As per usual, Reuters did not fact-check what they claimed. Almost all their smear jobs are based on this type of text-book straw-man.
But you will learn more than the headline promises here.

‘I CALLED PHARMAFIA AND THEY SAID NO’ – EVERY MEDICAL FACT-CHECK EVER

The claim in the original article, the claims in the fact-check and the verdict are three separate things. Reuters manages to straw-man its own straw-man.

Here’s the article Reuters claims to fact-check:

THE 1918 “SPANISH FLU”: ONLY THE VACCINATED DIED

Original link – By Sal Martingano  May 29, 2020

By Dr. Sal Martingano, FICPA

THIS BLOG IS NOT AN ANTI-VACCINE COMMENTARY. I WISH TO ENCOURAGE READERS TO CAREFULLY READ THE DOCUMENTATION, DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE, AND NOT BLINDLY ACCEPT WHAT WE ARE BEING TOLD.
WOULD YOU BE SURPRISED OR CONCERNED TO LEARN THAT THE 1918 “SPANISH FLU” HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SPAIN AND MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN A FLU AT ALL? WELL, HANG ON TIGHT, YOU ARE IN FOR A ROUGH RIDE!

WHAT HISTORY TELLS US ABOUT THE 1918 “SPANISH FLU”

History tells us that the 1918 Spanish Flu killed between 50 – 100 million people. At the time, medical and pharmaceutical sources described it as THE MOST horrific disease process since the Black Plague of 1347, which killed an estimated 25-30 million people.

  • Reuters does not dispute this

VACCINATION: “THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM”

In the book, Vaccination Condemned, by Eleanor McBean, PhD, N.D., the author describes, in detail, personal and family experiences during the 1918 “Spanish Flu” pandemic. 

McBean’s coverage of the 1918 “Spanish Flu”, as a reporter and an unvaccinated survivor, requires that the historical basis of the event needs to be revisited, not as a “conspiracy theory” but with evidence that will “set your hair on fire”.  

A few years ago, I came across another book by Eleanor McBean: “Vaccination…The Silent Killer”. McBean provides evidence that not only were the historical events of the 1918 “Spanish Flu” compromised, but also those of the Polio and Swine Flu epidemics.

  • Reuters does not dispute this
  • LET’S TALK “SPANISH FLU” FACTS:

    THE SPANISH SCAPEGOAT

    Spain was neutral during WW1 and did NOT censor its press, unlike the combatting countries. As a result, Spain was the first to report the 1918 Flu epidemic and the world “scapegoated” Spain as the source. Thus, the “Spanish Flu” is born.

    THE FIRST CASE: MILITARY VACCINATION EXPERIMENTS IN FORT RILEY, KANSAS

    In preparation for WW1, a massive military vaccination experiment involving numerous prior developed vaccines took place in Fort Riley, Kansas- where the first “Spanish Flu” case was reported.

  • Reuters CONFIRMS this
  • WW1 DRAFT = HUMAN TEST SUBJECTS

    The fledgling pharmaceutical industry, sponsored by the ‘Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research’, had something they never had before – a large supply of human test subjects. Supplied by the U.S. military’s first draft, the test pool of subjects ballooned to over 6 million men.
    CLICK HERE for more details.

  • Reuters does not dispute this
  • BACTERIAL MENINGITIS VACCINE: THE KILLING FIELD

    Autopsies after the war proved that the 1918 flu was NOT a “FLU” at all. It was caused by random dosages of an experimental ‘bacterial meningitis vaccine’, which to this day, mimics flu-like symptoms. 

    • Reuters simply calls this main claim ‘baseless’ without providing any base for their call, then move on to flog more straw-men of their own:

    So, basically, we have a Pharmafia-licensed doctor’s word vs. a Reuter presstitute’s word, and I bet my ass the Reuter NPC has no medical studies.
    Anyway, to settle the truth here, you have to do your own research, which I did below.

    However, to settle that Reuters faked its fact-check is already adequate at this point.

    The original article follows as below:

    The massive, multiple assaults with additional vaccines on the unprepared immune systems of soldiers and civilians created a “killing field”.  Those that were not vaccinated were not affected.  – Links to the article in the pic below:

    • Reuters claims there is a disagreement between their findings and the article’s, but they both claim the same thing: it was a flu AND a bacteria that ended the lives of those who got a flu in 1918
    Undisputed

    SO… HOW DID CIVILIANS DIE?

    1. WW1 ended sooner than expected, leaving HUGE quantities of unused experimental vaccines.
    2. Fearing that soldiers coming home would spread diseases to their families, The U.S. government pushed the largest vaccine ‘fear’ campaign in history. They used the human population as a research and development lab to field test experimental vaccines.
    3. Tens of millions of civilians died in the same manner as did the soldiers.  
    4. Instead of stopping the vaccines, doctors intensified them, calling it the great “Spanish Flu of 1918”. As a result, ONLY THE VACCINATED DIED.

    “Seven men dropped dead in a doctor’s office after being vaccinated. Letters were sent to their families that they had been killed in action.”

    Eleanor McBean
    Minnesota Wellness Directory
    http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/vaccines/vaccinations_condemned_McBean.htm

    WW1 U.S. soldiers were given 14 – 25 untested, experimental vaccines within days of each other, which triggered intensified cases of ALL the diseases at once.  The doctors called it a new disease and proceeded to suppress the symptoms with additional drugs or vaccines.   

  • Reuters does not dispute this
  • DECEPTION AND SECRECY HAVE A LONG HISTORY

    In the examples given in my previous blog COVID 19: Another Chapter in the History of Deception and Secrecy”, history is replete with intentional lies told to the public to either “save face” or to deceive for nefarious purposes. The 1918 “Spanish Flu” was no exception.

  • Reuters does not dispute this
  • So what did the autopsies really reveal?

    This is the only actual dispute Reuters made to the article, and neither sides backed their claims.

    So I pulled out the crayons again:

    SOURCE

    Predominant Role of Bacterial Pneumonia as a Cause of Death in Pandemic Influenza: Implications for Pandemic Influenza Preparedness

    Abstract

    Background

    Despite the availability of published data on 4 pandemics that have occurred over the past 120 years, there is little modern information on the causes of death associated with influenza pandemics.

    Methods

    We examined relevant information from the most recent influenza pandemic that occurred during the era prior to the use of antibiotics, the 1918–1919 “Spanish flu” pandemic. We examined lung tissue sections obtained during 58 autopsies and reviewed pathologic and bacteriologic data from 109 published autopsy series that described 8398 individual autopsy investigations.

    Results

    The postmortem samples we examined from people who died of influenza during 1918–1919 uniformly exhibited severe changes indicative of bacterial pneumonia. Bacteriologic and histopathologic results from published autopsy series clearly and consistently implicated secondary bacterial pneumonia caused by common upper respiratory–tract bacteria in most influenza fatalities.

    Conclusions

    The majority of deaths in the 1918–1919 influenza pandemic likely resulted directly from secondary bacterial pneumonia caused by common upper respiratory–tract bacteria. Less substantial data from the subsequent 1957 and 1968 pandemics are consistent with these findings. If severe pandemic influenza is largely a problem of viral-bacterial copathogenesis, pandemic planning needs to go beyond addressing the viral cause alone (e.g., influenza vaccines and antiviral drugs). Prevention, diagnosis, prophylaxis, and treatment of secondary bacterial pneumonia, as well as stockpiling of antibiotics and bacterial vaccines, should also be high priorities for pandemic planning.

    SOURCE

    Autopsy series of 68 cases dying before and during the 1918 influenza pandemic peak

    Zong-Mei Sheng 1Daniel S ChertowXavier AmbroggioSherman McCallRonald M PrzygodzkiRobert E CunninghamOlga A MaximovaJohn C KashDavid M MorensJeffery K Taubenberger

    Abstract

    The 1918 to 1919 “Spanish” influenza pandemic virus killed up to 50 million people. We report here clinical, pathological, bacteriological, and virological findings in 68 fatal American influenza/pneumonia military patients dying between May and October of 1918, a period that includes ~4 mo before the 1918 pandemic was recognized, and 2 mo (September-October 1918) during which it appeared and peaked.

    The lung tissues of 37 of these cases [a little over half – S.m] were positive for influenza viral antigens or viral RNA, including four from the prepandemic period (May-August). The prepandemic and pandemic peak cases were indistinguishable clinically and pathologically.

    All 68 cases had histological evidence of bacterial pneumonia, and 94% showed abundant bacteria on Gram stain.

    Sequence analysis of the viral hemagglutinin receptor-binding domain performed on RNA from 13 cases suggested a trend from a more “avian-like” viral receptor specificity with G222 in prepandemic cases to a more “human-like” specificity associated with D222 in pandemic peak cases. Viral antigen distribution in the respiratory tree, however, was not apparently different between prepandemic and pandemic peak cases, or between infections with viruses bearing different receptor-binding polymorphisms. The 1918 pandemic virus was circulating for at least 4 mo in the United States before it was recognized epidemiologically in September 1918.

    The causes of the unusually high mortality in the 1918 pandemic were not explained by the pathological and virological parameters examined.

    These findings have important implications for understanding the origins and evolution of pandemic influenza viruses.

    SOURCE

    YEAH, BUT WAS IT PNEUMONIA OR…

    …MENINGITIS COMING VIA VACCINES FROM SOME…

    SOURCE

    Dr Frederick Lamont Gates

    (No family connection to the Bill Gates clan)

    Frederick Lamont Gates, born in Minneapolis, Hennepin County, MN, December 17, 1886, married, September 11, 1917 in Duluth, St. Louis County, MN, Dorothy Olcott, born June 20, 1891, daughter of William James and Fannie (Bailey) Olcott.

    His father said he was “born for study and inquiry and disclosed this at an early age”. Ill health disqualified him from athletic activities and his life was centered wholly on activities of the mind. He was accepted at Harvard, Yale and the University of Chicago and, after a year and a half at Chicago, he chose to continue his studies at Yale. He stood at the head of his class, received the Phi Beta Kappa key, and graduated Summa Cum Laude in 1909. The same year, he entered John Hopkins Medical School, and graduated with highest honors four years later. He was recommended for research work at the Rockefeller Institute and took a position on its staff.

    On the declaration of war in 1917, Mr. Gates volunteered for the U.S. Army Medical Corps, was accepted and commissioned a first lieutenant. He was assigned to duty on the Rockefeller Institute staff where he gave lectures to military groups selected to attend training there. He was also assigned to visit training camps, in the interest of preventive medicine, and traveled widely. He continued at the institute after the war and his researches, especially those on influenza, received worldwide recognition. His health failed in 1927 and he was required to undertake a less demanding schedule. He continued his research at Harvard and moved his family to Cambridge, MA where he died, June 17, 1933, at age forty-six, after suffering a concussion from a fall.
    SOURCE

    Frederick Lamont Gates was the son of Frederick Taylor Gates (1853-1923) was the principal business and philanthropic advisor to the major oil industrialist John D. Rockefeller, Sr., from 1891 to 1923.

    In 1901, Frederick T. Gates designed the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research (now Rockefeller University), of which he was board president. 

    Yale Obituary Record
    Frederick Lamont Gates, B.A. 1909*
    Born December 17, 1886, in Minneapolis, Minn.
    Died June 17,1933, in Boston, Main
    Father, Rev. Frederick Taylor Gates (B. A. University of Rochester
    1877, M.A, 1879; Rochester Theological Seminary 1880$ ULD. University of Chicago 1911); a Baptist minister; business and benevolence manager for John D. Rockefeller; president of Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research; chairman of General Education Board;
    son of Rev. GranviUe Gates and Sarah Jane (Bowers) Gates, of
    Maine, N. Y. Mother, Emma Lucia (Cahoon) Gates; daughter of
    Lyman Hall and Cordelia Lucinda (Teague) Cahoon, of Racine, Wis.
    Montclair (N. J.) High School; attended University of Chicago
    1905-06 as member of Class of 1909. Entered Yale as a Sophomore;
    Andrew D. White prize in history Sophomore year; philosophical
    oration appointment and honors in physical sciences Senior year;
    member University Orchestra, Alpha Delta Phi, Sigma Xi, and Phi
    Beta Kappa.
    M.D. Johns Hopkins 1913 (member Alpha Omega Alpha); connected with Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York
    City, 1913-1929^ as fellow 1913-14, assistant in Department of
    Physiology and Pharmacology 1914-17, associate 1917-1921, and
    associate member 1921-29; had since been research fellow and lecturer in Department of Physiology at Harvard; member China
    Medical Board of Rockefeller Foundation 1916-1929 and of its commission to China 1915; commissioned First Lieutenant, Medical Reserve Corps, April 17, 1917; assigned to Base Hospital, Fort Riley,
    Kans., in December, 1917, and to Camp Taylor, Ky., in November,
    1918; received discharge January 18,1919; contributed to Journal of
    Medical Research, Journal of Experimental Physiology•, and Science;
    member Harvey Society, Optical Society of America, Society of Experimental Physiology, and American Association for the Advancement of Science.
    Married September 11, 1917, in Duluth, Minn., Dorothy Olcott
    (B.A. Smith 1913; M.A. Columbia 1917), daughter of William James
    Olcott (Ph.B. University of Michigan 1883, M.S. 1884, honorary
    M.A. 1908) and Fanny (Bailey) Olcott. Children: Olcott, Barbara,
    Frederick Taylor, ad, Dorothy, and Deborah.
    Death due to a fractured skull and brain hemorrhage. Cremation
    took place. Survived by wife, five children, three brothers* Franklin
    H. Gates, ’12, Russell C. Gates, ’14, and Percival T. Gates (B.A.
    Yale College 119
    University of Chicago 192a), and three sisters, Alice Gates Pudney,
    wife of William K. Pudney (M.D. Columbia 1917), of Montclair,
    N. J., Lucia Gates Hooper, wife of Leverett F, Hooper (B.A. Harvard
    1915), of New York City, and Grace Gates Mitchell, wife of Morns
    R. Mitchell (B.A. University of Delaware 1919), of Montclair. – SOURCE (PDF) – P.118-119

    Historian, Antony C. Sutton writes:

    ”American Medical Association

    Your doctor knows nothing about nutrition? Ask him confidentially and he’ll probably confess he had only one course in nutrition. And there’s a reason.

    Back in the late 19th century American medicine was in a deplorable state. To the credit of the Rockefeller General Education Board and the Institute for Medical Research, funds were made available to staff teaching hospitals and to eradicate some pretty horrible diseases. On the other hand, a chemical-based medicine was introduced and the medical profession cut its ties with naturopathy. Cancer statistics tell you the rest.

    For the moment we want only to note that the impetus for reorganizing medical education in the United States came from John D. Rockefeller, but the funds were channeled through a single member of The Order.”

    “One day in 1912 Frederick T. Gates of Rockefeller Foundation had lunch with Abraham Flexner of Carnegie Institution. Said Gates to Flexner:

    ”What would you do if you had one million dollars with which to make a start in reorganizing medical education in the United States?”

    “Flexner’s reply, however, to the effect that any funds — a million dollars or otherwise — could most profitably be spent in developing the Johns Hopkins Medical School, struck a responsive chord in Gates who was already a close friend and devoted admirer of Dr. William H. Welch, the dean of the institution.”

    Welch was President of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research from 1901, and a Trustee of the Carnegie Institution from 1906.”

    William H. Welch was also a member of the Order and had been brought to Johns Hopkins University by Daniel Coit Gilman.”

    ”There is an Establishment history, an official history, which dominates history textbooks, trade publishing, the media and library shelves. The official line always assumes that events such as wars, revolutions, scandals, assassinations, are more or less random unconnected events. By definition events can NEVER be the result of a conspiracy, they can never result from premeditated planned group action. An excellent example is the Kennedy assassination when, within 9 hours of the Dallas tragedy, TV networks announced the shooting was NOT a conspiracy, regardless of the fact that a negative proposition can never be proven, and that the investigation had barely begun.

    Woe betide any book or author that falls outside the official guidelines. Foundation support is not there. Publishers get cold feet. Distribution is hit and miss, or non-existent.

    Just to ensure the official line dominates, in 1946 the Rockefeller Foundation allotted $139,000 for an official history of World War Two. This to avoid a repeat of debunking history books which embarrassed the Establishment after World War One. The reader will be interested to know that The Order we are about to investigate had great foresight, back in the 1880s, to create both the American Historical Association and the American Economic Association (most economists were then more historians than analysts) under their terms, with their people and their objectives. Andrew Dickson White was a member of The Order and the first President of the American Historical Association.”

    America’s Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones Antony C. Sutton, 1986

    They, themselves admit…

    It is true that in early 1918, before the first cases of Spanish flu were reported at Camp Funston at Fort Riley in Kansas in March 1918 ( here ), a trial of a vaccine made with inactivated strains of the meningococcus bacteria ( here ) was conducted on military volunteers at the same location.
    According to a report published in July 1918 by Frederick L. Gates, First Lieutenant of the Medical Corps, U.S. Army ( here ), the experimental vaccine created in the laboratory of The Rockefeller Institute was given to “about 3,700 volunteers” and the doses “rarely caused more than the mildest local and general reactions”, which included “headache, joint pains, and nausea” and in some cases, diarrhea.

    Reuters

    AND IT WOULDN’T BE TOO HARD TO MIX THEM UP IN 1918 SINCE THEY’RE SO SIMILAR IN SYMPTOMS AND…

    SOURCE

    While virology would not emerge until the 1930s, physicians could identify many of the bacteria causing the deadly pneumonias that were killing their patients, but without antibiotics they could do little to fight the infections. Thus, as the epidemic struck their camps, hospitals, ships, ports, or divisions, many medical officers documented what they saw, as if trying to define that which they could not control. 

    IF YOU’RE STILL NOT CONVINCED, YOU HAVEN’T FULLY READ THE REUTERS PIECE, IT DOES A GREAT JOB AT CONFIRMING EVERYTHING THEY WANT TO DEBUNK:

    “Stephen Kissler, Postdoctoral Fellow of Immunology and Infectious Diseases at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health ( here ) told Reuters via phone that the vaccine used at Camp Funston “was derived from existing meningitis strains” that were potentially inactivated with heat. He saw no reason to conclude a vaccine, which was made with existent, inactivated strains of meningitis bacteria from people who had previously been sick with meningitis, had “caused a major epidemic.”

    As explained here the Office of Medical History of the U.S. Army Medical Department, meningococcal meningitis, which causes inflammation around the surrounding tissues of the brain ( here ), “has always been one of the most serious and important of the various communicable diseases of man” among soldiers. “It becomes more common when young people are together in closed quarters like dormitories or barracks,” so “the military had a good reason to test a vaccine against meningitis,” Burke said.

    It was also not rare to research and test vaccines at this time in history given it was an “early era of microbiology,” Burke added. “The Fort Riley meningococcal vaccine experiment was not an unusual scientific undertaking” and “Many [bacterial] vaccine trials were going on all over the U.S. around 1918.”

    The article “The State of Science, Microbiology, and Vaccines Circa 1918” by John M. Eyler provides more context ( here ). For example, during the 1918 flu pandemic itself, experimental bacterial vaccines for influenza were used in army camps as well as on workers, including 275,000 employees of the U.S. Steel Company ( here , here , here ). The cause of the pandemic was unknown at the time, explaining why bacterial vaccines were being tested in the hopes they might work on this new deadly disease.” – REUTERS

    Fact. Checked. Mic. Dropped.

    Also read:

    REUTERS PUBLISHED A SMEAR PIECE ON US, WATCH OUR AUTOPSY ON IT, PHRASE BY PHRASE

    BONUS

    https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/67902

    LATER ON, ASPIRIN MAKERS RAN THE LABS IN AUSCHWITZ, UNDER MENGELE’S PROTECTION
    LMAO

    And this, my friends, was the kick-off for today’s Military BioTech Complex that I’ve just biographed.
    This was just an earlier Great Reset, like they regularly do.
    You have the military, the Rockefellers, the experiments, all the motives and the weapons, they assemble themselves like the Transformers. Only malfeasance or a severe cognitive-dissonance seizure could blame this on coincidence rather than conspiracy. Because if it’s not intentional, it’s coincidental, and you should know by know this is not a place for coincidence theories.

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

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

    ORDER

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

    These guys are funded by Bill Gates btw

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

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

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

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

    Colb concludes with this argument:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    THE AFRICAN PERSPECTIVE ON IT

    Population Control is GENOCIDE

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

    What is population control?


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


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


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


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


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


    Is the African population expanding too rapidly?


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

    SOURCE

    FRAGMENT:

    ABORTION FOR EUGENICS: CONSPIRACY OR SIMPLE CONSEQUENCE?

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

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

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

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

    Population Research Institute

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

    MORE References

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

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

    ORDER

    War is peace and truth is fake news in Covidiocray.
    I hear there’s many more “fact-checks” on this, published by other presstitutes, that all seem copied from the same press-release or something…

    First off: a New Scientist short article, as old as 2008, in verbatim copy, to take the bacteria debate out of the way

    Bacteria were the real killers in 1918 flu pandemic

    HEALTH 4 August 2008

    By Ewen Callaway

    New Scientist Default Image
    (Image: US National Museum of Health and Medicine)

    Medical and scientific experts now agree that bacteria, not influenza viruses, were the greatest cause of death during the 1918 flu pandemic.

    Government efforts to gird for the next influenza pandemic – bird flu or otherwise – ought to take notice and stock up on antibiotics, says John Brundage, a medical microbiologist at the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center in Silver Spring, Maryland.

    Brundage’s team culled first-hand accounts, medical records and infection patterns from 1918 and 1919. Although a nasty strain of flu virus swept around the world, bacterial pneumonia that came on the heels of mostly mild cases of flu killed the majority of the 20 to 100 million victims of the so-called Spanish flu, they conclude.

    “We agree completely that bacterial pneumonia played a major role in the mortality of the 1918 pandemic,” says Anthony Fauci, director of National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease in Bethesda, Maryland, and author of another journal article out next month that comes to a similar conclusion.

    Double whammy

    That pneumonia causes most deaths in an influenza outbreak is well known. Late 19th century physicians recognised pneumonia as the cause of death of most flu victims. While doctors limited fatalities in other 20th-century outbreaks with antibiotics such as penicillin, which was discovered in 1928, but did not see use in patients until 1942.

    This is not to say that flu viruses do nothing, says Jonathan McCullers, an expert on influenza-bacteria co-infections at St Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

    McCullers’ research suggests that influenza kills cells in the respiratory tract, providing food and a home for invading bacteria. On top of this, an overstressed immune system makes it easier for the bacteria to get a foothold.

    However, the sheer carnage of 1918 caused many microbiologists to reconsider the role of bacteria, and some pointed their fingers firmly at the virus.

    ‘Unique event’

    When US government scientists resurrected the 1918 strain in 2005, the virus demolished cells grown in a Petri dish and felled mice by the dozen.

    “The 1918 pandemic is considered to be – and clearly is – something unique, and it’s widely understood to be the most lethal natural event that has occurred in recent human history,” Brundage says.

    But to reassess this conclusion, he and co-author Dennis Shanks, of the Australian Army Malaria Institute in Enoggera, Queensland, scoured literature and medical records from 1918 and 1919.

    The more they investigated, the more bacteria emerged as the true killers, an idea now supported by most influenza experts.

    For instance, had a super virus been responsible for most deaths, one might expect people to die fairly rapidly, or at least for most cases to follow a similar progression. However, Shanks and Brundage found that few people died within three days of showing symptoms, while most people lasted more than a week, some survived two – all hallmarks of pneumonia.

    Local bugs

    Military health records for barracks and battleships also painted a different picture. New recruits – men unlikely to have been exposed to resident bacteria – died in droves, while soldiers whose immune systems were accustomed to the local bugs survived.

    And most compelling, Brundage says, medical experts of the day identified pneumonia as the cause of most deaths.

    “The bottom line is we think the influenza virus itself was necessary – but not sufficient – to cause most of the deaths,” he says.

    As the world’s health experts prepare for the next influenza pandemic, many have looked to 1918 as a guide, planning for a deadly super-virus.

    The H5N1 bird flu strains jetting around the world seem to kill humans without the aid of bacteria, but those viruses aren’t fully adapted to humans, McCullers says. If H5N1 does adapt to humans, bacteria may play a larger role in deaths, he adds.

    “Everyone is focused exclusively on the virus, and that’s probably not the best idea,” he says.

    Antibiotics and vaccines against bacterial pneumonia could limit deaths in the next pandemic. And while an effective influenza vaccine should nip an outbreak in the bud, such a vaccine could take months to prepare and distribute.

    “The idea of stockpiling [bacterial] vaccines and antibiotics is under serious consideration,” says Fauci, who is on a US government taskforce to prepare for the next flu pandemic.

    At a recent summit on pandemic influenza, McCullers said health authorities were increasingly interested in the role bacteria might play, but there had been little action taken.

    “There’s no preparation yet. They are just starting to get to the recognition stage,” he says. “There’s this collective amnesia about 1918.”

    Journal reference: Emerging Infectious Disease (DOI: 10.3201/eid1408.071313)

    and this is the fun part where reuters confirms everything in a desperate and hilarious debunk attempt

    Ladies and gents, Facebook’s premium smear-machine aka “fact-checkers”, aka establishment’s mouth-pieces licensed to kill competition, aka world’s #1 news agency are back in the spotlight after another comical attempt against one of our reports.
    The scenario is similar: they make up straw-men and give them a naive beatdown with a lot of laughable BS show off. But this one is a legendary performance that needs to become a classic reference.

    I peed my pants a little from the first paragraph:

    What this means is that for a week, these useless nitwits ran the debunk without even getting the incriminated study right.
    Like how do they even breathe… ah, wait, they’re maskers…

    After a bunch of fill in because they’re paid by word, they land their only point and argument:

    To claim the 1918-1919 flu pandemic deaths were caused by bacterial pneumonia alone is inaccurate.

    Reuters

    I bolded “alone” because that’s how they attempt to “virus” the discussion.

    No one said “alone” before them and no one made the claim they are arguing.
    So no, they debunked a claim they themselves made up. Or did they?
    More so, in exactly the paragraph that precedes their argument, they 200% CONFIRMED the claim that went viral:

    See anyone saying “alone”?

    Fauci makes it very clear in his description of the study that bacterial pneumonia was preceded by the influenza virus: “The weight of evidence we examined from both historical and modern analyses of the 1918 influenza pandemic favors a scenario in which viral damage followed by bacterial pneumonia led to the vast majority of deaths. In essence, the virus landed the first blow while bacteria delivered the knockout punch.” (here).

    Reuters

    That part bolded in Fauci’s quote is our claim, it proves the official narrative was BS for over a century and now we have Reuters to vouch for it. Thank you, Reuters, we couldn’t advance The Great Awakening so fast if you NPCs weren’t polar opposites to genius! 😉

    And guess what, they can’t even beat their own strawman, because the flu may have started something in 1918, but bacteria ALONE delivered the knockout punch. And there would be no knockouts is it wasn’t for knockout punches, ya kno…

    So, maybe to claim the 1918-1919 flu pandemic deaths were caused by bacterial pneumonia alone is NOT that inaccurate. If someone breaks your legs and someone else takes advantage later to kill you, only the latter goes to jail for homicide. And, to be honest, I could use more evidence on the lethal contribution of that first viral blow.

    Children can debunk a Reuters debunk

    As for the mask connection, science has not definitively demonstrated the direct causal relationship between masks and the 1918 bacterial pneumonia pandemic, but, based on the knowledge available so far, masks are generally associated with higher bacterial risk, from candida to “maskne”. So don’t tell people to look elsewhere, if you find a better culprit, first write a paper and get the Nobel you deserve. Until then, we have all the reasons to point at masks as a very likely suspect and demand much more caution. No one has even attempted that paper in quite a while because no one’s been that dumb, but we can always hope that from Reuters.

    … BUT IF YOU’RE HERE MOST LIKELY YOU’RE NOT 😉

    By the way, call that “anecdotal” or whatever, but my home country, Romania, has been officially birthed through a series of very large mass gatherings with no masks and no distancing, precisely during the 1918 pandemic. And I have all the reasons to think that lack of masks is what kept them safe, the pandemic being hardly noticed locally, at the time.

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

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

    We are currently discussing with a little lawyer house the possibility of suing Reuters and Facebook for defamation. It’s mainly a financial issue, we’re living in a pay/survival and pay/justice world, but we may find a way.
    UPDATE: The deal we were first discussing folded, but it happened just when a better one came up. We’re very close to get legal representation and open a case against Reuters, for a starter. Stay tuned!
    UPDATE 2 (12.14.2020): We’re ready to launch the legal case against Reuters, we have to surpass two big obstacles though. First, the financial struggle, and I don’t have anymore the energy to beg people and campaign for cash. But it’s still doable. The major issue is that I need to go back to an EU or Commonwealth country, it’s almost impossible to do it from Morocco, it costs much more and it takes much longer. And I can’t even leave my block without getting molested by covidiots. I’m afraid of myself more than I am afraid of them if they initiate any violence. We’ll be paying attention and take any opportunity to get this done, not enough legal precedents and public debates on this topic.

    READ OUR ORIGINAL ARTICLE:
    ATOMIC BOMBSHELL: Rothschilds patented Covid-19 biometric tests in 2015. And 2017.

    Reuters is not just the #1 news agency in the world, providing a huge chunk of the BS you hear every day on TV and radio. Reuters is also prime fact-checker for Facebook, acting like some sort of elite Snopes.

    … by “elite” I meant “lowest scum” earlier, talking about Reuters.


    And since our article on the Rothschild biometric Covid tests went viral, Facebook and Reuters collaborated to suppress it, censor it, defame us and obstruct public access to highly important information.
    Let’s just take every sentence from the Reuters defamation piece and perform an autopsy.

    The website points to a Dutch website that shows a patent for a “System and Method for Testing for COVID-19″ (here) .
    FALSE: THAT’S ON OF THREE DIFFERENT REGISTRIES WE LINK TO, AND IT’S NOT JUST “A DUTCH WEBSITE”, IS THE OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT REGISTRY, THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY IN THE FIELD. THAT DOWNPLAYING IS INTENTIONAL AND DENOTES DEFAMATION INTENTIONS.

    The patent is numbered ‘US20200279585A1’ and has a “Prioriteitsdatum” (Dutch for “priority date”) of “2015-10-13”.
    NAILED THIS ONE, YOU CAN COPY-PASTE, HIGH FIVE!

    The article claims that the 2015 priority date is evidence that the coronavirus pandemic has been planned.
    QUOTE OR IT NEVER HAPPENED. BUT IT’S NICE THAT YOU BROUGHT IT UP

    We laughed at it earlier and made memes because we were indeed under heavy bans, but our article was thriving and his tripe was so representative for astroturfers or morons who believe Facebook invests hundreds of millions in fact-checkers to promote truth. 18 days later it’s almost like his twitt was the only “research” Reuters has ever performed.

    But the author has conflated the terms “priority date” and “application date”.
    WE NEVER THOUGHT OF IT BEFORE YOU DID.

    The priority date can refer to the earliest filing date in a family of related patent applications, or to the earliest filing date of a particular feature of an invention (here) .
    ACTUAL QUOTE FROM THE LINK THEY PROVIDE: “Priority date refers to the earliest filing date in a family of patent applications.”
    “CAN BE” VS “IS”. DID THEY JUST ARGUE AGAINST WHAT IS WITH WHAT ASSUME IT CAN BE?! :)))))))
    “FAMILY OF PATENTS APPLICATIONS” CAN ALSO BE A SERIES OF SUCCESSIVE IMPROVEMENTS OF A PATENT, AND THIS IS THE CASE HERE.

    In this case, Oct. 13, 2015 is when Rothschild first made a provisional application within this family of patents.
    FALSE. ALL IT TAKES IS TO ACTUALLY CLICK THOSE LINKS AND READ THE CONTENT, BUT THEY HOPE YOU DON’T. IT’S THE SAME PATENT, IN AN EARLIER STAGE.

    Wham-bam, we control your world-view, m’am!

    A series of regular, non-provisional patent applications were subsequently made for a “System and Method For Using, Processing, and Displaying Biometric Data” (here) .
    FALSE: THEY ARE INCREMENTAL MODIFICATIONS OF THE SAME PATENTS, AS THE LINK THEY PROVIDE SHOWS AND ANYONE CAN SEE

    These earlier patents are essentially the predecessors to ‘US20200279585A1’ – and as such share similar features, such as the use of biometric data (here) .
    THAT’S WHAT WE SAID EXCEPT WE DIDN’T LIE AND DOWNPLAY IT CLAIMING THEY JUST “SHARE FEATURES” WHEN IT’S THE SAME THING WITH SMALL INCREMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS

    However, the patent for a system that analyses biometric data to determine whether the user is suffering from COVID-19 was not applied for until May 17, 2020 (here).
    FALSE, THAT IS NOT A NEW PATENT, THAT’S JUST THE LAST UPDATE TO THE ONE FILED IN 2015, WHEN THEY ADDED “COVID” TO THE NAME/SPECIFICATIONS AND DID THE FINAL TWEAKS FOR THE NEW MARKET, AS THE LINKS SHOWS

    The article also claims to provide evidence of a patent for COVID-19 testing being filed for in 2017.
    QUOTE OR IT NEVER HAPPENED. WHAT HAPPENED IS THIS TITLE, QUOTE:
    “THIRD REGISTRATION: US, 2017 (ACTUALIZATION FROM 2015)”

    It references the patent for a “System and Method for Using, Biometric, and Displaying Biometric Data” and its filing date of April 24, 2017 (here) .
    FALSE. IT REFERENCES THE SAME PATENT, AT WHATEVER STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT WAS THEN. NAMES CAN CHANGE, THE CONTENT DOESN’T MUCH. AND REUTERS NEVER MENTIONS THE ACTUAL CONTENT.

    As already discussed, although this patent is indeed a predecessor to ‘US20200279585A1’, it does not mention COVID-19 in any form.
    OBVIOUS STRAW-MAN, WE NEVER CLAIMED IT MENTIONS COVID-19, WE SHOW THAT THE INVENTOR CLAIMS HIS 2015 INVENTION TESTS FOR COVID IN 2020.

    reuters VERDICT

    False. The year 2015 was when Rothschild first filed a provisional application within the family of patents. The year 2017 is the filing date of a related, but separate patent within the family.

    SILVIEW.MEDIA VERDICT

    THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUTHFUL PARAGRAPH IN REUTERS’ ARTICLE AND THIS VERDICT IS NOT IT. BY ACCESSING THE LINKS THEY PROVIDE YOU CAN VERIFY IT’S ALL THE SAME PATENT, SEE FOR YOURSELVES, DON’T EAT PRE-CHEWED GARBAGE, ALWAYS REMEMBER OUR MOTTO:
    DON’T BELIEVE WHAT WE SAY, RESEARCH WHAT WE SAY AND MAKE UP YOUR OWN MINDS!

    PENALTY KICK: IT’S ROTHSCHILD AND BIDEN WEEK-END ON ALL SILVIEW.MEDIA NETWORK, WHICH IS NOT AS LARGE, BUT EXTENDS WAY BEYOND ROTHSCHILD MEDIA

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

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