The Covid-19 – Holocaust Comparison, Part 4

by Dan Fournier, Review, published Thursday, April 6, 13:05 EDT on fournier.substack.com

This is the fourth post in a six-part review of the documentary film called Never Again Is Now Global.

The series is structured as follows:

1. The Covid-19 – Holocaust Comparison, Part 1

2. The Covid-19 – Holocaust Comparison, Part 2

3. The Covid-19 – Holocaust Comparison, Part 3

4. The Covid-19 – Holocaust Comparison, Part 4 (this post)
   > Parts 1 to 3 Recap
   > Episode 4 – This Time Around We’re All Jews
   - 4.1 Dr. Michael Yeadon former Pfizer VP on the absurdity of Covid-19 measures
   - 4.2 Dr. Michael Yeadon on planned Digital IDs & CBDCs
   > Summary & Conclusion (for Part 4)

5. The Covid-19 – Holocaust Comparison, Part 5

6. The Covid-19 – Holocaust Comparison, Part 6 - Conclusion & eBook

The Covid-19 – Holocaust Comparison, Part 4

Parts 1 to 3 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 disinformation

• Part 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

• Part 3:
  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

Episode 4 – This Time Around We’re All Jews

The fourth episode (click the link to watch) aired on January 30, 2023.

https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/events/never-again-is-now-global/Never-Again-Is-Now-Global-Part-4/

The same methodology for a review of this fourth part of the docuseries applies and, once more, a few 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.

4.1 Dr. Michael Yeadon former Pfizer VP on the absurdity of Covid-19 measures

Near the 07:18 mark, Dr. Michael Yeadon – who has a degree in biochemistry and toxicology, a PhD in respiratory pharmacology and who has worked for 32 years in pharmaceutical R&D, including working until 2011 for Pfizer’s Allergy & Respiratory Group – stated the following regarding the response to the Covid-19 Pandemic [emphasis added to emphasise his main claims]:

“…so lock down and wait for a vaccine. That that’s the wrong strategy. What you need to do is provide maximum protection, social immunological good diet. And then if people get sick treat them symptomatically with cheap, well understood anti-inflammatories, antivirals, anticoagulants like [Dr.] Pierre Kory, [Dr.] Pete[r] McCullough, um [Dr.] Zelenko and others have done. So, that’s what we should have done. The elderly who were most vulnerable are vulnerable because their immune systems don’t respond well to new threats…They’re also people who don’t respond well to injected vaccines. And that that fits the [scientific] data as well that you know the vaccines don’t seem to do anything useful at all…This fraud, for me, can be divided into three easily digested chunks…Well, it turns out now that however you analyze the data, the threat does not seem to be exceptional…you wouldn’t shut the world down for this. So, exaggerated threat, why? To make me [us] frightened. Fear, fear, fear. But then the next chunk I would describe as useless and injurious measures. So, lockdown[s], masking, social distancing, business closures, school closures, border restrictions…And even if I’m completely wrong, ignore what I think; the literature is very clear now…lockdowns didn’t save a single life. But lockdowns smashed the modern world, absolutely eviscerated sort of middle class businesses, small- medium-sized enterprises. And I believe that that was deliberate. I think that’s part of the Great Reset. But the long and short of it is [that] all of the measures imposed, including lockdowns and masks, do not, did not, and you knew could not do anything useful whatsoever.”

While the citation above is long, it can be summarised as the Covid-19 Pandemic measures taken, including lockdowns, masks, social distances, and closures, were not only useless, but injurious and harmful.

Dr. Yeadon then contends that the ulterior motive was to separate people – not for preventing transmissibility of the virus, but rather to preventing them from sharing with one another:

“So, this idea that separating everybody from everybody else is utter nonsense…You don’t need to stay away from someone else. You never needed to. It was a lie. It was to segregate people. Why? Because people converse with each other, they get close and say: what do you think about this? And people would work it out. They knew if they didn’t separate people in the first few weeks, they’d probably crack it and they would have done [so]…There are literally scores of peer-reviewed journal articles that compare communities where lockdown was applied or not applied very vigorously versus not what’s called stringency of lockdown. There’s not the slightest connection you would if it works, the more rigorously it was applied, the lower number of deaths. Not so. The more rigorously it’s applied, actually, the more the deaths….So,, they lied about the threat to make you frightened. And then they imposed all sorts of anti-human measures and they knew they did not work.”

For the last part of this statement from above, Dr. Yeadon backs his words citing the World Health Organization’s own document (dated 19 September, 2019 – before the Covid-19 Pandemic) – which the health authorities knew about and that such measures would not work.

Verification about this particular statement is quite easily done. The document Dr. Yeadon was referring and which was flashed on the screen while he was speaking is the WHO’s

Non-pharmaceutical public health measures for mitigating the risk and impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza (PDF download here).

Cover page for the Non-pharmaceutical public health measures for mitigating the risk and impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza document, published 19 September, 2019 by the World Health Organization.

Several passages from the 91-page document appear during the docuseries including the following [emphasis added exactly as in the film]:

• Face masks: Face masks worn by asymptomatic people are conditionally recommended in severe epidemics or pandemics, to reduce transmission in the community. Although there is no evidence that this is effective in reducing transmission, there is mechanistic plausibility for the potential effectiveness of this measure.

• Surface and object cleaning: Surface and object cleaning measures with safe cleaning products are recommended as a public health intervention in all settings in order to reduce influenza transmission. Although there is no evidence that this is effective in reducing transmission, there is mechanistic plausibility for the potential effectiveness of this measure.

• Contact tracing: Active contact tracing is not recommended in general because there is no obvious rationale for it in most Member States. This intervention could be considered in some locations and circumstances to collect information on the characteristics of the disease and to identify cases, or to delay widespread transmission in the very early stages of a pandemic in isolated communities.

• Quarantine of exposed individuals: Home quarantine of exposed individuals to reduce transmission is not recommended because there is no obvious rationale for this measure, and there would be considerable difficulties in implementing it.

• School measures and closures: School measures (e.g. stricter exclusion policies for ill children, increasing desk spacing, reducing mixing between classes, and staggering recesses and lunchbreaks) are conditionally recommended, with gradation of interventions based on severity. Coordinated proactive school closures or class dismissals are suggested during a severe epidemic or pandemic. In such cases, the adverse effects on the community should be fully considered (e.g. family burden and economic considerations), and the timing and duration should be limited to a period that is judged to be optimal.

• Entry and exit screening: Entry and exit screening for infection in travellers is not recommended, because of the lack of sensitivity of these measures in identifying infected but asymptomatic (i.e. pre-symptomatic) travellers.

Other measures appear in the document such as ‘Workplace measures and closures’ and ‘border closure’ for which they also deem to be generally not recommend.

As can be easily be observed, there is a certain consistency that can be observed in these statements enumerated above. Namely, that they consistently state that there exists no evidence that they are effective.

To be fair, the WHO does indicate some potential benefits of these measures which must surely be considered. However, these appear to be more of a speculative nature, rather than based on proven scientific knowledge and data.

So, one was to wonder why the WHO would go against their own guidelines and fully recommend the strict implementation of these measures to their member countries across the globe.

Who at the World Health Organization decided this?

In the absence of clarity and transparency from the WHO regarding these important questions, it is not unfounded to believe that the decision to recommend such measures may have been driven by less honorable intentions.

Prior to Dr. Yeadon referencing the WHO’s document, many other articles regarding these measures implemented across the globe during the pandemic appeared on the screen which seem to further suggest that they were ineffective and thus wrongfully recommended. Here are the ones that were included in this segment of the docuseries along with key highlights from each for additional context:

• American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) – New Study Indicates Lockdowns Didn’t Slow the Spread of Covid-19, January 19, 2021
  key highlights: “A team of Stanford University researchers recently published a study in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation concluding that harsh lockdown policies have had minimal impact on preventing the spread of Covid-19 compared to lighter policies.…it seems to be the case that lockdown policies around the world have failed to produce the results that we were told they would.”
  

• Foundation for Economic Freedom (FEE) – Sweden’s Top Infectious Disease Expert Says COVID-19 Lockdowns Are Not Based on Science. History Shows He Could Be Right, May 19, 2020
  key highlights: “While Sweden has endured a great deal of criticism for its “laissez-faire” approach, Anders Tegnell, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, recently defended his policies, stating that while a degree of social distancing is the right approach, lockdowns are not grounded in actual science.“Nothing to do with [them] has a scientific basis,” Tegnell said, according to The Guardian.”
  

• Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise – A LITERATURE REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTS OF LOCKDOWNS ON COVID-19 MORTALITY by Jonas Herby, Lars Jonung, and Steve H. Hanke, January 2022 (click link to access the 62-page study). Alternate article link.
  key highlights: “Abstract: This systematic review and meta-analysis are designed to determine whether there is empirical evidence to support the belief that “lockdowns” reduce COVID-19 mortality…After three levels of screening, 34 studies ultimately qualified. Of those 34 eligible studies, 24 qualified for inclusion in the meta-analysis. They were separated into three groups: lockdown stringency index studies, shelter-in-place-order (SIPO) studies, and specific NPI studies…an analysis of each of these three groups support the conclusion that lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality. More specifically, stringency index studies find that lockdowns in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average.”
  

• New York Post – The data shows lockdowns end more lives than they save (Opinion), March 22, 2021
  key highlights: “Now that the 2020 figures have been properly tallied, there is still no convincing evidence that strict lockdowns reduced the death toll from COVID-19. But one effect is clear: more deaths from other causes, especially among the young and middle-aged, minorities and the less affluent.…Nearly 40 percent of workers in low-income households lost their jobs during the spring, triple the rate in high-income households…Minority-owned small businesses suffered more, too. During the spring, when it was estimated that 22 percent of all small businesses closed, 32 percent of Hispanic owners and 41 percent of black owners shut down…The deadly impact of lockdowns will grow in future years, due to the lasting economic and educational consequences…More than two dozen studies have challenged the effectiveness of lockdowns, showing that closing businesses and schools does little or nothing to reduce infections and deaths from the virus.”
  

• Healthline – Depression Symptoms 3 Times Higher During COVID-19 Lockdown
  key highlights: “A new study found that depression symptoms are three times higher during the COVID-19 lockdown…It has caused physical, emotional, and psychological distress, and not just for patients of the virus…In a recent study, researchers analyzed survey data from 1,441 participants, all U.S. adults aged 18 years or older. It found that depression symptoms were three times higher during COVID-19 lockdown than before the pandemic, up from 8.5 percent before COVID-19 to 27.8 percent during.”
  

• Have Lockdowns Caused Suicides During COVID-19? Dec 18, 2020
  

• American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) – Death by Lockdown, November 2, 2020
  key highlights: “On March 28 – very early in the pandemic – AIER published an article that I felt at the time received far too little attention. “Drugs, Suicide, and Crime: Empirical Estimates of the Human Toll of the Shutdown” by economists Audrey and Thomas Duncan cited empirical literature on the human toll of economic devastation. This article forecasted more than 100,000 excess deaths due to drug overdoses, suicide, alcoholism, homicide, and untreated depression – all a result not of the virus but of policies of mandatory human separation, economic downturn, business and school closures, closed medical services, and general depression that comes with a loss of freedom and choice…Here we are seven months later and the worst has come true.”
  

• American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) – More “Covid Suicides” than Covid Deaths in Kids, March 17, 2021
  key highlights: “The biggest increase in youth deaths occurred in the 15-24 age bracket — the age group most susceptible to committing suicide, and which constitutes 91% of youth suicides. Indeed, as early as July 2020 — just four months into the pandemic — CDC Director Robert Redfield remarked that “there has been another cost that we’ve seen, particularly in high schools. We’re seeing, sadly, far greater suicides now than we are deaths from COVID. We’re seeing far greater deaths from drug overdose.”… Between March and August the National Alliance on Mental Illness HelpLine reported a 65% increase in calls and emails…In August 2020, FAIR Health found a 334% spike in intentional self-harm claims among 13–18 year olds in the Northeast compared to the same month in 2019.”
  

• The New American – Major Spike in Business Bankruptcies Due to COVID Lockdowns, February 28, 2021
  key highlights: “Almost a year after governments at all levels used COVID-19 as a pretext for forced quarantines for the non-sick, causing many businesses to fail, those that survived on loans are now declaring bankruptcy at an all-time high. Court records show that Chapter 11 filings were up nearly 20 percent in 2020 compared with 2019.”

It is worth noting that regarding the third bullet point above – the Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise study, fact-checking site Snopes had published a so-called debunking article about the study itself titled Here's What We Know About 'Johns Hopkins Study' on Lockdowns. It doesn’t take long to see that Snopes is being both dishonest and misleading in their hit piece. First, they incorrectly state that it was not a study affiliated with Johns Hopkins which is false since on the first page of the study, the logo of this very institution appears on it and it is also acknowledged on their website that this division is “the core institution of Johns Hopkins University’s Homewood campus.” Second, they are misleading in that they treat it as a single working paper and also that it wasn’t peer-reviewed. As noted above, the study examined 34 papers in all for which 22 were in fact peer-reviewed (see page 14 of the report were it states: “Out of these 34 studies, 22 were peer-reviewed and 12 were working papers.”) There exist other holes and inconsistencies in the Snopes article, but for sake of brevity, enough is said on the matter.

This author has contacted Johns Hopkins for comment as well as one of the authors of the article, Prof. Steve H. Hanke, for comment. The latter replied. One question was about whether they had faced pressure to retract the paper. Hanke replied in the negative, saying that, in fact, “As a result, the working paper (II) has been expanded, edited, peer-reviewed, and will be published this year as a book.”

Hanke was kind enough to send a PDF version of the expanded version of the article which contains 115 pages, compared to 62 with the original. Appendix II of the expanded version is titled ‘The Anatomy of the Negative Spin-Meisters’ which stated [emphasis added]:

“The working paper’s findings – that lockdowns had little to no public health effects measured by mortality – and its policy conclusions – that lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected out of hand – attracted considerable attention in the media, in the White House and halls of the U.S. Congress, among public health experts, and within the chattering classes around the world. But, it was the strong endorsement of Dr. Marty Makary, a distinguished Professor of Medicine at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, during his February 2 appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight that set off a media firestorm.”

It also stated that the Science Media Centre in London had consequently issued a press release with statements by Prof. Neil Ferguson and others, all affiliated with Imperial College London. “The release contained several criticisms of our working paper from the Imperial College team, many of

which were unscientific or clearly flawed. Those were authored by Prof. Ferguson, Dr. Flaxman, and Prof. Bhatt,” the expanded paper added.

For those unfamiliar, it was Prof. Neil Ferguson, a British epidemiologist, who was primarily responsible for the mathematical modeling of the Covid-19 death projections that led to the Chinese-style national lockdowns which, de facto, were proven to be significantly exaggerated and inaccurate.

“The results in Sweden, which did not lockdown, have proven his model to be worthless, and responsible for the destruction of the lives of millions across the globe,” noted long-time writer Jim Quinn.

In a November 2022 commentary published in the Epoch Times by Jeffrey Tucker, Founder and President of the Brownstone Institute, observed how bizarre it was for the world of science to have gone so silent “as the world locked down and lives were shattered by the billions by governments the world over,” stated Tucker, adding:

“We went from a March 2, 2020, letter signed by 800 public health experts associated with Yale University—which warned against quarantines and closures—to a strange disappearance of nearly all clear voices a few weeks later. And so things stood for the better part of two years.”

Getting back to Appendix II of the previously mentioned expanded study, five of the most scientific criticisms raised in Science Media Centre, which apart from Snopes included those from Foreign Policy, USA Today, and FactCheck, had “little or no merit.” They added, “Our purpose is to illustrate how biased and politicized the media was when it came to its reportage of our working paper.”

What do peer-reviewed studies reveal about Dr. Yeadon’s claims?

To objectively evaluate whether Dr. Yeadon’s claims about the effectiveness and purported destructive consequences regarding the imposition of measures such as masking, social distancing, school closings and lockdowns, it is worthwhile to have a look at some additional studies and peer-reviewed papers which have been published on the subject from reputable and credible sources. Some are presented hereunder with key highlights on the matter in question.

• Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a peer reviewed journal of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) – Evaluating the effects of shelter-in-place policies during the COVID-19 pandemic, March 25, 2021
  key highlights: “Previous studies have claimed that shelter-in-place orders saved thousands of lives, but we reassess these analyses and show that they are not reliable. We find that shelter-in-place orders had no detectable health benefits, only modest effects on behavior, and small but adverse effects on the economy.”
  

• Oxford Academic, CESifo Economic Studies – Did Lockdown Work? An Economist’s Cross-Country Comparison (PDF), 29 March 2021
  key highlights: “Comparing weekly mortality in 24 European countries, the findings in this paper suggest that more severe lockdown policies have not been associated with lower mortality. In other words, the lockdowns have not worked as intended. Further tests also show that early interventions offered no additional benefits or effectiveness and even indicate that the lockdowns of the spring of 2020 were associated with significantly more deaths in the particular age group between 60 and 79 years.”
  

• Wiley Online Library – Assessing mandatory stay-at-home and business closure effects on the spread of COVID-19, 05 January 2021
  key highlights: “Conclusions: While small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs. Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less-restrictive interventions.”
  

• New Zealand Economic Papers – Government mandated lockdowns do not reduce Covid-19 deaths: implications for evaluating the stringent New Zealand response, 20 Nov 2020
  key highlights: “Lockdowns do not reduce Covid-19 deaths. This pattern is visible on each date that key lockdown decisions were made in New Zealand. The apparent ineffectiveness of lockdowns suggests that New Zealand suffered large economic costs for little benefit in terms of lives saved.”
  

• The Lancet’s eClinicalMedicine – A country level analysis measuring the impact of government actions, country preparedness and socioeconomic factors on COVID-19 mortality and related health outcomes, July 21, 2020
  key highlights: “A country level exploratory analysis was conducted to assess the impact of timing and type of national health policy/actions undertaken towards COVID-19 mortality and related health outcomes…Rapid border closures, full lockdowns, and wide-spread testing were not associated with COVID-19 mortality per million people.”
  

• Frontiers in Public Health – Covid-19 Mortality: A Matter of Vulnerability Among Nations Facing Limited Margins of Adaptation, 19 November 2020
  key highlights: “Stringency of the measures settled to fight pandemia, including lockdown, did not appear to be linked with death rate…Countries that already experienced a stagnation or regression of life expectancy, with high income and NCD rates, had the highest price to pay. This burden was not alleviated by more stringent public decisions.”
  

• The New England Journal of Medicine (Correspondence), 51 Citing Articles – Open Schools, Covid-19, and Child and Teacher Morbidity in Sweden, January 6, 2021
  key highlights: “Despite Sweden’s having kept schools and preschools open, we found a low incidence of severe Covid-19 among schoolchildren and children of preschool age during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Among the 1.95 million children who were 1 to 16 years of age, 15 children had Covid-19, MIS-C, or both conditions and were admitted to an ICU, which is equal to 1 child in 130,000.”
  

• NIH Pubmed – Young children's voices in an unlocked Sweden during the COVID-19 pandemic, 2022 Jul 7
  key highlights: “Aims: During the COVID-19 pandemic, Sweden was one of the few countries that rejected lockdowns in favour of recommendations for restrictions, including careful hand hygiene and social distancing. Preschools and primary schools remained open. Several studies have shown negative impacts of the pandemic on children, particularly high levels of anxiety. The study aim was to explore how Swedish school-aged children aged 6-14 years, experienced the COVID-19 pandemic and their perceived. Results: The results showed generally low levels of anxiety, with no significant sex differences. Conclusions: These Swedish children generally experienced low levels of anxiety, except those who refrained from social activities. Life was nonetheless mostly experienced as normal, largely because schools remained open. Keeping life as normal as possible could be one important factor in preventing higher anxiety and depression levels in children during a pandemic.”

Of course, not all papers support and vindicate Dr. Yeadon’s claims.

One paper published in NIH Pubmed titled The Efficacy of Lockdown Against COVID-19: A Cross-Country Panel Analysis supports a countering conclusion to some of those listed above. Their results showed that “lockdown is effective in reducing the number of new cases in the countries that implement it, compared with those countries that do not.” And in their conclusion, they suggest that “lockdown is effective in reducing the R0, i.e. the number of people infected by each infected person.”

Though not peer-reviewed, a working paper by Stanford’s Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR) titled Lives saved: An examination of lockdown policies suggests that “social distancing clearly saves lives,” and “social distancing behaviors clearly matter in terms of reducing mortality and infection rates.” The paper considered drivers and factors such as density population and timing of lockdowns when looking at disease transmission. “county lockdown policies — including stay-at-home and business closure restrictions — reduced disease transmission rates by 9 to 14 percent between early March and mid-April,” the study found. However, when examining the economic impacts of lockdown policies, the study found “that they reduced consumer spending by 7 percent and small business employment by 12 percent.”

While it probably wouldn’t be difficult to find studies countering those listed above coupled with the fact that, in aggregate, the impacts of these restrictive health measures are quite broad in scope and multifaceted, it nonetheless remains rather apparent that much damage has resulted from these, particularly with regards to their detrimental effects on school-aged children and the economic strangling of small & medium sized businesses which has resulted in financial hardship for millions of people worldwide.

4.2 Dr. Michael Yeadon on planned Digital IDs & CBDCs

Near the 42:00 mark, Dr. Yeadon follows up on how measures undertaken by the pandemic were tyrannical, warning that if the masses continue to “acquiesce” to them, the tyranny won’t stop. It will only get worse. Dr. Yeadon then forecasts what those responsible for this planned pandemic have in mind, namely Digital IDs and CBDCs which would spell the “end of human freedom.”

Referring to these globalist planners, Yeadon said [with some emphasis added]:

“They told us they want to introduce central bank digital currencies [CBDC] – that’s cashless digital money. But, if there’s no cash and everything is digital, I can assure you that the big computer in the sky knows exactly what you are about to buy from whom where and if they don’t want you to, the algorithm will deny you. It won’t be personal [inaudible] to look over your shoulder. If they say look, you’re not allowed to be more than five miles from your home and you’re 5.5. miles from your home and you try and buy a pizza, I’m sorry, the algorithm will say you’re not permitted to buy it…If you’re Tony Blair, I’ll let you spend anything anywhere. You still on the system…If you let the executive get rid of cash and replace it with, as it were, computer based geo-located digital money, it is the end of human of human freedom forever. It’s also the end of politics.”

In a March 29, 2023 tweet by Bitcoin News, Dr. Yeadon can be seen issuing a very similar warning.

It is worthwhile to first paraphrase some of the lingo Dr. Yeadon uses in the statements above so as to clarify his meaning.

By “the big computer in the sky”, he is referring to a centralised computer system which would run the Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) comprised of programs and algorithms which would hold the decision-making power on how the digital money can be spent.

Moreover, when he says “the algorithm will deny you,” he is in referring to the programmability of the CBDC money.

CBDCs are conceived with programmability in mind, not that dissimilar to the well-known cryptocurrency Bitcoin (albeit that Bitcoin operates on a decentralised system rather than a centralised one – which a CBDC would). In other words, its code can be programmed to include specific rules on what the digital money is permitted to be spent on, what time period in which it can spent, to whom it can or cannot flow to, and so on.

For instance, government-issued food stamps in the form of a CBDC could only be used to purchase groceries.

These types of features have already been proposed by the Deputy Managing Director at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Bo Li. At an IMF conference called Central Bank Digital Currencies for Financial Inclusion: Risks and Rewards held in October 2022, Li said:

“By programming CBDC, those [sic] money can be precisely targeted for what kind of people can own and what kind of use this money can be utilised; for example, for food.”

More of what Li Bo said can be seen at a prior post from this author called UK’s PM Rishi Sunak desperate for G7 countries to launch their CBDCs.

Needless to say, such kinds of features would give a tremendous amount of control and power by the issuer of the CBDC which is usually a country’s Central Bank.

Augustin Carstens, the General Manager of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) – the central bank of central banks said the following about how central banks would hold absolute control with regards to CBDCs’ use (as oppose to cash):

On an important side note, most countries’ central banks are private entities (corporations) which are not part of the government. Rather they are entities that make loans to governments whose decisions and actions are controlled by their executive directors.

This, in itself, is quite worrisome, for it would cede complete power over the issuance and management of the digital currency to the central bank.

In other words, these entities could bypass the will of governments and their citizens.

In short, if they are granted complete control over CBDCs, that would indeed spell the end to financial sovereignty.

Next, when Yeadon states that “computer based geo-located digital money” would limit mobility rights of individuals, he is not wrong. For, a CBDC could be programmed with geolocation (GPS) markers or ranges in which the digital money could be spent. Yeadon uses the example of a person unable to purchase a pizza who is located outside a designated area.

This assumption presumes two things. First, that people would hold some kind of CBDC wallet – a place to store their digital money which would require a unique identifier affirming their ownership of the funds; for this, a Digital ID would be expected since it can confirm the identity of the person holding the funds in the associated CBDC account. And second, it would most likely entail that that wallet be stored on peoples’ smartphones which have built-in GPS location capabilities – which most do. Moreover, most people carry their smartphones with them at all times wherever they go.

This assertion from Dr. Yeadon would thus confirm the necessity of some kind of national Digital ID tied to that nation’s respective CBDC. 

Yeadon continues, touching upon the Orwellian vaccine passport system that is currently the norm in China:

“That’s what’s happening in China right now; they turn people’s vaccine passports, red [color], literally grab click click and they change them to [sic] [for] those people; literally, they can’t leave their apartment building, get into a train because they have to use their mandatory digital ID to move around. That’s what vaccine passports are. They are a rehearsal for mandatory digital ID…So, you have no freedom. You can’t actually decide on your own rights, to be anywhere or do anything ever again…Don’t let it happen. I think it’s really close, really close now.”

This is correct. This author lived in China for thirteen years until late 2021. During the Covid-19 Pandemic, it was impossible to move about without the vaccine passport program installed on one’s smartphone. A red-colored QR code banned anyone from entry to areas outside their residential communities.

In fact, in 2022 the Chinese government intentionally switched certain citizens’ QR codes to red who were attending protests (about their funds being stolen from a certain bank). As most of those protesters were from out of province and wanted to protest in another, their movements were effectively impeded since they could not travel outside their home area.

As can be seen in the video above, such a feature could easily be used (and abused) by central authorities to crush dissenters or those deemed to have committed certain infractions.

Who is to say that the authorities will not use this kind of feature for those they deem are spreading “misinformation” or “disinformation” online or who are critical of their politics?

This kind of restrictive feature would not be difficult to program and implement in CBDC technology.

The Mark of the Beast

“And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” – Revelation 13:16-17

“They are a rehearsal for mandatory digital ID,” Yeadon states when referring to vaccine passports.

As we saw during some of the harshest months of the Covid-19 Pandemic, citizens mobility and travel rights were largely restricted by the use of these vaccine passports.

Thankfully, following a lot of outrage about them and with the eventual easing of the health measures, they have mostly been phased out.

In Canada, this measure is not completely or officially withdrawn, for it is only suspended.

According to many surveys conducted in different countries, it is encouraging that most citizens appear to be against not only vaccine passports, but also national Digital IDs.

Those who are designing CBDCs know that for them to be secure and effective, they need to be tied to citizens’ IDs which will inherently have to converted into digital form.

Most likely, this will be accomplished using physical identifiers unique to each individual such as a finger print, a voice print, an iris (eye) scan, or the like, i.e., their biometric data.

Crypto expert Guy from The Coin Bureau who has over 2.2 million followers on YouTube recently came out with an outstanding video showcasing the dangers such a Digital ID system would entail. It may be viewed hereunder and is definitely worth the watch for a complete comprehension of its devastating implications.

Interestingly, the video begins with a mention of the same partnership that was outlined in Part 2 of this series, namely the one signed between the United Nations and the World Economic Forum to accelerate the implementation of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030.

Introducing Digital IDs is integral to these SDGs, as stated in their official document [emphasis added]:

“The continuing evolution of the digital economy across the globe and at the national level requires individuals to be able to assert their identity in order to participate in that digital economy. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals provide the ambitious target that all people will be able to obtain a “legal identity” by 2030 (SDG 16.9).”

SDG 16.9 calls for “legal identity” for all people worldwide, including birth registration, by 2030.

BiometricUpdate.com has been following all of the technical implications regarding the development and implementation of SDG 16.9, particularly in terms of its biometric implications, including how 20 African nations are testing grounds on track for implementation of Digital IDs.   

Though the UN’s SDG 16 goal (described as ‘Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels’) appears geared towards securing ‘inclusion’ for all, Privacy International notes that the ID scheme would fail to meet this promise and would instead “build a system for surveillance and exclusion.”

The Privacy International article titled The Sustainable Development Goals, Identity, and Privacy: Does their implementation risk human rights? lists various other risks and dangers associated with the SDGs, and SDG 16 in particular. They further warn [with emphasis added]:

“An ID system can become a mechanism used for government surveillance and control, often with limited safeguards. Our research has shown that the fears of the growing scope of ID, including when tied to biometric technologies such as facial recognition, can give governments the potential for unprecedented control and monitoring over populations.”

Such statements do indeed confirm Dr. Yeadon’s apprehensions on Digital IDs.

Moreover, this author warned about government surveillance for Canada in a November 2022 post titled Digital Surveillance in Canada 2023 as well as the nation’s plans for its very own Digital ID and CBDC.

Getting back to the Coin Bureau video, here are some key points and highlights that ought to be retained from it [links added, as per Guy’s mentions – click for more detailed information about these respective topics]:

• The World Bank [Group] has been testing Digital ID (ID4D) in Africa and India. Guy mentions that the endeavour is largely funded by none other than the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

• Three organisations have been pushing hard for Digital IDs: the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the [aforementioned] Bank for International Settlements (BIS), and the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).

• The IMF & BIS are mainly interested in Digital IDs for the rollout of CBDCs.

• For the FATF, the interest comes from the interest to have public institutions (mostly from governments) to standardize Digital ID systems around the world. In March of 2020, the FATF published a report suggesting Digital ID standards (also see the brief summary); a screenshot is presented hereunder [with emphasis added in red underlining]:

• Almost all countries will have a national Digital ID by 2025 – a timeline given by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), as per a 2023 report published in February.

• In 2019, consulting firm McKinsey & Company published a report called Digital identification: A key to inclusive growth (PDF here)’ a few screenshots are presented hereunder [with emphasis added in red underlining]:

• “Coincidentally”, the Event 201 Pandemic simulation exercise conducted in 2019 was in partnership with the WEF (who partnered with the UN for its SDGs) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation which has spent billions in Digital ID development.

• The United States is working on its Digital ID program through its Improving Digital Identity Act of 2022 (bill). If passed into law a nationwide Digital ID could be rolled out by 2025 (on schedule with the UNDP). By mid-2023 the Federal Reserve (the central bank of the U.S.) may release its FedNow Service. Though not a CBDC per say, it could act as one depending on its features and characteristics.

• In Europe, the [unelected] European Commission (see Part 2 for related notes on this entity) has been working on a bloc-wide Digital ID system since 2014. The Digital Identity for all Europeans, or eID, is a personal digital wallet for EU citizens and residents. Efforts were intensified during the pandemic. The ID will be tied to a Digital Wallet system. EC Commissioner Thierry Breton said “The European digital identity wallets offer a new possibility for them to store and use data for all sorts of services from checking in at the airport to renting a car.” Guy contends that it will be used for everything and also notes that Thierry Breton has been pushing for censorship in the European Union via the Digital Services Act (see also the Digital Market Act), and publicly threatening to ban Twitter in the bloc. The EU Digital Wallet is due to be rolled out sometime in 2024, ahead of the UNDP deadline of 2025.

• The European Central Bank (ECB)’s digital euro CBDC is expected to be rolled out in 2025 or 2026 after regulations are passed.

• The United Kingdom legislation for Digital IDs was introduced last year and English bloc is expected to introduce their CBDC, dubbed the ‘Britcoin’, in 2024. (see also this author’s 2022 post on the U.K.’s CBDC efforts titled UK’s PM Rishi Sunak desperate for G7 countries to launch their CBDCs).

Addendum to this section (added 2023-04-08):

As per an April 8 report published in ZeroHedge (originally published on April 7 in Cointelegraph), European Central Bank (ECB) President Christine Lagarde made some revealing admissions about the kinds of controls the ECB was considering in their design and implementation of their upcoming CBCD (which is intended to be rolled out in October).

What is quite interesting about the exchange (click the image below to play) is that Mrs. Lagarde was under the impression that she was in a private conversation with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, President of the Ukraine. However, she was actually the victim of a prank call of which she was completely unaware of. And thus, was willing to share more than she would normally have.

During the exchange, then “Zelensky" noted that “the problem is they [European protestors] don’t want to be controlled” by a central bank digital currency, Lagarde admitted that:

“there will be control, you’re right. You’re completely right,”

She added:

“We are considering whether for very small amounts, anything that is around 300, 400 euros, we could have a mechanism where there is zero control. But that could be dangerous.”

These passages above are quite revealing. The former further authenticates Dr. Yeadon’s assertion concerns. The latter shows just how egregious the programmability, i.e., the rules of control in the permissibility of transaction authorization, would be under the European-wide CBDC.

In 2022, we saw during the Truckers Convoy in Canada just how abusive the government can be in that they froze the funds and bank accounts of persons involved in the movement - and even ordinary citizens who had donated to the cause - without any legal due process or court order. Some who had their accounts frozen donated amounts less than $100. So, this is not dissimilar to what Lagarde stated about freezing funds of people for transactions as low as a few hundred euros.

What was not mentioned in the ZeroHedge and Cointelegraph articles, however, is that Largarde made a really hypocritical statement in the following [emphasis added]:

“I don’t want Europe to be dependent on an unfriendly country’s currency. For instance, I don’t know, you know, the Chinese currency, the Russian currency, whatever. Or, dependent on a friendly currency what which is activated by a private, corporate entity like, you know, Facebook, or Google, or anybody like [that].”

What she seems to be totally ignorant of in her statement is the fact that most central banks around the world - including the issuers of some of the most used and traded currencies in the world such as the U.S. dollar and the British pound - are private corporations.

The fact that she was sharing this kind of information about the inherent control (through programmability) of such kinds of features considered in the design and implementation of the European CBDC is quite telling as to how it can be abused by the central authority, the European Central Bank (ECB).

To add to this, throughout the interview she kept using “I” before her statements (e.g., “I don’t want Europe to…” It’s as if she is personally deciding what characteristics or features will be chosen for the design of the ECB’s CBDC.

Summary & Conclusion (for Part 4)

Though only two of the major claims have been presented in this post for the fourth episode of the Never Again Is Now Global docuseries, they remain intricately bound with each other in that they both refer to a broader (global) system of power and control.

It now remains hard to believe that the highly-coordinated rollout of the measures undertaken across the world has been honorable. They have been proven to be focused on power and control rather than the actual health and well-being of citizens around the world.

The numerous studies outlined in this post have greatly evidenced this as being the case.

Therefore, Dr. Yeadon’s warning about Digital IDs and CBDC – which are being planned by the same bad actors and entities such as the WEF and the UN, among other private and non-elected players (including the European Commission), is a matter of great concern to citizens across the globe.

Should governments and private entities – including central banks – be allowed by the citizenry to rollout these systems, it will indeed spell the end of human sovereignty and freedom.

Stay tuned for Part 5 of this series.

In Peace and Liberty,

Most articles are free, but please support the work of this independent journalist by considering a paid subscription to his Substack (for only $5 a month, or $50 a year) and following his Twitter. You can also buy him a coffee.

Tweet this article

Share this article on Facebook

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.