Search Results

If YOU truly do not wish to be 'their' slaves any more, YOU must inform YOURSELF on how it is conducted so as to 'see' it. Stand strong and know that YOU CAN LEARN. This book is a great start. (believe they may have sold out, so please go to a library).

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/10/01/who-pandemic-treaty-ihr-amendments.aspx Freedom organizations around the world are uniting for a single cause: to get the word out about how the WHO intends to take control over all aspects of everyone's lives, right down to what you can eat, where you can go and what vaccines you must get. Find out here how it will work. We're in the Middle of a Global Coup — Here's How We Stop It STORY AT-A-GLANCE The World Health Organization's upcoming pandemic treaty and the International Health Regulation (IHR) amendments are part of a global “soft coup” to strip nations of their sovereignty and people of their bodily autonomy and freedom The WHO wants to put into law a requirement that nations must censor their citizens, so that only public health messages aligned with the WHO’s recommendations can be shared The IHR amendments specify that the WHO will dictate which drugs countries must use, and which they cannot, in the event of a pandemic — and possibly outside of pandemics as well The IHRs have been in existence since 1969, but in the current draft of the IHR amendments — the WHO’s recommendations — become edicts that must be followed rather than recommendations that nations can ignore at will The treaty demands the fast-tracking of vaccines, along with liability waivers for vaccine manufacturers. The EU, U.S. and CEPI have already proposed a plan to develop vaccines in 100 days The treaty will apply to all nations that sign on, all the time, even when there are no pandemics ____________________________________________________________________________________________ In this interview board-certified internist and biological warfare epidemiologist Dr. Meryl Nass discusses the dangers posed by the World Health Organization's upcoming pandemic treaty and the International Health Regulation (IHR) amendments. She also wrote about this in a recent article titled "The WHO’s Proposed Treaty Will Increase Manmade Pandemics."1 "I've been reading the different drafts of the amendments and the Pandemic treaty that have been put forward," she says. "They're a mix of things, different ideas put forward by the different [member] countries. And then there's a group within the WHO that tries to harmonize them, and also make sure that what the WHO wants is in them. I had finally read through, line by line, the June 2nd, most recent draft of a pandemic treaty, and it had things that were much worse and more explicit in it than before, and I felt compelled to start writing about it. Then, after I'd written a short piece, I realized it was too important and I needed to write a long piece with background and links, and try to get the message out to a lot of people. Because the only reason these documents and the plan — the biosecurity agenda through the pandemic treaty and the International Health Amendments — have gotten as far as they have is because nobody has read them. [People] don’t understand what the plan is, and may not understand the backstory." Converging Agendas With Identical Goals It’s important to realize that many different aspects of the grand plan are being put into motion by a variety of sectors and globalist organizations at the same time, and while they may appear independent of each other, they’re all leading us in the same direction, toward a unified goal, namely the enslavement of mankind and the centralization of control over the world’s population. We have development of a new financial apparatus involving the rollout of a central bank digital currency (CBDC), for example. "At the same time, the U.N. also wants into the action," Nass says. "It wants to be able to declare global shocks and manage them. And those could be the ones that the WHO wants to manage, which is biological warfare and pandemics that occur in more than one country. So, the U.N. has listed those two, but also all sorts of other potential global shocks, like climate change, supply chain interruptions, cyber events, and even events in outer space. And they finalize it with black swan events, which means anything the U.N. wants to designate as a global shock can be one, and then the U.N. will come out with its management of that event. So, the secretary general of the U.N. is asking its members ... at the annual meeting of the U.N. General Assembly, to give it permission to create this global emergencies platform ... which will give the secretary general and the U.N. authority to manage global shocks. Also at that meeting, the WHO and the U.N. are coming together to try to divvy up how things are going to go for biological warfare and pandemics that affect more than one country. So, look for information coming out on that on September 20." Why Was the Pandemic Treaty Introduced? The WHO proposed the initial plan to grant itself the power to issue global emergency instructions in 2021. The claim was that nations had handled the COVID pandemic so poorly, we need a centralized organization to manage the next pandemic better. "Of course, it was laid out in terms of equity, like the rich countries didn't give the poor countries enough vaccines, etc ... and so many people died. What is never said is that, in fact, almost all the countries of the world were following the WHO’s guidance, and that is what caused this last pandemic to be so devastating. The economic implications were all as a result of the lockdowns, the resulting supply chain interruptions, the closure of schools, etc. So, although the WHO wants this great power, it hasn't said that it's going to do anything differently. Nobody at the level of the WHO, the U.N., or the United States public health authorities or the president has said they did anything wrong. What they want to do is more of the same, and I mean more, lots more," Nass says. WHO Wants To Be a Centralized Ruler of All For example, they want to put into law the requirement that nations must censor their citizens, so that only public health messages aligned with the WHO’s recommendations can be shared. Already, YouTube has announced they will henceforth censor all health information that does not conform to the WHO's narrative. But that censorship is nothing compared to what’s to come. The amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHRs) also specify that the WHO will dictate which drugs countries must use, and which they cannot, in the event of a pandemic — and possibly outside of pandemics as well. As explained by Nass: "The pandemic treaty ... is a completely new document, and each draft has been different than the one before. In the current draft, the director general of the WHO doesn't even need to declare a pandemic. The pandemic treaty will be in effect all the time." The IHRs have been in existence since 1969, but in the current draft of the IHR amendments, the WHO’s recommendations become edicts that must be followed rather than recommendations that nations can ignore at will. In their current form, the amendments do require the director-general of the WHO to declare a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) before he can start giving orders, but there are no standards for what a PHEIC is. It could be anything. He would also have the power to declare a "potential" pandemic, even with limited or no evidence. All Vaccines Will Be Fast-Tracked and Untested The treaty also demands the fast-tracking of vaccines, along with liability waivers for vaccine manufacturers. According to Nass, the EU, U.S. and CEPI have already proposed a plan to develop vaccines in 100 days and manufacture enough for everyone in the country in another 30 days. "It's a completely crazy idea because you don't have time to test the vaccines in human beings if you're developing them in 100 days," Nass says. "The COVID vaccines were developed in 326 days ... That was the Pfizer vaccine. And the median testing in humans was only two months or less. We gave the vaccines to billions of people, and we only found out later what the side effects were. We still don't have a totally clear view of all the side effects and how often they occur, because our countries have hidden the data ... Today, when FDA is letting things get through right and left without good tests, still only 29% of the vaccines presented to the FDA are given a license; 71% are rejected. It's hard to make a good vaccine. Many have to be thrown away before you get to a safe and effective one. That is, unless you have a complete waiver of liability, and then you can inject people with anything. And there are no manufacturing standards, no safety standard, no efficacy standard. The only ‘standard’ is that the FDA commissioner needs to hope that the benefits outweigh the risks." Never-Ending Pandemics Ahead Both the treaty and the IHR amendments require nations to perform extensive biosurveillance, year-round, and perform genomic sequencing on all pathogens collected. Well, if we’re testing people, livestock, wild animals, farms and factories all the time, we’ll always be able to find pathogens with pandemic potential. So, this will give rise to a never-ending series of pandemic and "potential pandemic" declarations. Any and all of these declarations could then result in lockdowns and new vaccine requirements. And, importantly, these documents will supersede all domestic laws if implemented, so not even the U.S. Constitution will be able to save us. Door To Freedom To prevent this nightmare, Nass has founded a new organization called Door To Freedom (doortofreedom.org), which seeks to educate people around the world about what the pandemic treaty and IHR amendments are, and how they will change life as we know it, and strip us of every vestige of freedom. Door To Freedom has created a poster to explain the impacts the pandemic treaty and IHR amendments will have. Please download this poster and share it with everyone you know. Also put it up on public billboards and places where communities share information. "The WHO appears to be nervous about the fact that some of these bits of information are in fact making it into the mainstream," Nass says, "and so they themselves have made little short videos with Tedros and other people at the WHO denying that this is a sovereignty grab — claiming that the WHO is not even going to be a party of the treaty, etc. Most of their claims are lies. So, it will be confusing. But the WHO is definitely a party to this treaty. The WHO intends — in the June 2, 2023, version, which is called the Bureau Draft — to take management of certain aspects of pandemic control." Who Will Vote on the Treaty and IHR Amendments? The IHR amendments will only require a 50% vote of whoever is in the room at the time of the vote, which will take place at the World Health Assembly’s annual meeting in May 2024.2 Countries will then have only 10 months to send a formal opt-out to the WHO if the amendments pass. Barring an opt-out, all countries will then be required to comply with WHO directives. Nations that have not officially opted out will then be bound by the new terms laid out in the amendments. The pandemic treaty will also be voted on during that meeting. It will require two-thirds vote in favor by the members that are in the room and will go into effect one month after 30 nations have ratified it. The amendments require an active opt-out, while the treaty requires an active opt-in. Any nation that has not signed the treaty will be excluded from its terms. Those who sign the treaty must wait three years before they can get out. "That's important to remember, because I don't think too many people want to give the WHO three years of directing them how to manage public health emergencies before they can can say no," Nass says. It is important to be aware that the treaty will be in force all the time. It won't require a pandemic to give the WHO director-general the power to surveil and censor the entire world, 24/7. Furthermore, as currently drafted, the treaty has essentially blank pages, to be filled in later. New committees will form, and they will determine how the treaty provisions will be carried out and enforced. They can add new provisions too. This is like giving a blank check to the WHO to impose whatever it wants on the world's people. Action Items While the situation seems incredibly bleak, Nass insists there are many things we can do to prevent the WHO’s power grab, including the following: • Call your congressman or congresswoman and urge them to sponsor H.R.79 — The WHO Withdrawal Act,3 introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs, which calls for defunding and exiting the WHO. At the time of this writing, it has 51 cosponsors, all of them Republicans. We cannot get this bill passed without Democrats, so we need to get them to understand what’s at stake. As noted by Nass: "That means 51 congressmen have already been convinced about how bad this is. We the people have to get educated and then push it out to more members of Congress. These provisions are so terrible, if you stand up in front of a room and say, ‘My congresswoman is voting to give away our sovereignty, to have the WHO take away our medications, to transfer our intellectual property to other nations,’ everyone will say ‘That person is terrible.’ So, there's a lot of opportunity to embarrass your members of Congress if they don't understand what this is and vote to get out. I think that's our best bet." The Sovereignty Coalition is making it easier for everyone to make their voices heard. Its Help the House Defund the WHO page will allow you to contact all of your elected representatives with just a few clicks. Simply fill out the required field, click submit, and your contact information will be used to match you with your elected representatives. • Also urge your congressman or congresswoman to sponsor H.R.1425,4 which would require the pandemic treaty to be approved by the Senate. It currently has 27 cosponsors. • Call your senator and urge them to sponsor the Senate version of H.R.1425, which is S.444, the No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act.5 It currently has 47 cosponsors. • Share Door To Freedom’s educational poster6 everywhere you can, and direct them to doortofreedom.org for more information. • Also share, share, share information about the IHR amendments and how they will destroy national sovereignty, and increase surveillance and censorship. You can find a quick summary here. In 2021, the U.S. introduced several new amendments that were rejected by other nations, so when it came to a vote in 2022, the U.S. rescinded most of them. If we can make enough noise and get a wellspring of people to push back, saying we will not accept these terms, many of the amendments may simply be withdrawn before they come to a vote in 2024. The WHO is trying to achieve this soft coup on the sly, and exposing how these amendments will eliminate human rights and bodily autonomy, and strip our nation of its sovereignty, will force them to take a step back, because while they are tyrants, they don’t want to be identified as such. We Must Stop the Funding of Our Demise Also be sure to sign up for Door To Freedom’s newsletter so that you can take action when WHO-related bills come up. We need to oppose all funding of the global biosecurity agenda, and Door To Freedom will alert you when it’s time to call on your representatives to oppose funding measures that will further the biosecurity agenda. Other newsletters that will help you stay abreast on this issue are Children’s Health Defense and Stand for Health Freedom. The U.S. has already contributed money to a financial intermediary fund set up through the WHO and the World Bank. But that fund is still many billions short of what it wants, so the WHO is looking for member states to dramatically increase their contributions. The U.S. also committed $5 billion over five years to the global biosecurity agenda when it passed the National Defense Authorization Act in December 2022. So, those contributions are now part of U.S. law, and they’re part of Biden’s proposed budget for 2024. Another $20 billion in mandated spending by the Department of Health and Human Services has been requested in the president's FY 2024 budget request to Congress for International Pandemic Preparedness. More money will also be allocated for this purpose by the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security. Additional funds may also be allocated through the State Department, USAID, the Department of Agriculture and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In all, the U.S. is already set to spend some $30 billion a year on global pandemic preparedness, and part of that is for surveillance of our social media and the internet, and biosurveillance for pathogens with pandemic potential. It seems that with so much money sloshing around, a large number of vested interests support the WHO plan. However, when we citizens reach out en masse, politicians oftentimes are compelled to appease their constituents, especially when it comes to turning over state and federal authority for health to unelected officials of the WHO, an organization well-known for corruption, which unabashedly caters to its biggest donors, particularly Bill Gates. A recent example is offered by Nass: "There’s a group called the Sovereignty Coalition that we are part of. They have the ALIGN Act software and this enables people going to their website, with two or three clicks, to send needed messages to the president, your congressman, senators, governors, etc., and that was used. So, when the funding bill came up a month or two ago for the State Department — and funding for the WHO is in that bill — the Republicans had cut funding in their markup, because ... we got over 4,000 calls and emails to every member of the committee the night before." So, thanks to that outreach, the State Department Foreign Operations appropriations bill draft now has zero funding for the WHO in it. As noted by Nass: "Now that is extraordinary. I'm sure they're going to try to sneak it in somewhere else, but right now the United States has defunded the WHO in the pending legislation, which needs to be voted on, I believe by the end of October. Stand for Health Freedom also has something like that, and Children's Health Defense also has ALIGN Act software. So, we can make this happen. When bills are coming up, when important things are happening, we can get out the action alerts and get people to take action. That's already in place. It's tremendously important, and we'll continue to do that." We Must Connect the Dots for People A common question is who is responsible for this global coup? Also, who’s in charge of it? And why are they doing it, exactly? "The answer is, we don't know who's doing it," Nass says, "but we know there are some very evil, rich people that are [part of it]. We know that Klaus Schwab is part of their apparatus. We know that the World Economic Forum's Young Global Leaders —that Schwab has raised up for the last 30 years — are a big part of implementing these things in their countries ... They're like a large Skull and Bones club where they work together. They come together for meetings, and their job is to elevate each other into powerful positions in industry and government ... So, we have to make people aware of the role of these secret societies, and how they are being used to bring in bad programs. People are already noticing the terrible inflation in the United States, and that's due to the money printing. They had to do the money printing to bribe the schools, the hospitals, the industries, the pharmaceutical makers, and the media in particular, to push this whole pandemic narrative through and make us do what they wanted. Now everybody thinks we're coming up for another pandemic soon. The FDA is pushing out a new COVID vaccine in the middle of September. What are they going to do to us next? Are they going to be able to print money again and dole out $10 trillion of our grandchildren's money? I think people are starting to understand this money printing inflationary spiral, and how it impoverishes us for the benefit of a small group. Those are bits of information — what is needed is connecting the dots. So, in my article, I tried to connect a lot of dots ... Everything in our lives is changing at the same time and people are so confused. We need those who are paying close attention and know how to write to start explaining how these things are connected. We've got nine months until the WHO will vote on these two documents ... At the beginning of May, I was invited to the International COVID Summit at the European Parliament in Brussels, and my talk was on the IHR amendments. I prepared a 10-minute talk ... but at the last minute the sponsors said, ‘Look, you only have five minutes because we've run over’ ... So, I'm like, ‘Oh my God, what do I do?’ I looked at my slides; what are the main points? And I gave a five-minute talk. I thought it must be terrible ... Well, somebody made a three-minute, and somebody made a four-minute, and a five-minute little video of it and sent it around on Twitter and TikTok. Now people have added sound and they've added images. The thing has garnered millions of views. It's extraordinary. But it's because I start off saying, ‘We are experiencing a soft coup. This is what's happening. This is what the WHO is doing.’ And it's so short, people are able to watch it. They see this little old lady who is speaking in a very measured way, and they see the European Parliament insignia behind me, and they're saying, ‘Oh my god, maybe this is real.’ So that little thing has gotten 5 million to 10 million views and TikTokers are now adding to it. So, I think this whole issue of the WHO trying to grab our sovereignty is very meaningful to people. We just have to figure out the right messages, get them out there, and we'll win." Where to Learn More Door To Freedom is unique in that it is trying to introduce these highly complex, interlocking aspects of the global power grab in bite-sized pieces. The website has dozens of short summary articles and videos, with longer in-depth pieces for those who want to dive deeper. We also publish each new draft of the IHR amendments and the treaty as they come out, and I encourage people to have a look at the actual documents. So, to get a good grasp of what’s at stake, be sure to bookmark doortofreedom.org, and start sifting through it. Also, share the site with others and encourage them to learn more. "We’ve put up the documents so people can read them," Nass says. "We have about 30 two-minute reads about the documents, about what's going on, about all sorts of things, trying to connect the dots on transhumanism, CBDCs, child sex education. And we have a large number of longer articles about related subjects. So if you go to the site, it will give you an education about the massive global changes that the globalist cabal is bringing forward right now. As we speak, we're in the middle of the coup. The coup isn't next year. It's not when these documents get voted on. We’re in the middle of it now. The documents are part of it. Once we've completed everything on the website ... we will start building a worldwide coalition of organizations to fight all of this. That's the next step. Children's Health Defense ... are taking up this issue of the WHO, and there are many other organizations I'm working with: Stand for Health Freedom, organizations in England, in the European Union [and] South Africa ... We want to then start pushing regular messaging to the world that will be the same everywhere. Education is the answer, because even if we beat back the WHO, if we don't beat back this entire agenda, the globalists will hit us with something else, either through the U.N. or through other multilateral organizations, or through national laws that are draconian. [We must] make people understand what's happened over these last few years, where it's coming from, what led up to it and where it's going. And I think that's the best we can do. It's really important that we retain our ethics, our morals. We don't want to manipulate people. We've all been manipulated, we've been mind-controlled. The media, the advertising, the education system have all been trying to limit the way people think ... We want you to open your minds, be able to identify propaganda when you see it, so that you can learn to think clearly for yourself. That's when we win."

https://expose-news.com/2023/09/29/oil-is-not-a-fossil-fuel-it-is-the-second-most/ During an interview in 1994, L. Fletcher Prouty spoke about what petroleum is. It isn’t what we think it is. It isn’t a fossil fuel. And it is the second most prevalent liquid on Earth, he said. L. Fletcher Prouty was Chief of Special Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff under US President John F. Kennedy. A former colonel in the United States Air Force, he retired from military service to become a bank executive and subsequently became a critic of US foreign policy, particularly the covert activities of the CIA about which he had considerable inside knowledge. He died in 2001 aged 84. During the Second World War, Colonel Pouty served as an army tank commander. He later joined the United States Air Force (“USAAF”) and in 1943 became the personal pilot of General Omar Bradley. Later that year he flew Chiang Kai-shek to the Tehran Conference. Prouty also became involved in work for the Office of Strategic Services (“OSS”). In 1945 he served on Okinawa and was involved in transporting the bodyguard of General Douglas MacArthur to Tokyo. In 1946 Prouty was assigned by the US Army to Yale University. In 1950 he established Air Defence Command and during the Korean War was based in Japan where he was Military Manager for Tokyo International Airport. In 1955 Prouty was assigned to coordinate operations between the USAAF and the Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”). For the next nine years, he worked for the Pentagon. He was Briefing Officer for the Secretary of Defence (1960-61), Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Chief of Special Operations (1962-63). Colonel Prouty retired from the USAAF in 1964 and was awarded the Joint Chiefs of Staff Commendation Medal. He later worked for the General Aircraft Corporation (1964-65) and First National Bank (1965-68). He was also a senior director of a government and military marketing organisation. Find out more about Colonel Prouty at L. Fletcher Prouty (Spartacus Educational) and L. Fletcher Prouty (Wikipedia). During an interview in 1994, Bruce Kanier asked Colonel Prouty what he meant when in a talk he said that petroleum wasn’t a fossil fuel and that it was a mineral. Colonel Prouty responded: “[When] oil went from a lubricant to a fuel [ ] it made it valuable. Rockefeller happened to be the smartest man in the business at the time but he made most of his money, or much of it, off the transport of the petroleum as well as selling it. “Putting a price on oil is like putting a price on a pail of water, no initial cost, that’s in the ground. And in those days, they were, some of it, almost what you’d call surface mining the oil, they didn’t go down deep. So, in order to get the price up, they hit on the idea that they would have to make it appear to be scarce. “[Fortuitously] in 1892 there was a convention in Geneva of scientists to determine what organic substances are. Well, the definition of organic is a substance with hydrogen, oxygen and carbon. It’s usually a living substance … At this Geneva convention, Rockefeller took advantage of sending some scientists over who said: ‘Oil, petroleum is hydrogen, oxygen and carbon therefore it must be derived from [ ] the rotting of formerly living matter’. “When the scientific convention was over, they defined oil as the residue from formerly living matter. Well, that makes it a ‘fossil fuel’. “There has never been a fossil, a real fossil, found below sixteen thousand feet … We drill for oil at thirty thousand, thirty three thousand, twenty eight thousand, every day of the week. So, right there we rule it out that it isn’t fossil fuel. It’s called fossil fuel for the minds of the public to feel that it is an asset that is running out [and] being depleted. “If you know the world’s oil supply, you know that it is not going to run out for an awfully long time. It is the second most prevalent liquid on Earth.” For years, Colonel Prouty explained, they preached the propaganda to the highest offices in the USA that oil was a fossil fuel that would run out. “The object of it was, as Kissinger used in his own terms when it was time for him to speak, to create a world price for oil. In other words, not 30 cents a gallon here and 90 cents a gallon there, but let’s get a world price. That’s their goal. And they’re trying to do that with wheat and everything else,” he said. We have embedded the video below to begin with the 8-minute section where Colonel Prouty talks about oil. Bruce Kanier interviews Col. Fletcher Prouty, 12 October 1994 (Disc 1 of 2) (2 hours) If the video above is removed from YouTube, you can watch a clip from it on Bitchute HERE. For those who are interested in reading more from Colonel Prouty on this subject: According to The Col. L Fletcher Prouty Reference Site website, Colonel Prouty “answered e-mails from this site while he was alive” and those responses and commentaries are posted on the website. It includes a ‘Commentary’ labelled ‘Commentary for June – Oil’ and under the website section titled ‘Letters of the Month’ is an email exchange between various people and Colonel Prouty about the ‘Origins of Oil’.

More than 10,000 Ukrainian soldiers have already chosen life and used the Russian 149.200 ‘Volga’ frequency to surrender. https://sputnikglobe.com/20230930/thousands-of-ukrainian-troops-surrender-via-russian-radio-hotline-1113816561.html

https://expose-news.com/2023/09/28/fossil-fuel-treaty-activism-is-funded-by-a-small-group/ A network of activists is calling for a “Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty.” They want a treaty to complement the Paris Climate Agreement to accelerate a global shift from using fossil fuels. In 2021, ahead of COP26 in Glasgow, the World Economic Forum promoted the initiative as: “A new wave of activists is calling for global action and cooperation to phase out fossil fuels.” But is it a “new wave of activists”? To answer that, we need to find out who is hiding behind them. As with all these conspiracies, following the money reveals the puppet masters pulling the strings. Below we attempt to unravel the network to uncover the money behind the calls for a “Fossil Fuel Treaty.” There are several foundations named which makes it fairly heavy going but if you bear with us, you’ll begin to see a pattern and a core group of global foundations emerge. “Fossil Fuel Treaty” Alarmism Despite bold declarations on a website that 8 nation states have supported the “fossil fuel treaty” proposal and 89 cities and local governments have endorsed it – along with an assortment of non-governmental organisations and activists – there is little to no detail of what such a treaty would entail except to “end the era of coal, oil and gas.” “Oil, gas and coal are the root cause of the climate crisis,” the website declares without providing any evidence to back up its numerous fear-mongering mantras. It also makes a ludicrous claim that “fossil fuels are weapons of mass destruction.” We followed the hyperlink contained in the words “endorse as an individual” on its home page hoping to see a sensible proposal that signatories read before putting their names to and endorsing it. But alas, the statement that appears next is as pitiful as the website. Below is a screenshot of the well-evidenced and thoroughly thought-out call for a “new global treaty” that has been signed by more than 620,000 airheads activists: Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, Endorse, retrieved 27 September 2023 There are more words in the details provided to government officials but the statement is still entirely without evidence or any attempt to address the devastation and deaths, globally, that will be caused if such a treaty came into being. The “endorse as a government” has no words at all, governments must simply enter their details without being provided any information on what it is they are “signing.” Yet, as the website claims without evidence, 8 nation states have “endorsed” it. You can see a full list of government officials worldwide at the bottom of THIS webpage who have signed in support of this blatantly flawed activism and so are, without a doubt, unfit to hold public office at any level. Shamefully 39 Members of the UK Parliament and House of Lords have put their names to it. Embarrassingly, not only has Caroline Lucas, Green Party MP for Brighton, signed up to this nonsense, but she is also highlighted as a “treaty champion.” To understand who or what Lucas is supporting, endorsing and promoting it’s always worthwhile taking a look to see who is funding the campaign. As a politician, Lucas would have done the same before she put her name to it and accepted the lofty title of “treaty champion.” “Fossil Fuel Treaty” Funders The “Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty” initiative is funded by nine private foundations: Bulb Foundation, Climate Breakthrough, Fedrick Mulder Foundation, Gower St., The New York Community Trust, Quadrature Climate Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Waverley St. Foundation and Earth/Percent. Below we give a brief description of each. 1. Bulb Foundation is a UK-based charity which, judging by the date mark on the website, was launched in 2023. It has the sole aim of “ending the climate crisis.” It was launched by renewable energy and carbon-neutral gas supplier Bulb, a company named in December 2019 as the UK’s fastest-growing private business. Bulb was founded by Hayden Wood and Amit Gudka in 2013. In 2022, having spent more money than it was making, Bulb went into administration and was taken over by Octopus Energy. On the Bulb Foundation website, failed businessmen Wood and Gudka are shown as trustees. Other trustees include: Sophie Pullan, vice chair of the Bulb Foundation, is a director of the Foundation for International Law for the Environment (“FILE”). She was previously the Operations Director of Global Policies for the European Climate Foundation and the Portfolio Manager for Climate Change at the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation. Amal-Lee Amin was a Senior Advisor to the UK’s COP26 Presidency team. She is director of Climate Change at British International Investment plc (formerly CDC Group plc), the UK’s development finance institute “at the heart of the UK Government’s international financing offer to emerging economies.” 2. Climate Breakthrough, launched as the Climate Strategies Accelerator in 2015, is based in California. It is an initiative of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation in partnership with the Oak Foundation, the IKEA Foundation, the JPB Foundation, and the Good Energies Foundation. 3. Frederick Mulder Foundation is a UK-based trust funded by private art dealer Frederick Mulder Ltd. Frederick Mulder is a director of the company, the chair of the Foundation and also the Founder of The Funding Network, an organisation based in London that arranges live crowd-funding events to support social change projects, and which he has helped start in several other UK cities and in nine other countries. 4. Gower Street, formerly The Marple Charitable Trust, is a small, UK-based, family-run charitable trust that was set up by Nick and Sophie Marple in 2007. In 2018 Gower Street pivoted the majority of its funds to addressing the climate crisis and in recognition of the urgency of the situation decided to disperse all its funds by 2030. 5. The New York Community Trust (“NYCT”) a New York-based charity was formed in 1924 by 11 banks. In 1928, Rockefeller gave US$2.5 million to NYCT. In 1975, NYCT set up the Westchester Community Foundation and in 1978 it set up the Long Island Community Foundation. In 1979, NYCT created the Energy Conservation Fund which later became the Nonprofit Finance Fund. 6. Quadrature Climate Foundation (“QCF”) based in the UK was launched in 2019 by Quadrature Capital, a multibillion-pound investment fund founded by billionaires Greg Skinner and Suneil Setiya. QCF aims to fight the “climate emergency” and argues that the Paris Agreement does not implement drastic enough environmentalist policies to restrict the use of conventional energy and agricultural practices that it claims are behind the carbon emissions. QCF has received millions of pounds in grants from groups such as the European Climate Foundation, the Carbon Tracker Initiative, and the World Wide Fund for Nature (“WWF”) over the past two years, according to filings with the Charity Commission. 7. Waverley Street Foundation (“WAF”) is based in California and was launched in 2022 by Laurene Powell Jobs, the billionaire widow of Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, to fight climate change. Waverley Street has committed to spend the entirety of its endowment – more than $3 billion as of 2022 – by 2035. Its inaugural president is California’s Secretary for Environmental Protection, Jared Blumenfeld. 8. Earth/Percent raises money from the music industry to “support” organisations “addressing the climate emergency.” It was founded by British musician Brian Eno who is also its trustee. Some of its funding goes to changing laws, regulations and economic incentives. It also funds “changing cultural norms and narratives.” 9. Rockefeller Brothers Fund is a regular contributor to both the United Nations (“UN”) and the United Nations Foundation Inc. According to Dr. Jacob Nordangård, the Rockefellers were instrumental in establishing the UN in 1946 and “They view [the UN] as their own little club or organisation.” Wikipedia notes that the United Nations Foundation was set up by CNN founder Ted Turner in 1998. It was originally primarily set up as a grant maker but has evolved into a strategic partner to the UN. The United Nations Foundation’s major partners include ClimateWorks Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies, KR Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation. Other partners include the Turner Foundation, David and Lucile Packard Foundation and Skoll Foundation. We have only named the partners that are included elsewhere in this article. However, the United Nations Foundation’s 86 partners also include, for example, Pfizer, Wellcome Trust, Amazon and Google. Its President and Chief Executive Officer is Elizabeth Cousens, former US Ambassador to the UN Economic and Social Council, and the co-chairs of the board are Ted Turner and former Prime Minister of Norway Gro Harlem Brundtland. Further reading: Dr. Jacob Nordangård: ‘UN, WEF and G20 form the Troika of Global Governance’, The Exposé, 19 November 2022 Global Foundations Committed to Tackle the “Climate Crisis” It is no coincidence that four out of the nine funders of the “Fossil Fuel Treaty” campaign are also part of a group of global foundations that have, since 2018, committed to investing billions by 2025 to “tackle the climate crisis”: The Bulb Foundation; Climate Breakthough’s partners: the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Oak Foundation, IKEA Foundation, JPB Foundation and Good Energies Foundation; Quadrature Climate Foundation; and, Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Neither is it a coincidence that other foundations named in this article appear more than once. The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (“CIFF”), for example, is included in this group of “climate crisis” investors and also mentioned earlier in the article as the previous employer of Sophie Pullan, the vice chair of the Bulb Foundation. CIFF is the foundation of hedge fund manager Sir Chris Hohn. Hohn is also the single largest donor to Extinction Rebellion in the UK. Self-declared criminal organisation Extinction Rebellion is one of the activist groups which is being used to push the “Fossil Fuel Treaty” agenda forward. Read More: Climate crisis activists seek to put meat on their list of banned “fossil fuel” adverts, The Exposé, 27 September 2023 When did these global foundations first get together to invest in a “climate crisis”? In September 2018 ClimateWorks Foundation published a statement that 29 “philanthropists” had pledged $4 billion over the following five years to combat climate change. The announcement had been made at the UN Global Climate Action Summit (“GCAS”). In 2020, Hohn’s CIFF published an update ahead of the Climate Ambition Summit on 12 December 2020: “The original group is on track to exceed the commitment, thanks to significant increases from several funders, as well as additional philanthropic donors committing new resources. It is now on a trajectory to invest at least $6 billion dollars [sic] by 2025, and likely more as all philanthropists are actively invited to allocate a portion of their portfolio to this important cause.” As listed below, CIFF’s article went on to name the global foundations funding the war on societies under the banner of a “climate crisis.” ClimateWorks’ list of its 27 funding partners looks similar to the list below but also includes notables such as Bezos Earth Fund, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Gates Ventures and Open Philanthropies; but doesn’t include “several funders who prefer to remain anonymous.” 1. AKO Foundation 2. Barr Foundation 3. Bloomberg Philanthropies 4. The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation 5. The Bulb Foundation 6. Bullitt Foundation 7. Sir Christopher Hohn and The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF) 8. The Educational Foundation of America 9. The Generation Foundation 10. Pirojsha Godrej Foundation 11. Good Energies Foundation 12. The Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment 13. The Grove Foundation 14. Growald Family Fund 15. The George Gund Foundation 16. Heising-Simons Foundation 17. William and Flora Hewlett Foundation 18. High Tide Foundation 19. IKEA Foundation 20. Ivey Foundation 21. Joyce Foundation 22. JPB Foundation 23. KR Foundation 24. John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation 25. McKinney Family Foundation 26. McKnight Foundation 27. Oak Foundation 28. The David and Lucile Packard Foundation 29. Pisces Foundation 30. Quadrature Climate Foundation 31. Robertson Foundation 32. Rockefeller Brothers Fund 33. Sea Change Foundation 34. Skoll Foundation 35. Turner Foundation 36. Yellow Chair Foundation Although we haven’t followed the money trail further, we are familiar with the activities of several of those named and logic would dictate that the foundations above are all fronts for wealthy self-appointed elites who stand to make a fortune if they can shape the global economy in a way that suits their investments. Let’s, at the very least, help these “climate crisis” investors make a loss on their US$6 billion investment by spreading the truth.

https://greenmedinfo.com/blog/papaya-power-healing-qualities-tropical-fruit Papaya is more than just a delicious treat, especially when served cold and juicy in its ripeness. It also provides a wealth of benefits against wounds, skin damage and gut problems, to name a few of its precious therapeutic effects lauded since ancient times Papaya is a standout tropical fruit for abundant reasons. Since time immemorial, the whole plant -- from the leaves and seeds to the ripe and unripe fruits -- has been used as a traditional medicine. Today its multifaceted healing properties make the sweet, juicy papaya a nutraceutical fruit made for better health.[i] A single small piece of papaya, weighing 152 grams (g), contains 15 g of carbohydrates, 3 g of fiber and 1 g of protein.[ii] It offers 157% of the recommended daily intake of vitamin C, 33% of the RDI of vitamin A and trace amounts of magnesium, calcium and vitamins such as B1, B3, B5, E and K. From its diuretic and anti-hypertensive to wound healing and anti-tumor benefits, the papaya fruit offers not just delicious taste but also all-around wellness support.[iii] Here are some of its therapeutic benefits. Wound Healing A 2000 study examined the prevalence of the use of papaya as a topical ulcer dressing by nurses in Jamaica.[iv] Among the respondents, 75% reported using topical papaya, thought to promote desloughing, granulation and healing in chronic skin ulcers. "It was cost effective. Papaya was considered to be more effective than other topical applications in the treatment of chronic ulcers," the researchers wrote, although cited some difficulty in preparing the fruit and the occasional burning sensation reported by the patients. In animal models, papaya extract caused a significant effect on the healing process of an incised oral wound.[v] On the 14th day, papaya extract with 75% concentration demonstrated "perfect epithelial layer and fibrillation," according to a 2019 study. A separate study showed that Carica papaya promoted significant wound healing in diabetic rats, with the fruit extract exhibiting antimicrobial activity against five organisms tested.[vi] Dried papaya latex as 1.0% and 2.5% hydrogels was also deemed effective in treating burns and thus supported the traditional use of the fruit for this benefit, based on the findings of 2005 research.[vii] Improved Digestion The enzyme called papain in papaya is believed to make protein easier to digest.[viii] In the tropics, papaya is deemed an effective remedy against constipation and the symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). In a study, subjects who took a papaya-based formula for 40 days experienced notable improvement in constipation as well as bloating.[ix] Even the seeds, roots and leaves have been shown to help treat ulcers in both humans and animals.[x] Anticancer Action The lycopene in papaya has been hailed for its potential to reduce cancer risk.[xi] The papaya leaf is also deemed a likely source of anticancer compounds.[xii] Papaya has received attention particularly for its effects against breast cancer. A 2009 study found that among 14 fruits and vegetables famed for their antioxidant activities, only papaya had a significantly favorable effect when measured against the breast cancer cell line MCF-7.[xiii] "Besides, papaya represents a very interesting fruit to explore its antineoplastic activities," wrote the researchers, who also studied plants like avocado, guava, mango, pineapple, grapes and tomato. Among Chinese women, consumption of fruits and vegetables such as papaya was inversely related with breast cancer risk.[xiv] Skin Wellness The vitamin C and lycopene in papaya are considered protective of skin and may help reduce the signs of aging.[xv] These skin issues include wrinkles, skin sagging and other forms of skin damage, all associated with excess free radical activity.[xvi] Antifungal Properties A 1997 study explored the potential therapeutic use of papaya latex sap combined with a synthetic antifungal and found that the formula worked synergistically to inhibit the growth of Candida albicans.[xvii] In a separate study, papaya latex also inhibited the growth of candida when added to a culture in its exponential growth phase.[xviii] According to the team, "This fungistatic effect is the result of cell wall degradation due to a lack of polysaccharidic constituents in the outermost layers of the fungal cell wall and release of cell debris into the culture medium." Should You Eat Papaya Raw? For all its scientifically documented health benefits, papaya has a unique taste and flavor that's widely celebrated. Ripeness, however, is a factor to consider if you're planning to eat it raw. If ripe, papaya can be eaten raw. Otherwise, it should be cooked before consumption especially if you're pregnant, as the unripe version is high in latex, which can stimulate contractions.[xix] Whatever way you choose to enjoy papaya, the health perks from its strong nutrient and antioxidant offerings are here to stay. References [i] Parle M et al "Basketful benefits of papaya" Int Res J Pharm. 2011 July;2(7):6-12. [ii] Nutrition Data https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices/1985/2 [iii] Parle M et al "Basketful benefits of papaya" Int Res J Pharm. July 2011;2(7):6-12. [iv] Hewitt H et al "Topical use of papaya in chronic skin ulcer therapy in Jamaica" West Indian Med J. 2000 Mar;49(1):32-3. [v] Hakim R et al "Effect of Extract toward Incised Wound Healing Process in Mice () Clinically and Histologically" Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2019 ;2019:8306519. Epub 2019 Nov 19. [vi] Nayak S et al "Wound healing activity of Carica papaya L. in experimentally induced diabetic rats" Indian J Exp Biol. 2007 Aug;45(8):739-43. [vii] Gurung S et al "Wound healing properties of Carica papaya latex: in vivo evaluation in mice burn model" Acta Pharm. 2005 Dec;55(4):417-22. [viii] Science Direct, Papain https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/papain [ix] Muss C et al "Papaya preparation (Caricol®) in digestive disorders" Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2013;34(1):38-46. [x] Pinto L et al "Antiulcerogenic activity of Carica papaya seed in rats" Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 2015 Mar;388(3):305-17. doi: 10.1007/s00210-014-1069-y. Epub 2014 Nov 25. [xi] Gajowik A et al "Lycopene - antioxidant with radioprotective and anticancer properties. A review" Rocz Panstw Zakl Hig. 2014;65(4):263-71. [xii] Nguyen T et al "Chemical Characterization and in Vitro Cytotoxicity on Squamous Cell Carcinoma Cells of Carica Papaya Leaf Extracts" Toxins (Basel). 2015 ;8(1). Epub 2015 Dec 24. [xiii] Garcia-Solis P et al "Screening of antiproliferative effect of aqueous extracts of plant foods consumed in Mexico on the breast cancer cell line MCF-7" Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2009 May 26:1-15. [xiv] Zhang C et al "Greater vegetable and fruit intake is associated with a lower risk of breast cancer among Chinese women" Int J Cancer. 2009 Jul 1;125(1):181-8. [xv] Schagen S et al "Discovering the link between nutrition and skin aging" Dermatoendocrinol. 2012 Jul 1;4(3):298-307. [xvi] Kammeyer A et al "Oxidation events and skin aging" Ageing Res Rev. 2015 May;21:16-29. [xvii] Giordani R et al "A synergistic effect of Carica papaya latex sap and fluconazole on Candida albicans growth" Mycoses. 1997 Dec;40(11-12):429-37. [xviii] Giordani R et al "Fungicidal activity of latex sap from Carica papaya and antifungal effect of D(+)-glucosamine on Candida albicans growth" Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback. 2005 Dec;30(4):375-87. [xix] Adebiyi A et al "Papaya (Carica papaya) consumption is unsafe in pregnancy: fact or fable? Scientific evaluation of a common belief in some parts of Asia using a rat model" Br J Nutr. 2002 Aug;88(2):199-203.

Fantastic resource: Here is an organized library of more than one thousand peer reviewed articles which show that Covid-19 "vaccines" are harmful. https://drtrozzi.org/2023/09/28/1000-peer-reviewed-articles-on-vaccine-injuries/

The black ones are those that have been taken out by the blade runners. Up to date live map.

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/09/29/air-vax.aspx Scientists are hailing the creation of what could radically change how people are vaccinated - an airborne method that delivers mRNA right to your lungs, whether you want it or not. With a history of carrying out secret bioweapon simulations on Americans, will the US resort to air vaxing the masses? Air Vax — The Latest mRNA Delivered Into Lungs STORY AT-A-GLANCE Yale University researchers have developed an airborne method for delivering mRNA right to your lungs In a study on mice, the scientists created polymer nanoparticles to encapsulate mRNA, making it inhalable Researchers say this “new method of delivery could ‘radically change the way people are vaccinated,’” making it easier to vaccinate people in remote areas or those who are afraid of needles An airborne mRNA product could be used to rapidly vaccinate the masses, without their knowledge or consent Academic endorsement exists for the use of compulsory, covert bioenhancements, including drugs and vaccines, on the public; the U.S. government also has a history of covert bioweapon experiments ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Yale University researchers have developed a new airborne method for delivering mRNA right to your lungs. The team has also used the method to vaccinate mice intranasally,1 opening the door for human testing in the near future. While scientists are hailing the creation as an easy way to vaccinate the masses, critics wonder if the development of an airborne vaccine could be used for nefarious purposes, including covert bioenhancements,2 which have already been recommended in academic literature.3 Yale Team Develops Airborne mRNA, Delivers It to Lungs In a study on mice, Yale scientists created polymer nanoparticles to encapsulate mRNA, making it inhalable so it can reach the lungs. Courtney Malo, editor with Science Translational Medicine, which published the study, explained:4 "The ability to efficiently deliver mRNA to the lung would have applications for vaccine development, gene therapy, and more. Here, Suberi et al. showed that such mRNA delivery can be accomplished by encapsulating mRNAs of interest within optimized poly(amine-co-ester) polyplexes [nanoparticles]. Polyplex-delivered mRNAs were efficiently translated into protein in the lungs of mice with limited evidence of toxicity. This platform was successfully applied as an intranasal SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, eliciting robust immune responses that conferred protection against subsequent viral challenge. These results highlight the potential of this delivery system for vaccine applications and beyond." The team, led by cellular and molecular physiologist Mark Saltzman, explained that the inhalable mRNA vaccine successfully protected against SARS-CoV-2, which "opens the door to delivering other messenger RNA (mRNA) therapeutics for gene replacement therapy and other treatments in the lungs."5 For the study, mice received two intranasal doses of nanoparticles carrying mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, which proved to be effective in the animals. In the past, lung-targeted mRNA therapies had trouble making it into the cells necessary to express the encoded protein, known as poor transfection efficiency.6 "The Saltzman group got around this hurdle in part by using a nanoparticle made from poly(amine-co-ester) polyplexes, or PACE, a biocompatible and highly customizable polymer," a Yale University news release explained.7 In a previous study, Saltzman had tried a "prime and spike" system to deliver COVID-19 shots, which involved injecting mRNA shots into a muscle, then spraying spike proteins into the nose.8 It turned out the injection portion may be unnecessary, and Saltzman has high hopes for the airborne delivery method, beyond vaccines:9 "In the new report, there is no intramuscular injection. We just gave two doses, a prime and a boost, intranasally, and we got a highly protective immune response. But we also showed that, generally, you can deliver different kinds of mRNA. So it's not just good for a vaccine, but potentially also good for gene replacement therapy in diseases like cystic fibrosis and gene editing. We used a vaccine example to show that it works, but it opens the door to doing all these other kinds of interventions." Air Vax Could ‘Radically Change’ How People Are Vaccinated Saltzman says this "new method of delivery could ‘radically change the way people are vaccinated,’" making it easier to vaccinate people in remote areas or those who are afraid of needles.10 But that’s not all. An airborne vaccine makes it possible to rapidly disseminate it across a population. By releasing the vaccine in the air, there’s no need to inject each person individually — which is not only time-consuming but difficult if an individual objects to the shot. This isn’t the case with an airborne vaccine, which can be released into the air without consent or even the public’s knowledge. A similar strategy is being used with mRNA in shrimp, which are too small and numerous to be injected individually. Instead, an oral "nanovaccine" was created to stop the spread of a virus. Shai Ufaz, chief executive officer of ViAqua, which developed the technology, stated:11 "Oral delivery is the holy grail of aquaculture health development due to both the impossibility of vaccinating individual shrimp and its ability to substantially bring down the operational costs of disease management while improving outcomes ..." While the Yale scientists are targeting an intranasal mRNA product, the outcome is the same — get as many exposed as possible with the least amount of cost and effort. According to the Yale study:12 "An inhalable platform for messenger RNA (mRNA) therapeutics would enable minimally invasive and lung-targeted delivery for a host of pulmonary diseases. Development of lung-targeted mRNA therapeutics has been limited by poor transfection efficiency and risk of vehicle-induced pathology. Here, we report an inhalable polymer-based vehicle for delivery of therapeutic mRNAs to the lung. We optimized biodegradable poly(amine-co-ester) (PACE) polyplexes [nanoparticles] for mRNA delivery using end-group modifications and polyethylene glycol. These polyplexes achieved high transfection of mRNA throughout the lung, particularly in epithelial and antigen-presenting cells. We applied this technology to develop a mucosal vaccine for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and found that intranasal vaccination with spike protein–encoding mRNA polyplexes induced potent cellular and humoral adaptive immunity and protected susceptible mice from lethal viral challenge. Together, these results demonstrate the translational potential of PACE polyplexes for therapeutic delivery of mRNA to the lungs." US Government Has History of Bioweapons Release When you put the pieces of the puzzle together, a disturbing picture emerges. As reported by The Epoch Times, we have a history of the U.S. government taking extreme measures to mandate and promote COVID-19 shots to the public. Now, researchers have developed an airborne mRNA vaccine, offering a vehicle by which to rapidly vaccinate the masses without their knowledge or consent.13 Is there proof that the government or another entity has plans to covertly release an air vax on the population? No. But there is a history of it carrying out secret bioweapon simulations on Americans. In 1950, the U.S. Navy sprayed Serratia marcescens bacteria into the air near San Francisco over a period of six days. Dubbed "Operation Sea Spray," the project was intended to determine how susceptible the city was to a bioweapon attack. Serratia marcescens turns whatever it touches bright red, making it easy to track. It spread throughout the city, as residents inhaled the microbes from the air. While the U.S. military initially thought Serratia marcescens wouldn’t harm humans, an outbreak occurred, with some developing urinary tract infections as a result. At least one person died "and some have suggested that the release forever changed the area's microbial ecology," Smithsonian Magazine reported.14 This wasn’t an isolated incident, as the U.S. government carried out many other experiments across the U.S. over the next 20 years.15 So, while it’s disturbing to think of an air vax experiment being conducted on an unsuspecting public, it’s not unprecedented. Bioethics Study Promotes Covert, Compulsory Bioenhancement Adding to the story is academic endorsement of the use of compulsory, covert bioenhancements. Writing in the journal Bioethics,16 Parker Crutchfield with Western Michigan University, Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine, discusses moral bioenhancements, which refers to the use of biomedical means to trigger moral improvements. Drug treatments, including vaccines, and genetic engineering are potential examples of bioenhancements.17 Further, according to Crutchfield:18 "It is necessary to morally bioenhance the population in order to prevent ultimate harm. Moral bioenhancement is the potential practice of influencing a person’s moral behavior by way of biological intervention upon their moral attitudes, motivations, or dispositions. The technology that may permit moral bioenhancement is on the scale between nonexistent and nascent, but common examples of potential interventions include infusing water supplies with pharmaceuticals that enhance empathy or altruism or otherwise intervening on a person’s emotions or motivations, in an attempt to influence the person’s moral behavior." Some argue that moral bioenhancements should be compulsory for the greater good. Crutchfield believes this doesn’t go far enough. He also wants them to be covert:19 "I take this argument one step further, arguing that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration ought to be covert rather than overt. This is to say that it is morally preferable for compulsory moral bioenhancement to be administered without the recipients knowing that they are receiving the enhancement." He even goes so far as to suggest "a covert compulsory program promotes values such as liberty, utility, equality and autonomy better than an overt program does."20 So here we have evidence of academic support for covertly releasing drugs and other bioenhancements onto the public. This, combined with the creation of an airborne mRNA vaccine and the government’s history of experimenting on the public, paints an unsettling picture of the future. Problems With mRNA COVID Shots Persist Aside from the concerns of airborne delivery, mRNA COVID-19 shots are associated with significant risks — no matter how you’re exposed. People ages 65 and older who received Pfizer’s updated (bivalent) COVID-19 booster shot may be at increased risk of stroke, according to an announcement made by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration.21 Further, a large study from Israel22 revealed that Pfizer’s COVID-19 mRNA jab is associated with a threefold increased risk of myocarditis,23 leading to the condition at a rate of 1 to 5 events per 100,000 persons.24 Other elevated risks were also identified following the COVID jab, including lymphadenopathy (swollen lymph nodes), appendicitis and herpes zoster infection.25 At least 16,183 people also say they’ve developed tinnitus after receiving a COVID-19 shot.26 The reports were filed with the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database. But considering only between 1%27 and 10%28 of adverse reactions are ever reported to VAERS, the actual number is likely much higher. It's because of risks like these that informed consent is essential for any medical procedure, including vaccinations. The development of airborne mRNA jabs, however, makes the possibility of informed consent being taken away all the more real.

https://www.newstarget.com/2023-09-27-climate-corruption-carbon-offset-projects-scams-report.html A joint investigation by The Guardian and the non-profit climate watchdog group Corporate Accountability has found that the "vast majority" of environmental projects supposedly aimed at offsetting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions via the voluntary carbon market (VCM) are scams. Of the top 50 emissions offset projects evaluated, 39 of them, or 78 percent, ended up having to be categorized as "likely junk or worthless" due to researchers identifying one or more "fundamental failings" in their structure and operations. As a general rule, "green" climate projects that claim to tackle GHG emissions are not what they seem, the investigation revealed. At best, the projects greatly exaggerate their climate benefits while underestimating the potential harm caused by what they are doing. At worst, their leaders are taking all that investment cash and spending it on toys and pleasure. Data for the study was collected from Allied Offsets, the world's largest and most comprehensive emissions trading database. Allied Offsets aggregates information about projects traded within the VCM ecosystem from their very inception, producing data that shows how effective or not their efforts truly are. Besides the 39, or 78 percent, projects that were categorized as "likely junk or worthless," another eight, or 16 percent, were found to be "problematic" with at least one fundamental failing, which probably means that they are junk as well. That leaves just three out of 50 emissions-related climate projects that maybe pass the test of being legitimate operations. Simply put, the entire carbon offset market is basically a scam with very few, if any, exceptions. (Related: Back in March, the world's largest seller of so-called carbon "credits" was exposed as a scam operation – the entire green industry is a scam.) $1.16 billion in carbon credits already traded tied to projects classified as "likely junk or worthless" Of those three projects that were not immediately dubbed as "problematic" or "likely junk or worthless," not a single one could be properly assessed or classified due to a lack of available public information. This means that, in all likelihood, 100 percent, or all, of the top currently operational carbon offset operations are probably bunk. Not only that, but the vast majority of carbon credits that have been traded so far, about $1.16 billion worth, are attached to projects classified as "likely junk or worthless." This leaves pretty much zero carbon offset projects that are actually legitimate. "The criteria for assessing whether a project is likely junk was based on whether there was 'compelling evidence' or a high risk that the project could not guarantee additional GHG emission cuts," reported Annabel Cossins-Smith, writing for Power Technology. "In some cases, there was evidence to suggest that projects were leaking further, additional emissions or simply shifting emissions elsewhere. In other cases, evidence was found to suggest that a project's climate benefits had been exaggerated." The research also uncovered the fact that the carbon market at large is not doing anything to stop global warming or climate change. To the contrary, the carbon market was found to be "actively exacerbating the climate emergency," not making it any less of a risk as climate fanatics claim. "The ramifications of this analysis are huge, as it points to systemic failings of the voluntary market, providing additional evidence that junk carbon credits pervade," said Anuradha Mittal, director of the Oakland Institute think tank. "We cannot afford to waste any more time on false solutions. The issues are far-reaching and pervasive, extending well beyond specific verifiers. The VCM is actively exacerbating the climate emergency." The latest news about the carbon offset scam and other global warming hoaxes can be found at GreenTyranny.news.

In 2012_13 OBAMA/ ROCKEFELLERS/ CIA [ DS] INSIDE THE PENTAGON ECT ECT.had already issued procedures for the coming PLANDEMIC< In the now LEAKED files, memos and emails circulating among Congress and military divisions, the EVIDENCE and PENTAGON CIA files makes it clear, the VACCINEs would be mandated and social media and Mainstream MEDIA would be protected against prosecution in complying with the PENTAGON in the FUTURE cover-up of the VIRUS. THE VACCINES DEATHS and the funding.