese authorities’ crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong.

The Lancet COVID-19 Commission has afforded Sachs access to both the United Nations and the WHO, both of which have been accused of appeasing the Chinese government amid fallout over Beijing’s early cover up of the severity of coronavirus.

The commission’s website says it partners with The Lancet, the prominent medical journal, and with the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network, which was formed in 2012 by then-UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon.

It is unclear what influence the Lancet commission has had on WHO and UN’s coronavirus related efforts, but Sachs co-hosted an online forum on Dec. 17 with the WHO to discuss Asian countries’ handling of the pandemic.

Sachs, who served as an adviser to the UN from 2002 to 2018, also met with the president of the United Nations General Assembly on Jan. 22 to discuss the Lancet commission’s work.

Sachs has also appeared on CNN to tout a study he co-authored at Columbia in October that estimated that then-President Donald Trump’s policies were responsible for between 130,000 and 210,000 additional COVID-19 deaths.

The Lancet commission claimed in its early statements that it would investigate all theories about the virus origins with an open mind, though remarks from Daszak and Sachs both suggest that they dismissed the lab leak theory long ago.

The commission listed 10 priorities for action in its initial statement on Sept. 14, 2020.

The top priority, the commission said, was to “Track down the origins of the virus in an open, scientific, and unbiased way not influenced by geopolitical agendas.”

Daszak, who leads the New York-based EcoHealth Alliance, said in a statement on Nov. 23 that the commission would conduct “a thorough and rigorous investigation” into the early spread of the virus.

But emails recently released by U.S. Right to Know, a health care watchdog group, show that Daszak organized a group of 27 scientists back in February 2020 to sign a letter published by The Lancet calling the accidental lab leak hypothesis a “conspiracy theory.”

U.S. Right to Know asserted that the emails show Daszak had made up his mind about the theory nearly a year before he joined the WHO team investigating the virus origins in China.

Daszak, along with many other scientists, have embraced the theory that the virus jumped from an animal species to humans, likely at a food market in Wuhan.

The watchdog group has also accused Daszak and the EcoHealth Alliance of having a conflict of interest because of grants the group has received from the U.S. government for work with the Wuhan lab.

Sachs also dismissed the lab leak theory before the Lancet commission had investigated the virus’s origins.

In a virtual discussion in September, Sachs called the lab leak hypothesis “an extremely dangerous point,” but said it was “important” to publicly dispute it.

Daszak has been one of the more vocal members of the 17-member WHO investigative team.

After State Department spokesman Ned Price said on Feb. 9 that the U.S. government planned to independently review the WHO team’s findings, Daszak shot back on Twitter, urging: “don’t rely too much on U.S. intel.”

The leader of the WHO team, Peter Ben Embarek, said last week that the theory that the virus was the result of an accidental lab leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology was “extremely unlikely.”

The New York Times declared Embark’s remarks a “public relations win” for the Chinese government since officials there have long denied the lab leak hypothesis.

The WHO’s assessment has been met with wide skepticism, even within President Joe Biden’s administration, which has defended the WHO against conservative threats to defund it over its alleged appeasement of China.

Jake Sullivan, the Biden administration’s national security adviser, issued a statement Saturday saying the U.S. was “deeply concerned” by reports that Chinese authorities withheld raw data on early coronavirus cases from the WHO investigators.

Some scientists have cast doubt on the WHO’s findings, pointing to Daszak’s role on the team.

“I was not surprised at all about the conclusions of the WHO. Having Daszak on board and deciding to visit a few labs in Wuhan only after pressure from the media was not very promising,” Rossana Segreto, a researcher at the University of Innsbruck, told the Daily Caller.

While Sachs has no apparent financial ties to the Wuhan lab, he has for years been a reliable defender of China’s foreign and domestic policy. From 2001 to 2002, he advised China’s State Development Planning Commission, which sets the communist regime’s economic policies.

Sachs became a frequent guest of China’s state-controlled media outlets to voice criticism of Trump’s aggressive stance toward Beijing. The Washington Free Beacon reported some of his comments last year after progressive Democrats floated Sachs for a position in the Biden administration’s Treasury Department.

In an interview in April 2020 with CGTN, which the U.S. government considers a Chinese propaganda outlet, Sachs called Trump’s threat to cut funding to the WHO “disgusting” and “disgraceful.”

Trump had called for defunding the WHO based on allegations that it had failed to hold the Chinese government accountable for withholding data about the coronavirus.

Republicans accused WHO leaders of avoiding confrontation with China over the communist regime’s early handling of information about the coronavirus. In some cases, Beijing provided false information about the transmission of the virus and the number of cases detected in China.

On Jan. 14, 2020, the WHO cited Chinese authorities making the now-debunked claim that coronavirus was likely not infectious.

Sachs does not appear to have criticized the Chinese government over its bungled pandemic response.

Prior to the pandemic outbreak, Sachs contributed to a position paper released in November 2018 by Huawei, which manufactures surveillance equipment that the Chinese government has used to track Uighurs.

Sachs praised China’s poverty alleviation program during an interview with another state-controlled TV network.

“China has done more to reduce extreme poverty in a short period of time than any other country in history,” Sachs told the Beijing-controlled Xinhua News Agency in an interview that aired earlier this month.

The Chinese consulate in Australia tweeted out the video.

Sachs has also refused to condemn the Chinese government for engaging in intellectual property theft, and for human rights abuses against Uighurs in western China.

Instead, he accused the U.S. in an interview last month of engaging in similar human rights abuses and underhanded business tactics.

“It strikes me as odd that American policymakers think that the United States alone ought to run the show, or that the United States ought to gang up with other countries to corner China, as if this was the Cold War with the Soviet Union,” he said in an interview with The Wire China.

“Thereʼs no purity in this topic,” Sachs continued. “Thereʼs a lot of industrial espionage and cheating by U.S. companies.”

Sachs deflected questions about China’s human rights abuses against Uighurs, which Tony Blinken, the secretary of state under Biden, recently characterized as a “genocide.”

“We have huge human rights abuses committed by the U.S. on so many fronts,” Sachs said in the interview.

Sachs was on the advisory board to the China Energy Fund Committee, a think tank funded by CEFC China Energy, a now-defunct energy conglomerate affiliated with China’s People’s Liberation Army.

Sachs appeared at several events hosted by Patrick Ho, the chairman of the think tank.

During one event, Sachs praised China’s economic sustainability initiative, One Belt, One Road, at a China Energy Fund Event held in 2016.

“This plan is a pivotal one for China,” Sachs said at the event, according to China Daily.

Patrick Ho, the chairman of the think tank, was indicted and convicted on charges that he offered bribes on behalf of CEFC China Energy to two African leaders to purchase oil rights in their countries.

CEFC China paid Hunter Biden $6 million from August 2017, including $1 million to represent Ho.

Federal prosecutors obtained a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant on Ho based on the suspicion that he was working as a secret foreign agent, according to court filings in his case.

Sachs is also on the board of the Center for International Relations and Sustainable Development, a Serbian think tank founded by Vuk Jeremic, a former Serbian foreign minister who served as president of the UN General Assembly through 2012.

Jeremic testified at Ho’s trial that he made the introductions to the African officials who Ho tried to bribe.

Jeremic lobbied Hunter Biden to help him with his failed campaign for UN secretary-general in 2016, according to emails from Biden’s laptop.

The Lancet commission did not respond to questions about Sachs’ and Daszak’s past remarks, saying instead that the task force “will thoroughly and objectively review all publicly available evidence, and conduct interviews with key leaders in diverse fields.”

A spokesperson for the commission said that investigators “will carefully assess all leading hypotheses that have been raised about the origins of COVID-19, from a natural zoonotic event to a laboratory release.”

The commission plans to publish a final report in the Lancet.

Sachs did not respond to a detailed list of questions. – the Daily Caller News Foundation

As reported by GreatGameIndia last year, Chinese officials deleted 300 studies of Batwoman Shi Zhengli from the top secret Wuhan lab linked to the origins of COVID-19. Details of more than 300 studies, including many investigating diseases that pass from animals to humans are no longer available.

Last year a Beijing-based media group Caixin published a shocking report that the Hubei Provincial Health and Medical Commission ordered the destruction of Coronavirus samples.

Five years ago, Italian state owned media Company, Rai – Radiotelevisione Italiana, exposed these Chinese experiments on viruses.

The video, which was broadcast in November, 2015, showed how Chinese scientists were conducting biological experiments on a SARS connected virus believed to be Coronavirus, derived from bats and mice, asking whether it was worth the risk in order to be able to modify the virus for compatibility with human organisms.

The person who covered-up this biological experiments and orchestrated the myth of the natural origin of COVID-19 is Peter Daszak.

The President of EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Daszak is the one who orchestrated the myth that COVID-19 is natural in origin.

Emails obtained by U.S. Right to Know show that the statement in The Lancet authored by 27 prominent public health scientists condemning “conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin” was organized by employees of EcoHealth Alliance.

I mean, correlation does not prove causation, but it proves correlation, and that’s bad enough. No way in hell can anyone claim the “autoritah” is telling the truth.

Also read:

BREAKING! CHINA ADMITS THE BIGGEST LIE, THE WEST AND BIG TECH COMPLICIT
trailer
EXCLUSIVE: GATES, FAUCI AND SLAOUI HAVE LONG BEEN COOKING AND SELLING SCANDALOUS VACCINES TOGETHER. IT’S A CARTEL
(1ST ANNIVERSARY SPECIAL) SOROS A ROTHSCHILD FRONTMAN, FORGED IMF-CHINA ALLIANCE. WE’RE LIVING THE CONSEQUENCES

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

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

Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone.
You can even eat some of them.
CLICK HERE

With one exception, everything YouTube banned from us was good and meaningful information that’s never been debunked, or legit skepticism and inquiry. This interview should be no exception.
Besides the shocking “coincidences” with current events.

They deleted it before I even had the chance to edit the title 😀

The full text of my appeal to YouTube’s ban:

We all know you have no competence, capability, grounds or rights to do what you are claiming to do, and, in fact, you’re deleting stuff because it exposes your own business. But an YouTube ban brings me more traffic than I lose on your crappy narrative-enforcement machine, so keep up the great work! 😉

Also available on our Odysee channel

January 2014 interview with Anthony Patch, founder of Entangled Magazine an insightful and revelatory digital publication focused on current advances and pronouncements in: Quantum Computing, Artificial Intelligence, Cryptocurrencies/Blockchain, Quantum Mechanics, DNA/RNA Modification.

His YouTube channel has also been deleted, but he’s active on Bitchute.

I can’t vouch for some of the things he (or anyone) is saying on his channel, but smart people have a lot to learn from what he puts out.
Other than that, see our motto in the website header 😉

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

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