The Covid-19 – Holocaust Comparison, Part 3
The Covid-19 – Holocaust Comparison, Part 3
by Dan Fournier, Review, published Thursday, March 23, 11:11 EDT on fournier.substack.com
Depiction of Eugenics. Image source: Truthstream Media.
This is the third post in a six-part review of the documentary film called Never Again Is Now Global.
The series is structured as follows:
The Covid-19 – Holocaust Comparison, Part 3 (this post)
> Parts 1 & 2 Recap
> Episode 3 – Breaking The Veil Of The Real Conspirators
- 3.1 Vera Sharav on the Eugenics Movement & the Gates Family
- 3.2 Vera Sharav on Transhumanism
- 3.3 Vera Sharav on how Covid-19 was planned Biowarfare
> Summary & Conclusion (for Part 3)The Covid-19 – Holocaust Comparison, Part 6 - Conclusion & eBook
The Covid-19 – Holocaust Comparison, Part 3
Parts 1 & 2 Recap
Part 1 of this six-part series presented the documentary film under review, Never Again Is Now Global, and the methodology to examine its merits from an independent and objective lens.
For this, key claims (shown hereunder) from each episode of the documentary film are presented and evaluated. Here is what has been examined thus far:
Part 1:
1.1 Dr. Vladimir Zelenko on the deliberate suppression of early treatment
1.2 Rabbi Michoel Green on the parallels between the Holocaust and the Covid-19 Pandemic
1.3 Dr. Hervé Seligmann on false science and disinformationPart 2:
2.1 Dr. Vladimir Zelenko on AIDS caused by the Covid-19 vaccines
2.2 Vera Sharav on global concentration of power
2.3 Joshua Stylman on the violation of the Nuremberg Code & international laws
Episode 3 – Breaking The Veil Of The Real Conspirators
The third episode (click the link to watch) aired on January 30, 2023.
The same methodology for a review of this third part of the docuseries applies and, once more, three of its major claims will be scrutinised on the merits of their accuracy and validity – mostly through a thorough examination and verification of they key allegations and associated facts.
3.1 Vera Sharav on the Eugenics Movement & the Gates Family
At the 12:49 mark, Vera Sharav, a Holocaust survivor, touches upon the topic of eugenics:
“I think that we need to clarify that the mindset of Nazis is not limited or restricted to Germans. The mindset is guided by eugenics – which is an elitist hierarchical ideology that divides humanity into segments: inferior, and superior…The truth is that this has infected, eugenics has infected and continues to infect many societies, including so-called democracies. There are individuals who hold this kind of ideology, really like a religion. They regard some human beings as inferior, and therefore expendable. They established policies that do just that.”
Sharav then goes on to state the starting point, or origins of the eugenics movement:
“Eugenics was first put together as a[n] ideology, as a philosophy by the British. But it was really really given a push by the robber barons in the United States. Germany imported the eugenics agenda, and the how-to – the practical way, from the United States. It is an extraordinary evil ideology. It looks at human beings as flies, as specs.”
What is Eugenics?
Prior to examining the holocaust survivor’s claims on the eugenics ideology and movement, we need to look at the term itself and what is meant by eugenics. Its etymology reads as follows:
Though definitions vary from one dictionary to another, the following from Merriam-Webster encompasses the general meaning of the term along with and example usage:
In short, we can simplify eugenics as a doctrine that espouses selective breeding to ensure a “good stock” (from the Greek eugenes) of human beings which can be facilitated or enabled by sterilization or other means.
The Eugenics Movement
What is perhaps readily noticeable from both of these entries above is that they both refer to the English scientist named Francis Galton.
At least according to one writer and researcher on the subject, Sharav does seem to correctly point out that the eugenics movement originated in Britain, was proliferated in the United States by “robber barons”, i.e., wealthy industrialists, and was only later adopted by the Germans [just before and during WWII].
The author who substantiates these three notions is Edwin Black who wrote the book War Against the Weak. The book’s cover appeared in the film while Sharav was speaking.
The book, first published on January 1st, 2003, was also made into a documentary film. The synopsis of the film reads as follows:
“War Against the Weak is the untold story of American Eugenics, a movement that attempted to breed a Nordic master race through the elimination of the “unfit'.”
“In the first three decades of the 20th Century, American corporate philanthropy, combined with the efforts of the scientific, academic and political elite, created the pseudoscience eugenics, and institutionalized race politics as national policy. The goal was to create a superior, white, Nordic race and obliterate virtually everyone else.”
“Under the Nazis, American eugenic principles were applied without restraint, careening out of control into the Reich's infamous genocide. American eugenicists openly supported Germany's program, with both financial and intellectual capital. Once WWII began, Nazi eugenics turned from mass sterilization and euthanasia to genocidal murder. War Against the Weak explores this complex relationship between American eugenics and the horrors of the Holocaust.”
During an interview which aired on C-SPAN in 2003 (alternate link here), the book’s author, Edwin Black, mentions that his 600-page book has no less than 1500 footnotes, most of which were almost all exclusively from primary sources gathered by a team of 50 volunteer researchers who searched through 50,000 documents from 110 historical archives.
Black’s work further corroborates the aforementioned claims made by Vera Sharav.
Here are some highlights from the interview [with links added by this post’s author for additional context and verification purposes]:
Eugenics started in Victorian England (i.e., at the end of the 19th century, start of the 20th century) by scientist Francis Galton who was the [half-]cousin of Charles Darwin.
In the early 1900s, the ideas of eugenics were imported into the United States during a period of great ethnic and racial upheaval and conflict amidst millions of Jews, Blacks, Asians, Mexicans joining American society.
In the early 20th century, America was being led by post Civil War elites who considered themselves liberals, progressives, and utopians (as the author puts it). And their idea of a utopia, was a world that would exist where there would be nobody who did not resemble themselves.
This all came at a time when Mendel’s principles of heredity (see also here and here), had been rediscovered and proliferated in the United States. In short, Mendel’s principles of heredity examined the transmission of genetic traits (before anyone knew genes/DNA existed) from one generation to the next, examining why some offspring could be left purer and others damaged.
Thus, these elites believed that things like poverty, criminality, and morality – which they perceived as more omnipresent amongst the “lower classes” were genetic traits. And thus, the best way to get rid of these issues and improve the world was to get rid of these people who held these genetic traits.
Corporate philanthropy engaged in ethnic cleansing thus became the mechanism by which they could improve society.
The key institutions involved in this included the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the [Edward Harry] Harriman railroad fortune. They would establish research facilities on how to “eliminate” the defective or unfit (as they saw them) types of human beings.
Though methods such as the use of gas chambers were considered, they opted for forced surgical sterilisation for which they obtained related legislation in no less than 27 states. Some 60,000 Americans were sterilised.
Intermarriage restrictions and marriage annulments were also imposed.
“Farms” and “colonies” such as in New Jersey and Massachusetts were used as concentration camps for the “feeble-minded” or “racially unacceptable” in which hundreds of thousands of individuals were incarcerated and forcibly sterilised because they were deemed to be “unfit.”
Corporate philanthropy backed up these racist policies on the behest of “fake science” and “fake academics” promulgated from the likes of elite universities in Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and Princeton.
The corporate philanthropists wanted to expand the eugenics movement worldwide. So, the Carnegie Institution began to sponsor pseudoscientific medical journals around the world to proliferate their ideas into other countries. They sponsored related legislation in countries such as Canada, Belgium, as well as in Scandinavia. And their particular “pet project” of interest was that of Germany.
The ideas grew in significance in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s which came to the attention of Adolf Hitler. Hitler studied American eugenics theories and laws and openly admired them.
Several philanthropic organisations were indeed established by these rich industrialists such as Carnegie and Rockefeller.
John D. Rockefeller III founded the Population Council , an NGO (non-governmental organisation) involved in biomedical research and public health which is still in operation to this day and for which Everipedia describes its global reach as follows:
“Headquartered in New York City, the Population Council has 18 offices in Africa, Asia, and Latin America and does work in more than 60 countries. With an annual budget of around $74 million, it employs more than 500 people from 33 countries with expertise in a wide array of scientific disciplines.”
The Rockefeller-funded Population Council still exists and operates to this day. According to its website, it is largely focused on promoting the United Nation’s 2030 agenda with its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – as discussed in Part 2 of this review – though four “global goals” which include ensuring reproductive rights (i.e., access to contraceptives and abortion services), promoting the Climate Change and DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) agendas heavily concentrated on the African continent as well as in India and Pakistan.
On an interesting side note, it should also be observed that it was the Rockefellers who donated the land in New York City on which the United Nations building resides. The elitist family was heavily involved in the formation and funding of the UN which continues to this day.
The American Eugenics Society, or AES established by Madison Grant, Harry H. Laughlin, among others, which lasted from 1926 to 1972 was another outfit whose purpose was to promote eugenics education programs and efforts in the United States. It must also be noted and emphasised that Harry H. Laughlin also served as the Superintendent of the Eugenics Record Office from its inception in 1910 to its closing in 1939, and was among the most active individuals in influencing American eugenics policy, especially compulsory sterilization legislation.
And the Eugenics Record Office research institute, located in Cold Spring Harbor, New York, was established by the Carnegie Institution, founded by billionaire oligarch Andrew Carnegie.
As is referenced and documented in the links above, ample evidence exists which attests that these organisations were not only heavily involved in eugenics research, but actively promoted eugenical sterilization on select segments of the U.S. population.
In addition, according to a recent article Smithsonian Magazine, the American Society of Human Genetics, which was founded in 1948 just after the Second World War, had to apologised for the participation of several of its former leaders in the American eugenics movement.
The article further noted [with emphasis added]:
“The field of genetics has historically been misused to justify pre-existing prejudices. The early American eugenics movement, which believed that so-called “undesirable” traits were determined by genes, formed the basis for genocide in Nazi Germany.”
“Eugenicists created a pseudoscientific footing for racism, classism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, ableism and sexism that began in the late 1800s and still has an impact today.”
The first passage from above – in which the American eugenics movement formed the basis for genocide in Nazi Germany – is consistent with the research presented in Edwin Black’s book, as highlighted above in addition to a thesis dissertation by Cameron Williams from East Tennessee State University. Williams cited Black’s work in his thesis, stating:
“He [Hitler] tried to legitimize his anti-Semitism by medicalizing it and wrapping it in the more palatable pseudoscientific facade of eugenics.”
“Hitler proudly told his comrades just how closely he followed the progress of the American eugenics’ movement. "I have studied with great interest," he told a fellow Nazi, "the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, probably, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock."”
According to a December 7, 2011 New York Times article titled A Disquieting Book from Hitler’s Library, revealed that the Nazi leader praised the aforementioned eugenicist Madison Grant from the American Eugenics Society; further stating that his book The Passing of the Great Race was his most valued book, quoted Grant in his speeches, and had even sent him a letter describing the book as his “bible.”
The second passage from the Smithsonian Magazine article above links to a NIH National Human Genome Research Institute Fact Sheet titled Eugenics and Scientific Racism which provides an overview of the eugenics movement spanning from the 1800s to today, and affirms that the unfortunate trend persists to this day. It also points to a eugenics resource from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum’s Holocaust Encyclopedia that sheds even more light on the matter, also affirming:
“Eugenics provided the basis for the Nazi compulsory sterilization policy.”
They also provide a German Nazi era eugenics poster entitled "The Nuremberg Law for the Protection of Blood and German Honor which outlawed marriages between Aryans and non-Aryans to maintain the “purity of blood” of the German people:
The illustration is a stylized map of the borders of central Germany upon which is imposed a schematic of the forbidden degrees of marriage between Aryans and non-Aryans and the text of the Law for the Protection of German Blood. The German text at the bottom reads, "Maintaining the purity of blood insures the survival of the German people. Circa 1935 in Stuttgart, [Wuerttemberg] Germany. Source: US Holocaust Memorial Museum, courtesy of Hans Pauli.
The Kaiser Wilhelm Society
The Kaiser Wilhelm Society was a German scientific institution established in the German Empire in 1911. It was an umbrella organisation with many institutes, testing stations, and research units created under its authority.
The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute and its research facilities were involved in weapons research, experimentation and production in both world wars.
Of particular note with regards to the American eugenics’ movement adopted by the Germans is that of one Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer.
In his interview, author Edwin Black mentioned this individual as the “Chief Nazi eugenicist” who had received funding in the form of grants from the Rockefeller Foundation.
Though Black doesn’t mention the outfit by name in the video, it can be confirmed that he was referring to the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics, founded in 1927 in Berlin, Germany, of which Verschuer was its director from 1935 to 1942.
During the later part of the Second World War around 1943, Verschuer used research material obtained from the Auschwitz concentration camp through his former student Josef Mengele, a German Schutzstaffel (SS) captain who served there as a camp physician.
Mengele’s Experiments at Auschwitz consisted of research conducted on prisoners – particularly of the Jewish and Roma (a European ethnic group whose ancestry can be traced to modern-day India and Pakistan) descent. Testing methods of mass sterilization and murdering and dissecting prisoners for anthropological and medical research figured among some of the types of experiments conducted at Auschwitz.
The Max Planck Society from Germany also noted the following:
“From 1943 onwards, Otmar von Verschuer was receiving specimens from the Auschwitz extermination camp from Josef Mengele for the KWI for Anthropology, Human Genetics and Eugenics. Between 1940 and 1945, the KWI for Brain Research in Berlin examined around 700 brains taken from mentally ill and mentally handicapped victims of the Nazi euthanasia that was happening at the same time.”
Verschuer had a particular research interest in twins and under his direction, Mengele sought out twins among the prisoners for his experiments.
Twins research was the holy grail of for the eugenics movement, noted author Edwin Black. Because, with it, you could unlock the mysteries of defective reproduction.
At Auschwitz, Mengele collected hundreds of pairs of twins. He ordered his staff to measure and record every aspect of the twins’ bodies. He drew large amounts of blood from the twins and sometimes performed other painful procedures on them.
Dr. Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer comparing twins to an eye chart. Photo source: Lubbock Avalanche-Journal from a Large Holocaust exhibit on loan to Museum of Texas Tech.
“Mengele also murdered sets of twins at the same time in order to conduct autopsies of their corpses. After he studied the autopsies, Mengele sent some of their organs to the KWI-A,” notes the United States Holocaust Museum.
After the war, Verschuer was never tried for war crimes despite his collaboration with Mengele.
According to Wikipedia, a report to the German Research Council (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft; DFG) from 1944, Verschuer talked about Mengele's assistance in supplying the KWI-A with some "scientific materials" from Auschwitz:
“My assistant, Dr. Mengele (M.D., Ph.D.) has joined me in this branch of research. He is presently employed as Hauptsturmführer [Nazi Captain] and camp physician in the concentration camp at Auschwitz. Anthropological investigations on the most diverse racial groups of this concentration camp are being carried out with permission of the SS Reichsführer [Himmler]; the blood samples are being sent to my laboratory for analysis.”
In 1929, the Rockefeller Foundation appropriated a stunning $317,000 towards the building program for the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics. That was a tremendous amount of money at the time; and if adjusted for inflation on a historical basis, it would amount to approximately $5.5 million today.
Furthermore, annual reports from 1932, 1933, 1934, and 1935 show funding for various research programs – including brain research and research on twins.
Whether or not the Rockefellers had direct knowledge about the previously mentioned atrocious research experiments and murders conducted by Verschuer and Mengele is disputable. What we do know, however, is that they provided a lot of funding for these activities at the institute. Either way, the American industrialists still cannot be exonerated; for, one cannot shield oneself from the acts committed by the members and institutions of one’s foundation.
Though set in a different historical time frame, the same can be said about the other philanthropists such as Carnegie, Harriman, et al.
While many philanthropical causes past and present are noble and worthy of recognition, conducting such kinds of pseudoscientific research – much of which has been proven unethical, immoral, and harmful – remains highly questionable to this day.
Thus far, Vera Sharav’s claims about the eugenics movement and its origins prove quite accurate.
Gates & Planned Parenthood
In the last part of this segment of the film, Sharav points out that Bill Gates is a eugenicist as were his parents. She then posits that philanthropic foundations that oligarchs such as Bill Gates form become empowered to decide overarching policies, essentially usurping the will of the people who have not elected them. Bill Gates has huge financial interests in everything he donates to, she asserts.
During this segment of the film, three key images are displayed: one showing Bill Gates as head of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, another with his father William Henry Gates II under the banner of Planned Parenthood, and a third of Margaret Sanger – the founder of Planned Parenthood.
As for Sharav’s claim that such philanthropic organisations and their unelected members often bypass the will of the people and are empowered to decide overarching policies, well, that has been largely covered and substantiated in Part 2 of this review series.
Since Planned Parenthood figures as a prominent outfit for such policies, it is worthwhile to at least briefly examine its origins and key actors in order to verify the concern Sharav holds about them.
Planned Parenthood was spearheaded by Margaret Sanger in the early 20th century. Access to birth control for women was central to her cause.
An article titled Eugenics in America: The Legacy of Sanger and Gates from Catholic Stand does indeed tie into the earlier discussion in this section and sheds additional light on the motivations of Planned Parenthood and those who ran and funded it.
The article states “Her [Margaret Sanger] unwavering support of eugenics as a means of achieving economic stability and improved public health was well-documented in her many essays and speeches.” It further contends [with emphasis added]:
“The Eugenics Movement faded to the background after World War II amid the horrors of the Nazi holocaust. However, it continues to exert an influence on the modern activities of Planned Parenthood, particularly regarding its relationship with African-Americans and other minorities. It also can be seen in the philanthropic activities of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.”
Before looking at recent activities of Planned Parenthood, Catholic Stand draws up a reference to its founder, Margaret Sanger’s racist past whereby she openly embraced the eugenics movement as a means to reduce the populations of “unfit” groups, particularly with Blacks (African-Americans).
The article makes reference to both The Negro Project (click the link for an introduction to the project) and to an article – Birth Control and Racial Betterment – written by Sanger in the February, 1919 edition of The Birth Control Review. In the latter, they quoted Sanger’s words on stopping the “reproduction of the unfit,” as can be evidenced in the following screenshot image of her article.
Extract of an article titled Birth Control and Racial Betterment by Margaret Sanger, from The Birth Control Review, February, 1919.
The article then states Sanger’s most successful endeavor toward this goal was what she called “The Negro Project.” The link to the project points to a website, blackgenocide.org with an article titled The NEGRO PROJECT: Margaret Sanger's EUGENIC Plan for Black America which was written just over a decade ago by Tanya L. Green.
The scathing article showcases the grave injustices committed towards Blacks in America, particularly with regards to population control against the racial group and how Margaret Sanger demonstrated clear racism and aligned herself with the eugenicists whose ideology prevailed in the early 20th century. Merely one cited passage from Sanger in her essay We Must Breed a Race of Thoroughbreds demonstrates her clear contempt against these peoples:
“In it she argued that birth control clinics, or bureaus, should be established "in which men and women will be taught the science of parenthood and the science of breeding." For this was the way "to breed out of the race the scourges of transmissible disease, mental defect, poverty, lawlessness, crime … since these classes would be decreasing in number instead of breeding like weeds."”
The lengthy article cites too many instances of Sanger’s racism to include here. Even Planned Parenthood recently had to acknowledge their founder’s heinous past and attempt to distance themselves from her, stating:
“Sanger’s belief in eugenics undermined reproductive freedom and caused irreparable damage to the health and lives of generations of Black people, Latino people, Indigenous people, immigrants, people with disabilities, people with low incomes, and many others. Planned Parenthood denounces Margaret Sanger’s belief in eugenics.”
The Catholic Stand article proceeds to note that 79% of Planned Parenthood’s abortion clinics are located in or within walking distance of predominately African-American and Latino communities. And that “African-Americans have a disproportionately high abortion rate; though they make up 13 percent of the U.S. population, they comprise 30 percent of the country’s abortions (from ProtectingBlackLife.org).”
The other article referenced earlier about The Negro Project titled Black & Unwanted also corroborates the racist views and actions of Sanger and highlights the disproportionality of abortions among the Black population, stating:
“The intent of Sanger’s Negro Project is firmly intact. Nearly 40% of all African-American pregnancies end in induced abortion. [8] This is by design. Abortion kills more black people than the seven leading causes of death combined (heart disease, cancer, strokes, accidents, diabetes, homicide, and chronic lower respiratory diseases) according to CDC data. [9 - National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2008.] Black women have abortions at over 3x the rate of white women.”
A 2009 documentary film called Maafa 21 traces eugenic thoughts and practices that have been set against African Americans from the time of slavery through the present. It provides additional context into the grave matter at hand. Though the full documentary runs over two hours and 20 minutes and is filled with heart-wrenching accounts, the trailer can be seen hereunder.
The Catholic publication is not shy in its disdain for Bill Gates. Though they highlight that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has donated billions to the cause of improving global health, largely by sponsoring vaccine and agricultural programs in Third World countries, they dig up the roots as to why the cause is so dear to the Microsoft founder.
Specifically, they cite Bill Gates’ 2003 interview with Bill Moyer from PBS on why he was so interested in population issues and reproductive health. The interview showed some of these roots with Bill Gates stating [emphasis added]:
“When I was growing up, my parents were almost involved in various volunteer things. My dad was head of Planned Parenthood. And it was very controversial to be involved with that. And so it's fascinating. At the dinner table my parents are very good at sharing the things that they were doing. And almost treating us like adults, talking about that.”
An article from Salon did further confirm that Gates Sr. was on the national board of Planned Parenthood.
Undoubtedly, such a position as a board member gave the elder philanthropist a tremendous amount of power over the activities of Planned Parenthood which included abortion operations and other population control efforts.
Apart from his involvement in Planned Parenthood, it should also be noted that William H. Gates Sr., Bill’s father, invested in the founding of the Bill and Melinda Gates Institute for Population and Reproductive Health at Johns Hopkins University (the Gates Institute) which was his initiative, notes Population Services International (PSI).
The Gates Institute at the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health aims to “achieve the goal of expanding access to quality contraceptive information, services, and supplies” through its Advance Family Planning (AFP) unit which itself consists of more than 300 organisations across 41 countries.
AFP also includes a key outfit called Smart Advocacy which is financially supported by 3 foundations: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation – the latter two being of the Hewlett-Packard (HP) fame. The three foundations combined account for nearly $70 billion in endowments funds.
Interestingly, AFP boasts of their SMART—Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Time-bound—Advocacy approach, stating [emphasis added]:
“SMART Advocacy transforms the way family planning champions maximize their time and funds to effectively persuade those in power to act.”
Needless to say, stating their approach in such a manner can easily lead one to infer that they use their financial prowess to “persuade those in power to act” which essentially can be interpreted as buying local politicians or key players positioned in those countries’ health and social institutions to advance their causes.
Population Services International (PSI) is yet another foundation that focuses on reproductive health (contraception) and abortion in Third World nations which is funded by The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), their key partner.
And it doesn’t end there. The Bill & Melinda Gates Medical Research Institute represents yet another Gates outfit concerned with public health abroad.
Furthermore, the BMFG is also omnipresent in two United Nations outfits regarding family planning and related endeavours, namely the United Nations Population Fund (UNFP) and FP2030, or Family Planning 2030. Moreover, BMFG has been heavily invested in the UNFP for over a decade and has earmarked over $1.4 billion to FP2030.
Catholic Stand asserts that Bill Gates is no different than his forebears who espoused a Malthusian eugenics philosophy, stating:
“Decreasing Population Through Better Health Care?
As did Sanger, Gates believes in the eugenist Thomas Malthus’s idea that the sustainability of the world’s resources is completely dependent upon maintaining population control. Ironically, Gates believes that improving health care, primarily through vaccinations, will accomplish this.”
They then refer to Bill Gates’ irreconcilable notion that improving global health care can be accomplished by reducing the world’s population through vaccines and reproductive health services. Moreover, they are referring to Bill Gates infamous 2010 TED talk on the goal of achieving zero carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 2050.
The formula for reducing C02 emissions, as per Bill Gates 2010 TED Talk Innovating to Zero.
In the talk, Gates pointed to the “P” (population) factor and how it can be lowered to reduce C02 emissions. Specifically, Gates stated the following:
While many so-called fact-checking organisations have stated that Gates’s didn’t mean to use vaccines as a way to reduce the world’s population and that his words were taken out of context, the fact remains that he did utter those words.
On a separate occasion, when asked by CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta about his Decade of Vaccines initiative, he said: “The benefits [of vaccines] are there in terms of reducing sickness, reducing population growth.”
Moreover, these “fact-checking” outfits also fail to include the historical context as it pertains to the eugenics movement along with the mindsets and lineages these wealthy elite carry.
Furthermore, they also fail to admit the openly stated admissions and involvement in depopulation agendas which continue today through the likes of the Population Council, those others listed earlier, and a similar outfit called Population Connection, formerly the Zero Population Council, or ZPG, which has been criticised as a genocidal movement fostered by John D. Rockefeller III.
More on The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
It should first be noted that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has been described as a shell for tax avoidance by philanthropist and accounting expert, Sheldon Drobny. To this point, Techrights has documented a lot of evidence regarding the endeavors and dubious connections of the foundation in their Gates Foundation Critique collage. The many instances therein describe their pharmaceutical patent investments, investments in experimental and controversial crops, GMO ventures, numerous tax shelters, political connections, and more.
Other reports of malpractice and even manslaughter from the foundation seldom make the news headlines in the West. Nevertheless, they are documented.
In 2010, the Gates Foundation funded a phase 3 trial of GlaxoSmithKline’s experimental malaria vaccine, killing 151 African infants and causing serious adverse effects including paralysis, seizure, and febrile convulsions to 1,048 of the 5,949 children.
More troubling revelations surfaced with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s polio program when, in April of 2012, it was reported in the Indian medical press that some 47,500 children had become permanently disabled as a direct result of the polio vaccination campaign.
Bill Gates administers an oral polio vaccine in New Delhi in 2000. Photo source and credit: The Seattle Times June 30, 2008, Jeff Christensen.
But the number of paralyzed children from the oral polio vaccine administered under the Gates program was actually much higher, as indicated in a later (2018) medical research paper published by a team of Indian doctors in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. The August 15, 2018 paper was titled Correlation between Non-Polio Acute Flaccid Paralysis Rates with Pulse Polio Frequency in India which highlights the following staggering numbers [with emphasis added]:
“We calculated the number of paralyzed children each year which exceeded the expected numbers (assuming a NPAFP rate of 2/100,000) and the results are displayed in Table 2. A total of 640,000 children developed NPAFP in the years 2000–2017, suggesting that there were an additional 491,000 paralyzed children above our expected numbers for children with NPAFP.”
Childrens Health Defense had also reported on this, stating that Indian doctors blame the Gates campaign for a devastating non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) epidemic that paralyzed 490,000 children beyond expected rates between 2000 and 2017 (see also here and here). In 2017, the Indian government dialed back Gates’ vaccine regimen and asked Gates and his vaccine policies to leave India. NPAFP rates dropped precipitously.
In 2014, the Gates Foundation funded tests of experimental HPV vaccines, developed by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Merck (two pharmaceutical giants) on 23,000 young girls between 10 and 14 years of age in remote Indian provinces. Approximately 1,200 suffered severe side effects, including autoimmune and fertility disorders. Seven died. Indian government investigations charged that Gates-funded researchers committed pervasive ethical violations: pressuring vulnerable village girls into the trial, bullying parents, forging consent forms, and refusing medical care to the injured girls. The case made it to the country’s Supreme Court.
A February 9, 2017 article from The Economic Times India titled Centre shuts health mission gate on Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation confirmed that the country’s advisory body – National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (NTAGI) – cut ties with the BMGF due to conflicts of interests with pharmaceutical companies and other reasons; the article noted the following [link added]:
“There were questions about the Gates Foundation’s ties with pharmaceutical companies and the possible influence this may have on the country’s vaccination strategy. Global Policy Forum, an independent policy watchdog that seeks to promote accountability in international organisations, raised some of these concerns in a study in December 2015.”
“The study, called ‘Philanthropic Power and Development -Who shapes the agenda?’, had cautioned on “the growing influence of the large global philanthropic foundations, especially the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, on political discourse and agenda-setting in targeted fields, and fully analyze the risks and side effects — intended and unintended — of these activities on sustainable development””
The Global Policy Forum describes itself as an independent policy watchdog that monitors the work of the United Nations and scrutinizes global policymaking. Their study (click link to access PDF) provides a good overview of philanthropic foundations, their influence on global health agenda – including the UN’s 2030 Sustainable Development agenda, and how they use their power over agenda setting, often sidelining the role of governments. It is certainly worth the read.
According to an April 23rd, 2020 Children's Health Defense article titled The Bill Gates Effect: WHO’s DTP Vaccine Killed More Children in Africa Than the Diseases it Targeted authored by none other than their Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., GAVI, Gates, and the WHO aggressively pushed the dangerous DTP vaccine program despite horrendous results. Moreover, they "strong-armed" African nations in the process. Here are some key excerpts from the article [with some emphasis added]:
“But Bill Gates and his surrogates, GAVI and WHO, made DTP a priority for African babies.”
“Dr. Mogenson and his team found that girls vaccinated with the DTP vaccine died at 10 times the rate of unvaccinated kids.”
“For African nations, GAVI and WHO use DTP vaccine uptake to gauge national compliance with vaccine recommendations. GAVI can financially punish nations that don’t fully comply.”
“The researchers suggested that the DTP vaccine is killing more children than the diseases it targets. It’s possible that millions of children are adversely affected.”
Note that GAVI is the short name for The Vaccine Alliance which was set up by the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation in 1999 with seed money of US$ 750 million.
GAVI has also received millions in funding from the Rockefeller Foundation.
As a strong advocate of vaccination destined towards the world’s poorest countries, GAVI and its partners always stands to profit from large governmental orders of vaccines.
Yet another article, 12 Reasons to Get Angry about the Gates Foundation’s Latest Project to Sterilize Women, from author Susan E. Wills points to another controversial project by his foundation, Pfizer, and the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF) which subsidized the production of an injectable contraceptive Sayana Press, a different version of the Depo-Provera birth-control shot at $1 per 3-month dose to women in 69 of the world’s poorest countries. Wills notes the intolerable side effects in her article.
Eugenics by any other name
Over its evolution, the eugenics movement has had to redefine and reengineer itself due to societal pushback and due criticism.
In the early days, the movement frequently employed code words, or terms such as feebleminded, unfit, and imbecile to described those they deemed to be of inferior stock, or races.
Over the decades though, many of these words became socially unacceptable and politically incorrect not only to the greater masses, but also for the political establishment.
Accordingly, certain of these code words needed to be toned down so as to placate negative feedback towards the eugenics movement itself, and the institutions that served it.
Many eugenics or population reduction institutions underwent such name changes.
One of the earliest, the American Eugenics Society, changed its name twice with the latest being the Society for Biodemography and Social Biology. The Kaiser Wilhelm Society became the Kaiser Wilhelm Society for the Advancement of Science. The American Birth Control League became Planned Parenthood. The Zero Population Council became Population Connection. And, though Population Services International hasn’t changed its name, it is mostly referred to as PSI.
Most likely, such name changes occurred so as to not be associated with words like control and population, as in population control.
Even today, name changes for organisations and related code words are frequently reengineered, or reimagined to portray a more positive connotation. For instance, family planning or family planning clinic sounds less menacing than abortion and abortion clinic. Contraception also sounds more appealing and convenient than birth control. Pro-choice and reproductive rights/freedoms sound a lot better than pro-abortion. Gender-Affirming Care sounds a hell of a lot better than genital mutilation/sterilization. And so on, and so forth.
If we are to presume that the eugenics movement is still alive and well today, it should come as no surprise that the meticulous selection and use of socially and politically acceptable, though concurrently deceptive, verbiage would be imperative; by doing so, it would prove much easier to obfuscate true agendas and intentions that are related to population control or sterilisations.
3.2 Vera Sharav on Transhumanism
Sharav then shifts to how eugenics is now being revamped and revitalised into the upgraded technological movement of transhumanism:
“And at this point they want to transform the human species into transhumanists – partly robot, technology, and partly blood and sweat. But really something that they can control, totally. You’ve got biotechnology and surveillance technology. And when the two get together, that’s lethal. That leads to genocide.”
Screenshot depicting a young lady accessing her bank account via a biometric facial recognition feature of her smart phone. Taken from Part 3 – Breaking The Veil Of The Real Conspirators from the docuseries Never Again Is Now Global.
While the subject of transhumanism is rather broad and complex, it is worth examining it from Sharav’s point of view that it will be used as a biotechnical surveillance tool for controlling human beings and their behaviour.
At first, this thesis seems quite far-fetched.
But, one only needs to reconsider what has taken place over the last few years during the Covid-19 Pandemic.
It can certainly be argued that Vaccine passports employed in many countries were a form of biotechnical surveillance tools for tracking the movement of individuals. Moreover, they strongly incentivised human behavior in that those who refused to take the experimental Covid-19 vaccines saw their mobility rights strictly restricted.
Yet, transforming human beings into transhumanist beings to the extent that they can be directly controlled remains somewhat trailblazing at this juncture.
That doesn’t mean, however, that there aren’t outfits already working on such endeavours.
Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk’s Neuralink project comes to mind.
Neuralink is an American technology company working on implantable brain–computer interfaces (BCIs) which can provide a direct communication pathway between the brain's electrical activity and an external device such as a computer.
For now, the technology seems mostly focused on improving neurological disorders, or restoring sensory and motor functions in afflicted individuals.
The following video from the YouTube channel AI Evolution titled The future is now: Elon Musk says Neuralink is ready for human testing provides a brief and informative overview of the technology, including its ethical implications and concerns.
As the author of the video mentions, concerns about the use, or misuse, of this technology include:
the potential for hacking;
invasion of privacy (to one’s inner thoughts, inner sanctum);
the potential for government and corporations to use this technology to monitor or control people’s thoughts.
It is to be presumed that these concerns are the ones that Very Sharav are primarily worried about.
And with good reason.
Numerous lectures and appearances from a very controversial figure, Yuval Noah Harari – a widely published author and professor from the Department of History at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, have caused a certain level of outrage.
As far back as five years ago at the 2018 World Economic Forum’s annual meeting, Harari referred to humans as “hackable” creatures in his Will the Future Be Human? lecture to the elites in attendance.
During the lecture, Harari made several other stunning admissions regarding the contemplated endeavour of “hacking humanity.”
Addressing a room full of powerful elites in attendance he asked rhetorically before answering the following:
“Q: What do you need to hack humans?”
“A: You need two things: 1) A lot of computing power; 2) And you need a lot of data – especially biometric data.”
The Israeli professor and author posited that “organisms [such as humans] are [biochemical] algorithms,” thus postulating or suggesting the means by which humans are “programmable” creatures. In other words, biometric data of humans can be not only be accessed, but also modified which could lead to desired changes in the body and mind.
Harari further inquired:
“Q: How exactly will the future masters of the planet look like?”
“A: This will be decided by the people who own the data. Those who control the data, control the future, not just of humanity, but the future of life itself.”
The above response is quite a radical thesis, for it implies that people’s biometric data could be owned by parties other than themselves – something which completely eradicates bodily sovereignty and, inherently, freedom itself.
He also refers to how the ruling class can obtain absolute power over humanity and life itself.
In line with this thesis, Harari envisions the rise of a “Digital Dictatorship” whereby current democratic societies will need to cede their place to a single technocratic dictatorship where all the data and power is concentrated or centralised in one place.
He further contends that “control of data might enable human elites to do something even more radical than just build digital dictatorships,” whilst scoffing the notion of intelligent design by some “God above the cloud,” as he puts it. “By our intelligent design. And the intelligent design of our clouds: the IBM cloud, the Microsoft cloud; these are the new driving forces of evolution,” he indomitably asserts.
Needless to say, the notion of having powerful private corporations in charge of, and in control of our biometric data to reshape intelligent design in their ethos is a very dangerous thing. Companies like IBM, Microsoft, Amazon, and Tencent have already taken ownership of a lot of our personal data in terms of private personal information, shopping and online habits, and the like. Should they bring it to the next level of biometric data, the consequence could prove disastrous.
As was also noted in the third episode of the Holocaust docuseries, the leader of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, further confirmed Harari’s vision during a January 10, 2016 interview when he predicted that within ten years, i.e., by 2026, humans would have chips implanted in their brains that will be linked to the digital world.
Privacy International, an advocacy group based in the U.K. that promotes privacy rights, warns that governments and corporations abuse their power to invade our privacy, threatening our freedoms. They provide a good overview of biometrics and how the Surveillance-Exploitation Complex seeks to access and exploit our personal data against us.
Most people would be stunned as to the extent to which their personal data, including biometric data, is being collected and exploited by both public and private entities.
BiometricUpdate.com is another outfit that provides many articles on the subject of biometric data collection and exploitation.
One of the main concerns people have with regards to the collection of personal biometric data is that of it being used against them for surveillance and the imposition of Digital IDs which may lead to becoming slaves to a Central Bank Digital Currency, or CBDC. The merging of these three pillars enabled via the common denominator of biometric data could indeed prove disastrous for human sovereignty and freedom.
To sum up this subsection, the “hackability” of humans, particularly through our personal and private biometric data, is indeed a highly sought-after prize from the likes of elite globalists from the WEF and other supranational organisations, as well as powerful corporate interests and governments. And they should definitely be of concern not only to Vera Sharav, but to us all.
3.3 Vera Sharav on how Covid-19 was planned Biowarfare
Near the 15:38 mark, Sharav makes her boldest claim that the Covid-19 Pandemic was undeniably planned and came about due to the United States’ conducting illegal biowarfare research.
“It’s hard to hold on to the fiction that the [Covid-19] pandemic was not planned because United States government was paying millions and millions of dollars which were, um, delegated really by Anthony Fauci to laboratories that were doing illegal biowarfare research under the euphemism gain of function. Gain of function research is biowarfare research. It is illegal by international law. But it’s not being abided by. The evidence from the Wuhan lab in China is sufficient, totally sufficient, to show that it emanated from there within the context of gain of function research. So yes, it was in the planning stage for a long time, and then it happened. The two go together.”
Overall, this claim has substantial merit and backing – if only by the documents referenced and flashed on the screen during the documentary film. Some of these will be referenced to and linked below.
First, a proposal for research into sequencing and reverse-engineering a SARSr-CoVs virus from bats to then test on humanised mice to assess the capacity to create or cause a SARS-like disease was indeed submitted on March 24, 2018 to the United States Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, better known as DARPA for its PREEMPT program. The proposed project’s name was Project DEFUSE: Defusing the Threat of Bat-borne Coronaviruses by Dr. Peter Daszak, the President of EcoHealth Alliance.
Part of the cover page for EcoHealth Alliance’s Project DEFUSE: Defusing the Threat of Bat-borne Coronaviruses.
Part of the Executive Summary for EcoHealth Alliance’s Project DEFUSE: Defusing the Threat of Bat-borne Coronaviruses with relevant parts underlined in red color.
The proposal was rejected for several reasons including its involvement in Gain of Function research which was not permitted by U.S. law.
In short, Gain-of-function research (GOFR) involves modifying microorganisms such as viruses to increase their transmissibility and virulence (to overcome a host's defenses and cause disease or damage).
What is perhaps peculiar from the title page’s image from the proposal (as illustrated in the figure above) is the use of soldiers – so as to suggest a possible combat edge. EcoHealth Alliance was, after all, seeking funds from DARPA, a military organisation which is the central research unit of the U.S. Department of Defense. In other words, it suggests using more deadly viruses as a combat vehicle which many would refer to as a bioweapon.
Though the research proposal was rejected by DARPA mostly due to its illegality under U.S. law, Dr. Peter Daszak, the President of EcoHealth Alliance, nevertheless did manage to indirectly proceed with this particular gain of function research through the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) for which Dr. Anthony Fauci was Director at the time.
It should be noted that from the onset of the Covid-19 Pandemic, Dr. Anthony Fauci served as one of the leading members of the White House COVID-19 Response Team, also serving as Chief Medical Advisor to President Joe Biden. Dr. Fauci, a physician-scientist and immunologist and former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) from 1984 to 2022, has been the most prominent figure in determining response efforts regarding the Covid-19 Pandemic in the United States.
The documentary film flashed many pages from documents which appear to come from DARPA showing that the gain of function research did take place with Dr. Fauci, as his NIAID had not rejected the proposal (for the same research). Many of the highlights from those pages can be viewed from peakd.com in their January 22, 2022 post titled Excerpts from a DARPA document regarding COVID-19 origins.
The post highlights some passages from a DARPA report written by USMC Major Joseph Murphy which was obtained by Project Veritas (see Military Documents About Gain of Function Contradict Fauci Testimony Under Oath).
An August 13, 2021 unclassified document from DARPA which pertained to investigating the origins of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes the Covid-19 disease) appears on the Peakd.com website, followed by excerpts of the said report which include the following:
“2. SARS-Cov-2, hereafter referred to as SARSr-CoV-WIV, is a synthetic spike protein chimera engineered to attach to human ACE2 receptors and inserted into a recombinant bat SARSr-CoV backbone. It is likely a live vaccine not yet engineered to a more attenuated state that the program sought to create with its final version. It leaked and spread rapidly because it was not ready to infect bats yet, which is why it does not appear to infect bats. The reason the disease is so confusing is because it is less a virus than it is engineered spike proteins hitch-hiking a ride on a SARSr-CoV quasispecies swarm. The close it is to the final live attenuated vaccine form, the more likely that it has been deattentuating since initial escape in August 2019.”
WIV refers to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a biosafety level 4 lab, where the research on bat coronaviruses took place under the direction of EcoHealth Alliance.
The second paragraph, hereunder, is perhaps of more interest and significance (with some emphasis added for relevance):
“Ivermectin (identified as curative in April 2020) works throughout all phases of illness because it both inhibits viral replication and modulates the immune response. Of note, chloroquine phosphate (Hydroxychloroquine, identified April 2020 as curative) is identified in the proposal as a SARSr-CoV inhibitor, as is interferon (identified May 2020 as curative).”
It basically states that Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine were very effective drugs at combatting the coronavirus as early as April 2020.
And it is also very worthwhile to note that at the height of the Covid-19 Pandemic both of these drugs were highly ridiculed as a treatment by not only the mainstream media, but also by various health authorities around the world, including the Center for Disease Control (CDC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the World Health Organization (WHO).
Even the acclaimed medical journal The Lancet had to retract a sham study about Hydroxychloroquine being ineffective in the treatment of Covid-19 in the middle months of 2020 early on during the pandemic.
Returning to the Peakd.com report that was obtained by Project Veritas, we find that secrecy was the order of the day with regards to the gain of function research project:
The more incriminating part of this passage is: “The massive, "Manhattan Project"-level of information suppression executed by government and the Trusted News Initiative indicates that it would be covered-up if something bad happened.” For, it attests to the highest level of secrecy sought for the project and how the government and the Trusted News Initiative should suppress, or “cover-up” any leaked information that spilled the beans on the secretive work and its possible lab leak as the origins of the deadly virus outbreak.
For those unfamiliar with the Trusted News Initiative (TNI), it is a multi-level partnership created in 2019 by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) to counter so-called fake news; or, as Substack author Jennifer Brown puts it, to serve as a grid of global information control.
The TNI includes all the news giants such as Reuters, the BBC, AP, AFP, CBC/Radio-Canada, along with tech giants such as Microsoft, Facebook, Google, and YouTube. In other words, it covers the vast majority of news that is viewed by the greater public, at least in the Western world.
Former CBC, CTV, Vancouver Sun, and Montreal Gazette journalist Rodney Palmer recently made a presentation exposing the broader systemic problem of mainstream journalism and the Trusted News Initiative itself. In the highly revealing presentation, Palmer demonstrates how mainstream outlets are highly coordinated and consistent in how narratives and messages are crafted and synchronously disseminated to the broader public. In other words, through the Trusted News Initiative, these outlets can easily suppress whatever it deems fake news or disinformation, regardless of whether that is the true state of reality.
Therefore, in the broader context of information suppression about the origins of Covid-19, it is important to consider such efforts that have been undertaking by the TNI and their media and Big Tech partners.
Thankfully, more independent news outlets have allowed for counter narratives to be published which challenge the narratives of mainstream outlets which, undeniably, are also highly-funded by pharmaceutical giants. One such outlet has been The Intercept.
The aforementioned Peakd.com article cites from the report obtained by Project Veritas which attests that the SARS-CoV-2 was created by the EcoHealth Alliance research program at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).
Additional verification about this claim needs to be provided in order to substantiate Vera Shara’s claim that it was created a bioweapon at the WIV.
Previous evidence has surfaced regarding a massive coverup by the Chinese government and apparent pre-pandemic linkages between US-funded labs an the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Dr. Anthony Fauci who was the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and a key leader in the United States regarding the handling of the Covid-19 Pandemic has repeatedly lied to the U.S. Congress and denied that any gain-of-function research (specifically, the bat coronavirus research project by EcoHealth Alliance) had taken place under his US government-funded National Institutes of Health (NIH) lab in Wuhan.
Surfaced letters have shone additional light on the matter demonstrating that funding from NIH to EcoHealth Alliance did indeed occur.
In addition, a report from The Intercept following a FOIA request produced 900 pages of materials relating to coronavirus research in China. Another Intercept article from just a few days later titled NIH Documents Provide New Evidence U.S. Funded Gain-of-Function Research in Wuhan further confirmed that the U.S. had indeed funded the research.
Furthermore, an email letter from Peter Daszak from EcoHealth Alliance dated April 18, 2020, surfaced whereby Daszak thanked Anthony Fauci, the head of the Covid-19 response team, for his [false] public comments regarding the origins of Covid-19.
News aggregator ZeroHedge ran an article on August 6, 2021 whereby virologist Shi Zhengli (also known as "Bat Lady") of the Wuhan Institute of Virology – whose lab received US funding to make coronaviruses more infectious to humans – warned that the virus will continue to mutate producing new strains.
Virologist Shi Zhengli (left), also known as “bat lady” photographed with Peter Daszak (right) from EcoHealth Alliance, source: ZeroHedge and DailyMail.
And what is perhaps the most utterly farcical in this sordid affair is the fact that Peter Daszak was actually part of the investigation team lead by the WHO that sought to look into the lab leak theory of the virus’ origins which affirms an egregious display of conflict of interest. Unsurprisingly, the investigation, which only took three hours to conduct, resulted in a complete absolution of EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. If that doesn’t stink as a monumental cover-up, this author isn’t sure what does.
Dr. Robert Malone, an internationally recognized scientist/physician and the original inventor of mRNA vaccination as a technology, also chimed in about the report leaked by Project Veritas in his January 11, 2022 Substack post titled Tidal Wave of Documents on Gain-of-Function and the Leak of the Virus.
Screen capture showing a photograph of Dr. Peter Daszak, President of EcoHealth Alliance and Dr. Anthony Fauci, recent director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). Taken from Project Veritas’ January 10, 2022 article and video Military Documents About Gain of Function Contradict Fauci Testimony Under Oath.
Finally, the report also revealed how mRNA-based Covid-19 vaccines cannot effectively defeat the virus due to their synthetic nature/composition:
Although this author cannot independently verify the authenticity of the documents displayed by Project Veritas, they certainly appear to be authentic.
Regardless, there remains a substantial amount of incriminating evidence, not the least of which has been exhibited above in this post, to affirm that Dr. Anthony Fauci lied more than once about the gain of function research which led to the production of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and its alleged dispersion from the Wuhan biosafety level 4 lab.
Thus far, Vera Sharav’s claim of the virus that causes Covid-19 was conducted under gain of function, or biowarfare research, certainly holds water.
But what of her claim that the pandemic was planned?
Was Covid-19 planned Biowarfare?
Before answering this question, we can also append Dr. Zelenko’s related claim in this episode that “Covid-19 is a man-made weapon of mass destruction,” as he puts it.
Near the 44:27 mark, Dr. Zelenko asserts that he has traced a 20-year patent and peer-reviewed paper trail that shows how the virus was developed for such destructive purposes.
The following articles – many which are peer-reviewed published medical papers – appear on screen while he speaks and are listed hereunder.
UNC (Univ. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) Baric to lead $10 million NIH grant, Sept. 9, 2013
https://sph.unc.edu/sph-news/baric-to-lead-10-million-nih-grant/North Carolina Public Radio - Meet 'The Coronavirus Hunter' Ralph Baric
https://www.wunc.org/health/2020-05-25/meet-the-coronavirus-hunter-ralph-baricnature medicine – A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence, Published: 09 November 2015
https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985/Science Daily - New SARS-like virus can jump directly from bats to humans, no treatment available, November 10, 2015 (source: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151110115711.htmnature – Engineered bat virus stirs debate over risky research, by Declan Butler, Published: 12 November 2015 (cross-link from EcoHealth Alliance)
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18787Univ. of North Carolina UNC School of Medicine - Baric lab: Circulating bat coronaviruses and the risk of SARS re-emergence, November 7, 2015
https://www.med.unc.edu/microimm/baric-lab-circulating-bat-coronaviruses-and-the-risk-of-sars-re-emergence/ (also in Pubmed)Chloroquine is a zinc ionophore, 2014 Oct 1
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25271834/Zn2+ Inhibits Coronavirus and Arterivirus RNA Polymerase Activity In Vitro and Zinc Ionophores Block the Replication of These Viruses in Cell Culture, 2010 Nov 4
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2973827/
Zelenko makes it clear that one person in particular has been at the forefront in every stage of the development of this bioweapon, namely Ralph S. Baric.
Ralph Baric is a professor of professor in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Zelenko notes that Prof. Baric has been funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for many years for his research.
The cited link for this does indicate more than $10 million to study pathogenic activity of viruses including severe respiratory syndrome (SARS), among others.
Zelenko then notes that in 1998-1999, Baric invented cross-species transmissibility, i.e., taking a virus of one species, manipulating it, and have it be able to infect another species; and that there are peer-reviewed papers on it.
Epidemiologist Ralph Baric inside his lab at the UNC Gillings School of Public Health. Image and caption source: North Carolina Public Radio.
“In 2002, he was able to take a coronavirus and change its payload to destroy human lung tissue; and there’s a patent associated [with it],” Zelenko adds, though he fails to specify which specific patent was granted.
Zelenko then mentions that this particular coronavirus couldn’t infect human beings yet and points to Baric’s work with Dr. Shi Zhengli from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in 2015.
And by then (2015) gain of function research – where a pathogen (virus) could be transformed into a
bioweapon, was being “outsourced” to China. And though such kind of research was outlawed in America, Baric’s work was nevertheless being pursued in China at the WIV.
The result of the research was published in a paper – New SARS-like virus can jump directly from bats to humans no treatment available (November 10, 2015), and that they were able to take the bat coronavirus and make it infectious to human beings.
The following summary from Science Daily about the paper reads as follows:
“A new bat SARS-like virus has been discovered that can jump directly from its bat hosts to humans without mutation. However, researchers point out that if the SARS-like virus did jump, it is still unclear whether it could spread from human to human.”
While Zelenko is referring to this particular research, two papers (nature - Engineered bat virus stirs debate over risky research and Baric lab: Circulating bat coronaviruses and the risk of SARS re-emergence) appear on screen which do attest to the controversial and risky nature of the research.
Here are some key excerpts from the first paper Engineered bat virus stirs debate over risky research [with emphasis added]:
“Lab-made coronavirus related to SARS can infect human cells.”
“An experiment that created a hybrid version of a bat coronavirus — one related to the virus that causes SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) — has triggered renewed debate over whether engineering lab variants of viruses with possible pandemic potential is worth the risks.”
“In an article published in Nature Medicine[1] on 9 November, scientists investigated a virus called SHC014, which is found in horseshoe bats in China. The researchers created a chimaeric virus, made up of a surface protein of SHC014 and the backbone of a SARS virus that had been adapted to grow in mice and to mimic human disease. The chimaera infected human airway cells — proving that the surface protein of SHC014 has the necessary structure to bind to a key receptor on the cells and to infect them. It also caused disease in mice, but did not kill them.”
These excerpts alone confirm that the pathogen was indeed man-made and that it could infect human airway cells. Moreover, the following warning appears in at the end of the Abstract for the linked paper (A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence):
“Our work suggests a potential risk of SARS-CoV re-emergence from viruses currently circulating in bat populations.”
It should also be noted that the following editor’s note to this paper was added on 30 March 2020:
A similar warning can also be found on the Engineered bat virus stirs debate over risky research article:
This is a rather odd statement, proclaiming that the novel coronavirus was not “engineered” given that it explicitly states otherwise, i.e., that “The researchers created a chimaeric virus, made up of a surface protein of SHC014 and the backbone of a SARS virus that had been adapted to grow in mice and to mimic human disease.”
Though this author is not an expert in the field, the statement does appear to suggest that the virus was fabricated as a result of combining elements of the natural SARS virus with the SHC014 protein.
This author has contacted nature.com for clarification regarding this seemingly contradictory statement and also to ask for which sources they are referring to when stating “There is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus,” but has yet to received a response as of publishing time; should one be received later on, it will be appended to this article as an Addendum.
As was outlined in Part 1 of this series, specifically under section 1.1. Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, the Jewish doctor had established a very effective protocol for treating Covid-19 early on in the pandemic around March, 2020.
In Part 3 of the docuseries (the one this post is reviewing), Dr. Zelenko mentions what had sparked the idea for his particular treatment of using Hydroxychloroquine with Zinc to treat his Covid-19 patients.
As he mentions, it was based on a 2014 research paper that was mentioned by Dr. Roger Seheult, co-founder of MedCram.com and on an earlier paper from 2010 authored by none other than Ralph Baric (among other authors).
The 2010 paper which was published in November of that year was titled Zn2+ Inhibits Coronavirus and Arterivirus RNA Polymerase Activity In Vitro and Zinc Ionophores Block the Replication of These Viruses in Cell Culture.
The other research paper of interest was called Chloroquine Is a Zinc Ionophore which was published on October 1st, 2014 (alternate link here). The main gist of the paper shows how zinc can be added to Hydroxychloroquine (Chloroquine) could stop RNA viruses from replicating and thus act as an effective countermeasure against SARS-CoV-2.
What is of particular interest here is the contention from Dr. Zelenko that after the successful deployment of his treatment protocol, for which by the way he had communicated to then President Donald Trump, and for which other doctors were using it with success, there was what appeared to be a coordinated effort by the mainstream media to marginalise and vilify these drugs (Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin).
Moreover, though the health agencies such as the CDC, FDA, AMA, and WHO were aware of the potential benefits of using these drugs to treat Covid-19, they nonetheless blackballed their use and only limit their potential use to clinical trials.
Falsely, Ivermectin was often ridiculed as a drug used mostly for animals which should not be used for humans. A prime example of this was when Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Chief Medical Correspondent for CNN had to backtrack about how Ivermectin was portrayed as a “horse dewormer” drug by his news outlet during an infamous exchange with Joe Rogan.
For readers who will readily brush off anything medical that Joe Rogan has to say about Ivermectin, they could instead refer to the words of Dr. Paul Marik who is the second most published ICU doctor in the world. Dr. Marik testified about Covid-19 misinformation at a U.S. Senate hearing on January 25, 2022. In his testimony, Dr. Marik contrasted the use of Ivermectin as an inexpensive, safe, and effective drug which reduced deaths significantly compared to costlier ones that were instead used to treat Covid-19 patients such as Remdesivir.
It should also be observed that the aforementioned research project proposal called Project DEFUSE: Defusing the Threat of Bat-borne Coronaviruses by Dr. Peter Daszak, the President of EcoHealth Alliance also contains the following with regards to the team members that would work on the project which figures at the bottom of the Executive Summary (with emphasis added in red underlining):
Notice the two names here – Prof. [Ralph] Baric and Dr. Shi [Zhengli]. The former was to “reverse-engineer” the virus with heightened pathogenicity while the latter would test its potency and efficacy on humanised mouses whose DNA is close to that of humans. This certainly appears as a prime candidate for what was earlier referred to as gain of function research.
So, what does all this mean? Does it prove that Covid-19 was planned Biowarfare against the world’s population?
Maybe not convincingly with what has been presented by this author above. But what follows may substantiate and validate the claim.
Event 201 and Bill Gates’ machinations
For those unfamiliar, Event 201 was a “Global Pandemic Exercise” that simulated the preparedness for a worldwide outbreak of a deadly coronavirus which took place on October 18th of 2019 – just a few months before the actual Covid-19 Pandemic broke out.
None other than Bill & Melinda Gates, the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security were behind the simulation and central to its recommendations.
Official videos of Event 201 and their panel discussions can be seen from their website which show a bevy of eerie similarities between what occurred in the pandemic preparedness exercise and what actually took place in the months and years that followed with the Covid-19 Pandemic.
Writer Igor Chudov has prepared a post titled “Creepy Conspiratorial Globalists" Were Behind Covid Lockdowns, UK Pandemic Files Show which leaves little doubt as to the broader intentions of the Event 201 exercise and the subsequent power yielded by Bill Gates and the WEF over the global response to Covid-19. If the reader has the time, it is an eye-opening post.
To keep things brief, however, this author will simply highlight some of the most telling parts of his work.
In his piece, Chudov shows the modus operandi by which Bill Gates and the WEF planned the worldwide coordinated response through lockdowns and vaccine development, as was previously concocted and detailed in Event 201.
For this, Chudov highlights the three essential components required for such a grand plan to be materialised.
“Event 201’s recommendations mention (1) political decisions to slow or stop the movement of people and goods, a.k.a lockdowns, (2) vaccines, and (3) public-private cooperation.”
Needless to say, these three components foreseen in Event 201 were exactly what resulted from the onset of the Covid-19 Pandemic.
Moreover, it is quite evident that one of the more stealthy and duplicitous aspects of this plan is the amount of power and control “private” entities would enjoy in this “public (government) – private (large corporations)” partnership and response.
This has indeed been clearly demonstrated early on since governments and health authorities around the world have obligingly acquiesced to these private interests’ proposed measures such as mask wearing, lockdowns (for individuals, businesses, and supply chains), as well as the highly coordinated push for vaccine development, promotion, and use.
The Chudov article goes on to exhibit how no stone would be left unturned in that a coordinated media response narrative would help glue the scheme together. To provide evidence for this bold allegation, Chudov outlines how Bill Gates used his foundation to incentivise mass media outlets such as the U.K.’s The Guardian to stick to the prescribed narrative script which would solidify the goals of their global plan. More specifically, Chudov shows how the U.K. media was sponsored by Bill Gates:
The Daily Telegraph – $3,446,801
The Guardian (including TheGuardian.org)- $12,951,391
Rockhopper Productions (U.K.) – $2,480,392
Financial Times – $2,309,845
In one mere example of how Gates uses his influence over editorial contents, Chudov highlights the following:
As the reader can observe from the above image, an article to denigrate an African nation’s president as an “anti-vaxxer” is quite the display since The Guardian explicitly states that this content is supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Chudov also demonstrates how Bill Gates used his financial prowess and influence over the main institutions that were responsible for developing the Covid-19 pandemic models at the onset of the crisis [with emphasis added]:
“The main institutions developing “pandemic models” were Johns Hopkins and Imperial College. Johns Hopkins was a major pandemic preparedness player that sponsored the above-mentioned Event 201 and received $1,048,972,282 from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Imperial College, based in the UK, received $318,891,807 from Bill Gates. I will skip the rest of them to keep the size of my post manageable.”
Let that first figure, $1,048,972,282 sink in for a minute. Over a billion dollars given to the organisation, Johns Hopkins, that was primarily used as the basis and foundation for the Orwellian Covid-19 policies employed to hundreds of millions of people in multiple countries during the crisis.
Money talks. And Bill Gates, who is one of the richest in the world, has plenty of it, as has also been clearly demonstrated earlier in this post.
It’s also no secret that a lot of the Western media is financed, through advertising, by Big Pharma who had a direct stake and interest in the development of Covid-19 vaccines. As such, they seldom, if ever, allow negative articles or reports about the problems with the rushed experimental vaccines that were authorised under emergency measures.
Chudov also notes how POLITICO, a fairly mainstream news and political outlet, reported on how Bill Gates was instrumental and abusive in his “takeover” and handling of the Covid-19 global response.
The Rockefeller Lockstep Simulation
It wasn’t only Bill Gates who was simulating a global crisis scenario, for the Rockefeller Foundation was also busy contemplating one such authoritarian endeavour back in 2010.
A document entitled Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development published in 2010 by the Rockefeller Foundation foresaw a pandemic occurring on the global stage by just a few years later, in 2012.
On page 18 of the document, under the header 'LOCK STEP: A world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback' you can find the following text (the particularly precognitive sections are encased in red boxes):
“The pandemic also had a deadly effect on economies: international mobility of both people and goods screeched to a halt, debilitating industries like tourism and breaking global supply chains. Even locally, normally bustling shops and office buildings sat empty for months, devoid of both employees and customers.”
This just happens to be exactly what happened during the Covid-19 Pandemic.
Part of the second passage highlighted reads as follows:
“However, a few countries did fare better — China in particular. The Chinese government’s quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders, saved millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter postpandemic recovery.”
This also amazingly turned out to be mostly accurate. At the start of the Covid-19 Pandemic, the Chinese government did act quickly to impose harsh and grueling quarantine lockdowns. And they were quick to close their borders to international travel.
Also, on April 21, 2020, the Rockefeller Foundation issued a white paper titled National COVID-19 Testing Action Plan — Strategic Steps to Reopen Our Workplaces and Our Communities.
While this author could outline in detail the dirty little details found in the plan, for sake of brevity and not making this post go beyond its already lengthy exposition, the following four areas of interest represent the major objectives openly sought in this Rockefeller Foundation plan:
Profit motive: Positioning their Corporate Partners (Testing & Vaccine manufacturers)
Tagging & Tracking motive
Centralizing Medical Records (of all citizens)
Creating a Response & Enforcement Arm
If one really wishes to dive into the plan, the motives and benefits will become quite apparent.
While such scenario planning could be coincidental, the fact that both the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation foresaw such a pandemic crisis occurring coupled with a highly-coordinated authoritarian global response seems to suggest otherwise.
Furthermore, the extent to which both of these organisations have been working in lock-step with the World Economic Forum – which most often uses private partners to strongarm public policy makers, i.e., governments and their public health authorities – shows how they are abusing their philanthropic power for a greater evil versus one that is genuinely concerned with upholding the sovereign rights of individuals and nation states.
Lastly, a Twitter Post by Truth Justice provides a succinct summary of the overall situation and embeds a video from a website called Plandemic which, though at first glance appears quite conspiratorial, turns out to be mostly factual.
Summary & Conclusion
If the reader has made it this far in this post which extends over 45 pages in length, a sincere congratulations is in order. For, in today’s world of Twitter tweets and Tik Tok 10-second videos, attention spans run quite short.
Though the initial intent was not to stretch this post as a seemingly never-ending collage of facts to read through and digest, the abundance of evidence encountered in the research process has made it such.
Three major claims from Part 3 of the docuseries Never Again Is Now Global were examined for their merits. And, for the most part, all three claims have turned out to be true, mostly factual, and valid, as has been thoroughly evidenced and referenced in this work.
Thank you to the reader for making this far in this multi-part review series and feel free to share it with other and on social media. For, what appears to be occurring worldwide really needs to be scrutinised more closely and carefully.
Stay tuned for Part 4 of this series.
In Peace and Liberty,
Articles are all free, but please support the work of this independent journalist by subscribing to his Substack and Twitter. You can also buy him a coffee.
Disclaimer:
None of the contents of this article is to be taken as medical or health-related advice. Seek independent professional consultation before making health-related decisions. See the author’s About page for full disclaimer.
I am usually very impressed by Bobby Kennedy's fact checking team, but I think this one slipped under the radar a bit: "girls vaccinated with the DTP vaccine died at 10 times the rate of unvaccinated kids".
The literature I've seen shows that this is only true for girls who got the DTP, but NOT the Oral Polio vaccine. Comparing all DTP-jabbed girls to unvaccinated, meaning non-DTP-vaccinated girls yields a Hazard Ratio of 7, not 10. And comparing all DTP-jabbed girls to non-DTP-vaccinated "kids" (of both sexes, which Mr. Kennedy seems to imply) only yields a Hazard Ratio of 2 to 3. As if that wasn't shocking enough :(
The NEJM paper on the Malaria vaccine does not support that the BMGF had their hands in killing 151 children. If anything, then the data support that 0.3% of the younger children in the study might have died as a consequence of the intervention, but that almost certainly is "comfortably" within the confidence intervals.
I do not like Gates, his Foundations and other organisations, or practically any of his involvements in global affairs. His only idea I remember feeling really positive about is TerraPower. But like you said, we have to be careful in our factual analysis!