This isn’t trying to take a side in the abortion debate.
This is about pealing one more layer off this stinky onion.

Long ago, I came to the conclusion (unchallenged ever since) that both sides in the televised abortion debate are equally and symmetrically wrong, hypocritical and irrational about it. And those sides are all you will hear from, because both will forcefully exclude you from the discussion if you attempt to introduce new o more nuanced perspectives.

I have many reasons to suspect this by design, an Overton Window that is built to never allow a view to truth and solutions, also serving as backdoor to the collective mental.


So I am siding with neither.


But the moral balance between the two camps is inclined by a major factor that has nothing to do with the debate itself:
While one side holds its position on religious / ideological grounds with honestly held beliefs, the other camp seems to weaponize abortion as a mean to ulterior motives. And that’s when it gets to the next level of danger and villainy.


So I dug up a few pieces of history and put them together to incite, as always, deeper analysis and more personal conclusions.

And the long course:

The real Jane Roe exposed by ABC Nightline 1995

‘Jane Roe,’ from Roe v. Wade, made a stunning deathbed confession. Now what?

Washington Post, May 20, 2020

Image without a caption

What to make of Norma McCorvey?

This week, a new documentary drops a boulder into the already complicated legacy of the woman better known as “Jane Roe” — the plaintiff in the landmark 1973 case that legalized abortion in America. In the mid-1990s, McCorvey had made a public religious and political conversion. She was baptized on television in a backyard swimming pool; she wore overalls and came out beaming. She declared herself newly pro-life and spent the last two decades of her life crusading against the ruling her own case had made possible.

But in “AKA Jane Roe,” premiering Friday on FX, McCorvey turns to the camera with an oxygen tube dangling from her nose and tells director Nick Sweeney, “This is my deathbed confession.”

She never really supported the antiabortion movement, she tells Sweeney, in a scene filmed in 2017. “I took their money and they put me out in front of the camera and told me what to say, and that’s what I’d say.”

“It was all an act?” the director asks.

“Yeah,” she says. “I was good at it, too.”

The revelation comes 60 minutes into the 80-minute documentary. By minute 70, McCorvey has died, succumbing to illness, leaving the people she knew on both sides of the most polarizing cultural debate in America slack-jawed and stunned.

McCorvey never had an abortion. A lot of people don’t realize that. By the time the Supreme Court handed down its decision, she’d been forced to carry out her pregnancy; the child had already been adopted.

It was her third time giving birth. One daughter had been primarily raised by McCorvey’s mother; McCorvey placed a second child for adoption. McCorvey strung together low-paying jobs in Texas and at various points struggled with substance abuse; she wasn’t prepared to become a parent. Her desperate circumstances were what made her a suitable plaintiff. If she’d had money to travel to a locale where abortion was already legal, her attorneys wouldn’t have been able to argue that the current state-by-state solution placed an impossible burden on their client.

So “Roe” didn’t help McCorvey, but it helped other women like her, and one evening, a Dallas abortion provider named Charlotte Taft was holding a public event at her clinic when a petite, curly-haired woman approached her and said, “I’m Jane Roe.”

The abortion rights movement had the law on its side now. Its supporters didn’t need a public face. “But she put herself out here to say, here I am,” Taft says in an interview.

McCorvey’s life had been hard. Her mother hit her. As a girl, she ran away with a female friend, and when they were caught kissing, she was sent to reform school for punishment. She escaped a marriage to a man who she said abused her and found a long-term partner in Connie Gonzales, but the 1970s and ’80s weren’t always welcoming times for lesbians. Now, though, there was a movement that saw her as a hero. She was offered speaking engagements — local ones at first, and then she met famed feminist attorney Gloria Allred, and the engagements became national. She was funny and vulgar and had the wry, weary wit of an early Roseanne Barr. When a reporter at a news conference asked how much money she made as a maid, she shot back: “Why? Anybody here need a good housecleaning?”

In the early 1990s, a new tenant moved in next to the abortion-related nonprofit where McCorvey volunteered. It was a branch of Operation Rescue, the prominent antiabortion group helmed by a minister who took a special interest in McCorvey.

“When I think about Norma, one of her yearnings in life was to be good,” says Taft. “Being the poster child of the pro-choice movement — she got to be a hero, she got to meet celebrities, she got to have applause and give speeches. But with them, they told her she was finally good.”

Rob Schenck, then a leader in the antiabortion movement in Washington, D.C., remembered opening an email in 1995 from a professional acquaintance in Texas. Norma McCorvey had been saved, the email said. She would be on their side, now.

“I regret now that I thought this,” Schenck says in an interview. “But Norma was the equivalent of a world-class trophy.”

McCorvey’s conversion was a cinematic story, a morality play, and who you thought was good or bad depended entirely on what you thought of abortion. McCorvey was either bad then became good, or she was good and then became bad.

“The thing is, we want our stories to be tidy,” Taft says. “And humans aren’t tidy.”

McCorvey certainly wasn’t.

Something that abortion rights activists might not realize: In the 1980s when McCorvey was on their team, she would sometimes call Taft late at night. Usually she’d been drinking, sometimes she was introspective, occasionally she seemed to regret the starring role she’d played in America’s morality play. “The playgrounds are all empty, and it’s because of me,” Taft says McCorvey said one night.

Something that antiabortion activists didn’t realize: In the 1990s, when McCorvey was on their team, she would still tell evangelical leaders that she supported a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy in the first trimester — the procedure that accounts for the majority of all abortions. “We managed that by saying she’s a brand-new convert; she needs time to mature in her faith and in her understanding of the pro-life ethic,” Schenck says. “We thought, just give her a little time and she’ll mature.” Eventually, they got her to stop saying it publicly, but they didn’t know whether she’d actually changed her mind.

The activists on both sides who knew her found her charming — and found her maddening. She rewrote stories into fantasies. She could be mercenary, and always needed money. Maybe the best word for her was “survivor,” multiple people decided independently. After a rough life, she’d now do whatever it took to survive. At one point in the FX documentary, she chuckles that she’s always “looking out for Norma’s salvation and Norma’s [butt].” At times, she seemed to be exactly what their movements needed. At times, she seemed hellbent on complicating an issue that they found to be absolutely simple and clear.

This made her the perfect Jane Roe, the perfect figurehead of the abortion issue, because it wasn’t simple for a lot of people. Antiabortion activists with accidental pregnancies suddenly find themselves calling Planned Parenthood, convinced that their situations are exceptional. Pro-choice women who terminate pregnancies can move through unexpected grief. At various points in her life, Norma McCorvey represented the issue in all of its complexities and untidiness.

This also made McCorvey a difficult Jane Roe, because movements want their heroes to be pure.

Nick Sweeney wasn’t sure that McCorvey would agree to his documentary. She’d been turning down interview requests for years or demanding payment, which is journalistically unethical (Sweeney says he gave her a “modest licensing fee” to use her family photos and personal video footage in the documentary).

He thinks she agreed to participate because she knew she was nearing the end of her life and because Sweeney hadn’t approached her with an agenda. He didn’t want to make an abortion rights or antiabortion film; he simply wanted to know about her as a person. “There’s a temptation to reduce her to something like a trophy or an emblem, but it’s important to know there was someone who was a real person,” Sweeney says. “People on all sides wanted her to be the person that suited their aims, and in a lot of ways, she just wanted to be herself.”

Does Sweeney believe that McCorvey was telling the truth in her bombshell revelation that she was just faking it for the antiabortion movement? Yes. But does he also believe that she had experienced a sincere religious conversion? Yes.

Did he ask her whether she regretted anything about her choices over the past 20 years? Yes.

And what did she say?

“She said no.”

There’s a scene in the documentary when the clip of McCorvey’s revelation is played back for all of the other participants, one by one. Robert Schenck, Charlotte Taft, Gloria Allred — they all hear McCorvey say, “I took their money and they put me out in front of the camera and told me what to say.”

One by one, they all gasp.

“It felt like such a betrayal,” Taft says in an interview. “The stakes were so high.”

“Seeing it was shocking to me,” Schenck says in an interview. “Not because of what it revealed about her, but what it revealed about me and the movement. She forced me to be honest with myself.”

The antiabortion movement had used her, he thinks now. They’d used her image, and her story, and her regret, and they’d shaved off all the rough edges, turning her into a perfect poster girl instead of a person.

Which is so easy for people to do with abortion. Get so caught up in scrambling for the moral high ground, you forget about the women underfoot.

In recent years, Schenck has had his own reckoning with abortion. He used to be an absolutist: no exceptions, no excuses, no justifications. In recent years, his position has softened; he understands why some people’s life circumstances might make abortion the best option for them. And he’s grown disillusioned about the public debate around abortion.

“Realizing how much the political leaders on both sides had exploited the issue — that seemed to be very problematic, morally and ethically,” Schenck says. “I’m not ready to celebrate abortion; I still think it represents a tragedy and a failure. But I think the human realities around it make it understandable.”

So, what to make of Norma McCorvey? Maybe she works best as a symbol of a different kind of struggle — personal, not political. It’s the struggle that comes with trying to reconcile our untidy, doubt-ridden, trophy-seeking inner monologues with the roles we inhabit in America’s morality play.

In the end, McCorvey seemed to make a sort of peace with the legacy of Jane Roe. “Women have been having abortions for thousands of years,” she says near the end of the documentary.

“If it’s just the woman’s choice, and she chooses to have an abortion, then it should be safe. Roe v. Wade helped save people’s lives.”

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

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

Energy / resources scarcity is an essential myth to maintaining your slavery or whatever you call the status-quo. It’s the core justification for redistribution of goods and wealth, for high prices, for the existence of management mega-structures such as the government or even the WEF.
It’s the main tool elites use to maintain dominance and dispelling it would free humanity forever.

Every day we’re pushed to take Pharmafia’s medical advice at face value, without critical examination, because they are the alleged ultimate experts in what they are selling.
But the same logic is considered flawed by conflicts of interests when applied to tobacco industry. Or oil industry.
In fact, both Pharmafia moguls and oil moguls monetize official narratives based on fear of energy or health scarcities.
 John Catsimatidis is no Rockefeller, but he became a billionaire in both oil and retail industry. He makes more money if you believe oil is a rare, finite and precious commodity. Even his retail stores tax this ignorance. But in a recent interview on Fox news, he decided to spill the beans.
This is akin to a Pharmafia CEO saying “a patient cured is a customer lost”.
And no one raised an eyebrow, because people are blind to what they don’t understand.
In case you wondered why the world looks like a planetary Auschwitz.

ORIGINAL VIDEO SOURCE

As for the science of regenerable non-fossil mineral oil, see our earlier report:

OIL IS NOT “FOSSIL” – THE SHORT COURSE

In fact, my friends, as opposed to 1922, we know now that matter and everything is essentially energy in this Universe, so the mission is not extracting it from a deposit or from atoms, that’s antiquated AF, we need to think it in terms of converting one form of energy to another. Through very complicated processes, we now convert coal and oil, combined with other forms of energy, in plastic, heat or goods.
But, if you kept up with science lately, we’re at a technological level where we can convert almost anything in anything.

Dare to dare more:

Why would we be limited to the terrestrial resources? We’re bathing in energy that comes to us from this energy-made Universe. We can sit on our asses wherever we like on Earth, capture and convert energy to suit our needs.

IT’S NOT INFINITE GROWTH ON A FINITE PLANET.
IT’S INFINITE GROWTH IN AN INFINITE UNIVERSE MADE OF ENERGY.

Infinite energy for everyone would mean the definitive end for the status quo and a free humanity. Unleashing the gods. The current Olympus won’t like that, but it’s just a matter of time. I’d love to witness it in my lifetime though.

This is THE SECRET that can tear down the Planet Prison walls just by going viral.

Very Related:

BILLIONAIRES – MOST INVESTED PEOPLE IN CLIMATE ALARMISM

Later addendum, as demanded by some feedback:

Research this alternative view on established historical facts, see how it checks out:

People regard the Rockefellers as Oil Moguls / Oligarchs / Oilgarchs.
But they regard themselves as energy and resources monopolists. “Competition is sin”, remember?
Today’s green oligarchs killed the greener and more efficient ethanol fuel because they couldn’t monopolize and control it, as they did with oil. This even led to the alcohol prohibition in US.
Other attempts, like hemp oil, met same fate.
As the new communist oligarchies in USSR and Latin America, plus some of the Arab friends, were slipping out of their control and establishing themselves as independent providers, the Rockefellers saw themselves losing the total grip on the energy market.
So they rebranded themselves as “green”, they established themselves as dominant in that field and narrative, then they started to do to their own oil industry what they did to ethanol. For the exact same reasons.
Except this time, instead of the alcohol prohibition we get the climate hysteria and an everything-prohibition soon.

Here’s a prequel to the main story:

Addendum #2

“Green” elites know EVs run on blood batteries, killing people even before they hit the road


To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

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

ORDER

My guts are smarter than my brains, but the brains are catching up. And they do it faster when James Corbett helps out

From the very beginning of the Ukraine conflict I maintained skepticism for the narrative from both sides, as you should, but I had difficulties deciding to which extent they are BS.

Putin was full in, I bet he wants full out now, in terms of public image

Basically, my main and only dilemma was:
Did Putin enter the Ukraine stage willingly, as an actor, following the globalist script, as he always does, or was he baited and trapped in to be sacrificed on the altar of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and the GloboPedoDiversity, and now he’s really threatened existentially and fighting for survival?

DARPA invests millions in emotion-predictive AIs. Which help with riot predictions

I brought up a bunch of reasons to explain how I got to this point and why I am more inclined to believe this is all a shitshow just like the empty hospitals during the hospital overrun of 2020, or Chinese people dropping dead on the streets of Beijing “becuz Covid maaaan”.

One of my first indicators was that the script is very obsolete, old-school kinetic take over for people who are still engaging with post-WW2 propaganda movies, such as most of elder audiences in Russia and a good chunk of the American ones. This corroborates with the backwards scrap arsenal Putin sent there, probably because it was more cheap and ecological to dump them in Ukraine than at home. If you think that’s where the military is right now, as we discuss graphene oxide and transhumanism, if you think it takes more than an afternoon for a power like Russia to take over a town like Mariupol, you’re at least 50 years behind the technological curve and that’s more than all the technological progress mankind has made in its entire prior history.

Second major red flag: Russia is underplaying every hand, from propaganda to military. I’ve never seen the much feared “Russian spies”, “Russian bots” and “Russian hackers” more inhibited in my life, same as RT and other means of influence they have. Their intel nukes can implode the establishment instantly, rest assured they were among the first to get Biden’s laptops content.

GHISLAINE’S FATHER PIMPED EPSTEIN AND WHORED FOR KGB. PUTIN’S INTELLIGENCE ARSENAL MORE DEVASTATING FOR ELITES THAN NUKES

Funny how the people demanding to be followed are always behind me.
NEWSWEEK

Even the biolabs thing looks like they rather want to discredit it providing those thin files of evidences as we, independent media, made a stronger case for them than they did. This is not lazy, this is borderline sabotage.

THE BIOLABS, CHERNOBYL AND FUKUSHIMA HAVE SURPRISING THINGS IN COMMON AND THEY ARE HARDLY ACCIDENTAL

Thirdly: Putin has been working on the edifice of the New Normal for decades, you don’t exit or get “exited” just like that from a lifetime legacy.

Putin to Schwab: “We go as far back as 1992”
Davos 2021 setting up the narrative for next year?

THIS 2012 AD FOR THE RUSSIAN VERSION OF THE GREAT RESET SOUNDED NUTS THEN BUT WILL GIVE YOU CHILLS NOW

Kissinger is Klaus Schwab’s Harvard teacher and Trump’s former advisor.
He taught Mao’s work at Harvard.

BETWEEN HYSTERICALS ABOUT RUSSIAN HACKERS, WEF MEMBERS GATHER UNDER RUSSIAN HELMS TO WORK ON THE CYBER GREAT RESET

Putin @ Davos 2021: “‘The world risks sliding into an “all against all” conflict’. Because Covid.

#4: The Ukraine camp is a huge “unholy alliance” fueled by Chabad Lubavitch money and influence.

NATO, NAZIS & AL-QAEDA IN THE SAME BOAT – WE’RE THERE

ABSOLUTE MUST SEE RESOURCES ON UKRAINE

No one is closer to Chabad than Putin, only Trump rivals.

‘Starting in 1999, Putin enlisted two of his closest confidants, the oligarchs Lev Leviev and Roman Abramovich, who would go on to become Chabad’s biggest patrons worldwide, to create the Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia under the leadership of Chabad rabbi Berel Lazar, who would come to be known as “Putin’s rabbi.”
A few years later, Trump would seek out Russian projects and capital by joining forces with a partnership called Bayrock-Sapir, led by Soviet emigres Tevfik Arif, Felix Sater and Tamir Sapir—who maintain close ties to Chabad. The company’s ventures would lead to multiple lawsuits alleging fraud and a criminal investigation of a condo project in Manhattan.’

POLITICO

So why wouldn’t the alliance encompass Putin too, as the bad cop in the movie where leftoids play the good cop?

Fifth, but not last, the Western response to the crisis aligns more with the Covid agenda, WEF agenda and Agenda2030 than with a peace plan. They’re using the same scripts with new faces, like a gender-swapped Hollywood remake of a classic movie.

Romanian communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu came up with an even brighter idea: Alternately, one weekend was free for drivers who had even numbers on their registration plates, next weekend the uneven number took over. We actually hardly had any cars and car pollution, only industrial pollution. But he was exporting all reserves to raise money and pay out our debt to the Rothschilds. He achieved his goal with incredible sacrifices and hardships from the population, in the summer of 1989. They executed him on Christmas day same year, during the “anti-communist revolution”, in fact the first televised coup by the West (NATO and the likes of).

I could go on and make a long and detailed list, but this more than suffices to make the case.

It’s almost like Russia doesn’t want to win in Ukraine, but to linger there as long as possible, and maintain international tension without investing more than a few slaves and some scrapyard junk.

However, I was missing the weight that decisively inclines the balance either way, and I kept telling people I’m waiting for more intel before I make a definitive call.

Three weeks in, and the level of silliness in the media reports and Internet debates made my brains bleed through my eyes really badly. My skeptical inclinations inclined even more. Still no closure to the internal hesitations though.

SOME HIGHLIGHTS TO RECAP:

SCREENSHOT SOURCE

And then, just the other day, all of a sudden, Mr. James Corbett dropped the mic on this and definitively closed the internal debate for me.
I hope he will provide you with the same sense of closure and mental relief! Watch it entirely, please, no skipping, even if it seems to be off-topic in the beginning, this is masterfully built and eloquently laid out, as Corbett does, but if you try taking shortcuts you will only shortcut yourself. I don’t want to oversell it, but this will be one of the best-invested hours of your life, in 2022.

CLICK HERE FOR CORBETT’S SHOW NOTES AND RESOURCES!

As per usual, Corbett doesn’t need my help in in making a full, eloquent and clear case, but I will add here, over time, more information, resources and comments that corroborate and further our understanding of this psyop.

One single comment: The Young Global Leaders history is much older, the program has been built on the shoulders of other previous attempts to create a dictator incubator.

KLAUS SCHWAB’S YOUTH IS CALLED “YOUNG GLOBAL LEADERS”, READY FOR REGIME CHANGE IN UNALIGNED COUNTRIES

Talking about YGL…

Modi: “Post World-Wars, the entire world worked on a New World Order. We need to do it again”

BONUS RESOURCES:

Below I will add other resources that corroborate with this story or enrich our context and perspective on it.

Aleksandr Dugin – “Putin is Liberal Democrat, Globalist almost”
Good Cop / Bad Cop

In the video below, please replace “Covid” with “Ukraine” and tell me what’s the difference?

Covid is a psyop – Russian Colonel of Military Intelligence and Spetsnaz (Special Forces) , May 2020

CHINESE COMMUNISM IS AS JEWISH AS ITS RUSSIAN COUSIN (YOUTUBE BAN WINNER)

WAR ON PRIVILEGE WAS THE CORE THEME OF THE COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA IN MY HOME COUNTRY AND ALL SOVIET BLOCK

THREE WEEKS LATER…

The international peasantry are just collaterals to Biden’s “preventative informational warfare”.

Three U.S. intel officials admit the W.H. practices disinfo ‘to mess with Putin’s head’ – NBC
“Can we really let Putin BACK into the New World Order?”
How the Ukraine conflict fuels the communist NWO – John Birch Society

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

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

ORDER

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

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

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

Based on this testimony:

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

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

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

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

ORDER

We just want to signal to our readers this piece from Forbes which would seem inconceivable to print in 2020. It wasn’t often even back then to read such stuff in major mainstream media, but it wasn’t mindblowing either, hence the weak or missing backclash. Read it now, integrally, with your 2020 mind.

by Michael Fumento

Originally published by Forbes on Feb 5, 2010,04:35pm EST

The World Health Organization has suddenly gone from crying “The sky is falling!” like a cackling Chicken Little to squealing like a stuck pig. The reason: charges that the agency deliberately fomented swine flu hysteria. “The world is going through a real pandemic. The description of it as a fake is wrong and irresponsible,” the agency claims on its Web site. A WHO spokesman declined to specify who or what gave this “description,” but the primary accuser is hard to ignore.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), a human rights watchdog, is publicly investigating the WHO’s motives in declaring a pandemic. Indeed, the chairman of its influential health committee, epidemiologist Wolfgang Wodarg, has declared that the “false pandemic” is “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century.”

Even within the agency, the director of the WHO Collaborating Center for Epidemiology in Munster, Germany, Dr. Ulrich Kiel, has essentially labeled the pandemic a hoax. “We are witnessing a gigantic misallocation of resources [$18 billion so far] in terms of public health,” he said.

They’re right. This wasn’t merely overcautiousness or simple misjudgment. The pandemic declaration and all the Klaxon-ringing since reflect sheer dishonesty motivated not by medical concerns but political ones.

Unquestionably, swine flu has proved to be vastly milder than ordinary seasonal flu. It kills at a third to a tenth the rate, according to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates. Data from other countries like France and Japan indicate it’s far tamer than that.

Indeed, judging by what we’ve seen in New Zealand and Australia (where the epidemics have ended), and by what we’re seeing elsewhere in the world, we’ll have considerably fewer flu deaths this season than normal. That’s because swine flu muscles aside seasonal flu, acting as a sort of inoculation against the far deadlier strain.

Did the WHO have any indicators of this mildness when it declared the pandemic in June?

Absolutely, as I wrote at the time. We were then fully 11 weeks into the outbreak and swine flu had only killed 144 people worldwide–the same number who die of seasonal flu worldwide every few hours. (An estimated 250,000 to 500,000 per year by the WHO’s own numbers.) The mildest pandemics of the 20th century killed at least a million people.

But how could the organization declare a pandemic when its own official definition required “simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.” Severity–that is, the number of deaths–is crucial, because every year flu causes “a global spread of disease.”

Easy. In May, in what it admitted was a direct response to the outbreak of swine flu the month before, WHO promulgated a new definition matched to swine flu that simply eliminated severity as a factor. You could now have a pandemic with zero deaths.

Under fire, the organization is boldly lying about the change, to which anybody with an Internet connection can attest. In a mid-January virtual conference WHO swine flu chief Keiji Fukuda stated: “Did WHO change its definition of a pandemic? The answer is no: WHO did not change its definition.” Two weeks later at a PACE conference he insisted: “Having severe deaths has never been part of the WHO definition.”

They did it; but why?

In part, it was CYA for the WHO. The agency was losing credibility over the refusal of avian flu H5N1 to go pandemic and kill as many as 150 million people worldwide, as its “flu czar” had predicted in 2005.

Around the world nations heeded the warnings and spent vast sums developing vaccines and making other preparations. So when swine flu conveniently trotted in, the WHO essentially crossed out “avian,” inserted “swine,” and WHO Director-General Margaret Chan arrogantly boasted, “The world can now reap the benefits of investments over the last five years in pandemic preparedness.”

But there’s more than bureaucratic self-interest at work here. Bizarrely enough, the WHO has also exploited its phony pandemic to push a hard left political agenda.

In a September speech WHO Director-General Chan said “ministers of health” should take advantage of the “devastating impact” swine flu will have on poorer nations to get out the message that “changes in the functioning of the global economy” are needed to “distribute wealth on the basis of” values “like community, solidarity, equity and social justice.” She further declared it should be used as a weapon against “international policies and systems that govern financial markets, economies, commerce, trade and foreign affairs.”

Chan’s dream now lies in tatters. All the WHO has done, says PACE’s Wodart, is to destroy “much of the credibility that they should have, which is invaluable to us if there’s a future scare that might turn out to be a killer on a large scale.”

Michael Fumento is director of the nonprofit Independent Journalism Project, where he specializes in health and science issues. He may be reached at fumento@pobox.com.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

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