Deus herbarius

[Bernard]

                           

[Bernard]

 

                               

 

At first glance, it would appear as though the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) first appeared in late 2019, right around the time when billionaire eugenicist Bill Gates held his Event 201 plandemic exercise. The reality, though, is that the saga dates back to the time of 9/11 when George W. Bush was still in the White House.

A document called “COVID-19 Enterprise Fraud Construct Timeline: Major Dates, Events, Entities & Legislation” begins in May 2002 when Bush appointed Dr. Elias Zerhouni, born in Algeria, as director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Zerhouni laid much of the groundwork for what would eventually become the plandemic we currently face.

The 9/11 terrorist attacks, which occurred just months prior to Zerhouni’s appointment by Bush, was part of the scheme. It created the necessary fear that would be used as a catalyst to transform the United States into a mass surveillance state, as well as expand government intrusion into people’s personal lives.

The “war on terror” was birthed out of this process (as well as the Patriot Act), as was a whole new medical infrastructure to supposedly help contain the threat of bioweapons. In truth, however, the government’s expanded role made it so that career criminals and bioweapons terrorists like Tony Fauci had an easier path to unleashing a later plandemic.

It started with SARS in the early 2000s as the government really started pushing the idea of biological weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). This later morphed into influenza before being handed off to Barack Hussein Obama, who took the reins from Bush and expanded the medical police state apparatus even more.

In 2009, Obama completely rewrote America’s biosecurity rules, followed by his imposition of “Obamacare” (Affordable Care Act or ACA), which laid even more of a foundation for the type of medical infrastructure that would later be needed to unleash the Chinese Virus plandemic.

More years went by with Obama cozying up to China, which we now know to be the place where Fauci funneled American taxpayer cash to have SARS-CoV-2 built in a laboratory in Wuhan.

Obama is the one who made it possible for Fauci to send all that cash in the first place, establishing certain exceptions to the domestic prohibition on gain of function research.

These exceptions include allowing American taxpayer monies to be sent over to China to conduct research there that would be illegal to conduct here on U.S. soil.

In early 2016, Peter Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance came into the picture. Daszak issued a statement of admission that Fauci and the Obama regime had partnered with China to develop SARS-Cov-2 as a bio-WMD.

About a month later, Obama changed the law to include new pandemic preparedness provisions. He and his regime knew full well what was coming, in other words.

Numerous executive orders and shady meetings later, as well as the circus known as the Donald Trump presidency, and the fix was in. The Chinese Virus would soon emerge right on schedule at the end of Trump’s term, and here we are dealing with it ever since.

Political Moonshine has put together a full timeline, complete with infographics, that provide a thorough breakdown of how this all transpired. You will find all of the relevant information at this link.

“This timeline is extracted from a larger one, contains most of the relevant major dates, events, entities and legislation for the COVID-19 enterprise fraud construct, and contains links to the sourced and cited work in evidence,” the group says.

“The search function can help to sift those articles.”

 

COVID-19 Enterprise Fraud Construct Timeline: Major Dates, Events, Entities & Legislation

This timeline is extracted from a larger one, contains most of the relevant major dates, events, entities and legislation for the COVID-19 enterprise fraud construct, and contains links to the sourced and cited work in evidence. The search function can help to sift those articles.

It is sourced with original work that includes links to cited sources.

It is a COVID linear chronology with the purpose of demonstrating evidenced events and patterns of events.

It will continue to be updated over time.

COVID-19 Enterprise Fraud Construct Timeline: Major Dates, Events, Entities & Legislation – Political moonshine

POLITICALMOONSHINE.COM

---

This timeline is extracted from a larger one, contains most of the relevant major dates, events, entities and legislation for the COVID-19 enterprise fraud construct, and contains links to the sour…

 

[Bernard]

Elon Musk’s Crusade to Save You -- By Destroying Your Humanity

 

The most unnerving element of artificial general intelligence is that this hypothetical mind will be completely alien to legacy humans. “An analogy that’s often used,” Musk explained to Rogan, “is like we don’t make a submarine swim like a fish, but we take the principles of hydrodynamics and apply them to the submarine.”

In the same way, machine learning and algorithmic output is a form of cognition with similar objectives to the human mind -- at least for now -- but it arrives at solutions by far different cognitive pathways. As artificial intelligence teaches itself about the outside world, it develops its own “personality.” In time, this divergence will become far more pronounced. To the extent that AI will surpass human intelligence -- or is believed to do so -- we run the risk of creating alien minds in silico that will rule over us, or perhaps destroy us altogether.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/09/elon_musks_crusade_to_save_you__by_destroying_your_humanity.html

[sanja84]

пре 7 минута, Bernard рече

Elon Musk’s Crusade to Save You -- By Destroying Your Humanity

 

The most unnerving element of artificial general intelligence is that this hypothetical mind will be completely alien to legacy humans. “An analogy that’s often used,” Musk explained to Rogan, “is like we don’t make a submarine swim like a fish, but we take the principles of hydrodynamics and apply them to the submarine.”

In the same way, machine learning and algorithmic output is a form of cognition with similar objectives to the human mind -- at least for now -- but it arrives at solutions by far different cognitive pathways. As artificial intelligence teaches itself about the outside world, it develops its own “personality.” In time, this divergence will become far more pronounced. To the extent that AI will surpass human intelligence -- or is believed to do so -- we run the risk of creating alien minds in silico that will rule over us, or perhaps destroy us altogether.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/09/elon_musks_crusade_to_save_you__by_destroying_your_humanity.html

Da, to je moja tema Deus ex machina... Svrati nekad da popričamo. 

[sanja84]

Bernard, ne vprašala tebe. Kaj je s to zgodno o Frančišku in Benediktu? Za kaj gre? Samo mi reci normalno, ne morem brati dolga besedila na angleščini. 

[Bernard]

Ne znam , ja nisam forumaš koji sve znam.

[Bernard]

Millions in federal money flowed to tissue bank that collected fetal 'heart, gonads, legs, brain': report

University of Pittsburgh said it 'complies with rigorous regulatory and ethical oversight'

Millions in federal money flowed to tissue bank that collected fetal 'heart, gonads, legs, brain': report

WWW.FOXNEWS.COM

---

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has funneled at least $2.7 million into a University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) project that utilizes a tissue bank with organs from aborted...

 

On “Nazi-level” Baby-parts Experiments at the University of Pittsburgh, Officials and Media Mum

                        

                           

 

On the heels of learning that the Food and Drug Administration purchased aborted babies’ body parts and requested “fresh and never frozen,” comes another story that sounds as if it’s from a horror movie or one of human history’s darkest chapters:

Researchers at the University of Pittsburgh have been conducting what have been called “Nazi-level experiments,” one of which involved grafting babies’ scalps onto lab rats.

As the Federalist’s Cheryl Allen reported Monday:

Nearly 100 members of Congress asked the Biden administration for details on the University of Pittsburgh’s federally funded research on aborted babies in a recent letter. Pitt officials should be working with law enforcement to conduct a full investigation of the grotesque, immoral, and potentially illegal actions the university has taken in its treatment of preborn human beings. Pitt should provide complete transparency regarding how the university obtains and experiments on these aborted babies.

Even Dr. Ronna Jurow, an ob-gyn who supports abortion, has raised significant concern over unethical treatment of aborted babies at Pitt. As an alumnus of Pitt, it troubles me to see my alma mater become a national hub for training students for controversial fetal experimentation, allegedly using staff employed by Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion business.

Just last year, it was revealed that Pitt has been engaging in experiments like scalping aborted babies and grafting their scalps to lab rats. Pitt researchers even proudly published pictures of babies’ scalps grafted onto the backs of rodents.

On “Nazi-level” Baby-parts Experiments at the University of Pittsburgh, Officials and Media Mum - The New American

THENEWAMERICAN.COM

---

Researchers at the University of Pittsburgh have been conducting what have been called “Nazi-level experiments,” one of which involved grafting babies’ scalps onto lab rats. ...

 

Hair taken from aborted babies grown on rats in horrifying experiments

 

Hair taken from aborted babies grown on rats in horrifying experiments | The Bridgehead

THEBRIDGEHEAD.CA

---

By Jonathon Van Maren It has been five years since David Daleiden and the Center for Medical Progress broke the story that body parts retrieved from aborted babies were being used for...

 

[Bernard]

SENZA CATEGORIA

«Per me, cattolico, è qualcosa che non è umano». Intervista alla guardia svizzera che ha rifiutato il vaccino obbligatorio in Vaticano

 

«Per me, cattolico, è qualcosa che non è umano». Intervista alla guardia svizzera che ha rifiutato il vaccino obbligatorio in Vaticano

WWW.RENOVATIO21.COM

---

  Dopo la lettera aperta pubblicata da Renovatio 21, intervistiamo il suo autore, Pierre-André Udressy, ex guardia svizzera che ha rifiutato di sottoporsi al vaccino in Vaticano e che ora lascia...

 

 

Lettera aperta di una guardia svizzera che ha resistito alla vaccinazione obbligatoria in Vaticano

 

Lettera aperta di una guardia svizzera che ha resistito alla vaccinazione obbligatoria in Vaticano

WWW.RENOVATIO21.COM

---

    Renovatio 21 pubblica questa lettera aperta di un’ex guardia svizzera che ha rifiutato di sottoporsi all’obbligo vaccinale in vigore ora presso tutto lo Stato del Vaticano. Egli ha quindi perso il...

 

[Bernard]

“Climate Emergency” – Nothing But Politics And Propaganda Unsupported By Scientific Data

The UAH 0.49 degrees C measured temperature anomaly increase from 1986 to year 2021 is far below the temperature anomaly increases represented by the NASA GISS model used in the Democrats 1988 hearing which shows temperature increases from 1986 to 2021 as being about 1.4 degrees C increase for Scenario A, about 1 degree C increase for scenario B and about 0.6 degrees C for Scenario C.

The UAH temperature anomaly increase of about 0.49 degrees C in the period between 1986 and 2021 is even below the Scenario C NASA GISS case (0.6 degrees C) which assumed significant reductions in global emissions that never happened.

Measurements of the global average temperature anomaly since the Democrats 1988 hearing clearly shows the NASA GISS climate model relied upon in these hearings grossly overstates the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on global temperatures.

The claims made by numerous Democratic Party Senators and scientific “experts” about global average temperature anomalies increasingly dramatically in the future because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions highlighted at this hearing (1.5 to 4.5 degrees C temperature anomaly increase by 2030) have been proven WRONG.”

 

 

“Climate Emergency” – Nothing But Politics And Propaganda Unsupported By Scientific Data – Watts Up With That?

WATTSUPWITHTHAT.COM

---

The “climate emergency” claim hyped by Scientific American and other political climate alarmist entities is based on the completely fallacious statement that “the planet is heating up way to fast” …

 

[Bernard]

Five reasons to think twice about the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals

                                 

 

1. The contradiction of growth

The Zero Draft  affirms the necessity of achieving “harmony with nature,” establishes a commitment to hold global warming below the 2° Celsius threshold, and calls for “sustainable patterns of production and consumption.”  This language signals awareness that something about our economic system has gone terribly awry – that the pursuit of endless industrial growth is chewing through our living planet and threatening our existence.

And yet the core of the SDG programme for development and poverty reduction relies precisely on the old model of industrial growth — ever-increasing levels of extraction, production, and consumption. Goal 8 calls for 7% annual GDP growth in the least developed countries and higher levels of economic productivity across the board.

In other words, the SDGs call for both less and more at the same time. How can they expect to succeed with such a profound contradiction at their root?

Right now global production and consumption levels are overshooting our planet’s capacity by about 50% each year. This is a monumental crisis, and one that proceeds from the deep logic of capitalism. Yet the SDGs offer nothing but superficial responses: reduce food waste, make resource use more efficient, and “encourage companies to adopt sustainable practices.”  These proposals explicitly sidestep the only real solution, which is to reduce over-consumption by the world’s wealthy.

 

2. Growth does not reduce poverty

The Zero Draft promotes growth as the main solution to poverty, but this relationship is highly tenuous. While global GDP has grown by 271% since 1990, the number of people living on less than $5/day has increased by more than 370 million.  Clearly growth is not working.  Under best-case scenarios the picture looks a bit more promising, but even so the poorest 60% of humanity receive only 5% of all new income generated by global growth.

Why do the SDGs rely on growth as a poverty-reduction strategy?  Because the prospect of growth allows our leaders to sidestep the challenge of having to distribute existing resources more fairly.

The only problem is that, even given the best-case scenario mentioned above, it will take 207 years to eliminate poverty with this strategy. And to get there, we will have to grow the global economy by 175 times its present size.  This is obviously a terrible strategy: even if such immense growth were possible, it would drive climate change to catastrophic levels and, in the process, rapidly reverse any gains against poverty.

What we really need is to abandon GDP in favor of a saner measure of human progress – one that does not rely on endlessly increasing extraction and consumption.  This has been on the table for a long time, but repeatedly blocked by powerful interests in the SDG process. Instead, the SDGs quite literally pass this urgent challenge down to the next generation: buried at the very bottom of Goal 17 is a flimsy commitment to, “by 2030 build on existing initiatives to develop measurements of progress on sustainable development that complement GDP.”

In other words, the SDGs are committed to shelving the problem until 2029.

 

3. Inequality gets ignored

If growth doesn’t provide a solution to poverty, then the only real alternative is to reduce the enormous inequality that marks our global society, where the richest 1% own half of the world’s total private wealth.  Confronting inequality is the only way to end poverty in a climate-constrained world, and we need to face up to this fact.

Inequality has become perhaps the most pressing issue of our time, and yet the SDGs remain silent on it.  All we get is Target 10.1, which states that by 2030 they will “progressively achieve and sustain income growth of the bottom 40% of the population at a rate higher than the national average.”  In other words, we can allow inequality to grow until 2029 before gradually beginning to reduce it.  But of course by then it will no longer be a binding commitment.

The SDGs initially included two other targets on equitable sharing of global resources, but US negotiators eviscerated them last month in a last-minute backroom decision.

Thus yet another monumental global challenge has been handed down to the next generation.  This betrayal is the subject of an open letter to the UN that has been signed by Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, Thomas Pogge, Chris Hedges, Eve Ensler and other powerful voices.

 

 

4. Big drivers of poverty are left unaddressed

Surprisingly, the SDGs offer little by way of solutions to many of the biggest known drivers of global poverty. They say nothing about the unfair trade regime of the World Trade Organisation, or the many bilateral trade and investment agreements that liberalise global markets at the expense of the poor. In fact, instead of tackling this crucial issue, Goal 17.10 calls for more trade liberalisation and more power for the WTO.

And instead of demanding an end to the financial speculation that has caused food prices to spike since 2007, pushing 150 million into hunger, the SDGs ask that we “ensure the proper functioning of food commodity markets.” It’s not clear what this means, but it can easily be interpreted as yet more liberalisation, which is what caused the food crisis in the first place.

The SDGs are also eerily silent on the need for greater regulation of financial markets and big banks. Goal 17.13 speaks vaguely of the need to “enhance global macroeconomic stability” through “policy coordination,” with no specific targets. Tax evasion and tax avoidance, which drain developing countries of $1.7 trillion each year, are politely sidestepped.

Finally, the SDGs evade the issue of debt.   They refuse to call for debt cancellation even though debt service drains developing countries of more than $700 billion per year – money that could be directed instead toward poverty reduction.  On the contrary, clauses inserted by the EU in yet another backroom deal ensure that borrowers shoulder full responsibility for over-indebtedness.

 

5. The mis-measurement of poverty

Nowhere is the compromised nature of the SDGs more evident than in their proposal to eradicate extreme poverty, which they measure at only $1.25/day. It’s high time we got around to eradicating poverty, but a growing number of scholars are pointing out that $1.25 is actually not adequate for human subsistence.

A number of recent studies suggest that if people are to achieve normal life expectancy and meet their basic needs as outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they need closer to $5 per day.

So why do the SDGs stick with the discredited $1.25 measure? Because it’s the only one that will allow them to get anywhere near their goal of eradicating poverty by 2030. If we measure poverty by the more accurate $5/day line, the total poverty headcount rises to 4.3 billion people, more than 60% of humanity.

Eradicating poverty of this magnitude would require more than just weeding around the edges of the problem. It would require changing the rules of the global economy to make it fairer for the world’s majority. The SDGs fail us on this. They offer to tinker with the global economic system in a well-meaning bid to make it all seem a bit less violent. But, as Arundhati Roy has put it, “we are not fighting to tinker with reforming a system that needs to be replaced.”

 

Dr Jason Hickel is a Research Fellow in the Department of Anthropology at LSE.

Five reasons to think twice about the UN's Sustainable Developmen

BLOGS.LSE.AC.UK

---

As part of the Africa at LSE and South Asia at LSE cross-blog series on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, LSE's Jason Hickel critiques the new Sustainable Development Goals...

 

[Bernard]

 

[Bernard]

Is Covid still spreading among the vaccinated? Yes. Blame the unvaccinated.

 

Are people dying from the China Flu vaccines? Yes. Just blame the “anti-vaxxers.”

 

Are the Fauci Flu jabs causing blood clots around the world? Yes. Blame it on the natural health advocates.

[Bernard]

"Every disease is curable - but not every patient is."(Hildegard of Bingen)

[Bernard]

"The art of healing comes from nature, not from the doctor. Therefore, the doctor must start from nature, have an open mind."(Paracelsus)

[Bernard]

"Most of the time, you don't start out maintaining your health, but what's left of it."(German proverb)